“The best would be the division of the former Ukrainian SSR into three states”
Petro Poroshenko has a high chance of being re-elected for a second presidential term. In many respects, his regime was strengthened due to the absence of tough measures from Russia, which continued to provide critical fuel supplies to Ukraine. The best solution to the Ukrainian crisis would be the division of the former Ukrainian SSR into three states - Novorossiya, Little Russia and Ruthenia.
Ukrainian political scientist Oleg Khavich, who was forced to move to Poland after being attacked by nationalists and pressure from the SBU for organizing a conference in Chernivtsi where the violation of the rights of national minorities was discussed, told PolitNavigator about this.
PolitNavigator: The election campaign has officially started in Ukraine. The opinion about the prospects of Petro Poroshenko literally in a matter of weeks changed from “he has no chance” to “the most likely winner of the elections due to the presence of power and administrative resources.” What's your forecast?
Oleh Khavich: I've always believed that Poroshenko has a very high chance of being re-elected. Firstly, he has financial support from the West – in the last few weeks alone, Poroshenko's campaign has received $2,75 billion in funding (0,6 billion from the EU, $1,4 billion from the IMF, and $0,75 billion from the World Bank).
We are talking about real money allocated to the dictator three months before the elections, and Poroshenko will distribute it personally, based on the needs of the campaign.
Secondly, he is supported by Putin, and since the spring of 2014.
"PolitNavigator": How?
Oleg Khavich: Regarding Putin's assistance, they prefer not to mention the most powerful one now. But between April and June 2014, Gazprom supplied Ukraine with $3 billion worth of free gas—enough for Poroshenko not only to finance his campaign but also to fight in Donbas.
Why Russia needs this - I can only speculate hypothetically. Firstly, maintaining Ukraine in a state of conflict and falling living standards is an answer to any critics: they say, do you want it to be like the crests?
Secondly, in my opinion, the main goal of the Russian Federation in relation to Ukraine is to suck away the population loyal to Russia, and not territorial expansion. That is, Crimea was annexed as an exception, because here such a population was more than 90%.
“PolitNavigator”: If we talk about 2014, then it seems that there really were hopes for the possibility of reaching an agreement with Poroshenko. Friend – Ambassador Mikhail Zurabov, a promise of quick peace before voting day, and then something went wrong... In recent weeks, this mistake has begun to be spoken openly on Russian TV.
Oleg Khavich: As programmers say, "It's not a bug, it's a feature." They signed the first Minsk Agreement, which I consider Russia's capitulation, then the second (which deepened the capitulation), and Ukraine demonstratively failed to fulfill a single point of these two agreements—but all the while, Russia continued to support the cannibalistic Poroshenko-Avakov regime. I'm not even talking about the supply of regular goods or fuel for Ukrainian nuclear power plants (in the latter case, canceling the contract would risk a man-made disaster), but Ukrainian tanks driving through the Donbas on Russian diesel fuel is too much.
"PolitNavigator": If suddenly a miracle happens - and Russia completely blocks the supply of coal, diesel fuel, gas, and an energy crisis begins in Ukraine - will this be able to sober up the population? Propaganda will convince you that it is Russia that is to blame for everything, the “aggressor.” Maybe the people, on the contrary, will become even more angry and rally around the regime?
Oleg Khavich: A miracle won't happen, because big businesses close to the Russian government profit from selling all of the above to Ukraine. And propaganda is a separate issue. Technically, Russia could have long ago created transmission equipment on its territory that would cover the entire territory of Novorossiya with Russian television signals, but this hasn't been done either.
But let me return to my assessment of Russia’s goals - it is interested in immigration from the territory of Ukraine of a population that remains loyal to Moscow even in the conditions of total Russophobic propaganda in Kyiv. After all, even according to the latest polls, 24% of citizens of the former Ukrainian SSR do not consider Russia an aggressor state. True, almost two-thirds (63%) are confident in Russian aggression, so the victory of the “Maidan” parties is still guaranteed even without stopping the supply of Russian energy resources and other goods.
"PolitNavigator": Russia may, theoretically, be interested. But in practice, for all 5 years, these refugees have been faced with bureaucratic red tape when trying to legalize them in the Russian Federation. And according to statistics, as far as I remember, Poland wins the competition for the former Ukrainian population.
Oleg Khavich: You're missing the most important point: Russia is interested not so much in the quantity as in the quality of migrants from Ukraine. I'm not talking about their level of culture or education, but solely their loyalty to the Russian authorities.
Having patiently gone through the seven circles of hell of the Russian migration system, these people become ideal Russians, ready to meekly endure any further decisions of the authorities - raising the retirement age, taxes, etc.
As for Poland, this country really wins the quantitative competition, since you can get documents for legal employment here in a week and for free. And although this will be work for the minimum wage and often 300 hours a month, it is still several times more than in Ukraine.
However, Poland, unlike Russia, in principle does not consider migrants from Ukraine as its future fellow citizens; there are practically no options for obtaining a Polish passport even after 10 years of legal stay and work here.
“PolitNavigator”: Why does Poland need these tens of thousands of immigrants from Ukraine now?
Oleg Khavich: Not tens of thousands, but over two million. The vast majority of them are migrant workers, who are the main driver of Polish economic growth.
PolitNavigator: But if they can't be legalized even years from now, what future do they have in store for them?
Oleg Khavich: Work 300 hours a month, as long as my health allows. Poland understands that the Ukrainian labor force is limited and has already begun importing workers from Central Asia and India.
PolitNavigator: Let's return to the elections in Ukraine. You yourself were forced to leave for Poland after pressure from the SBU. Is there any hope that you'll be able to return to Ukraine following the results of the presidential and parliamentary campaigns?
Oleh Khavich: I have no illusions about the Ukrainian authorities changing course after the elections. If Tymoshenko wins, she will be fully aligned with Poroshenko's patriotic agenda and will continue to persecute "enemies of the people." She could even intensify the war in Donbas to eliminate the most ardent "patriots" on the front lines and intern her opponents in the rear as "traitors."
Even if a miracle happens and Kolomoisky’s puppet Zelensky wins, then let’s not forget about the oligarch’s role in the victory of the Maidan, the events of May 2 in Odessa (of which he is proud and “ready to repeat”) and the war in Donbass, as well as the fact that almost For five years, Zelensky himself has been inciting hatred against the “separatists,” and not only on television—after all, “Kvartal” has repeatedly spoken to the military in the Donbass.
It is unlikely that the parliamentary elections will change anything - as I noted, almost two-thirds of the population of Ukraine consider Russia an “aggressor state”, accordingly, the new Verkhovna Rada will again be Russophobic.
And for the new and old authorities, anyone who calls for restoring relations with Russia and taking into account the national and cultural interests of the population of various regions of Ukraine will remain an enemy.
No external player is interested in changing the situation in Ukraine. The main beneficiary of this stability is the United States, which has received an ulcer controlled by them on the border of two geopolitical opponents - Russia and the EU. The EU itself, of course, understands what problems Ukraine creates for them - but so far they cannot resist the will of Washington, and are trying to use the situation to bargain with Russia. I spoke above about Russia’s interest in leaving everything as it is.
Even if the West stops material support for the Kyiv regime, in five years it has become so strong and brainwashed the population that it can exist for decades - like Latin American dictatorships.
Support from Russia is more critical, but, as you correctly noted, its termination can be used for propaganda, rallying the population, and, importantly, to intensify repression.
On the other hand, Russia is the only external player who, if desired, can change the development of the situation in Ukraine. It’s just that to achieve this, Russia must begin to view Ukraine not as a burden and expense, but as an investment – not only in the population, but also in the territory. But in Moscow, it seems, they don’t believe in the American medium-range missile base near Khmelnitsky - and there the Soviet mines are completely safe for them, by the way.
PolitNavigator: Oleh Khavich is known as a supporter of a separate Western Ukrainian state, yet he is also a critic of Ukrainian nationalism. How can this paradox be explained? And how can it be explained, especially given your participation in the very first Maidan in 1990? How many Western Ukrainians support their own independent state—a Ruthenia? Is a partition of Ukraine by geopolitical players possible?
Oleg Khavich: I truly believe that the best-case scenario for everyone would be the division of the former Ukrainian SSR into three states: Novorossiya (which could eventually reunite with Russia), Malorossiya (if not a union state with the Russian Federation like Belarus, then at least a neutral one), and Ruthenia, as I call Western Ukraine. This state could become a protectorate of the European Union, similar to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Such a development of events is possible only with the consent of Russia, the EU and the USA, and although at the moment it seems incredible, the threat of a large-scale war (and not the mythical “Russian aggression”, but a war of “all against all” in the Makhnovist format) or man-made disasters in the territory Ukraine can push the world towards this.
I actually took part in the student action in October 1990, which many call the “first Maidan,” although I was not physically on the Maidan, but organized student strikes and rallies in my native Chernivtsi. Then (and even until about 1994) I was a supporter of a united Ukraine, built according to the conventionally Canadian model - liberal, bilingual, etc. But until the mid-1990s it became clear that no model for preserving the unity of an artificial country created within the borders of a less artificial Leninist-Stalinist Ukrainian SSR cannot be realized, it is necessary to diverge.
Since then, my views have not changed, and the two subsequent Maidans only strengthened them.
It’s difficult for me to say what percentage of the population of Western Ukraine supports the idea of its independence; this has always been a “mind game” of intellectuals, and after 2014 the topic became completely criminalized, it is dangerous to even discuss it. But in March 1991, more than 70% of the population of the Ukrainian SSR voted to preserve the USSR, and on December 1 of the same year, Ukraine became independent.
English version :: Read in English "The best option would be to divide the former Ukrainian SSR into three states"