“Buffer Zone” or Neutral Country?

History shows that the notion buffer state is a temporary and rather unstable one. As a rule, such a country, positioned between two political formations (entities), sooner or later sides with or is absorbed by either of them on unattractive conditions. The Baltic states and Poland before WW II are the most eloquent examples. There are fortunate exceptions from the rule, not many (e.g., Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland). Naturally, to be such an exception, a country must have a substantial economic potential, something Ukraine does not have. The Day asked several experts in the field, politicians, diplomats, historians, and political scientists, to share their views on the concept of buffer zone in the early 21st century. Of course, the question was formulated with regard to Ukraine and the respondents did not refrain from assessing Ukraine as a buffer state.

Viktor CHERNOMYRDIN, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to Ukraine:

What do you mean buffer zone? Ukraine doesn’t fit the notion. A buffer between what? Between the West and Russia? Why? Why should Ukraine be a buffer state? I strongly disagree. Ukraine is a powerful European entity. Why not then refer to Poland as one? That way practically any country can be described as a buffer zone. Beijing will say that Russia is a buffer zone. Technically correct, as Russia is situated between China and Europe. Who else will China call a buffer zone? If we follow that kind of logic we’ll get totally confused. There is no buffer zone. Ukraine plays a role in Europe as important as that of any other country. It is one of the largest European states. What zone? That’s all it needs, being tagged a buffer zone! I think it’s wrong. I mean it’s wrong to use such definitions with regard to states.

Bob SCHAFFER, US congressman:

Ukraine has a great advantage, being located between the West and East. There is no denying the fact. Ukraine’s task is to try to take a leading stand. To do so, it must avoid the perils of economic stagnation; Ukraine is interested in it because it wants EU membership. Ukraine is important for world stability, security, and economic growth. I think it can integrate into Europe without prejudice to any neighboring countries, particularly Russia. I’m sure that these relationships can develop simultaneously. Russia, for its part, is taking decisive steps forward: land relationships, private ownership, economic participation in the global system. Russia is Ukraine’s major exporter and Russian investments are substantial in the Ukrainian economy. There is no need to endanger any of this. I think that it’s important for Russia to have a market in Ukraine capable of improving and reforming, aimed at European integration. The Ukrainian economy is potentially important for the whole world, not only for Europe or Russia. I believe that Ukraine will take a leading stand in Eastern Europe.

Oleksandr Sushko, Director of the Peace, Conversion, and Foreign Policy Center:

A buffer zone is like being between the hammer and the anvil, yet both are within Ukraine. Our country is between two different paradigms of its own development, with the geopolitical one being less important. Any impact from outside is assessed using various conceptions of Ukraine’s development that exist within this country, rather than those being imposed from without. It only seems to us that the West and Russia are competing for Ukraine. In actuality, everything is much simpler. There are different strategic concepts within Ukraine. Their exponents try to enlist support - some from the West, others from Russia - in pursuing their own objectives, so they can strengthen their own positions in Ukraine. It is in the interests of certain powerful political forces in this country to make it a kind of isolated gray zone, a marginal one, so as, on the one hand, to prevent Russia from getting the Ukrainian material resources completely under control (for this would mean loss of this control by the national elite), and, on the other hand, to reduce the Western influence to a minimum in upholding certain values and development priorities inconsistent with Ukrainian political practice. Therefore, it’s important for the national elite to keep this country ambivalent, minimizing the influence from both sides, so they can retain their positions in Ukraine. Russia is a threat as a source of aggressive expansionistic capital; the West is a threat as a source of incompatible political values. Hence the kind of political foundation upon which to gradually turn Ukraine into that marginal gray zone. However, I’m not sure that the West or Russia would want to see Ukraine that way. Our country has never been a buffer or gray zone; rather a periphery of various historical processes. This is different. A buffer or gray zone is located between two very strong political factors. Ukraine has, as a rule, been an objective of such struggle, yet I can’t think of a historical fact when someone tried consciously to make Ukraine a buffer state from outside. A periphery of some other country, yes. A buffer state is a factor impeding the implementation of the foreign political interests. Some insist that the buffer status has its advantages; given a professional approach, this status makes it possible to take advantage of those other countries’ keen attention. I disagree. Now that we have globalization, such games are very dangerous, because they can result in marginalization, with the state being denied its active role as a subject of international relations. If we allow two subjects to play around with our country and try to build our politics on this play, it means that we are immortalizing our own secondary status in international relations. In terms of the population, territory, and economic potential, Ukraine is a rather strong polity. Most our neighbors are small countries, meaning that they stand an objectively lesser chance as independent players, yet they are trying. Therefore, it would be a very bad mistake if Ukraine, a large and essentially sound polity as it is, would put up with that buffer status. The more so that today there is no dichotomy... Okay, we have Russia. What else? You must agree that there is no perfect harmony in the interests of the United States and the European Union; these are two different players. Besides, EU is a heterogeneous structure. I don’t see any real, even technological reasons for manipulating these different interests.