Historically, we see an interesting detail on the Eurasian continent. As a matter of fact, the Eurasian continent is a kind of scales. The Baltic-Black Sea axis is just the Eurasian watershed. It's for the latter that all the empires would wage severe struggle. Those emerged as in the East as in the West. Those empires were different as they were based on diametrically opposite principles. Western empires were based on a method of production under which a person became the main force. The Western culture developed in that direction. Asian empires were based on the eastern, despotic method of production, where a person served just like a tiny cell of the collective organism.
The main purpose of Asian empires is to sacrifice a person to the collective essence. This has been observed during centuries. And if the West has managed to overcome the imperial beginning and to proceed to normal self-revival within the framework of independent states based on private property and personal freedom, the Asian part has never managed (if the territory of the former USSR to be taken) to overcome itself till now. The collective model of development has again been strengthened on that territory. A person is sacrificed to some abstract, collective interests. 

The Soviet Union was the classical Asian empire. The USSR may even be considered to have been, to its extent, the modification of the Moscow kingdom. The empire strengthened its forms. It perfectly adapted and changed through centuries. Moreover, it was the empire, which managed to utilize the experience of such Central European states, as Kiev Russ, the Kingdom of Poland and others of the Black Sea-Baltic axis. It managed not only to absorb their experience, but to plait the latter in the fabric as well, using it like chameleon uses the environmental colors. 

Nowadays, we face a very interesting situation. With God's help, the soviet empire has broken up. Besides, due to the struggle of the people who took the national grounds and experienced the hardest trials, many USSR countries, including Ukraine, have gained their national independence. But now, the conversations on the necessity to reintegrate somehow are initiated again. Here comes the question: "Where to and in what to reintegrate?" To prevent the answer from being ambiguous, let's try to answer another question first: "What was the USSR?" 

The USSR was the prison of the empire, which was based on the total state economic property. It was to provide for the empowered persons - the bureaucratic oligarchy - could appropriate, through the state ownership, the surplus value produced by the people.
The bureaucratic oligarchy took that value upwards by means of the state plan. There its redistribution took place. A part of it was spent for some projects, like BAM or various water canals. (The latest one was to channel the northern rivers into the Caspian sea). The rest was taken by that oligarchy. The parasitic system emerged, in which the basis ate itself. Practically, the economic system existed for the satisfaction of needs of the ruling stratum. 

The bureaucratic system has broken up. National states have emerged according to all the provisions of the international law. So, there cannot be such a state as the Soviet Union. What does the Soviet mean, what does the Union mean? The word 'soviet' reflects a form of power. Is there a state based on the form of ruling? This is similar to the Crimean republic. The Crimea is the name of the territory. A state cannot be named due to the territory. It is an absurdity. 

They say, Russian speaking population currently lives in Crimea. But once there was Roman empire. Latin was the main language in it. Everyone, who wanted to be the worthy citizen of Roman empire, tried to speak Latin. Even Africans wanted to become the citizens of Roman empire and tried to speak Latin.
Similarly, Russian was the main language in the soviet empire. In due course, Russian will fill in its natural gaps. In Ukraine, this process will be very complex, since Russian speakers make a great percent of Ukrainian population nowadays. The Russians consider it necessary for the former USSR republics to be united. To be united on the basis of what? On the basis of the state ownership? Come on, it has almost broken up. The first stage of privatization has almost been accomplished in Russia, compared to us, where it hasn't almost begun so far. If on the basis of the public sector, than sorry, we have different systems and we can not be united, reintegrated again.
On political basis? What a basis of political union can be between us? Our newly elected President has put forward the thesis that 'Byelovezhskaya Puszha' was the conclusion of political alliance between Byelorussia, Russia and Ukraine. What an alliance? Excuse me, but 'Byelovezhskaya Puszha' was an attempt to perform civilized, peaceful divorce of the colonies. This is the major significance of the cited agreement.
The president of Ukraine says the political alliance was concluded which now should be reinforced by the economic one. But what for, I ask? 

They say, there are markets for Ukraine in Russia. Where are they and for whom? For our military enterprises? They have already become outdated, also Russia can not purchase their production. For our private enterprises? It makes no difference for private businessmen where to sell the production, as the world prices and absolutely new system of a competitiveness act. For our public sector? But it is practically paralyzed and must pass through the system of privatization. Why do we need markets in Russian conglomeration? 

Individual businessman will deliver his production to where it is favorable for him. He will establish contact with whom it is necessary. He will be able to purchase production necessary for him. If you go shopping you do not need to establish any economic unions with the shop to purchase the production. All you need is just money.
They try to convince us that there are conditions for which it's allegedly impossible to proceed on without the economic union. The union is beneficial for the Russian Federation, since it is not a state in classical understanding. It is an Asian conglomeration with the remnants of imperial ambitions, with nuclear weapons and overstate mentality. What does the Russian conglomeration want now? In the middle of that original Babylon boiler there are potential states which should become normal national states during the coming ten years. The history does not know other bases of state construction, but national. The nationality is the primary state attribute. There are no states in the world named after territory or political system.
Now Russian conglomeration incorporates Bashkiria, Chechnya, Northern Caucasus, Yakutia, Buryatiya and a number of other republics, which are close to the construction of the national states. 

You would say it is unreal, since the Russians make the majority of the population there. But they also made the majority in Estonia and Latvia. Now they have allegedly not. The processes were complex in Hungary as well, when it was a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. The presence of Russian speaking ethos, or to be more exact, mixture of ethoses, is not sufficient for the state not to be formed. Take Tataria. They say, the problem has already been solved there. Nothing has been solved there. This is because Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Byelorussia are tired from struggle against Russian strategic policy. Reforms are not carried out in them, therefore they lose the competition. Therefore Tataria and Chechnya remain silent. Here is the reason. 

But Tataria, as well as Chechnya, are potentially powerful states which have very valuable raw material - oil. They possess well developed industrial basis, mobile population. The inhabitants of Tataria and Chechnya profess absolutely different, than the Russians do, religion - the Moslem one. This is the contradiction which will not be overcome. Sooner or later, Islamization will all the same be started in Bashkiria, Tataria and Chechnya.
The example of Algeria, where there were no problems with Islam, shows what Islamization leads to. It is worth mentioning here, that Algeria has also emerged «on oil». Therefore these processes are still to be awaited in Russian conglomeration. The Islamization processes have already begun in Tadjikistan, originating from Afghanistan (it's in Afghanistan that Islamic genie of sharp, aggressive orientation was woken up). Like the soviet empire surrendered its positions in Afghanistan, the Russian conglomeration will similarly have to do the same in Tadjikistan, and then - further on.
There is no need for Ukraine to protect east Asian border of Russian conglomeration. There are no economic grounds for economic unification with Russia. Besides, there are no reasons to remain in the CIS. We have nothing to do there. Besides, let's ponder what commonwealth of the independent states means? If our states are independent, why do we need a commonwealth. 

If we want to have relations with Russia, then there are no problems here. We have already had two agreements. They say, the third one should be signed, the comprehensive one about friendship, love and so on, because it is impossible to coexist without it. They say, petroleum problem pushes us to the signing of such an agreement?
Let's consider that question as well. Russia will have to import oil in approximately 3 years. So, CIS is doomed, it already causes inconvenience for Ukraine now, because we have already used up economic cooperation at the state level. 

Let's look, why we currently depend on Russian conglomeration. It is petroleum and gas. And nothing more. But, as I've already said, Russia itself will have to import petroleum soon. The «Friendship» pipeline is largely amortized and is not reliable. If there is no petroleum, which is currently being sold to us at the prices higher then those world ones, why do we need such brotherhood? If we sign economic union, so, will they sell petroleum at cheaper prices to us? On the contrary, they will ask even more for it!
So, what is the way out from the present situation? I see one way out - Odessa terminal. It could solve the oil problem not only for Ukraine, but for the whole Baltic-Black Sea alliance as well. 

The Baltic-Black Sea alliance can objectively be born, since the axis countries are very close mentally. On the one hand, they allegedly broke through the Asian embrace, although they do not possess advanced private property as a basis of a personal economic freedom. On the other hand, they do not possess advanced priority of the property rights above the rights of the state. 

And one more thing. The Baltic-Black Sea axis as if organically is plaited in a unified system. This is not enough, it has the economic basis for the existence. If Ukraine solves the problem of the terminal (the second terminal is already under construction in Turkey), we will be able to transfer petroleum by tankers. And further, through the network of pipelines, it can be delivered up to the Baltic coasts. 

Russia benefits if Ukraine doesn't have the terminal. If Ukraine doesn't manage to construct it, Russia will have the oil key for all the countries of the region. And if we do manage to construct the terminal, however surprising it sounds, Ukraine can become an oil exporter. Ukrainian factories are designed to process annually about 60 million tons of crude oil. There is another economic basis of our alliance. The «way from Varengeans to the Greeks» existed in older times not for nothing. Kiev Russ encountered problems when that way was overcome by the tribe of polovtsy and dukes from the habitat in which Vladimir-Suzdal duchy emerged, followed by Moscow kingdom. They possessed absolutely different mentality with that peculiar to Kiev Russ. 

If the ancient road 'north-south' is renewed, it will provide for the start of fast trafficking of goods without use of all roundabout marine ways. Let's look at the direction 'west-east'. That is the water-way which can go from Lisbon through Berlin and Warsaw up to Kiev, and up to the eastern border of Ukraine. If there is a need, it can be further prolonged. It is not difficult to see that Ukraine and other countries of the Baltic-Black Sea axis are original bowl at the joint of Europe and Asia. This bowl can be filled up with huge riches.
If normal conditions for business are created here, 170 million people who live here, will be able to give a new push for the development of the West European civilization, because they will come with the new, regenerative principle of vital activity. 

As to Russian conglomeration, it does faces the Pacific coast. And its future is there. If it manages to overcome disintegrative processes.
Why does the Russian conglomeration struggle for the integration in the economic union so persistently? It understands well that never and nowhere in the world the market was started on such huge and non-uniform territories. It is a boiler with different protostates. The broth can be cooked in this boiler only when it is tightened with the hoops preventing it from inner explosion. These hoops are the satellite countries of the dominant country. In the west, they are Ukraine and Byelorussia. There is no too much progress with the Baltic states, although there is a desire to cover that segment. In the East, those are very favorably located Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan and other countries. 

Especially heated struggle is currently conducted for Tadjikistan, because otherwise one of hoops will be broken off and Islamization, I have already mentioned, will steal up very closely to the boiler. There is clear understanding in Moscow that the Islamization can wide spread over the open spaces of Russian conglomeration, and therefore Russian diplomats try to prevent it in every possible way. 

Besides, the elite of Russian conglomeration understands very well that economic reforms should be launched at home and impeded in other states. Everything possible was done in order to prevent the beginning of reforms in Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan. The whole system of trained mankurts was engaged for that purpose: they tried to ensure that everything remained as before. And in Russia, Gaidar started reforms. Although Gaidar is currently criticized in Russia, but he has saved Russia and has prevented the conglomeration from disintegration. 

Nowadays, the situation in Ukraine very much varies, as the new generation of people with new, market thinking grows up. New President has come to power. He is the legitimate head of the state. There are no doubts here. But there are forces which consider the people elected Kuchma to have voted for the union and for other reintegrative nuances. 

Let's try to analyze the current situation in Ukraine. There are 38 million voters in Ukraine. 26 million attended the polling stations. About 12 million, representing mainly the youth focused on the market, did not vote. There are 14 million pensioners in Ukraine. However surprising it is, 14 million people voted for Kuchma as well. Thus the pensioners, having no social force, express the protest voting for integrative slogans. They also voted for their youth which had already passed. 12 million voted for Kravchuck in support of national idea. The analysis shows that the past has voted for Leonid Kuchma. The future has given its votes to nobody. The present has chosen the national idea.
Therefore, current processes should be treated very carefully in Ukraine. I think our President is a reasonable person considering those facts. If the future of Ukraine is in its independent development, then one should think what is to be done. 

In Russia, the problem of Chechnya and Tatarstan was smoothed down when they had proceeded far ahead on the way of market reforms. And why did Crimean problem emerge in Ukraine? Because Ukraine has not undertaken any reforms for 4 years now. Economic problems can't be solved by political means. The economy is the primary thing. It does not recognize any ideological and propagandistic methods. Everything is unequivocal here - the restraint of realization of reforms is equivalent to the destruction of idea of national independence. 

Russian capital very actively works in Crimea now. It acts with very aggressive methods. It supersedes Ukrainian capital. We have currently deal with terrorism there. Those who want to resist to that capital are killed. When the economic seizure of Crimea takes place, «Crimean situation» will spread over the southeast areas of Ukraine. Therefore there comes a fully acute threat to the national independence of Ukraine now. 

However Ukraine can revive from ashes. It should solve two problems at a time. Firstly, it should define its geopolitical location. Our future is in the formation of the Baltic-Black Sea alliance. It's this alliance that will become the stabilizing system between Europe and Asia, between the two modes of production. The Baltic-Black Sea alliance can serve as an original module between Europe and Asia. But not as a bridge, as someone considers it. 

The second task is the economic one, the start of reforms. I uphold the necessity of creation of a wide class of the private proprietors. I'm against the idea that 20 armored fortresses - state-monopoly monsters should be constructed, which will develop Ukraine with the help of some methods. This is senselessness. This can't be, because we shall get poor stratum, Lumpen below, and growing fat oligarchy above. This cannot be admitted.
I hope this conference can play a role of the starting mechanism, which generates the idea of the Baltic-Black Sea alliance. Indeed, there is the Black Sea Parliamentary Assembly, there has already been the Baltic Group, there is the Central European Group. If these groups are united, we shall receive what refers to as the Baltic-Black Sea alliance. The situation ripens for this. 

And one more thing. Two political tendencies currently develop in Ukraine. In the autumn we shall see them on the surface in a more expressive form, when the social-democratic united party is established. The second tendency has not acquired the proper form and necessary volume yet, either methodologically, or ideologically. However, I think the situation will promote its development. This is the liberal-conservative idea. The idea, according to which the transformation of the state is carried out very resolutely and fast, and the private property is taken for the basis to ensure that the wide circles become the carriers of the private labor property. Those two tendencies will develop very fast both in Ukraine and in the whole Baltic-Black Sea region. 

I also think the conference of the parties of the intersea countries will promote development of the liberal-conservative tendencies in other countries. One factor should be remembered. Transformational reorganizations have always been carried out by liberal-conservative forces, and not by socio-democratic ones. Socio-democratic forces come when all the central questions are solved. When «the transitions of Moses» should be carried out, there is no way for the social-democrats to possess the power. 


Oleg SOSKIN, 
director of the Institute of Society Transformation