From: Mychailo Wynnyckyj
(Михайло Винницький)
Sent: Nov. 26, 2013 @ 08:40 EST
To: [GROUP]
Subject: 36 hours before scheduled signing in Vilnius
Will he sign?
In my opinion, as of 3pm Kyiv time on Tuesday November 24 (approx.. 70 hours before the start of the Vilnius summit) the odds are 3:1 in favor. So at this point – I say “yes”. My reasons, and analysis of current events in Kyiv are laid out below.
First a recap of what the newswires and social media have been broadcasting for the past 4 days. Last Thursday, a somewhat surprising announcement appeared on the website of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine: apparently, in secret session, the government of Prime Minister Azarov voted to cease all preparations for the signing of the Association Agreement (which includes a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade pact - DCFTA) with the EU. Given that according to Ukraine’s Constitution, foreign affairs are the exclusive domain of the President, the fact that such an announcement should be posted on the Cabinet of Minister’s website, at a time when President Yanukovych was on a state visit to Austria, is suspect at least. But more on that point later…
The reaction to the announcement was swift. On Friday evening I participated in a demonstration of about 5000 students in Lviv (I was on a teaching assignment in western Ukraine Thursday to Saturday), and apparently a similar number of young people gathered on Ukraine’s central “maidan” – Independence Square in Kyiv. Smaller groups began gathering on city squares in other regional centers. The organizers called for a mass demonstration of people power – untarnished by politics, and without official participation of political parties. To be fair however, the Lviv students’ initiative was immediately and publicly supported by Ivan Vakarchuk, the rector of Lviv State University (former Minister of Education), by Bishop Borys Gudziak, the President of Ukrainian Catholic University, and by the city’s mayor Andriy Sadovyj. Although the student initiative was clearly a grassroots campaign organized primarily through social media, throughout western Ukraine (similar demonstrations were organized in Ivano-Frankivsk and Ternopil), the students received swift and vocal support from local authorities. This was not the case in Kyiv, and other eastern Ukrainian cities (e.g. all public gatherings have been banned in Kharkiv – officially due to a risk of flu epidemic).
In a direct parallel with the Arab spring, the current Ukrainian demonstrations were initially called by young activists using social media. In each case the instructions were clear: no party flags or other political party symbolism.
The romanticism of the demonstrators lasted for a few days, and then on Sunday, the organizational machines of Ukraine’s opposition parties kicked in. In the western Ukrainian city of Lviv, the right-wing Svoboda party attempted to take over the central square from the students, but the politicos were pushed back, leaving the area in front of the Shevchenko monument under the control of grassroots organizers. Clearly the widespread disillusionment with politics in general, and in political parties in particular (irrespective of their “color”) has resulted in a desire to distance this protest from the party establishment. Although Svoboda is clearly in opposition to the Yanukovych regime in Kyiv, the right-wing party currently has a majority in the Lviv city council, and so over time has lost part of its anti-system association.
The scene in Kyiv was different: Svoboda activists quickly took center-stage in the Independence Square protests, and although their flags were not necessarily prominent, their leaders and activists were clearly in control. Andriy Iliyenko, the 26-year old Parliamentary deputy from Svoboda (representing a constituency in the city of Kyiv), and the 29-year old Yuriy Levchenko, the Svoboda’s candidate in the upcoming run-off election in one of Kyiv’s districts, have been prominent and vocal on Independence Square. Sunday’s clashes with police in front of the Cabinet of Ministers building are rumored to have been instigated by Svoboda, and last night (Monday) a Svoboda activist who had participated in the previous night’s violence was arrested and taken to the Pechersk police station. A scuffle erupted in front of the police station when Iliyenko and Levchenko brought about 100 of their followers there (approx. 30 minutes walk from the city centre) just before midnight in an attempt to free their comrade.
But the political story of the current protests is not just about Svoboda. The other two opposition parties (Batkivshchyna – led by Arseniy Yatseniuk, and founded by Yulia Tymoshenko; and Udar – led by Vitaliy Klychko) have also been active, but somewhat subdued. It is becoming increasingly clear that Ukraine’s opposition leaders were caught completely off guard by the government’s announcement of a policy-about-face on Thursday. To their credit, the opposition parties organized a mass rally on Kyiv’s European Square (approx. 300 meters from Independence Square) on Sunday that drew upwards of 100 000 people. The mood on the square on Sunday was festive with popular singers and bands playing both recent hymns and music inspired by the 2004 Orange Revolution on the stage. My wife and I attended the rally with our four small children, and felt absolutely safe – a kind of festive carnival with Ukrainian, EU and party political flags everywhere.
However, in a testament to the fact that this was NOT 2004, when every move of the protestors on the streets was organized, preplanned, and controlled, at around 3pm, Oleksandr Turchynov (one of the leaders of Batkivshchyna, and a close confidant of the jailed Yulia Tymoshenko) called on the crowd on European Square to march towards the Cabinet of Ministers building and then on to the Presidential Administration. Based on the reaction of the demonstration’s “speaker” this was clearly not a planned action. Immediately after Turchynov, the speaker asked Petro Poroshenko (a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Economics, and owner of Roshen chocolates and Channel 5 TV) to take the stage. Poroshenko is a charismatic speaker, so a part of the crowd remained on the Square to hear him speak, but a large group carrying party flags began to move towards the government buildings where they were met by riot police with tear gas. The skirmishes were minor and localized, but nevertheless, they occurred. Unlike the Orange Revolution of 2004, this time, demonstrations of “people power” Ukrainian style have not been bloodless.
Last night (Monday), yet more evidence surfaced demonstrating the dangerously spontaneous nature of the protest actions. According to eye witnesses (I was not on European Square at the time), Tetiana Chornovil, a vocal opposition journalist who unsuccessfully ran for Parliament in the last election, discovered a white van parked near the center of the demonstration. Inside, were several SBU (Ukrainian Secret Service) agents with electronic eavesdropping equipment. The surrounding crowd (estimated at 30-40 thousand) became enraged, and started beating the van with rocks – Chornovil herself apparently smashed the sunroof. Riot police were called in to rescue the secret service agents, and according to the opposition parties, were able to successfully retrieve them from the van with the help of Yatseniuk (Batkivshchyna leader) and Tiahnybok (leader of Svoboda). According to a source within the riot police squad sent to the scene, the two party leaders were actually orchestrating the whole operation – playing for the cameras, and provoking the crowd against the police officers.
Whichever side of the story one believes, it is clear that the ongoing street demonstrations in Kyiv are not well organized. If in 2004, within the first two days the tent city on Kyiv’s main square had established a clear chain of command, food supply, and security hierarchy (including, according to some accounts a communications link with the secret service and police), this time only food and blankets are plentiful in the protesters’ tents. Last night’s events have now resulted in a semblance of order in the small tent city on European Square, and the students on Independence Square (a much smaller number of radicalized youth) have retreated to the relative safety of the central monument, on the steps of which they have set up a kind of “open microphone” from which anyone can speak their mind. This morning, about 70 people were milling around on the square listening to poetry, drinking tea and trying to keep warm. Although the square is still accessible, this group of protestors is practically surrounded by a ring of police dressed in riot gear – standing at approx. 5 meter intervals.
Today Kyiv-Mohyla Academy’s students announced a 4-day strike, and marched across town to join their counterparts at Kyiv’s much larger Shevchenko State University. Officially both universities are still holding classes, but students are not attending. Instead they plan to spend the next few days on Kyiv’s squares encouraging the President to sign a pact with the EU. The flywheel of mass protests seems to be gaining momentum…
And now the main question: will President Yanukovych sign the DCFTA and Association Agreement with the EU at the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius on Friday? At this point I am still more convinced that he will than otherwise (although as time passes more doubts begin to creep into my head). Indeed, when I first heard the Cabinet of Ministers’ announcement last Thursday, I was convinced (and I still want to believe) that this was actually a well planned ruse put together by Yanukovych’s closest advisors. They anticipated street protests, and understood from the very beginning, that if the cards are played right, their boss may yet emerge from this seemingly chaotic situation as the popular hero – the man who understands the will of the people, and therefore deserves to be re-elected as the whole nation’s President in 2015. At least that’s the image that they will try to present both to Ukraine’s voters and to the international community.
Let me explain: Yanukovych’s main goal for the summit was to get the Agreement signed with the EU, and at the same time to avoid releasing his archrival, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, from jail. Clearly there are also economic concerns associated with a Ukraine-EU deal: the likely deterioration of trade relations with Russia in the immediate aftermath of a signature in Vilnius will hurt Ukraine’s large industrial concerns, primarily located in the east of the country which is Yanukovych’s traditional base of support. Nevertheless, these economic problems could be overcome if the IMF and EU agree to provide bridge financing to Ukraine. And with a Presidential election scheduled for 2015, the political benefits of an Association Agreement to Yanukovych far outweigh any short term economic problems: having signed the agreement, Yanukovych could legitimately position himself as the President of the Whole Nation (as Kuchma once did), mitigating his current image as the “President from Donetsk”, and taking away an important political argument from his opposition opponents.
Now let’s play out a scenario: the President’s advisors receive an instruction from the boss – to improve the President’s popularity. At the same time they understand Yanukovych’s fear of Tymoshenko – an emotion that is both rational, given her prowess as a political opponent, and vengeful – Tymoshenko is seen as the initiator of criminal investigations against the losers of the Orange Revolution (primarily from Donetsk) during 2005-2010. But the EU has been clear that one of its main demands (to be met before any agreement is signed) is Tymoshenko’s release – at least for health reasons, if not an outright amnesty. So, the President’s advisors seem to have a problem… But what if the Cabinet of Ministers were to announce a “cessation of preparations” to sign the Agreement (officially) without the President’s prior approval? That would surely spark street protests (N.B. the former leader of the radical wing of the Orange Revolution “Pora”, Vlad Kaskiv, who was the primary organizer of students in November 2004 now works for Yanukovych, and is a close personal friend of the Serhiy Liovochkin – the head of the Presidential Administration). If the President were to react positively to the street protests, and to announce on the eve of the Vilnius summit that he actually intends to sign, Yanukovych could claim that was “duped” by his Prime Minister. Clearly Prime Minister Azarov would have to resign at that point, but according to analysts close to the government, Azarov’s resignation has recently been seen as just a matter of time: deputy PM Arbuzov (former chairman of Ukraine’s National Bank and close confidant of Yanukovych) has been preparing for the top executive post for months. If the resignation of the government, and the “heroic” announcement by Yanukovych of his support for the demonstrators were to occur on the immediate eve of the Vilnius summit, the President would be able to legitimately claim that the Parliament did not have sufficient time to pass a law that would allow Tymoshenko to be released. He would then ask Ukraine’ s EU partners for an extension with respect to this final demand. Meanwhile Tymoshenko would be obliged to also make a gesture to her political supporters on the streets, and to ask the EU to sign the Agreement for the benefit of the whole Ukrainian people, irrespective of her own fate. In such a scenario, the EU would almost certainly sign, and Yanukovych would return from Vilnius as a national hero…
During the next 3 days we will see whether such a scenario will actually be played out or not. Many of my friends in Kyiv tell me that I give too much credit to Yanukovych and his advisors: apparently Ukrainians do not believe that their political leaders are smart enough to plan such a complex series of events. My answer to such criticism is the following: I would like to believe that Ukraine’s political leaders are smart enough to plan and execute such a scenario because the alternative is just too scary. If Yanukovych does not sign the DCFTA and Association Agreement with the EU at the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius on Friday, Ukraine is destined to become a place of protest, violence, and eventually revolution during the next 12-18 months. The fact that popular mobilization has been accompanied by sporadic violence during the past few days is proof of the fact that this time the revolution will not be bloodless.
Ukrainians – particularly the country’s youth – have lost all faith in their politicians. But they have not lost the will fight for better lives for themselves, and their children. This ideal (at the moment) is embodied by the EU.
Yanukovych can either recognize that Ukrainians are European, or they will sweep him away. There is no other choice.
Mychailo Wynnyckyj PhD
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
