An Eastern Dilemma

Recently and outside the attention of most American newscasts, an uprising has occurred and, apparently, succeeded in the Ukraine.  At the center of the debate has been an argument about the future direction of the country – either towards Europe or Russia.  The recently deposed and now missing president, Viktor Yanukovych, bent towards the money and support from Moscow while dismissing the demands of the people who largely looked to the economic prosperity and political freedom of the West.  The state of the Ukraine today is of prime importance to the future of Russian hegemony, EU expansion and American relevance.   

In 2010, Mr. Yanukovych defeated Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who rejected the election results and would soon be arrested and jailed for her protests against a “rigged” outcome.  There were voices from the West who objected to the arrest of Prime Minister Tymoshenko but nothing changed.  Fast forward to November of 2013 and while an ailing Ms. Tymoshenko labored in jail, President Yanukovych announced his intent to back away from trade with the EU and instead move closer to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.  This marked the beginning of the protests that dominated downtown Kiev, the country’s capital, with crowds not seen since the Orange Revolution of 2004.  

Relationship between the Russian-oriented government and the European-oriented population grew worse when Mr. Putin extended a monetary lifeline.  In January, the presence of protestors in Maiden Square in Kiev grew as the parliament passed anti-protest laws.  In the last couple of weeks, events have taken a draconian level as government snipers took aim at defenseless protestors as part of an outburst of violence that lasted several days and led to the death of nearly 80 and the wounding of hundreds more.  In the last few days, this strange story has grown more so, if that is possible.  A compromise deal was struck on 21 February that would include, among other things, new elections but by the following day, Mr. Yanukovych disappeared and Ms. Tymoshenko was released from jail. 

The Ukraine is an interesting country.  The population is a divided one with western side of the country more European while the eastern part still speaking Russian and more in tuned with Moscow than Brussels.  However, the last couple of months have shown the brutality and heavy-handedness of President Yanukovych and even his most ardent supporters have withdrawn.  This does not mean that the cause of the Kiev protestors is widely embraced.  Indeed, people in the east are more likely to see this as a type of coup d’état.  Yet, the country still has a fugitive president and a people looking for some type of respite in the immediate aftermath.  

As of now, the intentions of Mr. Putin are the most scrutinized.  His desires to create a neo-Soviet Union seem to be a concern for many.  Meanwhile, there are those who are pressuring the various capitals of the West to take a more active role in supporting the protesting Ukrainians.  For President Obama, he needs to be the voice for freedom and liberty – in doing so, he needs to echo the core values of the American people and throw his support behind the protestors.  The Ukrainian government has chosen an interim president – Oleksandr Turchynov – who is also a close political ally of Ms. Tymoshenko and the president has urged for national unity.  On the horizon is the strong presidential candidacy of former boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, who is an avid supporter of a pro-Europe movement. 

It is difficult to say how the Ukraine will solve its issues.  Such issues are plentiful and there are many voices seeking a redress of past and perceived slights and oppression.  The Ukraine has a potentially prosperous and viable future.  However, that will not happen until the new crisis is averted and Mr. Putin is politely but firmly kept at arm’s length.  It would not serve the Ukraine to act petulant toward its former communist overseers but the country’s salvation rests in its ability to take control of internal affairs.  If it can do this, it would certainly serve as a harbinger of good things to come for the Ukrainians.       

From Russia with Confusion?

I’m a bit surprised at how little Americans are aware of Russian politics. Much of my surprise is based on growing up during the Cold War. More so than any other country, I knew who the Soviet premier was, I was aware of what the Soviet Union was doing and in general, the happenings within Russia were more top of mind to the average American. Other countries and other peoples have now pre-occupied the American attention span. While Russia has escaped our consideration over the last decade or so, it has not stepped away from the international stage and therefore, still worthy of our time to read about and keep track of.

Russia is mired in various things at the moment. A Ukrainian court has jailed its former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, for the crimes of overstepping her authority. Her crime was an oil pipeline deal with Russia that decidedly favored Moscow. Her prison sentence has been criticized by nearly everyone who has a stake in the oil supply, from the Americans to the Swedes, and Russia has declared the verdict “anti-Russian.” It can certainly be argued that the verdict has as much to do with Ms. Tymoshenko’s abrasive and combative personality, particularly with her political opponents. However, whether this deal goes through or not, the U.S. and its Western European allies will be greatly affected. The European Union has stepped up the pressure by suggesting the Ukraine is jeopardizing its potential candidacy into the EU. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich will have the chance to make amends when he meets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev next week.

However, the biggest upcoming story out of Russia is the election in March 2012 that will, if reports are to be believed, return to the position of president, Vladimir Putin. The reason why this story should be of interest to the United States is what the move means for Russian democracy. As it is, Russia has proven quite obdurate over the last decade in actions against North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya. Worse, its rationale seems more to do with gumming up the works on the international scene than being based on any core beliefs or national interest. Now, the fear that international observers had with the presidency of Mr. Medvedev, a puppet that was keeping the seat of power warm until Mr. Putin could work around the Russian constitution, seem validated. What must the Russian people think? The Economist calls the situation farcical and it is hard to disagree with the assessment. This comes at a time when investors are leaving the country, government spending is up to make up the difference and oil revenue could certainly use the boost the Ukrainian deal would provide.

The Putin/Medvedev deal is not democracy – not even potential democracy. Granted, the U.S. took a while to improve their process but Russia seems headed in the opposite direction. What will the Russian people do when their frustrations with the economy are compounded by a shaky and disingenuous democratic system? Will they turn to something more radical and potentially dangerous or will they rise up to reiterate their demand for true democratic reforms? Whatever happens, it will be interesting and worthy of American attention.