Time for such planning was when attention of leaders and
followers was uniformly distracted by surreal and lengthy negotiations between
the Yanukovych government and the European Union. It looked like a sure and
fairly easy way into the clovers. As flagged by some, such expectations turned
out to be a deception by the regime in power in Kyiv.
A successful revolution requires defections from the
military and/or security services — as
was the case during the Orange Revolution, which more or less went in
accordance with the script. Mass protests were the spark that ignited it, but
success was assured only when key power
brokers had forced a deal between President Kuchma and the opposition leaders,
including cancellation (soon signed by judges in long robes) of fraudulent
election win by Viktor Yanukovych in 2004.
If anyone learned a lesson from 2004 it was Viktor
Yanukovyvh. The security forces are now intimidated so that their switching of sides
is not in the cards. And no one among high military brass has shown wavering or
intent “to defend the people” — as was the case during the Orange Revolution
at that stage when crowds swelled to half-million and more.
It may be that “Yanukovych understands only force”, as
heralded by infuriated writers with elevated fervor. They should be asked: “Where is such
force?” Hardly in the hands of protesters without weapons.
Recall that success of the revolution in Russia in March
1917 came only when sailors of the Baltic fleet and Tsar’s “guardia” had
revolted, while Russia’s army was
already demoralized by defeats on the western front.
In the last three years Yanukovych has given Ukrainians a
taste of tsarist regime. He wants to keep it that way, and probably to keep
presidency in the family. Unrealistic? Insanity can be part of reality. Viktor
Yanukovych begins to look very different from normal people. Combined with
intransigent corruption, government’s resistance to economic reforms, and the
approaching financial default, the viability of Ukraine as an independent
country is under a mounting threat.
The country needs a “post-revolution plan” as much if not
more than a revolutionary strategy right now. The latter requires major
defections from the present elite and the military. If this doesn’t happen
there may be some truth in saying
— as some say in Russia — that
“Ukrainians have no business governing themselves”.
As of now, the oligarchs are hesitant, even though they
mostly prefer western course. They know they will lose political power if
imbedded with Russia. On the other hand, if a deal is made with the EU, the IMF
would have to be the main source of refinancing Ukraine’s debt coming due in
2014. The reforms on which IMF aid is contingent are underhandedly opposed by oligarchs
because any hint of austerity can crimp their style that needs corruption to
prosper.
Also, a wild card seldom mentioned is the mental strain and
stress of Ukraine’s president, who is now boxed in by his own instinctive drive
for unlimited power. Undoubtedly, by now the EU has pegged Viktor Yanukovych as
a pathological liar that impairs his ability to make sense.
The EU may already be charting a course to talk turkey with
Ukraine’s “next president”. According to
Spiegel Online International, December 10 (“ EU grooming Klitschko to lead
Ukraine”), it has become absolutely clear that “ any friendship between
Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel and Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych
was finished”. And: “The fight for Ukraine has become a contest between
Russia’s president and the German chancellor”.
Opposition leaders in Ukraine continue to have an important
role, by fine-tuning their position towards the government as the circumstances
may dictate. As of December 11, a stalemate seems to be in the making, and the opposition
leaders are demanding that Yanukovych steps down. The European Union is now showing some of its
muscle by bearing down on Ukraine’s president.
But the key to success at the moment is to maintain the street power, at
least until additional forces join the revolt.
