Quite predictably, in a situation where the after-election thrust of Regions weakened in the domestic policy, Viktor Yanukovych took up to foreign policy. Actually, it would be more correct to say that what he is doing is not a full-fledged foreign policy but rather international legitimization of his presidency. Because of the shallow understanding of the essence of the task and also, evidently, because of absence of strong specialists of foreign affairs in his team Yanukovych has been making steps that in the future could damage both him as a politician and national interests of Ukraine
 |
| PHÎÒÎ: PHL |
What the president and his men began implementing in the sphere of foreign policy can be confidently named “vulgar multi-vector policy”. Its difference from the usual multi-vector policy lies in refusing to orient oneself at one certain union or center of power attempting to concentrate at all centers of power simultaneously. The approach is based on deep conviction demonstrated by PoR also in the VR that they can strike a deal with everybody, that everything has its price and that there are no incorrupt states or people. To remain completely fair one should admit that it was Yulia Tymoshenko who was first to apply such model of conduct on the international arena – she took trips to Brussels, Moscow and Paris not as foreign visits, but as canvassing tours.
Vulgar multi-vector policy put in practice from the first days after Yanukovych victory in the second round of the elections has already started showing its key drawback – unwillingness of foreign partners of Ukraine to play by such primitive rules.
Zigzag-like straight line
The question about the priority of visits to Brussels and Moscow, which in the Yanukovych team is viewed as purely technical, is in truth a reflection of the general logic of the attitude of the new government to diplomacy. Even prior to the elections, experts of different ideological beliefs were convinced that no matter who becomes the new president, his/her first visit would be to Moscow. The logic is simple – to go where the biggest problems are. The extent to which relations between Ukraine and Russia deteriorated over the past five years threatened not only Ukrainian economic and political interests, but also security in the region. In addition, it is in Moscow that the new head of the state, being on the wave of enthusiasm in the view of Yushchenko’s departure changes to achieve quickest and most evident results: from receiving loans to beginning of the process of canceling reservations in the agreement on free trade zone.
Therefore, it was even more surprising when MP Anna Herman announced on behalf of Yanukovych team that the first trip of the new president abroad will be to Brussels. To say that this decision caused perplexity in Moscow would mean to say nothing. The Kremlin could not allow an open conflict with Kyiv after all the advances it made for the new president, but the mood was seriously spoiled before the coming visit of Yanukovych to Russia. Top officials in the Kremlin made it clear for the Ukrainian side that psychological constituent of relations was very important for them and accordingly the first visit to the West looks like succession of Yushchenko’s course and not desire to change it.
According to the information of Komentari, the initiative of the trip to Brussels came from Europeans. One could say that they factually imposed it on Yanukovych, wanting to show that the West “has not lost Ukraine”. Petro Poroshenko and Anna Herman were their allies in this. Willing to keep the ministerial job, the former simply had to use the chance to offer the new president his image of a “pragmatic west-oriented politician”. Poroshenko logically fits into the matrix of vulgar multi-vector policy since being at the head of the foreign office for almost six months he still thinks and acts as a classic businessmen convinced that emotions and symbols should not interfere with business and the prospect of mutual material benefit will always overweigh political convictions. In addition, Poroshenko feared that Ambassador to Russia Kostyantyn Hryshchenko would be the key acting figure in Moscow’s visit, which would seriously reduce the chance of the chief of foreign ministry to retain his job. For Herman, image is more important than the result. She is concerned with Yanukovych getting rid of the image of pro-Russian politician and believes that whatever he does, he will still be loved in Russia.
As a result, this team put the president in an extremely inconvenient position when it became clear that the rate of offence the Russian leadership took was such that the visit to Moscow could not happen at all. The new leadership in Kyiv did not take into account that not everybody in Moscow waited impatiently for Yanukovych to win and that Putin’s pole in tandemocracy is more drawn to cooperation with Tymoshenko treating Regionals with a mixture of distrust and disregard. In the end, in order to avoid disruption of the very process of establishing dialog with Russia, Yanukovych was forced to make a great concession – refuse to meet NATO leadership. The West did not understand this maneuver: how can one be in Brussels and refuse to meet the management of the alliance, which has been Ukraine’s partner for many years? This step seemed particularly strange on the background of regular meetings between NATO Secretary General and leadership of Russia. However, according to the information in possession of the edition, such was the signal from Moscow that contained direct hint that the meeting with NATO representatives in Brussels will create long-term problems for Yanukovych in his communication with the Russian ruling elite. As soon as Russia saw that Yanukovych took into consideration their standpoint, Mikhail Zurabov submitted to him credentials and the preparations for reception of the Ukrainian president in the Russian capital returned to its regular course.
Chief royalist
That the trip to Brussels would be exercise in futility was clear from the very start. It seems that Yanukovych did not understand himself how true it is since in an interview for BBC he said that in a year Ukraine would have visa-free regime with EU, though the talk was only about presenting a road map for achievement of such result as abolition of visas for Ukrainians. Naturally, the president told Europeans what they wanted to hear. In this respect, Herman fulfilled her tasks. It is a question though what practical benefit it will bring for Ukraine. It is not accidental that Yanukovych was accompanied on his trip by two times more journalists than officials that are ready to discuss cooperation with EU in concrete areas (for comparison: Medvedev took a whole airforce one of ministers, heads of state corporations, businessmen and regional officials to Paris on March 1).
It is already clear that the visit to Moscow will be just as saturated with PR and poor with practical results. Revival of the dialog on the top political level which was frozen in the past two years upon Russia’s initiative, though, will already be an important achievement. However, provided there was good preparation, the visit to the Russian capital could have brought other dividends as well. However, Yanukovych team could not seriously work on the visit, because it was busy with coalition the whole week thinking that the most important thing is to show Moscow that they are the new power and that it will be possible to speak about concrete things later.
The serious problem of Ukrainian politicians professing the principles of vulgar multi-vector policy is the conviction that they can say one thing in Kyiv, another in Moscow and yet another thing in Washington. Both Regionals and BYT, it seems, are convinced that the only right line of conduct is to be a bigger royalist than the King, which means trying to seem big time Slavophiles in Moscow and convinced Westheads in Brussels. Ukrainian elite won’t be taken seriously unless they rid of such illusions. Russia and the West will be further convinced that it is much more reasonable to settle the Ukrainian issue in a dialog between each other than at the meetings with the Ukrainian president who confuses them with ordinary voters.
Printable version
