The Nature of the Ukrainian Ethnic Conflict
It is no
secret that there is unrest in Eastern Europe. Violence and turmoil have been a continuous factor in shaping the people and the culture of the region. With all
of the “culture shaping” that has occurred over the past century in Eastern
Europe many nations have found homage in the European Union (EU) recently. With
multiple nations gaining accession in 2004 and 2007 and one recently in Croatia
(2013), it seemed as though any nation given the opportunity to become a part
of the EU would jump at the chance. Ukraine debunked this myth by turning down
the EU and turning their slight social unrest into a possible civil war.
To the
untrained eye, this burst of violence and the widespread fatal protests
occurred instantaneously after the decision of the Ukrainian government to
remain unaffiliated with the EU. Those who have been watching this unstable
nation can inform otherwise. Professor Stephen Shulman of Southern Illinois
University has stated, “More than a decade after acquiring statehood, Ukraine
is still struggling to define the qualitative content (sense of community) of
its national identity.”[1]
There is no specific culture that is agreed upon by the general populous that
is the norm for all of Ukraine. There are two.
An article
in the Washington Post* illustrated the two predominant ethnic groups that live
in Ukraine.[2]
The first is the Ukrainian speakers in the West and the other is the Russian
speakers in the East. The divide is evident. But Ukraine has always been
affiliated with Russia. Their languages are so similar. Their histories are
almost identical. How does this address the ideological differences? Although
language does effect culture, a second example from that same Washington Post
article can help to illustrate the differences as well.
In the 2010 Ukrainian Presidential
elections, the language boarder also proved to be an ideological boarder. The
Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians favored the Pro-Western candidate in Yulia
Tymoshenko while the Pro-Russian Eastern Ukrainains affiliated themselves with Viktor
Yanukovych who eventually won the election. It now comes a no surprise that the
Pro-Russian government made a decision to decline the invitation from the EU.
While the
details are being discussed as to the roots of the conflict, destruction of
property and life is continuing in Ukraine and more specifically on their
Independence Square. What will come of these protests? How are things going to
change in Ukraine? Will they change? No, things will not change.
In a recent
article from Fox News, the nature of the conflict is described with new
developments added in. It is noted that “protestors…seized government buildings
in most Western regions of Ukraine.”[3] The
final statement in the article gives light to one possible future for the
unstable nation. “The sharp divide between east and west has fueled fears of a
messy breakup of the country.”
Multiple
options and outcomes are in the discussion but due to the historic nature and
development of the ethnic conflict, a civil war seems unavoidable and a
complete divide of the country has become likely. Though on the surface this
option would seemingly work there are two major factors that must be solved if
a complete split were to occur.
To
elucidate the first issue we need to take a look at the visible
geography of the country. Of note is a major river that runs right through the center of
the country. The Western portion of Ukraine has access to that river but lacks
the most important part: the outlet. The Black Sea, as a warm sea port, is an
important trading port to the region. It is so important that as Catherine II
the Great of Russia sought out that specific area for Russia to expand to in
the 1770's. With a split in the country, Western Ukraine would be forced to rely
on others for trade and resources considering that the Eastern Ukrainians would
likely not allow the “separatists” to have any access.
It would
seem natural for Western Ukraine to then turn to the European Union to rely on
to get them built up as a substantial nation. Likewise it would seem natural
for the EU to allow such because the West supports the EU and the EU was
already considering the nation for accession. The problem here is that the EU
has very strict standards for accession including political and economic ideals
that are similar as well as a certain economic strength where the new member
state would be able to contribute, not simply rely on other stronger nations.
With the breakup of the nation, the economy would take a large hit which would
deter the EU from desiring Western Ukraine for accession.
Unless
these issues are resolved, a split in the nation would be more harmful for both
of the “new nations”. Ideally, the two sides will come together and agree on a
specific course of action. That is not likely to happen any time soon. In the
end, the protests were inevitable and natural. There is nothing to be done to
satiate both sides sufficiently. The course is set. One party will have power
and the other party will feel repressed. Their roles may switch every so often
but the organization will remain the same.
*To access the Washington Post article including a few visuals to help visualize the divide copy and past this url into your search bar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/12/09/this-one-map-helps-explain-ukraines-protests/
[1] Shulman, Stephen. 2004. "The Contours of Civic
and Ethnic National Identification in Ukraine." Europe-Asia Studies
56 (1): 35-56.
[2] Fisher, Max. 2013. “This
one map helps explain Ukraine’s protests.” The Washington Post. December 9,
2013
Comments
Post a Comment