Civil war brewing in Ukraine?

Ukraine, one of the poorest nations in Europe, stands on the brink of civil war as a protest over center-right voters and progressive reformers was taken over by separatists. What’s worse, no matter what is finally agreed upon, Ukraine remains close to economic bankruptcy and (the historical norm in recent centuries) – ripe pawns for West European oligarchs.

From the outside looking in, one must fault the EU-US tandem perhaps more than Russia. The EU has no intention of letting Ukraine into their union immediately and also no intention of extending visa-free Schengen travel. Unless all 28 members unanimously agree to reverse this current policy (as required by the body’s regulations), the EU’s meddling appears designed only to exacerbate Ukraine’s horrific turmoil, and also to weaken their closest geographical competitor – Russia.
Because the EU’s offer back in November was so paltry – simply 827-million-dollar chance to flood Ukraine’s markets with superior goods and eager, fat-pocketed businessmen – it is regrettable that they felt justified to immediately interfere with sanctions the day after the first two protesters were killed on Maidan Square. Instead of sanctions, their choice as a clearly disinterested observer should have been privileging dialogue, and only privileging dialogue.
But in the West, from politicians to journalists down the line, there has been an unquestioning policy of three tenets: 1. The democratically-elected Ukrainian government must be toppled, 2. Whatever Russia wants is wrong and morally reprehensible, and 3. Self-aggrandizing flattery that without reservation the average Ukrainian wants to join the EU. All three tenets are false at worst and only self-serving half-truths at best.
Ukraine is undoubtedly torn: the center-right and far-right parties who fill Maidan Square want to turn westward. But there are vast silent masses, perhaps even the silent majority – certainly the dominant view in the nation’s east and southern Crimean regions – who want to remain close to Russia.
And Russia’s offer of a $15 billion bailout appears to have been a far, far better option for Ukraine back in November. Russia’s additional offer of inclusion in their Eurasian customs union would be far better for Ukraine than being a dumping ground for the vastly richer EU; from being plundered by EU austerity as a pre-condition to a not-even-offered inclusion.
Focusing on the reality of the deals offered to Ukraine is a must, because many others are trying to get others to focus instead on the nation’s regional, linguistic or religious rivalries. No one can deny such rivalries exist (which seem to be quite common in nations with 46 million people), but focusing on these so-called “unresolvable differences” would be to apply the same limited worldview which has shaped the West’s terrible, destructive policy in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, the Central African Republic, Mali and elsewhere. Furthermore, this worldview serves to help outsiders “divide and conquer,” and Ukraine may certainly be, unfortunately, on the road to division.
A word here on the much discredited idea of nationalism: Nationalism for a powerful nation-state is a conceit, but in a nation like Ukraine the tolerance of true patriotism is needed to prevent the nation from splitting, from weakening and to avoid being the continued pawns of more powerful neighbors like the EU and Russia. With so much appearing already lost, Ukraine needs a true, all-embracing sense of nationalism to stop the bloodshed and further extremism.
Returning to our previous subject – the actual choices Ukraine had offered to them in November – we can see how many Ukrainians believe that the Yanukovych government made a logical decision to choose Moscow’s package over Brussels’. The EU made a paltry offer, and the media are currently filled in France, Germany and the English-speaking world with the phrase “a lost opportunity for the EU.” Indeed, it was a bad, short-sighted offer that was justifiably rejected.
Many in Ukraine, contrary to Western media portrayals, already understand this. And time will surely see the rise of counter-protests to the shockingly violent tactics of the current right-wing protesters. Journalism is often just the business of predicting, and we can count on counter-protests in a nation so undeniably divided even before the Maidan Square.
But the free-market, capitalist, trade union building-burning, westward-facing protesters would have none of it: not more dialogue, not following constitutional law, not peaceful protests. Strong descriptors, but why have the reforming progressives given way to the nationalists bent on exterminating Russian influence? Where were the center-right refomers when Yanukovych was (already) voted out of office unanimously by Parliament, and without even the slightest pretense of due process? Of course, Ukraine’s constitution had many levers for a legal impeachment, but they were not followed, which is another discredit to the progressive protesters.
Is Yanukovych responsible for the terrible deaths of dozens of protesters (and also the deaths of policemen, as well)? That is for a Ukrainian court to decide, and not an outside journalist, thankfully.
But, one only imagines what the response in Western nations would be to protesters “occupying” a capital square for three months. Considering that in the US protesters usually went from the bus to the protest directly to a bus headed to jail, I guess we’ll never know. And we can only imagine how powerful Western police forces would respond to three months of “occupiers” who then chose to arm themselves with Kalashnikovs and handguns.
Because even the most radical proponents of immediate political change have to ask themselves: When does the rule of law come into play? In Ukraine, after three months the police were authorized to use force, resulting in dozens of protester deaths. That’s unacceptable, yet we struggle to answer questions of when a state can justifiably use lethal force without losing its president and constitution: All I can honestly say is that for some it is sooner than for others, but for others it is not at all.
But, sidestepping this difficult moral question, this is why it’s clear that what we have right now in Ukraine is a violent revolution – it is not a “velvet” one. Unfortunately, cooler heads did not prevail, and interested onlookers wonder how such violence will improve Ukraine’s quagmire of a national situation.
Will the protesters have effectuated major change? At this point, it seems unlikely. Ukraine is still stuck between a rock – the wary EU – and a hard place – an often Russia.
Regarding the EU, the coming days will see if they will actually radically change their offer to Ukraine. They are talking about a new, $20 billion IMF loan (with the usual society-crushing strings attached, of course: Reduced pensions, higher taxes on the people, more tax breaks for businesses, more privatization, more “outside investment” and selling off of sectors of the Ukraine’s economy). But why would all of Ukraine choose this offer if they aren’t also offered membership into the EU or at least the chance to join the Schengen visa space? Nobody expects the EU will budget on either.
As far as Russia is concerned, not only are they not likely to invade but they are probably laughing from the perch in the catbird seat. They know their offer is better: Inclusion in their Eurasian customs union, albeit smaller and less appealing to the progressive protesters, but without the society-crushing demands of EU austerity.
And what if Ukraine decides for neither? That’s the choice of the nationalist elements – unrepentant National Socialists, the ancestors of the Western Ukrainians who fought alongside Hitler. The neo-Nazis who want to crush Russian influence and also despise the EU. Like all rabid nationalists, they feel their country is so wonderfully perfect that they need neither allies, nor immigrants, nor modern protections for minorities (in Ukraine’s case, they are calling for outlawing the Communist Party and are rabidly anti-Semitic.).
Let’s hope the nationalists do not win, even though that currently seems to be the case. To review: Sevastopol is refusing to pay taxes to Kiev, which has declared its autonomy; provincial governors are throwing their hands up and resigning over the “complex political situation in the country;” the former right-wing protesters are now in charge, with Yanukovych’s party and the Communists formally switching places to become the declared opposition to the new, self-appointed “government”; the poor EU-secessionists in the Ukraine’s west are not wanted by Brussels, while the richer Ukrainian East and South are adamantly in favor of their old ally in Moscow. This list goes on and on and on it only spells two words: civil war.
So Ukraine is quite stuck, but the EU’s constant fomenting of the protests and their failure to privilege dialogue (which is the same role, of course, as the US) is clearly open to greater charges of meddling and of Machiavellian maneuvers which may only serve to split, and thus weaken, Ukraine and its people.