By Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian
The media, which since 2016 has seen Russia as the bad old “bear” attempting to destabilize and bully its neighbours, paints countries on Moscow’s borders as heroic states fighting to preserve their freedom.
Typical was an article by Michelle Goldberg in the New York Times of Oct. 15, 2019, referring to post-2014 Ukraine, after evicting its pro-Moscow president Viktor Yanukovych in the “Maidan Revolution, as “a remarkably vibrant, multiethnic democracy in a region full of aggressive nationalism and authoritarian backsliding.”
This “narrative” allows the United States to use Ukraine as a staging ground to contain Russian interests in the region, including Moscow’s legitimate concern for ethnic Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians in the eastern part of the country.
On April 1, NATO said it was concerned about a Russian military build-up near Ukraine’s borders, and U.S. President Joe Biden affirmed the United States’ unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
A few days later, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated Kyiv’s desire to be admitted to NATO, something which Moscow has repeatedly warned against over the years, threatening that it could catapult the region toward a major war.
The distance from the eastern Ukrainian border to Volgograd is less than 370 kilometres. Were Ukraine to become a NATO member, the alliance would extend almost as far east as Hitler’s troops had reached when they advanced towards what was then Stalingrad in late 1942. Russia cannot countenance this.
Is Ukraine a state we should go to war over? It remains far from having a democratic political culture – no surprise, since it was part of a totalitarian Soviet Union for 75 years, and prior to that an autocratic tsarist Russian empire.
Instead of transitioning to a new era, it often feels as if Ukraine is stuck in a state of permanent stagnation, living from crisis to crisis and revolution to revolution. Meanwhile, the population remains mired in poverty.
There is no consensus about the exact reasons why success has eluded Ukraine for the past three decades. However, few would argue that the main obstacles have included the excessive influence of Ukraine’s oligarchs.
The classical definition of oligarchy, the rule of a few self-interested elites, denotes entrepreneurs who use their wealth to exert political influence. The concept is also closely associated with political corruption and kleptocracy. It can co-exist with formally democratic systems.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, oligarchs have become a central feature in Ukrainian politics no matter what president or political regime assumed power. Though Ukraine has had five presidents since independence, the political entrenchment of oligarchs has remained constant.
They continue to exercise a tight grip on the Ukraine’s political and economic life. Ukraine’s oligarchs typically exercise their influence through corrupt parliamentarians, members of government, law enforcement officers, and judges.
The roots of Ukraine’s “oligarchic democracy” can be traced back to the 1994-2004 presidency of Leonid Kuchma, when today’s power brokers first established their informal empires. Ukraine has undergone two pro-democracy revolutions since then, yet little has actually changed.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine inherited large enterprises, institutions and organizations. Concerns arose about who should own and manage them, thus the process of privatization begun.
The goal was intended to create a competitive business environment. But former Soviet-era apparatchiks saw it as an opportunity to reinvent themselves as political actors to expand opportunities for large-scale profiteering.
The balance of forces between the different oligarchic groups has changed several times but the essence of the system itself remains the same. Oligarchs continue to shape the trajectory of the nation, some choosing to gain formal political offices – this was the case when billionaire Petro Poroshenko was elected president in 2014 -- while others acquired media holdings offering them the opportunity to influence public opinion on political issues.
They use their control over groups of parliamentary deputies to block attempts at reform. When Zelensky won the presidency in 2019, he promised to free the political system of domination by the oligarchs but he has made only limited headway.
A $5 billion loan deal from the International Monetary Fund is on hold as the Ukrainians try to convince IMF officials that they are serious about tackling corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment