Five years after the EuroMaidan Revolution drove President Viktor Yanukovych from power, Ukraine finds itself in a highly uncertain situation. It has made progress at home, but in terms of security along its borders, it is about where it was just after the Russian annexation of Crimea and the start of the invasion of Donbas. It is hard to see how its actions could’ve changed the equation, given that there is no appetite anywhere in the world for a direct military confrontation with Russia.
Lack of progress on the Russian front and only modest progress at home make voters impatient. It would be a huge mistake, however, to fall for the illusion that things could be dramatically sped up or resolved. While it may well be true that better policies could be devised, trying them out now entails risks which in Ukraine’s current situation are simply unacceptable.
Russia annexed Crimea and is occupying parts of the country’s east, waging a war in which Ukrainian soldiers and civilians continue to die.
Vladimir Putin’s long-term aims are unclear. He clearly wants Ukraine to become Russia’s vassal once more. But how to get there is problematic. Military occupation may not work and will entail huge costs in a variety of ways. To get a Yanukovych II figure in power in Kyiv is not going to work either.
But Putin is a tactician, not a strategist. Or rather his strategy is the old Soviet one from the Cold War – i.e., opportunism. He is playing the long game, hoping for a Ukrainian economic collapse or a burst of political discontent, or an understanding with Washington that would acknowledge Moscow’s “natural” dominance over the former Soviet Union.
Meanwhile, he is keeping the conflict in the wast on simmer and stirring trouble elsewhere hoping to get an opening.
The Soviet Union also hoped for capitalism to rot away, the way Marx and Lenin had predicted. Unfortunately, it was the USSR that rotted away first. The same may happen to the Putin regime, but Ukrainians can’t be betting on it.
Moreover, Ukraine’s neighbors are equally a cause for concern. Growth of nationalism and the return of authoritarian rule in Central Europe are troubling. Hungary is no longer embarrassed about its irredentist claims on its neighbors. Viktor Orban seems bent on playing the same game with Putin that Admiral Horthy once played with Hitler.
Poland may be frightened of Putin enough to support Ukraine but resurgent Polish nationalism is no friend of Ukraine either.
Even more troubling for Kyiv is the fact that the global political order is shifting. The postwar foundations of European integration, based on the idea that Great Powers stood dictating their will to their weaker neighbors and richer economies help raise standards of living in less developed nations, have taken a hit. National priorities have been reasserted across the continent, and Brexit is starting to seriously loosen the EU. Curiously, departure by Britain (or maybe just England) on any terms may be less damaging to European unity than if Brexit is canceled and the U.K. decides to remain.
The United States, once the champion of a law-based international order, has itself fallen victim to nationalism. The longer Trump remains in power the clearer it becomes that his election was no aberration.
The destruction or weakening of the postwar order will adversely affect all nations, including those where nationalists are bridling at the diktat from Brussels. But for Ukraine, it presents a very real and most immediate threat.
Faced with so many outside risks, the country desperately needs stability and continuity in its politics – most notably, in this year’s presidential election. The United States re-elected Franklin Roosevelt twice during World War II – two more times than any president before him – specifically in order to provide continuity during uncertain times.
Petro Poroshenko may have his flaws and he certainly is not enjoying spectacular popularity. But he is a known quantity both inside the country and outside, a partner with whom Ukraine’s backers have been dealing since 2014. With him, everyone knows what to expect. He has made the country stronger, more stable and more united – even if there are some voters who would have liked to see more progress on fighting corruption, greater strides in limiting the power of oligarchs, fewer ties to Russia, more energetic military action, etc.
Other candidates may offer better alternatives or present a fresh face, but every alternative candidate is a risk. This especially refers to people who have never been in politics. Yes, novelty can be refreshing but look what amateurs have wrought in Italy or the United States.
And those countries don’t have a Putin standing by, waiting for them to make a mistake. The cost of a mistake for Ukraine can be fatal.
There is also a matter of perception. Keeping the same leader indicates that everything goes as it should go, according to plan. Changing leaders at a time of national emergency looks bad. It suggests discontent, flailing, a slide toward defeat. When you’re starting to look for a savior you may make defeat a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On the one hand, the situation is frozen and in a day to day routine it’s easy to forget the existential sword of Damocles hanging over the country. Nevertheless, Ukrainians are also nervous, and fear is a driving force behind the current populist upheavals around the world.
For all his faults, Poroshenko has proven himself both competent and cautious. However, competency and caution are not currently in fashion. The populism that is sweeping the world regards competent public servants with disdain. Wild promises based on hairbrained schemes enjoy enthusiastic support while supporters of more realistically attainable goals are typically like-warm – or at least less strident.
Brexit, Trump, the far-right victory in Italy, political turmoil in France all stem from the fear of the wide-open globalized world, of the influx of immigrants of different racial and cultural characteristics, of the dislocations caused by trade and technology. In Ukraine, such fears are stronger – and so potentially is its nascent populist movement. And of course, any disunity and discontent in Ukraine will be happily stoked by Putin, his agents, and his trolls. Deprived of stability and continuity Ukraine could quickly become ungovernable – which is exactly what Putin is hoping to see.
