The author believes that thesis that the country is forced to resolve its own problems with its owm means would be further stressed.
The most influential candidates find it hard to offer something radically new. Alternatives remain the same: European Union, NATO and Russia. However, the programs of presidential candidates contain less rhetoric and more specifics. Under these circumstances Kyiv has at least three key options: remain the post-Soviet republic within the ‘Russian world’ , take the painful path of liberalization and modernization for EU accession, or try to stay on the fragile bridge between Western and Orthodox civilizations, trying to benefit from mediation.
Despite annexation of Crimea, which remains unrecognized by the international community, the main candidates rather discreetly outlined foreseen relations with Russia. Yulia Tymoshenko was the most radical saying: “Out common home had faced another disaster. Russian Federation, despite all the international treaties and international law, made a military aggression against Ukraine”. She promised voters to return Crimean peninsula to Ukraine and quickly get rid of any form of dependence on country’s northern neighbor. Renewing friendly relations would be possible with “non-Putin, democratic Russia”, released ex-prime minister said.
Nationalist Oleg Tyagnibok is ready to “punish” Russia for occupation of Crimea, including an “introduction visa regime with Russia and visa-free regime with EU countries”. He demands to “exclude the Russian Federation from all international organizations, the principles of which it had violated”. In addition, the head of ‘Svoboda’ promises to eliminate the “Moscow agents” in Ukraine. A similar thesis was made by his ideological twin, the leader of ‘Pravyi Sector’ Dmytro Yaroch. The mechanisms of special services resistance were not specified, as well as the criteria for individuals who may be considered “the fifth column of the Kremlin”.
Poroshenko has softer position. He foresees the possible settlement of Crimean conflict within the diplomatic arena, and plans to de-escalate the issue and resume cooperation with Russia, referring to “primarily economic cooperation, but given the irreversibility of our European choice and territorial integrity of Ukraine”.
Another businessman, former member of Party of Regions, Sergiy Tihipko, harshly criticized “the mindless quest to search for foreign patrons”. The politician, who finished third in the 2010 elections, promises to resume talks with Russia in all spheres - on the pragmatic basis only. However, he considers the plans to return Crimea, promising to prepare “a plan of restoration of territorial integrity of the country in hitherto borders”.
The candidates from traditionally pro-Russian forces, ie the Communist Party and the Party of Regions, Petro Symonenko and Mykhailo Dobkin, spoke in favor of Moscow. But this time much more cautiously, if comparing to former Russophile rhetoric. The former head of the Kharkiv Regional State Administration frankly admitted his hopes for rapid restoration of friendship with Russia. Moreover, Dobkin spoke directly about his desire to stay in the cultural space of ‘Russian World’, calling for “creation of a common humanitarian space”. “I should ensure the rights of Russian language in Ukraine on the legislative level, I should defend our common Russian-Ukrainian culture and tradition” - electoral successor of Yanukovych promised. Symonenko, while striving to restore good relations with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan (ie , the Customs Union ), still would prefer non-alignment and neutral status of Ukraine .
Oleg Tyagnybok took it seriously demanding precise terms and conditions of Ukraine's accession to NATO. He was angered this Russian aggression, ready to demand from members of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 “the actual but not paper guarantees”. Moreover, he intended to sign an agreement with the United States and Great Britain on “immediate military assistance to Ukraine in case of military aggression “. Dmytro Yarosh had similar argument on cooperation with NATO and “other international security agencies to prevent the external threats”.
The Alliance topic was raised only by nationalists. Tymoshenko connected the issue of national security with the EU. Tigipko suggested using “the conflict of interests and a special buffer situation of the country as leverage". Finally, Poroshenko stressed that Ukraine can protect itself by its own means only. Similarly, Symonenko also called for the restoration of Ukrainian defense industry. Dobkin promised full transition to contract-based army “of professionals who would be able to protect its (Ukraine’s - Ed.) interests”.
Given the wave of ‘EU supporters’ which covered Ukraine in the winter of 2013, EU-related issues enjoy surprisingly little attention in the candidates' programs. Tigipko did not even mention the EU, insisting on “tough and independent foreign policy”. Dobkin decided to integrate into the Customs Union, and Symonenko routinely accused the West of greed and making Ukraine a “resource area”. Tymoshenko, by contrast, promised to sign the Association Agreement in full by the end of this year and agree on visa-free regime. Poroshenko thought about the prospects of EU membership. Yarosh proposed enjoying the present scope of the association. At the same time, the leader of ‘Pravyi Sector’ is going to achieve visa-free travel and the right of official employment in EU member countries. Tyagnybok did not speak directly about joining the EU, but was going to turn Ukraine into “geopolitical center of Europe”.
Other geopolitical alternatives may be found in the programs of right-wing forces representatives only, ie ‘Svoboda’ and ‘Pravyi Sector’. They both insist on strengthening cooperation with the Baltic- Black Sea axis (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland , Bulgaria, Turkey , Georgia, and possibly Belarus), offering conditional ‘third way’ to balance the pressure between the East and the West. Yarosh did not forget about Asia: he planned to strengthen economic cooperation with “China, Southeast Asia and the Arab world”. Given the considerable efforts of the Foreign Ministries of Poland and Sweden, as well as lobbying of Ukraine’s interests in the EU by the Baltic states, this option seemed like a compromise considering the confrontation between Washington and Brussels on one hand and Moscow on the other.
The apparent restraint regarding the EU even in the programs of most pro-European candidates ambiguously indicates a weakening of ‘Western Hopes’ in politics. Pro-Western Ukrainian politicians come to understand that Ukraine must learn to deal independently with foreign policy challenges, not to mention the internal reforms. On the other hand, maintaining Russophile rhetoric by presidential candidates, targeting the electorate of eastern regions is a worrying sign. Presidential campaign may again deepen ideological conflict between the regions. The thesis that the country has to resolve own problems and this would be a good lesson for Ukraine will be formulated more and more clearly.
