Editor’s Note: The following is an interview that Ukrainska Pravda deputy chief editor Serhiy Leshchenko conducted in Washington, D.C., earlier this month with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Polish-born former national security adviser for U.S. President Jimmy Carter.
Serhiy Leshchenko: Mr.
Brzezinski, who does Ukraine look like today, from Washington’s point of view?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: I think, we saw the first
historically significant self-affirmation of Ukrainian people on Maidan –
especially of young Ukrainians, their truly deep sense of country’s
independence. There were moments in history of Ukraine, when it was moving
towards this goal, but it had never been as universal as this time. I see it as
historical achievement. It means that the sense of national independence
becomes inevitable reality in the whole generation’s mind. For me it‘s an optimistic sign.
SL: Right now the
situation with Maidan is not very clear. In your opinion, what is a possible
break in the deadlock?
ZB: It’s hard to advise anything while sitting in
Washington, but I would say the Ukrainian opposition needs unfeigned real unity,
which would be noticeable for everyone. It requires a coalition agreement. Opposition
must display political unity, even though it’s almost impossible. But at least
symbolical leadership in the opposition is necessary. You see, in policy, of
democratic countries in particular, political appeal is a source of power.
If you want to win, you should have talented
charismatic leader. (Former Polish President Lech) Wałęsa in Poland wasn’t necessarily the
smartest man. He also wasn’t an opposition leader for a long time. He appeared
spontaneously, but people around, including some older ones, admitted that he
had some sort of magnetism, which is very important.
They used him, but let him be the way he wanted to be,
that is a leader. I think it lies with
Ukrainians to choose a leader.
SL: A comparison
between Walesa and Ukrainian opposition leader Lech Walesa could be discerned
ZB: I’m not going to use any names – it’s no concern
of mine. I speak as a realist – otherwise you will not be able to win over the
one, who is already in power, who wants to remain there and is not going to
give up. I belive that Maidan showed amazing unity. But it is not supported by
unity of political top. Because even symbolic unity is an important attribute
of a political struggle. So should the opposition leaders sacrifice their
ambitions? It is not a sacrifice matter. It is a matter of sober mind. So what
is better – to win, putting forward the most popular candidate? Or go
separately – and lose?
SL: Have you met
with President Viktor Yanukovych?
ZB: Yes, several times.
SL: What kind of
impression does he make?
He is clever in a political sense. He calculates his
steps. He seems to be disappointed with current situation. But he made many
enemies among European leaders by manipulating Europeans.
SL: Does he have a
chance for the win in 2015?
ZB: I think he understood that he doesn’t have a
chance for success on honest elections.
So the best choice for Yanukovych in his current state was elections
under (Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s umbrella.
SL: Do you
understand his game with Putin? Does he want to be a servant, a partner or he
is simply using Putin?
ZB: Do you know what happened in Czechoslovakia in 1939? After Sudeten Crisis. President Edvard Beneš fled the country,
and so-called president Emil Hácha took his place. He
was forced to let Hitler protect himself. It put an end to it. Yanukovych has
the same risks. Ukrainian question is not solved yet. In the short-term
perspective, Ukraine will become more as a Russian protectorate. Putin will
interfere more in Ukrainian business. And Yanukovych will be forced to adjust
to these realities. That is why there is urgency in forming unity and choosing
headship in Ukrainian opposition.
SL: What reputation
does Yanukovych has in the West?
ZB: To many he looks like a disappointed person that
lied. Certainly, some people in
Washington are convinced that he maneuvered for the best Putin proposition – which
really happened! – which would give him an opportunity to reject the West’s
proposition.
In our conversation I want to stress about two things.
First – opposition must be an effective political force. What it means I said
earlier. And second – we shouldn’t deal with Ukrainian problem as with
anti-Russian problem.
From the historical perspective, it’s better to look
at the latest events in Ukraine as the start of the long process, which will
lead not only to the probable broadening of Europe, not only to the Ukrainian
inclusion, but also to the Russian inclusion. Because prospects of Russia
leading Eurasian Union – it’s a fiction. This alliance will disintegrate – for
economic, social and personal reasons. As a result, it will only lead to the
increasing unwillingness of Russian to meet expansion across China in Central
Asia.
Therefore, in the long term interest Russia is
interested in moving towards becoming a part of Europe.
And strategic vision of the West should be: “We
want Ukraine to be in Europe, but not as a weapon against Russia, but as the
beginning of a process that eventually will cover Russia.”
Putin strategically stayed in the past. For there has
been a change in the psychology of not only Ukraine, but also Kazakhstan, and
Uzbekistan, and neither of these countries
want to be subordinated to the central government, which sits in Moscow.
SL: You do not
believe in the future of the Customs Union? …
ZB: No, it’s just a waste time, which only creates
tension among the newly independent states – not only in relations with
Ukraine, but also with other countries that freed their national dignity.
SL: What do you
think of international sanctions as a mean of influencing the Ukrainian
government?
ZB: This can be done selectively against certain
individuals. In some cases, sanctions are justified. On the other hand, their
weight is often overstated. In addition, we have to remember that we still need
to cooperate with officials in Ukraine.
SL: Belarus was
under sanctions, but it hasn’t changed the situation with democracy.
ZB: Belarus was able to compensate everything that it
lost because of Russia.
SL: If you were
able to give a piece of advice Yanukovych, what would you tell him?
ZB: I would say: “Think with perspective.” But the
problem is that he thinks about his immediate concern and need to be conscious
of this. It’s not a question of adviser. Yanukovych wants to be a president and
wants his family to be rich. But if he, maybe, reaches these goals, will
Ukraine become closer to Europe after that?
SL: Many people
believe that the current President Barack Obama administration spends
ineffective policy towards Ukraine, paying little attention to it.
ZB: An interesting statement. Recently, I spoke with
officials from the White House about Ukraine, and it was their initiative. But
their effectiveness is limited. We cannot alter political realities. The
Government of Ukraine is in the hands of people for whom dependence on Russia
has more advantages than the political uncertainty associated with the approach
of the European Union.
