An attempt for an objective perspective about the events in Ukraine

As a socialist, and as a person who hates the way most countries in this world are operating today (especially in the post-Soviet sphere), when I hear about a revolution my first reaction is excitement in the sight of people ripping off the metaphorical blindfold and lashing out at an oppressive corrupt regime.

At the end of the day, no one can deny to what an extent the regime which Yanukovich and his Party of Regions stood for was corrupt. Can any member of that party actually tell me what they stand for? Seriously, are you left, or are you right? Do you support socialism, or capitalism? Are you socially liberal, or conservative? Do you even give a damn about any issues which concern those who don’t belong to the corporate elite? The Party of Regions was created for one purpose only, to represent the interests of the oligarchs (like Rinat Akhmetov, its main patron). Yanukovich was nothing more than a puppet. I shall discuss later in this post how such a corrupt party got to power in the first place.

One of the first things I do when I see a revolution, is try and understand who are the ideological forces behind it. Who are the leaders, and to what extent are the leaders of the revolution actually representing the people who are literally putting their life on the line for a better future for their country. The moment I did it, my feelings of excitement and joy quickly were quickly joined with the fear that this needed and much-awaited revolution might get hijacked by politicians who have no intention of delivering on the promises of that revolution. The Euromaidan started as a grassroots movement, a long awaited awakening, and yet in order to protect it, it’s necessary to understand that some of those politicians who later joined it did it to cynically play on people’s despair with no plans to actually uphold the noble values those people fight for.

A figure whose name was brought a lot by some of the political figures attempting to hijack the revolution is the former Prime Minister of Ukraine, oligarch Yulia Tymoshenko. Tymoshenko by every poll has a very low approval rating in all parts of the Ukraine due to the controversial nature of her activities in the gas industry before entering politics, and due to her failure as a Prime Minister, most notably betraying some of her allies for personal political gain and appointing former business partners to prestigious political posts. Even though she was not openly involved in the first stage of the revolution, many of the political “leaders” of the revolution were in fact people who for two decades were an integral part of her close circle (usually the same people being her political allies and business partners, talking about crony capitalism and corporatocracy). A prime example of that is the man appointed to be acting President after the revolution took place, Oleksandr Turchynov. According to WikiLeaks, Turchynov, as a business partner of Tymoshenko during the 90’s, was the one in charge of destroying documents which were proving the alleged “business” connections Tymoshenko had with the organized-crime boss Semion Mogilevich, also known as “Don Semyon”. One thing is sure, Tymoshenko really knows how to return a favour.

A big part of the frustration that led the people of Ukraine and Kiev to the streets in the first place is the fact that the government was nothing more than a corrupt tool in the hands of oligarchs. Considering that, it is very alarming that those who came to power immediately after the revolution are the mafia-connected oligarchs the revolution tried to get rid of in the first place. While the Party of Regions led by Yanukovich was nothing more than a greenhouse for a bunch of oligarchs from my hometown Donetsk, the Yulia Tymoshenko block was nothing more than a fraternal organization for Tymoshenko’s former business partners.

Ukraine today is crushed by political turmoil and a collapsing economy. Both sides of the country are distracted from real issues through the propaganda of hate and fear. When people are afraid, when people hate, it’s easy for those with the wrong intentions to manipulate them (and that comment is relevant for both sides). I never met a person from Donetsk or Crimea who said they actually liked Yanukovich or the Party of Regions or didn’t see them as corrupt, and yet they voted him in, the reason being, “at least Yanukovich protects the Russian language”. The situation is in no way better with people from Lviv or Vinnytsia who will never vote for a candidate whose Ukrainian does not sound “pure of Russian elements”.

The residents of East and South Ukraine made a huge mistake by not joining the Euromaidan. If they had joined the protests in the first place, or even better initiated them, they could have played a role in a true national uprising against a corrupt regime. That means they would have leaders rising from among them and playing a role in shaping the post-revolutionary Ukraine. The paradox is, if the people of East and South Ukraine had joined forces, those protests might have been the beginning of a united Ukraine. Through common goals it would create a sense of solidarity among the majority of people from both parts of the country, and push the nationalist views aside.

To understand why Ukraine is so divided based on language it is important to understand the historical background to such a division. While the predecessor of the Ukrainian state was the Cossack Hetmanate, the Russian-speaking areas, Donbass, Crimea and Odessa were not a part of that state. Those areas were a part of the Crimean Khanate, and later were colonised by the Russian Empire, where the Russian language and culture dominates since. Those areas became a part of Ukraine during the Soviet times, and it was only done for administrative reasons. The equivalent being England granting Tyneside to Scotland as “we are all one country”, without considering the option of future independence. During Soviet times a Russification policy followed and the regime attempted to suppress any remains of an independent Ukrainian identity, eventually resulting in the Holodomor. The Holodomor was a state engineered famine aimed at the farmers who rebelled against collectivisation, and most of all against the Ukrainian population who also had the national factor mixing with the opposition to collectivisation. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many Ukrainians wanted to “shake off” the Soviet legacy, and the Russian-speaking population suddenly became a hostile “Soviet ” element.

In my opinion, the best solution to resolve the situation is cultural autonomy to the different parts of Ukraine, following the Swiss model. The reason Switzerland has a tradition of neutrality is due to it having a German part, a French part, and an Italian part. Joining any side in any war would result in Switzerland risking separatism, e.g. if Switzerland had joined the Allies in WWII, the German side would’ve been likely to rebel, and vice verse. For Ukraine, it makes sense to give the Russian-speaking part cultural autonomy, just like in Switzerland no one tries to force the French part to speak German, or the Italian part to speak French. When you have one nation that is divided in language, the only solution to maintain unity and mutual respect is through cultural autonomy.

And most important… the Euromaidan mustn’t just be a physical revolution, but a revolution of consciousness, for people to understand what civic responsibility stands for, and understand that without people being vocal and involved in the democratic process, the system is bound to be taken over by tyrants.