Ukraine's economic development is impossible without Russia

Ukraine's economic development is impossible without Russia

By Vestnik Kavkaza


The Board of Directors of the International Monetary Fund approved a four-year program of financial assistance to Ukraine of $17.5 billion. "Over the next four years, additional funding will be provided, and this, I hope, will help the country to improve the situation, on condition that stability in the context of the Minsk Agreement on the cease-fire will be preserved," the head of the IMF, Christine Lagard said.


In an interview with Vestnik Kavkaza, the editor of the magazine Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Scientific Council of the Valdai International Discussion Club, Fyodor Lukyanov, said that the Minsk Agreement divides into two parts: "One part concerns the actual cessation of hostilities and the freezing of the conflict. In my opinion, the chance that this will happen is quite high for obvious reasons, this is what everyone is interested in right now. As for the political part of the implementation of this very ambitious program, the reform of the Ukrainian state, I honestly do not believe it. I do not see any prerequisites in Kiev for this to be realized. The atmosphere is absolutely wrong. In my opinion, in reality, the Ukrainian leadership still prefers a frozen conflict over attempts to change themselves in order to integrate Donbas back. In a sense, it is preferable for everyone. It is not a solution to the problem, but a postponement of it for some time. As for the prospects of resolving the foundations, in my opinion, right now no one is even thinking about it, because nobody knows how to behave there."


Speaking of ways to normalize Russian-Ukrainian relations, Lukyanov said: "In Ukraine, there will be a lot of changes, upheavals and, depending on the results, we will have to judge what authority will be there, what it will seek. The premise for the settlement is Ukraine's economic development, which is impossible without Russia. But whether there will be the political conditions for this is hard to say."


Yesterday Fyodor Lukyanov presented the report 'World Order: The new rules, or game without rules' and voiced the main challenges that the world community will face in the coming decades.


"The theme of the international system functioning, that has always interested experts, last spring turned from the plane of the theoretical and speculative, to the purely practical plane, because this imbalance, the manifestation of which became the crisis over Ukraine, suddenly spilled out on almost everyone," Lukyanov said, noting two points which will make world relations more orderly.


"The first is a challenge that is thrown to the state as an institution in the modern world. It is not about specific countries, but about the state as a structural unit, about the illusion, that the state disappears as the basic structural unit of the international system, being replaced by something else (networks, global community). This idea has already proved to be ineffective. That means the state is not going away, it remains as the structural unit, there is no replacement for it. But at the same time, it acts in an entirely different context and the challenges to globalization create problems in the functioning of each state. Any state (US, Russia, China, Luxembourg, and Zambia are all in absolutely the same position) is faced with the problem of internal controllability under external chaos. What we have seen in the previous 20 years is the erosion of classical sovereignty, but not its disappearance. Sovereignty is weakened, but its importance is growing, because there is no other way to somehow structure the international system," Lukyanov said.


The second question is: are there any ways for the new organization of the world system at all? "Ideas of replacing the international institutions or their fundamental transformation are unreal. It is not possible to implement this change or transformation so that it would be acceptable for everyone, and based on some clear and obvious criteria. One may, say, criticize the UN for inefficiency, for not having time for challenges and conflicts, but the UN is really just a mirror that reflects the state of mind of the world," believes Lukyanov.


According to him, in an environment where the creation of new formal institutions is not possible, it is necessary to work within the G20: "The G20 is the perfect prototype, countries of a very different type are represented there, both ideologically and culturally, and by the type of economy, and in their fields of priorities, and they are all there on an equal footing. The 'Twenty' has great potential to develop not only the economic discussion, for which it was actually revived in 2008, but also the political discussion. The fact is that we have moved to a world where the economy is, if not secondary, but in any case must concede to politics all the time. Therefore, to discuss the global economy without addressing the political system is not modern. Therefore, the G20 is the best format to begin this dialogue, but not in order to convey the function of a world government to the G20 - this is still very far away."


Vestnik Kavkaza

in Tumblr