Former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych called the refusal of good-neighborliness with Russia the main mistake of Ukraine over the past 30 years.

He stated this in an address to compatriots, which was published on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the country's independence.

Commenting on the statement of the first president of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, who recently called trust in Russia his main mistake, Yanukovych noted that he did not agree with this opinion.

“I am deeply convinced that the main mistake in our thirty-year history was not deceived trust in Russia, but the refusal of good neighborliness with her,” he said.

Yanukovych recalled that in the first years after gaining independence, Ukraine was able to survive largely thanks to close ties with the Russian Federation.

"I think I will not be mistaken if I say that during these first years, while the constitutional foundations of the state were being worked out, we were saved by the inertia of economic ties with the former Soviet republics, mainly with Russia as the central link of the general national economic complex of the former USSR," he noted.

  • Victor Yanukovich

  • Reuters

  • © Tatyana Makeyeva

During this period, "the Ukrainian industry continued to work in close cooperation with enterprises in Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and other former republics, providing the state budget with funds, without which the state was waiting for an inevitable social collapse," the ex-president believes.

However, over time, Kiev began to change priorities in its foreign policy, taking a course towards "Westernization".

According to Yanukovych, such a policy was actively supported by Western countries and Ukrainian nationalists.

In these conditions, the former Ukrainian leader believes, the only way out was a multi-vector foreign policy, which he adhered to while in office.

“The compromise between this tendency and the desire to maintain full-fledged cooperation with the Russian Federation was the multi-vector foreign policy ... There was simply no other way to ensure the national security of our country at that time, and, as the subsequent years of our history showed, it was thanks to the multi-vector approach that we maintained internal stability” - he declared.

Yanukovych noted that such a policy allowed Kiev to resolve all arising disputes with Moscow through dialogue and demonstrate "good rates of economic growth" and strengthen the "social component of its domestic policy."

“Yes, and until 2014 we had disagreements with Russia, but we resolved them through negotiations and mutual concessions.

Often these were compromises that required the parties to display an extraordinary political will, a willingness to explain to the citizens of their countries why their leaders acted this way and not otherwise.

However, we succeeded because on both sides there was an understanding of the need to move forward, ”he said.

However, partner relations with the Russian Federation did not suit the Western countries, Viktor Yanukovych stated.

“Trying to conduct an equal dialogue with both the West and Russia, the country constantly ran into difficulties, the roots of which lay not in our failure to ensure socio-economic progress, but in the problems of a geopolitical sense.

Normal partnership relations between Ukraine and Russia were viewed in the West, mainly in the United States, as a threat to the return of the Russian Federation to world politics in the role that the USSR played in its time, ”the politician emphasized.

The trigger of the coup

In his address, Viktor Yanukovych also spoke about the coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014, during which he was overthrown.

According to him, the "trigger" for those events was "the question of signing an association agreement with the EU."

As a reminder, negotiations on the conclusion of an Agreement between the EU and Ukraine began in 2007.

In March 2012, the document was initialed, and its signing was scheduled for November 2013.

At the same time, many Ukrainian politicians and experts then noted that this agreement was unprofitable for Kiev, since its economy is closely connected with Russia.

  • Viktor Yanukovych with EU representatives

  • Reuters

  • © Gleb Garanich

According to Yanukovych, at that time the country was not ready to conclude these agreements, but the West and the opposition tried to push through this decision, not thinking about the consequences.

He noted that his administration postponed the "deadline for signing this document" in order to analyze in more detail its economic component and eliminate possible obstacles to mutually beneficial cooperation with the Russian Federation.

This step, Yanukovych said, was a signal for the opposition "to begin an illegal seizure of power and anti-Russian hysteria, which soon became the backbone of Ukraine's foreign policy."

At the same time, Yanukovych expressed disagreement with the opinion that his administration made a serious mistake, showing excessive softness towards the radical nationalists, who became the main active force of the “Euromaidan”.

“We ensured freedom of speech even in those cases when this“ freedom ”infringed on the foundations of statehood;

we did not interfere with the right of the inhabitants of the western regions to erect monuments to those whom they considered their national heroes even at the cost of insulting the historical memory of the inhabitants of the South-East;

we did not persecute members of nationalist organizations, believing that they would appreciate the tolerance of the state;

we closed our eyes to many things ... I don't think it was a wrong policy, ”Yanukovych said.

War, division and instability

According to Yanukovych, the events during the "Euromaidan" had catastrophic consequences for Ukraine.

He drew attention to the fact that an internal armed conflict flared up in the country, persecution of freedom of speech began, and the standard of living fell.

“What did it lead to?

To a war, to a split in Ukrainian society, to permanent social instability, a profound economic crisis, revelry of radical nationalist organizations, persecution of the opposition, and the closure of television channels objectionable to the regime.

This led to the fact that the citizens of Donbass are offered to leave for Russia if they do not want to support the violent Ukrainization carried out, oddly enough, by the Russian-speaking leadership of the state, and the residents of Crimea are denied the right to consider the peninsula their homeland, since they are supposedly there only temporary guests, ”he stated.

  • Protest actions in the center of Kiev in 2014

  • RIA News

  • © Andrey Stenin

The politician stressed that before the coup "Ukraine lived peacefully" and was a country "possessing the largest territory in Europe", and its population did not decline "at a catastrophic rate."

“The Ukrainians spoke their native languages ​​without fear of being accused of violating the legislation restricting their constitutional rights.

They didn’t go begging because of the exorbitant utility tariffs.

The fact that the people lived better under our government is a fact.

And this fact is even more eloquent if we take into account the current impoverishment of Ukrainians, ”he said.

At the same time, Yanukovych expressed the hope that all these negative changes are reversible, and in the near historical perspective, Ukrainians will choose a leadership that will be able to run the state, will know the laws of economics and appreciate the human right to speak their native language.

Experts interviewed by RT share the opinion of Viktor Yanukovych that the rejection of good-neighborly relations with the Russian Federation had disastrous consequences for Ukraine.

“Undoubtedly, the refusal of the Ukrainian authorities from good-neighborliness with the Russian Federation and the implementation of the project“ Ukraine as Anti-Russia ”led Kiev to disaster.

Ukraine has only confirmed this truth for the past seven years, ”political analyst and economist Alexander Dudchak said in an interview with RT.

In turn, political scientist Anna Aryamova believes that Ukraine can develop only in close cooperation with the Russian Federation, since the two countries have long-standing historical and economic ties.

“The only possible political future for Ukraine can only be together with Russia.

We must establish cooperation in economic, socio-cultural, humanitarian terms.

Everyone in Ukraine understands this, except for the official authorities, who do not want to admit it and demonstrate absolutely anti-Russian, Russophobic sentiments.

Sooner or later, the current puppet government of Ukraine will flee in the same way as the government of Afghanistan has now fled, leaving its country in ruins, ”the expert said in a conversation with RT.

A similar opinion is shared by the deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Ruslan Balbek.

In an interview with RT, he noted that "Ukraine's main mistake in 30 years is a blind nationalist one-vector policy."

“And this is not the end point in a series of Ukrainian political mistakes,” the parliamentarian concluded.

Alexander Dudchak also agrees with the words of Viktor Yanukovych that Ukraine was not ready for association with the EU.

At the same time, he believes that, in general, such an agreement did not correspond to the national interests of the country.

“Association with the EU is an extremely disadvantageous step for Kiev, since the stable development of Ukraine, including the preservation of technological production, the development of science and technology, is not associated with Europe, but with Russia.

If Ukraine today was a member of the EAEU, and not aspires to the EU, the country and the union itself would receive enormous economic benefits, ”the expert is sure.

"Mistakes must be admitted"

At the same time, analysts drew attention to the fact that personal miscalculations of Viktor Yanukovych also led to the current situation in Ukraine.

In particular, experts believe that a truly multi-vector policy has not been pursued in Ukraine - the Kiev authorities have always gravitated more towards Europe.

“It is necessary to speak of a multi-vector approach with regard to the Ukrainian leadership with great reservations, since Ukraine was more focused on Europe.

For example, the Kiev authorities could strengthen integration with Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus if they became members of the Customs Union.

However, they did not take advantage of this opportunity.

Later, Ukraine had another chance to strengthen its integration with Russia, but at the official level it was announced that the country was going to Europe, ”Oleksandr Dudchak noted.

According to Anna Aryamova, Yanukovych's “multi-vector nature” resulted in “an attempt to sit on two chairs,” which naturally ended in disaster both for the country and for the politician himself.

“Yanukovych did not develop the country, and he needed a multi-vector approach in order to reign and stick to resources.

If he understood that the development of the country is possible only with Russia, then it was necessary to focus on this vector.

This did not happen, and Yanukovych tried to sit on two chairs, ”the political scientist emphasizes.

  • Ukrainian right-wing radicals on the Maidan

  • Reuters

  • © Gleb Garanich

In turn, Alexander Dudchak pointed out that during the era of Yanukovych's presidency, right-wing militants were training and gaining strength “literally under the noses of the authorities,” but the country's leadership did not take any steps.

As a result, by 2014, these nationalist groups became one of the key factors of domestic politics in Ukraine and continue to remain so to this day.

“The nationalists felt too at ease, and they managed to do a lot to carry out a coup, including preparing their combat units in the territory of Ukraine and the Baltic states.

This had to be fought.

In addition, one should not forget that even before the events of 2014 in Ukraine there was already a slow Ukrainization, the ideas of Bandera were imposed, ”the analyst noted.

According to Anna Aryamova, Western countries also had a hand in creating a network of extremist groups in Ukraine.

“Ukraine was brought to the“ Maidan ”by processes that began long before Yanukovych.

Since the 1990s, Western non-profit organizations have been actively working there, which saw the goal of their work as the maximum separation of Ukraine from Russia.

“Multi-vector” leaders of the country, including Yanukovych, connived at this.

Even now, he does not want to admit the fallacy of such a policy.

But mistakes must be admitted in order to learn from them, ”the analyst concluded.