Maidan

In the modern world we can see how particular states with the aim of improving their domestic and international position, develop geopolitical concepts which reflect their national interests. Geopolitics enables them to identify their priorities and basic ideological parameters, which provide a “guiding star” whether this to become powerful in today’s world, or to find a way out of isolation, or to become involved in the process of integration of countries which is already gathering pace.

Both Ukraine and Russia are integral participants and geopolitical players.  However we plan here to move away from common denominators and focus on Ukraine, looking at the country through the prism of the ideological mouthpieces of Russian State foreign policy concepts.  One needs first to define the basic directions, objectives and aims of Russia in their foreign policy plans. Through this analysis we will view the role and place designated Ukraine as an independent participant in international relations.

At the very outset one should note that as far back as 1992 the issue of relations between the countries of the former USSR (in particular Ukraine) was one which provoked heated debate, in the course of which various political factions criticized the government of the Russian Federation (RF) for underestimating “the near abroad”, insisted on the development of special relations and the rejection in Soviet times of geo-politics as a science. Unfortunately, it was declared a “false science”, exploited by “western imperialists”.  As a result this is a new phenomenon for the academic milieu in modern Russia.  There are simply no fundamental works showing the view of Ukraine held by Russian geopolitical thinkers.  The majority of works which can provide the necessary material are of an inter-disciplinary nature (the authors being historians or economists) which, of course, narrows the framework of the analysis we are carrying out and has an impact on the quality of the work.  However, we would like to mention that this is the first step towards a study of the issue in question and we can confidently say that we are “explorers” of new ground in this field.

Looking back into history one remembers that Russia was declared an empire in 1721 and remained one until 1917.  Then after 1922 the Russian Empire transformed itself into the Soviet Union which ceased to exist in 1991. The question arises: “Has the imperialist idea been retained in Russia, or did it vanish together with the past?”  In the given case, one must definitely pay attention to the Russian mentality, to “what Russians want and dream of. Russians are ready to make incredible sacrifices and accept difficulties in their life as long as the national idea, the Great Russian Dream can be implemented and developed.  And the nation sees the limits of this dream at very least in the empire [1]. The Russian writer A. Bushkov [2] takes approximately the same note asserting the aspiration of the Russian people to sacrifice their very life for the sake of the imperial might of their country.  Returning to Mr Putin, one should note that he is developing the “imperial theme” further. According to his concept, Russia was from the start a potential empire state [3]. And the Russian people unwaveringly moved towards building an empire and towards expansion of their civilization.  In this it proved so inextricably linked with the geopolitical reality that its experiences, its consciousness, its spiritual perception formed the psychology of the people, becoming one of the main defining elements of their identity [4].

What is interesting in these reflections is the position that the rejection of empire building would mean «the end of the existence of the Russian people as a historical reality, as a civilization.  Such a rejection would be national suicide” [5]. The loss of empire dimensions for Russians means the end and failure of its role in civilization, the defeat of its spiritual and cultural system of values, the collapse of its universalistic and messianic aspirations, the devaluing and discrediting of all its national ideology which sustained many generations of the Russian people and which imparted strength and energy for feats, creativity, struggle and the overcoming of adversity [6]. Thus, according to such a concept, the Russian people exist only within the framework of the empire and as soon as the latter disappears, then the people also cease to exist.

Another ideologist of the imperialist idea, K. S. Gadzhiyev, points out that the very geo-strategic position thanks to which Russia is spread out over an expanse which combines Europe and Asia in a single Eurasian continent, enables it to become a great State[7]. That is it is officially recognized that Russia is an empire with all the attributes which this involves. 

It follows from this that the rebirth of a Slavonic State (with an obligatory leading role held by the Russian people and Russia) on the territory from the Pacific Ocean to the Carpathian Mountains is the law for the organization of the national-state life of the Russian people. [8].

If the empire is to unite into one whole, then an absolute condition must be the reuniting of the dispersed Russian people (the Russians themselves, the “Little Russians” (i.e. Ukrainians) and Belorussians, as well as the overcoming of negative phenomena engendered by anti-Slavonic forces [9].

This is together with the concepts of the creation of an empire and “the voluntary reuniting of the Slavonic peoples, the messianic idea, of Russia being chosen as the centre of the Orthodox world.  Panslavism has gained a second breath in our times. And while it is the Russian Orthodox Church and insignificant monarchist circles which are acting as ideological mouthpieces, the concept finds an attentive audience in society which in a state of ideological vacuum which clutch at anything as long as it gives them the chance to feel confident again in their sense of being unique and chosen by God.  Here again we have the assertion regarding the “division of the Orthodox peoples ((Russian with the appearance on the horizon of Ukrane (sic!), Belorus and other sovereign states of the former USSR where the Russian population is in the millions), or of those who have faced direct intervention (such as the Serbs and the Montenegrins), or those who are in blocs antagonistic to the Orthodox world (like the Greeks in NATO),or who want to follow those who have already joined (like the Romanians, the Bulgarians and the befuddled by the ideology of “Ukrainian separatism” South-Russians (!))  The Byzantine geopolitical leader of the Orthodox world is Russia [10]. In order to maintain such a high status, there must be “a calming of foreign (in the CIS) political and ethnic separatism, and also the initiation of the beginning of a contemporary vitally important process of “gathering together Russian lands” [11].

In contemporary geopolitical distribution in Ukraine “there are a lot of opportunities” to retain ones independence and remain a separate, independent participant in international politics. However, rather than jump to premature conclusions, we should analyze how Ukraine’s independence is viewed in modern Russian geopolitical thinking. To begin with we should analyze the assessment and significance of Ukraine’s independence for Russia in the opinion of the former adviser on national security to the President of the USA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, according to which “Ukraine’s independence has sent a challenge to Russian claims to a God-given role as flag-bearer of the entire pan-Slavonic community ”[12]. And also: “...the appearance of an independent State of Ukraine has not only forced all Russians to rethink the nature of their own political and ethnic identity, but it has highlighted the great geopolitical  failure of the Russian State. The loss of a potentially rich industrial and agricultural economy and 52 million people, ethnically and religiously closely linked with Russians, who were capable of turning Russia into a truly great and confident State. Ukraine’s independence has also deprived Russia of its dominant position on the Black Sea. Ukraine’s political sovereignty has become an example for other Soviet republics name="#_ftn13">”[13]. A similar position is espoused by Y. Morozov who asserts that “control over Ukraine is a prerequisite not only for implementing Russia’s geopolitical goals, but also for the latter’s very existence” name="#_ftn14">[14].

Within Russian society the establishment of an independent Ukrainian State met with varied reactions, some reconciling themselves, while others considered it to be a unique and unlawful act.  Another group perceives its historical role to be to convince the Ukrainian elite that it has a greater vested interest in such a union that Russia itself does. This group claims that there is no such thing and never has been as a single nation of Ukrainians, and that Ukraine as a historically artificial formation is much more subject to division than the Soviet Union proved to be [15]. Representatives of the part of society which reconciled themselves with the fact of Ukraine’s independence, see the latter’s future only in a union with Russia, claiming that “Ukraine’s self-preservation is possible not in the western world, but here in a Union of Eurasian peoples (with Russia undoubtedly at the helm)” [16]. However this new State union is called, the Russian Empire, the USSR, the Single Economic Realm, the Eurasian Union, the essence remains the same – Mother Russia will look after all members of the union better than they themselves can.

A reasonable question arises among Russian geopolitical theorists: “why such Ukrainian concern about “Ukraine’s independent sailing the geopolitical sea?”  It turns out this is because of a “conspiracy theory” against Russia. Freemasons, Zionists, Americans and others “Russia in its variant as the USSR or as the Russian Empire” always restricted someone’s freedom of movement” name="#_ftn17">[17]. And if Ukraine, as we have already considered above is an “unnatural, artificial” creation, this means that “Ukraine’s sovereignty … plays the role of an instrument for destroying the Eurasian realm, the establishment and maintenance in it of the political domination of the West, or, more correctly, the ruling force of the West – the USA” [18].

The support of a part of the Russian political elite for the collapse of the Ukrainian State, as an antagonistic creation, is entirely logical.  This position is taken by the prominent Russian political scientist, journalist and presenter of the television program “Odnako” [“However”], Mikhail Leontyev.  “If one speaks about Russian policy, then in my view, Russia’s task is to make the process of collapse of the State going under the name Ukraine as gentle as possible” [19]. Ideas about Ukraine’s collapse have long been circulating among members of the Russian “patriotic” community. Previously the point of view was that such a process would take place along a line dividing “West – East”. Supposedly “the westerners” would break away, and the historically related “East” would be reunited with Russia. This hypothesis has evolved noticeably. “The Slavonic brothers” now divide Ukraine into four centres. The nucleus – the central and northern region is the area where the classical “khokhly” [= Ukrainians) settled.  The West is the centre of the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) movement and of extreme nationalism.

The East is the industrial region with a large percentage of Russians. The South is the coastal band that was Novorossiya (New Russia) with the Crimea which is trying to drift away from Ukraine. [20] According to the theory of “Geo-strategist -Greater Russians” all parts except the West will at different times “reunite” with their brother nation, while Halychyna and the other lands, the region which remains, face an unenviable fate.: “Well, as far as Halychyna is concerned, there can be no argument – let that snake-pit be absolutely independent without any links at all with Russia and the new Ukraine”. [21].

Another important issue related to the geopolitical aspirations of the Russians is their position regarding the expansion of NATO and Ukraine’s possible entry. “…. Russia’s isolation in Europe is becoming a reality. And with each new member accepted into NATO, this isolation will become more and more entrenched. Our country in the near future could find itself cut off once and for all from the processes of European integration” [22]. That is, the expansion of NATO creates conditions which jeopardize Russia’s security[23], and Ukraine’s joining the bloc is considered within the framework of anti-Russian strategy.  [24]. From this point of view Ukraine’s joining of NATO, favourable for Ukraine, would transform the country from a friendly neighbour to one of the Russia’s enemies. This was made clear, incidentally, by the RF Minister of Defence, Ivanov, who stated that “Russia will review the socio-economic policy of the RF as regards Ukraine if the latter joins the Alliance”.

In analyzing geopolitical concepts, we have mainly concentrated on people from various political factions who reflect either their own position or that of the group whom they represent.  However in order to gain a complete picture, we need to study the official position taken by the Kremlin. We will base this on a State document which demonstrates the key foreign policy concepts of the RF as regards Ukraine [25].

First of all it is worth taking note of the positive aspect in the report which is based on economic principles for further closer cooperation of both sides, and on objectives which are considered most realistic and highest priority. [26]. As a whole it needs to be mentioned that the “horizontal” (without Russia) integration of Ukraine into the CIS in the role of leader, presents a challenge to the national security of Russia in carrying out its politics in the “near abroad” [27].  The activity of Ukraine related to “horizontal” integration of the post-Soviet realm will place the integration opportunities of Russia in question[28]. By its active engagement among the countries of the commonwealth, in the opinion of Russian specialists, Kyiv would be making a statement about adopting a leading role in this region and by so doing, would be seriously harming Russia’s national interests [29]. In the document quoted attention should be given to two concepts which are presented in relation to Ukraine’s active engagement in the post-Soviet realm – the national security and national interests of Russia.  It is to be regretted that speculation around these concepts misleads both academics working in this field and the average person on the street. It is therefore our task in researching this is to uncover the real meaning of the above-mentioned terms. The most detailed and comprehensive analysis of the concepts of “national security and national interests” was carried out by O. Arin in his study “The World without Russia”[30].  On the basis of a study of the works of western specialists in geo-politics he suggests the following definitions for the terms: national security is the category of policy embracing the ways, forms and methods of safeguarding the national interests of the State both within the country, and within the structure of international relations; national interests refer to the category of policy reflecting the (subjective) understanding of the objective needs of the State [31]. As we see, security follows from national interests. O. Arin goes on to classify national interests, highlighting several groups: fundamental interests (territorial integrity, independence or political sovereignty, preservation of the reigning system, that is, the political and economic regime, economic development and prosperity, protection of the national and cultural identity of the country) and strategic or tactical (the extension of fundamental interests, specifically, the expansion of  the country’s territory at the expense of other nation’s territory, the gaining of control over the sovereignty of other participants of world politics, the attempt to impose ones own system of rule and values on others) [32]. One can thus draw the conclusion that the domination of Ukraine in the political realm of the CIS could place in jeopardy Russia’s integrity, sovereignty, economic development and other aspects….

One gains the impression that this document was created either by complete dilettantes or by people deliberately trying to mislead the population.  It would be difficult to imagine how Ukraine with its smaller territory, lesser significance in international politics and potential could pose a threat to Russia as a State.

The Kremlin’s position with regard to establishing and developing links with “the far abroad”, first of all with western States is of interest. Our Moscow colleagues consider that closer ties will maintain the conflict potential in Russian – Ukrainian interrelations[33].  From the above-mentioned it can be concluded that any active role of Ukraine in international politics which is not guided and cannot be controlled by Moscow shall be deemed to pose a threat to Russia and the latter’s national interests and to be a demonstration of the anti-Russian policy which “enemy forces” launch against the “Third Rome”.

Obviously, in today’s Russia there are politicians and specialists in the field of international relations who hold diametrically opposite views, however they do not have influence on the development of the modern geopolitical line taken by the Russian Federation. Opposing views are presented by those from the liberal – democratic wing (the parties “Yabloko” and “Soyuz pravykh sil” [Union of Right Forces], which unfortunately are not represented either in the executive or legislative branches of power.

In concluding my analysis of the concepts relating to Ukraine in Russia’s geopolitical realm, I would like to present the conclusion drawn in an article by a political analyst espousing the “classical” world view principles which presently in the majority of cases formulate modern policy of the Russian Federation with regard to independent Ukraine.

«The greatest domestic national problem for Russians as of today should be considered the “Ukrainian” question. The lack of resolution of this issue could lead to a real tragedy the scale of which would be difficult to imagine.  Any variants are possible, including even a war along the lines of that in Yugoslavia. If Russian society and the State do not act in response to the emergence on  Little Russian territory of a Ukrainian State, and do not try to expose the Russo-phobic myths which are being assiduously inculcated in Ukrainian society and in the minds of Little Russians living on Russian territory, then in a very short space of time our Motherland will possibly come up against  unstoppable problems presented by a Ukrainian State which has joined NATO and is ready for war with Russian as a part of any coalitions.

«Ukrainism” which is in confrontation with the Orthodox Church, with Russian statehood and with the unity of the Russian people must be extracted from the Russian body as one extracts a harmful virus, freeing us from that ideological fog which prevents many Russians from seeing the greatest harm from the “Ukrainian movement”.  Nationally-minded Russian people, must, for the sake of the future Russian people, under no circumstances recognize the right to exist of a state of “Ukraine”, of a “Ukrainian people” and a “Ukrainian language”. History knows neither the first, nor the second nor the third of these – they do not exist. They are fetishes created by the ideology of our enemies [34] .

Mykola Malukha
Murmansk, Russia

kolyamba-jf@yandex.ru

[1]  Dugin, A. G.: Rossiya nie nyslima byez imperii {Russia is inconceivable without the empire  Foreign Policy and security of contemporary Russia  V. 1, book 1 – Moscow: Moscow Social Scientific Foundation; ООО «Publishing Centre for scientific and academic programs», 1999. – p. 98.
[2]  Bushkov, A.A., Burovskoy, A.M.: Rossiyi kotoroy nie bylo [The Russia that never was. Russian Atlantida. A historical investigation. – Krasnoyarsk: Bonus, M. OLMA-PRESS, 2001. – p. 498.
[3]  Dugin, A. G.: Rossiya nie nyslima byez imperii  Foreign Policy and security of contemporary Russia  V. 1, book 2 – Moscow: Moscow Social Scientific Foundation; ООО «Publishing Centre for scientific and academic programs», 1999. – p. 99.
[4] ibid
[5] ibid. p. 100.
[6] ibid. p. 103.
[7] Gadzhiyev, K.S.:  From bi-polar to a new configuration of geopolitical forces. / Ibid. p. 69.
[8] Demin, V. M.:  The intelligentsia of today and the Russian national idea. – Moscow – Omsk “Russkaya pravda”, 2003 – p. 33
[9]. Ibid, p. 103. 
[10] Smolin, M.  Imperskoye geopolitychnoye budushche Rossiyi [The Imperial geopolitical future of Russia] // Imperiya knig, 2005. № 14. April, p. 1
[11] ibid,  p. 2
[12] Brzezinski, Z.  “THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives", Basic Books, 1997.  (here from Moscow: International Relations, 2005 – p. 110)
[13] Ibid, pp. 114-115.
[14] Ulyanov, N.I.: Ukrainian separatism.  Moscow: Printing presses Eksmo and Algoritm, 2004 – p. 9
[15] SNG: nachalo ili konets istoriyi? [The CIS: the beginning or the end of history?]/ Foreign Policy and security of contemporary Russia  V. 1, book 1 – Moscow: Moscow Social Scientific Foundation; ООО «Publishing Centre for scientific and academic programs», 1999. p. 36.
[16] Godin, Y., Rudkov, A.: God save us from another such victory // Vremya. – 16 December. – 2004. – p. 5.
[17] Parshev, A.  Pochemu America nastupayit [Why America is advancing]. – M.: OОО «Publishing house ACT»: ООО « Publishing House Astrel», 2002. – p. 173.
[18] Ulyanov, N.I.: Ukrainian separatism.  Moscow: Publishing houses Eksmo and Algoritm, 2004 – p. 25.
[19]  [M. Leontyev: Yushchenko’s Pyrrhic victory]  (link in the Ukrainian original)
[20]  Svetlov, R. Friends and enemies of Russia: a pocket reference guide. – St Petersburg: Amfora, 2002. – pp. 153-154.
[21] Ulyanov, N.I.: Ukrainian separatism.  Moscow: Publishing houses Eksmo and Algoritm, 2004 – p. 84.
[22]  Maksimychev, I. F. The threats to Russia’s security in connection with the beginning of NATO expansion: (Foreign policy aspects]  / Foreign Policy and security of contemporary Russia  V. 1, book 1 – Moscow: Moscow Social Scientific Foundation; ООО «Publishing Centre for scientific and academic programs», 1999. – p 430. 
[23] Ibid, p.  439.
[24] Ibid, p.  442.
[25] On the problems of collective security of the member-states of the CIS: Series: Problems of National Security – 1 // Council of the Federation of the Federal Association of the Russian Federation. Committee on matters related to the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Committee on security and defence. Information and analysis department.  Analytical herald. - № 1 (89). – 1999.
[26]  Ibid. p. ProductID="68. A">68. A similar concept is apparent in another work, however there the main objective, besides financial and economic dependence, is seen as dependence in the energy sphere: Sidorov, O. N. Geopolitical interests of the Russian Federation in relation to neighbouring countries // Analytic. – № 6. – 2004. – p. 8.
[27] Ibid. p. 72.
[28] Ibid. p.  74.
[29] Ibid. p.. 75.
[30] Arin, O. A.  Mir byez Rossiyi [The World without Russia. – M.: Publishing house Eksmo, 2002.
[31] Ibid. p..385
[32] Ibid. pp. 382-383.
[33] On the problems of collective security of the member-states of the CIS: Series: Problems of National Security … p. 75.
[34] Smolin, M. “The Ukrainian fog must lift and  the Russian sun rise” // Moscow. – 1996. - № 2. – p. 162.\