Euromaidan Is Not About Freedom — It Is About Power
Originally posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014
In late December 2013, I spent two nights walking through Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Майдан Незалежності), or Independence Square, in Kyiv (to use the transliteration of the Ukrainian "Київ", rather than the Russian "Киев"). The famous square is one of the main plazas in Kyiv, home to several monuments and, most recently, the nexus for the Euromaidan protests. The dissent which began in late November has risen to prominence in the past few weeks due to an uptick in violence, in some instances resulting in death. The protests arose in reaction to the government backing out of talks regarding joining the European Union, but the majority of those currently involved are demonstrating against the excessive measures and obvious human rights violations of the Ukrainian special police or “Berkut.” The claim is that Ukrainians are “fighting for their rights.” And while they may believe they are, the reality is a different story.
As I toured the square and nearby streets, I was guided by a friend who had been involved in the protests at the onset. A young professional, he found himself assisting in constructing battlements during the tense stand-off with police in early December. He was especially proud that, in one section of the square, he personally acquired a metal cable and ran it through hastily-constructed barriers making a connected mass that prevented the police from removing the barriers. He described in detail how the protestors used fire hoses against police as they defended one of the buildings they had occupied. As we walked and shared stories, I noticed the signature yellow and sky blue ribbon on his bag, the colors of the Ukrainian flag. In the week I spent in Kyiv, it was very common to see ribbons, buttons, banners, stickers, and flags.
The Ukrainian diaspora has similarly voiced support. Facebook profile pictures reflect the Ukrainian ribbon overlaid on black to represent the recent deaths. Here in Washington DC, public rallies are held in a sign of solidarity. Social media exhortations for support abound. And it is not only Ukrainians. Rallies are taking place in London, Vienna, Seoul, and elsewhere. Such causes tend to attract naive idealists, and they have been quick to jump on the bandwagon – those who worship at the altar of democracy assuming it is always and everywhere a good thing. Sadly, this show of support is only encouraging more violence and death.
The choices Ukrainians are making are not between good and evil but between two equally bad options. To fully grasp the situation requires an understanding of history, politics, economics and international relations. Most of those involved, including many in Independence Square itself, and especially the many outside the nation, lack that understanding.
This was evident as I toured the square. Far from a tense standoff, the police had been ordered to leave the area to the protestors. The result was a very “Occupy” atmosphere. Much like those protests in the U.S., the bulk of the participants are young people who want to be involved in something, to belong to a unifying cause. It is easy to garner support when your cause rallies to a simple, ambiguous and politically unquestionable theme such as “equality” in the Occupy movements, or “nationalism,” or “rights” as in Ukraine, rather than confront the systemic and deeply embedded ills of your society.
The ambiguity of cause has resulted in the kind of conglomeration of participants that was seen in the U.S.-based Occupy protests. Nationalists walk among those upset over their economic circumstances, while the increasing violence has attracted anarchists, neo-Nazis, and gang members. Another parallel to the “Occupy” protests was the scale of destruction and filth that accompanied the protests. A far cry from orderly and disciplined, the crowds have damaged nearby businesses and property and the once idyllic square and nearby streets are covered in refuse, resembling a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Others have more recently noted the same climate.
Though most participants were inspired by the desire to be part of the action, and all are genuinely incensed by the police brutality, there is also a more sinister element. There are many reports of protestors being paid to engage in such activity by those who would benefit from the current leadership’s replacement. This is well known to have occurred during the 2004 Orange Revolution, a civil resistance movement that arose in response to perceived election fraud. Although my guide acknowledged the payment of protestors in that event, he claimed that this time it is different. Involved in the protests from the beginning, and a true nationalist, he is passionate about the cause but perhaps, understandably, a bit biased. In my visit to Kyiv, I was accompanied by another friend, half-Russian and half-Ukrainian, who had heard first-hand accounts of protestors being paid large sums of money to participate. Later, two other acquaintances, one Ukrainian and one Russian, provided similar accounts. My patriotic guide had also informed me that Russia was covering up the protests and that Russians had no idea of what was happening in Ukraine. Having been in Russia prior to and after my visit to Ukraine, I was readily able to counter this mistaken assumption. My guide also asserted strained relations and suggested a nationalistic animosity between Ukrainians and Russians as we discussed historical tensions. This view was neither prevalent among the Russians with whom I engaged, nor in the Russian media, however, this rationalization is consistent with favorable attitudes about EU membership and dislike of Russian involvement in Ukrainian politics.
At the time of my visit, Kyiv was experiencing what can now be described as a lull in the violence. What I had observed was not so much a protest as a spectacle. Within the square, enclosed by barriers, was a tent city comprised of a variety of makeshift shelters, some selling food, some providing medical supplies, some for heat. Men stood around fires warming themselves while others wandered around selling souvenirs. Despite claims that there is no alcohol, I personally saw a great deal of it. There was a huge stage where, between musical acts, various people would spew the Ukrainian equivalent of “MERICUH!” The substance-less nationalism did not address any of the issues but rather consisted of statements like, “Ukraine is the best nation in the world!” “Long live Ukraine!” The atmosphere resembled a carnival more than a protest, evoking images of Woodstock and Bonnaroo. It had become commercialized and was actually become a tourist destination. My guide even informed me that it is rumored that U2 might play in the square. From protest to music festival…and now, a war zone?
I passed by several booths and numerous signs dedicated to the freeing of Yulia Tymoshenko, the former Prime Minister of Ukraine, jailed by current (and legitimately elected) President Viktor Yanukovych, against whom the protests are primarily directed. The irony is that Tymoshenko (and her party ally and former President, Viktor Yushchenko) were every bit as corrupt as Yanukovych. Tymoshenko’s imprisonment may have been politically motivated, but it was certainly justified by her crimes. It is peculiar that a people would vilify the corruption of Yanukovych but overlook it in Tymoshenko simply because the latter opposes the former. Tymoshenko gained favor through her leadership in the aforementioned Orange Revolution and has supported this latest unrest as well, most likely with a view to her own freedom despite officially dropping demands to be released in exchange for an EU deal. On November 22, she was one of the main proponents for the protest, urging Ukranians to take to the streets in order to sway the government of her adversary. But Tymoshenko represents only one segment of the opposition currently headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk. There are also the nationalists, led by Oleh Tyahnybok, as well as those members of boxer Vitali Klitschko’s party. While all have traditionally competed for power, they all have a hand in supporting and fueling Euromaidan, as they all stand to benefit from the fall of the current party.
Despite rants about Russian influence, it is telling that polling of those involved in the protest reveals that only about 50% wish for integration with the European Union (though only 15% support a similar union with Russia). Western Ukraine has always leaned more European, while Eastern Ukraine has traditionally adopted a more Russian perspective. The effects can be seen in economic ties as well as cultural ones, like ethnic background, language, and even election results. The desire to join the EU is based more on ideals than practical matters. Indeed, a pragmatist might note that the harm resulting from the loss of Russian support could far outweigh any potential gain from joining the EU. Russia has been providing funding to Ukraine since its independence. It supplies Ukraine with discounted gas and Russian trade accounts for a significant percentage of the Ukrainian economy. Initial entry into the EU would provide a boost, but in the long term may result in more bad than good. Indeed, even the long-term feasibility of the EU itself has been questioned by some of its members. Further, even a union with Russia would likely bring about the economic changes that EU membership would force. These issues are largely not addressed by the outcry in Ukraine because, despite anti-Russian sentiments, the protests are about dissatisfaction with Ukraine's own government and its power, specifically the power of the President and his “family” – those closest to him. Under a presidential system which, unlike the U.S., doesn’t seem to value a separation of powers or limits on government’s role in society, intimidation and corruption naturally abound, regardless of the person holding office.
Ultimately, the situation has little to do with Russia or rights. At its core, it is purely about internal politics and the distribution of power. Naive Ukrainians are being used in an attempt to shift government control from the corrupt party in power to other corrupt parties. This should be obvious form the results of the Orange Revolution which reacted against corruption, cronyism and abuse of power only to result in more of the same. There are those who decry Yanukovych while conveniently ignoring that his predecessor was just as corrupt as he is. It is shortsighted to think Yanukovych is the source of evil and that the problems in Ukraine will disappear when he is replaced. Those in the streets clamor about democracy and rights, but changing the name on the office door does not fix a system that is inherently broken.
The opposition parties and other backers who wish to inherit this system are exploiting outrage over police action— and even using violence to instigate backlash from the police, who are already demonstrably heavy-handed. The protestors are simply pawns in this game, sheep being led to the slaughter. The cries of freedom serve to recruit protestors, and to gain sympathy from the West, but they are really lies drawing naïve Ukrainians into the crossfire.
These protests, unlike the previous movement, have far surpassed peaceful assembly and have evolved into foolish, half-hearted, and wasteful violence. It is primarily the fault of the protestors themselves (although, it must be noted that the government has paid participants, "Titushki," who are inciting violence and carrying out false flag attacks). It is often said that violence never solves anything but this is untrue. Half-hearted, irresolute violence never solves anything, but decisive, ruthlessly-applied, total violence has solved many issues throughout history. In Ukraine, violence has been employed in the former manner. The result has been a needless loss of life.
If protestors believe they are fighting for their rights, they are not going about it in a very intelligent way. The attempted use of violence by protestors has been episodic and reactionary rather than intentioned, comprehensive and purposeful. As protestors escalated from peaceful activism and civil disobedience to theft, property damage, and violence against police, the natural result was police escalation and legislation banning assembly. The stupidity of engaging police with force in this way is apparent. Though brutal beatings have been very prevalent, police largely relied on tear gas and non-lethal rounds up until this past week. Unless the intention is to shift peaceful protest into outright revolution, then violence will only worsen the situation for the protestors. If violence is to be used against the government then it should only be done purposefully with the understanding of a deliberate move to legitimate revolution. If that is not what is occurring, then the protest must remain peaceful. Anything in between will only result in continued violence and more deaths with no resolution. The most recent efforts by protestors have included molotov cocktails, pistols being fired, and even medieval-style catapults being launched. Such lethal actions, defined as hostile acts in military terminology, can only be predicted to lead to an increasingly violent police response, such as firing lethal rounds against protestors. This is, precisely what has occurred, producing a death toll of six protestors and one policeman, and hundreds of injuries on both sides. Reports of torture and kidnapping are being released as the violence continues to escalate.
In examining this series of events, the natural conclusion is that more death may be exactly what those pulling the strings in the protests really desire – to cause enough mayhem and death to trigger a full-scale revolt, rather than wait for a peaceful and inevitable transition of the already-despised party in 2015. But this begs the question, are those leaders who are willing to buy their way into power with the blood of their fellow citizens likely to be any different than the current regime?
Ukrainians have a choice to make: either commit to full-scale revolution to overthrow the current regime and begin again, or return to peaceful methods of protest and use the ballot and public opinion to change leadership. But either way, all the death and destruction will have been in vain if serious, deep structural changes are not made afterward. This is the only way that Ukrainians will solve their problems. The protests are not what is important, what comes after them is what truly matters.
It is, however, most likely that regardless of how transition occurs and who is leading it, it will take the form of some very public, very obvious superficial changes (to feed the illusion that the former regime was tyrannical and the new one is just), but it will be business (corruption) as usual.
The latest reporting shows the protests growing and the government appears unlikely to simply allow itself to be replaced. Any result arising from the continued violence is likely to be the same that would have occurred regardless, albeit more slowly, but without the tragic deaths that come of children playing with fire.
The real danger is that the protests may now be beyond the control of those who incited them and evolve into a growing and self-replicating cycle of violence. Sadly, this is not the story that the idealists waving flags and shouting support for the cause are willing to admit.
