Question:
On 20/02/2014, media outlets reported that at least 17 people were killed and others wounded in renewed clashes between anti-government protesters and Ukrainian security forces, who withdrew from Independence Square in Kyiv. Meanwhile, protesters moved toward the parliament, which was evacuated, as well as the Prime Minister's office. On Wednesday, 19/02/2014, the Ukrainian authorities announced the start of an "anti-terrorist" operation targeting opponents they described as extremists, resulting in the deaths of 26 people, making Independence Square look like a war zone! However, yesterday, 21/02/2014, it was announced that the Ukrainian president and the opposition had agreed on a compromise solution. Then, today, 22/02/2014, it was announced that the Ukrainian parliament voted to oust the president and hold early presidential elections on 25/05/2014. The question is: Are these events local, between an opposition and a government? Or are they international, with America, the European Union, and Russia having a hand in orchestrating them? Is this a new "Orange Revolution" intended to permanently remove Russian influence from Ukraine in favor of Western influence, as happened in the first revolution? And is a Russian reaction expected, similar to what happened in 2010? May Allah reward you with khair.
Answer:
The answer becomes clear through the following points:
1- Ukraine has a long history of competition over it between Russia and Europe. Throughout history, it was partitioned by other countries such as Russia, the Ottoman Khilafah (particularly in Crimea), and Poland. After the First World War, the West and its agents conspired against the Ottoman State, leading to its end, and the Soviet Union emerged. After the Second World War, America was at the head of the Allied nations that won the war. Thus, the powers competing over Ukraine became: the West and the Soviet Union, after the latter annexed Poland into its republics and annexed Ukraine as well, which was the most important of the 15 republics that were previously members of the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the powers competing over Ukraine became: Russia, America, and the European Union. Each of these countries has a strong interest in Ukraine:
As for Russia, Ukraine is one of the most important countries for it. If Russia loses it, the West becomes directly on its borders; it serves as a protective shield for Russia from the European side, in addition to its economic importance, as Russian gas pipelines to the West pass through it. Ukraine is also vital for Russia because its industrial, agricultural, and energy sectors are integrated with Russia's, and it serves as a buffer zone between Russia and Europe. Therefore, Russia's loss of Ukraine would effectively place Europe at Russia's doorstep, as Ukraine is located only 300 kilometers from Moscow. This is the reason for Russia's intervention in Ukraine. Another factor that makes Russia view Ukraine with great concern is that the majority of the population in eastern Ukraine adheres to the Orthodox faith and speaks Russian, on one hand, and on the other hand, the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet military base there.
As for Europe, Ukraine serves as the dividing wall between Russia and Eastern Europe. 80% of Russian natural gas, which constitutes a quarter of European consumption, passes through its territory to Europe; therefore, it is of paramount importance to Europe. After Poland became a member of the European Union in 2004, followed by Romania and Bulgaria in 2007, Ukraine became a neighbor to the EU countries. It is of great significance to the European Union; on one hand, it is considered a bridge between Europe and Russia, and on the other, it is considered a buffer zone between them.
As for America, Ukraine possesses vital importance for America, which seeks to besiege the Russian sphere of influence. Furthermore, Ukraine's ports are important for NATO and its warships when they enter the Black Sea. American influence in Ukraine also means a constant bleeding of Russia's flank and a means of pressure on it to not obstruct America's projects in the region, especially the Middle East.
2- As a result of America's interest in Ukraine becoming a member of NATO, and Europe's interest in Ukraine becoming a member of the EU, the West stood with all its might behind the Orange Revolution in 2004 and in the 2005 elections. Because Russia had not yet rid itself of the chaos left by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West succeeded in bringing the Orange Revolution to its goals. It toppled Yanukovych, Russia's candidate in the 2005 elections, leading to the success of the West’s (specifically America’s) candidate, "Yushchenko," in the presidency. Thus, Russian influence receded in favor of Western influence.
3- Events began to accelerate, carrying behind them projects for Ukraine to join NATO and the EU. America seized the opportunity; Russia had lost its loyal government in Ukraine in the 2005 elections, and while Europe was interested in Ukraine joining the EU, the Union was still suffering from the problems of Eastern European countries that had been annexed. Thus, conditions were favorable for America to benefit from the results of the 2005 elections and the success of its agent, "Viktor Yushchenko." Therefore, it exploited his term to accelerate integration between Ukraine and the West. Throughout his time in office, Yushchenko threatened to expel the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol upon the expiration of the Russian military lease there in 2017. Yushchenko did not hide his desire to fully integrate Ukraine into Western institutions like the EU and NATO. Kyiv entered negotiations on an Association Agreement with the EU and demanded a Membership Action Plan for NATO. Accordingly, we saw how America exerted every effort in the Orange Revolution that brought Yushchenko to power. Ukraine during that era became a major strategic partner for the United States, which provided it with economic aid, even ranking third after (Israel) and Egypt on the list of American aid recipients, in order for America to sever Ukraine's economic dependence on Russia.
4- This situation had a major impact on Russia, appearing as a provocation and a strike against its interests. After the Orange Revolution occurred in Ukraine in 2004, relations with Russia became strained due to Ukraine's efforts to gain membership in the EU and NATO, as well as Ukraine's stance on the Russian Black Sea Fleet stationed in Sevastopol, and disputes over natural gas. However, Russia was unable to stand against the situation that arose from the 2005 elections for two main reasons: First, it had not yet fully recovered from the effects of the Soviet Union's collapse. Second, America and Europe were not suffering from difficult political or economic problems, and there was no major disagreement between their interests at the time: America wanted Ukraine in NATO, and Europe wanted it in the EU, and there wasn't a significant difference between the two interests then. These two factors made Europe and America work together to distance Ukraine from Russia at a time when Russia was unable to resist due to the circumstances it was suffering from.
5- However, conditions changed from late 2007 and particularly in 2008, when America and Europe drowned in the economic crisis, while Russia began to stabilize politically and economically to some extent. This circumstance was favorable for Russia to pressure the new government in Ukraine after the Orange Revolution, especially economically through gas, being reassured by America and Europe's preoccupation with their crises. Therefore, Russia exerted great effort in heating up the atmosphere against Yushchenko’s rule, especially in the eastern regions of Ukraine and other loyalist areas. Raising gas prices or cutting off the supply became an effective weapon against the pro-Western rule in Ukraine, in addition to mobilizing its supporters in eastern Ukraine. By the time the 2010 elections arrived, a large portion of the people in Ukraine felt the disadvantages of pro-Western rule. The election results were in Russia's favor; Yanukovych returned to power, and Russia breathed a sigh of relief. Yanukovych signed several agreements with Moscow in the field of energy, solidified economic cooperation, and worked to develop relations in the fields of press, publishing, education, language, and culture. Yanukovych indicated the possibility of a new agreement regarding the Russian Black Sea Fleet in exchange for lower natural gas prices, which was implemented later.
Thus, the election results were in Russia's favor, even if the margin was not large. The election results expressed the people's dissatisfaction with Yushchenko; the first round results showed a low percentage for him (5.33%), while Yulia Tymoshenko received about 25%, and Viktor Yanukovych received about 35.5% of the votes. The election was rerun in a second round between the top two, and Yanukovych won with about 49%, a 3% difference over Yulia Tymoshenko, the Western candidate, who received 46%. Thus, in February 2010, Russia was able to return its man in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, to power. He is the country's fourth president and a strong supporter of Russia. From then on, American influence began to decline, and Ukraine moved toward normalizing relations with Russia.
Despite the small margin, Russia reaped significant results from it. President Yanukovych met with Russian President Medvedev in Kharkiv less than two months after taking office, on 21/04/2010. In the meeting, he agreed to extend the Black Sea Fleet lease for an additional 25 years, to end in 2042 instead of the previous 2017 date. In return, the Russian company Gazprom agreed to reduce the price of natural gas to $100 per 1,000 m³ for the remainder of the gas contract that had been signed in 2009.
6- Yanukovych continued his rapid orientation toward Russia. It seems he did not realize that this slim 3% margin in votes meant that Western henchmen in Ukraine still had weight, just as Russian supporters did. Furthermore, he thought that the harmony he saw between America and Russia on other global issues would prevent America from supporting Europe if he turned his back on the trade agreement being discussed. Naturally, this assumption was a mistake, and his assumption brought his downfall. While America may harmonize with Russia, it is simultaneously concerned with having not just a foothold in Ukraine, but a base for NATO! That is, even if America stood against Europe to prevent it from annexing Ukraine, this would not be for the sake of continuing Russian influence in Ukraine, but rather for Ukraine to belong to America! Had Yanukovych been politically conscious, he would have taken this into account, but he was not. Thus, the crisis began.
7- Before examining the start of the crisis, the casualties, and the reaching of a compromise solution... and then the parliament’s decision to oust the president... etc., we will clarify the positions of the three countries interested in Ukraine to show clearly that these three countries had a role in the events in Ukraine, even if the intensity of the role varied according to the circumstances available to each and what their respective interests dictated. These positions are as follows:
A- Russia: Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the European Union at the EU-Russia summit on January 25, 2014. He criticized the EU for sending high-level delegations to Ukraine during anti-government protests, saying "it could be interpreted as political interference." He said at the conclusion of that summit in Brussels: "I can imagine the reaction of our European partners if, in the midst of a crisis in Greece or any other country, our foreign minister attended an anti-EU rally and urged people to do something." (Yahoo News 18/01/2014). Interfax also quoted Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov as saying: "When John Kerry says... Ukraine has the right to choose who to be with—with the whole world or with one country, Kerry—with his experience and common sense—is the last person I expect such propaganda from." The BBC reported on the Ukrainian unrest on 01/02/2014 that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said: "What does inciting violent street protests have to do with promoting democracy?... Why do many prominent European politicians really encourage such actions, yet in their own countries they quickly and severely punish any violations of the law?" Russia considered what was happening in Ukraine a "coup attempt" against authority, and its Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held some Western countries responsible for the bloody events in Ukraine, calling on the West not to play the role of mediator in the crisis (Al-Jazeera 19/02/2014). Reuters quoted Glazyev, an advisor to the Russian president responsible for relations with Ukraine, in press statements on 06/02/2014, confirming that American "interference" violates a treaty signed in 1994 in which Washington and Moscow guaranteed the security and sovereignty of Ukraine and committed to intervening when such conflicts arise, after Kyiv disposed of its Soviet-era nuclear arsenal. The Russian official considered that "what the Americans are doing now by interfering blatantly and unilaterally in the internal affairs of Ukraine is a clear violation of that treaty which provides for collective guarantees and collective action." (Reuters, Al-Jazeera via agencies 6, 07/02/2014).
B- The European Union: Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw announced that he was on his way to Kyiv, commissioned by the EU in an attempt to end the crisis there. Piotr Serafin, Poland’s Deputy Foreign Minister, announced that a consensus had been reached within the EU to impose sanctions on officials in Ukraine. For her part, German Chancellor Merkel said—during a press conference with French President Francois Hollande—"that European foreign ministers must discuss on Thursday 20/02/2014 what form of sanctions should be imposed to show that Europe wants the return of the political process in Ukraine." The EU pledged to provide an aid package to Ukraine to end the protests favoring a rapprochement with Europe, which had been ongoing for more than two months, during talks held by the Union's foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in Kyiv with President Yanukovych and opposition leaders who maintained their demands for the president's departure.
For his part, opposition leader Vitali Klitschko urged the EU to mediate in the deep political crisis witnessing in his country. Klitschko added that Ashton confirmed to him that the EU is ready to send high-level mediators for negotiations between opposition leaders and the government. (05/02/2014 Al-Jazeera). The topic of Ukraine dominated the security summit in Munich, Germany, on January 31, 2014. European Council President Herman Van Rompuy said: "The offer is still on the table, and we know that time is on our side. Ukraine's future belongs to the European Union." Reuters reported that the foreign ministers of Germany, Poland, and France were holding talks with the Ukrainian president and had not left the country, according to diplomatic sources, quoting a diplomatic source saying, "they are meeting with him now" in an attempt to find a way out of the crisis that has been ravaging the country for months (Reuters 20/02/2014).
In a related context, Arseniy Yatsenyuk—an ally of the imprisoned opposition leader and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko—and prominent opponent and former boxing champion Vitali Klitschko met German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin. Klitschko mentioned that Germany and the EU must play a leading role in finding a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, emphasizing that Western pressure on Yanukovych must be coupled with what he called a positive program for the Ukrainian people through financial aid and the abolition or easing of the visa regime with Europe. For her part, Merkel called on Kyiv to form a new government and reform the constitution, stating in a statement that "the amnesty agreement for protesters constitutes a positive step, and more steps should be taken in this direction." (18/02/2014 Al-Jazeera).
C- As for America: Reuters reported on Friday 07/02/2014 from Washington: "A conversation posted on YouTube between a US State Department official and the US Ambassador to Ukraine reveals an explicit change in US strategy toward the political transition in this country." It added: "In the conversation posted on YouTube on Tuesday 04/02/2014, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland told US Ambassador in Kyiv Geoffrey Pyatt that she does not think Vitali Klitschko, the former wrestling champion turned politician and major opposition leader, should be in the new government." Although Klitschko was welcomed in Europe, especially by the European delegation that met the Ukrainian president and the opposition (where Klitschko is one of the leaders), Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, in her call with the US ambassador, did not like the EU's opinion and told her interlocutor, "F*** the EU." Nuland suggested involving the United Nations in a political solution to the crisis in Kyiv. Although Nuland apologized, her statement reveals that America’s orientation is not necessarily identical to Europe’s orientation.
Obama strongly condemned the acts of violence that erupted in Ukraine, holding the government in Kyiv responsible for suppressing protesters, demanding that the government exercise restraint and not use military force to address issues that must be settled by civil means. However, the US president simultaneously stressed that protesters must remain peaceful and realize that violence is not the path they should take. This came at a time when the White House announced it was monitoring the situation in Ukraine, while Ben Rhodes, one of the US president's national security advisors, said that the US administration was conducting consultations with the EU on the next steps to be taken, including imposing sanctions on Ukraine (Al-Bawaba News via MENA Thursday 20/02/2014).
Likewise, US Secretary of State John Kerry said: "Nowhere is the fight for a democratic, European future more important today than in Ukraine. The United States and European Union stand with the people of Ukraine in that fight." (As reported by the BBC - Ukrainian Unrest - 01/02/2014).
• The following is clear from these positions and statements:
Russia considers Ukraine a fateful issue for it. You see it exerting every effort to support the president economically with strength; during the protests, Russia concluded an agreement with Ukraine on Tuesday, December 17, under which Ukraine receives a 33% discount on natural gas supplies from $400 to $268 per thousand cubic meters. Moscow also agreed to buy $15 billion worth of Ukrainian debt (Yahoo News 18/01/2014). To demonstrate the paramount importance of Ukraine from the Russian perspective, its representative did not attend the signing of the agreement that took place on Friday 21/02/2014, even though it was done with its approval because Yanukovych cannot conclude an agreement without its consent. However, Russia wanted, through the withdrawal of its representative, to give a decisive image that it sees no solution for Ukraine except for Ukraine to belong to it! In addition to it being a method of appeasing Russian supporters in Ukraine who were not pleased with the agreement.
As for the European Union, it was the deciding factor in the matter. Its representatives were coming and going, supervising the management and signing of the agreement. Their relationship with the opposition is clear, so much so that the opposition clearly requests European assistance. Indeed, the reason for the protests was Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the trade agreement with Europe.
As for America, it is clear from its position that it is trying to please both parties: Europe and Russia. It wants Ukraine to remain outside the European Union but with NATO, which is effectively run by America. Keeping Ukraine a state not in the EU appeals to Russia's feelings, and at the same time, Ukraine becomes a means of pressure for America to ensure continued Russian cooperation in America’s projects, especially in the Middle East region.
8- As for the crisis and how it began, and whether it is a new "Orange Revolution" toppling Russian influence for the benefit of the West, as happened in the 2004-2005 Orange Revolution where the West dominated influence in Ukraine? And is a return of Russian influence expected as happened in the 2010 elections? This issue is understood as follows:
A- Ukraine was scheduled to sign a trade agreement with the EU at the Eastern Partnership summit on November 21 in Vilnius, Lithuania. However, the Ukrainian government refused to sign the agreement and proposed instead the creation of a tripartite trade commission between Ukraine, the EU, and Russia tasked with resolving trade issues between the parties. This refusal is what sparked large protests in the streets of Kyiv... Then the recent crisis exploded as about 200,000 people gathered on December 15, 2013, in the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, and the situation continued to escalate.
B- Then the protests began to escalate: continuous protests... control and setting up tents in Independence Square... seizure of some government offices... demands for the president's resignation or reduction of his powers... return to the 2004 constitution which transfers presidential power to the parliament... release of detainees, especially Yulia Tymoshenko... then what happened on the 18th, 19th, and 20th of violence, deaths, and injuries... where the Ukrainian authorities announced on Wednesday 18/02/2014 the start of an "anti-terrorist" operation targeting opponents they described as extremists, while security forces continued to storm the protest center in Kyiv where 26 people were killed.
The government had issued an emergency law and then a ban on demonstrations, then an attempt to include the opposition in governance by offering them the position of Prime Minister within the president's rule... then the attempt to storm Independence Square which resulted in deaths and injuries until it was announced on 21/02/2014 that the opposition and the government reached a compromise through dialogue to sign a solution calling for early elections and constitutional amendments. Media outlets announced on Friday 21/02/2014 that three of the Ukrainian opposition leaders had signed an agreement to end the crisis with President Viktor Yanukovych inside the presidential palace in the presence of EU mediators, while Moscow's representative in the negotiations left Ukraine for his country and did not attend the signing ceremony. Then today 22/02/2014, the parliament announced the ouster of the president and early elections.
What is striking is that although the European Union was the one that managed the dialogue meetings and the agreements were concluded through its mediation, the first contact with Putin after signing the agreement was from Obama. A senior US State Department official said that Presidents Obama and Putin held a "constructive" phone call during which they stressed the importance of implementing the peace agreement in Ukraine quickly and the need to achieve stability for the Ukrainian economy. The US official told reporters in a press conference via phone that the two parties agreed on the need to implement the agreement that was reached quickly, and that it is very important to encourage all parties to refrain from violence, and that there is a real opportunity here to reach a peaceful outcome (Al-Jazeera 22/02/2014 morning at 03:03 GMT).
C- As for whether these protests are a new Orange Revolution as happened in 2004-2005? And is a Russian reaction expected as happened in 2010? To answer this question, it must be taken into account that circumstances now are different from 2005 and 2010. No single party among these three can hold all the threads and find a solution purely for itself. To make the picture clear, we remind of the following:
At the time of the Orange Revolution, Russia was suffering from the aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse and had not yet stabilized as a major power politically or economically. At the same time, Europe and America were united in supporting the Orange Revolution. It was important to America and Europe that Ukraine escape Russia's grip, and then the balance in Ukraine would tip toward the stronger party, "America and Europe." America was confident that its agent Yushchenko would tip the balance toward it without competition. Therefore, the struggle was between two parties: "America and Europe" on the strong side, and Russia on the weak side. Russia could not support its loyal president, so he was defeated in the 2005 elections and Yushchenko, America's man, became the president of Ukraine.
As for 2010, Russia had recovered to some extent, and acceptable political and economic stability was observed. At the same time, America and Europe were drowning in the economic crisis and were almost gasping for breath because of it. Russia was able in this atmosphere to drown the pro-Western rule in Ukraine with economic crises, especially gas, in addition to the effective mobilization of its supporters in Ukraine. Therefore, its man in Ukraine, Yanukovych, won, and although he won by a small margin of 3% of the votes, he returned influence to some extent to Russia.
As for now, all three powers have internal and external crises. Furthermore, America does not want Ukraine to be a follower of Europe, but rather wants it as a center for its own influence outside the European Union. It uses it as a means of pressure and enticement for Russia to continue cooperating with America in its projects, especially the Middle East. Not annexing Ukraine to the EU pleases Russia even if the lion's share in Ukraine belongs to America and not Russia!
For this reason, it is not expected that any of the three parties will be able to take Ukraine entirely to its side, at least in the foreseeable future. Rather, a compromise solution is expected, such as the current president resigning (or being removed) and/or early presidential elections occurring that produce a compromise president with reduced powers according to the 2004 constitution or an amended constitution, and similar solutions in the capitalist manner—i.e., the middle ground. In other words, it is unlikely that the new situation in Ukraine will belong exclusively to one of these three parties. Consequently, any president who is installed in Ukraine will be held by three belts manufactured by those three parties, at least in the foreseeable future.
However, this solution remains a bomb liable to explode at any time when new circumstances enable any of these three parties to seize complete influence in Ukraine. This is because these three parties adopt capitalism, which is based on utilitarianism. They do not have fixed values, but rather changing ones that align with the side that is most acquisitive, most cunning, and most violent.
Therefore, these compromise solutions are no more than sedatives dictated by the current circumstances of the three parties. Whenever the effective circumstances change, matters will become tense again. The situation in Ukraine will not stabilize unless a Khilafah State for Muslims is established, returning Crimea and its surroundings to its authority. Then matters will stabilize and goodness will spread throughout the world. Islam is a mercy to the worlds; no one is oppressed under its authority, nor hungry nor naked, by Allah’s permission. Rather, one remains dignified, not humiliated or transgressed against. All subjects of the State have their rights and duties according to the Sharia rulings, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim subjects.
وَاللَّهُ غَالِبٌ عَلَى أَمْرِهِ وَلَكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
"And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not know." (Surah Yusuf [12]: 21)