Editor’s Note: This op-ed was originally published in the Novoe Vremya magazine and is republished with permission.
There is a quote popular among American academia, generally attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt: “He’s a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” There are different interpretations as to whom the remark applied; Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza, or Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo. Both were authoritarian leaders and relied heavily on the support of the United States, as the Americans turned a blind eye to questionable actions in these countries in exchange for loyalty.
It’s been 80 years since Roosevelt supposedly said this, but double standards and simplifications have not disappeared. Part of the Western establishment was surprised to find out they do not understand anything about what is happening in Ukraine. Western partners would like to have a predictable leader, but it’s not that simple: the current president is in a desperate fight and has few qualms about distributing money and administrative resources to make it to a second round against the “comedian” and the “populist” – referring to candidates Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Yulia Tymoshenko.
What happened is a result of mistakes made by all participants; a Ukrainian society that allows corrupt officials to gain power; new leaders who decide to stay away from the elections; and the West itself which turns a blind eye to corruption, nepotism and lies while continuing to issue loans and “forgiving” budget looting.
A close associate of former Vice President Joe Biden admitted in a conversation with me that several years ago the Americans had issued two ultimatums to the Kyiv authorities. Since President Petro Poroshenko and then-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk were competing with each other, the ultimatums concerned both camps: Yatsenyuk was required to get rid of the lawmaker and fellow party member Mykola Martynenko, while Poroshenko had to fire Viktor Shokin, then-Prosecutor General.
Both goals were achieved and Ukraine received more financial aid, but the systemic problems with corruption have not vanished. After this, “Ukraine fatigue” began, when the West got tired of asking for more change than the Ukrainians were prepared to undertake. And in 2016, a new U.S. president was elected and Donald Trump’s administration was much more loyal to the empty promises of Bankova.
Now the Munich Security Conference showed the confusion of the West. Some politicians just put their relations with Ukraine on hold while others are ready to support Poroshenko for the sake of stability and not jumping headlong into the unknown. Thus, they repeat a well-known mistake of President George H. W. Bush, who, several weeks before Ukraine proclaimed independence in August 1991, urged the Verkhovna Rada not to demand independence.
There is an English expression – elephant in the room – meaning there is an obvious problem or difficult situation that people do not want to discuss. Stephen Sackur, moderator of the Ukrainian lunch in Munich and an English journalist who hosts HARDtalk, a current affairs interview program on BBC World News, tried to omit the fact that the situation with Ukraine is more nuanced than it looks to the West. However, he could not help but comment, “In a year, anyone could be here as a new president. Poroshenko, Tymoshenko or (Anatoliy) Grytsenko. Who knows what could be. Even Zelenskiy can become a president.”
Western countries are eager to applaud Ukrainian reforms when they occur, but seem to avoid discussing why the Ukrainian leaders that they supported are so unpopular among their own people. And when they agreed with Poroshenko’s promises to eradicate corruption, Yuriy Lutsenko’s promises to dismiss Head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office Nazar Kholodnytskiy, Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman’s declarations to fight smuggling and First Deputy Prime Minister Stepan Kubiv’s commitment to launch privatization and corporatisation, then they would allow themselves to be happily deceived.
The current position of the West is understandable: a change of power in Ukraine means an exit from the comfort zone, having to build relations with the new administration from scratch. But keeping silence on election violations is even more dangerous. This is the West betraying their own principles of fair elections to benefit a particular candidate – a more predictable one, which causes them less stress.
In fact, Ukraine has a very simple way to avoid provoking their partners’ discomfort – become a “normal” state. The change of power in Sweden, Slovenia or Portugal is of little concern in Washington or Brussels, because they know these countries even passing through crises would remain “normal.”
In the meantime, we are playing against ourselves in key issues of international politics. According to surveys discussed at the Munich Conference, the idea of imposing sanctions against Russia is unpopular in Germany and France – two crucial EU countries. Forty-three percent of the French population opposes it (and 33 percent are in favor) and, even more shockingly, 75 percent of Germans oppose the sanctions (17 percent support them).
One can blame Russian lobbyists and propaganda. The problem however is in the Ukrainian government itself which, because of greed, has destroyed the country’s reputation. Sooner or later, European politicians under pressure from their citizens will think whether it makes sense to sacrifice for those who could not rid their own country of corruption. And at the end of the day this, and not the presidential elections, will become Ukraine’s largest geopolitical fiasco.
Sergii Leshchenko is a member of Ukraine’s parliament and a former journalist.
English translation by Olena Goncharova.
