Ivan Krastev: Footnote

This Sunday, February 7, Ukrainians will go to the polling stations to vote on the second round of their presidential elections. The outcome of the elections is unpredictable. Many Ukrainians regard the very choice they have to make as a depressing one.  The most radical bloggers leave you with the feeling that choosing between Y (Yanukovic) and Y (Yulia) is like choosing between bird flu and swine flu. He is regarded brutal, she is considered tricky. He is the symbol of everything the Orange Revolution contested, she is the symbol of the betrayed promises of the Orange Revolution; and both of them are believed to be corrupt. No surprise that Western media are obsessed with the who-lost-Ukraine question. In a sad, intelligent, but unfortunately deeply flawed piece published last week, Newsweek’s Owen Matthews tells us 'How Europe Lost Ukraine'. The argument is simple and straight: The EU’s inaction and unwillingness to open the membership perspective for Ukraine brought the country on the edge of collapse and made democracy appear a sham in the eyes of its own citizens. In Matthews’ view, the coming elections are nothing but the Orange Revolution's funeral disguised as elections.

It is easy to understand Matthews’ frustration, but it is difficult to accept his analysis.

It is true that Ukrainian elites made a mess out of the people’s desire for change, which they demonstrated so powerfully five years ago. It is also true that the EU was indecisive and ineffective in its policies. But to believe that Ukraine simply can be lost (or found) as a result of Brussels’ policy is a dangerous delusion. In their belief that it is Brussels (or Washington) that can lose or save Ukraine, some Western commentators are not far away from the Kremlin’s conspiratorial view on who, exactly, the real actor is in Ukrainian politics.

What is interesting about these elections is that they were not the expected clash between Brussels and Moscow. In one of those twists that are so exhilarating for historians, Y’s victory in these elections (it does not matter which of them) will mark the consolidation of Ukraine as an independent state, with its own political dynamics in a post-Soviet space. Ukraine is in the painful process of building a new national identity. The Orange Revolution has been a failure in many aspects, but, on the positive side, it was a decisive moment in Ukraine’s nation-building process. In this sense, it did not fail. Contrary to the fears of many, the past five years did not deepen the divisions in society. Instead, the divisions contributed to the emergence of a new political consensus that was demonstrated in these elections. At the heart of this consensus is the fact that “Ukraine is not Russia” and that Ukraine has a better chance to survive as a dysfunctional democracy than as a functional autocracy. It is easy to notice that in these elections, Yanukovic is not the pro-Russian candidate (and not only because of his American advisers) and Tymoshenko is not the pro-NATO candidate (and not only because the former President Yushchenko was passionate about NATO). Both of them have moved to the political and geopolitical center. While for the moment the prospects of democracy in Ukraine are still uncertain, it is clear that Ukraine—muddling through its permanent institutional crisis—has succeeded to survive as an independent state. In short, the Orange Revolution has succeeded as a national revolution, and these elections are the best proof of this. It was not Europe that lost Ukraine. Moreover, Ukraine might not be lost at all.