The Ukrainian Crisis: Context and Perspective

Originally published in The UCC Express February 18 2014

When reporting on international crises, journalists often fail to provide historical, cultural and political context. The immediacy of such crises, like the current unrest in Ukraine or the civil war in Syria, often imposes limitations on those reporting. The twenty-four hour news cycle generally disallows for in-depth analysis, with emphasis placed on reporting events expeditiously, leaving very little time and space for review and insight. So, while incidences of great upheaval such as civil wars, mass demonstrations, and revolutions are afforded much attention in the media, the fundamental factors that stimulate such events are oftentimes under-reported.

Ukrainians began protesting on 21 November last year to voice their frustration at the fact that President Viktor Yanukovych reneged on a deal to strengthen economic ties with the European Union. Instead, he has opted to economically ally with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, a move that is seen by many Ukrainians as counter-intuitive given Ukraine’s history of subjugation by the Soviet Union. While the original protestations surrounded the EU deal, Ukrainian anger has since turned directly toward President Yanukovych, a man long accused of corrupt practices. Many argue that since his election in 2010, he has driven the Ukrainian economy into the ground. He fuelled further discontent by passing highly controversial anti-protest laws in mid-January in an effort to curb the protests. These new laws severely limited free-speech, protest rights, and even made wearing helmets a criminal act. In clear concessions to protestors and the opposition they were repealed less than two weeks later but not before three protestors were shot to death. The country’s Prime Minister also tendered his resignation. For most Ukrainians, such compromises are seen as too little, too late. Demonstrators are now calling for snap elections, refusing to leave their protest sites until Yanukovych and his government resigns.
Although the crisis has clear-cut surface tensions, namely Yanukovych’s perceived corruption and his yielding to Russian pressure, it is important to acknowledge that Ukrainian support for Europe isn’t as homogenous as western media tends to report (46%, compared with 38% for a Russian deal). Complex cultural, political and historical motivations very much affect how Ukrainians see the direction they want their country to take, and explain why many, but not all, Ukrainians took to the streets to remonstrate against their own government.
Ukraine in its current form is a relatively young country, forming twenty-two years ago at the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Centuries of foreign occupation, mostly by Russia, has meant that Ukraine has had great difficulty in forming its own national identity. When seeking to understand Ukraine’s identity issues, it is pertinent to acknowledge its cumbersome geographical position. It sits right in-between Russia and Europe, like a jig-saw puzzle piece holding the East and West together. Politically, economically and culturally it is being pulled in both directions — Europe seeks to bring it into the European Union while Russia sees it as strategically and symbolically important. With Russia currently struggling to re-establish itself as an influential player on the international stage, losing Ukraine to the West would be damaging.
This push-and-pull from Europe and Russia has created an invisible border, more or less dividing the country in two. Those on the western side are generally seen as pro-Europe and the eastern side are mainly pro-Russia. Historically, Russia has exerted an over-bearing influence on Ukraine. A devastating famine took place in the country in the early 1930s, mainly in the east. Some historians argue (others disagree) that the famine was pre-meditated by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin as a method of curtailing Ukrainian national pride, while simultaneously allowing him to repopulate stricken regions with ethnic Russians — cementing The Soviet Union’s hold on eastern Ukraine. Due to its history of occupation by Russia, along with its proximity to Europe, the east and the west of present-day Ukraine are incredibly polarised. While Ukrainian is the official language of the country, only 50% of people speak it daily, and they are almost all in the west. By contrast, 29% speak Russian as their native tongue and they’re almost all in the east of the country. The Ukrainian language was banned in the east from 1804 until the Russian Revolution in 1917, and this greatly influenced the cultural divides that we see today.

Such divides pervade electoral politics also. Viktor Yushchenko, President of Ukraine from 2005 until 2010, was born in the west of Ukraine and was decidedly pro-European. He embarked on an intense campaign of ‘Ukrainianisation’ during his tenure in office, even opting to only speak Ukrainian to Russian President Vladimir Putin through an interpreter, despite speaking fluent Russian himself. By contrast, current President Viktor Yanukovych is a native of eastern Ukraine, and only learned to speak Ukrainian in his fifties. He has been far more friendly to Russia than his predecessor.

The current turmoil over the EU deal is symptomatic of this divide. Due to the fact that western Ukrainians tend to align themselves with European ideals, they see any economic co-operation by President Yanukovych with Russia as a bad deal. As such, much of the protests have been taking place in the west. Interestingly, since Yanukovych implemented those sweeping anti-protest laws in January, demonstrations have begun to spring up in the east of the country, with the east and west of Ukraine uniting in its abhorrence of the President’s increasingly authoritarian measures.

President Yanukovych now finds himself in an extremely delicate position. Although Ukrainians are divided over his co-operation with Russia, they are united in repudiating his autocratic tendencies. But with his position becoming increasingly untenable, such co-operation between western and eastern Ukrainians is unlikely to last if and when he is ousted.

Ukraine sits in a precarious position, tucked neatly in between the East and West — a situation which is forcing it to make a tough choice. To re-align itself with Mother Russia would be to renew an ancient, complex and not always fruitful relationship. To look west towards Europe would be to break new ground and achieve greater inclusion on the international stage. A national debate needs to be held among Ukrainian citizens and its leaders, and the very real divide that extends to all aspects of Ukrainian society needs to be bridged if the fledgling nation is to break out of the shadow of its past and forge its own statehood.

(Photograph shows the falling of the monument of Vladimir Lenin in Kiev)