Viacheslav BRIUKHOVETSKY: Power Is Taken by Force And Maintained by Wisdom

As the Orange Revolution slowly recedes into the past, it is becoming the subject of reflections and speculations. Therefore, it is important to hear a version of these events not only from someone who was a participant but also one of the initiators: Viacheslav Briukhovetsky, President of the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy. Pora’s first tent city went up near the walls of the academy, which was among the first universities to go on a political strike. In fact, for most of its modern history this prestigious institution has been a bulwark of protest actions against the regime. During our meeting at The Day’s office we talked with Dr. Briukhovetsky about how the revolution began, and also discussed the particular aspects of the academy’s curriculum, and Ukraine’s current humanitarian and political problems.

A SELF-APPOINTED RECTOR

The first question that comes to mind is what makes you such an unconventional rector, considering that someone who is placed in charge of an institution of higher learning is traditionally regarded as a cornerstone of the regime?

V.B.: It probably has to do with the fact that I became rector and then president in an unconventional manner. Before the academy I had no administrative experience in the field of higher education. I had taught at Taras Shevchenko National University and the University of Culture for a while, a bit more abroad, in the United States and Canada. I haven’t had to travel the thorny path to rectorship. I came and I wrote and signed a directive [appointing myself rector]. This is a very interesting document. The heading reads “Directive #1, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, 11.15.91.” This was the text: “I hereby commence work as rector.” Legally this was nonsensical, but I started working in that capacity the very next day. Another thing that makes a difference is my views. By the way, the assumption that a rector should have a conservative touch is correct. Education must be generally conservative, and instruction at our academy is also conservative, to an extent. It only seems that we’re making revolutions here. Also, it’s my character. I feel ill at ease at every meeting of the Board of Rectors, so much so that I’ve stopped attending them.

When did you realize that this aspect of rectorship was incompatible with your lifestyle?

V.B.: Before the presidential elections in 1999, Mr. Kholod, who was then Deputy Minister of Education, summoned all the rectors and said he hoped we understood which candidate to support, so we had to make every effort to prevent the other candidates from visiting our universities and delivering campaign speeches. After that he ordered all the rectors who supported Kuchma to stand up. Pavlenko, Rector of the Economic University, was outraged: “What??? You want me to stand up and take an oath? I do support Kuchma, but I’m not taking any orders from you!” To which he replied, “You see, you’ve just confirmed your support of Kuchma.” Questions were asked, like what should be done when a candidate requests a meeting. Mr. Kholod explained that he should be referred to the election commission to ask for authorization. In a word, it was all nonsense. Then I stood up and said: “I have another proposition. I’ve already invited all the candidates to the academy.”

How did Mr. Kholod take it?

V.B.: He said characters like Moroz get access to universities because of characters like me. That was when I stopped attending board meetings. I couldn’t stand the sight of my colleagues being humiliated by such clerks. And there were many such cases.

A number of administrators explain such unpleasant compromises by being dependent on the government and its funds. Does this mean you can manage without this money?

V.B.: You know, if the [then] President of Ukraine decided to visit the academy, I would tell him I was very grateful for having never received any kind of support from him, because we’ve learned to live relying on our own resources — not survive (I hate the word), but live! Of course, there are risks involved; in the past ten years, apart from payroll (which is scarce) we have no money to spend on anything else. We’ve written countless letters, complaining that our students have nowhere to live. No reply. We’ve built a dorm at our own expense, but the state has given us no help. But I know that the academy’s computer equipment is the best compared to all the other universities, but not a single computer was purchased with government funds. We do everything at our own expense.

How about paid tuition?

V.B.: We could use it at a profit, but we have about 12% students enrolled under contract. I didn’t know the situation elsewhere in Ukraine until I visited the University of Ivano-Frankivsk and asked the rector how many subsidized students he had. Seven hundred, he said. I was surprised because I had more by far. And how many under contract? Eighteen thousand, he replied. Can you imagine?

Can the current situation change the bureaucratic attitude to institutions of higher learning?

V.B.: It all depends on who is the next premier. [This roundtable feature was published in Ukrainian before President Viktor Yushchenko made his decision to appoint Yulia Tymoshenko as acting premier — Eng. Ed.] I mean this post will determine the new government’s quality and professional level. So far the notion of higher education has been cynically profaned. By the way, if I could, I would make every ministerial official leave his briefcase in the cloakroom before entering his office, for his own good. I would also make it a rule not to admit any visitors with bags or briefcases. It’s a shame to see rectors visiting the [education] ministry with bags and leaving empty-handed. How can we expect them to treat our students and their parents differently? I don’t know if it’s true, but some VIPs told me that a rector’s post costs a pretty penny and that the rector knows whose nest to feather, too. Now that’s outrageous! Worse still, this inner corruption is gnawing away at all of us. Communicating with my students is easy and simple, and this makes me really happy. I can tell them the precise number of students — thousands of them — seated in this or that audience, and that all of them were enrolled because they truly deserved it because of their knowledge; that none were admitted after envelopes changed hands. Once it happens, normal relationships are impossible.

Is it possible to eliminate corruption on a nationwide scale?

V.B.: Yes, it is, although it’s a painful and time-consuming process. The most distressing thing is that our society is prone to giving bribes. I had an interesting experience several years ago. My secretary told me a university entrant’s father wanted to see me. I knew only too well why such visits were made in the summer; I knew I’d have to show him the door, but my secretary said this was a special case, so I told her to show him in. I saw a tall, hefty man, who cut a handsome figure in a weather-beaten sort of way. His fists were about the size of my head. I like these kinds of hands; they’re proof of a hard-working life. Somehow he reminded me of Hryhir Tiutiunnyk, for his bearing was so dignified and gentlemanlike. I asked him to please be seated and he told me he had a problem. I asked him to be specific, and he said the problem was that his son had been admitted to the academy. I told him many would consider this a solution rather than a problem.

“Please try to understand me,” the man said, “I’m an ordinary harvesting combine operator in Ivano-Frankivsk oblast. My son studied English all by himself (it wasn’t taught in his school), because he wanted to enroll in your academy. I never believed he’d get in, ever, but he did.

To which I replied, “But that’s great! Now you can see it’s possible.”

“Yes,” the man said, “but the problem is no one in the village believes me that he did without any bribes given and taken. My best friend doesn’t want to talk to me. His son is finishing school next year and he wants the boy to enroll, too, so he wants to know exactly how much he’ll have to pay; he says everybody knows how much it costs in Ivano-Frankivsk or in Lviv, so why don’t you tell us how much it costs in Kyiv.”

“So, how can I help you?”

“Could you give us an official statement saying my son got enrolled without any bribes paid and accepted?”

“You realize that I would have to issue such statements for all of our students. Don’t you think that people will ask you exactly how much you had to pay for this statement?”

“Yeah, come to think of it, they will.”

The man left. This brings me to the second point, namely that we must establish an adequate payroll for the teaching staff. Some professors can accept the existing one, abiding by the rules of inbred decency and professional ethics, yet when a Ph.D.-holder is officially paid 500 hryvnias (less than $100) a month, he faces two options: (a) putting up with his miserable lot or (b) trying to earn more, with various kinds of moonlighting coming first and teaching students second, if and when. We can actually set about combating corruption in this country only after we solve this problem. Of course, enrolling in an institution of higher learning on equal terms, without having to pay bribes, is a major factor.

Is there an effective mechanism to bring this about?

V.B.: Why not? Consider the kind of testing we practice. No one can complain [of any bias]. Everything is done openly; everyone can see how the results of such tests are verified. It’s not that complicated. Another thing is whether today’s rectors will be willing to adopt this method. We distributed copies of our test questionnaires at a rectors’ conference and I explained what had to be done. Everybody seemed impressed. And then I offered assistance if anyone were actually willing to introduce it.

Did anyone say he was?

V.B.: No.

Did anyone explain why?

V.B.: I spoke to some of them later, off the record, you know. What they told me boiled down to, “What are we going to say to all those who are calling us [trying to make such arrangements]? Unless all this changes, we’ll have corruption.”

AN ARTIST SHOULDN’T BE APPOINTED MINISTER OF CULTURE

Perhaps an effective reform of higher education would solve the problem?

V.B.: We’ve been going about this reform for what seems like an eternity. At one point we had our vocational-training schools reorganized as “first-level higher educational establishments.” Then we realized that it was a mistake; that no one was doing this anywhere else in the world, meaning that such first- and second-level institutions will revert to their original status as secondary specialized educational establishments. This reform is still underway. This reminds me of what happened when I was serving in the [Soviet] army. All of us happened to be conscripts from Odesa. My friend and I spotted a book by Kant in our library. We read it, but couldn’t understand anything. A friend of mine was keen on amateur performance and wanted me to join him. I adamantly refused, and then I told him, “Roman, we’re reading Kant; why are you doing all this, I mean writing bad verse, staging all those cheap performances?” To which he replied, quoting a brilliant Odesa aphorism: “Slavko, one must do something so as not to have to do anything.” I think our ministry of culture is doing this very thing.

Are your methods really effective for the students? Are your graduates in demand on the job market?

V.B.: Yes, they are. And market demand is very strong. All our graduates are well paid and have good careers in various lines of business. It’s one of those cases when, after receiving a higher education, you get a good job. Our graduates who major in linguistics don’t necessarily work as linguists . Some are restaurateurs, it’s their line of business and that’s normal. Particular specialties are necessary for master-degree programs and the bachelor degrees can be on a broader range, so specialties can be undertaken later. So far our academy is the only one practicing this, so our graduates who are majoring in linguistics can take up master programs in economics. We do this, although legally this is forbidden. In principle and in theory, each student can choose an entirely individual program.

Is there a direct link between the level of admission, training, and political activity?

V.B.: I’m sure that a gifted individual displays talent in everything, including political activity. Gifted people can’t be absolutely dull in any other spheres. Our university is considered a humanities institution, which is wrong, because we are a perfectly classical institution of higher learning and our curriculum includes physics, chemistry. Personally, I’m especially impressed by our students who are constantly winning prizes for physical education and sports in the annual Student of Kyiv competition. I mean we have the Institute of Physical Culture, don’t we? Our students win in other nominations now and then, but always in physical education and sports. The reason for this is simple: they are talented young people. We even have junior world champions.

In what events?

V.B.: Contact kickboxing. Can you imagine? There are also European chess champions and Masters of Sports. In other words, there is such a link, although not all of our students are politically active. That’s also normal. You’d be surprised, but I myself don’t like meetings and rallies, although at one time I was a regular organizer. Speaking about politics, perhaps the level of knowledge is not the point here but the kind of conditions we provided from the outset, when hard- working and well-prepared entrants can enroll without giving bribes, without making phone calls. Now that is a prerequisite for the development of individuality.

As a person who rubs elbows with highly placed people, what kind of cadre changes do you think will be made in the humanities domain?

V.B.: No consultations have taken place so far. Besides, I’d want to know the agenda before deciding to participate.

But you have your own opinion, don’t you?

V.B.: I know whom I want to see holding certain posts there.

Could you be more specific?

V.B.: Not at this stage. All I can say (and I know there are many speculations on the subject) is that I won’t hold a ministerial or any other post in the new government. I have to bring my Kyiv Mohyla Academy idea to its logical completion. Anyway, I believe that the minister responsible for the humanities should be an individual capable of thinking strategically, one who has nothing to do with the allocation of property and defending certain interests; someone who will never allow anti-Ukrainian laws to be enacted. For example, the law demanding that all ads must be in Ukrainian. It’s outrageous, stupid, and glaringly discriminatory. There is a simple solution to the problem. Ads can be even in Hindi, but a special tax must be levied on them and the revenue must be transferred to a Ukrainian language development fund. The same applies to films, I mean their distribution. Here no rules and procedures have to be worked out; they already exist. All it takes is the desire. The minister of education should be a well-educated person, who has received an all-round post-secondary education and traveled the road from graduate to manager of an institution of higher learning; this person must be an experienced and resourceful administrator. A cultural figure or artist should not be appointed minister of culture. It’s out of the question. Nor should he be a bureaucrat, just a good modern manager who knows and loves culture, but who has nothing to do with it. Well, we had Bohdan Stupka, even Ivan Dziuba, so you know what I mean.

What steps should be taken in the humanities domain?

V.B.: It’s too soon to say. Proper funding comes first. Otherwise even a genius in charge won’t be able to accomplish anything. And money can be found. Look how much is being spent on fireworks and parades.

THE REGIME AND EVEN THE OPPOSITION WEREN’T PREPARED FOR THE MAIDAN

Speaking of fireworks, one is instantly reminded of the Maidan. Suppose we talk about it. How did all this begin at Kyiv Mohyla Academy?

V.B.: We had Our Ukraine’s press center set up two months before the events. The night of November 22 was marked by a great deal of euphoria. Large sheets of paper were pinned to walls, on which students wrote their wishes to Viktor Yushchenko. The first indication that something was going wrong appeared in the middle of the night. Yulia Tymoshenko’s mood had changed since the evening. The exit polls were great, but the CEC was acting weirdly. In the morning our doubts grew stronger. I came to the academy and there were actually two simultaneous initiatives. A group of students visited my office and asked simply, “Mr. President, what shall we do?”

What did you say?

V.B.: I sent them back to their classrooms for the time being. Then we had a meeting with the deans and vice presidents and the same question arose: What is to be done? To cut a long story short, our academy was the first to go on strike. On December 22, at 13:00, we called a general students’ meeting and read two statements condemning the regime’s actions and about going on strike, on condition that the students and teaching staff would make up for lost academic time by using their vacations and sabbaticals.

That clause wasn’t very popular, was it?

V.B.: Indeed, when they heard about the vacations, seven students were against it.

Obviously, dissenters have to be protected.

V.B.: It was a matter of principle and I made it perfectly clear that the whole thing was on a voluntary basis. Those who didn’t want to didn’t have to take part, and that we didn’t care who harbored what views. The library and computer rooms would be available to those that didn’t want to go on strike, and there would be teachers on duty to provide consultations. Two students applied for them.

Did all of you attend the rallies?

V.B.: Well, some students may have gone home. Things like that happen. But when it was time to end the strike and go to the Maidan, where I’d make the announcement, everybody turned up.

How did you go about your protest action?

V.B.: The students called it “We’re Coming.” The first day we were on the Maidan, we split up. Brownian motion, you know. The students wanted to keep together. It was cold, they were young; not all of them were dressed properly for the weather. They would get their feet wet and catch a cold. All of this was my responsibility. And we had fifteen tents, but that’s a different story. And they turned into such radicals that you had to drag them from the square to a dry, warm place. And so we decided that the motto “We’re Coming” meant we would march up and down the streets of Kyiv (the city was going about its daily life) and do campaign agitation and other things to help people understand what was happening. I was glad to know they were walking and keeping warm. I stayed with them just in case, because provocations were a distinct possibility. And this approach turned out to be even more effective. Our first march was to the Ministry of Education, where we demanded Minister Kremen’s resignation because of his inactivity when students were subjected to political repressions. The man was outraged to hear that his name figured in our demands next to Bilokon’s. In the end, he signed the directive in our presence, allowing the students to go on strike and guaranteeing the reinstatement of all unlawfully expelled students. Our next large-scale action was near the Russian embassy, after picketing the Academy of the Interior Ministry on the way (the academy heads tried to expel cadets who showed solidarity with the Maidan).

So how did you communicate with the diplomats?

V.B.: We waited at the gate for someone to take our letter, but no one came. Afterwards I asked the colonel in charge of the security detail whether refusing to accept letters was standard practice, and he replied that in his six years of duty only one letter had been accepted — from Dmytro Korchynsky. Well, perhaps the man was more acceptable to them. And we had a very enjoyable march to the Channel 5 Studios.

Why did you march there?

V.B.: We went there to thank them [for unbiased broadcasts] and discovered we were the first to do so. On the way back I suggested marching past the offices of Kievskie Vedomosti, chanting For Shame! But the young people refused; it was such a nice day and they had just greeted Channel 5, why spoil it with that scum? Later, we changed the format of our participation [in the Maidan campaign]. Among other things, we decided to record Maidan eyewitness accounts. The students did this and we are now planning a book. Also, many would sit at their computers, writing letters to friends and acquaintances in eastern Ukraine, explaining the situation; others would write letters to their relatives (using paper and pen, of course).

You will probably agree that the most amazing aspect was a dramatic rejuvenation of “street politics.” Why do you think this became possible?

V.B.: Because we have a new generation that has practically grown up in an independent country, even if this country isn’t exactly how we saw it in our dreams, showing many aspects we don’t like. But the fact remains that the number of years of independence is unprecedented in Ukrainian history. To better understand what happened, it’s worth remembering 2001 and that Ukraine-without-Kuchma campaign. I, for one, viewed it very skeptically, although I was there, silently standing near the campaign leaders, simply to make sure they would notice our presence. Even now some people believe that if we had duly supported it, the regime would have collapsed. Wrong. It wouldn’t have worked anyway, owing to the absence of that critical mass that would form four years later, a sufficient number of people that had reached an age when they could claim their rights.

What do you think is the difference between the tents set up on the Maidan during the “Granite Revolution” in 1990 and the tent city [during the Orange Revolution]?

V.B.: Students did it back in 1990, too, hoping that their initiative would spur the older MPs into action. This time everything happened the other way around, with older people visiting the tents, hoping that the young people would get it done. And our young people picked up the gauntlet. Remember the slogan, “Razom nas bahato, nas ne podolaty” [We Are Many and Together We’re Invincible]? It’s true now, but in 1990 there were only handfuls of protesters; they could only show a moral example, provide an impetus of sorts, but that’s all. That’s why any dissident movement is unable to change the existing regime by acting on its own.

That may be so, but that movement also seemed massive and determined, although in the end all their achievements turned out to be stagnant. Is there such a threat now?

V.B.: Neither the regime nor even the opposition were in any way prepared for what came to pass on the Maidan. As a member of the National Salvation Committee, I can assure you (I can disclose this information now) that we simply didn’t know what to do. I remember a committee sitting in the House of Trade Unions when one of the members rose to open the blinds and then turned to us: “Do you think you’re winning? No, they are winning. They brought you here.” See what I mean? That’s the main difference. Sure, they can try to drown all that’s happened in endless hot-air sessions, as was the case in 1991, except that our people are different now. I mean if Yushchenko resorts to empty phrases instead of actually doing things, there will surely be people who will challenge him. All those young people standing on the Maidan turned into a mighty force. This greatly increases the responsibility assumed by the head of state and the team he’ll form.

YUSHCHENKO WAS GIVEN POWER BY FORCE

Yushchenko’s opponents often accuse him of spinelessness and indecisiveness. Has he changed in the last months?

V.B.: I have known Viktor Yushchenko for about fifteen years; we’ve often communicated, including on a personal basis. He has undergone substantial changes, especially after that atrocious poisoning, the attempt on his life — I don’t know the correct definition. What has happened to him is perhaps best described as the tempering of steel.

That metaphor rings a bell...

V.B.: I used that metaphor as Metalworker, Fifth Class, by training. At one time I made a number of knives, the kind you’d never find on sale anywhere. We made these kinds of knives and the girls who were employed in workshops where there was ethyl alcohol would allow us certain “discounts.” A piece of tempered steel can be broken, but never bent the way it can be prior to tempering. Something like that happened to Yushchenko. Let me tell you something that happened which helped me realize that the man before me was our next president. Once, during an especially heated committee debate, trying to decide what had to be done next, a deputy rose to demand radical measures, like storming [the cabinet and presidential premises]. Finally he declared that, unless his action plan was approved, he didn’t know what to tell the people outside, that he would call it quits and board the train to Lviv (listening to all this, I knew that maybe a year ago Yushchenko would have tried to calm him down, saying something like ‘let’s talk this over, why don’t you listen to what I have to suggest,’ etc.). So what happened next was Yushchenko’s response, worthy of a president-elect: “Right. When’s the next train to Lviv? Go ahead, buy a ticket. Off you go.” He put an end to all entreaties like, ‘why don’t you reason with the man.’ Of course, the man never boarded that or any other train, and then ended up doing as he was told. That was when I understood that Yushchenko was a hardened man.

But what about that historic package of bills, including the one on presidential elections in return for political reform that will curb the president’s power in favor of parliament as of September 2005? This was another example that many people used to accuse Yushchenko of an excessive tendency to compromise. After all, his victory in December was guaranteed.

V.B.: I believe it was simply another chess maneuver. As a former chess player, I can tell you it was a zugzwang [when a player is limited to moves that cost pieces or have a damaging positional effect], meaning that any move would have been bad. But please note that this is my personal opinion. Most voted for the political reform, except one faction (Viktor Yushchenko didn’t vote for it either). The dissenting faction’s leader, Yulia Tymoshenko, challenged the vote at the Constitutional Court, claiming the vote was unconstitutional — and I can tell you that there were violations of constitutional clauses. The CC had to acknowledge those violations, but then the president, who hadn’t voted on the package, calmly solved the problem. I’m sure that the political reform must be implemented, but only by using constitutional means.

Is this a case of “much ado about nothing”?

V.B.: You know, when Leonid Kuchma read out the text of the agreement, many regarded it as an act of treason, a step backwards, but no one could answer my question: What are the key words that are worth making any kind of compromise?

What are these key words?

V.B.: End of the election campaign. Not new elections, but ending the current campaign. Otherwise people would have never left the Maidan; they would have stayed and died there, do you understand?

Let’s talk a bit about the tent city. We know about your initiative to establish an Orange Revolution Museum.

V.B.: We are collecting items for display; we have five hundred to date. A busload of Polish enthusiasts arrived recently, after traveling across Ukraine and collecting a great many interesting items. We also have an agreement with the man in charge of the tent city that everything will be transferred to the museum after they dismantle the tents.

Does this mean you have premises for this museum?

V.B.: We do, but we need seven million hryvnias’ worth of repairs. I think that we’ll get the money from the state this time. By the way, I’d rather call it the “Ukrainian Courage Museum,” rather than the Orange Revolution Museum.

Why?

V.B.: Among other things, I still don’t believe it was a revolution, but this is my personal view. I believe that a revolution took place in 1991. What we have now is an evolutionary process, stemming from what happened in 1991. A revolution isn’t a carnival. I might as well point out that many people, including those from the Maidan, keep wondering about that “revolution.” They never once acted against the Constitution of Ukraine; is that any way to make a revolution?

So how is a revolution made?

V.B.: Forcefully and then trying to justify that use of violence. By the way, this is another pretext they used to criticize Yushchenko, blaming him for wanting to have everything done according to the law. But that’s precisely the specifics [of what happened on the Maidan]. Revolution is what happens when the law is violated, when storming methods are applied. Can you give a single example from world history when anything was accomplished the way we did? Personally I regard the whole affair as a theatrical action, a carnival in many respects. Revolutions aren’t made by smiling people. Remember what happened in 1989-91? Those people looked severely determined, tight-lipped, eyes burning with hatred; they wanted to topple the regime, they hated it and wanted it dead. In our case, people from Yanukovych’s camp would visit us, we’d make them welcome, hug them, tell them we were brothers and should be friends, not enemies. Is this a revolution? Of course, people will keep referring to the events as the Orange Revolution. But we know better, I think it was the result of those fifteen years. Let me tell you another thing. We’ll have to live another ten evolutionary years and we’ll be facing a number of problems. In other words, Viktor Yushchenko’s presidency won’t be a smooth and straight road the way it looks now. There are no grounds to assume this.

None at all?

V.B.: What we have now is a critical mass of people prepared for changes, yet there is no mass of people armed with knowledge, experience, and so on. I’m often asked why none of our graduates has become a minister in Ukraine. You can’t have a person appointed minister six years after graduation, can you? It takes long years of experience. Such appointments are possible only in a revolutionary situation, and Che Guevara is a graphic example. Others ask why the Pora people wear clothing decorated with Che images. Answer: because Che is an attractive image, a hero of sorts (he used to be my hero as a boy, too). Therefore, the next decade promises to be a rather complicated period.

Ten years sounds rather alarming; we’ll have the next elections in five years.

V.B.: I believe that Viktor Yushchenko’s presidency will last ten years; in fact, I’m sure of it.

Would this be politically correct?

V.B.: It would be wrong, I agree. But this is my personal opinion. If you invite me ten years from now (I’m keeping my fingers crossed), you’ll see I was right.

Right about what?

V.B.: About the Ukrainian president as a graduate of our academy ten years from now, I promise. I even know the name of such presidential campaign hopefuls, but I won’t tell you; I don’t want them to be killed.

You mean this new president will also come to power through a revolution?

V.B.: Taking power by force isn’t the problem. Would you like me to tell you when I realized Yanukovych was losing the game? A year ago, in early 2004, a conference took place at the Rus’ Hotel in Kyiv; it was very representative, with many politicians in attendance. Yanukovych took the floor and said that Napoleon didn’t have much respect for Machiavelli because the latter wrote a lot about rulers but nothing about their need to have real strength. Once they have this strength, they’ll solve all the other problems. That was then I realized he was on the losing side. Not because he might have relied on the [Russian] proverb that says once you have enough physical strength, you don’t need brains. Actually, there is another, even better, proverb: Power is taken by force and maintained by wisdom. Yanukovych didn’t have to seize power; he had it. All he needed was a way to maintain it. He chose the force option. Now take Yushchenko; he doesn’t look like a man prepared to seize power, use force; any coercive options are inherently unacceptable to him. Still, he came to power, which was given to him after forcing others to part with it. He received it from the Maidan. If not for the Maidan, nothing like that would have ever happened.

And his role?

V.B.: There’s no denying the importance of his role. There’s no one except him to hold the post. Still, he came to power in a forceful way, so now he must show lots of wisdom to maintain it. He must show results; otherwise it will be a tragedy that will push the Ukrainian nation back a very long way, much further than now.

Frankly, if and when the new administration makes very bad mistakes in principle, will you be prepared to strip Viktor Yushchenko of your academy’s honorary doctorship?

V.B.: Now that’s a very complicated question.

I mean the kind of grievances you addressed to Leonid Kravchuk.

V.B.: But those weren’t mistakes; they were systemic violations of set moral rules.

Granted. What would happen if Viktor Yushchenko committed similar violations?

V.B.: Then we would be prepared to strip Zbigniew Brzezinski of his degree, not only Yushchenko. It’s something one does consciously. All kinds of mistakes can be made. Kravchuk made them consciously. The matter at issue is consciously deviating from the morals we profess. No taboos must exist here. The Maidan is great, but there’s lots of hard work to be done.