But this tragedy must also be studied from the perspective of political science and economics in order to understand the ins and outs of this crisis, but also to try to see possible solutions. Indeed, the Ukrainian crisis is now an important factor in the division between Western Europe and Russia, and as the crisis in the Middle East and the terrorist threat it poses, require a revision of strategic priorities. It does not appear possible to coordinate action against DAESH in Syria and continue to oppose violently on the issue of Ukraine. Furthermore, EU countries, mainly France and Germany, seem to have - at least in part - revised their policy on the Ukrainian crisis. Together with a new realism is needed on the Syrian crisis some disenchantment, disillusionment and deep, are emerging as regards the authorities in Kiev.
The origins of the crisis
Nobody questions the finding of the massive corruption that characterized the political and economic system of Ukraine at the end of 2013. But this corruption did not date the President Yanukovych. It was endemic in Ukraine since the early years of independence. However, this corruption had become unbearable widely in different segments of the population. That is why the first manifestations, so peaceful, Place Maidan. It should be noted that during these first demonstrations, the protesters came from across the Ukraine, so that the west is. The inability of President Yanukovych and his government to take the measure of this movement has contributed to the capture process it by ultra-nationalist forces and even fascistic (as the group Pravy Sekhtor[1]), forces which have gradually ousted the democratic forces. The attitude of the European Union also contributed to a sharp polarization of political life in Ukraine and led to further destabilize the political situation.
The illusions that the leaders of the European Union have allowed to develop about a possible accession of Ukraine to the EU played an important role in the deterioration of the political situation by giving a portion of public opinion Ukrainian felt that the debate was posed the choice between Russia and the EU. This polarization of public opinion has had an extremely deleterious effect, and this at a time when the Ukrainian economy was increasingly linked to the Russian economy. If imports of hydrocarbons (mainly gas) in Russia have always been important, Ukrainian exports to Russia have increased sharply since the early 2000s foundations for economic integration, at least in areas such as metallurgy, chemistry and mechanical engineering, were at that time clearly stated. There was no logic to want to open the Ukrainian economy even more than it already was to the economy of EU countries. This does not correspond to economic trends that could be seen for several years. Yet, this question became the main issue because the EU speech introducing this "openness" as the basis for future economic success for Ukraine. The combination of a justified feeling of frustration vis-à-vis population of the Ukrainian elite corruption and manipulation done by the EU to the economic agenda of relations between Ukraine and the EU has had an explosive effect on the Ukrainian political life in 2013.
Here we must remember that the President and the Parliament were duly elected. But these elections (2010) were used to measure how Ukrainian politics was marked by a division between Russian populations (and Russian) regrouped east of the country and ukrainophonnes population, part of which lives in the regions before 1914 were either in the Austro-Hungarian Empire or were in Poland.
Ukraine is a new country, whose existence is undermined by these divisions. These were reinforced by the latest economic developments in the ten years which have seen the relations with Russia to develop rapidly. Eastern Ukraine, Russian-speaking, lived in early 2014, better than the Western Ukraine. For the latter, the European Union represented an important focal point, although it was largely imaginary, given the current economic situation in the EU.
The manifestations of this site Maidan also covered economic and social division of Ukraine.
The crisis of February 2014 and its consequences
These events took a dramatic turn during the month of February 2014. The massacre of February 20 has been instrumental in triggering what can be considered the "crisis" of Ukraine, which was to lead to civil war[2]. The responsibilities of this massacre were attributed at the time to power of President Yanukovich. In fact, it is now clear that many of the protesters killed were by projectiles fired on their backs[3]. The role of agents provocateurs most likely related to Pravy Sekhtor no longer any doubt today[4].
However, it is clear that the power of President Yanukovich had a share of responsibility for these tragic events, whether by a disproportionate use of force at the beginning of the protests, or hesitations later that had demoralized much of its supports. He was unable to oppose a minority logic, which is expressed even in Parliament during the vote at the beginning of February of the law abolishing the status of official language to Russian (next to Ukrainian) . This vote has emerged as a symbolic turning point as he tipped the confrontation logic of a struggle for democracy and against corruption to a nationalist-ethnocentric logic. Populations Russian as Russian-speaking regions of eastern Ukraine and Crimea could only be legitimately concerned about breaking the pact on which was based independent Ukraine since 1991. This has had consequences very important when thinking that his life was threatened, President Yanukovich decided to flee Kiev. Once opened a real dilemma for the different actors of the Ukrainian crisis.
If we accept that the constitutional norm had then disappeared and that Parliament was legitimate in its overthrow of President Yanukovych, this means that we were facing a revolution that is the destruction of a lawful order to give rise to a new legal order. But this meant that we recognize this need and is immediately called a meeting to sit constituent. If we claimed that the constitutional provision had not disappeared, so we had to recognize that President Yanukovych was still the legal president of Ukraine. By choosing the first solution, but without drawing the logical consequences, politicians Ukrainian Parliament set fire to the powder.
Indeed, from the moment they saw that what had happened was an act of Nature revolutionary also had to admit that the Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was just as legitimate in its decision to secede from Ukraine and joining Russia. Either the general rule applies to all or it does not apply to any. The only thing on which there can be an agreement is the fact that there can be no application part of the general rule. This implies the need to admit that the question arose of the Constitution, and that we could do "as if" the general rule was necessary then that we had to rape her.Not only, of legal technicalities. For not having understood, for believing that one could make a coup without undermining the Constitution, the Kiev leadership and caused the secession of the Crimea and the civil war in the east of 'Ukraine.
Thus, following the tragic events of late February was therefore established de facto power in Kiev, causing a collapse of the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state. The dissolution of the police units that were just following orders, has caused deep concern in the eastern regions. What we have seen since February 28, and it is the logical result of the changeover of a struggle for democracy and against corruption to an ethnic clash.
So the leaders of Ukrainian Parliament bear a heavy responsibility for having, by their mistakes as their excesses sparked a civil war in their own country. This war caused more than 6000 deaths and nearly a million refugees, who are now in the territory of the Russian Federation.
The Minsk Agreement
The agreement signed in Minsk in the month of February 2015 was therefore an opportunity to end this tragic civil war[5]. But there are many reasons to believe that this agreement will never be implemented. The terms of the agreement are very clear indeed: a statute of autonomy should be granted to the insurgents and, on this basis, the Kiev government will regain control of the border between Ukraine and Russia (Articles 9 and 11 of the Agreement). Now the Kiev government has indicated its refusal to consider a "federalization" of the country, as part of an overhaul of the constitution, which should be completed by the end of 2015. Similarly, the Minister Justice Kiev, Mr Klimkin said he was opposed to a general amnesty. However, this amnesty is one of the conditions of the agreement (Article 5).
Clearly, at present, the Kiev government has no intention to implement the political clauses of the agreement. Now one understands that if these clauses are not applied, war inevitably resume unless we are heading towards a kind of solution "neither peace nor war," so-called "frozen conflict ".However, such a solution of "frozen conflict" is possible only if peacekeeping forces taking position between the belligerents. We are therefore reduced to the question of a hypothetical contingent of "Blue Helmets" and therefore to the question of the inclusion of the United States in the process of agreement. Measurement is here again, the limitations of the option taken by Merkel and Francois Hollande. By trying to pretend that Europe could find on their own strength alone a solution to this conflict, they locked themselves in a hopeless situation. The adopted discursive position is to fall back "fault" of the non-implementation of Russia is similar to a string now too coarse. And all the more so now that one sees opening significant flaws within the Kiev government, most likely at the instigation except the United States of American forces.
Today, the Kiev government is politically divided (Petro Poroshenko, the President elected in June 2014, appearing in this respect as a relative "moderate") and especially technically increasingly dependent on the United States. Of American "advisers" occupy several floors in the various ministries.This shows that the United States, they deliver or not weapons "lethal" to Ukraine, are already involved in the conflict, and somehow gained a decisive position in the government Kiev. This clearly exposes the illusions Merkel and Mr Hollande but we also shows that as the United States have not given their explicit consent to an agreement, it has no chance of being respected.
We also know that Ukraine is virtually bankrupt. While the International Monetary Fund has discussed the possibility of a loan of $ 17 billion. It also binds the pursuit of its payments to structural reforms can not be implemented by the current government[6]. But this amount if it is paid and this depends on the substance of the cease-fire, will not solve anything. At best, if paid, it will ensure the financial stability of Ukraine until the end of the year, not more. This money will not replace a healthy economy, and significant trade relations with Russia as well as the European Union. The future of Ukraine depends agreement between Russian and European. More directly, the immediate survival of the country largely depends on the assistance provided by the European Union.
This would enable Germany and France, if they dared to speak loud and clear in Washington, to force the United States to engage decisively in the peace process. Otherwise, the entire cost of Ukraine is based on the United States, and it is clear that in that case the Congress would refuse to finance such expenditure, which could in the next five years to reach the 90- $ 120 billion.
The economic question is, perhaps, which could help lead to a realistic application of the Minsk agreements, however, on two conditions: that Germany and France impose their conditions in Washington and that these two countries out of the game sterile and imbecile who is to fall back, again and again, the blame on Russia while the warmongers we can see that are elsewhere.
Neither peace nor war?
Without an implementation of the political component of the Minsk Agreement, life tends to be organized on the basis of a de facto independence of Lugansk and Donetsk regions. And it is clear that this life is anything but easy. The total population of the areas under the control of insurgents is about 3 million people, including about 1 million fled to Russia. The continued fighting on the front line prevents any serious effort to rebuild the moment, except for the restoration of the railway line between Lugansk and Donetsk. One reason, moreover, in the maintenance of the fighting and the incessant violations of the cease-fire by the forces of Kiev, is the will openly displayed by the Kiev leaders to maintain the population of Donbass in a major insecurity and in an atmosphere of terror.
The Kiev government has suspended payment of pensions and pensions, equivalent in some way to recognize that no longer considers Lugansk and Donetsk as within its jurisdiction. Remember also that the Russian government had always maintained the payment of pensions and pensions in Chechnya in the period or Dudayev proclaimed the so-called "independence" of this republic. It is not said that the leaders of Kiev have measured all the legal implications of their actions. One of the points of the Minsk-2 agreement was precisely to ensure the recovery of these payments. Needless to say, Kiev continues to oppose it. The population is largely dependent on the Russian humanitarian aid. A minimum continuous production of coal out of the mines and some plants. This production was sold in Kiev until December. Then, after the destruction by the forces of the Kiev railway line, these sales have stopped and were replaced with sales to Russia.
Insist on this point: it causes a gradual depletion of the hryvnia in the Donbass and the rise of Russian Ruble. Moreover, given the added strength of the ruble against the hryvnia, the ruble has become massively savings vehicle and the unit of account in the Donbass. But the question of the currency that circulates is eminently political. The Minsk-2 agreements provided for the end of the economic and monetary blockade implemented by the government of Kiev. The non-implementation of a large part of these agreements[7], and in particular the political and economic aspects of these stimulus, of course, the question of the monetary status of these regions. But it is clear that this issue has implications which go beyond simple monetary arrangements. The issue of sovereignty, through the issue of monetary sovereignty, the insurgent regions is directly asked.
The choice for the authorities of the DNR (Donestk) and NRL (Lugansk), therefore three options: keep the Hryvnia (and acknowledge that the DNR and the NRL are autonomous republics within the framework of Ukraine) , switch to the ruble, which would take the size of an annexation by Russia, or create their own currency, and claim their independence. The latter solution is not impossible. The Baltic States, before adopting the Euro, each had their currencies. But it raises extremely complex problems to solve. In fact, around the issue of the currency unfolds the question of the institutional future of Donbass.
The authorities of the DNR and the NRL, for now, keep the hryvnia. But the scarcity of tickets and availability of the ruble might well compel a few months to change their minds. Donetsk authorities had created a bank, they call a Central Bank, in the month of October 2014[8]. This bank was responsible for managing the Treasury embryo of the "People's Republic of Donetsk" (DNR), but also to manage the flow of transfers from Russia (via a bank operating in South Ossetia), and finally to manage trade with the rest of Ukraine. The payment of pensions to the population of the insurgent areas is considered by Russia as belonging to "humanitarian aid". Various sources estimate the payments between 33 and 38 million monthly. There is also a framework agreement within the "inheritance" countries of the former Soviet Union for the management of old age and sickness benefits by a country (mostly but not only Russia) in favor of nationals 'another country. It is not impossible that that agreement can be invoked in this particular case.
This "Central Bank" combines the moment the Treasury functions, compensation fund (both for trade within the insurgent areas between these zones and Russia) but it also begins to operate as a bank normal (issuing credit cards) but also as a currency board. For now, she still uses Hrynia that have been accumulated through the price differences between the Russian ruble and Hrynia. But, ultimately, the question is the integration of insurgent zones in the Russian currency area, or the constitution of an own currency in these areas.
We then see what is involved. Donetsk and Lugansk will they have the status of an autonomous republic within Ukraine, which it will then revise the Constitution, or are we moving towards an independence in fact, which is not recognized by the international community ? Russia, for now, instead pushing for the former while the leaders of the DNR and the NRL do not hide their preference for the latter.
A European strain
A European strain begins to be felt on the issue of the Ukrainian crisis. Few people today doubt the fact that Ukraine is what might be called a "failed country" or "collapsed country"[9]. The institutions of Ukraine come apart under the weight of the oligarchs[10] and corruption is getting worse[11]. Not only the social and economic situation in Ukraine it is very difficult, but the political atmosphere is unbreathable and the number of really impressive opposition figures in assassinations.
In these circumstances it is not surprising that some European countries are gradually distancing themselves vis-à-vis the Kiev regime.
The French position has begun to change in recent months. Admittedly, this development is less spectacular than on Syria, but it is no less important. Not only are we beginning to recognize the Quai d'Orsay that the matter can be summarized in a clash between "democracy" and "dictatorship", but we feel, to certain statements, real tired before the Kiev government positions that nothing to implement the agreements Minsk. We begin to regret, but probably too late to be entered in a diplomatic logic dominated by the EU institutions, which give it a burden out of all proportion to the Polish and Baltic positions on this issue. The EU summit on 21-22 May held in Riga, in fact, the demise of both Ukrainian hopes of those blasters certain countries within the EU[12].
Germany, too, begins to evolve on this issue. Having adopted a hysterically anti-Russian position for months, it seems to have been taken against the foot by the US position change. Clearly, she perceives that if they managed to bring to the Ukrainian burden on the European Union, it is Germany that would have the most to lose in this logic. It is extremely interesting to read in the minutes of the meeting in Riga that the Free Trade Agreement and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) is now subject in its application to a trilateral agreement. Two of the parts being obvious (the EU and Ukraine) can only think that the third party is Russia, which is to recognize the interests of the latter country in the agreement to bind Ukraine to EU. In fact, we went back to the situation that the Russian asked in 2012 and 2013, but that after a year of civil war in Ukraine.
So it seems that only Britain and the United States continues to support an aggressive stance toward Russia, while in other capitals is rather the weariness with corruption, incompetence and the political cynicism that dominates Kiev. This is perhaps the main chance for a settlement of the Ukrainian crisis in the coming months.
[1] Katchanovski, I., "The Far Right in Ukraine During The" euromaidan "and Beyond," Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of Slavists, Ottawa, 30 May and 1 st June, 2015.
[2] Wade, Robert H. (2015). "Reinterpreting the Ukraine Conflict: The Drive for Ethnic Subordination and Existential Enemies." Challenge, 58 (4), 361-371.
[3] Hahn, Gordon M. (2015). "Violence, Coercion, and Escalation in Ukraine's Maidan Revolution: Escalation Point 6 - The 'Snipers offi
[4] Katchanovski I. "The" Sniper's Massacre "on the Maidan in Ukraine"
Paper Prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in San Francisco, September 3-6, 2015. See also the same author: The Massacre Maidan in Ukraine. A Summary of Analysis, Evidence, and Findings "In Ukraine, the West, and Russia. Resumed Cold War? JL Black and Michael Johns (Eds.). Abingdon: Routledge (forthcoming).
[5] Final Declaration of 4 leaders: http://interfax.com/newsinf.asp?pg=3&id=571367
[6] MFI, IMF Statement on Discussions with Ukraine on the Second Review under the Extended Fund Facility Arrangement, October 3, 2015, Washington DC, https://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2015/pr15457 .htm
[7] "Ukraine: Paris and Berlin should" put pressure "" in Le Figaro, August 19 2015, http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2015/08/19/97001-20150819FILWWW00190-ukraine-paris-et-berlin-doivent-faire-pression.php
[8] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-15/the-central-bank-with-no-currency-no-interest-rates-but-atms
[9] Bershidsky L. "Ukraine is in Danger of Becoming a Failed State", in Bloomberg International http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-06/unreformed-ukraine-is-self-destructing
[10] T. Kuzio, "Money Still Rules Ukraine", Foreign Policy, August 25, 2015, https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/25/money-still-rules-ukraine-poroshenko-corruption/
[11] IFES survey, "Two Years after Maidan:" IFES http://www.ifes.org/surveys/september-2015-public-opinion-survey-ukraine
[12] See the resolution finale, https://www.google.fr/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=joint+declaration+(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/internationalsummit/2015/05/Riga-Declaration-220515-Final_pdf/&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=4QJzVdfFM9OkiAav1IFY
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire