Yury SHCHERBAK: Ukraine is a European country that has a chance and must use
“WE HAVE LOST THE SPIRIT OF FAITH AND ROMANTICISM...”
“How would you characterize the changes that have occurred in this country since you were member of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR? How can national cohesion be achieved now?”
“This is in fact my second homecoming to Kyiv after a long pause. I first came back in 1944 from Russia to which I had been evacuated during World War II, in 1941, when I was six. But even at that age I could not help noticing the striking changes that had occurred in Kyiv. The city was different, bloodstained and ruined. The German spirit permeated everything: I saw German magazines at our acquaintances’ place, I saw women dressed in the latest German fashion. That was a sad homecoming, for many of my relatives were dead or missing. Now I have come back for the second time after a nine-year absence. If you also take into account the year when I was making constant official trips, it’s a ten-year lapse. The return to Kyiv made me recall a play by the Polish playwright Slawomir Mrozek. The main character of this grotesque work, a national hero prominent and revered in his lifetime, suddenly returus from the dead. As he showed up, he saw that nobody needed him any more. Although legends about him still lived, he was useless because everything had changed. In no way do I compare myself with Mrozek’s hero, but still I came back to a different country, a different city. I returned to a Kyiv without Kochur and Honchar, Molostova and Amosov, Hutsalo and Drozd, Chornovil and Yemets, Yakutovych and Danchenko, Stelmakh and Lobanovsky... I thought I was absolutely alien in this city. Very many things had changed. First of all, a new generation had come... Of course, this is a normal natural process which you must accept as inevitable. As to Ukraine, it seems to me we have lost the spirit of faith and romanticism that reigned in the late 1980s during perestroika. We have lost a generation of people who have turned into morbid cynics or sunk into the morass of everyday life; they have just forgotten that society wants them. This is a generation that went to the lower depths, so to speak, in 1993-1994 under the pressure of the terrible economic crisis and political circumstances. In my view, the Ukrainian liberation revolution was carried out by the middle class, the intellectuals, such as academics and engineers. I remember traveling to Kharkiv, where people favored liberal democratic ideas. This was true of Ukraine as a whole. Regrettably, we have lost these people. On the other hand, there always are ups and downs in any revolution which may eventually turn into a counterrevolution. The tragedy of today’s Ukraine is that politics have given way to business. But this, too, seems natural at fist glance: business, the birth of a new class which has the right to something. Yet, everything was different in the developed countries. In the US, for example, businessmen used to, roughly speaking, buy politicians, but still politicians would do politics and businessmen would do business. I just remember the words of the Briton John Odling-Smee, an IMF department director, who monitored the situation in Ukraine. Once he lost his composure and said to our parliament members, ‘You are all defending your particular, private interests. When are you going to defend your national interests?” This was a signal for me. I think purification is coming soon, and not because somebody wants it. This kind of purification comes by force of cyclicity, by force of the law of high and low tides.”
“We share your regrets over the people who seem to have become lost. But was the class you mentioned prepared at the time to take action, not just speak words? Some people say that the 1960s dissidents, who shaped the ideology of perestroika, failed, unfortunately, to be democrats in their actions. After all, the new capital did not fall from Mars, nor was it conceived in a test tube. It came from Communist Party coffers: on the one hand, the Party was involved in shadow activities, but, on the other hand, there also were clandestine businessmen. Perhaps the latter were kids in comparison with those who made money, hiding behind Article 6 of the Soviet Constitution” (which enshrined ‘the guiding role of the Communist Party in Soviet society’ — Ed.).
“As to the generation of the 1960s, I feel no regrets. Again, I think what happened to them was only natural. Although I also belong to them by all accounts, I am not going to weep for those allegedly nice times. No! We all grew against the Stalinist background. Whatever one may say, we were born and raised a prison camp, in a totalitarian society. When I look at the so-called national democrats both in Moscow and in Kyiv, I notice some totalitarian traits. We still have a long way to go before we have a true dialog, tolerance, and fair rules of the game. A lot of people failed, of course, to adapt: some rushed into small business, others were lucky enough to find a better paying job. Clearly, people are not yet fully aware of the cataclysm that rocked society. You are right in your observation: the Party underwent a grandiose underground metamorphosis: we did not understand this at the time, we turned out to be utterly naive, if not stupid.”
“Did you feel alarmed when you watched the latest events in Verkhovna Rada?”
“I am alarmed indeed. I want to state immediately that I belong neither to the pro-government camp (I have quite a few differences with the majority) nor to the current opposition (although I share many of their views). They do not know the rules of political struggle, they are unaware of the art of compromise. The opposition has been making disastrous mistakes for the past two years. If they don’t give up obstructionist tactics (sirens, etc.), they will lose altogether. They will lose not because the government will use the administrative resource (which it will surely do) but because they will fail to explain their goals to the people. People now see two groups of politicians that vie absolutely unscrupulously for power. Just imagine a soccer match. The first half-time is over, then the referee says during the second half that one team has a weak defense line, so it should have its goal narrowed, while the other team will have its free-kick area enlarged. The same applies to our situation: things are going as if it were the right way for them to go. In my view, we need people referred to as the conscience of the nation, i.e., impartial and unbiased people who can have preferences of their own but who are not involved in the current struggle. It is they who ought to take up political reforms. If I were told today that the political system should be reformed, I would answer in the affirmative. This system undoubtedly needs reforming. But let us do it by the year 2010, when a new generation of politicians comes online. Why should we carry out a reform just to satisfy the ambitions of a certain individual, a certain uncle? But when the majority and the opposition play this kind of games, when they say the uncle needs a special reform of the governmental system, this raises very serious questions. The worst thing is that this situation will entail negative foreign and domestic consequences. Of course, Ukraine is not Georgia: no doubt about that. Ukrainians are calm people by force of historical circumstance. From this perspective, the phrase ‘I couldn’t care less’ is a gospel truth that has in fact helped the Ukrainian people to survive. If we had cared too much, we would have been wiped out long ago. So there will be no Georgian scenario. Instead, the public will feel alienated from the government due to the absolute indifference of the latter. This is a very dangerous process, for the state should serve the society. I will say bluntly: give people freedom without tapping the so-called resources. If they want to elect somebody, let them do so. Give them economic freedom. Ukraine will rise in three years time, and we will not recognize it. It is already rising — not owing to but despite the current circumstances.”
“The I-couldn’t-care-less ideology is justifiable from the viewpoint of individualism, but the sense of proportion is also important here. If we take our participation in the Iraq coalition forces, we perhaps cared too much. Were the Ukrainians right to decide to send their peacekeepers to that country?”
“I am fully convinced that Ukraine should take part in this peacekeeping action. I have no doubt at all. Moreover, I was afraid that if we did not decide to send our soldiers, our state would end up in limbo. I am sure that a NATO-style global security organization, perhaps called the Global Treaty Organization, will be established with time. The North Atlantic alliance is already crossing the geographical limits of its responsibility. We were obliged to make this choice. Quite naturally, some politicians tried to use the coalition participation issue in their own political maneuvers. So what? Ukraine has lasting interests and must have a cardinal strategy: either we are in the coalition or we stand to lose too much.”
“What do you think can stop the current parliamentary squabble in Ukraine? Does this remind you of an awkward chess game, when the player sees that he is going to lose and sweeps away all chessmen in a fit of fury? Similarly, parliament members do not seem to be inclined to compete intellectually.”
“I would like to recall in this connection the experience of Canada, where I worked for three years. For example, in the country of the maple leaf the state furnishes a downtown apartment house not only to the leader of the ruling party but also to that of the opposition. The opposition is a very important national institution. Never in your wildest imagination will the opposition leader in the Canadian province of Alberta or Quebec be greeted with Nazi symbols. This is out of the question in itself, irrespective of our attitude to this opposition leader. True, there has never been only one opposition leader in Ukraine. Still, I just want to emphasize that we will never create a normal country as long as such excesses continue. Prosecutors should have immediately taken action against those carrying banners with Nazi symbols. This is a scandal. Did you see the German ambassador’s reaction? He was shocked. How could this happen? For this corrupts people. I don’t like it, either, when somebody in other regions carries red stars and does essentially the same thing, just by changing a plus for a minus, so to speak. The state must react to this kind of things. The opposition is an important and indispensable element of the political system. It is completely unacceptable to treat oppositionists as public enemies. The person who is in opposition today could come to power tomorrow. Why should he be reviled? We still have to learn Much. Of course, our opposition does not always show itself from the best angle. And the majority? Does it differ? No! This in fact triggers parliamentary crises like the one we have now. I am convinced it was quite possible to argue about the reform in the juridical and political planes. After all, Verkhovna Rada is Ukraine’s most democratic forum, where you can address the people.”
INDIVIDUALS AND INTERESTS
“Let us turn to your diplomatic experience. How adequate do you think is the vision of Ukraine in Canada and the US? At least among the individuals who shape policies towards our country.”
“Thy stick to the stereotype that Ukraine is an undemocratic and semi-authoritarian state. The 2001-2002 scandals had a terribly ruinous effect. I recently talked frankly to a high-placed Canadian politician. He said there would be no changes at all until Ukraine passed the test of presidential elections. The new authorities must come to power legitimately. The West is going to closely follow the election, they attach great importance to this process. The same applies to our NATO membership: the alliance stresses that our further cooperation with it directly depends on the democratic course of the presidential campaign. Westerners are very pragmatic people. I would even say they do not reflect in historical terms either. The personalities that make some decisions on the domestic scene today will be gone tomorrow, while national and geopolitical interests will remain. In my opinion, the West underestimates Ukraine in this respect and has toned down its interest in this country. I think this occurred by force of subjective factors. I am convinced, for example, that a negative role in US- Ukrainian relations is being played by US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. She is overtly oriented to Russia and opposes Zbigniew Brzezinski’s theory of counterbalances, the theory of ‘balancing pairs’ (Ukraine — Russia, Germany — France, Japan — Korea). Ms. Rice has bet on key regional countries which the US should cooperate with. Once, speaking to Ukrainians in Washington, she called Ukraine the ‘black hole of Europe.’ She made one more incredible statement during another talk with Ukrainians: it follows from her words that Ukrainian problems can have a negative impact on Russia! Lets us admit after all: imperial sentiments are on the rise in the US. Actually, American political scientists openly say that the US is embarking on an imperialistic path because it is the only superpower in a unipolar world. Canada is a different country. It just does not have the same geopolitical interests as the US does, it has never divided the world into spheres of influence. It is a very democratic country, and what makes it so much interested in Ukraine is, above all, the Ukrainian-Canadians because many live in and influence the government of Canada. It is a very delicate, slow, and to some extent conservative country.”
“One can discuss at length the attitude of a certain state or individual politician. Condoleezza Rice was adviser even to George Bush Sr. who once went on record for delivering the so-called Chicken Kiev speech. The then US president advised Ukraine not to seek independence. The Ukrainians did otherwise. We must admit that in some cases the West has been unjust to us, but would you agree that we ourselves sometimes provided basis for such, shall we say, passionate absence of love?”
“I fully agree with you. I can say even more, for I served as Ukrainian ambassador in such key countries as Israel, the US, and Canada. That was a time when I worked in strict compliance with my own political views, emotional disposition, and moral principles. It was, in my opinion, an absolutely happy time that any diplomat could envy. A diplomat is often given some instructions: he will mutter a curse or two, then overcome his inner resistance and do it. Just imagine a Soviet diplomat instructed to find out the population’s reaction to the historical visit of Brezhnev. What reaction?! Even the Soviet people wouldn’t listen to his speeches! But this was the job. My case was altogether different, for I worked in a favorable period, especially in 1995-1997. At the same time, I feel very bitter for failure to implement a host of projects. Ukraine did so much injustice to American and Canadian investors! In early 2003 I had to tackle an extremely embarrassing situation. A Ukrainian-born clerk at a Toronto bank (I will not disclose its name) stole five million dollars from a Canadian company and forwarded this money to Ukraine. The latter wouldn’t return the money for three years. The stolen funds belonged to the law company of Ramon (Roman) Hnatyshyn, an ethnic Ukrainian, former governor-general of Canada, a true friend of Ukraine. The money was returned only when Ottawa announced putting Ukraine on the FATF’s blacklist. Yet, I failed to notify Mr. Hnatyshyn that the money was back. He had died...”
“And what do you think about the story of the Ukrainian Ruslan airplane impounded in Canada?”
“First, this reveals, unfortunately, the lowest possible professional level of our lawyers. In signing a contract, one must read attentively its conditions and the two parties’ obligations. Secondly, it is not ruled out that it was a carefully orchestrated put-up job: somebody wants to grab Ukrainian property, seizing this opportunity. Thirdly, debts should be paid.”
“Another sensitive point in our relations with the West is the Chornobyl issue. You are one of those who have written a lot about the Chornobyl nuclear power plant accident. Does it not seem strange that, contrary to the stereotype that the West always keeps its promises, our Western partners have created a problem by reneging on their financial obligations?”
“This is also a sore point. I can broach again the problem of our juridical ignorance. We have created certain myths about the Chornobyl issue and say: look, they haven’t met their commitments. But when you look at the signed document more closely, you will see how unskillfully it was made. I have this document. When I read it, I feel horrified. A fundamental document was drawn up in ambiguous juridical terms! This is why it can be interpreted in different ways. Still, it is true that the West shows dwindling interest. They thought we would borrow high-interest loans from them. This was discussed with the EBRD in 1999. Indeed, we were offered not so favorable terms at the time. But will we be able to finish two reactor units at the Khmelnytsky and Rivne nuclear power plants on our own? As far as I know, we decided to get Russia involved in this project. All I can say on this point is that under the circumstances the West will never agree that these two units are safe enough. Again, the West is not the only one to be blamed. We also have something to be blamed for, above all, for failure to clearly write down the conditions the West must fulfill.”
FACTOR OF SECURITY
“Speaking of a desirable model of Russo-Ukrainian relations, many experts point at the model of US- Canadian coexistence. Yet, more pessimistic analysts believe that, taking into account the current muscle-flexing in Russia, the more probable model of Kyiv-Moscow relations is the one between the US and Mexico, i.e., Ukraine plays the role of Mexico. What do you think?”
“Neither the US and Canada nor the US and Mexico are the adequate models of relations. I categorically reject Mexico because this is an altogether different civilization, a different mindset. As to Canada and the US, this model could be useful in some respects, for example, in the sphere of foreign policies. Canada, which conducts 85% of its trade with the US, manages to pursue an independent foreign policy. For example, it has always maintained friendly relations with Cuba and is not part of the anti- Iraq coalition. Canada, completely covered by US TV channels, as Ukraine is by Russian ones, still successfully protects its cultural identity. As to Ukrainian-Russian relations, I want to say Moscow pursued an ambiguous policy toward Ukraine during the times of Yeltsin. Now the Kremlin is applying a very definite strategy of actions toward Kyiv. Both the objective and the ways to achieve it are clear. The Tuzla problem was no accident. It was a well-thought-out special operation. The Russians achieved their goal, for they forced us immediately to enter into negotiations. Ukraine does not have any such strategy. It is dangerous not to have a clear strategy of cooperation. I do not mean we should take a hostile stand. By no means! This would be disastrous for Ukraine. Yet it seems to me we must speak with the pragmatic Kremlin leadership in the pragmatic language of interests. Russia is setting up an enormous worldwide oil and gas transit empire. They are building gas pipelines to Japan, China, Turkey, and Western Europe. In twenty years time, the Russians will be meeting about 60% of Western Europe’s requirements in gas and 10% of US requirements in oil. This is, by the way, one of the reasons for US-Russian rapprochement. We must not ignore this. We have oil and gas transit corridors: this is our asset, a factor of our national security, and we must know how to turn this to our advantage. This is why I am sure it is of paramount importance to map out a concept, at least a secret one, of our relations. Naturally, the Kremlin’s chief aim is at least to turn Ukraine into a satellite state (even with preservation of the national insignia, such as the trident and the flag) and, at most, to ‘restore’ the so-called Russian lands at the expense of Ukraine. They have a strategy. We don’t. Which is very dangerous for this country.”
“Are such things as the Single Economic Space (SES) and the gas consortium not elements of a strategy?”
“Elements, yes, but of the Russian strategy. Can you name at least one project that Ukraine has successfully offered to Moscow? We are unable to get them interested in the An-70 cargo airplane. They use any excuse to avoid cooperation in this matter. Naturally, we can and must cooperate with Moscow, but it is important that this should be in our interests also. Unfortunately, this is not the case because these projects (SES and consortium) are part of the Russian strategy only. If Ukrainians read the book by Canadian researcher Zenon Kohut on how Ukraine gradually became part of the Russian Empire, they would understand many things. For we were not engulfed by the empire in an instant. This year, when Ukraine marks an anniversary of the Pereyaslav Rada, we are witnessing a renewed Pereyaslav process. The previous process unfolded very slowly, perhaps for seventy years, until Ukraine finally lost its independence. Of course, there are many people in this country who want to be part of a Russian empire no matter what it is called — gas transit or liberal. But will such sentiments serve the national interests of Ukraine? Relations with Russia must be the subject of a serious nationwide debate without shouting ‘Down with’ or ‘Together forever’”.
“You called Ukraine’s two key partners, the US and Russia, imperial states. Yet, they are also the centers of two, post-Soviet and transatlantic, integrative processes. Which of the ‘empires’ should Ukraine cling to and integrate into?”
“To the ‘empire by invitation,’ as the US is sometimes called. An empire that wields so-called soft power (ability to persuade with its political ideas and culture) and hard power (military force). Taking into account our sad past experience and knowing that the number of Zhirinovsky’s and Rogozin’s supporters is on the rise in the neighboring country, it is dangerous to cling to Russia. We should cling to US-led coalitions, above all, to NATO. We must at least to join NATO, although Russia is now playing a greater role in the alliance than Ukraine is. The Russia-NATO Council can and does have a very serious impact on the alliance. Moscow tries to persuade NATO through negotiations not to move its bases closer to Russia, for example, to Poland. Incidentally, one of my ideas is to invite NATO to open a base in Ukraine. That would balance the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. We could do so, still remaining a nonaligned country. I am a confirmed pro-Westerner not because I worked in the West. Much before that, I was sure this was the only way for us. Allied with Russia, we will first lose our independence and then our national identity. The Ukrainian language will be forgotten instantly. We must clearly chart the vector of our development. This exist formally: the president has declared Euro-Atlantic integration as a goal. Now we must act. Time is pressing.”
DEMAND FOR A “THIRD FORCE”
“You mentioned a stereotyped vision of Ukraine in the West. Do they still understand that excessive fault-finding, in terms of reputation, could jeopardize Ukraine’s independence?”
“Indeed, the European Union does not want us, but this does not mean we should choose the SES. As to reputation, do you know that at the turn of the last century it was Poland that had the worst reputation in America? The Poles were as much the butt of jokes as the Chukchi are in the former USSR. And now? Look: the Pope, Polish art, the Polish love of freedom and struggle against the socialist system immediately transformed Poland into a darling of the West. Although Poland is now in the worst economic situation among the countries that are joining the EU, it wins rave reviews in the press. We must begin cleansing the state by establishing normal democratic rules of the game. An American senator told me that the US expected Ukraine to become a democratic European nation but was tired of waiting. Unfortunately, corruption scandals arose that impaired some US companies. The 2000 tapegate was by no means the first scandal of this kind. All this began in 1995-1996, when US companies in Ukraine were, one by one, either cheated, or ousted, or denied entry.
“I have collected a huge stack of anti-Ukrainian articles. For example, a
Globe and Mail corespondent just hated our country. Based in Moscow, he would come to Kyiv for a day and write a negative material; he would also do so even without leaving Moscow. As an ambassador, I did my best to protect our state from unfair attacks: I wrote letters to this newspaper, which were published, but what could I say in small letter? What can the embassy do if the correspondent writes a long article, quoting specific figures, data, and eyewitness evidence. Although all this was tendentiously selected, it was still true. Those articles did not say the main thing: Ukraine is not only politicians. It is people, hopes for a democratic future, it is a European country that has and must use its chance. If we fail to solve the existing problems before 2006, Ukraine will be destined to remain in the so-called Byzantine orbit for 20-30 years.”
“Could you compare the Ukrainian policies of two, Bill Clinton’s and George Bush’s, US administrations?”
“You were right to recall the words of Bush pere. His speech was a mirror reflection of differences inside the US leadership. Former Secretary of State James Baker did and still does take a pronounced anti-Ukrainian stand. Richard Cheney, then secretary of defense and now vice president, is pro-Ukrainian. He made quite an effort to persuade Bush to recognize independent Ukraine after the referendum. Baker and his followers had begun to sound alarm even in 1990, for they were fearful of what might happen to the USSR’s nuclear weapons. On the whole, the Republican administrations of both Bush pere and Bush fils, were and are consistent in banking on Russia. Incidentally, 80-90% of Ukrainian-origin US citizens voted Republican, not Democratic. The Clinton administration first moved by inertia and had no clear strategy, but when Leonid Kuchma came to power, it finally supported him. They had a clear policy toward Ukraine: Ukraine is an important element of international security, a very important state in terms of geopolitics, so Ukraine should be encouraged in developing democracy. They did pursue this policy, especially when Strobe Talbot was in charge of this area of US foreign policy. Still, Russia remained, understandably, on the foreground because it was the country that threatened US interests with its nuclear potential. The current administration would perhaps be repeating the Democratic strategy were it not for the events of September 11, 2001. Those events virtually undermined all foreign political achievements and reduced US policies to simply combating terrorism. Who kept Kyiv from picking up the receiver and phoning Washington to express sympathy? Moscow did so and, besides, brilliantly used this occasion to remind the US of its own so-called Chechen terrorism.
“Although Ambassador Herbst keeps saying that Ukraine is very important, the current Republican administration takes a different attitude. We heard the same words from Carlos Pascual, Stephen Pifer, and Bill Miller. The point is this year will see presidential elections not only in Ukraine and Russia but also in the US. So will Pres. Bush have time to deal with Ukraine, when the Democrats are raising a wave of criticism over the Iraq war and the economy shows not so optimistic results? I don’t think Ukraine will be on the list of US top priorities this year. Meanwhile, there is a very serious swing toward Russia in that country.”
“To what extent serious do you think are the rumors that the US and Russia have allegedly made a deal to divide spheres of influence in the post-Soviet space?”
“I’ve been continuously haunted by theses rumors, even when now former presidents Clinton and Yeltsin met in Helsinki. Although I was convincingly told that these suspicions were unfounded, the very ideology of Condoleezza Rice and the current practices apparently show the opposite. We do not know what Bush and Putin talked about over a Texas barbecue.”
“You mentioned the negative image of Ukraine in the Western press. We have heard for more than one year that Ukraine needs a system of positive image building what is called a positive spin. Russia spends an annual $70 million for this purpose. As to how the US works with world pubic opinion, we saw it during the Yugoslav and Iraqi campaigns. Why do you think a similar system has not yet been created in Ukraine? What should be its linchpin?”
“I already think now that it is no accident that this is not being done. I can find no other explanation. When I worked in Washington, we persistently wrote that there is the following elementary practice: if a country is little known, it invites foreign correspondents. We so often invited people to show them Ukraine, but nobody allotted money for this. Bill Miller, an outstanding US ambassador to Ukraine, once said to me, ‘You don’t understand what you possess, your art is a treasure.’ We should have set up cultural centers in New York and Toronto, but we did not do so. Why did nobody go to Davos this year? I was in Davos in 1991, and I will remember that event all my life. Isn’t it great to have an opportunity to see prominent leaders, representatives of the political and business elite of many countries? I saw what kind of delegations Russia sent to Davos.”
“Resigning from her office, Inna Bohoslovska said a very important thing: there are government officials who do not believe in Ukraine’s capabilities...”
“Yes, defeatist-minded people are coming to the fore. This is the gist of my latest book: we are not unique, we are not the only pebble on the beach, but we stand a fair chance. Our situation is better than that in dozens of other countries. We have resources, we are an educated nation, so why do we cry all the time? Because we do not believe in ourselves. Watch an American movie: it shows a hero convinced that he is right. I my view, the resignations of Valery Khoroshkovsky and Inna Bohoslovska is a sign that purification of this country is possible. It is a significant event. I deeply respect these people because they told the truth without fearing of losing their posts. They showed they did not want to work in the economy by administrative methods alone.”
“Ukrainian politics badly needs action.”
“Yes, what they did was an action.”
“It was not so pleasant, incidentally, to see the way the cabinet’s press service reacted to these resignations. But no less astonishing is the reaction of the opposition, which began to devise all kinds of ‘schemes’ that Viktor Pinchuk allegedly removed Khoroshkovsky and Bohoslovska from the cabinet to allow them to run for the parliament. When we discuss the quality of our opposition, we recall the phrase that a well-known sociologist Yevhen Holovakha said during the so-called tapegate, ‘If our government is a feudal system, then our opposition is primitive communal society.’ The opposition can only win if it is more progressive and more consistent...”
“I fully agree. I have always said that Ukraine needs a ‘third force’ because the two existing forces will sap the strength of each other. It is difficult to say who might emerge as a third force, but its coming is quite possible.”
