The country’s new president faces a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical, to the events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan, write Stefan Wolff and Tatyana Malyarenko.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. (Toms Kalnins/EPA)
By Stefan Wolff and Tatyana Malyarenko
The Conversation
It’s been six years since the start of the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine, which led to the ousting of then-President Viktor Yanukovych. By the time his successor Petro Poroshenko was elected in May 2014, the domestic political scene in Ukraine and the geopolitical dynamics in the contested EU-Russia neighbourhood surrounding it had fundamentally altered.
Today, the country’s new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who replaced Poroshenko in April 2019, is now facing a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical, to the events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan.
Presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine in April and July 2019 created a political situation in Ukraine with an unprecedented concentration of political power. Zelenskiy and his Servant of the People party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, and so complete control over the appointment of the government. The president also separately appointed the prosecutor general, the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of defence.
This unique situation gave Zelenskiy and his team the opportunity to kick-start an ambitious programme of policy and law-making in both domestic and foreign affairs. But rather than sustaining popular enthusiasm for his new approach to politics, the so-called turbo-regime of rapid policy and legislative change has already had a sobering effect on the Ukrainian public and triggered the first public protests against Zelenskiy.
Foreign Policy Controversy
Zelenskiy’s decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in light of this domestic opposition.
Ukraine, Russia, and the separatists also disagreed over who needed to fulfill which preconditions for negotiations, when and in what sequence.
Since then, Zelenskiy has reiterated his commitment to achieving a deal, visiting the disengagement zone and ordering those war veterans who actively oppose the agreed withdrawal to disarm. In another sign of progress, government and rebel forces have also started withdrawing from the village of Petrivske. If this direction of travel continues, a meeting of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany in the so-called Normandy format of negotiations could be back on the agenda and Donbas could be set for elections. However, a recent survey in the east indicates a deep divide remains on what people want for the region’s future.
Opinion polls from September show that 23 percent of Ukrainians support military confrontation in eastern Ukraine, up from 17 percent a few months previously. As the prospects of reintegration increase under Zelenskiy’s administration, so does domestic opposition to it.
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
The initial motivation of these veterans to protest may have been what they saw as Zelenskiy’s alleged surrender by entering into direct talks with Russia. Zelenskiy has directly confronted them now by ordering them to withdraw from the disengagement zone, but their opposition to the president’s plans continues.
Domestic Dissatisfaction
What might prove particularly dangerous for Zelenskiy is a possible convergence of so far distinct political camps that oppose different policies of the new government. If the veterans who are at odds with Zelenskiy over his foreign policy choices were to join forces with those who oppose him over a number of controversial domestic policies, the potential for destabilisation would significantly increase.
The high public trust that Zelenskiy still enjoys as president and the hopes that a majority of Ukrainians still have for positive changes under his administration have so far prevented more and growing mass protests. However, the government’s program of domestic reform for 2020 could change this.
Proposed budget cuts will particularly affect public spending on healthcare, education, social security, and local governance. New labor laws will curtail the rights of employees. A land privatization bill, also planned for 2020, has proved highly unpopular as people fear a repeat of the highly corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in the 1990s when criminal groups (some of them linked to current oligarchs) managed to capture the main Soviet industrial assets at the expense of the population at large.
In our view, these measures may, in the long term, contribute to turning Ukraine into a more stable and better functioning state. However, their short-term consequences include decreasing social standards, higher unemployment, and a continuation of Ukraine’s brain and skills drain. About 1m people leave Ukraine every year.
At the same time, “de-oligarchisation” is proceeding slowly. The return from self-imposed exile of Igor Kolomoyskiy, Zelenskiy’s principal backer in the presidential campaign, has intensified oligarchic turf wars, pitting Kolomoyskiy against another businessman Rinat Akhmetov, and his increasing power base in the east. This power struggle further contributes to continuing instability in Ukraine and decreases the near-term prospects of the political clean up and economic recovery that Zelenskiy had promised.
A deteriorating socio-economic situation and lack of visible and tangible progress on “de-oligarchisation” will not only affect already radicalised veterans but could also galvanise a much larger cross-section of Ukraine’s population into yet another mass protest movement.
Geopolitical Reset?
Ukraine’s continuing domestic instability is, in part, driven by the larger geopolitical game of competitive influence seeking between Russia and the West in the contested post-Soviet neighbourhood.
By being drawn into the domestic politics of the U.S. and the ongoing impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump, Zelenskiy has exposed Ukraine’s vulnerability to external pressure, including from its Western partners. Add to this Trump’s personal antipathy to Ukraine (allegedly describing it as a “corrupt country full of terrible people”) and the willingness of European leaders to reset relations with Russia, and Ukraine’s room for manoeuvre appears even more diminished.
If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations with Ukraine’s main backers in the West on whose support it continues to depend heavily, including for the implementation of much-needed domestic reforms.
For the time being, Zelenskiy still enjoys very high levels of public support of around 70 percent of respondents in one survey published in early October. Worryingly, however, only 42 percent of these respondents trust his government and 47 percent trust his parliamentary faction.
Zelenskiy’s own approval ratings also dropped from their previous high of around 80 percent by 10 percent in early September after he secured a prisoner exchange with Russia. This indicates that political capital may be ebbing away from the reform project with which he is identified because popular expectations of fast and painless change cannot be met by Ukraine’s new political class.
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president’s remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests, like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine’s continuing instability: Russia.
Stefan Wolff is professor of international security at the University of Birmingham and Tatyana Malyarenko is professor of international relations at the National University Odesa Law Academy.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The views expressed are solely those of the authors and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry’s Comment Policy. Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons, please refrain from inserting links in your comments.
The U.S.A. and the D.O.D. should not have American military trainers and advisors stationed in Ukraine nor should our government be providing war material (some of it lethal) to the government of Ukraine. This military aid threatens the stability of the entire region. The flagrant aggression of the U.S. A., Great Britain, and NATO into Ukraine’s domestic affairs is a textbook example of blatant balance-of-power geopolitics. As usual, this aggression is being directed and driven by such think tanks as the Atlantic Council, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and its junior American partner, the Council on Foreign relations. This is a dangerous game that these two leading NATO countries are playing.
The Maidan coup was staged and orchestrated largely by the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and the U.S. Department of State with the likely assistance of the British Secret Service. The staged Maidan Revolution and coup against a democratically-elected president was the real aggression in Ukraine; the Russians naturally reacted to this aggression by protecting their self-interest and their defensively strategic warm-water flank, Crimea.
Ukraine has an extremely diverse set of cultures and ethnicities within its borders. It has never been a truly independent and unified nation. Throughout is long history that stretches back into antiquity it has been a battleground and a highway for invading armies in both directions. NATO’s gradual buildup in Ukraine follows in the footsteps of Napoleon and Hitler. Stephen F. Cohen’s new edition of “War with Russia?” is coming out in January 2020. Whether you agree with Professor Cohen’s premises for his argument it is worth taking a look at this gentleman’s argument.
The U.S. military should depart immediately from Ukraine and the USG should stop funding Ukraine’s government with any military aid and assistance. Ukraine is looking a lot like the early pre-war stages in Vietnam. Nevertheless, Ukraine’s governing system is far more corrupt than the governing system of South Vietnam ever was.
It is true that the only winner of the first Maidan was Russia. It got rid of a totally corrupt and financially broke snake pit called Ukraine, while managing to secure Crimea and the strategic military port of Sevastopol. Now it is up to the EU and US revolution organisers to keep on distributing cookies in order to prevent a total collapse of what is left of a divided country.
If a second Maidan occurs that would be a way for the West to get out of there in a hurry. The West has more to win than Russia, this time.
CN live coverage of this, coupled with Oliver Stones two films “Ukraine on Fire “ and “Revealing Ukraine “ should help clear up the confusion and crap that has been ladled on the public for over five years.
What we are seeing is not only a coup in Ukraine, but the destabilization of both the US and Russia in the stages of coup.
Crazily, the possibles for peace might be the collapse of the impeachment hoax and exposure of the plot that went haywire: that two game show hosts were elected, in the US and Ukraine.
The gods must be crazy.
Question; What happens now with Gazprom’s offer to extend for another year the present contract due to lapse soon? Will the new Prez be allowed to accept or even negotiate the offer?
The very small, but vigorous group who object loudly and the small, but vicious group that want to go to war over the Russian province are probably the same crowd who were paid by our corrupt and one-eyed backers of the coup in the first place. Permanent war is not desired by any citizenry anywhere, just those who sit in offices and decide by hocus pocus that it’s a good idea. Our one-eyed people (yes, there are some blood thirsty women at the top, too) need a pair of one-eye-correcting glasses. One-eyedness causes a loss, not of vision so much as perspective.
Either they have made a brainless mess and lost everywhere they have initiated war since Korea or else endless wars and permanent conflict are their policies. The latter is as stupid as the former. In each case, there is nothing realistically to be done to stop it. It is ingrained into the way our entire political parties think as well as into the entire class of decision-makers in each and every one of Washington’s agencies. It’s a mindset, not a few people. It was just as much both Clintons and Obama as it was the Bush and Cheney gang. Trump is a wee bit special, because he has that mindset, but he’s also foul and intellectually retarded.
Note that those we prefer, Sanders, Warren, have not even whispered beyond a platitude here and there about foreign policy, foreign affairs or foreign wars. The sole person who is running with a presidential mindset is strangely enough, a woman warrior, Tulsi Gabbard! And her platform is to break up that mindset and deal with competitors with all of the strength this country has left via diplomacy – and with peace as a goal. She also has her own progressive, but realistic domestic platform.
But Gabbard has been dumped on daily since she announced she was running, by who? Hillary the Billionaire (yes! billionaire!) and the NYT that she controls policy-wise via a little clutch of her billionaire intimates and NYT stockholders and power brokers from Ariadne Getty to Barry Diller. They are super-rich militants from NY and Hollywood and Wall Street, primarily backing Buttigeig.
The kind of intelligence, thoughtfulness, and independence that Gabbard has is anathema to The Bushes and Clintons, the Deep State folks.
Otherwise there will be and endless supply of think tankers and one-eyed profs to stir up pots like Kiev and Zelenskis ad infinitum.
The US orchestrated the coup of 2014 using the fascists already in Ukraine and Ukrainian Americans (and children and grandchildren) who were OUN-B and were brought to the US under the Crusade For Freedom. The first generation were stone-cold fascists who fought alongside the Nazis during their invasion of the USSR. The current DNC/CIA alliance has planned for Ukraine to heat up the cold war with Russia.
The problem is that the Ukrainian army is broken and aside from the fascist units most average Ukrainians don’t want to fight the Russians or their brothers in Donbas. The US is calculating that its military aid and some unmentioned US troops will be able to overcome the Donbas by force. If the US and Ukraine somehow draw Russia into this fight, which is exactly what the US militarists want, there will be one of two outcomes: Either Ukraine will be wiped out quickly by Russian forces or there will be a nuclear war.
As Russia finishes its Nord Stream 2 and with multiple other gas pipelines in the works to feed Europe’s energy needs the US energy industry, which constructed LNG terminals along the Atlantic Coast, has seen its dreams dashed. No longer does selling LNG to Europe make any economic sense for.
Wait! We spent 5 Billion on regime change, a color revolution that succeeded only because we hired neo-Nazi shock troops to spearhead the ouster of Yanukovych, a duly elected oligarch. Months later, after Ukraine’s public sector had crumbled, in came Biden with Burisma and Cargill with its GMO, which highlighted the neoliberal intentions behind the Western coup sponsorship. Fortunes were made in the energy and agricultural sector, during the same winter that many Ukrainians were without enough heat and food. But, that ‘s neoliberalism for you. Their suffering was just what we intended.
The civil unrest began only when Yanukovych rejected the EU-IMF austerity package in the November preceding the February coup d’etat. That package required that Ukraine assist NATO militarily, buy weapons from US defense contractors, cut pensions, cut social services, and slash the already tattered safety net while privatizing commonly held state assets. But, interestingly enough, it required Ukraine to increase its military spending
The world bankers were intent upon squeezing the last bit of juice left in the Ukrainian turnip, In other words, we wanted Yanukovych to become as pliant as the drunken Yeltsin was in the hands of Bill Clinton in 1993, which marked the beginning of a disastrous and deadly decade for the Russian Federation.
Instead, Yanukovych, sounding the death knell for his own regime, rejected the EU -IMF austerity package, compounding this mortal sin by signing an energy deal with the Russian Federation, which agreed to finance Ukrainian debt at 5% when international bankers were charging 12% to finance this crippled country’s loan. Putin was actually nicer to this basket case than we were, though his motives are not altruistic, though perhaps not as draped in pretext as our own.
All the above is true and verifiable, but no one in the Lamestream Corporate Media, which includes MSNBC as well as FOX, will report the current Ukrainian crisis in the context of the above facts. Those who master the world economy, having already mastered the politicians and the media, can dominate and set the parameters of the debate without notice or without drawing attention to themselves and their agendas.
John: Very good to remind us of these facts. I too remember that as Ukraine floundered in bankruptcy both Russia and the EU/US proffered competing $15b rescue packages. Thanks for revealing the contrasting details of those offerings, which I wasn’t fully aware of.
As many here have already noted, how does it favor Russia to have a broken, unstable neighbor on its border? Even before these authors served up that closing bon motte, their claim that the usual austerity cruelty measures of the IMF, WB, etc. will “in the end” help Ukraine, was a dead giveaway.
And I am head-scratchingly curious why CN would post a piece such as this. To give us some light entertainment, like shooting ducks in a barrel? I do agree with one of the authors’ assertions though, that Zelenskiy’s situation is precarious, as is anyone, anywhere the US is intent on spreading its tentacles.
So Zelenskiy wins an election by 70% on a platform to normalize relations with Russia and in addition his Servant of the People party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada. What is the threat he faces? What “challenge”? Is the writer thinking of the extremists from western Ukraine rising again to produce a new anti-Russia hate-fest on Maidan, supported by the usual western meddlers? Not many of the comments seem very convinced.
The Maidan events were protest against specific problems. None of those problems have changed. They have not even been addressed. It has just been revolving abusers, “new boss same as the old boss.”
Overlaid on that has been war, and all that entails, draining what remained of Ukraine’s hopes.
The West has seen in that only what it wanted to see, which has little to do with what motivated the Maidan events. Those were used, manipulated by the West, not addressed or helped.
The new guy could do better, perhaps only because he could hardly do worse. However, to say it might all blow up on him is only to say that pressure has been building since failure of the last effort, and someday it is likely to blow.
“Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president’s remaining political capital well … there will only be one winner from Ukraine’s continuing instability: Russia.” By Stefan Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham and Tatyana Malyarenko, a professor of international relations at the National University Odesa Law Academy.
Why does the tenor of this article bring to mind the Integrity Initiative? See: mintpressnews.com/the-integrity-initiative-and-the-uks-scandalous-information-war/253014/
“The Integrity Initiative claims that it is “counter[ing] Russian disinformation and malign influence,” and indeed, the main players behind it appear intent on hyping the Russian threat to justify ramped up military budgets and a long-term war footing.”
The deep state will continue to milk this Ukraine nightmare for their continuous mfg.of weapons and creating animosities between the West and Russia.
The deep divisions within Ukraine will play into the hands of the nefarious ones that crave chaos,the destroyers of nations.
I see I’m not the person who was flummoxed by the conclusion of the article. The biggest outside obstacle to peace and stability is the “West,” of course. The “West?” You mean the US. Say that, not the euphemism.
I know what you mean and I hear you, as I am just as guilty of using the term “West” .It is the US which is driving this nightmare and not the total of Western nations either .Both the Democrats and the Republicans are really not in control of the governance of the United States .That control of the corrupted system as I see it ,is politically and judicially .The recently disclosed Epstein pedophilia affair which is now clear that it had/has CIA and Mossad connections leads me to believe most of the politicians and the legal system apparatus is deeply compromised and therefore have lost all control of good and fair governance if ever there was such a thing .
Good point though ,it has become a habit to blame the West when in reality just certain factors of the West .I would certainly include the UK in with the US as both being very compromised .
The present situation in Ukraine is just how the US/EU wanted it. A permanent irritant on Russia’s western borders. Unfortunately this means that Ukraine is a malfunctioning state – the poorest in Europe – which is literally bleeding people at the rate described. As a failed state Ukraine is going deeper into a hole of poverty and misery which will eventually lead to a national disintegration as the various oblasts decided to go their own way.
It sounds to me like a rather russophobic article, like very many Ukranians are.
I find it quite srtiking that the authors are still using the term Maidan Revolution, while Stratfor’s CEO George Friedman called it “the most blatant coup in history”. Anyone who still has doubts that it was a coup should watch Oliver Stone’s documentary “Ukraine on Fire”
Russia is not even a signatory of the Minsk Agreements. Russia, just like France and Germany were only mediators in the negotiations between the ethnic Russians of the Donbas region and the fascist regime in Kiev.
Russia has absolutely nothing to “win” from a devided and failed Ukranian state on its borders. To Russia it’s just a pain in the arse, which is what the military industrial complex in Washington has gained by their Ukrainian coup.
Well said.
Exactly. As a rule of thumb, if an article uses ‘Kyiv’, a recent Ukrainianisation of the long accepted ‘Kiev’ in English, it is going to be anti-Russia.
Eventually, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement between the breakaway republics and whichever puppet is the president in Kiev. The longer the wait till such negotiations start, the worse conditions will get in rump Ukraine. Russia has no advantage in whether negotiations start this year, next year or some distant point in the future.
Promising situation for new alignment of interests
Something doesn’t seem right.
If the majority elected him to end the war, why would it play well domestically? There seems to be a wave of this, and then a wave of that. Sort of same picture in Bolivia too.
Thanks to CN and the writers for news we never hear (though we certainly should). Great embeds too. How’s the new prosecutor doing? And how is the war in the east presently being fought? I think I heard remarks on these things on Loud&Clear. But I switched to a “hotspot” in August. Was thinking then that all Loud&Clear shows were “saveable” and also that “CN Live!” was saveable…the former aren’t, the latter only a few. And turns out I don’t always feel like going out after work seeking free YiFi to stream all this stuff while I’m sit’n in a joint…like I imagined I would. So, for me for the most part it’s gotta be in “print.” It would be nice if yall could do like Nader’s Radio Hour, and make all the old CN Lives saveable.
Every minute of every episode of CN Live! can be found on our YouTube page.
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president’s remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests, like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine’s continuing instability: Russia.
How does Russia win with an unstable Ukraine on it’s western border?
You have pointed out to me – thank you – another crystal clear indicator that these two authors are anti-Russian, profoundly so.
It absolutely does not favor Russia to have an unstable, chaotic, fascist and US supported, instigated, militarized Ukraine on its border. That is utter baloney, and they have to know that.
After all, that was one of the reasons for Soviet Russia spreading beyond its national borders after WWII – to create a buffer zone against any more invasions from the west, to stop western nations killing Russians by the millions, to stop any attempt by the west to grab Russian resources (still on NATO’s cards).
Russia wants a peaceful, friendly neighbor, borderland country – not a virulent, dangerous chaotic mess one.
“Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president’s remaining political capital well”
His western partners the cia and soros ngos are his problem, I do hope he can succeed but the powers to be are against him and the Ukraine citizens.
What does Russia gain by Ukraine’s continued instability?
Poor analysis. Am I as a working class lad seriously that much more informed than a professor whos life should be dedicated to studying this?
No mention of the US involvement in the coup. No mention of the word coup. No mention of fascists, the term used to describe US armed autonomous fascist battalions was ‘right wing militias’. Top it off with the opinion that neoliberal budget cuts will eventually help things, because a quick look at the history books tells us no such thing.
Makes me think of a professor I know who told me how proud he was that the US has the freedom to make a film documenting Cheney’s war crimes.
I responded that it made me sick that he could watch such films and still be a pathetic apologist.
He shrugged it off and went back to his overpaid position poisoning the youth. If he had the opinions I have, he wouldn’t be a professor though would he?
luke: You are my father.
Remember all the hokum and “experts” paraded on the MSM during W’s assault on Iraq? There was one ever-present talking head from the ME (I’ve forgotten his name) that was so obviously a US boot-licker that he made me nauseous each time I saw him.
Very good observations and comment.
Thank you for this overview. It is good that the corruption and economic disaster are pointed out – as they have been in polls as the biggest problem in the minds of the citizens. 1 million emigrants per year is a catastrophe.
You write:
“If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations with Ukraine’s main backers in the West “
As you explain, this would please the far right (fascist) paramilitary groups and extreme nationalists from Galicia and Volhynia, quite a small minority.
How about the Russian-speaking half or more of Ukrainians and the Russian ethnic group, making up a majority? Those who share most of their culture with citizens of Russia? That have lots of ties there?
Because of this and also common sense, wouldn’t many think that peace and stability with Russia would benefit Ukraine?
What do you see that Russia stands to gain from continued problems in Ukraine? Surely, Russia (and Ukraine) would be much better off with peace, safety, stability and close ties and trade between these very close sibling nations.
This concluding remark lacks argument, is reasonably unfounded and quite simply silly.
To clarify: with “This concluding remark”, I mean the concluding remark in the article, that only Russia stands to win.
In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.