Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

[Borek]

That's just through the border from here...

Sigh, few days ago it looked as the situation was calming down. Apparently it wasn't. I wonder if anyone is really in the control of the situation on the gov side, as I have no doubts protesters are not controlled by anyone en mass.

MOD NOTE: Any member whose post doesn't meet "current event" guidelines will be timed out, that is 5 points and a 3 day ban, unless the 5 points causes a longer or permanent ban, depending on current points a member might have. So think twice before you post.

 

[SteamKing]

Most of the worst violence seems concentrated in Kiev.

 

[lisab]

Most of the worst violence seems concentrated in Kiev.

For now, and I hope the violence doesn't spread. But there are real cultural divisions in greater Ukraine, not just in Kiev.

I first thought that problems would arise due to increased visibility during the Olympics (Sochi is only 1100 km from Ukraine), but that didn't happen. As Borek mentioned it actually got quieter. I guess it was just being quashed temporarily .

 

[edward]

Here is a good read on the situation and the latest violence. Apparently the police decided to storm the main encampment of the protestors.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26249330

 

[Borek]

Here is a good read on the situation and the latest violence.

Sadly, it doesn't address the whole picture. There is a link to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25182823 with short chapter on "Who are the protesters", but even that is far from being complete, and it seems like BBC did exactly the same mistake many western media does - they list Klitschko first, when he is not a key player. West likes Klitschko as he is popular there, and he is definitely not someone to ignore, but he is not the "face" of the protests for Ukrainians. BBC doesn't even mention Oleh Tyahnybok, far-right nationalist, despite the fact he is present (side by side with Klitschko and Yatsenyuk) on the protest scene from the very beginning.

From what I understand that's part of the problem - protests have many faces and it is not just a simple pro-EU/against-EU division, there are many particular interests and strong nationalism involved.

I had reasons to call this thread "Ukrainian mess".

 

[mheslep]

Where is the strong US support for peaceful recognition of the protesters in Ukraine? Yesterday Biden, not Obama, called Yanukovych who's ordered the crackdown.

By comparison, as I recall back in the 2004-2005 Orange Revolution, Bush was personally and involved in supporting Yushchenko and the Revolution.

• Bush requests Sen Lugar to go monitor the election runoff between the revolution leader Yushchenko and the Putin backed Yanukovych, Nov 2004. Lugar carries letter from Bush to then President Kuchma "that warned that a “tarnished election” will cause the United States to “review” its relations with Ukraine."
• Bush invites Yushchenko to attend Nato summit in Feb, 2005
• Yuschenko invited to US and met with Bush/Rice April 2005

USAToday
CRS
FA

"the Yushchenko team has praised the United States as a bedrock of support for democracy and the rule of law in Ukraine. And the Yushchenko camp has stated its gratitude for the long-term efforts of the U.S. Agency for International Development to support free media, the rule of law, civil society, and civic election monitoring there."

 

[Dotini]

From what I understand that's part of the problem - protests have many faces and it is not just a simple pro-EU/against-EU division, there are many particular interests and strong nationalism involved.

I had reasons to call this thread "Ukrainian mess".

I've been reading the wikis on Ukraine and its atlas. The history of the place is clearly incredibly ancient and complex, and not a short read.

Ethno-nationalism currently seems to be roiling Europe as well as elsewhere. I wonder if the particular interests and strong nationalism operating in Ukraine, the largest nation with borders entirely within Europe, is not messed up with interests and nationalism beyond those borders?

If the Ukraine government and those protesting are not in control of themselves, what is most likely to happen there next?

 

[Borek]

I wonder if the particular interests and strong nationalism operating in Ukraine, the largest nation with borders entirely within Europe, is not messed up with interests and nationalism beyond those borders?

Definitely. Donietsk and Lviv are separated by much more than just 1000 km.

My understanding - which doesn't have to be correct - is that Eastern Ukraine has strong ties with Russia, and ideas of splitting the Ukraine and eastern part becoming part of the Russia are voiced quite often. Western Ukraine is much more independent and pro-European (and definitely against Yanukovytch - who comes from the eastern Ukraine).

If the Ukraine government and those protesting are not in control of themselves, what is most likely to happen there next?

Your guesses are as good as mine, but none of the predictions I have heard (and can think of) looks good.

 

[mheslep]

These comments by the President are welcome (if late).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kiJ6x8pvwk&list=UUun4tg1BecN4PuxwZ6mL3NA

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

100 protesters shot after a supposed truce? Really disappointing. I really don't know the issues but I find it stunning how world leaders keep making the same mistakes over and over and somehow think they are immune and safe from what has happened to other countries.

 

[Maui]

Weren't they shot at because they were firing guns in public and setting buildings on fire?

 

[Crazymechanic]

the main question as always is the one which is kept aside, and that would be ..., Who benefits the situation?
who will benefit the aftermath and the possible outcome?

Violence is bad in all cases but if it doesn't help building a batter picture then it is also totally useless, I'm not saying that someone is totally right here or someone is wrong , but i know one thing , now the EU may seem as a great western thing but once they will get to the point of going towards EU they will see all the problems asociated with it ,

by the way I'm not actually sure who runs this " revolution" is it totally by the will of the people or rather some underlying foreign interests combined with some local radicals and their supporters.

 

[Borek]

Weren't they shot at because they were firing guns in public and setting buildings on fire?

As far as I can tell it escalated because neither side was ready for a compromise, and IMHO gov side made many errors. It started as a peaceful demonstration several months ago, these protests were basically ignored by the gov side, but some members of the opposition were beaten by "unknown perpetrators", which just stiffened their stance and they started to occupy gov buildings. Somewhere around this time first protesters died of gunshots. Police started to remove them by force with a nonsense brutality, so they started to fight back. In the meantime Yanukovytsch proposed amnesty and a cease fire, then the protesters were attacked again and it looked as if the amnesty proposal was just to buy time. Then the mayhem started.

I am not following closely, but it is one of the main subject in the news here from the very beginning.

 

[Borek]

by the way I'm not actually sure who runs this " revolution" is it totally by the will of the people or rather some underlying foreign interests combined with some local radicals and their supporters.

Mix of all. There is a strong pro Russian group (Yanukovytsch and his party), there is a strong group that wants Ukraine to "go west" (mostly parties of Tymoshenko and Klitchko), and then there are nationalists. Everyone pulls in a different direction. It definitely started as a popular protest against Yanukovytch not signing the association agreement with the EU.

 

[lisab]

Where is the strong US support for peaceful recognition of the protesters in Ukraine? Yesterday Biden, not Obama, called Yanukovych who's ordered the crackdown.

Given the complexity of the problem, the fact that it was Biden and not Obama on the phone made not one iota of difference, IMO.

 

[Maui]

As far as I can tell it escalated because neither side was ready for a compromise, and IMHO gov side made many errors. It started as a peaceful demonstration several months ago, these protests were basically ignored by the gov side, but some members of the opposition were beaten by "unknown perpetrators", which just stiffened their stance and they started to occupy gov buildings. Somewhere around this time first protesters died of gunshots. Police started to remove them by force with a nonsense brutality, so they started to fight back. In the meantime Yanukovytsch proposed amnesty and a cease fire, then the protesters were attacked again and it looked as if the amnesty proposal was just to buy time. Then the mayhem started.

I am not following closely, but it is one of the main subject in the news here from the very beginning.

That is not the full account of the events but the account presented mostly by western media. You can always compare the propaganda on both sides at the two main news outlets rt.com and cnn.com. Btw did you see the leaked conversation of Victoria Nuland with the US embassy in Kiev in which she 'appointed' the next prime minister of Ukraine? I doubt the majority of people in Ukraine approve that or even consider it democratic.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but I find it stunning how world leaders keep making the same mistakes over and over and somehow think they are immune and safe from what has happened to other countries.

But they have learned from history. They learned from Tiananmen Square and they learned from Romania.

 

[SteamKing]

A black eye for Putin:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-is-the-kremlins-worst-nightmare-9146751.html

Will the (Russian) Empire strike back?

 

[Dotini]

Here is a transcript of the leaked Nuland-Pyatt call.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26079957

At one point, Pyatt says, "The problem is going to be Tyahnybok", who is a leader of the Svoboda party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-National_Party_of_Ukraine#Social-National_Party_of_Ukraine

 

[Nikitin]

Right now there is chaos and a major power-vacuum in Ukraine. The "pro-democracy" mob has managed to grab the power, couping the democratically elected president. My guess is they soon will turn on each other and a fight for power will ensue. I don't know who exactly is going to end up with the power in Kiev, but more likely than not it's going to be the same old thieves, now flying pro-Western instead of pro-Russian colours, as I doubt the young politicians will manage to defeat the likes of Timoshenko.

If things get really dramatic, instead of the guy in Kiev, Putin will have the power over Khrakov and eastern Ukraine.

A black eye for Putin:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-is-the-kremlins-worst-nightmare-9146751.html

Will the (Russian) Empire strike back?

There is a world of differences between Ukraine and Russia. Which is one of the many things that nonsense article fails to mention.

 

[SteamKing]

No one is saying that there aren't differences between Russia and the Ukraine.

The question is, will Putin settle for half of the Ukraine when he wants all of it. To do so, Putin would take a pretty hard blow to his pride and suffer some loss of prestige concerning his ability to control events in dealing with Russia's neighbors.

 

[Nikitin]

And how do you know what Putin wants? Do you think bear-Putin's aim is to conquer as much land as possible? Hell, what made you think Putin owned Ukraine in the first place? Yanukovich was a whore selling himself to the highest bidder (just like Timoshenko), not Putin's puppet.

Truly, the Russian interests lie primarily in the Crimea and the resources/markets of Eastern Ukraine. Absorbing this Russian-speaking half, while turning the other half into a stable and friendly border state, would be a masterstroke for Russia.

 

[AlephZero]

The question is, will Putin settle for half of the Ukraine when he wants all of it. To do so, Putin would take a pretty hard blow to his pride and suffer some loss of prestige concerning his ability to control events in dealing with Russia's neighbors.

And how do you know what Putin wants? Do you think bear-Putin's aim is to conquer as much land as possible? Hell, what made you think Putin owned Ukraine in the first place?

Russia "owned" much of it for centuries. Strategically, Putin's "Eurasian Union" (planned to be launched in 2015) makes little sense without it. It would be Moscow plus a few central Asian dictatorships.

Ukraine isn't just some nebulous patch of color on a map in between two major power blocks. Its land area is 15% bigger than France, and is probably the best agricultural land in Europe. Its industrial base produces ICBMs, space launchers, and some of the world's biggest transport aircraft. I know of one large US company that outsourced its entire software development activities to the Ukraine, about 2 years ago. Does Putin want to have an independent democracy like that sitting right on his borders? Dumb question!

 

[SteamKing]

And how do you know what Putin wants? Do you think bear-Putin's aim is to conquer as much land as possible? Hell, what made you think Putin owned Ukraine in the first place? Yanukovich was a whore selling himself to the highest bidder (just like Timoshenko), not Putin's puppet.

Truly, the Russian interests lie primarily in the Crimea and the resources/markets of Eastern Ukraine. Absorbing this Russian-speaking half, while turning the other half into a stable and friendly border state, would be a masterstroke for Russia.

Dial it back. I never said Russia owned the Ukraine. That's your statement.

It's obvious that Putin wants to put the Soviet Union back together under another name, the so called Eurasian Union, if nothing else to increase his prestige and to try to counterbalance an encroaching Europe and an economically surging China. The whole idea of Putin's was to prevent further inroads from the EU and especially NATO into what he, Putin, rightfully considers to be Russia's sphere of influence. After losing the Baltic states and the eastern European countries which were formerly Warsaw Pact nations but now want to join the EU and may have already joined NATO, Russia is very uneasy about the situation on its western borders, which is why it pressed for the cancellation of NATO plans to install anti-ballistic missiles in Poland in 2009. If the Ukraine were to join the EU and NATO, in my opinion, Moscow would start to feet encircled by potential rivals, if not outright enemies. This would be an unacceptable position for Putin, and it could put his government at risk with the Russian armed forces and the Russian people.

 

[Nikitin]

Dial it back. I never said Russia owned the Ukraine. That's your statement.

Yanukovich is Russian, he signed gas deals and loans worth billions and agreed to enter the Eurasia union. I assumed this was what you meant with "owning Ukraine".

It's obvious that Putin wants to put the Soviet Union back together under another name, the so called Eurasian Union, if nothing else to increase his prestige and to try to counterbalance an encroaching Europe and an economically surging China.

Fair enough, the union is an attempt to put a united front in place. But how do you equate this to an attempt at recreating an old Empire? Let's be reasonable: Creating a USSR 2 is not beneficial to Russia.

The whole idea of Putin's was to prevent further inroads from the EU and especially NATO into what he, Putin, rightfully considers to be Russia's sphere of influence. After losing the Baltic states and the eastern European countries which were formerly Warsaw Pact nations but now want to join the EU and may have already joined NATO, Russia is very uneasy about the situation on its western borders, which is why it pressed for the cancellation of NATO plans to install anti-ballistic missiles in Poland in 2009. If the Ukraine were to join the EU and NATO, in my opinion, Moscow would start to feet encircled by potential rivals, if not outright enemies. This would be an unacceptable position for Putin, and it could put his government at risk with the Russian armed forces and the Russian people.

Yes, that is true, RF obviously aims at maintaining a friendly Ukraine in its sphere of influence. The comment I was protesting against was your notion of evil bear-Putin wanting to control Ukraine completely.

I also think you are overdoing the NATO threat. The ballistic missiles thing was about the threat of negating a Russian nuclear retaliation.

Ukraine isn't just some nebulous patch of color on a map in between two major power blocks. Its land area is 15% bigger than France, and is probably the best agricultural land in Europe. Its industrial base produces ICBMs, space launchers, and some of the world's biggest transport aircraft. I know of one large US company that outsourced its entire software development activities to the Ukraine, about 2 years ago.

Empty rhetoric. In reality, Ukraine is a divided country, its finances are in ruins, it is unstable and the so-called industrial base you speak of is uncompetitive. It's hardly something Putin would want to control. In fact, annexing the russian-speaking eastern half while maintaining friendly relations with a stable western half would be an improvement over having a large, but constantly unstable and unwilling puppet.

Does Putin want to have an independent democracy like that sitting right on his borders? Dumb question!

It's been an (relatively) independent democracy for a long time now. Just because the Ukrainians elected a leader you don't like, doesn't mean it's a dictatorship. Not to say it's a healthy democracy - the politics are dominated by oligarchs.

 

[mheslep]

... Let's be reasonable: Creating a USSR 2 is not beneficial to Russia.

Instead of hand waiving about what others should be, why not provide some evidence for your assessment?

[The demise of the Soviet Union was] "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century."

http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050426/news_1n26russia.html

 

[russ_watters]

But they have learned from history. They learned from Tiananmen Square and they learned from Romania.

Apparently not well enough. It is my understanding that what turned this event around was that the police rapidly lost the stomach for shooting their own people and joined the resistance. That's a good sign of a government by and for the people instead of by and for the President. That's something the old-world communist countries don't have.

 

[russ_watters]

But how do you equate this to an attempt at recreating an old Empire? Let's be reasonable: Creating a USSR 2 is not beneficial to Russia.

I think we all agree that it isn't beneficial to Russia, but that's the wrong question: the question is is it beneficial to Putin (or does he think it is)? It appears to me that he does.

 

[lisab]

Apparently not well enough. It is my understanding that what turned this event around was that the police rapidly lost the stomach for shooting their own people and joined the resistance. That's a good sign of a government by and for the people instead of by and for the President. That's something the old-world communist countries don't have.

My observation too. It speaks well of the culture and people of Ukraine, and gives me hope that they will find a way through this.

 

[SteamKing]

Yanukovich is Russian, he signed gas deals and loans worth billions and agreed to enter the Eurasia union. I assumed this was what you meant with "owning Ukraine".

Again, for the record, I never said anything about anyone 'owning' the Ukraine. That is your word. There is a big difference is someone 'wanting' or 'desiring' a certain outcome to occur, and 'owning' something.

Fair enough, the union is an attempt to put a united front in place. But how do you equate this to an attempt at recreating an old Empire? Let's be reasonable: Creating a USSR 2 is not beneficial to Russia.

The successor state to the USSR need not necessarily be communist. After all, it was the tsars who embarked on a program of territorial expansion westward and eastward centuries ago. When the Bolsheviks came to power and consolidated the USSR, they were not opposed to the gigantic empire they inherited from the tsars and certainly were opposed to any part of the former tsarist empire from seeking independence from Moscow.

I also think you are overdoing the NATO threat. The ballistic missiles thing was about the threat of negating a Russian nuclear retaliation.

The ABM threat has been neutralized by the US decision not to proceed with deployment. However, given Russia's experience in two world wars, it is understandable that Moscow would be reluctant to have NATO forces deployed in the Baltics or in eastern Europe, territory which was once in the former Warsaw Pact.

Empty rhetoric. In reality, Ukraine is a divided country, its finances are in ruins, it is unstable and the so-called industrial base you speak of is uncompetitive. It's hardly something Putin would want to control. In fact, annexing the russian-speaking eastern half while maintaining friendly relations with a stable western half would be an improvement over having a large, but constantly unstable and unwilling puppet.

Both the Russian Republic and the Ukraine face serious economic and demographic challenges during the rest of this century. The populace in both Russia and the Ukraine is aging and declining in numbers, which led Putin to offer incentives to young Russians to start families and have more children. The land in the Ukraine is still productive if managed properly and infrastructure and factories can be rebuilt and replaced. The Ukraine was once a net exporter of food up until 1914, and modern agricultural technology could make it so again. Right now, the Russian economy is greatly helped by exports of oil and gas to Europe, but eventually these exports could decline unless continued investment is made in exploration and production.

It's been an (relatively) independent democracy for a long time now. Just because the Ukrainians elected a leader you don't like, doesn't mean it's a dictatorship. Not to say it's a healthy democracy - the politics are dominated by oligarchs.

For the record, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm merely making a few observations.

 

[AlephZero]

It's hardly something Putin would want to control.

He doesn't want to control it so much that he's recalled his ambassador.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26318816

 

[voko]

Now that they have an "interim president", they must have impeached Yanukovich. Below is what I found as the relevant part from their constitution (luckily, the 2004 and 2010 editions seem to be identical in this).

Article 111
The President of Ukraine may be removed from office by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the procedure of impeachment, in the event that he or she commits state treason or other crime.
The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is initiated by the majority of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
To conduct the investigation, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine establishes a special temporary investigatory commission whose composition includes a special procurator and special investigators.
The conclusions and proposals of the temporary investigatory commission are considered at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
For cause, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, by no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition, adopts a decision on the accusation of the President of Ukraine.
The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition, after the review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and the receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that th e acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of state treason or other crime.

Is there any trustworthy information on whether Yanukovich was impeached following that procedure? Given how quickly things have been going, they must have taken a couple of shortcuts. Does anyone know what really happened?

 

[Nikitin]

Well I don't think the procedures are that important. The main thing is that Yanukovich has lost his credibility among the big-boy oligarchs/politicians. Hence him being thrown to the dogs.

All of this is happening very fast, but as I see it: After it became apparent the ceasefire/compromise between the opposition and Yanukovich wouldn't stop the out-of-control mob in Maidan, Yanukovich's supporters starting defecting to the opposition to save their own skins. Now, however, I think we will see the opposition splintering and fighting amongst themselves for power.

He doesn't want to control it so much that he's recalled his ambassador.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26318816

I'm sorry, English isn't my first language. With "control" I thought we were talking about Ukraine being a puppet state not unlike the former Eastern block countries. I never denied Russia won't protect her interests in Ukraine.

Though at any rate, I am fairly sure Ukraine will stay in the Russian sphere as its economy will never survive without the RF. I mean, USA doesn't care enough to bail it out (despite doing its best to keep the chaos going), and the EU neither has the funds nor is it centralized enough.

Mheslep,Russ_watters: Yes, the collapse of the USSR was indeed a catastrophe for millions of people. Regrettable, yet Putin knows trying to create another empire will not change any of it. As I see it, there is little point in throwing money on backwater, resourceless Central Asian states for the sake of imperialism, when the cash instead can be invested in the Russian economy, or into securing the resources in the Arctic or the million other things more important. Maintaining some influence and keeping stability in the post-Soviet space is all RF is doing atm.

 

[voko]

Well I don't think the procedures are that important.

As in a lawful democratic succession in power vs. a coup d'état?

In Ukraine, though, this is not the first time when procedures are brushed aside, and, interestingly, Timoshenko is again a beneficiary. I wonder what her political credibility stems from. Is it now the martyr thing?

 

[russ_watters]

As in a lawful democratic succession in power vs. a coup d'état?

In Ukraine, though, this is not the first time when procedures are brushed aside, and, interestingly, Timoshenko is again a beneficiary. I wonder what her political credibility stems from. Is it now the martyr thing?

I think it is more properly termed a revolution (by the people) as opposed to a coup (by a government faction). Thats not that important...

In either case, the existing government is overthrown so the existing laws and constitution need not necessarily apply. So while the exact path isn't clear yet, legality/constitutionality need not necessarily apply.

What I would hope comes out of this is a partial rewriting of the constitution to limit presidential power to make this less likely to happen again.