Newest development of political subjects of Ukraine and Russia: comparative analysis.

 Russia and Ukraine sustainable development

Ukraine and the Russian Federation have 337 years of the joint history from 1654 to 1991, at first as parts of the Russian empire and then those of the Soviet Union. Both countries include the numerous national minorities: the Ukrainian minority in Russia and the Russian one in Ukraine.
By the way, namely the diaspora, in the opinion of M. Danilevsky, is the defining tuning fork for the cognition of the leading tendencies of development of the maternal nation. Therefore, the mutual influence will be essential under such circumstances. At the same time, the activity of an individual political subject is built in into the system of political culture of the nation and a social group which
give a general sense and significance to it.

By analyzing the history of two peoples in the XXth century, it is easy to see that the major historical events had appropriate resonance on both sides of the Ukrainian-Russian border so far not finally delimited. For example, the revolutionary period of 1905–1929 terminated in Ukraine and Russia with
approximately identical result, though with certain national specificity.

The differentiation was mostly revealed during the events in 1917–1922, when Ukraine had the more clearly pronounced subject “I” on the revolutionary stage of the cycle, in particular during the sadly famous atamanship (we mention only the self-made-man Nestor Makhno). In Russia, the individual subject intrinsic to the revolutionary stage of social development was revealed in the charismatic leader V. Lenin and in the whole cohort of bright revolutionary persons (L. Trotsky, N. Bukharin, I. Stalin).
In the period of “perestroika” of 1985–1991, the Ukrainian SSR and Russian SFSR entered almost simultaneously into the co-evolutionary period of the epochal cycle. On this stage, a leading role is still played by the subject “We”.
At the same time, the tendency to development of the subject “I” becomes gradually prevalent. For the time of “perestroika” as well as for the next decade of the 1990s (up to January 2000 when the phenomenon of the so-called parliamentary majority declared itself simultaneously in the cities of Simferopol, Kyiv, and Moscow), Ukraine delayed from the social and political processes which took place in Russia by 1–2 years on the whole.

In Russia, the period of 1991–1993 was associated with the sharp struggle for power. President B. El’tsyn attempted to introduce a new Constitution. After the shooting of the building of the Russian Federation Parliament from tanks and the referendum in December 12, 1993, the predemocratic regime of personal authority was actually set. In Ukraine at the same time, the complicated
process of formation of the structures of the independent state took place, but the political processes occurred according to the national mentality in peaceful, more compromise forms without the Russian maximalism of the blooming time of the political career of B. El’tsyn.

In Ukraine, the development of the crisis around the reception of a new Constitution was slower. This process reached an apogee in 1995–1996, when Russia came into the first military campaign in Chechnya. The reception of Ukraine’s Constitution in June 28, 1996 coincided in time with the reelection of B. El’tsyn as President of the Russian Federation. For this reason, the resumptive tendencies of the common development were clearly synchronized for the first time.

In fact, this completed the first stage of the realization of transient processes, which was indicated by reaching the compromise between the political elites of two countries. This made possible the signing of the Treaty about friendship, partnership, and collaboration between Ukraine and the Russian Federation of May 30, 1997. Further, the inversive processes which were considered by a Russian culturologist A. Akhiezer arose and become to gather force both in Russia and Ukraine.

The period of 1998–1999 was related to dusks of the political career and to searches for a “successor” and, in Ukraine, with the attempts of President L. Kuchma to consolidate its power with the purpose to guarantee the second re-election. Synchronization of political processes becomes stronger. This was revealed during the presidential runs in Ukraine in November 1999 which actually occurred according to the Russian scenario of re-election of B. El’tsyn in summer 1996, when the “democrat” fought with the “communist alternative” undesirable for the majority of the society.

In 1998 to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the representatives of influential financial-industrial groups and the so-called political holdings (“oligarchs”), which concentrated earlier mainly around the executive power, were elected. In such a way, they got possibilities for a greater influence on President, which is especially manifested in the organization of the dismissal of the governmental
guided by V. Yushchenko and in the development of the process of destination of Prime-Minister for ten months to the parliamentary elections in March 2002.