KYIV – While attention in Ukraine has been largely focused in recent weeks on the approaching local elections on October 25, this month has seen important developments in the area of foreign relations. But the trends in the respective spheres of domestic and external politics are potentially mutually contradictory and suggest an inevitable source of tension.
At home, there has been growing concern that the plummeting ratings of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People “mono-majority” party, if confirmed in the voting, will encourage oligarchic, populist and pro-Russian forces to regroup and mount a counteroffensive. The aim would be to make it impossible for the Ukrainian Parliament to function without the Servant of People faction, deprived in reality of its majority, making major concessions or agreeing to early parliamentary elections.
According to the findings of the last poll carried out before the elections, by the Sociological Group Rating and published on October 20, Servant of the People had the support of 16.7 percent of those who intended to vote; the pro-Russian Opposition Platform – For Life – 13.5 percent; former President Petro Poroshenko’s European Solidarity – 13.2 percent; Yulia Tymoshenko’s Batkivshchyna – 8.6 percent; and For the Future, a grouping associated with rogue oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky – 7.4 percent.
The unholy alliance of Volodymyr Medvedchuk’s Opposition Bloc – For Life, Mr. Kolomoisky’s supporters in For the Future and within Servant of the People, and Ms. Tymoshenko’s Batkivshchyna, does not hide its desire to lessen Western influence on Ukraine – whether politically, or especially in terms of the conditionality set by the West for its support connected with reform, eradicating corruption and ensuring rule of law. Therefore, if these revanchist forces were to gain the upper hand, it would mean a setback for the country’s continued Euro-Atlantic integration.
The irony is that President Zelenskyy’s intensive diplomatic activities this month have bolstered Ukraine’s positions both within the European Union and on both ends of the European continent. This, at a time when the outcome of the presidential election in the United States remains unknown, the United Kingdom is finalizing its withdrawal from the EU as a result of Brexit decisions, and a national revolution is under way in Belarus with the outcome and Russia’s response still uncertain, is no mean achievement.
The flurry of delicate diplomatic activity began on October 6 at the EU-Ukraine Summit in Brussels. From the joint statement that emerged, Kyiv had reason to be pleased. The EU, while pressing the Ukrainian side on the current state of reforms, the battle against corruption and efforts to establish the rule of law, reaffirmed its continued support of Ukraine as a close partner and readiness to enhance their relationship
Addressing the Ukrainian Parliament on October 20, President Zelenskyy summarized the outcome of the summit as follows: “all experts note that this year’s EU-Ukraine Summit and the joint statement virtually for the first time emphasize the partnership between Ukraine and Europe so clearly. They note our successes, in particular, tangible progress in the implementation of the Association Agreement, all the prerequisites for “industrial visa-free regime,” the Agreement on a Common Aviation Area with the EU, deepening the integration of Ukrainian markets with European ones. And a clear message: Ukraine’s visa-free regime with Europe is safe. No matter what somebody says.”
After Brussels, Mr. Zelenskyy moved on to London on October 7-8. The outcome of the agreements signed there was far more significant than the preliminary information about his visit to the British capital had indicated. London and Kyiv concluded a historic Agreement on Political Cooperation, Free Trade and Strategic Partnership.
This was Britain’s first bilateral trade agreement with Ukraine, setting out the rules according to which companies and entrepreneurs in Ukraine can sell their goods and services in the U.K. and vice versa. The post of the U.K. prime minister’s trade envoy with Ukraine will be created. Furthermore, it was agreed that Britain will provide the Ukrainian Naval Forces with latest weaponry and vessels, and that British experts would go to Ukraine to assess the Ukrainian system of issuing biometric passports in preparation for simplifying the visa regime between the countries.
Following this consolidation of ties in the west of Europe, attention switched to the east and south of Ukraine. On October 12, newly re-elected Polish President Andrzej Duda arrived in Kyiv on an official visit to Ukraine. He and Mr. Zelenskyy also took part in the Ukrainian-Polish economic forum held in Odesa on October 13.
Transcending the importance of bilateral agreements signed by the two countries was the symbolism of the meeting in Kyiv of the Ukrainian and Polish leaders. Putting recent differences between the two states on delicate moments in their modern history aside, they placed the stress on the strategic partnership between Warsaw and Kyiv. Mr. Duda’s message was that Ukraine can rely on Poland not only in standing up to Russia but in being helped to move further westward. Mr. Zelenskyy reaffirmed Kyiv’s determination to keep moving in that direction.
The Ukrainian-Polish summit was paralleled by a similar Ukrainian-Turkish one on October 16 in Ankara. Once again, the importance was not so much in the bilateral agreements signed by the presidents of the two countries, as in the reaffirmation of the strategic partnership of the two states.
“We agree to continue our efforts towards de-occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as well as restoration of Ukraine’s control over certain areas in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine,” the two presidents stated.
Among other things, Ankara reaffirmed Ukraine’s quest to become a member of NATO and agreed to deepen cooperation in developing defense industry programs. A Free Trade Agreement between the counties is being finalized.
These latest steps have also taken some of the wind out of the sails of Mr. Poroshenko’s European Solidarity, which has been determined to portray Mr. Zelenskyy as disinterested, or unable to deliver, in promoting Ukraine’s deeper integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. In his address to the Verkhovna Rada on October 20, the president alluded to this.
“You can lie about our non-patriotic position, but for the first time since 2014, volunteers have received the status of combatants. Foreigners who defended Ukraine receive citizenship. And Ukraine has received the status of a NATO partner with enhanced opportunities,” Mr. Zelenskyy underscored. Cooperation with the International Monetary Fund continues unabated, he noted, as well as with the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
The president continued by summarizing how he sees the state of affairs: “No matter how hard someone persuades and tries, the international coalition continues to support Ukraine, moreover, it is reaching a new level. We have maintained bicameral U.S. support. Ukraine and the United Kingdom have officially become strategic partners. Relations between Ukraine and Turkey have reached an unprecedented level. Canada remains a reliable partner, without exaggeration – an international blood brother for us.”
Focusing on Eastern and Central Europe, President Zelenskyy told the Rada: “Today, we are actually rebuilding a constructive dialogue and good neighborly relations with Hungary, Romania and Poland. Together with Poland and Lithuania, we founded the Lublin Triangle.”
The additional headway that has been made this month should be accredited not only to President Zelenskyy himself. The head of his Presidential Office, Andriy Yermak, has been given responsibility for the foreign sphere and has been very active. Also noteworthy is the country’s articulate and seemingly more dynamic minister of foreign affairs, Dmytro Kuleba, especially given the de facto sidelining of his ministry that has occurred under the current administration.
So here we are. Kyiv is on a firm Western trajectory, yet given the unsettled political weather in Ukraine, this course could be affected. If so, the question is whether it will result in zigzags or gradual U-turns.