Resolving the crisis: Kiev’s options and choices

Resolving the crisis: Kiev’s options and choices

However, there is still hope for Ukraine and that hope and prospect for a swift resolution of the crisis lies with the election of the new Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

Poroshenko, although one of the richest businessmen in Ukraine, has a long career in Ukrainian Politics as he used to be Foreign Minister during the Presidency of Viktor Yushchenko and later on he was named Minister of Trade and Economic Development by former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

Poroshenko manage to win with a wide difference in the first round of the Ukrainian Presidential elections and that gives him legitimacy and political leverage to pursue a swift end of the crisis. Moscow’s recognition of his victory empowers Poroshenko to work with Moscow in resolving the crisis. Despite, the economic war that Russia raged against Ukraine in its efforts to dissuade Kiev from signing the Association agreement with Brussels, that created tensions between the Ukrainian oligarch and Russia in 2013, it appears that Poroshenko’s relations with Moscow are not damaged beyond repair. [102]

Additionally, while Poroshenko has always been a supporter of a more Western Ukraine and supported the Maidan movement, maintained his distance from the political leaders of the Maidan and the crimes that are allegedly attributed by Moscow, pro-Russians and others. Therefore, one could argue that he has little if none responsibility for what occurred before his appointment, that he has no blood on his hands. Although his ongoing offensive, alongside with the use of heavy weapons against the separatists inside civilian areas in Eastern Ukraine, may soon change this perception.

Consequently, Poroshenko might be the man that can shape Ukraine’s future by resolving the crisis by capitalizing on his merits. A successful businessman, a moderate politician, with good relations with the West, the ability to accommodate Russia’s concerns and compromise, and so far is relieved from the mistakes of his predecessors, while having a recent and wide election victory that can provide him with all the necessary legitimacy to take responsible decisions.

Unfortunately, it is not all well for Poroshenko. He might not share yet responsibility for the actions and mistakes of his predecessors, but he is now called to work with the realities and problems of the Ukraine, which he has inherited.

As stated before Ukraine’s economy is collapsing and any prolongation, let alone escalation of the crisis, will definitely worsen the situation. Ukraine’s economy instead of flourishing after the collapse of the Soviet Union, like the economy of other former Soviet Republics did, has been decreasing steadily, marred by corruption and energy inefficiency. [101] Russia has always been Ukraine’s biggest trade partner and the prolonged disruption of relations between the two countries is taking its toll of Ukraine’s economy. Indebted Ukraine, which is additionally in huge annual budget deficit, has asked for a bailout from the International Monetary Fund.

IMF loans come alongside with the need for stringent reforms and fiscal austerity. Kiev will have to cut governmental spending by eliminating gas subsidies, which will lead in the increase of gas prices for consumers, by making decisive cuts to civil service salaries, pensions and healthcare. Hryvnia, Ukraine’s national currency is already plummeting and will most likely continue to do so as a result of the austerity measures. Such austerity policies have a very negative effect on the living conditions of a population and bear the possibility to alienate the populace not only with its government, which will be carrying out these cutbacks and reforms, but also with the pro-western sentiment and the Maidan movement that has led the country away from Russia and its less cruelly conditioned financial aid.

Ukraine’s economy has remained a Soviet style economy and the reforms necessary for its transition to a more western-like economy will also be rather difficult at least at the early stages.

The new Government will have to attract Foreign Direct Investments in order to create a sustainable and prosperous economy. However, the longer the country remains in crisis; it is unlikely for any foreign investors to take the huge risk to invest in Ukraine. Moreover, the majority of Ukraine’s heavy industry, including the mining, mineral and industrial sectors, is located in the unstable, embattled Eastern Ukraine. It is evident that resolving the crisis permanently is of paramount importance for Kiev, if it yearns for economic stability and growth.

As if economic uncertainty was not enough of a problem for the newly elect President, Ukraine is a deeply socially troubled country. The fissures among the Ukrainian population are perhaps the biggest cause of the crisis. Ukraine is split in half between West and East, pro-westerners and pro-Russians, those who believe the country they inhabit should have closer relations and belong to Europe and those who favor closer relations with Russia. This is not solely an issue of orientation, but it also has language and nationality extensions, as is the case in many former Soviet Republics. North and West Ukraine speaks in majority Ukrainian and consider themselves Ukrainians, while South and East Ukraine speaks mostly Russian as their mother language and are or consider themselves as Russians.

The Ukrainian society is deeply divided and as the crisis continues the enmity between the two sides becomes more and more sizeable and reconciliation becomes more and more farfetched. Pro-Ukrainians consider their opponents as traitors, rebels and separatists, while pro-Russians consider the others traitors, usurpers and Nazis.

For the past several weeks, Kiev has begun an Anti-Terrorist Operation in eastern Ukraine utilizing everything at its disposal, including air strikes, artillery, tanks and infantry. During the attacks against the rebel-held areas, the Ukrainian military has targeted its own civilian areas and has possibly damaged beyond repair the its image and legitimacy for those living in these areas. This has probably resulted in bringing local population and others around the country that have been neutral until now closer to the rebels.

It is beyond questioning that the continuation of this internal conflict can alienate the two factions completely and result in the eruption of a full blown civil war with destructive results that will exceed any imagination.

President Poroshenko and his country stand at a crossroads. On the one hand, the public demands that the Government adopts a firmer stance against the rebels and continue its military operations with the sole goal of annihilating the separatists. On the other hand, forbearance, prudence and logic dictate that President Poroshenko pursues with all his power to end this strife, find a solution that will be a compromise that will bridge the gaps, facilitate national reconciliation and guarantee the Ukraine’s stability.

If Poroshenko chooses to continue this confrontation, Ukraine will be called to pay a great price, which is certain; the results are not. Ukraine’s army is fairly weak and its current operation burdens the exiguous Ukrainian economy and systematically worsens its capabilities due to the increasing amount of losses in men and assets. Each day this conflict continues several lives are lost and the damage done to the country’s infrastructure and unity is unfathomable. The continuation of the conflict, alongside with a possible deterioration of the situation on the ground for the pro-Russians might draw Moscow’s ire, and provoke it to more overt actions. Such development would be nothing short of catastrophic for Kiev.

Alternatively, if Poroshenko opted for the path of dedicating all his resources in resolving the crisis, by having an all-inclusive dialogue that would ensure that a viable comprise, that would reassure all parties involved of their interests, then Ukraine could find the much sought peace and stability it needs.

Before the beginning of the crisis, Ukraine had three orientation choices: the European one, the Russian one and the Neutral one. As the situation remains thusly, it is highly improbable that neither the European nor the Russian choices are viable. Russia has shown that it will not tolerate an eastward expansion of the EU or NATO and while showing that Moscow has managed to alienate a large portion of Ukraine’s population, for the time being.

Neutrality is an option that will not please everyone, but it will create the necessary stable environment, in which Ukraine can heal its wounds and move ahead. A Ukraine outside of NATO and the EU is one of Russia’s primary goals and will most likely be happy to cement that, while Ukraine will become more flexible with its relations with Russia and the West.

Ukraine’s best option at the moment is to decide to remain neutral, normalize and pursue closer ties with both Russia and the EU, making sure it uses this unfortunate adventure as driving force for change, Change that will make it stronger as a nation.