Vladimir Mischenko est un analyste de la fondation ukrainienne pour la démocratie People First.
"On 8 December 1991, in the Belavezha Accords, leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed historical agreements which marked the termination of existence of the USSR.
At that moment it seemed that the last political bonds connecting Ukraine with Russia were broken. However, 20 years passed, and the Big Eastern Neighbour continues to excessively influence the Ukrainian politics. In addition, Ukraine traditionally gets a role of “the younger partner” in bilateral relations with Russia.
The situation can start to change, above all, if the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement is signed.
It is possible to say that over the last 20 years Ukrainians managed to build their own state, independent from Russia and different from it to a large extent. The majority of international experts admit that Ukraine has more democracy in its politics and more market in its economy than Russia. Unlike Russia, Ukraine managed to avoid armed civil conflicts. Our country conducts its own foreign policy, not always reckoning with the opinion of the Big Eastern Neighbour.
All this brings a lot of dissatisfaction to politicians, businessmen, public and religious figures of the highest level in the Russian Federation, many of whom still consider independent Ukraine to be a historical misunderstanding, Ukrainians – temporarily “lost sheep”, and the Ukrainian language – a dialect of the great Russian.
That's why we observe constant attempts by Moscow to use different tools – economic and energy blackmail, massive propaganda, stirring of separatist moods in Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, etc. – in aspiration to get Ukraine back into the orbit of influence of Kremlin.
The more roughly the Russian authorities act in relation to Ukraine, the more strongly the national consciousness of Ukrainians grows. Unfortunately, unconsidered actions of the elites estrange the related nations connected by mutual culture and history. It is sufficient to recall the consequences of construction of the dam in the direction of the Tuzla split or undisguised intervention of Russia into the presidential elections of Ukraine in 2004.
After the change of power in Ukraine in 2010, Moscow once again strengthened its pressure upon Kyiv. Russia has achieved the prolongation of term of the stay of the Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol till 2042, and the Russian state gas concern Gazprom tries to establish control over the Ukrainian gas-transport system using different means.
The Kremlin aspires to prevent the rapprochement of Ukraine with Europe within the Association Agreement (AA) and a comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA+) framework in every possible way, simultaneously trying to involve our country in the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
No matter how much Russian leaders tried to convince observers of exclusively economic background of the CU, the political implication of the creation of this Union is obvious - especially in the context of the idea of creation of the Eurasian Union proclaimed by the Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
Moscow has resolutely made up its mind to restore its political influence in the world, lost after the USSR disintegration. And precisely with this end in sight, it stirs up the creation of supranational associations on the post-Soviet territory. This, in particular, was clearly declared by the President Dmitry Medvedev during the last congress of the “United Russia” party.
According to the sword-law, Russia can allow itself to think in such a way. But the question is whether all methods are justified for the achievement of the set goal. I'm sure Russia would achieve much more, if it demonstrated, first of all, its greatness instead of its power to its neighbours.
For this purpose, it would be worthwhile for Russians to concentrate on internal reforms (liberalisation of economy and political regime, struggle against corruption) so that they would become a more attractive integration partner for any country, and not only for Soviet-style authoritative regimes.
Russia could also achieve more if it tried to consider not only its own interests, but also the interests of its partners when carrying out external expansion.
For this purpose, to begin with, it would be good to clearly and unambiguously recognise the independence of all former Soviet republics and give up on territorial claims related to them. And from then on, starting to follow a “win-win” principle during negotiations with them at last.
However, today's Russia acts differently. With the aim of pulling Ukraine into its integration projects, the Russian Federation uses its main trump card – manipulations of gas supplies. Partners of Ukraine in Brussels understand this well, found in the text of recommendations approved by the European Parliament. It is pleasant that MEPs recommend the European Commission to assist Kyiv in restraining “the energy pressure” of Russia.
It is well known that participation of Ukraine in an FTA+ with the EU is incompatible with its membership in the CU. In turn, the approval of positive recommendations by the European Parliament for the European Commission on an Association Agreement and FTA+ with Ukraine is an important stage in the chain of events which can prevent the plans of Kremlin regarding the return of Ukraine to the orbit of influence of Moscow.
We hope that the leadership of Ukraine will demonstrate a political will and make a final choice in favour of rapprochement with Europe. Then Ukraine will take on obligations before Brussels in terms of the implementation of European norms and standards.
In due time, the application of acquis considerably promoted democratic development and economic growth of the countries the Central and Eastern Europe. We believe that Ukraine is capable of repeating their success. Only by being economically stronger and more democratic can Ukraine count on an equal dialogue with Russia."
