Uladzimir Matskevich: Ukraine is lucky to have such disagreeable president opposing its people

The façade of separatism in Ukraine is artificially fed on by Russia.

Fugitive Victor Yanukovich, who didn’t renounce his presidential office, is officially wanted for mass homicide. Earlier he voiced the intention to travel round southern and eastern regions of Ukraine, where people still support him.

Meanwhile Russia threatens to annex Crimea and inflames the separatist moods in every possible way.

What future does Ukraine await after Yanukovich? Will the country manage to maintain unity and put down the separatist moods? Uladzimir Matskevich, the head of the Board of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus”, discussed these issues in the interview with the EuroBelarus Information Service.

- The power that Maidan had won passed into the hands of the Verkhovna Rada. Does it possess enough will and resources to take control over the situation in Ukraine? Will the old parliament manage to build new Ukraine?

- The victory of Maidan is an extraordinary phenomenon in the contemporary world. It became possible only in such country as Ukraine, where the state is weakened by corruption and hostility of clans and groups towards each other. Verkhovna Rada was the only place where political, regional and oligarchical groups could coordinate their actions and policies. There was no such instrument aimed at restraining the egoism of groups in Ukraine before Yanukovich, who attained somewhat more power than his predecessors. His authoritarian actions furthered degradation of state institutions in Ukraine; now there is basically nothing left from Ukraine’s management reserves, and no one except Rada can take responsibility for the country. But for now I don’t see that Verkhovna Rada has some program or clear plan of how to establish law and order in the country.

- Will Verkhovna Rada reach mutual understanding with Maidan? Although the newly elected Speaker Alexander Turchinov stated that Maidan has achieved its goals, people are not going to break up: on March 2 popular assembly will hear the new leaders of the country.

- It is a unique situation, when Maidan is having high prestige today. But it can’t have political program; Maidan can say “no”. And all in Ukraine and even in Europe have to take that into account. Maidan said “no” to three opposition politicians, it said the same to Yanukovich and to Timoshenko. What will happen when Maidan says “Hear!” and to whom it might say that? It is good if Maidan’s “Hear!” coincides with the results of the elections; but what if it doesn’t? What will become the basis of the new statehood of Maidan – the supremacy of law or direct democracy of Maidan?

The choice of Ukraine questions all achievements of contemporary democracy.

- Yanukovich fled shamefully; however, he didn’t renounce his presidential office. In the video-addresses the former president voiced the intention to travel round southern and eastern regions of Ukraine, where people still support him. Could it happen so that with the support of the separatist moods in South-Eastern Ukraine Yanukovich decided to take revenge?

- The remains of Yanukovich’s support are running out rapidly. Ukraine is lucky to have such disagreeable president opposing its people. Even the fact that he was a legitimate president doesn’t mean anything now.

The façade of separatism in Ukraine is artificially fed on by Russia.  The ruling groups at the East and South of Ukraine want to preserve the country’s unity, even if they are ready to use the separatist moods in their own interests. It is only in Crimea that the situation is becoming dangerous; but Crimean separatists will be satisfied with the autonomy, only with somewhat broader frames of this autonomy.

 - Russia threatens to annex Crimea and inflames the separatist moods in every possible way. Possible annexation of Crimea is openly discussed now. Pro-Russian forces demand the Crimean parliament to reject central authority and hold a referendum about independence and ask Russia for help. Meanwhile Kremlin states that it will intervene if “Russians face threats in Ukraine”.

- It seems that Putin and Kremlin just want to drive Ukraine into bankruptcy, introduce external control and join the international aid programs aimed at Ukraine’s rescue.

What for? The thing is that Russian elites learned how to make fortunes on dividing budgetary funds, as it was with Chechnya, Olympic Games… And if Kremlin got a chance to restore Ukraine, imagine all the money from EBRD, IMF and even from the Russian state budget! That is the reason why Russia supports everything that leads to worsening of situation in Ukraine with such enthusiasm.

- As far back as 1994 USA, Great Britain and Russia took upon themselves the responsibilities to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty. Despite these obligations, Kremlin makes its contribution into destructing the sovereignty of Ukraine. How far can Moscow go in its imperial rush?

- Well, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 is, perhaps, the only constraint for Russia’s rapacious plans. But the presence of EU restrains the imperialistic outrage, whatever disagreement the EU reaction to Ukrainian events can arouse.

- What the EU can oppose to Russia’s aggressive policy in Ukraine? The country’s economy urgently needs the promised $36 billion; however, first and foremost the inner political situation in the country should be stabilized.

- Why did the EU give no money neither to the government under the Prime Minister Azarov nor to Yanukovich? It is because they would have embezzled it. Now the EU has to give money; but to whom?

And here the question with Verkhovna Rada re-emerges. In the present-day realities Rada can’t be given money either, as it will be embezzled in the same way. And here the EU is facing big problems. However, it will also be a challenge: Will the EU politicians have enough will and wit to abstain from entrusting the Russian structures with the restoration of Ukraine?

If the external control is not introduced, strong Ukraine’s statehood based on European law principles should be formed first. Ukrainian officials knew the right solutions but worked for profit, i.e. they were corrupt. Thus, to overcome the crisis, Ukraine needs political will and a feasible plan.