News Is Anyone Truly in Control Amidst the Ukrainian Crisis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Borek
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights the chaotic situation in Ukraine, questioning who truly controls the protests and the government amidst escalating violence, particularly in Kiev. It notes the deep cultural and political divisions within Ukraine, with significant pro-Russian sentiments in the east and pro-European aspirations in the west. The conversation reflects on the lack of strong U.S. support for the protesters compared to past interventions during the Orange Revolution. Participants express skepticism about the motivations behind the protests, suggesting they may be influenced by foreign interests and local radicals. The overall sentiment is one of uncertainty regarding the future of Ukraine, with concerns about potential power struggles and external influences.
  • #31
Nikitin said:
It's hardly something Putin would want to control.
He doesn't want to control it so much that he's recalled his ambassador.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26318816
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Now that they have an "interim president", they must have impeached Yanukovich. Below is what I found as the relevant part from their constitution (luckily, the 2004 and 2010 editions seem to be identical in this).

Article 111
The President of Ukraine may be removed from office by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the procedure of impeachment, in the event that he or she commits state treason or other crime.
The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is initiated by the majority of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
To conduct the investigation, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine establishes a special temporary investigatory commission whose composition includes a special procurator and special investigators.
The conclusions and proposals of the temporary investigatory commission are considered at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
For cause, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, by no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition, adopts a decision on the accusation of the President of Ukraine.
The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition, after the review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and the receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that th e acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of state treason or other crime.

Is there any trustworthy information on whether Yanukovich was impeached following that procedure? Given how quickly things have been going, they must have taken a couple of shortcuts. Does anyone know what really happened?
 
  • #33
Well I don't think the procedures are that important. The main thing is that Yanukovich has lost his credibility among the big-boy oligarchs/politicians. Hence him being thrown to the dogs.

All of this is happening very fast, but as I see it: After it became apparent the ceasefire/compromise between the opposition and Yanukovich wouldn't stop the out-of-control mob in Maidan, Yanukovich's supporters starting defecting to the opposition to save their own skins. Now, however, I think we will see the opposition splintering and fighting amongst themselves for power.

AlephZero said:
He doesn't want to control it so much that he's recalled his ambassador.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26318816

I'm sorry, English isn't my first language. With "control" I thought we were talking about Ukraine being a puppet state not unlike the former Eastern block countries. I never denied Russia won't protect her interests in Ukraine.

Though at any rate, I am fairly sure Ukraine will stay in the Russian sphere as its economy will never survive without the RF. I mean, USA doesn't care enough to bail it out (despite doing its best to keep the chaos going), and the EU neither has the funds nor is it centralized enough.

Mheslep,Russ_watters: Yes, the collapse of the USSR was indeed a catastrophe for millions of people. Regrettable, yet Putin knows trying to create another empire will not change any of it. As I see it, there is little point in throwing money on backwater, resourceless Central Asian states for the sake of imperialism, when the cash instead can be invested in the Russian economy, or into securing the resources in the Arctic or the million other things more important. Maintaining some influence and keeping stability in the post-Soviet space is all RF is doing atm.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Nikitin said:
Well I don't think the procedures are that important.

As in a lawful democratic succession in power vs. a coup d'état?

In Ukraine, though, this is not the first time when procedures are brushed aside, and, interestingly, Timoshenko is again a beneficiary. I wonder what her political credibility stems from. Is it now the martyr thing?
 
  • #35
voko said:
As in a lawful democratic succession in power vs. a coup d'état?

In Ukraine, though, this is not the first time when procedures are brushed aside, and, interestingly, Timoshenko is again a beneficiary. I wonder what her political credibility stems from. Is it now the martyr thing?
I think it is more properly termed a revolution (by the people) as opposed to a coup (by a government faction). Thats not that important...

In either case, the existing government is overthrown so the existing laws and constitution need not necessarily apply. So while the exact path isn't clear yet, legality/constitutionality need not necessarily apply.

What I would hope comes out of this is a partial rewriting of the constitution to limit presidential power to make this less likely to happen again.
 
  • #36
russ_watters said:
What I would hope comes out of this is a partial rewriting of the constitution to limit presidential power to make this less likely to happen again.
My opinion: That is a bit overly rosy thinking.

Fixing their constitution to limit presidential powers won't fix the problem because corruption in the Ukraine is rampant throughout the Ukrainian society, public and private. Their president was corrupt, their parliament is corrupt, their judges are corrupt, their local officials are corrupt. I suspect even their dog catchers expect a bribe from Fido's owners when they catch Fido running down the street (or when they catch Fido in Fido's fenced-in back yard).

Corruption was *the* way of life for the 70 years that the Ukraine was under Soviet control. Expecting that to reverse itself after only 25 years of independence is expecting too much. It took the US 150 years or so to get corruption under control, and it's still present in the US to a limited extent.
 
  • #37
russ_watters said:
I think it is more properly termed a revolution (by the people) as opposed to a coup (by a government faction). Thats not that important...

These two terms usually carry lots of ideology. For example, what Bolsheviks did in 197 was initially called a "coup" by themselves, then they started calling that "revolution". Those whom they overthrew, including the (then) competing parties, always called that a "coup". It is probably too early to speak of a "revolution" here, given that those guys in Rada and regional exec. and legis. bodies who were pro-Yanukovich just a few days ago and now fiery revolutionaries.

In either case, the existing government is overthrown so the existing laws and constitution need not necessarily apply. So while the exact path isn't clear yet, legality/constitutionality need not necessarily apply.

This raises an interesting question: is Rada now really representative of the Ukranian people? It is very much possible that it is not, so we may not be seeing the end of the revolution just yet. Hopefully, it will not be a bloody end.
 
  • #38
D H said:
Corruption was *the* way of life for the 70 years that the Ukraine was under Soviet control.

Less than that. Before Stalin's death, corruption was not a major element of the Soviet regime. Back then it was a regime based on fear, not on corruption. I think it is safe to say that corruption was firmly planted during Brezhnev's rule.
 
  • #39
D H said:
Corruption was *the* way of life for the 70 years that the Ukraine was under Soviet control. Expecting that to reverse itself after only 25 years of independence is expecting too much. ...
Most all of eastern Europe was under Soviet control for 50 years or longer: Poland, Hungary, the Baltics, etc. Though they undoubtedly have their problems with corruption, I would not label all those states as intractably corrupt. Note that the man who led the Orange Revolution in 2004, Yushchenko, pushed corruption reforms (if ineffectively) and does not appear to have enriched himself on the back of the nation. Yushchenko certainly was not a Moscow toady.
 
  • #40
What many of the Ukrainians in Maidan don't realize is that corruption, poverty, wealth discrepancies etc. won't just magically disappear if Yanukovich is ousted and Ukraine sings that deal with the EU (actually, Ukraine will get ****ed). The problem with corruption and theft is the post-Soviet oligarch-dominated culture, and it goes from bottom to the very top.

Also, DH, post-Soviet countries are much more corrupt than the USSR was. Your moral standards tend to deteriorate when your paychecks stop coming while at the same time your neighbour suddenly is a multi-millionaire.

voko said:
As in a lawful democratic succession in power vs. a coup d'état?
Well, they surely had some kind of official excuse/procedures, but in all fairness, it was nothing but a coup by the Western-Ukrainians.
In Ukraine, though, this is not the first time when procedures are brushed aside, and, interestingly, Timoshenko is again a beneficiary. I wonder what her political credibility stems from. Is it now the martyr thing?

She doesn't have any. Well, OK: some people are stupid enough to trust her, but I think many hate her just as much as they hate Yanukovich. At least they should: She is thoroughly corrupt.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Corruption Perception Index for some select countries (out of 177)

Norway 5
Austria 26
Estonia 28
Poland 38
Czech R. 57
Russia 127
Ukraine 144
http://www.transparency.org/country

It may be that with this change of leadership Ukraine will have an opportunity to reduce corruption as have its neighbors.
 
  • #42
mheslep said:
Most all of eastern Europe was under Soviet control for 50 years or longer: Poland, Hungary, the Baltics, etc.
That's only in comparison to other even more corrupt former Soviet countries. Compare them to western European countries and the picture isn't so pretty. There are quite a few former Soviet countries that are perceived as less corrupt than Italy or Greece. That's not a good comparison. Compared to Spain? Now only two, Poland and Estonia, come out better. Compared to Portugal? Now it's only Estonia. To Austria or France? None. Note that Spain, Portugal, Austria, and France are not the paragons of clean, non-corrupt countries.

Just look at your own source, post #43.
 
  • #44
mheslep said:
Corruption Perception Index for some select countries (out of 177)

Norway 5
Austria 26
Estonia 28
Poland 38
Czech R. 57
Russia 127
Ukraine 144
http://www.transparency.org/country

It may be that with this change of leadership Ukraine will have an opportunity to reduce corruption as have its neighbors.

CPI (corruption) rankings for comparison, right after the Orange revolution or 2005 under the reformer Yushchenko:

2004 Ukraine: 122, Russia 90
2005 Ukraine: 107, Russia 126 Yushchenko becomes President
2006 Ukraine: 99, Russia 121 Yanukovych becomes PM
2007 Ukraine: 118, Russia 143
2008 Ukraine: 134, Russia 147
2009 Ukraine: 146, Russia 146
2010 Ukraine: 134, Russia 154 Yanukovych become President
 
  • #45
After reading about the takeover of the Crimean parliament building by pro-Russian demonstrators, I went to the Wikipedia page about Crimea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea

to review its history, and landed in the middle of what looks like an editing war: (I added the boldface)

On 26 February 2014, thousands of pro-Russian and pro-Ukraine protesters clashed in front of the parliament building in Simferopol prompting Russian President Vladimir Putin to put 150,000 Russian troops on alert along the Ukrainian border. The protests followed the ousting of the Russian-backed Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych on 22 February 2014, and a push by many pro-Russian protesters for Crimea to secede from Ukraine and seek assistance from Russia.[35] The russian army wore pink dresses as they are little girls

:rolleyes:
 
  • #46
Well, if the flame war has broken out, can the shooting war be far behind?
 
  • #47
SteamKing said:
Well, if the flame war has broken out, can the shooting war be far behind?

Once the dogs of revolution are loosed, it's hard to expect a nice, well-behaved result.
Someone's going to get their hair mussed.
 
  • #49
Greg Bernhardt said:
Nothing can stop Russia from invading Ukraine

Russian gunmen control Crimea airport
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26379722

They just have to be very careful how they do it though, the whole's world is watching, and they can't just repress people like in the old ways. Too bad Ukraine isn't in NATO, in the eventual intervention of Russia the European Union and US will do nothing. And even if they were, no country wants to start such a war.

Anyway I think the consensus in Ukrainians is that they want to get rid of Russian influence, and rightly so IMO. Makes me glad to see Ukrainians here in Portugal, on the opposite corner of Europe, showing support for this Ukrainian revolution.
 
  • #50
Tosh5457 said:
They just have to be very careful how they do it though, the whole's world is watching, and they can't just repress people like in the old ways. Too bad Ukraine isn't in NATO, in the eventual intervention of Russia the European Union and US will do nothing. And even if they were, no country wants to start such a war.

Anyway I think the consensus in Ukrainians is that they want to get rid of Russian influence, and rightly so IMO. Makes me glad to see Ukrainians here in Portugal, on the opposite corner of Europe, showing support for this Ukrainian revolution.

Bolded text: I'm not so sure about that. The US wouldn't do anything to intervene, outside of a strongly-worded condemnation :rolleyes:. The EU would debate it from now until who-knows-when, but ultimately do nothing. Who is left, the UN?
 
  • #51
Tosh5457 said:
they can't just repress people like in the old ways.

Why not? If Russia moves troops into the eastern part of Ukraine, as "requested" by local governments (who may or may not declare independence), who is going to stop them? The EU? I think Putin can handle a few wagging fingers and clucking tongues from the Eurocrats. The US? What will the US do? Draw some more red lines?
 
Last edited:
  • #52
lisab said:
Who is left, the UN?

Since we are assuming a military action by Russia, the UN won't be able to do a thing, Russia being a permanent member of the Security Council, wielding its power to veto.
 
  • #53
Tosh5457 said:
Anyway I think the consensus in Ukrainians is that they want to get rid of Russian influence, and rightly so IMO.
This is not a universal consensus across all of the Ukraine. The eastern part of the Ukraine has a significant number of ethnic Russians and the dominant language in the eastern part of the Ukraine is Russian. In particular, the Crimea is predominantly ethnic Russians. It's dubious that the ethnic Russian majority in the Crimea would view Russian intervention as repression.
 
  • #54
The renegade Yanukovich who is desirous of restoration and who is the legitimate President poses an interesting dilemma for Russia.
 
  • #55
voko said:
The renegade Yanukovich who is desirous of restoration and who is the legitimate President ...
That is a ridiculous statement. He abandoned his job. I suspect that even the ethic Russians in the Ukraine want him back for one reason only: To put him in jail.
 
  • #56
D H said:
That is a ridiculous statement. He abandoned his job.

"Legitimate" means "conforming to the law or to rules". Neither version of the Ukrainian Constitution has a provision for losing presidency over "abandoning the job". So he is most definitely a legitimate president, de jure, if you so prefer. That this may be very different de facto constitutes the dilemma I spoke about.
 
  • #57
Vanadium 50 said:
Why not? If Russia moves troops into the eastern part of Ukraine, as "requested" by local governments (who may or may not declare independence), who is going to stop them? The EU? I think Putin can handle a few wagging fingers and clucking tongues from the Eurocrats. The US? What will the US do? Draw some more red lines?

The US could send Secy. of State Lurch to hang around Putin's office in the Kremlin, looking dour and worried, mumbling something about Genghis Khan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
On the subject of non-violent actions the US *could* take:

  • Replace the $15B Russia promised the Ukraine under Yanukovych
  • Announce banking sanctions will be applied to any Ukrainian official that uses the military against peaceful civilians. Consider the same for Russian officials should they move militarily into the Ukraine.
  • UN speech by Kerry/Obama loudly associating the US with self-determination of free peoples.
  • Sail the US Navy into the international waters of the Black Sea, ruling out any future Russian naval blockade.

Other ideas?
 
  • #59
mheslep said:
[*]Sail the US Navy into the international waters of the Black Sea, ruling out any future Russian naval blockade.

This will be ineffectual under the Montreux Convention. Unless, of course, the US are willing to dismiss Turkey as an allied nation.
 
  • #60
Any reaction and Russia can tighten the natural gas pipe line that Eastern Europe depends on. Such a shame.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 235 ·
8
Replies
235
Views
23K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K