Posted on 01/25/2014 7:29:37 PM PST by cunning_fish
Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, piped up on Thursday with a wake-up call for the Western world: Ukraine is now everybody’s problem. The turmoil in its capital, where pitched battles have raged all week between protestors and police, “threatens not only Ukraine and her neighbors, but Europe and the entire world,” he wrote in an open letter to the U.S. and Russian Presidents. He was certainly right about Europe, which now has a real dilemma on its hands. The only question is whether Ukraine’s neighbors can do much to resolve it. For the West, there are few good options. Much of the influence the E.U. had over Ukraine was lost in November, when the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, refused to sign a trade and association deal with the E.U. That is what sparked the protests against him, while also bringing a flood of recriminations down on him from the West. Since then, he has practically become an outcast in Europe, so any further Western pressure “would have little impact,” says Alex Brideau, a Ukraine expert at the Eurasia Group, a consulting firm based in New York City. “His preference is the hardline approach rather than compromise.”
Russia, by contrast, holds a much stronger hand. After
(Excerpt) Read more at world.time.com ...
I’m all for the restoration of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Wait a minute—you just added the US to the mix? Jeepers, good night.
Grace, Ukraine has had plenty of experience of being under the boot of Russia. The protests are more about removing a pro-Russian, corrupt and criminal Putinista boot licker than it is about “joining the EU”. There are many on FR who have a strange nostalgia for the Soviet Union and see in Putin their chance to see that goal achieved.
What is it about a sovereign and independent Ukraine you find so threatening?
Hell, yes!
Actually, MrEdd, the money leads to Vlad Putin, all 15 billion of it, who is trying to keep Ukraine under Russian control and, eventually in his Eurasian Union. On the other side we have the populace who does not desire to be subjugated by the smelly Russian boot anymore.
At first I was on a Russian side of this but as far as it is developing I have no affiliations right now.
Both sides need a chance and if nationalist pro-EU fraction is more active let them have it.
I really hope their leaders or people who a getting ready to rise on the unrests aren’t another cronies (thus I really doubt it).
Anyway, picking a EU deal over Russian will bring enormous negative impact on their national economy in short to middle term run.
I have no problem with Independent Ukraine, per se.
But I believe rather than being a part of the EU, I would love to see the other former “captive nations” form their own bloc, independent of both Brussels and Moscow.
And the downfall of the Commonwealth was a great tragedy for Europe, IMHO.
trade with Europe.. fine... but they should refuse to be bound to the EU politically
Exactly....I believe that’s what Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc. should have done in the first place.
It also concerns me that some of the Ukrainian Nationalist groups still worship the memory of Stepan Bandera and his UPA-OUN thugs.
Indeed, the agreement with the EU which the Ukrainian president backed out of at the last minute was a trade agreement. It was not about joining the EU. I doubt very much that the EU would want Ukraine joining any time in the foreseeable future given the mass westward migration of job-seeking Ukrainians that would result in.
Note that 100,000 "extremists" in the streets is only 0.2% of the entire population of Ukraine (about 45 million.) The other 99.8% do not act against the government. They are at home and at work, living their life.
Do you want the 0.2% to dictate their will to the rest of the society? Wouldn't that be, say, undemocratic? One can always find 100,000 people to do anything - you can just hire them, if you can't entice them to do the work for free.
The problem is here, and always, in the question "who are the protesters, and who do they represent?" It's always nice when the protesters *are* on the side of the majority. But is it always so? What would you say if 100,000 card-carrying Communists assemble in Washington and start burning cars, breaking windows and such, demanding that the country abandons the Constitution and instead selects a Secretary General for life, with unlimited power? Will those 100,000 be representing you or me? Who would give them the right to demand anything from anyone?
We saw the same problem in Egypt, when one crowd in Tahrir Square destroyed the government of Mubarak, and then another crowd (or the same one?) a year later in the same Tahrir Square supported the generals against the MB front man? Was the crowd #1 in favor of MB? Or they were just wishing for "anyone but Mubarak?" And after they got Morsi, were they wishing for "anyone but MB?" And was the military action against the elected President democratic? If it wasn't, was it socially positive or not? There are many interesting questions here.
The anti EU faction are toadies of the Russians.
I don’t love the EU but as has happened time after time for Ukaine it’s a choice of the lesser of two evils.
I know several Ukrainians who are sympathetic to the protesters even if they are not out on the streets protesting themselves.
>>trade with Europe.. fine... but they should refuse to be bound to the EU politically<<
What Ukraine has to trade with EU apart from slave labor is a good question.
Right now they are selling a variety of products ranging from beef and diary to motor vehicles and aircraft engines to Russia.
Rejecting Russian deal effectively makes these exports uncompetitive.
Will EADS install Antonov engines on A380s or will Germans buy Ukrainian-built Chevrolets? We all know the answer, the question is purely rhetorical.
And EU will push their subsidized products, made by more influential members on the Ukrainian market for sure. There will be ridiculous regulations making the rest of Ukrainian products absolete too.
>>I know several Ukrainians who are sympathetic to the protesters even if they are not out on the streets protesting themselves<<
I won’t be surprised if they are close to 50% of population but on the other hand the majority of arabs supported arab spring too, before it’s effects has bitten them below their collective back. The majority of said Ukrainians enthusiastically supported SS troops in their Holocaust efforts too, right before they learnt they are next on shedule for extermination by Nazy books. At that exact time they fond their new love with the Soviets and turned into communists again. That is how they are circling around a bowl for centuries, nothing new to see here.
Note that 100,000 "extremists" in the streets is only 0.2% of the entire population of Ukraine (about 45 million.) The other 99.8% do not act against the government. They are at home and at work, living their life.
I know several Ukrainians who are sympathetic to the protesters even if they are not out on the streets protesting themselves.
Approximately 50% of the population of the USA does not like Obama. He has new laws made (and makes some himself) that hurt the people. However the people do not go to Washington, and they do not use force trying to kick the elected President out of the office. Why is that? Maybe because democracy requires us to use other instruments, to respect other people's wishes?
One can accept a violent revolt (like the one in Ukraine) only if democracy there ran out of steam and is completely replaced by dictatorship. I do not believe that was the case; they haven't ran out of their set of boxes yet. So far the government there does not do anything that the US government wouldn't have done in similar circumstances. If anything, it's more timid. A democratically elected government is not even supposed to fall on its knees before any random bunch of protesters; one of its duties is to protect law and order. If the government surrenders to requests of a tiny portion of the population it will betray the majority who elected that government in the first place.
I must admit that I am looking at this case from a philosophical point of view. Truth on the ground may be different. But from purely theoretical POV fairly elected governments should not obey to demands of a tiny but very loud and very scary-looking minority. If they do, it would be an anti-democratic revolt, and another Saddam Hussein can waltz into the President's office. In a democratic society candidates present, explain and defend their political platform, and then voters decide who is better. Who can say what political platform is promoted by leaders of the uprising in Kiev? Who can say who gets to rule if they win? What if they declare themselves Communists of the new generation and start killing rich people left and right? (as an example.) Obviously, one can't run a country like that. Events like this are often the seed of a new dictatorship that is dark and long and bloody (if French or Russian history tells us anything.)
Russia is going to seal off its border and halt all trade with Ukraine.
This is unfortunate but to expected. No country would tolerate anarchy spilling over its borders.
If events in Kiev take a dangerous turn, this is the likely outcome.
Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.