Ukraine Between The West And The East

BUCHAREST, Romania -- The Georgian crisis, erupting on the international scene with the ‘five-day war’ between Russia and Georgia on August 7, 2008, has registered a new and one of the most significant episodes last week.


Yulia Timoshenko’s Government has been dismissed by President Viktor Yushchenko on September 16 on the backdrop of the latter’s accusations that the Prime Minister has an ambiguous – verging on treasonous – attitude towards the war that pitted Georgia against Russia last month, accusations amounting to no less than being in the pay of Moscow.

What is of course strange, to say the least, is the fact that Viktor Yushchenko and Timoshenko are the heroes of the 2004 ‘orange’ revolution in Ukraine, a revolution that led to the installation of a reformist power in Kiev, and that the current Government was formed in Parliament after the latest snap elections last year, through an agreement between the parties of the aforementioned politicians.

The crucial question in the case of the current Government crisis and that of the political crisis that subsequently erupted – the second crisis registered in the three years of the current Parliament, the previous one having to do with a conflict between them too and being resolved through snap elections – is the following: what is the main cause?

The answers that can be given to this question cannot rule out references to Russia, nor to the Ukrainian political system and to the conflict between the two politicians.

Could Russia be behind the current Government crisis? The answer is difficult. Moscow’s stance towards the complex problems of the former Soviet area is known.

President Dmitry Medvedev has shown very clearly that Russia has special interests in this area and even beyond it and that his country will defend the dignity of Russians living in adjacent states (over 10 million of them in Ukraine).

Likewise, he reiterated Russia’s unyielding opposition to NATO’s expansion towards the Russian borders, and Moscow’s behaviour vis-à-vis Georgia emphasizes that when it comes to this issue, Russia is ready to go up to the final consequences. As known, Ukraine is one of the countries that are due to undergo a NATO evaluation in December in order to receive the MAP statute that precedes the accession to the alliance.

Moreover, port facilities for the Russian fleet in the Black Sea have been rented in Ukraine’s Crimea until 2017, and the fleet’s ships have been used in the war against Georgia. In recent weeks embryos of separatist movement have made themselves felt in the Crimea - with most of the locals being ethnic Russian or Russophiles – and in Moscow one could hear voices asking for the reclaiming of the peninsula that Russia ceded to Ukraine as a ‘gift’ in 1954.

On the other hand, even President Viktor Yushcenko issues unveiled hints referring to Russia’s involvement in the current crisis. In a recent interview he did not exclude this possibility, pointing out that such a scenario certainly exists in Moscow. ‘Will they repeat the Georgian scenario?’ Yushchenko asked. ‘For sure, no. Ukraine is not Georgia’ he said. ‘I think that today to deal with a country like Ukraine in such an inconsiderate manner... is not a good idea for anyone.’

Hence, a true and complex political background that presents Russia as the beneficiary of the political crisis in Kiev, now that Moscow has shown simultaneously with the recognition of South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s independence that the political rearrangement of the former Soviet area has begun.

The more the crisis is prolonged, the more the chances of Ukraine’s positive evaluation for a MAP in December drop, the more it splits the country in two antagonist parts – anti and pro Russian, the more the country’s destabilization deepens and the more Ukraine’s orientation towards Russia could gain consistency.

And NATO would be unlikely to accept within its ranks o country that is in the midst of political crisis and that has tense relations with the Russian neighbour.

It’s just that standing to gain from it does not automatically mean you are the initiator of the crisis – whether through covert or a different kind of action – with Russia having the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

However one cannot ignore the accusations that President Viktor Yushchenko brought against the Prime Minister, accusations regarding the latter’s double dealing stance towards Russia, nor could one ignore Timoshenko’s statements.

Unlike Yushchenko, who openly condemned the Russian aggression and politically backed Georgia by restricting the movements of Russian ships from the Crimea, she said that although she does not support Moscow’s recognition of the separatist entities in Georgia, nevertheless she considers that Kiev needs good relations with its neighbour to the east.

Other recent developments come to give credence to the possible implications of the Russian action in escalating the crisis in Ukraine. Thus, Victor Yanukovich, the leader of the Party of Regions, Yushchenko’s former strong counter-candidate in the previous Presidential elections and the future candidate in the 2010 presidential elections and a politician known for his pro-Russian orientation, is considered to have chances of building a new Parliamentary majority along with Yulia Timoshenko.

When it comes to Russia, their stances are close to identical – the neighbor to the east should not be irked, there is a need of good relations with it – and their anti-Presidential position has recently become staunch. Recently he stated that ‘the Ukrainians feel no threat coming from Russia.

Speaking about such a threat, I think, are only those people that were cloned by the ‘orange’ revolution experiment. I don’t know how to call them – mutants, monsters. The rest normal people want to live in peace with their neighbours.’

If we refer to the servitudes of the Ukrainian political system and to the traits of the personalities involved in this crisis the picture is likewise complex. On the one hand, there is a strong current in support of amending the Constitution and limiting the President’s prerogatives was tried out (a move that has basically led to the current crisis, Timoshenko’s party voting alongside the opposition in support of limiting the Presidential prerogatives, in what Viktor Yushchenko called ‘a political coup’).

On the other hand, Yushchenko and Timoshenko are strong personalities whose will for exclusive power brings them into conflict. That is what happened almost a year ago when snap elections had to be called in order to end another political crisis.

An official stated that: ‘It’s not about being pro-Western or pro-Russian. It’s about who gets to sit on the pipe,’ referring to the state’s large revenues obtained from the transit of fossil fuels. ‘Timoshenko is only interested in what serves her. She wants a monopoly on power. She was pro-Western when she needed the West’s support. Now she is trying to be pro-Russian.’ Both Yushchenko and Timoshenko are emerging as opponents in the Presidential elections of 2010, and the current crisis could be the beginning of their split for that competition.

According to the Constitution, by mid-October the Parliament has to come up with a new Government based on a new majority. If it fails then early elections will be next.

Irrespective of how it comes about, most of the political analysts foresee a prolonged crisis and a deepening instability in Ukraine in the near future, since Moscow revealed its intentions in the former Soviet area after the war in Georgia.

Source: Nine o'Clock