For Ukrainians, “it is very difficult to say that he is a devil or that he is an angel”reacted on Wednesday August 31 on franceinfo the Ukrainian journalist Tetyana Ogarkova, head of the international department at the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, the day after the death at 91 of the former president of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev. “For us, it’s neither too positive nor too negative.emphasizes Tetyana Ogarkova. You shouldn’t idealize Gorbachev either.”
>> Follow our live on the death of Mikhail Gorbachev
franceinfo: How do Ukrainians view Mikhail Gorbachev?
Tetyana Ogarkova: Ukrainians take a somewhat different look compared to the Russian look and the Western look at this character. We know that some Russians, notably the conservatives, very much regret the fall of the USSR and accuse Gorbachev of having lost this empire which was theirs. We have seen since Tuesday that there are several reactions from the West who regret his death. They see in Gorbachev a kind of liberating character. But for Ukrainians, Gorbachev is the last emperor, emperor in the sense of someone at the head of the empire. Nor should we forget his position on the Crimea illegally annexed by Russia, which he supported. He was someone who was always against the creation of independent countries instead of the Republics that belonged to the USSR. So for us it’s a rather mixed view, neither too positive nor too negative.
“Seen from kyiv, there is the Gorbachev critical of Vladimir Putin, in particular in 2011, during the re-election of the Russian president, who denounces Putin’s stranglehold on politics in Russia, and who, two years later, supports the annexation of the Crimea, which he justified at the time as the desire to listen to the will of the peoples.”
Tetyana Ogarkova, Ukrainian journalistat franceinfo
Is it difficult to have a very clear opinion on him in Ukraine?
Absolutely. It is very difficult to say that he is a devil or that he is an angel. On the one hand, it was Gorbachev who started this era of glasnost, even if there was a lot of hypocrisy in this glasnost, in this freedom of the press. We also remember a lot of the lack of reforms that were specific to this era. And we mostly remember the lies during Chernobyl. It was Gorbachev who was there. We remember that there was no freedom of the press, that we were not informed. We are still suffering from the consequences of this major ecological accident on the European continent.
Ukraine had gained its independence on December 8, 1991, a few days before Gorbachev resigned on Christmas Eve 1991. Do you think Ukraine would have been independent without him?
Yes. I believe that Ukraine would be independent without Gorbachev, even if it must be said that he had started the liberalization process. But it was probably also against his will, because we have to go back to the context, to the economic and political failures of the Soviet Union. It was by wanting to keep his power that he was somewhat obliged, under pressure, to begin the liberating reforms. But neither is he a politician who wanted the Soviet Union to become a free world. Nor should we idealize Gorbachev today. The last 30 years, it was downright non-existent. He is someone who has disappeared from public opinion.
With Gorbachev, there is this idea, especially in the West, that with him also opened a period of peace where Russia did not start a war. Is it a symbol to see it disappear at a time when Russia is carrying out this offensive in your country?
There is something very symbolic. For a generation or even two generations, the fall of the USSR, there was no war. But the process was not over. It was not a departure, it was not a total recognition of the independence of the former Soviet republics, in particular of Ukraine. So Russia never ceased to be an empire. It’s a wounded empire. This war is a last attempt at the reconquest of the Republics, in particular the Ukraine, by this military means, an attempt which, we are sure, will fail.