College Park. -- When Ukrainians voted for independence from the dying Soviet Union three years ago, they told each other they could stand a diet of potatoes, or even potato skins, if it were the price of freedom.
But the future was not necessarily grim. Western experts considered Ukraine a better bet for success than most of the Soviet successor states. The economy was, by Soviet standards, developed, and by exporting grain and metallurgical products, Ukraine was considered likely to be able to pay for its energy imports.
As President Leonid Kuchma came to Washington this week, however, Ukraine's situation could hardly be worse. Ukraine has been the sick man of the former Soviet republics, lagging badly in economic reform.
Economic output is down a stunning 43 percent since 1990, according to the World Bank. Budget deficits average 17 percent, and inflation is practically uncountable, so worthless has the currency become.
Ukraine's independence was steered by old faces from the Soviet days, who blithely switched their legitimating appeal from communism to nationalism without having any very serious idea abut how to run an economy.
The resulting chaos has tarnished the prestige of independence itself; people are no longer willing to eat potatoes for it. In the industrial eastern parts of Ukraine, where the majority is Russian-speaking and the relatively prosperous example of Russia is nearby, murmurs have started about reincorporation into Russia.
Against this background, Ukraine's presidential election this summer pitted economic reform against nationalist pride. The incumbent president, Leonid Kravchuk, waved the flag (in a country whose army still wears Soviet uniforms, because it can't afford new Ukrainian ones), but lost heavily in the eastern and southern parts of the country.
The winner, Mr. Kuchma, a native Russian speaker and former manager of a missile factory, promoted himself as an economic genius -- and successfully lived down his tenure as prime minister in 1992-1993, while the economic collapse was accelerating.
He is likely to govern as a pragmatist. His predecessor, Mr. Kravchuk, kept the nationalist flames fanned by challenging Russia on a wide variety of issues. But Mr. Kuchma, recognizing Ukraine's energy dependence on Russia, says his foreign policy will stress "the politics of common sense . . . economics above politics."
This clearly is consistent with Mr. Kuchma's electoral mandate, but some observers, especially in the West, have suggested that a policy of rapprochement with Russia risks a weakening of Ukrainian sovereignty, or even reintegration into Russia.
This is unlikely for two reasons. First, any move toward reintegration would immediately revive Ukrainian nationalism. Second, Ukraine is just too big (as large, and as populous, as France) for Russia to swallow, given its own economic weakness. Close political and economic alliance with Russia makes sense, but at least nominal sovereignty seems essential for Ukraine.
Whether it will be the independence of the banana republic or something more will depend on the viability of the Ukrainian economy, and on Mr. Kuchma's efforts to reform it. He has begun well with an agreement that will bring development aid from the International Monetary Fund.
The United States so far has pursued a "Russia first" policy toward the countries of the former Soviet Union. This should change. A stable and prosperous Ukraine is a bulwark against possible future Russian expansionism in Europe. Is that possibility so unthinkable?
Erik Simpson, an Estonian native, is studying at the University of Maryland.