Roman Bessmertnyi: I Don’t Line Off Kremlin And Belarusian Authorities

When the government does not react, the people choose a maidan.

Roman Bessmertnyi is remembered by many Belarusians as the ambassador of Ukraine to Belarus, who rather harshly and openly criticized the Belarusian authorities and personally Aliaksandr Lukashenka. Many said that Bessmertnyi did not stay on the position of an ambassador for long precisely because of this.

After the recall from Minsk, Bessmertnyi quit politics, and earlier this year he announced that he would run for president of Ukraine. Tut.by talked to the politician about the criticism of Lukashenka, about why there is no difference for him between the Belarusian authorities and the Kremlin and whether he intends to return the Crimea if he becomes president of Ukraine.

“It’s hard to be an ambassador in a country where the authorities keep on mocking own people”

- Mr. Bessmertnyi, many Belarusians remember you as an ambassador of Ukraine who differed from other diplomats and stood out because of sharp criticism of the policy of the official Minsk. Youi also openly called Aliaksandr Lukashenka a dictator and said that in 2010 “Belarusians had no elections”. Back then, your dismissal from the position of an ambassador many connected precisely with the criticism towards the Belarusian authorities, but you said that you, on the contrary, spoke about the things happening in the Republic of Belarus in a too delicate way. How do you feel about your then assessments now?

- As time has shown, I was right. What happened then continues to happen now with Lukashenka and Belarus. But I want to emphasize that no matter what I said then with regard to Lukashenka or the Belarusian authorities, this was not the main thing when deciding on my withdrawal.

The key position, after all, was that of certain Ukrainian politicians, for whom Bessmertnyi’s stay in Belarus and his views in general were unacceptable - that’s the reason.

As for the assessments of the Belarusian authorities, Ukraine declared its way to Europe, and everything that happens in Belarus is incompatible with the values to which Ukraine aspires. At that moment, when I became ambassador, all that was clearly visible, so I didn’t say something that would not correspond to the official position of Kyiv. Another thing is the people in the power system. At that time, the conjuncture of Ukrainian politics and leadership was different. Therefore, my views to some extent did not coincide with the views of a part of the country's leadership.

- Doesn’t it seem to you that an ambassador should be more discreet and, as your successor said later, “adhere to the main principle of democracy” - not interfering in the domestic affairs of a country?

- If you look at my statements, there was no interference in the domestic affairs of the country. There was a comparative assessment of the events in Ukraine with the events in Belarus, about which I occasionally spoke with representatives of the Foreign Ministry of Belarus - meetings at the Foreign Ministry took place after each of my interviews.

You see, being an ambassador in a state where the system of power keeps on mocking its own people is hard.

But this does not mean that we must abandon personal views and blend in. Therefore, in my words there were no claims of a personal nature. But when people are arrested in the street, beaten in public places, the ambassador of the state, which declared its European values, cannot but respond.

Especially, if it is a neighboring state with which you are trying to build friendly relations. Now there is one more question: are we fighting or trading with Russia? And in relations with Belarus, we are moving to Europe or to some other values? There was nothing personal in my words, but under the circumstances that exist in Belarus today, we will have a value conflict with it.

- After a year of working in Minsk, you said that Ukrainians cannot even imagine the heaven they are living in. Do you still think so?

- Yes. Because to be a free person, to live in a free country is a great value that must be protected. The state cannot give a person anything more than freedom. It can develop the rules of relationships, laws, and this is also necessary. But the most that a state can give to a person for happiness is freedom, and one should be able to appreciate it.

- You mean, today, people in Ukraine are free, but in Belarus – not?

- Today, freedom in Ukraine is limited by the war declared by Russia. And the fact that people are not free in Belarus is not my conclusion. Look at the reports of the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, where the regime that exists today in Belarus thanks to Lukashenka has been assessed a long time ago. I'm not talking about the dependence of Belarus on Russia. For me, this is unacceptable.

“Each of the Mauidans was a fight for freedom”

- Let us speak about the maidans in Ukraine. Moreover, you had direct relation to them (at the presidential election-2004 Bessmertnyi headed the electoral headquarters of Yuschenko, and during the Orange Revolution he was a commandant of the tent camp in the Maidan – edit.) How do you generally assess this phenomenon in the Ukrainian society?

- The struggle of a person for freedom can take place in different ways: by parliamentary way through elections or by protest. A protest can take place in the form of a picket or lockout - in the ways that the authorities react to.

But when the authorities do not react, people can resort to other methods, including in Ukraine, where Maidan has already entered the rule. Each of these Maidanas was a fight for freedom, for freedom of choice, for the right to choose power for themselves, for the right to keep to the course followed by the value majority of the population. Therefore, neither the Maidan of 1991, nor the Maidan of 2004, nor the Maidan of 2014 was an end in itself. The first was a struggle against totalitarianism and for freedom, the second Maidan was for the people’s right to choose because they were not given the opportunity to choose, the Maidan of 2014 was the Maidan for the European course, for European values. But both the first, and the second, and the third - this was a battle for freedom, which is defended by Ukrainian society.

- How effective are the maidans from the angle of not changing the power, but subsequent reforms?

- This question is always relevant, because if the majority of people, analyzing Maidan, speak about revolution, then I am talking about protest. A revolution brings out a lot of foam on the wave, and this is a problem.

Such steps usually result in the appearance of dishonesty in the next government. Therefore, the claims here go to the authorities, which do not react to the protests, bring the situation to extreme tension, and as a result of radical confrontation and war, as it was in 2014, a situation arises that we have found ourselves today. After all, what happened here again: while the son quarreled with his father, the neighbor took part of his apartment, which, from the point of view of international and human relations, contradicts not only basic documents, but also Christian values.

Therefore, it is impossible to compare 2014 with the events of 1991 and 2004, now there was external aggression. What we have today is a consequence of the external aggression of the Russian Federation in relation to the sovereign state of Ukraine.

- In your opinion, the situation with the Crimea and the military conflict in East Ukraine is the result of the latest Maidan-2014?

- This is a consequence of the Russian planned aggression against Ukraine, which was developed long before 2014. And when Ukraine had a confrontation between the society and the government, playing a certain performance with the political leadership of the country, Russia took advantage of this opportunity and first annexed Crimea, then invaded Ukraine at the territory of Donbas, and now we are witnessing the third phase of the aggression - the seizure of the Azov Sea. What will happen next?

I warned even before Azov that we should look for the next intervention zone. As long as Ukraine is independent, the Kremlin will attack Ukraine all the time, so you need to resist this attack, learn to defend yourself and learn to live with such a neighbor.

- How do you assess what happened in Kyiv four years ago, now that you know the consequences? Was it worth it for the Ukrainians to go to the maidan, did they get what they wanted?

- This is not my prerogative to assess whether it was necessary or not necessary, it is an assessment of the people. First, people fought for freedom, it is their right. Secondly, they got rid of undemocratic, predatory power.

After that, it was enough for people to visit the homes of the entire leadership in order to understand what they were actually doing - they robbed the Ukrainian people, which is why the people opposed it. As for the events themselves, the bloodshed that occurred on the Maidan, and subsequent military actions, I have already said that this is a consequence of the external intervention and special operation, which was developed and implemented by the Kremlin in order to eliminate the state of Ukraine. But these people not only know how to protest in the Maidan, they also know how to defend themselves. They defended the right to the existence of the state, stoof for its defense.

In fact, if it were not for the volunteers and the society, the previous power or authority that was elected would be powerless to resist the external enemy. His Majesty the people defended themselves.

“I love my Motherland and I hate the state I live in”

- You say the people were discontent about the previous authorities and bid farewell to them. However, there is an impression the Ukrainians are not happy with the current power either.

- I love my Motherland and hate the state that I live in. Unfortunately, the events that followed the Maidan showed that Poroshenko’s power inherited a lot of negative features of the previous power of Yanukovych. If it were not for the war imposed by an external enemy, the situation would be different.

But, unfortunately, today it turned out that Ukraine is forced to spend a third of the budget on the war, to lose people every day, it has a bleeding wound in the Donbas, the Sea of Azov, annexed Crimea, where we are witnessing the persecution of the Crimean Tatars.

Unfortunately, Ukraine had to tell Europe and the world for more than 2 and a half years what is actually happening. Because a year and a half ago I heard in Europe and the world that there was a civil war in Ukraine. But, fortunately, the last meeting of the UN General Assembly showed that the major part of the world is beginning to understand the role of modern Russia in the world politics, on the Eurasian continent, and so on.

Therefore, the situation is changing for the better for Ukraine, but this does not mean that it will be quickly resolved. Today we have a serious external factor dominating over the internal situation in Ukraine, which is defined by the word war. If you look at sociology in Ukraine today, you will see that the issue of war comes first, then comes the issue of security, and only then do issues of social satisfaction and corruption go. No one rejects these problems, they exist in Ukraine, but the power, from my point of view, is not doing enough to solve them.

Although the situation in the country today is determined by the factor of external intervention.

- So, what steps are needed to solve the issues inside the country?

- In fact, today Ukraine is facing a choice between the next revolution and the re-establishment of the state. The diagnosis is very simple, because in a war, the gap between the state and the society is very stressed. Hence, the task is very simple: in Ukraine, you need to build a state that will work for a person. Not for themselves, not for their institutions, not for the survival of these institutions.

Therefore, the only option is a fundamental change in the institutional components of the state. Ukraine needs a completely different parliamentarism, it needs a different executive power, a different model of local self-government, a different role of the civil society, a completely different relationship between the central government and local self-government. Under these conditions, there is hope that the floodgates will open so that the aspirations of the people will be realized.

If this does not happen, we will be periodic witnesses of a revolution that will overthrow the existing power and elect another. But under the conditions of an external threat, with such a tendency, there is a threat to the integrity of the state and its originality.

- According to your theory, all these changes in Ukraine should happen already now, as the country will hold presidential election next year. And then it’s once again either maidan, or institutional changes.

- Changes may occur or not. However, if there is one picketer standing at the Presidential Administration, and they pay no attention to them, then we must understand that there will be two of them tomorrow, if they are not paid attention to, then there will be three of them the day after tomorrow. And if after 365 days no one pays attention to them, then on the 366th day there will be 366. If you multiply four years by 366, then you will remember how many people initially were in the Maidan. That is, either we are implementing the changes I’m talking about today, or we’ll get what we’ll get.

- That is, there will be a maidan in Ukraine again next year?

- Look, here came Yanukovych - he got what he deserved. Poroshenko came - if he does not change, he will receive too. Remember, I said in Belarus that if the elections ended this way in Ukraine [like in Belarus in 2010], would the government have flown out like a cork out of the champagne bottle? So it will be.

- Doesn’t it seem to you that the examples of Poroshenko and Trump prove that businessmen should do business, not politics?

- There are different businessmen and cultural figures - Reagan was an actor in general. In one case it helps, in the other it interferes, in the third it is unclear how it ends. Of course, the government should be interested, take into account the position of the business in order to create a competitive environment, and not to lobby or create oligarchization. Fortunately, these are not the most difficult questions and the answers to them can be found in the textbooks. But, unfortunately, it turns out that many don’t read these textbooks and bring the situation to revolutionary protests.

“I can no longer look at this weakness, so I have to offer my candidature”

- What kind of president do the Ukrainians want to see at power?

- If you look at sociology, then Ukrainians want justice, freedom, an end to the war, and the fight against corruption. In each of the candidates, they are looking for the answer to these questions. Everything is simple, as in life: a person wants peace, well-being, health.

- Do you have answers to these questions?

- I am currently holding meetings all over Ukraine “What kind of Ukraine we want.” I meet people, discuss, give them my answers, listen to their criticism. Basically, we, together with people, formulate the answer: how and what should we do so that people become not only those who order the policy, but also direct participants in its implementation. Because the views of Bessmertnyi, his knowledge, the views of his team without speaking to the public is just a good development .

- In 2011, you said that the only thing you did not want is to run for a Rada deputy. In January this year, summing up you political experience, you said that you were “tired to bring ammunition to those who cannot shoot.” Will you now start shooting? Is this how your running for presidency should be understood?

- I don’t speak now about the elections to the Verkhovna Rada, I declared about running for the presidency, these are still different things. Parliament is a parliament. It is not by chance that the name from the French parler is said there, and the president is the one who acts. I can no longer look at this weakness, so I have to offer my candidature, and then we will see, then the people will decide the fate of each of us.

- Do you plan to return the Crimea, if you become a president?

- Crimea was, is and will be Ukrainian. Donbas, the Sea of Azov - too. We do not need someone else’s lands, but we will return ours. Our generation or the next - it doesn't matter. This was Ukraine and Ukraine it will be. It does not matter whether it was the weak or the strong who seized our land at a time when we felt bad or good - everything will be returned back. This is how I rebuilt Baturin (Bessmertnyi created the National Historical and Cultural Reserve Hetman Capital in the city of Baturin - edit.), and they tried to convince me that I should not do this, Crimea will be returned in the same way. Whatever they say in the Crimea, whatever they think in the Kremlin, all this will be Ukraine.

- If we talk about the situation in the east of Ukraine today, what is the way out of the dead end? What is needed for progress?

- I will immediately distinguish three important topics: Donbas, Crimea and Azov. To solve the situation in the Donbas, it is necessary, firstly, to form a strong, efficient army, and secondly, to establish a dialogue with the Kremlin. Yes, it is unpleasant, but you need to talk with them, because today they are shooting, because they carry [from Russia] both ammunition and weapons. Thirdly, we need to talk with people who are in the occupied territories - there are 3 million people there. I line off 46 thousand of those who run weapons there, and 3 million civilians who need social assistance, water, electricity and heat. We need to talk with these people, they should not be abandoned, because all these are citizens of Ukraine. Moreover, everyone acknowledged that these are citizens of Ukraine, including Russia.

As for the Crimea, two title nations lived there at the territory of Ukraine: Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. Therefore, we must understand that the Crimea is the territory that can create the conditions for the development of the Crimean Tatar statehood. How they implement it - in terms of autonomy, as part of Ukraine - this is their [Crimean Tatars] business, but we need to work on this.

Already today, it is necessary to make changes to the Ukrainian Constitution, to declare the CrimeanTatar Crimea and autonomy, to work on this issue in the European Parliament, the OSCE and so on. After all, the Belarusians have their own state, whatever it may be, the Ukrainians have it, the Russians too, but the Crimean Tatars do not, and this is a titular nation. The most tragic mistake that the world is making today is that it permits the Kremlin to scorn an entire nation. These are unacceptable things.

And, by the way, this is the claim that today with full responsibility can be presented to the Belarusian state. These votes at the UN are a shame for the Belarusian authorities.

Moreover, many Crimean Tatars live on its territory, the autochthonous territorial formations of the Crimean Tatars are preserved, they are informal, but they exist. Therefore, the future of Crimea is connected with this.

Azov must be defended, because today the annexation of the Sea of Azov is taking place. Including force methods.

- You said that about the Donbas it is necessary to conduct a dialogue with the Kremlin. With the Kremlin or with Putin?

- I do not line off these concepts. But today we must begin by recognizing the status of relations: today, there is a war between Ukraine and Russia, and both sides must admit it. And when one of the belligerents - here it is Russia - pretends that it saves 3 million people who are in terrible conditions for the fifth year, it supplies weapons and regular troops there and tells the whole world that it has nothing to do with it, it is difficult objectively assess the situation. Therefore, we must begin with a collective assessment of the situation, and then consider possible options for resolving it.

For the fifth year, there are tanks in the Donbas, weapons are bought in supermarkets, the destruction of the Donbas has been going on for the fifth year, and the Crimea turns into a submarine, filled with dynamite, in a vitally incapacitated territory: the analysis showed that in the Crimea, the economy is destroyed, the agrarian sector in a state of agony, and this is all a consequence of the “Russian world” welfare.

- How do you assess the current relations between Ukraine and Russia? Will they ever be the same again, is it a dead end?

- No, this is not a dead end. But, as the Prime Minister of Japan said, for the time being there will be territorial disputes between our states, no treaties on friendship and mutual relations. Yes, something will happen one way or another, but now there is territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia as a result of the aggression of the Russian Federation.

“Minsk is the territory of our enemy”

- You’ve mentioned Belarus’ voting at UN General Assembly. What do you think about the relations between Belarus and Ukraine in general?

- What distinguishes Bessmertnyi from the majority of Ukrainians? I had to listen to the Belarusian media for 24 hours, so I do not line off the Kremlin and the Belarusian authorities. I distinguish, for the present, the Belarusian government and part of the Belarusian society. Because if you brainwash the way media in Belarus do, what can you talk about here? Everything is clear.

- In 2016, you quit the Minsk process. You explained it that Minsk saved from mass victims, but could not (in the set format) move the situation off the dead spot. A week ago, Leonyd Kuchma quit the negotiations. Do Minsk agreements have any future?

- If we talk about the Minsk agreements, then I perceived them as a pause, it is essential that the newly elected authorities could gather their thoughts, understand where they are, rebuild the defense system, the army, and nothing else. I understood who we were dealing with, and to hope for the integrity of Russia, that all agreements would be immediately implemented, meant to deceive ourselves. Therefore, having come to the process, I already said then that a different format of agreements was needed both in form and in content, the proposed one did not work. Moreover, according to international rules, such agreements should be concluded on neutral territory. Minsk is not a neutral territory, Minsk is the territory of our enemy.

- You’ve mentioned the European course of Ukraine already. According to Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine could become a full-fledged EU member already by 2025. How real is that?

- I would not declare a concrete year, but Ukraine is moving in that direction. When it happens – it depends not only on us, but also on the European Union, its desires, and even, to a certain extent, its relations with Russia.

- What are Ukraine’s perspectives in the world arena?

- Today, Ukraine has the potential. Against the background of the secondary carbon market, food will come out on top positions. Plus, we have the potential of education, we have something to offer the world.