On Friday (23/11) the Ukrainian government officially declared its decision to cancel the preparations for signing an association agreement and deepen its relations with the European Union one week before the Summit in Vilnius. This move astonished many European executives and raised questions about the future of the country. That decision led to a huge turmoil inside the country with over 200.00 pro-European people protesting against this decision, a reminiscence of the Orange Revolution. But if not for the European Union, is there any other alternative?
The other alternative comes from the East, and its name ‘’Russian Federation’’. Russia has always thought of Ukraine as an integral part and Mr. Putin’s rhetoric’s follow suit, stating that Russians and Ukrainians have the same culture, share common values and customs, they are the same people. Although Ukraine has de jure been independent since the collapse of the USSR, the country with no tradition of statehood has been practically a Russian satellite, a transit node, which links the Russian natural gas with the European consumers.
The Eastern Partnership’s main column, Ukraine, seems unlikely to support such an initiative, after president’s Yanukovych u-turn over a Russian-led trade union, under enormous pressure of Russia. However the European Union has not lost its hope for Ukraine it is highly unlikely to give up 6 years of negotiations with the country.
There are some important pillars in the sociopolitical spectrum of Ukraine which play and continue to play a decisive role for the country’s future. Firstly there is public opinion. A lot of Ukrainians have experienced ruthless behavior and the scars of USSR-now Russia- totalitarianism and despotism lie deep. Moreover the total independence on Russian energy resources and commodities makes many Ukrainians disdainful towards their government decision comparing it with Belarus. These are some major factors explaining why the 60% prefer a European alternative.
Apart from the public mind, the Ukrainian Executives play a decisive role. In a country with major structural imbalances and infrastructure shortfalls, as most of the post-communist countries, like corruption, the interests of the executives lean first and foremost in securing their seat to power, a fact that the Russian alternative is more than happy to accept. Also Yanukovich himself appeals reluctant to adopt any liberal ideas and the acquis commnautaire , such as releasing Tymocheno from jail.
And on top of that lays the economic perspective of Ukraine. The Ukrainian state is on the verge of bankruptcy, with both the European Union and Russian Federation willing to help overcome these financial issues, but with different quid pro quo each. The Ukrainian government has decided that the Russian’s ones, due to urgent financial needs are the most beneficial for the country and that is how Yunokovich mainly supported his choice.
Conclusively the Ukrainian government chooses a Russian over a European front citing urgent financial needs, but with structural imbalances and short-term political interests playing a huge role as well. However the European edifice continues to enlarge and expect much from Ukraine and its people who deliberately protested in favor of it. The future sure seems uncertain, but a pro-European Ukraine does not seem out of the map at all.
Christo Ntoni,Student, International and European Studies
References
- Motyl, A. (25, 11 2013). Yanukovych chooses russia over eu for ukraine. Retrieved fromfile:///C:/Users/chris/Downloads/YanukovychChooses Russia over EU for Ukraine World Affairs Journal.htm
- Moldova hostage in a geopolitical game. (2013, 11 19). The Economist,
- Zantovsky, M. (22, 11 2013). Lost eu-ukraine deal: Blessing in disguise?. Retrieved fromfile:///C:/Users/chris/Downloads/Lost EU-UkraineDeal Blessing in Disguise World Affairs Journal.htm