http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/
The Ukrainian Dystopia – Domestic and Foreign Factors
by Leonid Savin
Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru
First
of all, the situation in Ukraine is not as simple as it is being
described by the Western media and Brussels/Washington politicians. The
protest was started just before the Vilnius summit of the Eastern
Partnership at the end of November 2013. Actually, most of protesters
didn’t read the proposed agreement about the association with the EU,
but were galvanized by leaders of the oppositional parties (Svoboda,
Udar, Batkivschina). The slogan was that Ukraine is part of Europe (yes,
of course, there was no doubt about this), but only a few interested
individuals knew that such an agreement of association had previously
been signed with… Jordan, Morocco, and some other countries.
This
document was developed as tool of the EU’s soft power for engagement of
the African and Eastern European markets. When President Yanukovich did
not sign this agreement, the West initiated a colossal campaign against
him: from political and diplomatic pressure to direct support of the
Ukrainian opposition. We must take into account that the opposition,
both nationalistic and liberal, was supported by the EU and USA years
before through grant program.
Klichko’s
Udar party was especially supported by Germany (he is also a resident
of Germany). Russia has supported the decision of the Ukrainian
president and provided a large discount for gas supplies and a loan of
$15 billion. This gesture of good will was interpreted by the opposition
and Ukrainian right-wing nationalists as the imperial ambitions of
Moscow. From this point of view, Yanukovich is a puppet of Russia.
Some
Ukrainian oligarchs also started to actually support the opposition
because they are not pleased with Yanukovich and have their own funds
abroad. Of course, there were long consultations between these oligarchs
and Western politicians for how to better increase the pressure against
the president, and the protests were intensified. We see that the
general frontline of the protests was captured by ultra-radical groups
similar to the Black Bloc of the antiglobalist movement a few years ago,
but with a different political orientation.
These
right-wing groups committed most of the violence during the protests
(the destruction of Lenin’s memorial, attacks on police with Molotov
cocktails, the ‘occupying’ of governmental building), and the political
opposition was an umbrella that brought together these radicals. In
reality, neo-Nazi radicals are strongly against the EU and European
values and have no any road map for the future of Ukraine. They are
funded by an umbrella of opposition groups (300 UAH for a day’s stay on
Maidan and 2000 UAH for those who attacked police with Molotov
cocktails. 1 $ US = 8 UAH) and both structures (the political opposition
and neo-Nazi urban insurgents) choose the victims – it is the
president, the Party of Regions, and the police.
After
violent attacks near the ministers’ offices, parliament issued new laws
pertaining towards addressing responsibility for such acts of protests
and violence. But even these measures did not provide a cure for the
crisis. On 25 December, three policemen were captured by extremists (one
was wounded by a knife) and illegally held in one of the captured
buildings in Kiev. The same day, Yanukovich proposed giving the post of
prime minister to the leader of the Batkivshina party (Yatsenyuk) and
the post of vice-prime-minister to Klischko (they refused).
Despite
Western allegations otherwise, there really wasn’t much police
violence, and the government does have the legal right to use such power
if need be. In two words, we have a conflict between the established
legal structures (president, parliament, other governmental structures)
and those with self-proclaimed legitimacy (the opposition with mass
support), as described by Carl Schmitt. The problem is that the
opposition is very active, but the followers of the president,
government, and order are passive. When the “Euromaidan” civil activists
in Kiev and other regions began their street blockades and use of
violence, the majority of Ukrainians did nothing and hoped that the
police and the security service would intervene. But a paralyzed police
force cannot perform their own standard functions because the opposition
describes such measures as “violence against the people”.
The
current problem is that the opposition umbrella does not have control
over the violent neo-Nazi groups in Kiev and other regions, and some
opposition leaders are nervous about their own place in any future
political system in Ukraine. Another problem is that the “Euromaidan”
activists have raised support from abroad (including from the Ukrainian
diaspora) under the idea of “the people fighting against an
authoritarian regime”. The masses do not usually understand the
complexity behind such situations, and thus, they are profitably
manipulated by those who are directing the destabilization.
The Strategic Landscape
The
general context of these (and previous) protests may be found in the
political system of Ukraine – it is liberal capitalism. For the last ten
years, the social sector was destroyed, and Ukraine experienced a rapid
rise in unemployment. Many citizens therefore needed to go abroad for
work (Russia, Poland, and the European countries) or immigrate. When the
“Orange Revolution” started in 2004, there was lots of optimism. The
majority believed in changing the status quo and there were many calls
of “Yes, we can!”. But this process of reorganization was twisted and
stagnant.
The
leaders were politically impotent, and corruption increased by leaps
and bounds. The governmental system became more rotten than it had ever
been before, and this process continued to accelerate. When Yanukovich
returned to the presidency, he did not do enough to pursue radical
changes to this trend. He cares more about his own “clan”, and this
began the conflict between the oligarchs.
As
I wrote above, some of them began to support the opposition (whereas
they had supported Yanukovich in the past). The feeling of “yes, indeed”
penetrated the minds of some oligarchs and they began to play their own
game. Yet, they did not understand that another game was already in
effect and that they were simply pawns within it!
Yanukovich
understood that associating with the EU would be the last major
political decision he would make. After the agreement, he would have to
release Yulia Timosehnko (the former prime minister) from jail, and
there is even a chance that he himself would then be sent to jail!
Secondly, EU association would mean the implementation of protective
tariffs from Russia. Russian gas would then be sold to Ukraine for the
same price as it is to the EU. For example, in 2014 it would be about
$370-380 per 1000 cubic meters, but Belarus would only be paying $175!!!
The
difference can most certainly be felt, especially when one thinks about
the economy’s industrial complex. In the process of building the
Customs Union and the Eurasian Union, Russia will be very sensitive
about any economic vectors near and around its own space. Ukraine would
lose access to the huge Russian (but also Belarusian and Kazakh) market
for its own goods, as well as the cheap goods coming out of the Customs
Union. But the protesters do not think in geopolitical norms. They only
rely on emotions…
European Involvement
European
leaders are really confused. The European and US politicians need to
stop and think before they continue to act, as they do not fully
understand what it is they are doing. In the EU, we see much more police
violence during protests than is the norm. When information about
right-wing neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine entered into the Western media,
there was cognitive dissonance. When Ukrainian Jews were attacked by the
same protesters standing in Maidan, there was a strong reaction from
the international Jewish community, but the European establishment once
more expressed cognitive dissonance.
They
wanted a planned and manipulated reality, but real life is different
than their constructed images of it. They even wanted to present
different images and pictures of what is happening. After two people
were killed, new questions emerged: what is happening inside the
opposition’s camp, and why can’t the opposition leaders control the
radical groups under their own umbrella? I think that the European
security services have knowledge and experience in dealing with
leaderless resistance movements and insurgent anarchism, but the
recognition of this occurring in Ukraine would also lead to the
recognition that the Ukrainian government must use force to combat this
extremist (even with European assistance)! In actuality, the EU does not
have special think tanks or well-educated analysts that focus on
Ukraine. Therefore, the European community does not have enough
information about what is happening there, what its roots are, and what
the possible tree of scenarios could be.
The Goals of the Ukrainian Opposition
The
opposition wants to organize new presidential and parliamentary
elections because that is the only legal way to change the power system.
Because new presidential elections are scheduled for March 2015, this
crisis is a serious test for Yanukovich. For the opposition, it is
chance to get more publicity, because until now, they were supported
only by some regions. And with the promotional aid of the EU and US,
such a goal will be easier. On the other hand, they do not have a single
leader to rally behind, so we could see an internal battle be waged
inside the opposition’s camp in the future.
Ukraine
actually has a very clear electoral map where one can see which region
votes for the Party of Regions and which support the nationalists’
parties. If confidence in Yanukovich decreases, then he will lose
support from the East and South of Ukraine (his classic base of
electoral support). Nonetheless, Yanukovich is a legal president and he
will not leave office before his term is over – this is certain. His
post is guaranteed by the Constitution, and he has already proposed a
plan for ending the crisis. The opposition does not have any such
constructive ideas, and they speak with the language of ultimatums. This
attitude is impossible to use in any normal negotiations, and the EU
understands this very well. Therefore, they (the outsiders) cannot
propose anything and just have to wait to see what happens.
The Role of the Media
Most
of the Ukrainian and European media take an incendiary position. There
has been a lot of misinformation spread about the events in Kiev. Some
US media outlets have used strategic rhetoric, for example, the Foreign
Affairs magazine issued by the Council on Foreign Relations used the
word “ceasefire” in an article about the process of ongoing negotiations
between the authorities and the opposition.
Such
a discourse is symbolic of a war of conscience against the state of
Ukraine. Blogs and social networks are also effective in advancing this
campaign. If one looks at a map of the “Euromaidan” hashtag, most
activity will be seen as coming from three locations – Kiev, Washington,
and London! Alternative media can also be of use in finding out more
information about various figures of the opposition, for example, Oleg
Tyagnibok of the Svoboda Party (formerly the Social-Nationalist Party of
Ukraine), statements from his hate speeches (mostly against Jews,
Russians, Poles, and communists), his background, and where he gets his
money from to fund his current activities.
External Actors
Ukrainian
MPs, the prime minister, and even oppositional leaders (Klichko)
already recognized that there have been manipulations and interference
from abroad. This means that external influence has already happened. If
regime change occurs, this will not mean anything good for Ukrainians.
Radicals are radicals under any regime. They will use Molotov cocktails
again, but this time, the target of their attacks will be the EU’s
occupational regime, the degraded culture of the West, banks, and
corporations (under the auspices of honor and Ukrainian independence, of
course). This type of bourgeois right-wing nationalist that we
currently see on Maidan will be emancipated in the near future.
Some
oppositional leaders will get preferential treatment from the West,
while a select few will be used as technical actors during the
consequent engagement of Ukraine with the West. European
institutionalism is a good tool for gradual reforms, but with the rise
of Euroscepticism, especially in the neighboring countries of Hungary
and Slovakia, this will no longer be as easy as before. The
“Palestine-ization” of Ukraine could worryingly occur. There is a
serious present crisis affecting the state system, political processes,
national identity, geopolitical thinking, and sovereignty. I think that
the key decisions that we see in the upcoming days will address each of
these topics. Then we will see a test that can gauge the actual
sovereignty of Ukraine.
The Geopolitical Scale
In
this crisis, the main geopolitical actors are trying to get new
experience in order to use it for their own benefits. Russia is
following a clumsy strategy of engagement and acts more reactively than
proactively. The EU seems to be a timid actor, as the Ukrainian vector
had been a fault line in the European strategy for many years. Because
of the economic crisis and problems with its own identity within the EU,
Ukraine is perceived as a difficult partner.
The
homogenization of the Ukrainian space would not go as easily as
previously planned, and Ukrainian society is divided in their vision of
the future. The US continues to battle against Russia and the Eurasian
Union. For this reason, Ukraine is a good place to wage such a campaign.
The timing is on the side of the US, because the Olympic Games in Sochi
may distract the global public (in a similar fashion as the 2008
Olympic Games in China provided a cover for Saakashvili’s regime to
begin military aggression against South Ossetia). In this situation,
Ukraine loses its geopolitical maneuverability very quickly. The
moderate balance that served as a useful political tool for Ukraine’s
external activities during the presidency of Leonid Kuchma no longer
works. This is because in a geopolitical sense, Ukraine does not
understand the necessity of a strong alliance with Russia and the
Eurasian bloc, as without it, the country will be slowly devoured by the
EU and manipulated by the US. Separatism could also possibly occur in
Ukraine.
The
first mirage of this processes emerged in 2004, but now the situation
is more complex and there will be more than two separate pieces if this
scenario becomes reality. The Zakarpatie region (bordering Hungary and
Slovakia) does not want to be in an independent Western Ukraine. The
Crimea has some Tatars who generally supported the “Euromaidan” events,
so a conflict in the Crimea Autonomous Republic is also possible there,
especially when we take into account that many Tatars have already been
waging jihad in Syria and now have experience in military insurgency.
Conclusion
Any
results of “Euromaidan” will be negative both for the Ukrainian people
and regional geopolitics. The society inside of the country is divided,
and part of it thinks in the framework of revenge and resentment (both
sides of the current conflict). The process of reconciliation will not
be fast and easy. The only possible way for a positive political
development would be innovation, but the Ukrainian political elites are
lazy and do not have enough intellectual skills and experience to devise
such innovations, as neither do the opposition. European and US
advisors will not bring winning ideas to the Ukrainian opposition. The
radical nationalistic sector thinks only about the realization of their
own ideas which are similar to xenophobia and Nazism. Because of the
activity of these aforementioned elements, there is no possibility to
marginalize and “freeze” them.
The
oligarchs will also try to use radicals as a frontline to further their
own profit. It is very strange that the nationalists cooperate so
closely with the cosmopolitan oligarchs and the neoliberals in Ukraine,
because the doctrine of Ukrainian nationalism is against oligarchy and
globalization. This alliance thus symbolizes nothing besides the
hypocrisy that is standard for business interests involved in politics.
Therefore, the new state of a hypocritical Ukraine is the most plausible
scenario that we will have in the future.
