A TRIUMPH OF TACTICS AND A STRATEGIC CALCULATION?

One of the most important tasks facing the current Ukrainian political elite is, undoubtedly, the holding of early presidential elections. At the same time, this task is one of the issues that is difficult to resolve, because Ukraine's internal and external political opponents have no intention whatsoever of accepting the current situation. After the virtual loss of Crimea, as most experts predicted, a huge wave of anti-Maidan and separatist demonstrations spread over the south-east part of Ukraine. At the beginning of April the pro-Russian orientated civilians in Donetsk, Kharkiv and Luhansk Regions and in Mykolayev embarked on protest actions demanding the federalization of Ukraine, and in some places even secession. In Donetsk the protesters seized the buildings of the regional state administration (RSA) and the local administration of the SBU [Ukrainian Security Service]. The activists, who are calling for a referendum on the status of Donetsk Region, for Russian to be given the status of a second state language and demanding that a new Constitution should state Ukraine's non-bloc status, approved an Act on the creation of a sovereign Donetsk People's Republic. A decision was adopted to hold a referendum on this no later than 11 May. Interestingly, Donetsk Mayor Oleksandr Lukyanchenko, who said the seizure of the buildings and separatist slogans were illegal and unacceptable, nevertheless described these events as a consequence of the government's flawed policy and a reluctance to investigate and understand the main problems of the region. He said Kiev should spell out a clear mechanism of the decentralization of power in order to diffuse the socio-political situation in the Donbass, otherwise people there will continue to seek protection from Russia.

In Kharkiv the RSA building was also taken over by the protesters who adopted a decision to set up an independent state under the name "Kharkiv People's Republic". According to their statement, this decision will come into force following endorsement at a regional referendum. The building of the local administration of the SBU was seized in Luhansk and, according to the activists, the head of the administration personally allowed them to take up arms and issued bullet-proof jackets. The Ukrainian authorities, who have accused Moscow and its emissaries of these events, started taking control of the situation in the abovementioned regions as a matter of expedience. Extra special police units were rushed to Ukraine's south-east regions from other parts of the country. As a result of the "anti-terrorist operation", which was how Interior Minister Arsen Avakov explained the actions of the defence and law enforcement agencies, the RSA building in Kharkiv was liberated and 70 people arrested without a shot being fired. Bloodier events occurred in Mykolayev where there were clashes between protesters and "Maidan self-defence" forces as a tent camp was being demolished. Fifteen people were injured and 23 arrested. A former deputy from the PR (Party of Regions), Valentyn Landik, claimed that separatists were paid 500 dollars each for organizing the disturbances, in particular the attacks on the SBU in Luhansk, and Viktor Yanukovych's family was financing all this from Moscow.

For their part the activists say that besides the law-enforcement structures official Kiev also employed representatives of "Pravyy Sektor", units of the National Guard and even an American private military company to suppress the protest actions. The law-enforcement bodies have two options for a settlement to the situation in Donetsk, Kharkiv and Luhansk Regions - negotiations and coercive intervention. But, by all accounts, the negotiations process has so far nothing to commend it: involving Ukraine's "chief oligarch" Rinat Akhmetov and first deputy prime minister Vitaly Yarema in Donetsk has not brought the desired result. Moreover, some of the Ukrainian media, quoting their own sources, have reported that the separatist actions in Donetsk and Luhansk are happening not with Russian support, but with the direct assistance of Akhmetov, who in March-April flew to Moscow for a meeting with Vladimir Putin and the leader of the PR faction in the Supreme Council, one of the key politicians in Luhansk Region, Oleksandr Yefremov. Naturally, one of the favourites in the race for president, former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, did not stand aside, either. After visiting Donetsk and Luhansk, the "Batkyvshchina" ["Fatherland'] leader concluded that a single scenario of events was discernable in these towns that was being enacted by special groups of people representing the Russian special services. At the same time, she said in Donetsk that she planned to work towards retaining the status of Russian as a regional language and that she was initiating the adoption of a new Budget Code which would provide the regions with budget independence. This statement was more likely made to attract the sympathy of the inhabitants of the south-eastern part of Ukraine, which could seriously influence the results of the presidential elections. It is precisely in this context that the role in recent events of Akhmetov, who has had strong ties with Tymoshenko since the 2007 parliamentary elections, is of interest.

Yulia Volodymyrivna [Tymoshenko], who spoke about the budget independence of the regions (and where there is financial independence there is political independence), could become a compromise figure for the external parties in the Ukrainian crisis, i.e. Russia and the US.

The non-disclosure of the results of the meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State John Kerry is significant. It is possible that Washington and Moscow came to an agreement about the candidature of the future president and Ukraine's establishment as a federation. The federalization of Ukraine in the current stalemate situation could help the US and Russia to survive with minimum loss of image in the geopolitical stand-off. Though both sides would prefer to be completely in control of Ukraine. But politics, as they say, is the art of the possible. The fact that Washington and Moscow will still continue the struggle for complete control over Ukraine is another question. Right now, hypothetically, another federal entity in Europe, headed by Tymoshenko, might suit them.

The fact that agreement was reached on holding quadripartite talks involving Ukraine, the EU, the US and Russia is also very interesting.

Contrary to the opinions of Russian experts, who are describing today's situation as a victory for Russia, in the strategic sense it may be of benefit to Washington in view of its long-term policy.

First of all, Moscow has been dealt a serious blow in the ethno-religious sense. With the expansion eastwards of the EU and NATO in several stages over the past 15 years, the US has created a split in the concept of Slavic identity. After the entry of the countries of South-East Europe into the EU the southern and western Slavs were no longer a part of the common group of Slavic peoples. With the loss of Ukraine, even a split Ukraine, the fraternal unity of the eastern Slavic ethnic groups (Russians, Belarussians and Ukrainians) suffers a serious fracture. Especially as Ukraine, like Russia, is mainly an Orthodox community. Incidentally, in the religious sense, the August 2008 war with Orthodox Georgia also dealt a serious blow to Russia's positions.

Secondly, the politics of Moscow, which is allegedly thus protecting the interests of the Russian and Russian-speaking population in the post-Soviet countries, is encouraging the formation of an unfriendly atmosphere around Russia because the danger arises that in relation to any of these countries Moscow, under a contrived pretext, could behave in the same way. Thirdly, no state, even if the most pro-Russian politician came to power in Europe, would, at the end of the day, agree to the loss of its own territory. In this context it is very timely to recall the prophetic words of that great thinker, Niccolo Machiavelli: "Men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony".  Territory is the property of any state, and no politician would agree to the impairment of the rights of his people and state. Fourthly, such a situation lets Washington off the leash in the context of the next expansion eastwards of the EU and NATO and the strengthening of their positions. The entry into these organizations of Georgia and Ukraine, even in a downsized version of their territories, could be initiated in the future. Moreover, this would help to consolidate Europe which of late has been short of a single opinion on the Russian threat, which has led to a reduction in military expenditure. Taking this into consideration, the recent statement by NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen about the need to increase defence spending by the countries of the alliance because of the new strategic situation that is developing in Europe and the development of events in the east of the continent is hardly purely coincidental.