| CNN | - |
Kiev,
Ukraine (CNN) -- We're leaving. No, you're not. That's where the crisis
in Ukraine stood Thursday after lawmakers in Crimea voted in favor of
leaving the country for Russia and putting it to a regional vote in 10
days.
Updated: March 7, 2014 00:42 IST
Caught between Russia and the EU
Removing Bed Bugs - Home Remedies That Get Rid of Bed Bugs Without Chemicals. bedroomguardian.com/Bed_Bugs
Ukraine threatens to become the Syria of Eastern Europe. And like Syria, civil war could ultimately decimate a vibrant and ethnically diverse society, and a rich civilisational legacy
The political crisis in Ukraine, that has now entered its fourth month,
is rapidly reaching a point of no return. Territorial fissures in the
country along political, linguistic and ethnic lines, the real
possibility of civil war, and the emergence of the southern (autonomous)
Ukrainian republic of Crimea as a potential, international military
flashpoint, are among the different aspects of the current situation in
the country, which is the second largest state in Europe.
The focus has shifted from Kiev to the southern province of Crimea where
the interim government that deposed former President Viktor Yanukovych
has not been recognised. With its complex ethnic mix and historical
past, the region has traditionally had strong ties with Russia.
Russia has stepped up its military presence in Crimea — it already has a
treaty with Ukraine that allows it to station its Black Sea Fleet in
Sevastopol, and its Parliament recently passed a resolution reserving
the right for limited military intervention to defend the rights of 1.5
million Russians in Crimea.
The western bloc has accused Russia of the “armed seizure” of Crimea,
and Washington is putting together legislation for a package of
sanctions against Russia that could include trade restrictions, visa
bans and asset freezes. These countries have withdrawn from preparations
for the G8 Summit that is to be held in Sochi, the venue of the Winter
Olympics.
Euromaidan and agreement
The background to the crisis goes back to the three month occupation of the Euromaidan in Kiev which grew out of opposition to President Yanukovych’s decision to postpone signing an Association Agreement with the European Union (EU).
The background to the crisis goes back to the three month occupation of the Euromaidan in Kiev which grew out of opposition to President Yanukovych’s decision to postpone signing an Association Agreement with the European Union (EU).
The protests and sit-ins rapidly spiralled into pitched battles between
protesters and police. Police reprisals against protesters — of whom a
large section were armed with deadly weapons including Molotov cocktails
to force entry into government buildings — resulted in 85 deaths.
In the face of escalating street clashes, and increasing pressure from
the EU and the United States to accommodate the opposition’s demands,
Mr. Yanukovych was forced to sign an EU-brokered agreement with his
Maidan opponents on February 21.
The agreement represented the first real breakthrough in the deadlock,
as it had the support of all the players in the conflict — including the
western bloc and Russia. Mr. Yanukovych promised a return to the 2004
Constitution within 48 hours, the setting up of a government of national
unity, and presidential elections between September and December of
this year.
The opposition parties and their backers, however, clearly had a bigger
agenda. A day later they broke the agreement and seized power in Kiev.
This sent the deposed President, who now faces charges of mass murder,
into refuge in southern Russia.
Ukraine is now facing an acute economic crisis as well. It is close to
bankruptcy with a debt of nearly $73 billion. In December, President
Yanukovych had secured a bailout deal with Russia, which offered to buy
$15 billion of Ukrainian debt in two-year bonds, plus a $3.5 billion
discount on natural gas purchases. The offer stands withdrawn in the
light of the recent political changes.
With elections announced for May, the new government is seeking a $35
billion aid package from the International Monetary Fund, which, if it
does come, will have unpopular strings attached in the form of harsh
austerity measures. The U.S. government has also offered $1 billion in
immediate aid.
Two perspectives
History shows how swiftly the root causes of international conflict often get buried under the layers of subsequent events. This seems to be fast happening in the Ukrainian crisis with the ground now shifting to the Crimean crisis, and the Russian military threat there.
History shows how swiftly the root causes of international conflict often get buried under the layers of subsequent events. This seems to be fast happening in the Ukrainian crisis with the ground now shifting to the Crimean crisis, and the Russian military threat there.
Nevertheless, the two perspectives on the conflict remain unchanged.
Europe and the U.S. view regime change in Kiev as the outcome of a
democratic revolution and President Yanukovych as a corrupt and
tyrannical surrogate for Russian President Vladimir Putin. This view
permeates most sections of the western media. The Euromaidan reportage
continued to see the protest as popular and spontaneous long after its
leadership had been infiltrated by avowedly right wing and neo-Nazi
nationalist groups. The overt western support for the protests was at
best glossed over and at worst justified. The resistance to the new Kiev
government in the Crimea and eastern regions, which derives from a
complex play of factors, is still presented as Russia-sponsored dissent.
The other perspective sees regime change in Kiev as a coup, funded by
the West, with right-wing forces firmly in the driving seat.
The regime of President Yanukovych was undoubtedly authoritarian and
corrupt but he was not only a democratically elected President, but had
also agreed to an interim government ahead of an advanced schedule of
elections.
A stream of high-profile figures from the EU and the U.S. visited the
Maidan actively stoking dissent, actions that would not be tolerated in
any western capital where anti-government protests are taking place. The
visitors included Special Representative of the EU, Baroness Ashton;
former U.S. presidential candidate John McCain; and the U.S. Assistant
Secretary General for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland. In
fact, the substantial part of Ms Nuland’s infamous leaked conversation
with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pratt — which the western media swooped on
for her abusive dismissal of the EU — has only lent credence to the
allegation of U.S. micromanagement of regime change in Kiev.
Western-backed coup
“Without doubt a western-backed coup,” is how Marcus Papadopoulos, London-based Editor of Politics First magazine, described the political change in Ukraine. “Ukraine is an independent country. How has the U.S. and the EU respected its independence? By joining the protests that they called a pro-democracy movement,” he told The Hindu. “Ukraine has a huge industry-military complex. Forty per cent of south and east Ukraine are Russian-speaking, and Russia will seek to protect them. It has a right to make sure its economic interests are protected. It does not want a country on its borders that is illegitimate.
“Without doubt a western-backed coup,” is how Marcus Papadopoulos, London-based Editor of Politics First magazine, described the political change in Ukraine. “Ukraine is an independent country. How has the U.S. and the EU respected its independence? By joining the protests that they called a pro-democracy movement,” he told The Hindu. “Ukraine has a huge industry-military complex. Forty per cent of south and east Ukraine are Russian-speaking, and Russia will seek to protect them. It has a right to make sure its economic interests are protected. It does not want a country on its borders that is illegitimate.
“In 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed an agreement on the division of the
Black Sea Fleet, with 81 per cent going to Russia along with Sevastopol
and other military installations in the Crimea. In return, Moscow
compensated Kiev with a large sum of money as well as writing off a
large amount of Ukrainian debt. Russia also pays Ukraine an annual fee.”
After its independence in 1991 from the former Soviet Union, Ukraine has
swung between its desire for integration into the European Union and
keeping friendly ties with Russia, which continues to be its largest
single trading partner that it depends on for cheap energy resources.
According to Mr. Yanukovych, integration into the EU through a Deep and
Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) would have cost the Ukrainian
economy €20 billion.
Restrictive trade policy
“This is a highly restrictive and bullying trade policy by the EU,” said Robert Oulds, Director of the Bruges Group, a London-based think-tank. “When President Yanukovych postponed signing an Association Agreement in late 2011 it did not create a political issue. This time the EU and the U.S. whipped up opposition to him,” he said.
“This is a highly restrictive and bullying trade policy by the EU,” said Robert Oulds, Director of the Bruges Group, a London-based think-tank. “When President Yanukovych postponed signing an Association Agreement in late 2011 it did not create a political issue. This time the EU and the U.S. whipped up opposition to him,” he said.
According to Mr. Oulds, Mr. Yanukovych had strong reasons for caution as
75 per cent of the United Kingdom’s industrial exports go to Russia,
and a major part of Ukraine’s export is to the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS). “Ukraine cannot be part of an EU Free Trade
Association and also be part of the Russian[-led] Custom’s union. An EU
agreement will put quotas on Ukraine, the highest being on agricultural
goods like sugar and wheat. The quota for wheat is limited to 20,000
tonnes [subsequently negotiated to two million tonnes], whereas
globally, Ukraine exports 10-15 million tonnes. European integration
will result in huge job losses owing to the closure of many businesses
because of higher EU regulations. For Ukraine it is a very bad deal,” he
said.
Clearly, the EU’s vision for the integration of Ukraine has
ramifications beyond the economic as it seeks to draw Ukraine into a
defence, security and political framework that would give it strategic
importance as a pro-NATO state on the very borders of Russia.
A policy paper prepared by the Razumkov Centre, a pro-EU think-tank located in Kiev, set this framework out clearly.
“The EU’s interests (that condition its actions and influence with
respect to Ukraine) ensue from the ideology of the European
Neighbourhood Policy and priorities of the Eastern Partnership,” it
states. “They involve creating around the EU a belt of democratic,
prosperous and stable states sharing common values … forming a security
area around it and expanding its sphere of influence to the South and
East. The EU is interested in ‘Europeanising’ Ukraine, introducing the
European norms and standards to its domestic and foreign policy.”
Meanwhile, the interim government in Kiev has announced elections on May
25, an exercise that Crimea has already said it will boycott and
replace by a referendum on whether to stay within Ukraine.
In the Kiev ministry, 10 key posts have gone to the Fatherland Party of
former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, including President Olexander
Turchyonov and Prime Minister in the interim government Arseniy
Yatsenyuk. Of significance however is the presence of the far-right
parties, who acted as the steel fists of the Euromaidan movement. The
neo-Nazi and Russo-phobic Svoboda Party is not far behind with major
portfolios including defence, economic affairs, education, ecology and
agriculture. Also represented are members of the Right Sector party,
another far-right outfit.
Tetyana Chornovol, portrayed as a crusading journalist, but who has also
been involved with the ultra-right Ukrainian National Assembly, was
named chair of the government’s anti-corruption committee.
Ukraine threatens to become the Syria of Eastern Europe. And like Syria,
civil war could ultimately decimate a vibrant and ethnically diverse
society, and a rich civilisational legacy.
parvathi.menon@thehindu.co.in
Keywords: Ukraine crisis, Crimea coup, Russia Ukraine dispute, Vladimir Putin, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Viktor Yanukovych, Oleksandr Turchinov
end quote from:
Caught between Russia and the EU
I shared this opinion article from "The Hindu" because it has a more neutral and international perspective than one might get from American or EU sources. From this perspective one sees more elements involved here, from the Neo Nazis and extreme rightists who led a lot of the protests in Kiev.
What's happening in Ukraine is neither black or white in the end but many shades of gray in regard to the behaviors of both sides. Possibly more people understanding this might avoid more blood shed in Ukraine on either side.
end quote from:
Caught between Russia and the EU
I shared this opinion article from "The Hindu" because it has a more neutral and international perspective than one might get from American or EU sources. From this perspective one sees more elements involved here, from the Neo Nazis and extreme rightists who led a lot of the protests in Kiev.
What's happening in Ukraine is neither black or white in the end but many shades of gray in regard to the behaviors of both sides. Possibly more people understanding this might avoid more blood shed in Ukraine on either side.
No comments:
Post a Comment