Ukraine in Flames

The unrest in Ukraine, now entering its fourth month, has resulted in the biggest political crisis of the country’s post-independence history. What began as a series of largely peaceful protests in response to the government’s decision to reject an accord with the European Union (EU) in favour of closer economic ties with Russia has since developed into a full-scale revolution. Over 100 people have died in violent clashes between riot police and armed protestors. Control of large swathes of Ukrainian territory, including much of the capital Kyiv and all of Lviv, Ukraine’s western centre, has passed to groups of armed protestors. The unrest reached a crescendo in late February, when, within the space of a few short days, the Ukrainian parliament voted to oust President Yanukovych, free controversial opposition figure Yulia Tymoshenko and convene new elections planned for May. Against such a fast-moving backdrop, which saw protestors being fired on by riot police and occupying the unguarded presidential mansion of President Yanukovych in the space of a week, it is difficult to know what the coming months hold in store for Ukraine. There is a real risk, however, that Ukraine’s fierce political divisions could fatally undermine protestors’ efforts to bring about lasting change, and all the while the spectre of default looms over the country’s shattered economy.

The split in Ukraine between a broadly Russian leaning East and South and a Europe orientated West is less binary than it is often portrayed in western media. Many young, Russian speaking Ukrainians in the East are proponents of European integration and are wary of Russia’s continuing influence on Ukrainian internal politics. However, the mass appeal of the protest movement has been undermined in the East by its association with far right or nationalist groups from the country’s West.

Manning the barricades in Kyiv alongside peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators, for example, have been activists from the Right Sector, a group of far right Ukrainian nationalists. Young men from this group have taken the most active role in violent confrontations with Ukraine’s Berkut riot police, and have been hailed by some in Ukraine as defenders of freedom. However, the group’s veneration of UPA, a Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary group active during World War II, and of Stepan Bandera, a nationalist Ukrainian politician of the same era, is controversial for many Ukrainians. This is especially the case in the East, where some pro-Yanukovych parliamentarians have cited the group’s involvement with the protest movement as proof that it is being led by an unruly mob of nationalist extremists. The participation of Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of prominent nationalist party Svoboda, as one of the trio of opposition leaders engaged in talks with the government has proven similarly divisive.

How Ukraine’s Eastern regions respond to the unrest emanating from Kyiv remains to be seen, although it is unlikely that it will lead the country to divide altogether. Politicians from across the political divide in the country, as well as Russia and the EU, have all signalled that such a development would not be in the country’s interest. The only possible exception is the autonomous Republic of the Crimea, which is home to a large Russian naval fleet and a majority ethnic Russian population. Local parliamentarians, with the support of large groups of protestors in Sevastopol, the regional capital, spoke in late February about their willingness to secede from Ukraine if the unrest continues. More significantly, a group of unidentified armed men took control of government buildings the following week. How the new administration in Ukraine deals with the threat posed by separatism in the Crimean peninsula will be its first major challenge, and will test the new Ukraine’s commitment to keep itself united.