Finding a Consensus on the conflict in Ukraine

It is clear after the take-over of the government of democratically elected Ukrainian president Yanukovich by the beleaguered opposition, that  the external forces supporting the two sides of the conflict have taken intransigent positions, demanding that the other side fully accepts the versions of their stories and the positions they have taken. Unfortunately, the inability or unwillingness of both the Western Powers and Russia to take the tentative steps to find a common ground in a conflict where none of the sides are wrong leaves Ukraine in a peril.

The Yanukovich regime was as corrupt as the other preceding regimes, two thirds of which were pro-Western, but it is obvious that the EU offered far little help than Yanukovich expected and that Russia’s offer was more enticing, which makes Yanukovich’s decision to accept Russian help logical. The opposition’s response to Yanukovich stance fitted well with their pro-EU orientation, but it was clear for all to see that the opposition carried out many unlawful actions during their protest, actions that no government in the world would tolerate. It was also clear that the Yanukovich regime acted unlawfully towards some opposition figures. Western governments and Russia intervened in support of the Pro-EU and Pro-Russian camps respectively, even though Western intervention of openly rubbing shoulders with the protesters in the heart of Ukraine (Kiev) was undiplomatic.  It is also obvious that both the West and Russia have interests in Ukraine, though Russia has more to lose than the Western countries.  In the final standoff, both sides---the Pro-EU protesters who are now in power and the Yanukovich government that got overthrown---used guns and there were four times more casualties from among the protesters than from among the police.

Taking the above account into consideration, a consensus was the logical expectation for most rational minds.  In a way, it was reached through an agreement Yanukovich signed with the opposition at the time, an agreement guaranteed by signatures from representatives of several Western governments. The fact that Yanukovich was overthrown by the opposition the next day after withdrawing forces from Kiev as demanded by the agreement signified a breach. And the fact that Russia orchestrated the takeover of pro-Russian Crimea is also a breach.  Still, those two actions should not spell an end to the search for a consensus.



The world can look at  figures like Taras Shevchenko and Nikolai Gogol as  unifying Ukrainian heroes and learn lessons from them. They both refined the Ukrainian language and they also wrote extensively in Russian.  Ukrainians need to see themselves as a bilingual people, even though they find themselves caught in the  middle of a West/Russian tug-of-war. They are the pawns in the hands of both the West and Russia, with the West bent on isolating Russia and Russia fighting back. Russia and the West need to take steps to find common ground, and especially, Western Ukrainian politicians need to respect the feelings of the East/South. The best way forward is to implement the plan the opposition made with the deposed president, or at least a revised version of it, which might not even include Yanukovich and the former opposition players, in preparation for elections that Yanukovich would not have to contest. In the main time, a mutually agreed upon framework should be worked out, recognizing the rights of the peoples on both sides of the River Dnieper, preventing any party from trampling upon the rights of the other.

 

After giving it a deep thought, it became apparent that since Kravchuk from Western Ukraine became the leader of Ukraine SSR due to infighting between Central and Eastern Ukrainians, and then conspired with Yeltsin of the Russian RFSSR and Kebich of Belorussia (Belarus) SSR to tear the Soviet Union apart despite the fact that their populations had just voted in a referendum organized by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev  that 1991 to reform the USSR into the Union of Soviet Sovereign States, the people of Ukraine have never voted someone from Western Ukraine into the presidency of the country. Hence, uprisings appear to be the easiest path for those from Western Ukraine who apparently have a hard time winning votes in Central and Eastern/Southern Ukraine, especially from the other ethnic minorities (Hungarians, Romanians, Moldavians, Bulgarians etc).

It is obvious most of the people of Western Ukraine would hardly accept someone from the East/South as the head of State of Ukraine because they think the people of Eastern/Southern  Ukraine are not real Ukrainians. So, why not come up with a New Ukraine Federation that is made up broadly of three areas? Many people think it is the best way to go about it. These three areas or units should be made up of their current provinces (A bilingual Central Ukraine centered around Kiev where Russian and Ukrainian are equally recognized, an Eastern/Southern Ukraine federal unit where the prevalence of Russian is accepted, and a Western Ukraine Federal unit where Ukrainian is prevalent). Switzerland is working, Belgium is divided country that is still together, Cameroon, despite the fascist French-imposed system that is currently under the 32 year rule of the unpopular and election rigging monster French puppet Paul Biya is still holding together.

And why not make it neutral?

Janvier Chouteu-Chando, author of “The Union Moujik”.