What, if anything, is the moral imperative of the West, the European Union and the United States--the United States, of course, has been quite famously dismissive, at least in the words of one official, of the European Union's role in the Ukraine situation--what can the West legitimately do? Where do you see Russia coming in on all this? And, I guess, the fundamental question is: Does Ukraine feel itself torn between two--rather like the body that's got four limbs tied to four horses and is being torn apart by being forced to choose between the West and Russia?
NICOLAI PETRO: There is a nice cover of one of the leading news magazines here, Korrespondent, last week in which a young Ukrainian girl dressed in peasant costume is on the ground sort of pushing people away, and there are all these people in suits around her trying to give her advice. So it was a very poignant image.
Well, my advice would be not to intervene when you don't know what the outcome is going to be. The phrase that comes to mind is "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." This is a dangerous situation. Just because you go in with good intentions does not mean that those intentions will yield good results.
The problem essentially is that, as I see it, the greater danger to Ukrainian democracy is not the survival of the present government; the greater danger is the rise of right-wing nationalism.
In this choice, the opposition, the united parliamentary opposition, still feels that it can ally with the ultra-nationalists against the government, that nothing is worse than the government, and that is the position that they are taking vis--vis the West.
I don't think their perception of their ability to control the ultra-nationalists should they get into power is accurate--not because they aren't more numerous, not because people would not prefer a more moderate alternative, but because the nationalists, having come so close to power, being essentially the force that allowed the political opposition to come to power, is not going to be satisfied with crumbs. They are going to make sure that they retain influence in the future Ukraine.
Again, I think back to the parliamentary transitions that occurred in Italy and in Germany. There were several years of parliamentary maneuverings before the right wing finally had established itself and took control. So none of this has to happen overnight, but it's clear to anyone who reads the documents what the agenda is.
In order to prevent that, I think the sensible solution would be to indeed form a provisional--I should say an interim government of national unity, some basic items of parliamentary reform, and perhaps new elections, which the current government and the parliamentary opposition could agree to for the specific purpose of marginalizing the right-wing radicals.
The problem, however, is how to convince the political opposition that they can afford to do this without losing their base of support, because if they do this, if they make that sort of compromise, again the right wing, and much of their electorate even, might punish them at the next election--"they sold out; they didn't see the fight through to the end."
One way to get around this, and I think the only way, would be to have a joint support for this sort of position, a joint stance taken by the European Union, Russia, and certainly the United States should join in if possible. In that way, there would be no questions about this being one side of the political equation manipulating the other, the government taking advantage of the opposition, or vice versa.
The only ones then left out in the cold would be the ultra-right wing. I think that would be to everyone's advantage, both in Europe, in Russia, in the United States, and in Ukraine.
DAVID SPEEDIE: That makes a lot of sense, Nicolai. Without making invidious comparisons, it brings to mind something that was observed of the peace talks concerning Syria going on in Switzerland. That was that one of the reasons that the more extreme elements of the opposition forces did not want to come to the table was that there might be the danger of a political settlement being reached.
All that remains today is to thank you very much, Nicolai Petro, for being our guest. We have enjoyed and learned greatly from a more nuanced and somewhat different perspective from outside Kiev that has contributed greatly to our understanding of this crisis and only builds our hopes that it will be resolved in the way that you mentioned in your wise last words, a national unity movement that both Russia, the European Union, and the United States could somehow bring themselves to support.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
