The problem with
this pivot was that it came at an ideological cost. Rather than open Russia to
democracy, Putin began to rebuild an autocratic empire. In fact, Russia’s move away from democracy has
been so severe that the former National Security Advisor of the United States likened
Putin to Hitler.
The analogy is
quite striking. Compare, for example, Putin’s persecution
of homosexuals ahead of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics with Hitler’s persecution
of the Jewish minority during the 1936 Berlin Olympics. Or, consider that
both rose to power mostly through democratic means and then brutally began to consolidate
power by outlawing all competing political parties, all non-nationalized
media, and then controlling the judiciary. Or, contrast how both grew their
territorial holdings with land grabs justified by ethnic and nationalistic
means (Hitler with Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Putin with Georgia in 2008). Somewhat
ironically, Hitler was named Time’s Man
of the Year in 1938 and Putin was Forbes’ Most Powerful Man in 2013.
As Putin’s power
increases and the world settles into new spheres of influence, the West must
act to ensure that Russia will not be in a position to dictate terms. Putin
recently showed the world how powerful he has become by flexing his muscle in Syria, while simultaneously shaming the United States
through a New
York Times Op-Ed (on September 11th of all days).
The current
revolution in Ukraine may determine the extent to which Russia may challenge U.S.
and European influence for the next generation. It is not a coincidence that
the United States first publicly recognized the multipolar
world in a 2009 speech by Joe Biden in Ukraine.
Ukraine
Ukraine is the
second largest country in Europe in land mass (behind only Russia) and the
seventh largest in population (about on par with Spain). It has ample natural
resources, a highly educated, diligent workforce, and an advantageous
geographical position.
The significance
of Ukraine to most Europeans is due to energy, or more precisely gas.
The EU imports about 20 percent of its gas from Russia on pipelines that flow through
Ukraine. Ukraine also depends on Russia for about 30% of its gas
supply. Russia is able to wield substantial influence over Ukraine via its
control of Ukrainian gas supplies. This influence was most visible in 2010 when
during a gas
dispute the Russian President was able to extract a lease extension for
Russia’s Black Sea Fleet on Ukrainian territory until 2042.
Russia’s Black
Sea Fleet is the crown jewel of Russia’s Navy. It provides Russia with naval power
over the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans. It also gives Russia a platform from
which to launch offensive
naval maneuvers. Losing this fleet would be a major setback for Russia’s
influence around the world and particularly over the Middle East.
Beyond the Black
Sea Fleet, Russia’s military also depends on Ukraine. For example, many of the
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICMBS) that form the key of Russia’s
strategic nuclear forces were manufactured in Ukraine. These ICBMS and other
military technologies require spare parts and maintenance that only
Ukrainians can provide.
Most
significantly, however, Ukraine is a symbol of democratic progress in Eastern
Europe. As long as Ukraine is free and democratic, the parties in Russia that
oppose Putin can point to their neighbors in the West and say: “if Ukraine can
have freedom, then so can Russia.” The idea that peaceful democratic
revolutions may succeed could be the best possible way to curb
Putin’s influence.
The Association Agreement
The Association
Agreement represented an expansion of democracy
and stability in Europe that first began in 2004. At that time, although
Ukraine was an independent country, the old power structures of the Soviet
Union still existed. Just as Putin was able to suppress opposition parties in
Russia, the current Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych was consolidating
power in Ukraine by falsifying elections.
But in November
of 2004, about nine years ago, a stunning thing happened. In what was dubbed
the “Orange
Revolution,” hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians peacefully poured out into
the streets demanding new free and fair elections. The protests were so
powerful that new elections were held and Mr. Yanukovych was voted out of
office.
A lesson that
Ukrainians soon learned after the Orange Revolution was that asking for free
and fair elections was not enough. Although the opposition had won the
Presidency, the old power structures still remained in place and Mr. Yanukovych
remained influential in Parliament. In 2008 Ukraine was hard hit by the
financial crisis and the Ukrainians blamed the incumbent President. As a
consequence Ukrainians narrowly voted Mr. Yanukovych back into power in 2010 in
contested elections.
Mr. Yanukovych
won because he presented himself as a different man who would listen to the
people. He would work to integrate Ukrainians with the European Union as
many Ukrainians wanted. Mr. Yanukovych’s first flight was not to Russia,
but to Brussels, and in 2010 negotiations on the Association Agreement began.
But old habits
die hard. Soon after being elected, Mr. Yanukovych once again began to
consolidate power. Journalists began to suddenly disappear.
He jailed the opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko in what the European Court of
Human Rights labeled “Selective
Justice.”
The release of
Ms. Tymoshenko was one of the conditions of entering into the Association
Agreement (full
text here). Further, among other things, the agreement called for reforming
Ukraine’s judiciary, modernizing Ukraine’s economy to meet EU standards, and
creating an EU-Ukraine free trade area. Ukraine’s entry into the agreement came
after four years of intense negotiations and was supposed to be a validation of
the EU’s eastern policy. But everyone underestimated Putin.
On November 9th
just over two weeks before Mr. Yanukovych was to sign the Association
Agreement, he flew to Russia to meet with Putin. Putin had already started to undermine
the Association Agreement. He had imposed a trade boycott on Ukraine in
August and threatened to take further action if the agreement was signed. He
was able to offer lower gas prices and to write off debts Ukraine owes Russia.
He also allegedly offered his support to Mr. Yanukovych to rig
the 2015 Presidential elections.
In the last
minute, Mr. Yanukovych demanded that the EU provide Ukraine with approximately
$160 Billion in support. This is the cost that Mr. Yanukovych estimated that Ukraine
would have to bear due to Putin’s retaliatory measures. When the EU declined,
Mr. Yanukovych walked away from the EU and towards Putin.
The Endgame
In conclusion, the
protests you see in Ukraine today aren’t only about the Association Agreement. They
are about freeing Ukraine from the old Soviet power structures, including Putin’s
unjust influence. The protests seem different than the protests of the Orange
Revolution because the people recognize that free and fair elections are not
enough, the old power structures must change. The protesters are fighting
tyranny and people’s freedom hangs in the balance. To the U.S. and Europe, the
protests symbolize that the Cold War has not yet fully been won.
To quote Ronald Regan: “I urge you to
beware the temptation of pride… to ignore the facts of history and the
aggressive impulses of an evil empire… and thereby [to] remove yourself from
the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.” The front line of the
struggle is being fought in the streets of Ukraine today – and Ukrainians need
your support.
Mark Semotiuk is a Fordham University Law
Student currently studying European Union Law in Paris at Pantheon-Assas (Paris
II). Mr. Semotiuk has been an international election observer in Ukraine on
multiple occasions. He can be reached at [email protected].
