Archives: Публікації

Russia Is an Unreliable Partner for Ukraine

Op-Ed by Alyona Getmanchuk, Director of the Institute of World Policy for “The Moscow Times”Relations between Ukraine and Russia have been remarkably cold since Viktor Yanukovych was elected president a year ago. It has been a long time since we saw the friendly hugs of Yanukovych and President Dmitry Medvedev.

Ever since pundits first started labeling Yanukovych as the “pro-Russian president,” it sparked the opposite reaction. “Ukraine is not going to be a province of Russia” has become almost a catchphrase for the Ukrainian authorities.

Ukraine will not sacrifice its European integration for a closer friendship with Russia on the Kremlin’s terms.

The reasons are more related to psychology than politics. Ukraine is not prepared to tolerate pressure from outsiders. Russians are still perceived as outsiders by most of the Ukrainian leadership.

Instead, Yanukovych has looked for a strategic partnership with the West, which has proven to be more reliable and flexible than Russia. Being a pro-European politician in Ukraine has become more beneficial than being pro-Russian. Politicians tend to visit Brussels more than they visit Moscow, and many of them know European Parliament members better than they know State Duma deputies.

In the beginning, a warming of Ukrainian-Russian relations looked promising. First, Ukraine extended the lease of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol up to 2042. Second, Kiev confirmed its non-bloc status, effectively killing its chances for NATO membership in the near term. Third, Yanukovych renounced most of the economic and political policies of his predecessor, Viktor Yushchenko.

But the honeymoon turned out to be short-lived.

First, Russia’s pet energy project, the South Stream pipeline, will bypass Ukraine and subvert its role of the key transporter of gas from Russia to Europe, stripping Ukraine’s budget of much-needed revenue.

In addition, Russia went on to set new demands for Ukraine’s leaders. It expected Kiev to accede to the Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, which would have jeopardized Ukraine’s economic integration with the European Union. Russia also ignores the fact that Ukraine’s membership in the Customs Union would contradict Ukraine’s constitution.

Russia has turned out to be an unreliable partner for Ukraine. Moscow has also been ungrateful, asking for a lot and giving nothing. This is a poor formula for a strategic partnership.

Soft power and Ukraine

Blog by analyst of the Institute of World Policy Kateryna Zarembo for KyivPostEach country has three levers in international relations: a military power, an economic power and soft power – the power to attract. It is no news Ukraine can’t boast with the former two. How about the latter? And what is it, by the way?
In his book “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics” Joseph Nye defined soft power as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion” and singled out three sources which constitute it: “[a state’s] culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (where it lives up to them at home and abroad) and its foreign policies (where they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority)”.

After the fruitful discussion that we had with Professor Nye last week at the videoconference organized by the Institute of World Policy I would like to share a couple of tips, which would help understand what is soft power and how it works in the regional dimension.

1. “Attraction” does not equal “success”.

Or rather, it depends on how success is understood in a given environment. As Professor Nye agrees, “for soft power it matters very much what is in the mind of a person who is actually receiving”. That is, a country which has rule of law, democracy and economic growth can be attractive to the Western capitals, but an illiberal growing power like China also has its admirers.

Clearly, for Russia an illiberal Ukraine is more attractive than a democratic one, since it would be within its own sphere of values and interests. In other words, with the EU on the one side of the border and some dictatorships on the other, chances that Ukraine will be equally appealing to everyone are slim.

2. Soft power provides influence.

Obviously soft power is a pledge of influence over others. If you are attractive, people will admire you and want what you want. Admiration leads to following and acquiescing. In the international relations it means that any country, e.g. Ukraine, can influence the development of other countries given enough soft power. That brings us to the conclusion that…

3. Soft power can be “positive” and “negative”.

… which of course is relative, too. But Ukraine, formerly seen as the beacon of democracy in the region, can lead either democratic or authoritarian development in the neighbouring countries, especially such “democracies in transition” as Moldova and Georgia. Alternatively, if a country’s soft power is weak, it can influence other countries’ development in the opposite direction. The fact is that soft power always produces an effect.

4. Soft power is natural.

This clause is important for governments who think that soft power can be bought or constructed. A Chinese student who asked Joseph Nye how his country could boost its soft power got the answer: “You could do it if you relax more”.

Thus, soft power is gained not through deliberate propaganda but through individual attractive development, for the sake of one’s own and not for someone else. When Ukraine is a success story for its own citizens, its soft power will grow effortlessly.

US, EU need to work together to promote West’s interests in nation

Op-Ed by Alyona Getmanchuk, Director of the Institute of World Policy for Kyiv PostThese days, I often hear the opinion that the European Union should take Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine under its patronage since the United States has its hands full all over the world. This opinion is even expressed informally by U.S. government representatives.

But the European Union and the U.S. will have much more effective ways to influence Ukraine, if they act not separately as Europe and the USA, but together, representing the West as a whole. Both Washington and Brussels have opportunities.

The benefits that the EU offers are obvious: These are geographic proximity, tight economic relations and a positive perception of the EU by the Ukrainian political elites and population.

Washington has its advantages also. Firstly, the current Ukrainian authorities respect only two things: money and power.

The EU, in the eyes of Ukrainian decision-makers, seems to be weakened. It is so not only because of the fact the 27-nation bloc has a hard time taking a unanimous position. The other reason is that Ukrainian policymakers believe that “big money” can influence EU representatives.

If authorities did not manage to “buy” a positive resolution from the European Parliament, they gained favor through expensive dinners and cordial conversations with individual members of the European Parliament.

It is generally assumed in Kyiv that money works with professional EU politicians while, in the U.S., money only helps with individual professional lobbyists.

The other advantage of the United States is that it has always been distant from former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, the symbol of the 2004 Orange Revolution, and the most irritating factor for the current Ukrainian administration.

Tymoshenko’s disappointment with Washington, however, is no less than that of President Viktor Yanukovych. That is why the U.S. is perceived in Kyiv as an unbiased actor, whereas the many statements and actions taken by Brussels are seen through the lens of partner cooperation of the Bloc of Yulia Tymoshenko with the European People’s Party.

And last but not least, Washington has always placed the emphasis on the democratic development of Ukraine, while many EU members in the last five years have focused on political stability and maintaining good relations with Russia. The Ukrainian government claims it has successfully met both of these imperatives.

So the EU, to a certain extent, has no real ammunition. While the EU has doubts about Ukraine’s membership aspirations, Ukraine also doubts the sincerity of European considers about Ukraine’s undemocratic trends. Some in Ukraine think the concerns are a convenient way to postpone talks about EU membership.
As for the U.S., Harvard University professor Joseph Nye rightly pointed out recently what WikiLeaks made clear: American diplomats talk about democratic values not only in public, but also in private conversations. The Ukrainian authorities have always found such talks about democratic values odd, but peculiar to Americans.

To hear such talks from the Germans or the French would be very odd indeed for Ukrainians. Ukrainians think these nations are not as interested in promoting democracy as they are in investment climate and political stability.

Moreover, Yanukovych still badly needs continuous political dialogue with key Western leaders and U.S. President Barack Obama in particular. The logic is clear: the better relations Yanukovych has with the West, the more confident he feels in relations with the East. The U.S. should keep this in mind.

A relevant example is the candidacy of the U.S. representative at the big conference dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Chornobyl tragedy, scheduled to take place in April in Kyiv.

It would be great if U.S. Vice President Joe Biden could pay such a visit, provided that some preconditions are met by the Ukrainian government.

One such precondition could be reconsideration of the pre-trial jailing of opposition politicians (including the former head of the customs service and former interior ministry, among others). They should be released on their own recognizance and pledge not to leave the jurisdiction.

Another precondition could be the approval by the Verkhovna Rada of an election law ensuring equal representation of all political forces at the parliamentary elections.

IWP held a videoconference with Joseph Nye

Institute of World Policy held a videoconference with Joseph S. Nye, University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University and author of the world-known book “Soft Power”.Videoconference titled “Soft power of Ukraine: challenges and opportunities” took place at the premises of the Public Affairs Section of the American Embassy to Ukraine. It was held within the framework of the project “Soft Power of Ukraine: a Tool for Effective Foreign Policy”, which is now being implemented by Institute of World Policy.

Joseph Nye claimed that democracy is the soft power of Ukraine: “Ukraine is attractive for the U.S., because we feel that it is more democratic than any other country in the region”.

{2}

He also call for using Ukraine’s soft power in Russian Federation: “You have common history and cultural relations, you should use it”.
{3}
The event was supported by UNITER-PACT and the U.S. Embassy to Ukraine.
{4}