Ukraine has,
since November, been constantly at the centre of global news coverage, but how
did the crisis, that started as an internal conflict, escalate to what was frequently described as a second Cold War? I’ll
also address the burning question for many: what exactly is going on with Ukraine?
First of
all, let me take you back to where it all began, by stating the facts about
this still-young-nation: Ukraine only became an independent nation in 1991, which
means it was - and still is - very much prone to internal struggle. It hasn’t
developed yet.
It’s also
important to note that this is a nation that has endured years of Imperial Russian
and Soviet oppression. Has there ever been a newly independent country to slide
seamlessly into peaceful independent governance? I doubt it. Therefore it is
safe to assume that this crisis has been a long time coming. Ukraine’s
independence was already heavily burdened by years of Lithuanian, Polish, and
Soviet oppression, along with an ongoing plight for freedom since the 17th
Century. Looking back on its history, Ukraine’s main hindrance seems to be a
politically powerful Russia. It was absorbed into the Russian Empire in the 18th
Century, and then conquered under Soviet rule, following the demise of imperial
Russia. It never had a chance to emerge as an independent country.
For Ukraine
to move away from Russian rule and change to a democratic government would mean
a complete stripping away of its previous style of government and economy. This
would inevitably leave the nation struggling to put new systems in place and
learning to cope with them, even more so during the economically devastating
1990s. So, by 1991, you’ve got a nation
full of people who have been dealing with years of oppression and are suddenly
given a beacon of hope for a brighter future, and are expecting it. They’re
probably thinking “yes, finally! Freedom and Independence at last!” So what
happens when they don’t get what they’ve been hoping for, for centuries? Civil
unrest most likely. I’d be pretty annoyed if I was promised independence and
didn’t actually get it. So in Ukraine’s case, this tension had been brewing for
years. This is why Ukrainian protesters were angered, and a bad history with
Russia allowed for bitter resentment to linger.
Author of
“The Soldier in Russian Politics,” Robert V Barylski, stresses the recurrence
of the all too familiar predicament that this European nation has faced:
Ukrainian nationalists provoking Russian nationalists (and vice versa in my
honest opinion). Here lies Ukraine’s main problem; centuries of Russian
oppression have left the Ukrainian population divided. On the one hand, you
have a group of people who class themselves as Russian; they affiliate with
Russian culture, ideals, traditions, and the Russian language. On the other,
you have a population that has found solace in the collapse of the Soviet Union
and, for some of these people, enough security to return to Ukraine as
Ukrainians. This presents a problem for political leaders. Who do they try to
appeal to and what will guarantee them political success? This is one ongoing
issue that has caused Ukrainian political tensions to escalate. I think the
problem is that it is extremely difficult to keep both sides happy. It’s similar to the US and here in the UK –
you can appeal to the masses but how do you appeal to all the minority or class
groups, especially when they might want different things?
The
Ukrainian people, in my opinion, were given hope for a prosperous future each
time a new leader came to power. Now, in our more politically stable and
developed nations, a new leader comes to power following an election that is
usually anticipated by a set election cycle. For Ukraine, in recent years, this
has not necessarily been the case. One sentence stood out for me when
researching the Ukraine crisis and that is:
“The state needs an effective political
system to make and enforce the general operating rules or authoritative decisions
which nurture overall societal cohesion and sustain high levels of complex
economic activity”
Well said Barylski. Until and unless Ukraine has
a stable political system in place, it won’t be able to make and enforce its
own laws and practices. It won’t be able to achieve high economic standards,
which I believe Ukraine can, given the chance.
 |
Photo credit:
http://www.marxist.com/russia-ukraine-and-the-west-will-there-be-war.htm |
“Only by
trying to be more European can we end our troubles” said 33 year old Alexander
Yabchenko, from western Ukraine. See, a move to the EU would mean modernisation
in the eyes of many Ukrainians. Russian threats and menacing whispers are
holding this bird back from fleeing the nest. Too long has this country been
enslaved and unable to grow because of Russian greed and an inability to forget
its past Empire.
Ukraine needs
help if it’s going to sever ties with Russia. The West has got to put up a
meaner fight if the idea of protecting sovereign nations is what we are
advocating. John Kerry is threatening to impose harsher sanctions on Russia,
and so is the EU – oh look Putin’s shrugging again... I think Russia needs to
be made to back off – a higher governing body must intervene and evoke some
form of fear into Putin to get him and his troops to back off (I’m talking to
you, UN). I’m not suggesting Western Powers need to send forces to Ukraine –
that won’t help. It will only escalate matters and I think that’s why this hasn’t
already been done. The West has already been accused of interfering too much
(sure Putin, point the finger at us why don’t you). It was actually Russian
interference which deterred Yanukovych from signing the EU pact as originally
planned – this is what sparked the riots in the first place.
To
summarise, then: Ukraine provides hope for Western Capitalist Democracy to
prevail in previously Slavic states, and increasing strength and power for the
EU, which is why it gets pounced upon by the United States and major European
nations, whilst still being clutched at by Russian claws so as to avoid a
stronger EU and prevalence of Democracy; creating a more powerful Russia.
No comments:
Post a Comment