Ukraine – flashpoint in the Baltics

0

OVER the few past months, Ukraine had been in the throes of anti-government protests, the likes of which the former Eastern Bloc country has not seen in a decade since the Orange Revolution in 2004.

Central to the upheaval was a historical, political and trade agreement – the EU’s Eastern Partnership – which President Viktor Yanukovych had intended to sign with the European Union but later backed out.

Supporters of the agreement claimed it would have created “closer political ties, generated economic growth, opened borders to trade and set the stage for modernisation and inclusion.”

But Russia’s opposition – and promise of a debt-forgiving deal – threw a huge spanner in the works and apparently extracted an about-face from Yanukovych.

If Kiev decided to defy Moscow and go ahead with the deal, it would face a Kremlin backlash in the form of trade sanctions. However, if Yanukovych joined a Moscow-led Customs Union, the threat of sanctions would disappear and, on top of that, Russia would buy US$15 billion in Ukrainian debt and offer Kiev substantial discount on its natural gas.

The protesters slammed the deal as a sell-out, accusing the President of fobbing them off with false promises. They took their grievances to Kiev’s Maidan or Independence Square in a move eerily reminiscent of the 2004 Orange Revolution which saw Yanukovych removed from office as a prime minister.

The protests had taken on a much more serious complexion than first thought. The opposition had upped the ante by calling for constitutional reform to change the government’s overall power structure, claiming Yanukovych has too much power – even enough to usurp parliament.

In a conciliatory gesture, the President offered a package of concessions, including agreeing to look at constitutional changes, but the opposition contended the concessions did not go far enough as Yanukovych was still exerting a mail-fisted grip on the government.

In January, as the situation appeared to be improving with protesters leaving Kiev’s City Hall and other government buildings and dismantling street barricades in exchange for the government dropping charges against those arrested, the opposition dropped a bombshell – that parliament passed a law to limit the President’s powers and restore the constitution to its 2004 status. But the Speaker refused to acquiesce, triggering more bloody clashes.

As is typical of such bitter internal strife, the government blamed opposition and the opposition blamed the government. The fact that 28 lives were lost in the blood-spilling seemed not to matter as both sides were too busy pointing fingers to even bother remembering the dead were Ukrainians – their own flesh and blood.

Although a truce was later reached, it was short-lived as gunfire soon erupted at Maidan, sparking another round of blame game – the government claiming the protesters broke the truce – the protesters counter-claiming the government did.

An uneasy calm prevails in Ukraine amidst a flurry of diplomatic efforts to defuse tensions and resolve the crisis without further bloodshed.

Western powers, increasingly resigned to the eventuality of Ukraine losing the Crimea to Russia, are facing tough questions over future relations. And they have few options. Russian says it has the right to protect its interests in the Baltics while the Crimean parliament has voted to join the Russian Federation – a move denounced by Kiev but widely seen as only a token rebuke.

Nato states have no legally binding alliance ties to Ukraine and according to Nato’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, US General Philip Breedlove, the alliance have “no military plans to support Ukraine if attacked.”

However, the alliance have an obligation to find ways to reassure other Eastern European states, especially the former Soviet Baltics, that their defence guarantees will be honoured but to do this without stoking tensions is wishful thinking.

Former US Navy officer Christopher Harmer has said “the Russian military still doesn’t really compare to ours (US) but they know where they want to use it and unlike us, they have the will to do so.”

Any western direct military action would, of course, risk a nuclear holocaust. Russia – apart from a large conventional force and a formidable arsenal of nukes – is believed to have sophisticated cyber attack capabilities.

The risk of missteps is high. The US and Nato have asked Russia to pull out of the Crimea. They say the presence of Russian troops in the Ukrainian peninsula on the northern coast of the Black Sea is not only against the interest of peace in Europe but also international law. But after having a hand in the illegal wars in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Libya, it’s no surprise if their calls sound rather hollow to the Russians.

For now, it’s best to avoid further escalation. Channels for dialogues must be kept open at all times.

Ultimately, the hope is that cool heads will prevail.