She showed what independence looks like

In my view, Margaret Thatcher is not merely a bright personality and an outstanding politician of her time. She created a unique, unprecedented phenomenon in post-war Europe – that of an aggressive, yet progressive, conservator.

Now it is well known how hard her path to prime ministership was, and what unbelievably difficult decisions she had to make in this function. Consider her weekly battles: twice a week the prime minister reported to the parliament, answered questions, and explained her policy. At the start of Ukraine’s independence, our parliamentary and prime-ministerial practice also began to take a similar shape, but later we witnessed a standstill and recoil. Now we have to go back.

It should be mentioned that before becoming prime minister, Thatcher had been Parliamentary Undersecretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, and worked for four years as Secretary of State for Education and Science in Edward Heath’s government.

Thatcher risked very often. She initiated a number of highly unpopular, yet utterly necessary social and economic reforms, which endangered her political reputation. She began and effectively won a war on trade unions. She demonstrated determination and iron character during the highly risky Falkland operation. The sovereignty over the Falkland Islands was restored, but Britain lost 200 men. She bore it all. That was the time when quite a few European male leaders of state (including the Soviet leadership) reconsidered their attitude towards Mrs. Thatcher. I can see them shaking their heads: oh, what a lady!

Thatcher was probably one of the first European politicians to start backing Mikhail Gorbachev even before he became the leader of the USSR. She sensed in him a potentiality, she saw him as a political personality, crucial not only for change in the Soviet Union, but in Europe and in the world: first of all, in the matters of nuclear disarmament and the end of the Cold War.

Thatcher set the century’s 11-year-long record of “longevity” as prime minister. This was a record term in British history. At the same time, she was able to feel the moment when she had to leave the political scene and make room for others. Again, an example for Ukraine’s political circles.

During Thatcher’s stay in Kyiv in June 1990 (as part of her visit to the USSR) I had to work together with her security officers. At that time the Ninth Directorate KGB UkrSSR performed state security functions, and I as first deputy director of this service was charged with ensuring Thatcher’s safety in Kyiv and coordinating all necessary steps with her security officers and with the representatives of state security from Moscow. We knew that as prime minister, Thatcher had survived several attempts. The most dangerous one was in October 1984 in the seaside town of Brighton. Thatcher arrived there to take part in her party’s annual congress. In the middle of the night a powerful explosion shattered the hotel where she was staying. Several people were killed, almost 30 were taken to hospital. In Thatcher’s bedroom the ceiling crumbled down and all windows were smashed, but she happened to remain unharmed. A few hours later, she entered the conference hall to a storm of applause, and opened the congress.

Although almost all events in Kyiv where Thatcher took part were agreed beforehand, and all necessary security measures taken care of, there were lots of surprises, mostly thanks to her super-activity. She would often stop the motorcade and step out to talk to people, who crowded along the route. She was very well received by the people.

Some of Ukrainian politicians and journalists only remembered the episode when, speaking in the Verkhovna Rada, Thatcher compared Ukraine with California. When asked what she thought of the possible opening of Ukraine’s embassy in London, she replied that Britain had no diplomatic relations with California. It was perceived as an insult to Ukraine, they say, because Thatcher would not support Ukraine’s striving for independence.

In my view, it was not exactly so. At the time of her Ukrainian visit, Thatcher already was an experienced and very influential international player. She was in the eleventh year of her prime ministership, and the Cold War was coming to an end, which she had helped a lot. She came to the USSR to support Gorbachev. But of course, Thatcher also pursued her own interest. It was the largest offensive nuclear weapons stock in European USSR, which was located in Ukraine. No politician of such scale could remain indifferent to what might happen to this dreadful arsenal, should the USSR disintegrate. Of course, the preservation of a single command center for all the nuclear potential of the Soviet Union (with whose leadership such important agreements on nuclear weapons had at last been reached) stood higher on her priority list than backing what she saw as separatist sentiments of Soviet Republics – even if Gorbachev himself had never asked her for this.

There is also another important moment to be considered. Thatcher arrived in Kyiv on June 6, 1990. The Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine had not yet been passed. This would happen only a month and ten days after her departure from Kyiv, on July 16, 1990. Could Thatcher, an experienced world-class politician who came with an official visit to the USSR, a federative state, make any radical statements before the parliament of a union republic? Mind you, that was the prime minister of Great Britain, where the problem of Irish separatism was very painful at that time. It would have been unreasonable to expect her to give public support to Ukraine’s struggle for statehood and independence at the republic’s parliament at the time when the Soviet Union de jure still existed. Besides, Thatcher made her statement about California not in her main speech, but while answering questions from the audience. It was obvious that she was favorably impressed by acquaintance with the then prime minister Vitalii Masol and Volodymyr Ivashko, who presided over the Verkhovna Rada.

Today few will mention the general atmosphere and the tone of her speech, which was sincere and friendly. I remember that when we arrived at the Verkhovna Rada, one of the British diplomats gave her the text of her speech, right there in the parliament building. She looked through the text and said something, discontented. Then she quickly jotted a few lines on the other side of the paper. I understood that these were the theses of her speech. She rose to the rostrum and delivered her speech to a storm of applause, without reading.

Thatcher’s behavior, speeches, and the manner of communication were a sort of in-depth “prophylaxis” for the Ukrainian political beau monde. She emphasized several times: after living in a totalitarian society you need to learn to live as free people, and to be able to bear responsibility. Yes, she never urged us to fight for independence. She showed what independence looks like.

Just a few minor details. At the end of the day (actually, late at night) I accompanied Thatcher to her residence. She was together with her husband Denis, who accompanied her during this visit. At the residence they had to walk to the second floor. When he took her arm to help her upstairs, she was so tired she literally leaned on his shoulder, with her arm around his neck. When they were upstairs, she kicked off her shoe, then the other, like a girl, and walked to her room barefoot.

At that moment she looked anything but a tough political fighter: a charming lady, albeit 65, and a little bit an actress.

The British guard said that now we could also catch forty winks.

However, some 10 minutes later Denis comes downstairs and asks, “Have you got any whiskey?” A silent scene followed. Whiskey at an official residence, in June 1990! There was about everything there but whiskey. I translated the request to our men. As a result the deputy head of the Ninth Directorate from Moscow, the officer in charge of security, and our deputy head of security went to search for whiskey. They came back with five various bottles, but there was no whiskey there. “There is some superb quality vodka,” they say. I translate. Denis thought a while and then said, “Maybe you have some very cold vodka?” “Yes, we do,” say they. He chose the coldest. They thought Denis would take the bottle with him, but he said, “Half a glass, please.” We began looking for glasses. We had no idea where they might be, and we only found big glasses for water! Then we were lucky to fish out a long-stemmed, wide wineglass from somewhere. We brought it all to him, the wineglass and the bottle, but he is like, “No, no!” and gestures that we should put it on the table. He poured one-third of the glass, thanked us, and went upstairs.

In the morning we had to go to the airport straight from the residence. I remember that we all were out and about long before sunrise, getting the cars ready and so on. When Margaret and Denis came downstairs, she looked as if she had not had a busy day before, she was nearly dancing. She came up to us and said, “Good morning and good-bye!”

However, the departure was quite a procedure. We needed a permission to leave from the external security, while the Ukrainian and British guards together had to check the rooms and make sure the guests had not left anything behind. They went upstairs and came back, all was well. The motorcade left the residence. Later the security officers, who had checked the rooms, said with surprise and sympathy, “She hadn’t drunk even half of that vodka!” Later I was told that after this incident the bar at that residence was stuffed with the choicest brands of whiskey.

From Kyiv Thatcher flew to Spitak. Britain had helped Armenia a lot after the terrible earthquake. The local guards were also dropping dead. In the middle of the huge square in Spitak, amid the ruined buildings, Thatcher steps out, climbs her car, and fearlessly speaks through a megaphone to the thousands of survivors – although the security officers from Moscow protested vehemently.

During her long political career, Margaret Thatcher had a lot of success. However, there were also defeats and mistakes. But almost everyone, supporters and opponents alike, agree that she was an extremely influential and far-sighted politician, who changed Britain. Today many experts say that Thatcher was strikingly accurate when she predicted the current financial and economic crisis in the eurozone, the idea of which she opposed. You should not live on credit, for your debt will debilitate you. This is perhaps Margaret Thatcher’s most important lesson for the contemporary world. And for Ukraine in particular.