Association with the European Union was never his goal. It
was a device dangled for the opposition to divert attention from mundane
concerns. Also, his hobnobbing with the European Union sent Russia’s president into
convulsions, which showed Yanukovych how far he can manipulate the Kremlin into
offering some attractions and concessions for his Donbas empire. Such concessions would very soon become a
necessity — by his own countdown
— knowing that his lifestyle and that of the oligarchs, as well as massive corruption, is bankrupting the country and requires a bailout.
But Yanukovych could
not scare Putin to a point where the Russian leader would promise a deal if Yanukvych simply abandoned the association agreement with the EU.
It is widely suspected that, as part of a quid pro quo, Ukraine’s president made
a secret promise to join Russia’s customs union.
Putin
probably could have played his game even harder. He must have known that it was
impossible for Yanukovych to accept association with the EU. For one, he
would have to release ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko from jail and meet other requirements tantamount to self-destruction of his regime. Putin apparently chose to take it
easy —
to give Yanukovych some slack in how to handle Maidan protesters. Also, it was not in Putin’s interest to see
Ukraine going into a financial default, because then all bets would be off.
The next step for Yanukovych is to consolidate his works by
persuading Maidan protesters to go home,
perhaps with modest concessions. In 2015 he would be re-elected
president, with his usual foolproof methodology. At some point he may still
double-cross Putin — because Yanukovych himself and his elite are basically
not real fans of Moscow.
Some say that unless Yanukovych quickly changes his
ways, sues for peace with the street and the opposition, he is in deep trouble.
Is he really? With cheaper gas and less drain on currency reserves, he has
regained some momentum. Changing his ways?
Has anyone heard anything more ridiculous?
The ball is now in the opposition’s half of the field. Its
only practical power at this point is anger of the masses, which may come and
go, unless aided — let me say it again
– by at least some defections with real firepower, from the regime, as was the
case during the 2004 Orange Revolution. As for “a split among the oligarchs,” don’t
hold your breath.
And now, what about the opposition’s triumvirate leadership?
They have been taking some undeserved rap recently from long-time commentators
no less. In the Financial Times (“Tymoshenko absence looms over protests,” Dec. 17) we find: “Without the Orange heroine, the rallies lack leadership
and decisiveness”. And, quoting a Maidan organizer: “Were she here today, it
would be a true revolution, not an imitation”. It actually would take more than
“decisiveness.”
Without fantasizing, it is difficult to see what Tymoshenko would have done differently were she at Maidan in the last four
weeks. The crowds are adhering to her script of peaceful protest, and the
leaders formulate their demands as she advised from prison. There is no visible
disagreement. What is different between the Orange Revolution and today’s
confrontation, repeat, is the absence today of realistically looming firepower
“to defend the people”, which brought President Leonid Kuchma to agree
behind closed doors to nullify the
fraudulent presidential election in 2004.
The shape of an endgame for the ongoing events is not yet
clear. Timothy Ash in his “What the
Russian deal means” (Kyiv Post, Dec. 17) gets to be as specific as can be:
“They (the opposition) could consider that their chances of ensuring regime
change are now, rather than waiting for presidential elections in 2015.” Tymoshenko emphatically wrote the same in her exhortation
to Maidan protesters.
At this time it would be unwise to pretend that the
opposition and Maidan protesters have not been outfoxed by Yanukovych,
or to enjoy verbal twisting, such as: “The emperor hasn’t just been exposed as
a weak and desperate tyrant; worse, he is cornered”. Cornered? Or is it the
other way around, as his power is not even being realistically challenged. Nor
will it do to indulge in bitter-sweet exaltations, such as: “The world is in
awe of the tenacity, spirit, nonviolence and democratic ideas of the
demonstrators”. Does it not sound like patting ourselves on the back? Note that
praise for “a good try” is a poor substitute for victory.
On a positive note, if not with a touch of humor, a BBC reporter
noted that Maidan demonstrations are “a dry run for the next election.” However,
if the opposition does not develop a master plan for next year’s proceedings,
with all elements in place, the outcome of
“the next election” may be highly unsatisfactory.
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
