It may be no coincidence that on the day of Mr. Yanukovych’s inauguration, the Foundation for Effective Governance in partnership with the UK-based Intelligence Squared held a public debate. Yet its motion “Ukraine will not overcome the economic crisis without Russia” seemed far-fetched and even somewhat offensive for our country. Why did not the motion sound: “Russia will not overcome the economic crisis without Ukraine?” At least it would have sounded more politically correct in Kyiv.

However, the hosts of the public debate did not intend to dishonor or mock anybody. It was obvious from the title of the press release on the results of the discussion, which ran: “Ukraine should create favorable conditions for all of its foreign economic partners”. Here all words are acceptable, except for maybe “should”. The electronic version of this press release, published at the website debaty.org was even more precise: “Ukraine is advised to improve its investment climate”. They should have started with this after all… Everyone would have been “for” this motion.

Before the debate, Day Newspaper asked Natalya Izosimova, the Director of the Foundation for Effective Governance, on her personal opinion on this subject. “The FEG will not reveal its stance on the issue during the discussion. Our objective is to attract people with opposite views. We want to hold a constructive discussion. In fact, we want to set an example of a constructive discussion. This is the ultimate goal of the entire “Debates” project that we have launched. We want to foster a 'culture of debate' in which a constructive discussion based on persuasive arguments allows people drawing at rational, informed conclusions. The discussion should be civilized and argumentative, even if it is heated and contentious.”

The discussion was interested indeed. The “pro-Russian” tandem consisted of Kirill Dmitriev, President of Icon Private Equity, and Evgeny Gavrilenkov, Managing Director of Troika Dialogue Group. They both presented themselves as investors and tried to persuade the audience that Ukraine will benefit (in finances, technology, and access to the markets) if it joins the Customs Union of Russia, Belorussia and Kazakhstan.

The Ukrainian team “against” the motion included Andriy Shevchenko, Verkhovna Rada MP, and Kost Bondarenko, political analyst and Head of Kyiv Gorshenin Institute of Management Issues. They argued that Russia is undoubtedly a great country, but it cannot take the place of the entire world. How to emerge from the economic crisis is for Ukrainian businessmen to decide, and they will certainly find the way out. Russia is not a good place to go for innovative technologies either; sadly, hi-tech is developed out of Russian and Ukrainian boundaries. Moreover, the Russians were reminded of numerous setbacks (which were not Ukraine’s fault) in its cooperation with Ukraine in aircraft building and other fields.

In the debate, Ukraine turned out to be more persuasive. If the initial poll showed 26% for the motion, 55% against the motion, and 19% of “don’t know” voters, the final poll’s results were 28%, 63% and 9% respectively. As they say, the fact speaks for itself. Yet we would like to quote some of the debate participants:

Leonid Rubanenko, President of Ukrainian Tax Counselors Association:

I am “for” the Customs Union and “for” expanding economic cooperation – first, with Russia and then with other countries, interesting for Ukraine. Among these countries are Poland, Germany and Spain, but not the EU. And I would approach these countries one by one. This is because the EU has not learned to live by its rules itself. We would rather develop relations with those countries, which we know well. If we have something in common with them, we should form an alliance.

Olexander Paskhaver, Director of the Center for Economic Development:

Among the participants of this discussion were those who advocated the development of relations with Russia and those who think there are certain restrictions to this choice. One of the arguments touched upon the Customs Union. I am very much interested in the opinion of those who believe Russia to be a good market and Russian businessmen reliable and familiar partners. This is all true. But the main question lies somewhere else: we need to know the environment, surrounding these relations. Here I would like to mention several points that I believe to be of major importance. Firstly, Russian economy has never developed intensively, but it has always expanded physically, occupying additional territories. This is its intrinsic nature: it conquered new areas, profiting from additional resources. Expansionism is the main feature of Russian policy. Secondly, it is worth remembering that Russian capital is more dependent on the state than Western capital. It often works for the goals set by the government. We should not forget this.

Both of these factors are hard to define by our domestic legislation, but it should be seriously considered. It is wrong to say: we do not care who our investors will be – Russian, French or Spanish. Yes, they all have common features: the capital seeks for profit. But additionally, Russian capital also accomplishes the tasks set by the Russian government. He is an active player on our market, and this is dangerous. This is the risk we should keep in mind, because we have to pursue Ukraine’s national interests, not the interests of another state. I am not saying these interests are hostile, but sometimes they bring forth a conflict. This is what we should examine, deciding whether it is good or bad for us to seek Russia’s aid to overcome the economic crisis. When we sign a deal with Russia, we should better be aware of Russia’s history and the abovementioned dependence of the Russian capital on the state. Of course, we have to make use of all advantages of our neighborhood, but we should not forget about the risks. Expansionist policy is a very specific risk posed by our great neighbor and partner.