On two scenarios

Volodymyr Ohryzko, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (2007-09), is one of the diplomats who take a principled stand in defending Ukraine’s interests, particularly in terms of relations with Russia. In the Russian Wikipedia he is characterized as a Russophobe. This description has been attributed to him after he spoke Ukrainian at an international conference in Kyiv, which was perfectly along the lines of the event’s format. Ohryzko is also Den/The Day’s author, and he never refuses to give comments and interviews to our newspaper. April 1 is Volodymyr’s birthday. The Day congratulates him on the occasion of his 60th anniversary, and wishes further successes as head of the Center for Russian Studies, as well as in other plans. We wanted to ask him why he decided to study Russia, having such an extensive experience in European policy, and whether he sees a way to bring our northern neighbor back to the norms of international law.

“I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CURIOUS TO UNDERSTAND AND EXPLAIN WHY RUSSIA WAS LIKE THIS”

“I have diverse diplomatic experience – both multilateral and bilateral diplomacy with a focus on European affairs. But I have always been curious to understand and explain why Russia was like this. My considerable experience with Russian interlocutors and in analysis of Russian foreign politics helps me with this. Frankly, I’ve always wondered about that huge difference between the behavior of Russia and Western countries on the international arena.

“Later, as soon as I began working on the Russian direction in our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, theoretical observations quickly transformed into practice. Russians are very difficult to negotiate with: they are the last to admit obvious facts, they try to delay the negotiation process, and they emphasize insignificant details, hoping that you lose your patience, or run out of time, and give up on your effort. But they quickly begin to compromise when you begin, so to speak, stepping on their toes. They do not like this. So, one has to look for these toes and tread on them.

“In general, we need to study Russia deeper and better understand what it is now. This analytical, intellectual work seems very important to me. Without this analysis, we will not be able to impartially and adequately assess the situation, and act accordingly.”

“IN THE WEST THEY BELIEVED THAT RUSSIA COULD BE PART OF THE WESTERN CIVILIZED WORLD”

How is it that Russia, in a very brief period of Putin’s rule, has turned into an aggressive revisionist state; why has no one noticed this before?

“In fact, neither we in Ukraine nor in the West wanted to see the real Russia. Actually, this is what we are now paying the price for. Ukrainians have that price much higher – in the lives of our best sons and daughters; the West has it in billions that it had invested in Russia in hopes of making it democratic. It so happened because the West believed in their own fictional fable that Russia could be part of the western civilized world. And here in Ukraine, many top tier officials did not want to see Russia’s real character; they wanted to sit on top of the same gas pipe and make the same millions and billions on corruption, just like their Russian counterparts. Well, would you speak the truth about your partners in a criminal business?

“Thus, we have never been even close to answering the question of what is Russia and what should be done with it. And Russia has remained unchanged throughout this entire period: post-Soviet, unreformed, ‘offended,’ and ‘humiliated.’ Do not forget that only a few days after the collapse of the USSR, Yeltsin said in private, that ‘we’ll be together anyway,’ and you, addressing the representatives of the new states, are not going anywhere. We, Russia, he said, would still dominate this region. There is nothing new in this – it’s just a pity that our new leadership did not want to confront it. And only now, following the brutal aggression against Ukraine, some of their strategic friends have suddenly got a new insight; this is just a typical political mimicry and nothing more...”

“WE STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED TO OURSELVES OR TO OUR WESTERN COLLEAGUES THE IMPERIALISTIC ESSENCE OF RUSSIAN STATEHOOD”

And what is the centerpiece of this Russian ideology? Many say that the Russian ideology is based on the philosophy of Ivan Ilyin.

“Saying that Russia invents some new ideology or a new worldview, is, in my opinion, a statement removed from reality. Russia has long found its place in history. This is separateness, exclusiveness, the ‘special’ role and mission (although it is unknown who had defined them). Remember the history: a small piece of land, and already ‘the Great principality of Moscow.’ And the locals faithfully cheer to it: be it in the 16th or 21st century! This is such a conservation of public thinking! This is a real social phenomenon that should be studied. If you compare what had been said in Moscow three or four centuries ago and what they say now, you are unlikely to find any particularly important differences. They – Russians – are unique and great; insidious enemies surround them, just dreaming to destroy this uniqueness.

“Now Putin says that Russia is a separate civilization to further establish the thought of uniqueness in the minds of his subjects. Just as they say today that the malicious West is trying to destroy Russia, and to this purpose it had imposed economic sanctions and threatened war. Today Putin repeats what had already been said centuries ago: the only truth lies within the Russian version of Orthodox Christianity; everything else is just decadence and decay.

“In reality, it is the same thing repeated every hundred, two hundred, three hundred years, only with different performers and slightly modernized according to the situation. In fact, this is the tragedy of society in self-isolation from the world, where some short periods of thaw separate centuries of reclusiveness and obscurantism.

“Not having much to offer to the world, Russia has resorted to aggression, chauvinism and imperial thinking in order to somehow assert itself. But this is the path to nowhere; such a country has no prospects.

“So, nothing new: we still have not explained to ourselves or to our Western colleagues, some of whom are still deluded by political fantasies, the imperialistic, aggressive essence of Russian statehood.”

“MOSCOW HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN STEALING SOMEONE ELSE’S TERRITORY, CULTURE, AND HISTORY AND PRESENTED AS THEIRS”

It is generally believed that neighbors know their neighbors better, and the history of France is better learned from English archives or sources and vice versa. Do you think it was a mistake for the West to remain ignorant on the complex history of Ukraine and Russia?

“I agree. The West has dwelt on the pseudo-history, fed to them by Moscow, for too long. This is, certainly, is a very unfortunate tradition we must change immediately. For Moscow has been traditionally appropriating – or, to say in simple words, stealing someone else’s territory, culture, history, and presented as their own. In fact, when we speak of the ideological war today, we must understand that the Russian side had actually started it not yesterday, not two years ago. It had lasted from the birth of Muscovy. There are historical anecdotes, when Russian diplomats or agents bought entire circulation of books about Russia, published in, say, Paris, and brought them to Moscow for burning. Why? These books contained the truth about Russia and its bloody history, its savage customs, anti-European mentality, etc. Had it not been the first shot of the ideological war?

“But those anecdotes occurred episodically, and certain historical circumstances have prevented the West from perceiving Russia as it actually was; the West has been using historical fakes, presented by Moscow. This has been going on for centuries. And we see this development today. Isn’t spreading historical lies a part of ideological war? Ask anyone on the streets of Berlin or Paris, what is the difference between Rus’, Muscovy, and Russia. The answer would embarrass you. It is all fata morgana for them. This, unfortunately, is Ukrainian fault also, because we have failed to convey the truth about our and Moscow’s history to the average European or American.

“I think that the state, academics and analysts, including the Center for Russian Studies, which I have the honor to lead, should make up to tell Europeans the truth about the history. We should shed light on the steps Moscow taken to falsify and distort the historical facts for their benefit. For when it comes to the true history of Muscovy, it does not give the Kremlin any right to the millennial traditions, which they attribute to themselves – and therefore, their claim for ‘greatness’ becomes void.

“We in Ukraine, as well as all those outside our country who want to really understand Russia and to determine the best path for the future, need to study Russian history seriously. Then we will see and understand that, unfortunately, we are dealing with an unchangeable entity that varies only in form, but remains the same in its essence. We should now think not how to ‘engage Russia’ once again, but talk about the need to find ways of deterrence and actual isolation if it remains unchanged.”

And the traditional question: what to do? What should Europe, America, and Ukraine do in order to bring Russia back in compliance with the international law?

“Both in Ukraine and in the West, strategic thinking has to prevail. We should honestly admit that, based on historical traditions, mentality, political processes, etc., Russia does not fit today into any alliance of democratic countries. This does not mean that this option should remain closed to it forever. But the situation is like this today.

“Hence the two scenarios. The first is to distinguish Russia from the part of the world, which is called the North Atlantic civilization. To realize at the top level of Western political elite that Russia is not a partner of the West in terms of understanding and respect of its values. To build relations with Russia in the same way as the West builds them with China, India, and other countries that belong to different civilizational dimensions. The world is different and we do not require that, for example, the countries in the East adopt the same values that we have. There is nothing wrong with that. At the same time, Russia should be forced to return everything looted and annexed and to restore the respect for the international law. Thus, Russia will remain a member of the international community, which the West will work with on the basis of peaceful coexistence. This option does not rule out the possibility of non-strategic trade, it actually requires this possibility.

“The second scenario is as follows. In case Russia would not agree to such form of coexistence, the West should move to the policy of total isolation and containment, based on the obvious fact that Russia is a global threat.

“However, unfortunately, it seems that politicians in many European capitals, as well as in Washington, prefer not to think much about strategy and hide their heads in the sand is hopes that somehow all would be well. But it will not be as it was before. One must not think how to win the next parliamentary or presidential elections – we must save the Western civilization from the Russian barbarism.”

“WESTERN PARTNERS ARE AFRAID TO EVEN THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY SHOULD INFLUENCE RUSSIA”

How, in your opinion, should we deal with the Russian invention of transforming information into weapon?

“In fact, we have been speaking about that. This is one of those tools that have remained unchanged in Moscow’s arsenal for many centuries. We must actively resist it. It is good that the EU and NATO have taken the first steps, which are important and correct. Unfortunately, they have not been coordinated. Ukraine does something in that regard; certain activities are carried out by individual countries in both unions. But there is no single common logic behind these operations. For Putin works fast: execution follows an order immediately. The West mainly discusses things, but the systematic plan to oppose and influence Russia in terms of information is yet to be seen. Western partners are afraid to even think about the fact that they should influence Russia. We are told that we have to defend against it, but defense is hardly a tool that yields results. We must attack, but the West lacks this offensive philosophy. Pacifism has gone so far that it even permeates the information sphere. This is also a huge challenge for the West. I think that in the task of returning Western societies from dreams to reality in the context of understanding threats from Russia, including the information one, Ukraine’s role could be decisive.”