British Expert Speaks on Challenges and Prospects of Ukrainian-Russian Relations

The forty-sixth Shevchenko Lecture was held at the University of Alberta in Edmonton on March 9, 2012. The co-organizers of this prestigious event, the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies and the Ukrainian Professional and Business Club of Edmonton, were privileged to host a distinguished guest speaker from the United Kingdom, James Sherr, whose subject was “Ukraine and the Russian Question.” A senior fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House (London), he came to Edmonton from Ottawa, where he took part in an international conference: “Ukraine at the Crossroads” held March 7-8.

In his presentation, Mr. Sherr analysed the Russian factor in the current Ukrainian historical and political situation. Speaking about the legacy of Kyivan Rus’, which Russians claim as the wellspring of the imperial tradition constructed by their eighteenth-century tsars, he noted that while some specifics of the Russo-Ukrainian relationship may have changed with Ukraine’s declaration of independence in 1991, its fundamental nature has not. He referred in particular to the complex issue of identity, which has been at the core of recurring tensions between the two nations. Citing Vladimir Putin’s recent article on the national question in Russia, Sherr noted its concept of a common Russian civilization with the Russian nation as its constituent core. This notion has invariably served to justify imperial expansion into neighboring regions.

Mr. Sherr argued that there have been no significant changes in Russia’s attitude toward Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Recovering from what in Putin’s words was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the Twentieth Century,” today’s Russian leadership seeks to restore Moscow’s former “sphere of influence” and recapture the proud past of the Russian Imperial State. The recent war with Georgia, the territorial provocations at Tuzla, the use of energy as a political tool, and attempts to thwart Ukraine’s European aspirations are all indications of Russia’s real intentions with regard to Ukraine. Russia certainly feels threatened because of its loss of superpower status, said Mr. Sherr, but this threat is directed primarily against its imperial legacy and identity, as well as its increasingly authoritarian political culture. Putin’s anti-Western attitude and traditional Soviet-era beliefs strike a responsive chord with many Russians, which allows him to advance his current political agenda, while Europe and other Western countries are preoccupied with their own economic and political problems. 

Mr. Sherr argued that it is in the best interest of the Euro-Atlantic democracies to preserve an independent Ukraine and promote the development of its civil society and cultural institutions. He emphasized that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be respected in accordance with international law. From his own experience, he noted major differences between Russian and Ukrainian worldviews, such as the contrasting embrace of power versus a distrust of it, centralization versus regionalism, and Eurasianism as opposed to Europeanism. A democratic and European Ukraine would thus serve as a model to democratize Russia, which will otherwise remain a source of authoritarianism in the region.

In the end, Mr. Sherr reached the somewhat paradoxical conclusion that the greatest threat to Ukraine is Ukraine itself. Despite ongoing attempts by the West to encourage political and economic reforms facilitating integration into the European Union, Ukraine has largely squandered these opportunities, which were most plentiful in the 1990s and after the Orange Revolution. It failed to act on its proclaimed European aspirations, entailing a market economy and political democracy, and remained mired in post-Soviet inertia, a non-transparent business culture, and a drift toward authoritarianism. Although Ukrainian oligarchs are already closely involved in European businesses and institutions, and many are keen to have a closer relationship with Brussels, Mr. Sherr suggested that President Viktor Yanukovych is prepared to do whatever is necessary to remain in power and would sooner be President of a country under Russian domination than oversee Ukraine’s integration into Europe only to lose the Presidency.

Between 1995 and May 2008, James Sherr was a fellow of the former Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom and is a member of the Social Studies Faculty of Oxford University. He has been a long-standing advisor to governments in the UK, the EU, and to NATO, and has advised Ukraine for many years on defence/security sector reform and related issues. At present, his activity is evenly divided between Russia and Ukraine. He is a regular participant in the Harvard JFK School Black Sea and Russia Security programs and is a member of the Valdai Club. His publications include Russia and the West: A Reassessment (UK Defence Academy, 2008) and The Mortgaging of Ukraine’s Independence (Chatham House, 2010). His Chatham House monograph The Ends and Means of Russian Influence Abroad will be published in the spring of this year.

PHOTO

James Sherr presenting the forty-sixth Shevchenko Lecture in Edmonton