Understanding Ukraine: what's behind the violence

After days of escalating violence, the crisis in Ukraine took a somewhat hopeful turn Friday as a week marked by bloodshed and death ended with the signing of a peace agreement between the president and several leaders of the opposition.

Under the terms of the deal, Ukraine's constitution would be restored, presidential elections would be held no later than December, both sides would refrain from violence and an inquiry would be called into the deaths of protesters – estimated at anywhere from dozens to more than 100 people.

As of Friday, Parliament had already voted to release former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko from prison and remove Vitali Zakharchenko as Ukraine's interior minister.

The agreement, which followed a night of intense negotiations was witnessed by Poland's foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, Germany's foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, France's foreign minister Laurent Fabius and, for the Russian Federation, special envoy Vladimir Lukin. However, Lukin, who was quoted in The Guardian saying Russia did not "understand what our role here is"  did not sign the deal.

Although representatives of the European Union tweeted congratulatory messages to all involved and the government of Germany posted the agreement on its website, news reports described the mood in Maidan square as sombre and silent.

Events in Ukraine are unfolding rapidly but to better understand the situation and how things escalated, writer Jelena Damjanovic turned to  Frank Sysyn, head of the Toronto office of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, associated with the Department of Slavic Languages and Literature at the University of Toronto..

A native of New Jersey, Sysyn (pictured left) holds degrees from Princeton University, University of London and Harvard University and is a renowned expert in Ukrainian studies. He spoke with Damjanovic about the roots of protest, the rise in violence, the role of Russia and the importance of Ukrainian churches.

Below is an condensed version of the interview.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

What started the protests in Ukraine?

The protests began because of the decision of the president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, not to enter into a new agreement with the European Community, which came as a great shock. This decision was clearly made after consultation and pressure from the Russian government and Vladimir Putin and led to protests in the capital of Ukraine, Kyiv (Kiev).

Initially, the protests were largely carried out by students, but late in November the decision was made to clear the students from the Independence Square, or Maidan as it is known, with security police units. There was shock throughout Ukraine about the brutality of this attack. From then on large civic protests began in Kyiv and the protests now changed their nature. No longer were they just about joining the European Community, but against the policies of a corrupt government.

In December, the government tried to break up the protests again, which led to even more massive demonstrations. What really set off the recent round of protests was the government’s decision in January to ban all forms of civic protesting in Ukraine. This was viewed by many in Ukraine as the end of civil rights and the country’s transformation into an authoritarian state.

The protests have persisted for three months. What are some internal/external factors that are sustaining the tensions?

The protestors have been supported overwhelmingly by the population of Kyiv and by large groups throughout the country. There is a feeling, also, of support for the protesters from the outer world, including officials of the European Community and American government officials who visited the Maidan. However, that doesn’t mean that all of Ukraine supports these actions. There is in the south and the east of the country a considerable sentiment towards closer relations with Russia and in some cases support of the Yanukovych government, although there is increasing dissatisfaction with the corruption of the government even there.

How do you explain the escalating violence?

A key issue was the government’s refusal to remove the officials responsible for the initial beatings of the protestors. Also, large numbers of protestors were taken as hostages by the government, which prompted discussions about amnesty.

The government’s response was that they would allow amnesty only if the government buildings which have been seized by the protestors throughout January were vacated. Largely under the urging of Western powers and the European Community, the protestors began to vacate the buildings.

That was the situation when three days ago, a group from the Maidan marched toward the parliament to put pressure on the deputies to go back to the constitution of 2004, which was worked out during the Orange Revolution and which the Yanukovych government had abrogated in 2010. The parliament refused, which led to conflicts between the protestors and a large number of police.

The government forces then moved towards the Square and that’s when this massive battle broke out.

What should we watch for next?

That’s hard to predict. The problem now is that no one on the Maidan trusts this government. The world wants to come to a compromise, a coalition government. This is very difficult in a situation when there is no trust. The major demand of the Maidan is the resignation of Yanukovych. Yanukovych does not want to give up power. After all, he imprisoned his opponent in the last election, Yulia Timoshenko. I don’t think he can expect better treatment if he steps down. And then we have whatever secret arrangements the government has made with Russia. The Yanukovych government is totally economically dependent on the Russians. Finally, there is the reaction of the Western states to what the government is doing.

What about the agreement signed today?

How would an imposition of sanctions by the European Community affect further developments?

At the moment sanctions are essential. The group that is most affected now and has the most capability of stabilizing the situation are the 20 or so oligarchs, who control a large part of the Ukrainian economy. This group is massively wealthy with international connections and a deep preference for Western Europe as their place of abode, the place where their children study and where they put their funds. These people are largely sitting on the fence at the moment and they can play a very important role, because their financial empires are now going to be threatened. And they don’t want to get closer to Russia, because they assume what happened to the Russian magnates is going to happen in Ukraine, too.

Another issue is that there are a lot of ties that have been built up with Western powers even in the Ukrainian military, who are not members of NATO, but have worked military manoeuvres with the Western powers.

The various Ukrainian churches, which are highly respected by the population, have also been involved. The three major Orthodox churches are divided between two ardently pro-Western independent churches and one under Moscow, which is beginning to divide.

And then there’s the Ukrainian Catholic Church, which has ties to the West and the Vatican.

We also have to remember there are millions of Ukrainians who have moved to the EU already. All of these ties have built up and now Ukraine is being pulled in two directions.

The so-called help from Russia can be compared to giving drugs to Ukraine. What Putin was willing to do was basically give a $15-billion loan, but this loan would not have demanded any real reform. So, once it was used up, Ukraine would be in worse shape. The EU is demanding intrinsic reform of Ukraine which would create great hardship, but they’re not giving Ukraine a way to get through this. It’s easy to say you should have market value per price for gas that heats apartments, but what do you do with the people who don’t have the money? So, the options are terrible. The only thing one can say is that the Russian option would not lead to any reform.

Most economists would agree that the European option is the way Ukraine should go, but of course only if the IMF and Europe try to find a way to bring the society through this.