DAVID SPEEDIE: In other words, if I could paraphrase, what's coming from the east is, "Why should the demonstrations in Kiev be regarded as legitimate and not ours?"
NICOLAI PETRO: Yes, and that the concerns that they are expressing, as I said, have not changed and need to be reflected in national policy.
DAVID SPEEDIE: Finally, first of all, on the question of the elections, Nicolai, there was some discussion, I think, in Berlin for delaying elections. We've seen in the post-Cold War environment that sometimes a rush to elections is not the best course, particularly when a constitution is, shall we say, imperfect or incomplete or there are still elements to be worked on. Is there a serious momentum to think about delaying elections in this case?
What's the situation?
NICOLAI PETRO: Klitschko has thrown his support behind Poroshenko, and therefore bolstered his candidacy. He himself will be running for mayor of Kiev.
But the issue of whether or not the elections should be delayed--there was no consensus about that. There is, of course, an argument to be made that the commitment to have a representative president rather than one that is appointed by the parliament for whom there is no constitutional precedent is an important step in the re-legitimization of authority in Kiev.
The counterargument is, well, what would these elections exactly certify if the country is so starkly divided that no party actually represents both sides, so that it would, in fact, only result in the dominance of one side over the interests of the other, rather than in building national unity?
But the most important argument in favor of delaying the elections was that it would be important to first establish a new constitution so that people could understand what type of government they were voting a president to enact, and therefore what authority they were giving to the president.
But again, as I said, this issue is very much debated. There are arguments on both sides.
DAVID SPEEDIE: One final thought on the Valdai Club. Just reading some of the reports from there, Nicolai, one thing that was quite striking was that you have here a group of political--with different views, obviously, different approaches, different political principles, but at least a serious group of people--of political scientists and others in Ukraine, attached to various centers for international studies. Clearly there is some serious thinking being given to the situation.
Is this having any traction at all at the policy level? Is their writing/thinking feeding into the process?
NICOLAI PETRO: I had the opportunity to speak individually to some of the participants with whom I shared a flight back to Ukraine. Some of these individuals were consultants and have advised previous regimes. But they are no longer in favor with the current authorities, who prefer not to call on their expertise.
So there does seem to be rather a polarization at this point, I suspect because the constituencies within the government in Kiev are, in this government, more radical than they have been in any of the past four presidencies. We have people in Berlin who have been actually advisors to all four previous presidents and found advice to give them, which presidents and governments sometimes listened to, sometimes didn't.
But it does seem to be a new time now, when the government is really relying on its own counsel and its own strategies, and perhaps trying to influence and to be guided by Western strategists and Western advice, even more than by the political elites on the opposite side in Ukraine.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
