A REVOLUTION OR A COUP D'ETAT?

News from Ukraine in recent weeks is painfully reminiscent of the situation that existed two or three years ago in a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa, which was later called the "Arab Spring," or of the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia.

A true "revolutionary winter" has come to Ukraine, accompanied by countrywide civil strife and other developments. The president has been ousted from his office, while parliament is to debate a bill banning the ruling Party of Regions and the Communist Party, which constituted a parliamentary majority.

The power passed into the hands of the opposition, which hastily issues decrees. According to lawyers, however, some of their decisions are not even based on the current constitution of the country. Meanwhile, Acting Interior Minister Arsen Avakov has said that leading positions in the law enforcement agencies will be offered to leaders of the armed right-wing opposition, and fighters of these groups jointly with the police will maintain order in the country.

At the time of writing this article, there was no accurate information on the whereabouts of the President of Ukraine, and according to some reports, he was hiding somewhere in the eastern regions of the country after a failed attempt to fly to Russia. In his video appeal, Yanukovych called the events a "military takeover" and said he would not resign. Nevertheless, the Verkhovna Rada appointed chairman of the Ukrainian parliament Oleksandr Turchynov, one of the leaders of the Batkivshchyna [Fatherland] party and an ally of Yulia Tymoshenko, as Acting President of Ukraine. It is assumed that Turchynov will carry out the responsibilities of the acting president until the election of a new leader of the country, scheduled for 25 May.

It is noteworthy that the Verkhovna Rada rescinded a law that provided for the increased use of minority languages including Russian. Moreover, the parliament released from prison, by its special law, former Prime Minister of Ukraine and leader of the Batkivshchyna party Yulia Tymoshenko, who went to the Maidan [Independence Square] on a wheelchair where she delivered a fiery speech to the demonstrators, urging them not to disperse. She also announced her intention to participate in the early presidential election, which is not surprising.

To understand the current situation, let us restore the chain of events in general. The confrontation between the authorities and the opposition in Ukraine was provoked by Kiev's refusal to sign an association agreement with the European Union. In November 2013, supporters of the opposition, openly backed by the Western leaders, took to the country's main square demanding to reconsider the rejection of the association agreement. Subsequently, slogans chanted by protesters gradually evolved into demands to limit the powers of the president, then into calls for the resignation of the authorities, and then into other radical appeals. The situation was aggravated by warlike actions of radicals and nationalists who were outside the field of control even of the systemic opposition. Later it turned into an armed confrontation.

The Rubicon was crossed on 18 February, when antiriot police forces cleared the government quarter from protesters and surrounded the Maidan, at which point a state of emergency was effectively declared. This was when the first shots were fired. It seemed that the resistance of the protesters would be broken in a couple of hours. But at this moment the representatives of the Western establishment took a concerted action and accused the Ukrainian authorities of abuse of power; some of them went even so far as used the phrase that became very popular in recent years: "From now on, the president has lost the legitimacy."

It was symptomatic that these statements were followed by warnings about the introduction of financial and visa sanctions against those involved in the crackdown, though the list of such people remained undisclosed. According to analysts, that was the moment of truth for Viktor Yanukovych, because oligarchs and functionaries, faced with the threat of being announced personas non grata coupled with the blocking of their accounts in Western banks, put pressure on the president, and the offensive was halted.

Ultimately, on 21 February, with the participation of foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Poland and Russia's representative V. Lukin, it was decided to initial the agreement aimed at resolving the political crisis in Ukraine. The agreement was signed by President V. Yanukovych as well as opposition leaders A. Yatsenyuk, O. Tyagnybok and V. Klitschko. This document was also signed by the intermediaries except Lukin. Yanukovych also urged to begin the procedure of forming a government of national unity in the country. In the meantime, the Verkhovna Rada voted for the return to the 2004 Constitution, which limits the powers of the president. These steps were met with enthusiastic support in Brussels and Washington, which welcomed the agreement. But the opposition, especially its radical part, ignored the signed document and announced that it would continue its struggle to the bitter end.

Benefiting from the fact that the government lifted the blockade, withdrew the police and actually paved the way to the parliament building, the protesters surrounded the Verkhovna Rada and virtually enabled the adoption of a decision about the resignation of Verkhovna Rada chairman V. Rybak. He was replaced by Turchynov. The Verkhovna Rada also appointed Acting Interior Minister and the commissioners for the supervision of the SBU [Ukraine's Security Service], the Defence Ministry and the Prosecutor's Office.

With bated breath, many predicted the outbreak of civil war in Ukraine between the Eastern and Western parts of the country. However, as seen from the results of the congress of deputies of the local councils of the south-eastern Ukraine, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, which discussed the deep political crisis in the country, as well as statements by the Council of Ministers of Crimea, the separatist sentiments are not as strong in south-eastern Ukraine and on the peninsula as they are in the western regions of the country, which, after initial attacks of Berkut on Maidan, declared their readiness to withdraw from Ukraine. Thus, taking an optimistic view, one can assume that the threat of civil war is not real any longer, yet it still can not be ruled out.

Much has been said and written about the fact that the events in Ukraine are influenced by external factors more than they are by domestic factors. In pursuing their own geopolitical interests, the United States, the European Union and Russia not only closely watch the developments in Ukraine but, as the recent events have shown, may also affect them.

As noted by US political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book "The Grand Chessboard", the loss of Ukraine [coupled with the collapse of the USSR - Ed.] was an important geopolitical point because it substantially limited Russia's geostrategic choice. Retaining control over Ukraine, Russia, even without the Baltic States and Poland, could still try not to lose a leading position in the decisively acting Eurasian empire. In this context and against the background of Kiev's failure to sign an association agreement with the EU at the Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius, the interest of the West in Ukraine is more than understandable. Recent events in Ukraine undoubtedly can be assessed as the victory of the West over Russia, but the question of whether this victory is of tactical or strategic nature remains open. Russia is not going to back off in its geopolitical struggle for control of Ukraine.

It is quite possible that, having financial, economic and energy leverage at its disposal, Moscow is already thinking about the geopolitical countermeasures. The European Union, and especially Germany, has its own stake in this struggle, though Washington and Brussels cooperate in the joint geopolitical struggle against Russia. Nevertheless, the harsh words said by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland about the EU in her telephone conversation with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt indicate a split in the Western vision of the Ukrainian question.

In the above telephone conversation, US officials emphasised that V. Klichko should not be in the government, and that the right man for Washington was A.Yatsenyuk, at least until the recent developments. However, the return of Yulia Tymoshenko to the Ukrainian political arena gives reason to believe that there will be a "reset of stakes". In the eyes of the West, Lady Yu. has a reputation as the single leader of the Ukrainian (already former) opposition, and the West would most likely wish to see her as a single candidate for the presidency. As strange and absurd as it may sound, the Kremlin is not quite against this scenario, because the gas agreements with Russia, which had become simply shackling for the Ukrainian people, were signed on behalf of Ukraine by Tymoshenko, for which she was imprisoned. A complaisant policy of pleasing all the world powers, undoubtedly, increases her chances for presidency, but the Ukrainian people are well aware that by pleasing the powers that be, Tymoshenko can easily act against the interests of her own people.

This inference is corroborated by the mood prevailing on the Maidan and in social networks, where activists say that they put their lives at risk and made a revolution not for the "gas princess" to sit on the throne once again.

It is equally unlikely that there are many supporters of Tymoshenko among the opposition leaders and oligarchs. Analyzing the situation, we can already speak about a split among the leaders and activists and that the revolution, as always, devours its children. Meanwhile, was there a revolution at all?

Indeed, the situation in Ukraine is now controlled by the radically-minded minority which is actively supported by the West. Unfortunately, such a phenomenon becomes an unpleasant political brand in the system of international relations in today's world.

According to the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, 82 people have been killed and more than 620 injured since the beginning of clashes in Kiev. Many observers put the number of dead close to one hundred. Such is the current price of recent political events for the Ukrainians. The principles of democracy have suffered too, as they have become token coins in the hands of the "world community." Whether you like it or not, the fact remains: the president elected by a popular vote was deposed - not by voting, but by the methods not popular in the civilized world.