“We complemented each other”: why the friendship agreement between Russia and Ukraine remained unfulfilled

On May 31, 1997, the Presidents of Russia and Ukraine Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership in Kyiv.

The agreement entered into force on April 1, 1999 after ratification by the parliaments of the two countries.

The contract was designed for ten years, after which it was to be automatically renewed for a similar period, if neither party opposed.

In the agreement, Moscow and Kyiv proclaimed a course towards deepening economic integration and the formation of "a common economic space by creating conditions for the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor."

Within the framework of these processes, in particular, it was assumed that the parties “will strive to harmonize their financial, monetary, budgetary, currency, investment, price, tax, trade and economic, as well as customs policies” and “to create equal opportunities and guarantees for business entities”.

The countries pledged to maintain and develop the industrial and scientific and technical cooperation that existed between them, including in the field of defense.

• President of the Russian Federation B. Yeltsin and President of Ukraine L. Kuchma during the signing of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Russia and Ukraine during Yeltsin's official visit to Kyiv

• RIA News

• © Vladimir Rodionov

At the same time, the inadmissibility of actions that could “cause economic damage to each other” was emphasized.

Much attention in the treaty was given to humanitarian issues.

In particular, Russia and Ukraine agreed to promote the development of the Russian and Ukrainian languages.

“The High Contracting Parties will contribute to the creation of equal opportunities and conditions for the study of the Russian language in Ukraine and the Ukrainian language in the Russian Federation, the training of teachers for teaching in these languages ​​in educational institutions, and provide equivalent state support for these purposes,” the document says.

In addition, the text contains an obligation to protect and promote the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of national minorities in the territory of the two countries, without subjecting them to forced assimilation. 

The agreement also ordered the parties to refrain from any action directed against each other.

Moscow and Kyiv agreed "not to conclude any treaties with third countries directed against the other side."

“None of the parties will also allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other side,” the agreement states.

The agreement guaranteed the citizens of the two countries the observance of all rights and freedoms on the territory of both states and confirmed the borders that existed at that time between them.

In addition, the agreement ordered the parties to cooperate in the field of space exploration, health, science, culture, education, sports, combating crime and natural disasters. 

"declarative"

According to Sergei Margulis, senior lecturer at the Department of International Politics and Foreign Regional Studies at the Institute of Social Sciences of the RANEPA, the content of the agreement was fairly standard for the post-Soviet space.

“The ideas were standard for this kind of agreement in the 1990s.

In general, the CIS itself and the agreements formed within its framework, in fact, became a kind of mechanism for a civilized divorce of the republics of the USSR.

Many of these agreements were purely declarative in nature.

In fact, the course that was chosen by Ukraine under Kravchuk demonstrated that Kyiv was going to develop only the Ukrainian language, and in the foreign policy arena it focuses on the West, and not on integration within the CIS, ”the analyst said in an interview with RT.

However, according to Margulis, thanks to this agreement, the parties managed to at least maintain the economic ties that remained after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“In some areas, it was possible to maintain cooperation, but there was no significant deepening of economic cooperation.

As for the political component, for example, having formed such a structure as GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova. -

), which was conceived as an alternative path for integration in the post-Soviet space without the participation of Russia, Kiev once again showed that it does not bind their future with Moscow, ”the analyst explained in an interview with RT.

The coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014 played a fatal role in the fate of the friendship and partnership agreement, political scientists say.

• Riots in Kyiv, 2014

• Legion Media

Those who then seized power in Kyiv immediately tried to cancel the law “On the Fundamentals of the State Language Policy” that had been in force since 2012, which allowed granting the Russian language the status of a regional one.

This step was contrary to the provisions of the treaty and ultimately became the cause of the conflict in the Donbass and the collapse of Ukraine. 

In addition, according to analysts, Ukraine's course towards association with the EU also contradicted the provisions of the agreement without any coordination of this process with Russia.

This damaged the economic ties between the two countries, which had been formed over the centuries.

However, Ukraine still did not officially withdraw from the treaty in 2014.

Only in December 2018, the Verkhovna Rada voted for a bill to terminate the agreement.

It officially expired on April 1, 2019.

According to Vladimir Zharikhin, deputy director of the Institute of CIS Countries, Kyiv was in no hurry to break this agreement, because it wanted to selectively use the provisions that were beneficial to itself. 

“Ukraine refused to fulfill its obligations on friendly relations, the Russian language and human rights, but all the time held on to the guarantees of territorial integrity that were laid down in this agreement,” the analyst noted. 

"Nationalists headed for secession"

Political scientists believe that the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership contained generally correct ideas, but the parties did not provide tools for monitoring their implementation.

• Rally near the captured building of the Donetsk Regional State Administration

• © Wikimedia

“The ideas were correct, it's another matter that, unfortunately, the mechanisms for implementation and responsibility for non-compliance with the provisions of the agreement were not clearly spelled out there.

This affected both the fate of the treaty and the fate of relations between our countries,” said Vladimir Zharikhin.

According to experts, by refusing to integrate with Russia, Ukraine missed the chance for successful development.

“Ukraine had huge potential after the collapse of the USSR.

We complemented each other.

And joint development would benefit both sides.

In fact, in this treaty, Russia and Ukraine were offered to become the same states as, relatively speaking, Germany and Austria.

Both countries are German-speaking, they are separated from each other, but at the same time they pursue a friendly policy and cooperate mutually beneficially, ”said Oleg Matveychev, professor at the Higher School of Economics, political scientist, in an interview with RT.

According to him, the main culprits of the gap between the two countries were radical Ukrainian nationalists, who were supported by the West in 2014.

“Nationalists have set a course for secession from Russia.

This led to the fact that Russian-speaking people in Ukraine began to suffer.

This was followed by economic disintegration and direct economic damage to the country.

People began to live worse.

And the coup d'état in 2014 led to the disintegration of Ukraine.

It always happens when political forces leave the constitutional field.

As a result, we can state that the rejection of friendship and partnership with Moscow did not bring anything good to Kyiv, ”concluded the analyst.