Mykola Azarov stepped down as Prime Minister of Ukraine this week hours before the Parliament was expected to pass a vote of no confidence in him, a clear sign of the growing momentum of the opposition EuroMaidan protestors against President Yanukovych’s government. The move, while sure to be applauded by the protestors, is unlikely to placate them. The Ukrainian capital city of Kiev has been gripped by civil unrest in recent weeks after Yanukovych, who rose to power on the a platform of increased integration with the European Union, caved to heavy economic pressure from Russia and abruptly chose to forgo signing long-negotiated trade and political agreements with the European Union. These agreements did not mean that Ukraine would be a member of the EU but were widely seen as paving the way for that path in the future. Instead, fearing Russia’s threats of economic and energy related sanctions, he opted in favor of a renewed commitment to Russia and Vladimir Putin’s proposed Eurasian Union.

In the wake of that decision many Ukrainians took to the streets, fearing that their last, best chance to reap the benefits of European values and modernization was slipping away. Partnering with Russia is viewed by many as a step backwards, likely to solidify the culture of corruption and cronyism that already plagues the Ukrainian government. Many Ukrainians still bitterly recall their days as a state in the Soviet bloc and deeply loathe the possibility of a return to that. The protests only escalated when Yanukovych chose to enact draconian anti-protest laws a few weeks ago in order to deal with the growing civil unrest in the streets of the capital. While these laws have since been repealed by the administration, the protests show no sign of abating and violence continues to occur on both sides, with several protestors and a policemen having been killed.

The growing unrest in Kiev has far wider reaching implications than just the future of Ukraine however. Like the Syrian civil war that was recently the focus of great international attention, this conflict pits an increasingly aggressive and combative Russia against Europe and the United States in a proxy conflict reminiscent of the Cold War. Unlike Syria however, Ukraine is the key component to Putin’s strategy for reasserting Russia’s place as a global superpower. What had been a military arms race in the 1950’s and 1960’s Cold War era is now an economic arms race in an increasingly globalized world. Putin’s strategy of maneuvering Russia into a position of global economic influence hangs in the balance. It is crucial for Putin to get the cooperation of Ukraine, the largest country buffering Western Europe and Russia, in order to establish his Eurasian trade union and that is why this conflict is not likely to be easily resolved.

Although he has publicly promised that Russia will not interfere in Ukrainian domestic affairs, it is absurd to believe that Putin would let Yanukovych’s government fall without a fight. He has already backed the administration by agreeing to lower the price of gas exported to Ukraine by 33 percent in addition to buying 15 billion dollars of Ukrainian government bonds as a reward for forgoing to EU agreements. There are also scattered (though largely unconfirmed) reports of Russian agents working with the berkut (anti-protest police) to stifle the protestors. If Ukraine is allowed to integrate into the EU, Putin’s plans would be all but crippled. If there were to be a civil war, it is highly likely that Putin would get involved, either directly or discretely and unfortunately, a civil war seems almost inevitable at this point.

It would be easy to conclude from looking at images of the barricades and fiery protests raging in the streets of the capital that the country overwhelmingly supports the ousting of Yanukovych. The complicating factor that is not often talked about in coverage of the protests is that while a clear majority of Ukrainians were angered by the draconian anti-protest laws the country itself is actually quite divided on whether to strengthen ties with Europe or move back to being closer with Russia. The Western areas of the country (which include Kiev) are strongly anti-Russia and heavily favor European integration. The eastern industrial areas are much more closely linked with Russia however and support for Yanukovych’s government and his plans to re-integrate with Russia is widespread there. These eastern regions have, to this point, been relatively quiet (they have nothing to protest against given the administration’s current pro-Russian tilt) but if it begins to look as if the protestors in Kiev are going to succeed at removing Yanuovych from power and replacing him with a pro-Euorpean leader you can expect that level of inactivity to change dramatically. The future of Ukraine is at stake and neither side appears ready to back down. Given the importance of Ukraine’s future to Russia, it is not likely Putin will either. The stakes are simply too high.

One final complicating factor is the upcoming Winter Olympics set to take place in Sochi next week. Putin’s showcase event has already been dogged by negative press and human right’s criticisms related to the treatment of migrant workers who were brought in prior to the Games, Russia’s strict anti-gay laws, and Russia’s aggressive spying practices among other allegations. As he tries to re-establish Russia’s place as a global power, it is clearly a priority for Putin that the Games go smoothly. Thus, it seems unlikely that Russia will make any big moves in Ukraine until the completion of the Games in three weeks. If the protestors continue to gain strength and the situation in Ukraine has not subsided by then however, it will be very interesting to see how Putin and the Eastern Ukrainians react. Civil war is still far from a certainty at this point, but it is definitely a distinct and frightening possibility.

 

Reach Contributor Daniel Lewin here.