The Political Situation in Ukraine - Essay Example

[Teacher’s The political situation in Ukraine is one that extends beyond the cabinet buildings as there are historical ties that lie between the two nations. Such a situation would be very difficult for an outsider to understand as the two countries also have blood connections with a substantial amount of the population having ethnic Russia roots. In fact, the political atmosphere in Ukraine can be directly linked to these ethnic and cultural differences as voting for presidential candidates has shown in the previous elections. There are also other interests which lie in Ukraine for Russia as the country has a military base in Crimea, which was previously a part of Ukraine until a referendum took place. In addition, if an enemy country is to gain hold and control over Ukraine, it would create a military threat to Russia as the two countries share a boarder. Hence, Russia was very active in the revolution that took place in Ukraine. In order to fully understand the situation between Russia and Ukraine, one has to assess the events that took place as well as the historical ties that lie between the two countries. When one considers the current situation in Ukraine his or her views can easily be clouded or misguided by the information that is presented in the different media sources as different countries and parties are looking to protect their own interest. The issue began when protests broke out in the centre of Kiev known as Maidan square (Emerson, 33-40). These protests quickly gained popularity among the youths and they were popularly termed “Evromaidan”. This term was due to the fact that the President of Ukraine Victor Yanukovich refused to sign a trade agreement that was initiated between Ukraine and the European Union on the 30 March 2012 (Emerson, 33-40). The refusal by the Prime Minister Azarov and President Yanukovich was on the basis that Europe was only offering Ukraine $681 million in loans, whereas Russia was offering $15 billion (Emerson, 33-40). In addition, the DCFTA that was proposed by Europe was a huge threat on the economic sovereignty of Ukraine and required them to make some changes which would not be beneficial to indigenous business. With the proposed terms the EU was the only major benefactor with very little guaranteed gains for Ukraine in the near future. Hence, the Ukraine government decided to postpone the agreement with EU and chose Russia which offered a much better deal accompanied by reduced gas prices (Emerson, 33-40). Therefore, the public took this as a choice between Russia and Ukraine. In Maidan the majority of protestors were pro EU as this region of the country contains many people who have opposed Russia for a long time. In addition, the pro EU mentality has always been among the individuals from the Western part of Ukraine who also have bad relations with the Eastern part. To illustrate this relationship between the two sides of Ukraine, one can consider the results in the presidential elections that took place in 2010 (Emerson, 33-40). The majority of Eastern voters voted for Yanukovich who was the pro Russian candidate whereas the western part of the country voted for Tymashenko (Emerson, 33-40). Hence when the protests began on the 21 of November 2013, encouraging closer European ties, the majority of Western citizens joined. The protests fueled and in the end they were targeted into a coup d’etat against a government which was accused of corruption (Emerson, 33-40). This ousting of president Yanukovich was considered by the Russian government as illegitimate as they were certain procedures that were not followed. This was also after the President Yanukovich had signed a deal with the opposition on the 21st of February 2014, agreeing to numerous terms including an early election. Hence, Russia widely criticized the West for supporting this unofficial overthrowing by many protestors of which the majority were extremely violent and attacked police officials and forcefully took over government buildings. When the government was overthrown, with many members of the ruling party fleeing the country including president Yanukovich, the new government was all pro EU and comprised of the opposition. This is one of the reasons why Russia felt the necessity to intervene as the interests of members of the other part of Ukraine were not being represented. As stated, the majority of Eastern residents was pro Russian and did not share the same opinion as the “Evromaidan” protestors. In fact, they had exactly opposite views as they preferred to have stronger ties with the Russians with whom they share ethnic roots. A substantial number of people in the Eastern part are ethnic Russian speakers and hence, Russia felt it had the obligation to protect the rights of these citizens as they clearly were not being represented in the government. The irony is that the nation protested for democracy and freedom of expression and transparency, however, the citizens who felt they wanted closer ties to Russia were considered as terrorists and their opinions were not represented. The first city which saw Russian intervention was Crimea (Chesterman, 12-22). This may be due to the fact that Russia has a military base in Crimea and the Crimean state has a larger percentage of ethnic Russians than the majority of cities in Ukraine. The country was only transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Union in 1954, before becoming a part of an independent Ukraine in 1991 as an autonomous state (Chesterman, 12-22). When the residents of Crimea noticed the pro EU stance taken in the capital, they felt that their culture was under threat. Many sources of the western media neglected the fact that Ukraine was comprised of many cultures and ignored that the eastern part had people who are pro Russian. Hence, on the 26th of February pro Russian forces took control over the Crimean peninsula (Chesterman, 12-22). In addition, the Russian forces began to infiltrate Crimea, which the majority of the residents were expecting and supported. This however, increased the tension between the current Ukrainian government and the Russians. In addition, the opposition is comprised of leaders who have expressed their hatred for Russia for many years, with an example being Oleg Tyagnibok. Gradually more forces invaded Crimea and the Ukrainian government asked for external help (Chesterman, 12-22). This invasion was widely objected by the Western nations and resulted in sanctions against members who were involved in the process. However, when one assesses the different information from the protests in Maidan that involved the ousting of the president which were supported by the Western forces. However, a contradiction can be seen when one assess the fact that the same forces criticized the events that took place in Crimea which were more democratic and peaceful. Russia also stated that it may be required to intervene in the Eastern part if it feels that ethnic Russians are under threat. In addition, there were also protests that broke out in the Eastern parts of the country who as stated above are pro Russian. More protests broke out in these areas as they were in support of a referendum similar to the one that occurred in Crimea (Nitoiu, 234-253). There was an anti terrorist program that was launched by the government against these protestors which is also ironic since the government had used the same means to get into power. The Russian foreign minister released a statement on the issue on the 8th of April 2014, stating that they should be an immediate cessation of military intention by the Ukrainian government as this has the potential to leading to death of many civilians as a similar situation occurred during the Maidan protests (Nitoiu, 234-253). The relations have continued to be very tense as president Vladmir Putin stated that he does not recognize the government as legitimate and he will only be ready to discuss matters with a government that has been democratically elected (O’Neal, 2-7). The Russian government also raised prices for Ukraine on the 3rd of April 2014 to $485 per 1,000 cubic meters. In addition, Ukraine has a gas debt which it is expected to pay of approximately $2.2 billion (O’Neal, 2-7). However, the Ukrainian government stated that the raise in the prices was politically motivated hence they were not going to pay this debt. The raise in the gas prices also further raised the tension between the two governments as Ukraine is now required to pay almost 80% of what the country was paying under the old agreement (O’Neal, 2-7). The Ukraine government stated that they expected the Russian government to further place more pressure on Ukraine by limiting the gas supply to the country. Hence, one can see that the relationship between the two countries will continue to be tense as long as the cultural differences that exist among the two sides of Ukraine are addressed. In an attempt to de escalate the situation, Russian along with different Western countries held a meeting and agreed that there is need to remove all illegal military groups. The issue lies deeper than politics and many parties including the secretary of state of the United States John Kerry continue to ignore this factor. Kerry went on to state that there is no doubt that the Russian troops were behind these protests. This is false statement as the previous elections in Ukraine and the opinions that are expressed by the Eastern residents all indicate that they are pro Russian. Hence, with this opinion there will always be room for Russia to intervene in the situation in Ukraine. Speech note The current situation between Ukraine and Russia can be considered similar to that of a colony attempting to break away from its former master and gain full independence. However, there is uniqueness in the sense that Ukraine is comprised with a large amount of ethnic Russian citizens which are geographically located in the Eastern part of the country. On the other hand, the western part of the country is more leaned towards Europe. Therefore, the conflict of interest has led to the intervention of different external parties which include Russia. Russia was in support of President Yanukovich and viewed the coup d’etat as illegitimate and unofficial. The Russian government also felt it had the obligation to represent the interests of the ethnic Russians which were in other parts of Ukraine such as Crimea and the Eastern region. The Russian troops infiltrated Crimea on this basis. Russia also placed pressure on the current Ukrainian government by demanding that they clear their gas debt and also raised gas prices by approximately 80%. This made the issue between the two nations more tense and currently Russia is further looking to protect its own interests in country as well as those of ethnic Russians. In summation, it is difficult for Ukraine to be completely independent from Russia as they have ties in their history as well as strong economic ties. Works Cited Chesterman, Simon. "Crimean War 2.0: Ukraine and International Law." Available at SSRN (2014). 12-22 Emerson, Michael. "Preparing for a post-Yanukovich Ukraine. CEPS Commentary, 3 February 2014." (2014). 33-40 Nitoiu, Cristian. "EU–Russia relations: Between conflict and cooperation."International Politics 51.2 (2014): 234-253. O’Neal, Molly, Johns Hopkins, and Russian Federation. "Stirred, Not Shaken: Russia in the WTO." (2014). 2-7 Read More