Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Politics and Geopolitics / Revolution of the XXI century: nonviolent methods / Articles
Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yanukovych is either a coward, or veer, or lying
Material posted: Publication date: 23-02-2014

Compromise for Ukraine would be to conduct foreign and domestic policy following the example of Finland, said in an interview with DW American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski.

American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser in the administration of U.S. President Jimmy Carter between 1977 and 1981. Today he is a Professor of international relations at the Johns Hopkins University, member of the Board of the Center for strategic and international studies. In an interview with DW Brzezinski praised the behaviour of President Yanukovych during the conflict in Ukraine and the role of the West and, in particular, Germany in its resolution.

DW: Mr. Brzezinski, how do you assess the role of the President Yanukovych in the Ukrainian crisis? Can he stay in the post of head of state?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: I doubt it. At first it seemed that it is possible to achieve a compromise, whereby he would remain President until the situation stabilizes and really democratic elections of the President, vested with fewer powers. But Yanukovych is either a coward, or veer, or lying

- Maybe he just needs to resign to defuse the situation?

There is no doubt that would help. But, I believe he not only clings to power, but also feared for the state, which he made, during his tenure as President, and the state of his son, knocked together during this period.

- The West, i.e. the U.S. and the EU, could not formulate a single course in relation to the situation in Ukraine. How do you assess the West's actions so far?

Still they are not too impressed. West reacted too slowly to a sudden change of policy of Yanukovych a few months ago. The West has made a special and urgent proposals for overcoming the deep social and economic crisis in the country. Only in the last week the West has shown significant activity. I think in the West there is a growing consensus that now is the time to offer a significant financial package and political conditions so that Ukraine can remain a good neighbor of Russia and at the same time strengthening relations with Europe.

And the United States should assure Russia that if you give Ukraine the possibility of rapprochement with Europe, Ukraine will not become a member of the coalition that threatens Russia's interests. Well, if Russia is not ready to accept it, she, apparently, will have to deal with an increasingly hostile, embittered and possibly explosive Ukraine.

- A lot of talk about sanctions against those responsiblefor the escalation of violence in Ukraine. Are you for or against sanctions?

- I'm neither for nor against. I just don't want sanctions have become the main tool of our policy. But I wouldn't abandon sanctions against specific individuals who receive financial benefits from access to the West and, at the same time, play a negative role both in Ukraine and in Russia.

- Did the Obama administration enough to resolve the crisis in Ukraine?

She rocked very slowly, but now there are much more active. The U.S. should indirectly participate in the negotiations between the EU and Ukraine and directly, on a bilateral basis to discuss the topic with Russia. Although the EU may be willing to participate in this discussion. But in the long run stable relationship with the US rather than slipping into the negativity of the cold war, meet the vital interests of Russia.

This and our vital interests. Putin needs to understand that support for Yanukovych, whom even the Russian press often calls a crook, on which you cannot rely, in the long term is not in Russia's interest, because it will cause in Ukraine, anti-Russian sentiments. Maybe not among all Ukrainians, but among the majority. And it's not in the interests of Russia.

- Can we hope that Russia and Putin forced Yanukovych to resign?

- It would be a positive contribution. This would give an opportunity for Putin, of course, only indirectly, to influence the selection of a successor. Not all opposition members are configured anti-Russian. At the moment the most responsible opposition does not oppose Russia. But recent events definitely took place with the support of Russia, can turn Ukrainians into fervent anti-Russian nationalists.

- The US has openly criticized the passivity of the EU in Ukraine. What role can the EU play?

- I am glad that the EU actively intervened and sent to Kyiv of the foreign Ministers of the leading countries of the EU. But the main issue - especially Germany - is that the EU should allocate money. To talk about democracy and long-term cooperation easier, but it is now to stabilize Ukraine needs money. But let me Express my key appeal. The output can be only compromise. I mean, what constructive compromise for Ukraine would be to conduct foreign and domestic policy following the example of Finland.

- You mentioned the role of Germany. What can that have to do Berlin?

- I welcome the participation of Germany, but I think that the Germans should take the lead in the matter, from which they deviate, namely: to allocate the money. In the current situation it is impossible to achieve an acceptable for Ukraine compromise that meets the interests of both the West and Russia without serious financial participation of the European Union. And Germany is the most prosperous and economically strong country in the European Union.


Source: Deutsche Welle


RELATED MATERIALS: Politics and Geopolitics
Возрастное ограничение