Tense times for Ukraine
Daniel Korski 12:59pm
After months of squabbling and years of tension, Ukraine's ruling pro-Western coalition has officially collapsed. The country’s scar-faced President Viktor Yushchenko could no longer work with his photogenic Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko.
Tensions have been running high between the two leaders of the Orange Revolution for years and have recently been exacerbated by Russia’s war in Georgia and the countdown to the 2010 presidential election. Yushchenko has accused Tymoshenko of keeping quiet about Russia’s invasion of Georgia in return for Moscow’s support in a campaign to supplant him as president.
Andrew Wilson, a Ukraine expert who sits down the hall from me at the European Council on Foreign Relations, called today’s events “sadly inevitable”. Inevitable, in part, because Russia has been working hard on building up internal splits. Vladimir Putin was upset that the Orange Revolution took place and it has not escaped notice that Russia’s arguments over South Ossetia – that Moscow needed to protect Russian passport-holders – could easily be applied to the separatist Crimean peninsula, where more than half of the population describe themselves as Russians. Crimea is also home to the Russian Navy and thus crucial to Russia’s ability to project power. Think Serbia’s cultural ties to Kosovo, but with a massive strategic asset to boot.
Last week, the EU sought to help Ukraine – and keep the governing coalition together – but its promises of support stopped short of a commitment to EU membership. In the event, it probably was too little and too late, as Tymoshenko had already joined forces with the east Ukraine-based Party of Regions – the governing party the Orange Revolution sought to bring down – and rammed through a law to reduce presidential power.
It is hard to see how the crisis will be resolved. President Yushchenko’s powers to dissolve parliament without calling presidential and parliamentary elections are constitutionally dubious. When he did so in 2007, he got away with it as most people believed the political system needed shaking up. But he is unlikely to get the benefit of the doubt if he tried it this time from either the EU or Ukraine’s voters.
In all likelihood, something bolder—including presidential and parliamentary elections and even a plebiscite on a new constitution—will be required to break the political logjam. But this will leave plenty of scope for Russia to play its nefarious games. Is Europe – and Britain - ready for what could potentially become a counter-Orange Revolution?



Previous






David Lindsay
September 16th, 2008 5:12pm Report this commentThe end of Ukraine?
Quite possibly.
The Russian half can now either be incorporated directly into Russia, or else become the sort of nominally independent state that might as well be.
And the other half can keep applying unsuccessfully to be let into NATO and the EU, which won't touch it for fear of annoying Russia.
Something similar, though happier, will happen soon enough when Transistria becomes independent under Russian influence while the rest of Moldova re-joins Romania.
Few people in Ukraine will really mind, at least if in the west they can be convinced that the EU or NATO might ever so much as look at them.
And no one in Transnistria or Moldova would mind in the least.
Augustus
September 16th, 2008 6:52pm Report this commentWhat the US and the West have to do is rethink the policy of NATO expansion. The creator of the 'containment doctrine', George Kennan, was against it from the start, knowing it would lead to exactly the sort of situations we now have on our hands. If a new East/West pact is not properly worked out, Ukraine could well be the next stumbling block. And since Ukraine is ten times bigger than Georgia, the crisis could be ten times worse there.
Henry Rogers
September 17th, 2008 8:30am Report this commentSince the EU has no army yet, there is nothing, fortunately, its leaders can do to make matters worse. Individual European countries, whether part of the EU or not, don't have any spare troops and probably have more sense than to get involved. I suspect that the same applies to the US as well, whatever the rhetoric.
Ray
September 17th, 2008 9:49am Report this commentCan someone please explain what vital strategic interest of ours can possibly be served by permitting Ukraine to join NATO?
Max Kaye
September 17th, 2008 2:11pm Report this commentPerhaps someone can answer Ray's question.
I can't.
Anon.
September 19th, 2008 1:32am Report this commentMax Kaye and Ray: Sebastopol
might have been important once upon a century. I don't know about now.
seb
September 19th, 2008 7:30pm Report this commentHow sweet. One fifth of Ukraine's population is Russian yet one half of the country may be blessed with incorporation into Putin's wealthy, democratic Russia. Yes, it may happen and this 'solution' may, clearly, be preferable to a bloodbath. What an appealing choice facing our neighbours in the East - emasculation and dismemberment to appease Russia and keep the peace or joining NATO and the EU and enraging the put-upon little bear. If I didn't read these comments, I wouldn't of course realise that it's all the Wests' fault.
Back to top