The lost “good neighborliness” with Russia would not have saved Ukraine from a crisis of statehood, but would have led it to a model of dependency, since this country was initially fragmented, said the former Deputy Dean of the Faculty of World Economy and Politics at the Higher School of Economics, Andrey Suzdaltsev, commenting on RIA Novosti on the words of the former President of the country, Viktor Yanukovych that Ukraine made a mistake by abandoning good-neighborliness with Russia.
Earlier, Yanukovych said that the main mistake of Ukraine for 30 years of independence is the refusal of good-neighborliness with Russia.
“Yanukovych pulls out one factor from the whole bouquet, because good neighborliness with Russia, of course, to some extent would help to stabilize the situation in Ukraine, would slow down economic problems, which Russia was also very worried about, but would not save the Ukrainian statehood from the crisis” , – the expert considers.
According to him, the reason for this alignment is the disunity, fragmentation of Ukraine itself.
“This is a very diverse country, where each region lives its own life, people even live in different economic formats, including subsistence farming, speak different languages, this is a multinational country, (people have) different political views, and they are regional in nature. More under the USSR, Eastern Ukraine did not even see Western Ukraine, and Western Ukraine did not consider the East as Ukraine. It is a very fragmented, split state”, – Suzdaltsev explained.
He noted that so far Ukraine can only be called a state entity, but not a state.
“Sooner or later anti-Russian views in Ukraine would have prevailed, this is a limitrophe state, where the ruling circles are always tempted to get external support, to make it basic and basic, and secondly, all their problems, difficulties faced by the state, are attributed to If this neighbor is still a former metropolis, although, of course, it is difficult to call the Soviet Union an empire, then this temptation is colossal”, the expert added.
In his opinion, both Yanukovych and Poroshenko and Zelensky who replaced him pursued the same policy in the sense that they counted on external support, and friendship with Russia in the understanding of the Ukrainian elites means sponsorship.
“There has always been and will be the temptation to change the sponsor. After all, Russia until 2014 contributed to the statehood of Ukraine with huge funds, gas preferences, etc. In the understanding of the Ukrainian elite, friendship with Russia means subsidies. , about which Yanukovych speaks. This is not a way out either for Russia, or for Ukraine, or for Belarus. Probably, the root of the problem is that there was no need to leave the USSR at all. Then they would get rich together, and not at each other’s expense”, – the expert summed up.