1) The events in Ukraine are related to a very long political struggle about the future regional direction of the country. The struggle has been flaring up ever since the Orange Revolution 2004. But its roots stretch back hundreds of years, connecting to the fights between the Russian, Ottoman and Holy Roman Empires for control of the region.
Catholic Ukrainian speakers in the West feel closer to Poland, Lithuania and the rest of Europe. Orthodox Russian speakers in the East, along with people strongly affiliated with the USSR (like the Tatars in the South), obviously want strong ties to Russia.
There are lots of fun ways to visualize these challenges. WaPo shows some of these maps here, along with a good explanation of the situation.
While the challenges are not necessarily historically determined, there are obvious historical trends at play. Kiev is the ancient home of the Russian people, but the Ukraine has always been a battle ground between Turks, Slavs and Catholics. These historical tensions are reflected in the country's current political challenges.
2) Ukraine is a mess economically and the government is corrupt and ineffective. The latter isn't necessarily new to the region (KZ is no different), but the citizens of post-Soviet states are more tolerant of the BS and the bribes when everyone is seeing some sort of progress. In that way, they're no different than the citizens of Western countries, who's citizens tend to ignore government failings when times are good, but they get a little crazier during economic struggles (enter Tea Party).
Ukraine is essentially broke and owes a lot of money to all of the usual international institutions. The most important issue in Ukraine right now is finding some way to get economic growth. This frame needs to be placed on any other discussion of the crisis.
3) The EU started this mess. You don't need to mince words. Politics in Ukraine is about balancing the aspirations of both the East and West of the country. The EU threw a bad trade deal at Ukraine that would have been harmful economically in the short term (subjecting them to IMF austerity terms) while waving a giant middle finger at the East who still wants strong ties with Russia. It would have been crippling politically for Yanukovich and the interests he represents. He had to turn it down.
Worse, Ukraine was expected to get take on very harsh terms for what was barely better than nothing from the EU. They continue on their "way" to trade integration, but they got nothing in the line of things like immigration rights. The Spectator sums it up well.
In spite of stringing Kiev along with pretty words about a European future, the EU could offer only $800 million , via the IMF, and that came at the price of exceptionally painfully economic reforms. Ukraine would have been subjected to the same devastation of its agriculture, on which it depends, as Romania and Bulgaria were in their pre-accession period. Its industry would have collapsed as well. Russia, by contrast, has been able to offer nearly 20 times this sum in loans to prevent Ukraine from becoming insolvent, and it is the biggest market for Ukrainian exports – bigger than the whole of the EU put together.Which deal would you choose? The EU probably recognized this too, which is why they played their trump card. By creating a crisis (calling off all EU integration talks in one fell swoop), they can hope to force Yanukovich out of power undemocratically, putting in the other, more favorable part of the elite. Not surprising, the EU is now forcing sanctions on Ukraine, furthering the crisis.
4) During calm moments, the people in the streets are largely average Western Ukrainians who hope that some sort of European integration will reduce the corruption, impotency and insanity of the Ukrainian political system. Honestly, it's a little naive, but their intentions (liberal, transparent, just) are good.
But the real power behind the protest is a bunch of extreme right neo-Nazi parties. The Russian press has covered this well, and these groups are quite prominent in Ukraine, going by names like Far Right Sector and Trident. Russia tends to throw around this term a little too liberally (since this is ultimately the conflict that defines modern Russia), but it is mostly apt here.
Svoboda (the right political party that is the most moderate of the groups involved and actually has ministers in Parliament) marched around new year celebrating a Ukrainian nationalist leader that fought along side the Nazis against the Soviets. This is pretty typical of the group; their former name is the “Social-National Party of Ukraine” (ring a bell?). You hear lots of nationalist chants in the squares, along with insults about how the current government consists of "Jews."
To be fair, racist thugs are being employed by the government to counter the protests too. (The Berkut has pep talks where it calls the protesters a bunch of Jews). But it's important to remember that either side would act appallingly regardless of who was in political power.
5) Yulia Tymoshenko was just released from jail, which should make the lead up to the snap elections really nuts. Like everyone else in Ukrainian politics, she's corrupt and her party was pretty terrible while in government. But she is an obvious unifying figurehead for the movement (more than Klitschko or any of the other politicians in "talks"), and she is certainly liked by the West. We'll get to watch her propped up on a pedestal for awhile even though she's incredibly unpopular back home. It's not a coincidence that essentially no one was actually protesting in favor of her release.
6) Most importantly, keep in mind that the West always has an axe to grind with Russia. Egypt, despite the deaths of hundreds and an actual military coup, is getting more than a billion dollars in military aid from the US. Ukraine, which more than anything just needs some money, is facing sanctions because less than 50 people have died in a political struggle. The hypocrisy and the extreme prejudice are appalling.
The West owes an incredible gratitude to Putin for his pivotal role in stabilizing several political crises over the last few years (Iran and Syria are largely Russian diplomacy efforts). There is a lot to dislike about his politics, but there's a lot to dislike about the politics of any country. We can call Russia corrupt and homophobic, but US politics aren't corrupt? The US isn't homophobic? People really need to stop fighting the Cold War and start looking at the world with a little sense of rationalism.
Similar things can be said about Yanukovich. He is legitimately and democratically elected. We can debate the effects of the centralization of powers under his control, but it is maddening that Western governments are forcing street diplomacy onto Ukraine because they do not like his politics. It is a huge disservice to Ukrainians, who deserve better than to be trapped in the middle of an East-West pissing contest.
7) One of the many paradoxes of the Maidan revolution is the status of Yanukovych. On the one hand, this man is a clown. He was always bad for Ukraine, and he made it worst during his presidency. He deserves almost everything that has happened to him over the last few months. The nearly universal hatred is well deserved.
While he talks about the fascists in the square, it's an unavoidable fact that he is primarily responsible for his ouster. A savvier politician wouldn't have passed the anti-protest laws that got everyone to the street; a better human being wouldn't have had snipers shoot civilians. And yet, despite all of this, Ukraine is worse off for the way that it got rid of him. The Maidan did serious damage to long-term democratic stability. Even if this crisis is resolved soon (and armed seizures of airports in Crimea show that this is only the beginning), this armed revolt have negative effects for many years.
8) Ultimately, recent events nail home a very under-appreciated aspect of Russia's foreign policy: the premium placed on stability. For very good reasons, Russians hate political and social upheaval. They can easily describe the huge human cost of various revolutions.
Most Americans, while perhaps possessing the more justifiable ideals than Putin's Russia, have no sense of proportion, restraint or humility in international affairs. We naively celebrate the fall of tyrants, and cheer on demonstrations for "democracy and freedom." When these situations become chaotic and people starting dying, we shrug our shoulders and foolishly blame "national character" or "lack of civilization" for the obvious effects of our own efforts at destabilization.
I hope for the best in Ukraine, but this is the second time in 10 years that the street has settled political problems. I can't see how this bodes well in the future. In Kyrgyzstan, another fractious Post-Soviet, each successive revolution has been more violent than the last. The negative effects of the instability linger, and you end up with pogroms against ethnic minorities.
I'm sure there are reasons to celebrate the fall of a thoroughly corrupt politician with authoritarian tendencies. But at the same time, I mourn for those people (half the country!) who supported and organized behind him. Russian-speakers should have little faith in the future of democratic Ukraine, as this is the second time that Westerners have overthrown a man that they worked to elect. Where do you go from here?
No comments:
Post a Comment