Address By Yuri Scherbak, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of Ukraine, At the Plenary Session of the Days of Science,
National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy, Kyiv, Ukraine, Jan 30, 2004
Published by the "UKRAINE REPORT" 2004, Number 20, Feb 4, 2004

At that time, Ukrainian geopolitics had no chance. The two repartitions of the world in Paris and Yalta took place without the participation of Ukraine. The main geopoliticians of Ukraine in the Soviet period were Stalin and Khrushchev. Our geopolitical fate was decided not at the negotiating table but in the bloody battlefields of the World Wars I and II, and during the disastrous arms race in the course of the Cold War. Ukrainians fought for their future place in the world in the ranks of the Red Army, partisan troops, and OUN-UPA brigades.

As Oleksandr Dovzhenko wrote in 1943, "The fate of the humankind is decided in Ukrainian fields and villages, in fire and flame, on our misfortune. So ill-fated is our land. So miserable is our lot."

The situation changed dramatically within a few days in 1991 when our newborn state found itself caught in the turmoil of the geopolitical passions associated with the dissolution of the USSR, fall of the Berlin Wall, liquidation of the Warsaw bloc and so-called world socialism system, and disintegration of Yugoslavia.

All at once, Ukraine had to experience harsh challenges of history: the lack of trust in the young state, pressure from the USA and Russia because of the nuclear weapons located on our territory, encroachments on the Crimea, and all the other problems that suddenly arose called for immediate solution.

A difficult choice had to be made in conditions of lack of time for reflection, immense shortage of human resources and immature character of public institutions, in a period when many political dogmas of the previous era were undergoing transformation.

First of all, the very notion of "geopolitics" has changed. It is no longer limited to the geographic, spatial, or territorial component. The imperfection of the territorial or demographic criteria becomes obvious when one takes into account that, in terms of its territory, Ukraine is similar to such diverse states as the Central African Republic, Madagascar, Somalia, Afghanistan, and France and, by its population size, to Congo, Italy, Meaner, South Korea, and South Africa.

New geopolitical approaches take into consideration the availability of economic, information, communication, intellectual, energy, military-technological, and other types of resources. The integration processes, in the course of which new supranational entities are formed and dictate the new geopolitical division of the world, are also of great importance.

The geopolitics of today is not a static scheme in a textbook but a complex dynamic process of interaction and rivalry, the mutual assistance and struggle of states in a regional and global context under conditions of the unipolar world dominated by a single superpower, the United States.

The geopolitical situation of Ukraine, as well as that of other countries of the world, is determined by several fundamental facts of global importance, which dictate the need for active search for our place within the new coordinates of the twenty-first century.

FIRST. The most important events in the beginning of the our century became the terrorist attack of Al-Qaida against the USA on September 11, 2001 and the military operations conducted by the United States and its allies against Afghanistan and Iraq. These events signify the beginning of the new era of asymmetrical wars between civilizations and indicate that the humankind is becoming embroiled in a new geopolitical repartition of the world, in which global contradictions continue to escalate.

This concerns, first of all, the reduction of vital strategic resources such as oil, gas, drinking water, and uranium, given that the global demand of energy resources will increase twice over in twenty years. According to forecasts, OPEC production will skyrocket in 2020 from 28 to 60 million barrels per day. The Persian Gulf will provide supplies to meet more than half of the world oil demand on condition that the existing regimes will not fall a victim to Islamic terrorism. The US military presence in the region of Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea symbolizes the intensification of the struggle for energy resources.

In some aspects the situation reminds of the beginning of the twentieth century with its local wars behind which the glow of the world war was already becoming visible.

SECOND. According to many analysts, intensification of globalization processes makes our time "axial", that is, a time of radical change of the foundation in terms of lifestyle and civilization and transition to a qualitatively new structure of the world order. Geopolitics is becoming more and more actively driven out of the world arena by geoeconomics. Globalization in all its manifestations - both positive and terrorist-negative - is a challenge to nation-states as it limits their sovereignty and promotes the establishment of supranational government structures and informational, financial, economic, and other global networks.

Globalization not only emanates from inventions in the IT sphere but is also the humankind's adaptation to the reduction of the resource base on earth. Those who will have more efficient and resource-saving economies and ensure free access to resources will survive and win.

The challenge of globalization is particularly acute for the Ukrainian state, which has to modify its inefficient structures and functions and abandon a number of conservative and postcommunist ideas of state as a half-autarkic, half-authoritarian entity.

THIRD. Today there are three centers of power and economic might in the world. The United States dominates, being the undoubted leader of the existent world order. This country shows increasingly the features of a new type of empire reminding to some extent the Roman Empire with its legions situated in different parts of the world. Around the USA, the Supranational Mega-coalition is formed, comprising the states professing liberal-market, democratic philosophy, and supporting the USA in its struggle against international terrorism. Our neighbor Poland is a striking example of a new strategic US ally.

Another superpower world center rising on our borders is the European Union. Uniting 25 countries with overall population of 455 million, GDP exceeding ten trillion dollars and the trade volume approaching 30% of the world commerce, the European Union became a geopolitical, geoeconomic and international legal entity having no precedents in the world history which develops as a federal superstate of a new type. After establishment of its own armed forces, the European Union could defy any global power. The role of the EU and its influence on Ukraine will grow exponentially in the twenty-first century.

The third power, able to challenge the United States and the European Union, is China, which has a chance to become in 2025 the second military and economic power in the world and raise the question of a bipolar world in practical dimension, repeating the attempt made by the USSR from the 1950s through the 1980s.

From 1993 to 2002, the annual growth of Chinese exports amounted to 17.3%, and, in 2010, exports from China are expected to exceed America's. China also presents a serious challenge to Russia: its economic potential is five times bigger than that of Russia, its population outnumbers the Russian one eleven times and, in ten years, China will also surpass Russia in the amount of conventional weapons and equalize the stockpiles of strategic nuclear weapons.

And, finally, the FOURTH factor to be considered is Russia, our nearest neighbor, which presents the most serious challenge to Ukraine. Despite the fact that Russia has plumbed the depth of economic and social crisis (its GDP is smaller than that of Italy) and tasted all the bitterness of the European Heartland's geopolitical defeat in its struggle with oceanic America, it restored its imperial mentality and great-power ambitions very soon, as the outcomes of 2003 elections to the State Duma show.

Thanks to the talents of President Vladimir Putin and his team, Russia, just as in the times of Emperors Alexander III or Nicholas II, has returned to the European and world scene as a solid predictable partner and the ally of the USA, Great Britain, and France in two world wars. Russia's obvious aim is to restore its superpower status, yet this time not in the course of military offensive operations but by building a global energy-transport empire.

Within the next thirty years, Russia plans to supply 600 billion cubic meters of gas to China and 300 billion cubic maters to the Republic of Korea. A pipeline from Russia to China will stretch for the distance of 4987 kilometers and be one of the longest in the world. Gas will be supplied to Japan and Turkey.

The USA, which is the biggest oil importer in the world (60% of imports in 2003, 70% in 2010), prepares to purchase Russian oil - up to 10% of its total imports in the near future. American-Russian oil cooperation is supposed to ensure stable supply of Russian energy resources even in case of interrupted supply from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela.

By 2030, the supply of internal gas resources in the EU will drop from 65% to 25%. In such conditions Russia becomes the main gas supplier and this will have far-reaching geopolitical consequences for Europe.

For Ukraine the consequences will be even more serious - taking into account the transit role of our state and high-capacity oil pipeline and gas-transport corridors that belong to Ukraine and are a national security factor and our invaluable national wealth.

According to leading Russian politicians, not only Mr. Zhirinovsky and Mr. Rogozin, Ukraine has to become an integral part of this gas-and-oil empire in the framework of the Agreement on Single Economic Space (SES) as well as other accords.

What should be the best choice for Ukraine under these conditions?

It should be emphasized that since 1994 President Leonid Kuchma has continued and promoted President Leonid Kravchuk's earlier direction at strengthening partnership with the United States, Russia, the UN, and NATO. Here we need to realize the exceptional role of the president of Ukraine in forming our state's foreign policy.

According to Article 106 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the president ensures our state independence and national security, represents the state in foreign affairs and administers the foreign policy activity of Ukraine.

Therefore the President is responsible to the people and history for the policy chosen as well as for the consequences of the decisions made.

Among the President Kuchma's undeniable geopolitical achievements are the following:

- The declaration of Ukraine's strategy of integration into the European Union as well as joining the NATO and the World Trade Organization;

- Signing the large-scale Agreement on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and Russian Federation;

- Signing a number of agreements with neighboring states, in which all border problems have been settled and the policy on friendship and cooperation has been declared. The most important in this context is establishment of the strategic partnership with Poland and setting of close political and economic cooperation with this country;

- Attaining the status of strategic partnership with the Untied States in 1996 as well as joining the antiterrorist coalition and participating in the military operation in Iraq in 2003-2004;

- Taking part in the GUUAM organization, which opens up theoretical possibilities for Ukraine for playing an important role in the Caucasian-Caspian and Central Asia regions.

The aforementioned foreign-policy achievements made by Ukraine have promoted the growth of geopolitical pluralism in the post-Soviet area and yielded international authority for Ukraine.

However, unfortunately, the situation worsened in 2000-2003 due to scandals in related to the Melnychenko tapes, corruption, and confrontation between those in power and the opposition.

These events have seriously damaged the image of Ukraine abroad and reinforced - in the eyes of Western public opinion - the persistent image of undemocratic state. All those who were working in the Embassies of Ukraine at that time know this harsh truth.

Simultaneously, Russia's influence on the internal and, to some extent, foreign political orientation of Ukraine has dramatically intensified. Moscow has used the carrot and stick policy where the conflict regarding Tuzla played the role of the stick and the promise to establish a free trade area within the agreement on the SES the carrot. Here I need to admit that Moscow has clear and coherent strategy regarding Ukraine while Kyiv has not been able to elaborate such a strategy but makes more and more concessions.

We have approached a dangerous edge, the crossing of which might cause the loss of a considerable part of our independence while sliding gradually into a province of a new energy-and-transport empire.

In case of such developments we will not have to celebrate the 350th anniversary of the Pereyaslav Rada. We will have an opportunity to experience ourselves the process of absorption of Ukraine by the Northern giant.

It should be fairly said that the neutral-negative European Union position with regard to Ukraine and sometimes the shortsighted policy of the US administration contribute objectively to all these transitions, which in 2004-2006 could become irreversible. It seems that powerful leaders in the US administration such as the US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice are ready to agree to the attribution of Ukraine to the sphere of Russia's exceptional influence. The Democratic administration of Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, and Strobe Talbott would never have allowed that.

Unfortunately, by focusing on the criticism of current undemocratic practices in Ukraine, the West forgets about the long-run geopolitical perspective, about the existence of deep-rooted democratic traditions of the Ukrainian nation and its European choice.

We believe that the White House will pay attention to the voice of such prominent political thinkers as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, who speak against the resurrection of the Eurasian Empire. Representatives of the Ukrainian Diaspora are also concerned about this. A few days ago they appealed to the US Senate and House of Representatives with letters expressing alarm at the dramatic change in the USA policy toward Ukraine.

Such influential newspapers as the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post call upon the USA and the EU not to allow a defeat of pro-western democratic forces in the post-Soviet countries and particularly in Ukraine.

The Washington Post, in particular, claims that "one of the regions of the world where the US involvement or noninvolvement could be crucial is the former Soviet republics. Almost all the countries are threatened by Moscow's imperialism, which is currently reviving".

What is next?

We have to understand that Ukraine is geopolitically alone today. The Ukrainian car has been detached from the European-Atlantic express and is now waiting on a sidetrack. Eurasian switchmen from outside Ukraine and within the country are trying to hitch the car as soon as possible to the train going in the opposite direction - to the north.

Now it is time to resolve this dilemma - East or West?

We do not have much time to make a choice.

Among possible alternatives of Ukraine's answers to the geopolitical challenge of history we can see the following:

1. Only holding democratic presidential election and reforming the public policy, administrative, and economic systems of Ukraine would give us a chance for a fast joining of NATO and EU, which belongs to the vital interests of the Ukrainian people. We should put an end to the Soviet-style practice of making arrogant statements about noninterference in internal affairs of Ukraine by the Council of Europe, which we recently hear. After all, it was not the Council of Europe who asked for Ukraine to join but Ukraine that committed itself to correspond to European democratic criteria.

2. It is necessary to develop a national strategy of Ukraine's relations with Russia on the basis of equality, respect of sovereignty and mutually beneficial good-neighbor policy with our big neighbor. Indeed it is impossible even to think about increasing enmity with Russia, only because somebody does not like "Moskali". That type of policy would be absolutely destructive for Ukraine. But not less dangerous and impermissible is the Little Russian servility to the "elder brother."

We need an honest, responsible, and considered dialog with Moscow. We have to take into account Russian economic energy-transport interests, but at the same time the margin of Ukrainian concessions should be clearly defined. The team of pragmatists in Kremlin understands such language much better than Kyiv's unpredictable permanent straddling.

3. Poland is a reliable geopolitical partner of Ukraine in its movement to Europe. A very close military, political, and economic union between Ukraine and Poland, as well as with the Baltic States, should be one of the priorities in the Ukrainian foreign policy in the twenty-first century. We should also pay more attention to Belarus, irrespective of the current circumstances, which could change.

4. All efforts must be taken to renew the relationship of strategic partnership with the United States and to ensure Ukraine's accession to the Supranational Mega-coalition which is being created for the sake of protecting democracy and the values of Christian civilization.

Ukraine's joining NATO, whose zone of influence could spread to South Africa, the Middle East, and Caspian Region, would strengthen our geopolitical position and should take place as soon as possible. Within this context it would be appropriate to locate a NATO base on the Ukrainian territory.

5. Very important is a strengthening of special partnership relations with Canada which has to play more effective role in Ukrainian foreign policy. Canada could be our best teacher because its Parliamentary system is functioning excellent, civil society is established and highest social standards are implemented.

6. The strategic goal of Ukraine should be its transformation into a regional leading state in the area of Central Eastern and Southern Europe, the state which would be a reliable partner of Poland, Belarus, Moldova, Greece, Israel, and other countries of the region, guaranteeing stability in this very important region of the world.

Dear friends, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy students!

In the nearest future you will become responsible for Ukraine's destiny in the twenty-first century, its strategic significance and geopolitical role.

Let us remember that in our changing and changeable world, where nothing seems to be permanent, there are only two sacred things that cannot be discussed:

These are the independence of Ukraine and its democratic development.

Remember our past, answer today's challenges, and a create worthy future for Ukraine.