Dec. 3, 2013: Ukraine’s Revolution – Day 3 – Optics and Spin

Ukraine’s Revolution – Day 3 – Optics and Spin

By Mychailo Wynnyckyj
December 3, 2013
Kyiv, Ukraine

Today, Ukraine’s opposition suffered a setback: the confidence motion that they had demanded, did not gain enough votes in Parliament to force the resignation of Prime Minister Azarov’s government. After a series of carefully planned and scripted statements by the leaders of Ukraine’s five parliamentary parties, and a lengthy and emotional speech by Azarov, the motion received only 186 of the required 226 votes.

At first it seemed that the motion would carry. News reports had claimed that Party of Regions deputies were defecting to the opposition in large numbers. Furthermore, Communist Party leader Petro Symonenko (the Party of Region’s coalition partner) began his speech with scathing criticism of the Azarov government, seemingly foreshadowing his faction’s support for the no confidence motion. But after 3 minutes, Symonenko suddenly turned his attention to the three opposition factions, stating outright that the wording of the bill that they had tabled which identified the government’s sudden about-face on EU integration as the reason for Parliament’s loss of confidence, was unacceptable to the Communists. Ukraine’s Communists have opposed the government’s pro-EU policy for years, and therefore could not accept the opposition’s formulation. Symonenko held up his own bill, signed by all 33 Communist Party Parliamentarians, which identified different reasons for firing Azarov, and asked the opposition to support his version. Batkivshchyna faction leader Arseniy Yatseniuk immediately stated that the opposition would support the Communists’ motion (swallowing its distaste).

However, speaker Rybak called a vote on the original motion which the Communists did not support. When that vote failed, Rybak congratulated Azarov, and explained to those watching the proceedings that the Communists’ bill had not been previously registered on the Parliamentary docket, and according to the Rada’s procedure, it could not be introduced for a vote without first being printed and distributed to all deputies. The “optics” of this situation seem to suit both sides: the Communists can now argue to their supporters that although they did not actually vote for the resignation of the unpopular Azarov government, they actually proposed their own solution to the stand-off, but were denied by circumstances. On the other hand, the opposition can now blame both the Communists and Party of Regions (both equally unpopular in opposition constituencies) for their failure, and claim that they tried all options to have Azarov fired. “Optics” secured, the opposition politely blocked the Parliamentary roster, and Speaker Rybak quickly closed the proceedings. Meanwhile, according to Ukraine’s Constitution, a confidence vote can only be called once in a Parliamentary session, so Azarov’s government has de facto gained immunity until February when the legislature will re-open for its spring session. According to procedure, the government may now be only fired by the President.  

In any public event, and revolutions are no exception, the substance of what is said, or what occurs, is often less important than how it is presented and how it is viewed by one’s constituency. Campaign managers and press attaches call this “the optics” and “spin” – and these need to be managed very carefully given their influence on the public’s perception of an official or event.

On Independence Square the optics of a well-organized machine have certainly been secured, and are probably real. Temperatures have dropped well below freezing, but ample supplies of food, clothing and firewood have been stocked, and musicians regularly keep the protesters entertained and moving. A website has been set up for people wanting to donate to the cause of Euromaidan and for visitors seeking help: http://maidansupport.com Accommodation and transport for those coming from the regions has been secured, and an impressive logistical machine seems to be in place. The perimeter of the camp is well secured by barricades and several TV channels have set up mobile broadcasting centers.

Tonight, opposition leader Vitaliy Klitshko came to support the demonstrators together with his brother (another world heavyweight boxing champion), and his wife. She sang a popular folk song for the gathered crowds. The idea was clearly to demonstrate “closeness” to the demonstrators. A huge screen televised the event for all to see.

But the skeptic in me asks whether the demonstrated “closeness” and support for the rank and file protestors who are not necessarily party supporters are genuine. Why were no lawyers or supporters dispatched by the opposition parties to the Shevchenko region courthouse, where supposed “organizers” of the Sunday evening violence in front of the Presidential Administration, were being tried and sentenced by the regime today? The government has moved with lightening speed to try these 9 young people – presenting highly suspect evidence, and often ignoring the fact that several of the accused have been so badly beaten that they cannot stand in court (one was barely conscious when his 2 month sentence was read out). However, because none of the accused are opposition party activists – each is simply a private citizen who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time – the party leaders apparently do not feel obliged to provide them with legal support. This fact has been widely condemned in social media, but it demonstrates whom the optics of the opposition leaders seem to be targeting: either a western audience, or their own party followers – all others are simply not their constituency.

The issue of optics is even more blatant on the regime side. This morning, prior to the vote in Parliament, the Party of Regions staged a “protest” in the neighboring park, supposedly to demonstrate popular support for the Azarov governement. Busses of paid participants were brought in to Kyiv from Donetsk (many admitted on camera to being paid) to listen to Party of Regions speakers give speeches to TV cameras, ignoring the present audience. The stage was adorned with the slogan: “Kyiv is not just the capital of the opposition, Kyiv is the capital of our state” - printed in Russian. Donetsk regional and Russian national television broadcast this demonstration with commentary as to its being a “balance” to the opposition Euromaidan. The fact that several hundred paid participants is difficult to “balance” with 30-40 thousand opposition activists on the streets around Parliament is a moot point for those managing the optics.

Party of Regions deputies Olena Bondarenko and Oleksandr Oliynyk have been particularly skillful at “spinning” the police violence that occurred on the weekend in their organization’s favor. Both have accused opposition leaders of disserting students on the Euromaidan during the early hours of Saturday morning. Apparently, it is the opposition that is responsible for the police beatings of the students because it was the opposition that organized their protest (which is not true, but facts are secondary when it comes to spin). Opposition leaders are on record as having suspected that violence could be in the regime’s plans already on Friday night, so the fact that they were not personally present on Independence Square with the students at 4am indicates that it is in fact the opposition that is to blame for the students’ being beaten by police. Logic is clearly not Bondarenko’s and Oliynyk’s forte, but they seem to be saying what their constituencies need to hear. Today Bondarenko and Minister of the Interior Zakharchenko visited a police hospital where “victims” of the riots in front of the Presidential Administration (wounded riot police) spoke of the horrors that they experienced. Clearly, none of the interviewed police mentioned beaten journalists…

The epitome of spin and optics was the speech by Prime Minister Azarov in Parliament today. He began by meekly prostrating himself with an apology for the weekend violence, promising a full and balanced inquiry that will result in the prosecution of those responsible. However, his Minister of the Interior was noticeably not present at this time in Parliament (whereas all other ministers were), and none of his subordinates has yet to be charged, whereas opposition “organizers” have already been tried and sentenced…

Within a few seconds after the apology, the Prime Minister’s tone changed, quickly becoming emotional and aggressive: he turned to the opposition parties, and demanded that the protesters that they apparently have mobilized cease their blockade of the Cabinet of Ministers building, and he assured all present that the state controls sufficient “power resources” to forcibly remove the blockade if necessary. This (not so) veiled threat was followed by a long tirade about the sorry state of the Ukrainian economy, which the Azarov government has been trying to stabilize, but has finally run out of steam because of the untenable gas prices that Ukraine is forced to pay monthly due to the deal with Russia signed in 2009 by Yulia Tymoshenko. In other words, Azarov, yet again, placed all blame for Ukraine’s current economic problems on former Prime Minister Tymoshenko, who has been in jail for the past 2 years…

Reading through my own text above, I realize that I have taken a somewhat sarcastic tone, but this is perhaps justified given the massive amount of evidently false information currently being circulated. This “revolution” is as much a war of information as a war of people. The internet is constantly filled with blatant disinformation aimed at either frightening protestors, or simply destabilizing the situation. Given that the regime has shown itself to be ready to use force, some false posts (e.g. videos of tanks moving towards Kyiv, reports of mobile water cannon on side streets around Independence Square, photos of riot police apparently camped around the city) are having an effect: the protestors’ resolve is not fading (if anything, they are becoming more determined to see the ouster of Yanukovych), but people have become edgy and worried about provocateurs, and possible attacks by the regime.

On the other hand, Yanukovych’s supporters are clearly not as savvy as the protestors with respect to the use of technology. The Sunday night savage beatings of journalists by riot police have been well documented (to the chagrin of the authorities), and video has circulated around the world much faster than anyone in the Ukrainian government had expected. Ample evidence of police brutality has come into the public domain with lightning speed.

Tonight, the most popular shares on Facebook are posts of photographs of documents issued by Ukraine’s Prosecutor General demanding that the rectors of Kyiv’s universities provide authorities with lists of students and faculty that took part in the student protests last week. If authorities had planned to frighten student activists with such demands, they failed. The result has been greater resolve, and outrage at the prospect of a Soviet-style crackdown on dissenting youth.

One final point: it is unclear whether the people “spinning” information on both sides actually believe in what they are saying. After the failed vote today, some in the protest camp have started to grumble about a lack of plan as to what comes next. Opposition leaders never tire of repeating that they know what they are doing (although for obvious reasons they cannot always share their plans with everyone), but sometimes they fail to communicate this to their followers effectively. Just prior to the failed vote today, Yatseniuk aggressively told Azarov to resign or be swept away by the millions of Ukrainians currently rising against his government. The Prime Minister angrily retorted that he too (meaning also the President and Party of Regions) has millions of followers. Do Yatseniuk, Klitschko and Tiahnybok actually know how to lead an uprising of millions of citizens? Clearly most of their support originates from the center and west of the country, but can they expand their uprising to other regions? Can the regime of Yanukovych and Azarov still legitimately claim significant support in the east and south? Can/should these supporters be mobilized by appealing to ideas rather than wallets?

All of the above remain open questions, and clearly the spin and optics of today’s events was targeted at testing the answers to some of them. Time will tell…

In any case, we’ll have ample opportunities yet to observe how events unfold because the people on Kyiv’s Independence Square are not going anywhere soon. Nor does it look like the Yanukovych regime has any plans to capitulate soon. The stand-off continues.

Keep warm! And God help us!

Mychailo Wynnyckyj PhD
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy 

[ "Ukraine’s Revolution – Day 3 – Optics and Spin" is the latest Facebook post by Mychailo Wynnyckyj (Associate Professor, PhD - Kyiv-Mohyla Academy), which offers insight and analysis into current events in Ukraine brought on by ‪#‎Euromaidan‬ and its various related precursors, happenings and occurrences. Mychailo was born and raised in Canada. He has been living and working in ‪#‎Ukraine‬ for many years now and is uniquely sagacious with respect to today's Ukrainian realities. He is able to relate to the reader in a unique way that will especially appeal to Westerners. Check out Mychailo's most recent posts in this blog's archive … http://uanews4enmedia.blogspot.com ]

Dec. 2, 2013: Ukraine’s Revolution – Day 2 – The thug speaks

Ukraine’s Revolution – Day 2 – The thug speaks

By Mychailo Wynnyckyj
December 2, 2013
Kyiv, Ukraine

I realize that some may find my reference to Ukraine’s current President as a thug to be tendentious (to say the least), but it’s time for the world to understand who in fact we are dealing with. The word “thug” seems to be the most accurate description of Yanukovych. His actions are not strategic; he is not a person of compromise; he is exceptionally dangerous if backed into a corner; he understands strength, force and money; he plays diplomatic games, but in fact is authoritarian and demands absolute loyalty from those around him; although publicly religious, he feels no remorse (or personal responsibility) for the pain and suffering inflicted on defenseless students and journalists during the past weekend by the riot police squads for whom he is commander-in-chief.

Tonight, 24 hours after almost half a million people gathered on the streets of Kyiv to protest against police brutality against students camped out in a peaceful protest on Independence Square, and 18 hours after those protests turned violent and bloody when riot police not only dispersed crowds, but also hunted down defenseless journalists, and beat them senseless, President Yanukovych finally broadcast a televised interview to the nation.  Incidentally, because of the current upheavals in the center of Kyiv, the interview was held in the President’s residence in Mezhyhiriya (approx. 40 km from Kyiv).

So what did he say?

With respect to the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, Yanukovych presented a detailed account of events that led him to refuse to sign the deal, and repeated his argument that Ukraine’s economy is not yet ready to be integrated into a common European market without a massive infusion of funding. The President also stated explicitly that in parallel with ongoing negotiations with Brussels, he has ordered a renewal of negotiations on a “strategic partnership agreement” with Moscow which should result in a significant decrease in gas prices. In fact the question of gas prices, trade relations, and other economic issues took up more than 3/4 of the time allotted to the interview (46 minutes total). Yanukovych does not seem to understand that demonstrators on the streets of Kyiv and other cities are completely uninterested in these issues. For them, eurointegration is a question of values, not of money.

When asked about the current situation on the streets of Kyiv (mass protests, police brutality, barricades on Independence Square), the President stated: “In even the most democratic countries, laws are written to defend those who are called upon to enforce them.” He continued by calling for a full investigation of recent events by the Prosecutor’s office, and condemned those protestors who have occupied Kyiv city hall, “using children as a shield”. Although he condemned “provokers” of violence, he did not announce the firing or even suspension of those ministers who are suspected of having ordered the brutal riot police attacks on unarmed citizens. On the other hand, he did not even come close to alluding to a future suspension of civil liberties or a proclamation of a state of emergency – as many had expected of him.

In a nutshell, with respect to the current political situation, Yanukovych’s message was that everything is basically OK in Ukraine. The country is experiencing some economic and political turmoil (and investigations of perpetrators on both sides should follow due judicial process), but in reality, there is nothing really to be alarmed about.

This is a message that sounds strange when compared to Yanukovych’s address to the nation – published on Saturday evening on his website, 24-hours prior to the clashes on the street in front of the Presidential Administration. In that address the President expressed regret over the riot police’s brutal attack on students on early Saturday morning, and though he did not announce firings, he was quite forceful in his demand that the Prosecutor General personally report to him as to who was responsible for ordering the attack. That address came as close to an apology that one could expect from a thug. Today, Yanukovych was back to his normal psychological state: never apologize because it makes you look weak.

Tomorrow  Yanukovych will fly to Beijing on a state visit to the People’s Republic of China. Officially, the goal of this trip is to sign a multi-billion dollar loan agreement for Ukraine, together with other trade deals that are vital to the country’s economy. But given that the center of Ukraine’s capital is currently blocked by 30-40 thousand demonstrators who have barricaded all routes into Independence Square, and today shut down the Cabinet of Ministers (executive branch) building by blocking all entrances with a human shield, planning a foreign visit by the President may seem a little strange (to say the least).

During Yanukovych’s absence I project that events will unfold according to two possible scenarios:

1)      Nothing will happen. All key decisions in Ukraine require Presidential approval. The system of government that Yanukovych has set up is strictly hierarchical (authoritarian). If he is personally out of the country, decision-making with respect to the demonstrators’ demands will be paralyzed. If this scenario is realized, the protests on Independence Square will continue as the temperature drops (tonight it is -5 C in Kyiv), and their mood will get increasingly angrier. Yanukovych may believe that the stand-off will fizzle out over time, but in my humble opinion, he is wrong: the fly-wheel of revolution is increasingly becoming better organized, and protesters are becoming hardened in their resolve for regime change. In this scenario, when the President returns from China, he will be faced with a hardline, organized opposition that will gather even larger crowds next weekend than last.

2)      An attempt to forcefully disperse the protestors on Independence Square. In this scenario, Yanukovych has already formulated an executive order that will be implemented in his absence, allowing him the ability to “plausibly” deny knowledge of any crackdown. The person who actually gives the order to disperse the demonstrators will (of course) commit political suicide, but such an act of absolute loyalty will be richly rewarded by Yanukovych after the dust settles. Who in the President’s entourage is loyal enough to be a candidate for such a mission? Strangely enough, the opposition could actually be playing into the hands of Yanukovych, helping him to realize this scenario by forcing a vote of confidence in Prime Minister Azarov’s government. If such a vote of confidence receives majority support tomorrow (December 3), Azarov will remain acting Prime Minister until a new candidate for the post is submitted for confirmation by Parliament by the President. Such a candidacy is unlikely to be submitted while Yanukovych is in China, and therefore Azarov will continue to hold the office as a lame duck, but with full executive power over the police, and fully empowered to enact any (verbal) executive order received from the President.

Clearly neither of the above scenarios is appealing. However, both are more appealing than the prospect of a state of emergency that is increasingly talked about in the local press, and has in fact been called for by the Parliament of Ukraine’s Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The world needs to realize that a state of emergency will inevitably lead to direct military intervention in Ukraine (likely first in Crimea) by Russia – an act that will lead to violent popular resistance throughout the western and central regions of the country. This would be the worst of all possible scenarios.

Unfortunately, the worst scenarios are also seen as the most likely given the current stand-off in Kyiv. The revolutionary movement on the streets is gaining momentum and strength over time. Only 1 day after the massive outpouring of support for change in Kyiv (almost ½ million people on the streets), food, warm clothing, and lodging for demonstrators are plentiful – all supplied by local benefactors. Holding down their fort in the center of Kyiv will not be a problem for the demonstrators.

But the would-be revolutionaries face an opponent who will not give up power peacefully or easily – thugs are not generally known for their kind-heartedness. During yesterday’s rally, Yuriy Lutsenko (one of the leaders of the current opposition movement) predicted a 5 day revolution – i.e. real change should be in the cards as soon as Yanukovych returns from his foreign visit. I wish I was as optimistic…

In any case, this ain’t over yet by a long shot!

Stay warm! And God help us!

Mychailo Wynnyckyj PhD
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

[ "Ukraine’s Revolution – Day 2 – The thug speaks" is the latest Facebook post by Mychailo Wynnyckyj (Associate Professor, PhD - Kyiv-Mohyla Academy), which offers insight and analysis into current events in Ukraine brought on by #Euromaidan and its various related precursors, happenings and occurrences. Mychailo was born and raised in Canada. He has been living and working in #Ukraine for many years now and is uniquely sagacious with respect to today's Ukrainian realities. He is able to relate to the reader in a unique way that will especially appeal to Westerners. Check out Mychailo's most recent posts in this blog's archive … http://uanews4enmedia.blogspot.com ]

Dec. 1, 2013: Ukraine’s Revolution – Day 1

"Ukraine’s Revolution – Day 1" is the latest Facebook post by Mychailo Wynnyckyj (Associate Professor, PhD - Kyiv-Mohyla Academy) on December 1, 2013 at 9:26 PM in Kyiv, which offers insight and analysis into current events in Ukraine brought on by #Euromaidan and its various related precursors, happenings and occurrences.  Mychailo was born and raised in Canada.  He has been living and working in #Ukraine for many years now and is uniquely sagacious with respect to today's Ukrainian realities.  He is able to relate to the reader in a unique way that will especially appeal to Westerners.  Also, check out Mychailo's previous posts in this series by accessing this blog's archive.

-----

Ukraine’s Revolution – Day 1

Events in Kyiv are evolving VERY quickly. Last week, mass protests in Ukraine represented an attempt to pressure President Yanukovych to sign the Association Agreement with the EU. After Saturday’s early morning attack by riot police on protestors camped in Independence Square, a paradigm shift occurred: this is not about Europe anymore. People on Ukraine’s streets are no longer calling for EU integration – or if they are, this is now a peripheral demand. Ukrainians now simply want a change of government. The word “revolution” - chanted by demonstrators - seems to sound increasingly believable.

I note this because Ukrainians living abroad are gathering today (Sunday December 1) in many world capitals to demonstrate their support for Ukraine’ s eurointegration. I suspect many EU leaders also believe this issue is still salient to Ukraine – indeed this was the message from two Polish speakers (including former PM Yaroslav Kachinsky) on Independence Square today. However, to the people on the streets of Kyiv, European integration is an issue that a NEW government will have to turn to - eventually. Right now, they (we) are demonstrating because they have lost all faith in their current government – a government that dared to savagely beat defenseless students in the dead of night. If international protests are to be relevant to Ukraine’s realities, they need to be synchronized with the mood in Kyiv (and Lviv and other cities), and here the demand is simple: President Yanukovych must go!

Today, a very large scale demonstration took place in the center of Kyiv (participant estimates range from 350 thousand to 1 million people). Many thousands travelled to the capital from Ukraine’s regions; many former government and army officials have joined the protest movement. As my wife and I walked to the demonstration this morning it was very clear that Kyiv residents were not going about their normal weekend business – the streets were practically empty because most Kyiv residents had joined the protests in the city center. The last time the Ukrainian capital hosted this many demonstrators was 2004, and before that in 1991.

But one peaceful demonstration, no matter how large, will not be enough to topple the Yanukovych regime, and it would seem that many realize this fact. Immediately after today’s peaceful demonstration on Independence Square began to disperse, a group of violent radicals attempted to raid the Presidential Administration building on Bankova St. where a street fight erupted with riot police. According to opposition leaders, the radicals’ attack was instigated by operatives (“provokatory”) from the regime itself in an attempt to generate a pretext for a proclamation of martial law in Ukraine’s capital. That theory may have merit, but the fact that a street fight with police occurred at all indicates that opposition leaders do not fully control the situation in the areas around Kyiv’s administrative buildings. If one were to describe the situation in a single word, it would be “chaotic”: mobile phone service in the city center is sporadic; no clear chain of command seems to exist yet between the newly formed command center on Independence Square and the various pockets of protesters around the city center; people are angry and radicalized, and are eager to act, but without clear instructions as to what to do.

Some degree of chaos may be a prerequisite of rebellion, but in my opinion, it is still an open question whether this street protest has in fact gained enough mass support for a revolution to occur. Last night, as I was coming home on the metro from the demonstration on Mykhailivsky square, I noticed that only 4-5 others on the crowded subway car were wearing blue and yellow symbolism on their jackets; when a lady started handing out leaflets calling for people to join today’s demonstrations, reactions were subdued, and in some cases indifferent. To many in Kyiv’s working class, the Vilnius summit last week was a very distant issue that did not touch upon their daily lives; given the sudden change of focus, they have not yet reset themselves to the new protest reality (though the brutal beating of students on Independence Square has certainly mobilized many). If asked whether they support a change of government, the vast majority of Kyiv residents of all socio-economic classes and ages adamantly agree that Yanukovych must go. But many have not yet realized that the time for this change is now, and it is within their power to institute this change. In my opinion, escalating the situation (e.g. by imposing a state of emergency) will certainly mobilize more of them,and may actually increase the chances of regime change; on the other hand, escalation will inevitably lead to more bloodshed.

The above may sound like a call to arms, but I do not intend it to be taken as such. I am simply trying to contextualize current events, and to extrapolate possible developments. In Ukrainian history there are countless periods of “povstannia” (particularly during the 16-18 century Cossack periods). Literally this word translates not as rebellion or revolution, butas “rising”. It connotes a general popular uprising that is focussed AGAINST a social regime (not even a particular leader). A “povstannia” does not necessarily have a plan for what comes after the regime has been overthrown – the goal is simply to overthrow and change. Clearly such general popular uprisings have been romanticized by story tellers as abrupt events; in reality it takes some time to rally a sufficient number of people to overthrow an entrenched regime. On the other hand, once the people rise, all key rulers are swept away. History shows that the downside of such “povstannia”is that the new rulers who emerge after the old regime has been replaced (and the people return to their daily lives), are often not much better than their predecessors. But that is a separate issue…

What we are experiencing today in Ukraine is a popular uprising (“povstannia”) that could yet fizzle if mass support for regime change is not maintained. Tomorrow, opposition leaders have planned civil disobedience (including drivers parking their cars on streets around government buildings), and continued demonstrations on Independence Square (a stage is to be set up there – regardless of a court order specifically forbidding this). I spent a few hours on Mykhailivska square yesterday – the open space in front of St. Michael’s monastery in the center of Kyiv, to which students fled from Independence square after being attacked by riot police on early Saturday morning. Not surprisingly, the mood had changed since Friday night: no music, no dancing, fewer EU flags, and more radical calls to action (including violence) coming from the speakers.I met some friends who are now opposition Parliamentarians, and asked whether calling a general strike was part of their plans. The answer came: “All in good time. First we block access to government buildings; then we shut down the country.” Clearly, the flywheel of uprising needs time to get rolling.

How did we come to thecurrent state – the beginning of a popular uprising? The Ukraine-EU Association Agreement was certainly the catalyst of the past week’s events in Ukraine. Had Prime Minister Azarov’s government not issued a public statement stating that preparations for signing the document were suspended; had Yanukovych not tried to haggle with EU leaders by presenting them with unreasonable financial demands; had Ukraine’s President actually signed the Agreement – the street protests would either never have happened, or they would have dissipated by today. Most importantly, had there been no violent crack-down on the remaining protesters on Independence Square early Saturday morning, the demonstrators would have simply dispersed. But events took place differently, and many are asking “why”?

A friend of mine on Facebook wrote me the following questions: “…what did he (Yanukovych) think of when he used the troops… what strategy was on his mind when he did it? Was there any?”

Conspiracy theories abound: the most obvious one involves Yanukovych simply succumbing to Russian pressure not to sign the EU Agreement, and then a “rogue” police commander (possibly the Interior Minister) giving the order to attack without the President’s knowledge. This theory is clearly the most convenient to the current regime, and will be presented in coming days as a representation of fact. According to this theory, we should soon see the resignation/firing of the Minister of the Interior, and possibly of the Prime Minister, but Yanukovych himself will remain in office. Opposition leaders are unlikely to accept such a “resolution” to the current crisis, but whether they will be able to maintain popular support on the streets during the coming winter weeks (months?) is an open question.

Other theories circulating in Kyiv focus on analyses of various conspiratorial power plays behind the scenes in the Presidential Administration, where apparently a pro-Russian group has been in a long-term stand-off with a pro-EU group.According to one of these theories, the pro-EU group actually quietly supported the students’ protests, and had hoped to return to the issue of the Association Agreement at the planned Ukraine-EU summit in March 2014 under the pretext of this issue being particularly salient to the people of Ukraine. For the pro-Russia group, this turn of events was clearly unacceptable, and so the pro-EU student protests needed to be dispersed. According to this theory, if the planned dispersal hadled to mass violence, the pro-Russian group would have called onYanukovych to declare a state of emergency; if popular reaction did not erupt, this would have served as evidence for the West that in reality, demands for EU integration in Ukraine have only marginal support. Thus, according to this conspiracy theory, if popular reaction to police brutality fizzles as it did in Moscow after the Manezhnaya square crackdown, then the pro-Russia group within the Presidential Administration will have proven that Ukraine is truly part of the “Ruskiy Mir” (Russian World) geo-political space, and therefore subject to the diktat of Putin. On the other hand, if Ukraine’s people had taken to the streets (as they have), some instigated violence should be used as a pretext for the declaration of a state of emergency, and if mass demonstrations and social chaos continue despite restrictions, Russian troops can be called in (particularly into Ukraine’s eastern regions) to “calm” the situation, and to “protect ethnic Russians” (pretexts used by Russia to justify military interventions in Abkhazia, Ossetia, and other border regions).

Now that more than a full day has passed since the savage attack by riot police on the student protest camp on Independence Square, and after today’s peaceful return of demonstrators to that same square in MUCH greater numbers, I am increasingly confident that the conspiracy theories are wrong. Yanukovych may try to blame his Ministers, but this is unlikely to be enough to calm the demonstrations at this point. The uprising has started, and it will not be stopped with token gestures.

On the other hand, this uprising will not end soon, and it may yet lead to a split in the country. Clearly much of the violence that is occurring tonight on Kyiv’s streets is being instigated artificially. As I write these words, in addition to the Presidential Administration, the Lenin monument in the city center was just attacked – a street fight is ongoing with riot police. An obvious question arises: in whose interest is it to see the situation in Kyiv degenerate into chaos? Events in Ukraine are not occurring in a vacuum; the country’s neighbors have a role to play – be it positive or negative…

The next few days are likely to bring more chaos, and (unfortunately) violence, but after the ugliness is over, the Ukrainian nation will emerge stronger… More to come!

In the meantime, God help us all!

Mychailo Wynnyckyj Ph.D.
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

Nov. 30, 2013 - It’s getting ugly…

"It’s getting ugly…" is an informative Facebook post by Mychailo Wynnyckyj (Associate Professor, PhD - Kyiv-Mohyla Academy) on November 30, 2013 at 2:24 PM in Kyiv, some 10 hours after riot police brutally dispersed a peaceful protest at #Euromaidan.  Mychailo was born and raised in Canada. He has been living in #Ukraine for many years now and has terrific insights into the current events in Ukraine, which he is able to relate in a unique way that will appeal to Westerners.

-----

It’s getting ugly…

Last night Ukraine changed forever. This is no longer a post-Soviet state that is trying to “muddle through” economic and political difficulty. This is no longer a country of peaceful demonstrations that periodically supplies the world media with striking images of hundreds of thousands of smiling protestors with Orange or Euromaidan symbolism. This is now a war zone. And the war is between the Ukrainian government and its people. Soon it could degenerate into outright civil war (God knows I hope it doesn't, but ignoring the realities will not make them go away...).

At approximately 4am Kyiv time, riot police savagely attacked and dispersed the remaining protestors on Kyiv’s Independence Square. Approximately 50 people were arrested; many more were brutally beaten. Images of the wounded are currently all over the internet. Videos clearly show that the police were not acting with the intent to disperse; their orders were to clear and occupy the monument in the middle of Independence Square where the protesters had set up their stage, and the center of their operations. The several hundred people who had remained in the square overnight did not resist (many were actually sleeping on makeshift mattresses when the attack began). They were savagely beaten anyway.

During the past 24 hours I have realized how stupid (inept? idiotic?) the current leadership of Ukraine is in fact. Previously (like some EU leaders – I suspect) I had given Yanukovych the benefit of some doubt. Assuming some ability to think strategically, I had believed that Ukraine’s current President was trying to repeat the electoral story of Kuchma in the 1990’s: elected initially thanks to popularity in Ukraine’s Russian speaking east, then re-elected five years later by a respectable margin with support from all regions (the fact that Kuchma’s second term was a disaster is not relevant to his very real electoral victories). Had Yanukovych signed the EU Association Agreement in Vilnius yesterday, his chances of re-election in 2015 would have been quite good: he would have maintained some support in the east while gaining significant support in the west. After last night’s violence, his chances of legitimately winning an election are now nil. 

But at this point it is clear that Yanukovych has no intention of even trying to win a fair vote in 2015. Ukraine is today ruled by a would-be dictator who is attempting to consolidate control over his stream of booty by using force against social groups that he considers marginal. He is wrong. The students who gathered on EuroMaidan in Kyiv do not represent a marginal group. The young people on Independence Square that I spoke with yesterday, and the people currently gathering in front of Mykhailivsky church are intelligent, erudite, and deeply patriotic. They represent the epitome of middle class European values: they want to live “normal” lives; they want careers (not wealth); they want to work in stable environments; they want to travel freely; they want to raise their children (or future children) in relative safety; they want to be proud of their country. Put simply, they want the personal dignity that life in a European country should offer. And the further west one travels from Kyiv, the more widespread these wants are. 

That’s the social fact that Yanukovych does not understand. Putin could disperse crowds on Manezhnaya square in Moscow because the opposition demonstrators did not represent mainstream views in Russia. Force can be used to stifle dissent only if a significant group of citizens believes that the state’s monopoly on the use of force is legitimate. In countries such as Lybia, Egypt, Tunisia, and others where popular revolutions have toppled entrenched governments, the people simply rejected the legitimacy of their rulers. In Kyiv at least, it is difficult to find someone who recognizes the legitimacy of Yanukovych. 

On the other hand, it should be said that few among the core of Euromaidan protesters support the opposition party leaders (another parallel with the Arab Spring countries). Although the threesome of Klitshko-Yatseniuk-Tiahnybok represents an organized alternative to Yanukovych, the protesters on Kyiv’s streets are just as skeptical of them as they are of organized politics generally. In neighboring Belarus, the lack of a popular alternative to Lukashenko is often cited as the reason that country has sunk into long-term isolation and authoritarian rule. The current protests in Ukraine show that (as in Arab countries) a single leader is not an absolute necessity for a social movement to gain widespread appeal.

I suspect that there is a basic fact that Ukraine’s president does not understand: Ukraine is not Belarus, and he is not Lukashenko. Unlike the Belarusian leader, Yanukovych is deeply unpopular in the country’s capital, and hated in the west of the country; his image in the industrialized east of the country as a “local boy who made it” has been seriously undermined by the lack of expected improvement in the material wellbeing of his electorate during the past 3 years of his presidency. To become a dictator, one needs a concentrated base of support. Yanukovych simply doesn’t have one. Incidentally, although wealthy, Lukashenko has not been as blatent as his Ukrainian counterpart in amassing wealth, and he seems more restrained when it comes to ordering the use of force. 

The riot police who cleared Independence Square last night were bussed into the capital from the eastern and southern regions of the country (unconfirmed reports claim they came from Crimea). According to sources within Kyiv’s police force, these imports had spent the previous 4 days living in the very buses that had brought them in – a fact that may have added fuel to their lust for violence during the raid on EuroMaidan. Local Kyiv-based police officers have spent the past week under orders to guard the perimeter around the protesters during 12-hour shifts in freezing temperatures; often without food; sometimes enduring verbal abuse from demonstrators. The salary of a Kyiv-based police officer does not exceed 2200 hryvnia (approx. 200 euro) per month. Not surprisingly, many are asking whose interests they are in fact protecting… Given that both the imports and the locals have guns, and that their interests do not coincide, life in Kyiv is beginning to get a little scary.

Incidentally, reports have just surfaced that the local police in Lviv have refused to provide logistical support to "Berkut" riot police that were bussed in from other regions to disperse demonstrators in the western Ukrainian Euromaidan. 

Last night before the riot police attacks in Kyiv, Deputy PM Vilkul and Foreign Minister Kozhara, speaking on the ShusterLive political talk show, were both hopeful that a deal could still be signed in 2014, and alluded that this would be in candidate Yanukovych’s interests in the run-up to the 2015 Presidential race. That same TV program was abruptly interrupted and taken off the air for over an hour (apparently due to a “technical fault”) when Ukraine’s three opposition party leaders attempted to enter the studio. When the broadcast was resumed, the host was clearly shaken. Savik Shuster left Ukraine today for Italy, and it is unclear whether his regular Friday evening live broadcast will be aired next week. 

Today, Serhiy Lyovochkin, the head of Yanukovych’s administration, resigned in protest against the use of force on EuroMaidan. I would not be surprised if other government officials followed his lead. Any illusions as to the real essence of Yanukovych’s politics were dashed last night – forever.

Naively, during the past 3 years, there have been several occasions when I questioned the simplistic portrayal of Yanukovych as a thug (pirate?). Several people who work in his administration are acquaintances and (former?) friends. In 2012 I personally took part in a working group organized by Prime Minister Azarov called upon to draft a new Law on Higher Education for Ukraine – how silly I was to believe that this government could actually be attempting EU-oriented reforms! Clearly I am not alone in feeling duped. 

Former Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko (one of the leaders of both the Orange Revolution protests in 2004, and organizer of the “Ukraine without Kuchma” demonstrations in 2001, who was jailed in 2011 and amnestied by Yanukovych last year) has not tired of repeating: “the use of force by the state must be countered only by peaceful protest”. This is excellent advice, and I sincerely hope that it will be followed. But we need to realize that a thug understands only a thug’s language. International sanctions may help to isolate Yanukovych, but in the end, it will probably take more radical (ugly?) action to displace him. A general strike may be an answer. 

More street protests are sure to come – and more blood…God help us! 

Mychailo Wynnyckyj PhD
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

Nov. 27, 2013 - 36 hours to go – will Yanukovych sign?

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mychailo Wynnyckyj

(Михайло Винницький)

Sent: Nov. 27, 2013 @ 17:16 EST

To: [GROUP]

Subject: 36 hours before scheduled signing in Vilnius

(Please distribute as appropriate.)

36 hours to go – will he sign?

Since yesterday I have become more pessimistic about the results of the upcoming Vilnius summit. In my opinion, the odds of a signature on the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement (which includes a pact on Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade) now seem to have dropped to about 3:1 against. A deal is not out of the question, but EU leaders need to come to Vilnius in the same haggling mindset as Yanukovych. The price of a deal is probably about 2-3 billion euros per year over the next few years. Is this too high? By tomorrow we should know…

Sadly, Ukraine’s President seems to be convinced that EU Association is about money. Tonight, Ukraine’s TV channels aired an extensive interview/discussion between Yanukovych and 5 journalists (excerpts were made available on websites this morning) during which he angrily condemned the EU for its laughable offer of 610 million euro per year in aid in the event of a deal. Apparently this figure represents the amount offered by the EU to Ukraine as a stabilization fund to be made available in conjunction with an IMF stand-by loan agreement. For Yanukovych, this amount of money is like offering “a little bit of candy in a nice wrapper” - an insult to a “serious country”. During the televised program, the President repeated the phrase “defending our own interests” several times with respect to his motives for signing or not signing any agreement with the EU – clearly pointing to quantifiable economic benefits to the nation as the price for his signature on the Association Agreement.

Unlike Yanukovych, the protestors on the “Euromaidans” of Ukraine’s cities understand the Agreement not as an economic deal, but rather as a proclamation of common values, and a declaration of Ukraine’s European identity. Accordingly, for them, the question of how much money Ukraine’s eurointegration will cost is irrelevant. To some extent this non-materialist (romantic?) paradigm reflects the youthful exuberance of the students gathered in Kyiv and in other centers, but it also reflects a very real social cleavage between Ukraine’s leaders and its people.

Clearly many of the students who marched to Independence Square today from Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, from Kyiv State University, and from Kyiv Politechnic Institute (the country’s 3 top-ranked universities) were motivated by a desire to live through their own version of a kind of Orange Revolution (most were too young to have taken an active part in events in 2004). But many others - particularly those who have traveled to the EU for studies – are genuinely attracted by the egalitarian, communitarian social model of Europe.

In his televised address to the nation on Monday, Yanukovych proclaimed his unwavering belief in a “Ukrainian dream”, and his desire to build “a society of equal opportunity”. Even if one discounts the lack of credibility of Ukraine’s current President with respect to such visionary proclamations, the materialism of his discourse sounds hollow to protesters gathering in sub-zero temperatures to demand a deal in Vilnius. Tonight, for over an hour, the President’s discussion with TV journalists touched on gas price negotiations with Putin, Ukraine’s trade volumes with Russia and the EU, comparative macroeconomic indicators, import tariffs, aircraft assembly, unemployment levels, pensions, salaries, prices… Values such as social justice, freedom of movement, expression, and association, and rules-based government (not surprisingly) were not mentioned by the President.

Sadly, Yanukovych’s materialist paradigm is irreconcilable with the post-materialist worldview of Euromaidan’s protesting students, and is probably incompatible with the frames of reference of the EU leaders currently on their way to Vilnius. If a deal is to be reached between these two worldviews, one side needs to give way for the sake of the greater good. One option may be to sign an Association Agreement without a Free Trade Agreement. Another option may be to increase the EU’s economic aid offer to Ukraine (essentially “buying” Yanukovych’s signature), and then to use the financial “stick” as a means of ensuring the Ukrainian government keeps its promises after the summit becomes history. Clearly neither option is attractive to EU leaders not accustomed to haggling over the price of joining the European family.

In Vilnius, the EU’s leaders not only face a difficult decision with respect to values, they must also deal with the problem of the persona of Yanukovych – a counterpart that few of them find personally amenable. By supporting the Ukrainian people’s desire to join Europe’s community of values, they risk allowing the country’s President (the embodiment of the antithesis of such values) to return from Vilnius as a hero with a strong chance of re-election in 2015. On the other hand, if the Ukrainian people’s aspirations for a European future are denied in Vilnius, the EU risks social unrest on its borders. Ukraine is not Belarus, and Yanukovych is not Lukashenka, so an authoritarian clamp-down (to be followed by EU isolation) is unlikely. This country will not tolerate dictatorship, but the EU’s most populous eastern neighbor may yet succumb to its regional, generational, and linguistic cleavages. One shudders to imagine the human losses of such a scenario.

Yesterday I posted a note analyzing current events in Ukraine in which I placed 3:1 odds in favor of a successful conclusion to the Vilnius summit. That post generated two mutually contradictory reactions: a) I was accused of wishful thinking by people who see Yanukovych as the embodiment of evil, surrounded by essentially stupid advisors who could not possibly have crafted a plan to improve the President’s bargaining position with the EU and simultaneously his chances of re-election; b) I was accused of pessimism because I dared to mention that the current situation could potentially lead to violence on the streets, widespread social unrest, and even Ukraine’s possible disintegration if the Association Agreement is not signed. On the one hand, I guess, I was/am too optimistic, and simultaneously too pessimistic.

I remain hopeful that the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement will in fact be signed on Friday in Vilnius. On her birthday, Yulia Tymoshenko, whose continued imprisonment was considered only a week ago to be a major obstacle to any deal, today issued a statement asking EU leaders to swallow their distaste, to ignore her confinement, and to sign the deal for the sake of the Ukrainian people. For the EU this is clearly a difficult pill to swallow, but the alternative is much worse…

According to news reports from Europe, the draft of the final communique from Vilnius (to be finalized at the Summit) still includes a reference to a signed Association Agreement with Ukraine. European Commissioners Fule and Ashworth have both stated that the Agreement remains on the agenda of the Vilnius meeting. Clearly this is a polite way of saying that the decision is up to Yanukovych. Today, Ukraine’s President publicly broadcast that he is willing to bargain and haggle. That may be disgraceful (perhaps even disgusting from a European perspective), but it’s a fact that leaders in Vilnius must now deal with.

One can only hope that those who proclaim their belief in European values, and are called upon to lead their nations with values as guides for their decisions, will heed the calls of the young people demonstrating their belief in these same values on the freezing squares of Kyiv and Ukraine’s other cities. Distasteful as a deal may be for EU leaders today, it is these young Ukrainians who will benefit in the long term. And they are worth it!

Mychailo Wynnyckyj PhD

Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

Nov. 26, 2013 - Will Yanukovych sign the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement?

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mychailo Wynnyckyj
(Михайло Винницький)
Sent: Nov. 26, 2013 @ 08:40 EST
To: [GROUP]
Subject: 36 hours before scheduled signing in Vilnius

(Please distribute as appropriate.)

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

Feb. 25, 2013: EU-Ukraine Summit - Joint Statement

Joint Statement adopted at 16th EU-Ukraine Summit

Feb. 25, 2013 ... News - MFA of Ukraine

1. The 16th EU-Ukraine Summit took place in Brussels on 25 February, 2013. The European Union was represented by Mr Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council and Mr José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission. Ukraine was represented by President Viktor Yanukovych.

2. Acknowledging the European aspirations of Ukraine and welcoming its European choice, the leaders reaffirmed their joint engagement in the political association and economic integration of Ukraine with the European Union on the basis of respect for common values and their effective promotion.

3. The leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the signing of the already initialled Association Agreement, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, as soon as determined action and tangible progress are demonstrated in the three areas emphasized at the 2011 EU-Ukraine Summit, possibly by the time of the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius in November 2013. Therefore, Ukraine is determined to comply with those areas/elements specified by the Conclusions of the 10 December 2012 Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union to this end. They agreed to focus on these issues as a matter of priority. The signing could be accompanied by an opening for provisional application of parts of the Agreement.

4. The leaders took note of the actions taken so far by Ukraine, and looked forward to it achieving concrete progress by early May 2013.

5. The leaders noted the Resolution of the European Parliament of 13 December 2012 and the Statement of the Verkhovna Rada of 22 February 2013.

6. The leaders noted the OSCE/ODIHR’s final assessment of the 28 October 2012 parliamentary elections in Ukraine, acknowledging the need to fully implement its recommendations. They agreed on the importance of follow up to electoral irregularities, including early steps to establish a reliable electoral legislation by giving consideration to an Election Code and clear rules for balanced media access for electoral competitors, in close consultation with the OSCE/ODIHR and the Council of Europe/Venice Commission, as well as addressing the inconclusive results in single mandate constituencies.

7. The leaders expressed full support for the European Parliament’s monitoring mission to Ukraine headed by former Presidents Cox and Kwaśniewski, including the need to address the judiciary cases of particular concern. Ukraine also expressed its firm commitment to early implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the recommendations by the Council of Europe related to detention conditions and medical assistance to persons in detention.

8. They stressed that the rule of law with an independent judiciary is a critical element underpinning the Association Agreement, as set out in their joint statement after the December 2011 Summit. They discussed key elements of judicial reform in Ukraine and welcomed the entry into force of a new Criminal Procedure Code, new legislation on the Bar, as well as the establishment of a National Preventive Mechanism against torture. They emphasized the importance of their effective implementation and the need for a comprehensive reform of the judiciary in line with European standards. They looked forward to an early in-depth review of the laws and legislation on the functioning of the Prosecutor’s Office, on the role of the High Council of Justice, on the Judicial System and the Status of Judges as well as a reform of Criminal Code and the Police, in close consultation with the Council of Europe/Venice Commission. They welcomed the launch of the informal dialogue on judiciary on 6 February 2013 to facilitate Ukraine’s progress on these matters.

9. The leaders noted the 3rd joint report on the implementation of the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda. In light of the report’s conclusions, they stressed the importance of overall reinforcement of its implementation and its early update. They emphasized the importance of inclusive reforms through constructive engagement between Government, majority and opposition within the Verkhovna Rada, and civil society. They looked forward to determined and timely efforts by Ukraine to implement the agreed reforms, notably in the Association Agenda and the Action Plan on Visa Liberalisation.

10. They positively noted the new legislation on freedom of association and recognized the critical importance of constitutional reform to create the necessary checks and balances and of pursuing the freedom of assembly and media reforms.

11. The leaders agreed on the importance of progressing on reforms needed to prepare for a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) in line with the Association Agenda and the need to refrain from any measures going against the spirit of the DCFTA. They reiterated their full commitment to the principles of rule-based bilateral liberalisation embodied in the DCFTA, in particular by refraining from introducing protectionist measures. They reaffirmed adherence to WTO principles and readiness to continue joint efforts to strengthen multilateral trading system. The leaders also stressed the priority given to improving the business and investment climate. In this context, they welcomed the signing of an arrangement between the EU and Ukraine on the establishment of an informal business climate dialogue aimed at identifying priority actions to improve the business climate.

12. The leaders welcomed the signature of the Memorandum of Understanding and Loan Agreement for EU Macro-Financial Assistance to Ukraine of up to €610M which will complement a future agreement between Ukraine and the International Monetary Fund.

13. The leaders took note of the seventh joint report on the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding on energy cooperation and reaffirmed that Ukraine as a transit country remains a reliable partner of the EU, willing to ensure stable and secure gas flows to Europe. They also stressed the importance of Ukraine’s Gas Transit System (GTS) for transporting gas to the EU Member States. The EU will continue its support for the modernization of the Ukrainian GTS as a key part of the European grid network and support Ukraine in intensifying its dialogue with the International Financial Institutions in order to disburse the first loan for the emergency gas transit project “Reconstruction of Line Facilities of the Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod Natural Gas pipeline, first stage”. In this context, joint high level roundtables will be organised to promote the development of a regional gas market involving the EU relevant countries, financial institutions and companies. The leaders noted with satisfaction that since November 2012, Ukraine has been connected to the EU gas market through effective bi-directional gas flows. Recent investments by European energy companies in Ukraine were considered a positive development to link Ukraine to the European market. The leaders welcomed Ukraine’s progress in implementing their obligations under the Energy Community Treaty and recognised that further efforts are required to implement all the obligations. The Parties agreed to further promote energy cooperation based on principles of solidarity and mutual benefit. They also welcomed Ukraine’s full participation in the nuclear “stress tests” on the basis of the EU specifications and looked forward to early finalization of the EBRD and Euratom loans for upgrading Nuclear Power Plants in Ukraine.

14. The leaders noted that the finalization of negotiations on a Common Aviation Area Agreement will be a priority for 2013. They took note of the progress by Ukraine on public finance management and looked forward to further progress in order to enable EU financial assistance in the form of budget support. They agreed to launch consultations on how future EU assistance could take into account the Association Agreement including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area between the EU and Ukraine.

15. They paid particular attention to citizens’ mobility, recalling the shared commitment to move towards a visa-free travel regime in due course, provided the conditions for well-managed and secure mobility are in place. They took positive note of Ukraine’s progress in the implementation of the first phase of the Action Plan on Visa Liberalisation and the increased efforts towards fulfilment of the benchmarks. They looked forward to the early conclusion of the Agreement amending the Visa Facilitation Agreement signed in July 2012, with a view to further facilitating the issuance of visas to Ukrainian citizens.

16. The leaders exchanged views on international and regional matters, notably in light of Ukraine’s OSCE Chairmanship in Office. Ukraine is well placed to build bridges in the OSCE and to lead the organisation in a way that supports and strengthens it institutionally. They expressed convergent views on the Transnistria settlement process and look forward to a positive dynamics in the 5+2 talks. They also expressed satisfaction with Ukraine’s participation in CSDP missions.

The OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Leonid Kozhara, discussed Ukraine’s priorities in the areas of human rights, democracy and the rule of law during a meeting with Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

http://mfa.gov.ua/en/press-center/news/10445-za-rezulytatami-16-go-samitu-ukrajina-jes-bulo-prijnyato-spilynu-zajavu

<> <> <> <> <>