“In Ukraine, the post of president has always been not just a political title and top of the power pyramid. It is also a symbol of historical responsibility, the embodiment of new hopes and at the same time a source of sharp confrontations, contradictions and very polar personal assessments. The President of Ukraine is a separate historical era in the life of the state. Each of the heads left its mark in political life”, – WRITE ON: ua.news
In Ukraine, the post of president has always been not just a political title and top of the power pyramid. It is also a symbol of historical responsibility, the embodiment of new hopes and at the same time a source of sharp confrontations, contradictions and very polar personal assessments.
The President of Ukraine is a separate historical era in the life of the state. Each of the leaders left its mark in the political life of the country: sometimes frankly negative and almost unanimously bad, sometimes with notes of positive and optimism, but always debatable and ambiguous. Just as snow embodies winter, and warmth and flowers – summer, the president embodies the vector and the interval of life of the country during which he ruled.
But no less interesting question is another. Ukrainians are accustomed to criticizing their powerful, but this criticism stops almost every time when the head of state is moving away from affairs. The people seem to forget about the past head. But life does not end there. And the status of the president in our country remains life – except with one sad exception.
So what happens to the Presidents of Ukraine after the last official anthem sounds during the transfer of powers to the successor? How and what do presidents live when they leave the office on the Bank? From already late Kravchuk to more than active Poroshenko – what are the exchangers currently doing? UA.news political observer Nikita Trachuk He understood the question.
Leonid Kravchuk
The first president of Ukraine, elected in 1991 after the declaration of independence, was one of the main architects of the new Ukrainian state system. And Kravchuk managed the country less than anyone in history: about 3+ years.
After the early completion of the cadence in 1994, Kravchuk, then relatively young for the politician, remained in the life of the state. He became a People’s Deputy, actively participated in parliamentary life, in particular in the creation of inter -factional associations, engaged in the formation of national ideology and post -Soviet model of public administration. In addition, the former guarantor was also engaged in scientific work.
Kravchuk retained the status of moral authority of Ukrainian statehood – although its role remains quite debatable, and the times of the presidency are referred to as an era of impressive poverty. He often acted as a commentator and analyst of political events, especially in crisis. His voice sounded restrained, calm, but importantly, especially when it comes to strategic directions – accession to the EU or NATO, relations with Russia, internal stability.
In 2020, at a very respectable age, Leonid Makarovich agreed to head the Ukrainian delegation in the Tripartite Contact Group on the peaceful settlement of the conflict in the Donbass. His participation was primarily a political and moral meaning – the state returned to the game a person who participated in the formation of independence.
However, at the beginning of 2021, due to a serious deterioration of health, Kravchuk departed from this mission. The 88-year-old president was treated for a long time in Germany: he was ill with heart.
It was there, in a foreign country, that he died on May 10, 2022, after the start of a full -scale invasion of Russia into Ukraine. His death became a symbol of the end of the era. Kravchuk was not only the first president, but also a participant and witness of all key events of Ukrainian state -building. The first President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk at the Baykovo Cemetery in Kiev is buried.
Leonid Kuchma
The second President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma, who held a position from 1994 to 2005, also did not disappear from the political horizon after leaving power. His activity, though not always formal, remained noticeable.
In particular, he created the Charitable Foundation for itself, focused on humanitarian and cultural projects, including supporting education, science and youth initiatives. Kuchma also remained an influential player in unofficial political cuisine: he maintained contacts with business elites, discussed key government decisions with political leaders and in some places as a consultant and a “senior mentor” for state leaders.
The most important mission of the post -presidential period was Kuchma in negotiations to resolve the war in the Donbass. Like Leonid Kravchuk, in 2014, after the armed conflict in the east, he was invited to lead the Ukrainian delegation in the Minsk negotiation process.
Kuchma was one of the signatories of the Minsk agreements. Despite the ambiguous perception of these agreements by part of society, Leonid Danilovich’s participation was regarded as an attempt to use the authority of an experienced policy in a complex international game. Unfortunately, it didn’t work.
In the end, in 2020 Kuchma completed his diplomatic mission in TCG. With the beginning of the full -scale war in 2022, he remained aside from public life, rarely appeared in the media, but sometimes made statements and interviews, where he expressed his thoughts on the political situation and called on the world to support Ukraine.
Kuchma’s inheritance remains ambiguous, and the older generation of Ukrainians recall the Kuchma times quite polar: both as a poverty, banditry and oligarchy era in the first time – and as a time of improvement, stabilization and enrichment on the second. His name is also associated with the theme of peace, conflict resolution and foreign policy. Leonid himself often emphasized that he is not regretted or ashamed of presidency, but he never sought to return to great politics.
Viktor Yushchenko
The third President of Ukraine, after leaving the post in 2010, did not form a new party or political movement. Instead, Viktor Yushchenko chose the path of cultural, intellectual and public activity on lifelong keeping from the state.
He devoted himself to enlightenment, historical memory, support of Ukrainian traditions and … the development of agrarian culture. Yes, his name became synonymous with the concept of “beekeeper” (in the times of cadence, this word was a political nickname of Yushchenko). The third president is really active in beekeeping, turning this activity into a symbol of organic life, care of land and national identity.
In addition to agrarian and cultural initiatives, Yushchenko actively reads lectures, advocates domestic and international universities, publicly defends the democratic values and national path of Ukraine. He does not avoid interviews in which he is not a politician, but rather a philosopher, a thinker, a person of ideas. Yogi The criticism of the modern political class is almost always framed in the cultural and moral context. It is not in party processes, but sometimes supports individual patriotic initiatives.
Yushchenko is an example of a president who has chosen just to live after the end of the cadence. He lives as an individual, but remains an important figure in a discourse about Ukrainian national identity, history and future. His public statements relate primarily to humanitarian policies, language issues, church, symbols.
His life after the presidency is an attempt to create a cultural alternative to modern political struggle, even if not everyone suits his views. And Yushchenko’s period, which was generally considered a rather weak president, is currently evaluated as an era of relative stability, democracy, wealth and economic growth.
Viktor Yanukovych
The fourth President of Ukraine is one of the most controversial personalities of modern historiography. After the events on the Maidan in 2014, he fled the country, leaving the state alone with all problems at a critical historical moment. His escape to Russia was perceived as betrayal: not only political but also moral. After that, even sincere supporters turned away from Viktor Fedorovich, and later the Verkhovna Rada symbolically deprived him of his life -long title of president – for the first time and last in the history of Ukraine.
Since then, Yanukovych has virtually disappeared from the public space. It is in Russia under the Kremlin protection, resides in an elite estate (near Moscow, not in Rostov, as many people think), but his name is practically not mentioned in political discourse – except in lawsuits.
His public attempts to return to the discussion of Ukrainian events were single, ineffective and clearly inspired by the Kremlin. Yanukovych’s lawyers have also tried to challenge his accusations of treason several times, but Ukrainian justice does not recognize these attempts. He interviewed the Russian media, but they had an extremely limited impact. Yanukovych remains a figure from the past, which is not supported by no real political force.
His post -presidential life is an example of political exile, a kind of ostracism at the state level. Yanukovych lost everything: legitimacy, power, support of the people (and his ratings were quite high even in February 2014), the opportunity to influence the situation.
Today he lives quietly and isolated, in the Russian information space, far from the country he once headed. And although he, despite nothing, was not the worst head of the state, and formally his name sometimes appears in Ukrainian news – it causes nothing in the people, except associations with escape, weakness and shame.
An example of Yanukovych is a textbook for contemporary Ukrainian history. The external president, deprived of even the status of the President, remained in the memory of Ukrainians as a traitor, rag, slack and coward. And this in the understanding of the Ukrainian people is worse than anything.
Petro Poroshenko
The fifth President of Ukraine, unlike his predecessors, has remained a very active politician in 2019 and even became the opposition leader. His party “European Solidarity” has retained representation in parliament, and Poroshenko himself actively acts in the Verkhovna Rada, media and international level. It not only retained political activity, but also tries to dictate the agenda, especially in defense, European integration and the creation of an anti -Russian coalition.
No wonder Poroshenko even joke that he still considers himself president. Although these jokes are generally pure truth: according to domestic legislation, Petro Alekseevich lives life. So in this context, he is really a president – just his cadence ended.
Today Poroshenko is actively working in the international field. After a full -scale invasion, he made dozens of trips to Europe and the US, where he lobbied military and economic assistance for Ukraine. He is constantly meeting with leaders of thoughts, parliamentarians, experts, promoting the Ukrainian agenda. In parallel with politics, Poroshenko is engaged in charity and volunteering: his fund purchases drones, medicines, helps displaced persons.
Despite numerous court cases against him, mainly related to corruption, his supporters call all this politically motivated persecution. Petro Alekseevich’s activities remain very polar. At the same time, Poroshenko retains considerable support among part of society.
It continues to struggle for the European course of Ukraine, positioning itself as a guarantor of stability, opposition to the populism of the current authorities and a promoter of national interests. His post -presidential activity is an example of an attempt to stay on the top of a political scene, disagreeing with the role of historical observer and moral authority in the shadow. And beyond any personal attitude to Poroshenko, it should be acknowledged that he generally succeeds.
Summarizing: the life of Ukrainian presidents after completion of the cadence demonstrates not only their personal choice, but also the depth of political culture in the country. Some – like Kravchuk or Kuchma – kept influence through diplomatic missions and participation in negotiations, playing the role of experienced statesmen even in older age. Others, like Yushchenko, deliberately departed from great politics, but became public intellectuals.
Yanukovych is an exception in this list, an example of political escape and moral disqualification. Poroshenko, on the contrary, tries to remain an active participant in the political process and claims the role of an opposition leader.
No President of Ukraine was the best. They are all living people, with their pros and cons. All these figures reflect not only themselves but also the stages of development of the Ukrainian state. Their activity after the presidency is an important marker – whether it is the ability to political evolution, like Poroshenko, or the loss of reality, like Yanukovych. In the end, it should be remembered that presidency is only a stage, and the true value of the policy is measured by who it remains after the loss of authority.