The Maidan movement that began in November 2013 removed from power
Viktor Yanukovych, the former “pro-Russian” Ukrainian president
(although the reality was more complex). With his ouster a pro-Western
government led by the oligarch Petro Poroshenko was formed, while war
broke out in the Eastern province of Donbass and Russia annexed Crimea;
Ukraine was split in two. It was, however, a big blow for Putin, who
lost control over Ukraine as a whole. Russian direct influence was
reduced to only a small number of the country’s eastern regions.
In Kiev and in the West of the country a clear pro-imperialist bloc
was formed. Of course, internal contradictions and struggles between
different political factions existed since the beginning in this bloc.
Along with this bloc in the West there were also nationalists,
anti-Russian and far right parties and groups like Pravy Sektor that
emerged or got stronger during the Maidan movement. It’s those groups
that presented the first challenges to the new government in Kiev. “War
veterans” that fought in the East and nationalist groups appeared to be
the main opposition to Poroshenko’s government in the “western side” of
the country.
That opposition still exists in Ukraine of course. But what is new in
the current situation is that now the main opposition and polarization
is between two leaders directly linked to Western imperialism:
Poroshenko and Saakashvili. This is what the last few weeks have
demonstrated: a big blow to Poroshenko and his government, even if they
have not been a “death sentence”.
We can say that since last summer Poroshenko, through several
mistakes, is strengthening his own opponents. His first mistake occurred
in July, when he decided, with the cooperation of Georgian authorities,
to revoke the Ukrainian citizenship of Saakashvili, while the latter
was abroad. It was a political gift for Saakashvili: he was able to
present himself as a victim of repression and a plot. Indeed,
Saakashvili became stateless (in 2015 his Georgian nationality was
revoked too). Even if this move by Poroshenko didn’t please some
European governments, it is clear that Poroshenko had the green light
from his masters in Washington. Perhaps, like the Ukrainian president,
the US administration couldn’t foresee the political consequences of
that move for the fragile stability in Kiev.
This risk became concrete when in September Saakashvili organized a
demonstration in favor of his return to Ukraine: his supporters forced
their way through a border check-point, and literally carried him in
their arms from Poland into Ukraine. There were bizarre scenes, but in
reality it was a challenge to Poroshenko’s power and a challenge to the
political stability of the country. Yulia Timoshenko was one of those
who helped Saakashvili return to Ukraine, perhaps hoping that
Saakashvili’s support could help her to oust Poroshenko and prepare the
ground for her own bid for power. Today, however, the situation appears
quite different, as recent events have made Saakashvili appear as the
main opponent to Poroshenko, rather than Timoshenko.
Several key events have been major blows to Poroshenko. First, on 5
December the Special Forces of Ukraine attempted to arrest Saakashvili
in his apartment in Kiev. After melodramatic scenes in which Saakashvili
tried to escape over the roofs and even threatened to jump from the
rooftops, while hundreds of people were arriving to support him. He was
finally arrested. But the former Georgian president’s crowd of
supporters surrounded the police van and freed him. After that
Saakashvili and his supporters marched towards the parliament; a
humiliation for Poroshenko and the government authority.
Some days later, and after similar unfruitful attempts, Ukrainian
police again arrested Saakashvili. In response, on 10 December,
thousands of people demonstrated in Kiev calling for freedom for
Saakashvili and the impeachment of president Poroshenko. Some observers
said that it was the biggest demonstration in Kiev since the Maidan
movement of 2014. Finally, the next day Saakashvili was released by a
court, against the opinion of the Prosecutor, who asked for house arrest
for Saakashvili, accusing him of organizing a coup against president
Poroshenko.
For Poroshenko, in just some months, his former friend became his
biggest challenger in Ukraine. It is Poroshenko himself that in 2015, in
the wave of Maidan, gave Ukrainian citizenship to the former Georgian
president and proposed that he become the governor of the Odessa region
to “fight against corruption”. In fact, Saakashvili was supposed to help
Poroshenko reinforce his own power from Odessa – not to challenge him
in Kiev. Indeed, Saakashvili resigned at the end of 2016, accusing
Poroshenko’s government of corruption and of blocking neoliberal
economic reforms.
On 17 December thousands of opposition supporters demonstrated again
calling for the impeachment of Poroshenko, even though the demonstration
was smaller than that of 10 December. The opposition accuses Poroshenko
of blocking the “independent” work of the National Anti-Corruption
Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). It seems that the opposition and Saakashvili
are trying to find a “Brazilian way” to oust Poroshenko. In other words,
an institutional maneuver to oblige the Ukrainian president to quit
power. The fact that Saakashvili was released by a court against the
opinion of the prosecutor’s office suggests that perhaps this struggle
is being translated within the structures of the state apparatus.
It will not be easy for Saakashvili be successful in his move. He
must solve the question of his Ukrainian citizenship, even if another
maneuver reinstates it as easily as it was revoked. The government and
Ukrainian justice system are now talking about deporting him to Georgia
where he has criminal charges leveled against him. President Poroshenko
is also maneuvering to create his own anti-corruption institutions. Last
week, in cooperation with the IMF, he stressed that his government will
create a special anti-corruption court next February.
Poroshenko, Saakashvili, or any another capitalist government, know
that in a semi-colonial Ukrainian economy in deep crisis, they must
apply harsh measures against workers and the popular classes. In the
context of an economy in deep crisis and of an indebted state, of a
latent war in the east against forces supported by Russia and against
the strong political pressure of growing nationalist and far right wing
currents, the imperialist powers and local capitalist factions need the
most legitimate government possible in Kiev. Saakashvili and his
supporters are trying to show that they are better than Poroshenko for
“the job”.
However, as Andrej Nikolaidis has argued regarding the “struggle against corruption” in the Balkans: “the
anti-corruption struggle in our Balkan democracies is as permanent as
purges were under Stalinism. If liberal democracy keeps insisting on the
struggle against corruption, is that not because corruption is inherent
to liberal democracy? The anti-corruption struggle will never end and
corruption will never be stamped out (…) Ultimately, the arrests must
never end and the system’s process of self-cleansing must never end.”
In other words, the “struggle against corruption” (inherent to
capitalism) is only a useful and always-available pretext to eventually
get rid of a government turned problematic for some fractions of the
ruling classes and imperialism. This statement can be extended to the
whole Eastern European region, particularly in Ukraine.
For the moment imperialists do not seem to have sided with
Saakashvili or Poroshenko. Or rather, Westerners play on both sides.
Western powers are above all nervous about the crisis in the pro-West
bloc. They dislike the spectacular actions of Saakashvili’s partisans.
Imperialists don’t like uncontrolled crowds in the streets, freeing
people from legitimate authorities or crossing borders by force.
Saakashvili doesn’t like that either. It is for this reason that, in his
last statements, he has tried to appear more “responsible”.
For now Saakashvili is clearly not a consensual alternative for Westerners. Poroshenko continues to appear as “their man”. However, imperialists don’t like
Poroshenko’s methods either. To jail and/or deport opponents is not
great practice for the candidate that supposedly stood for a “democratic
renewal” and break with “authoritarian pro-Russian” governments. Maybe
the initial plan was to push Saakashvili out of Ukraine, with an
arrangement to relocate him to the US, calming down the crisis in the
pro-West bloc.
At the same time we can’t exclude the possibility that the rising of
Saakashvili and his allies will reopen differences between the
imperialist powers, with the US on the one hand and Germany/EU on the
other. For the US it’s out of the question to allow Putin to take
advantage of the situation in Ukraine after his victory in Syria against
the US and it regional allies. As former US ambassador to Ukraine, John
Herbst, said some days ago: “Fighting
Moscow’s aggression in Donbass, the country needs internal peace and
reform. Leading politicians need to air their differences and grievances
with civility and consistent with the national interests of the country”. For that reason, Poroshenko could be seen as the “less bad” solution.
But for Germany, even though it supports economic sanctions against
Russia, Saakashvili’s faction could be an opportunity to have someone
with closer ties to Berlin in power in Kiev. Germany and the EU could be
interested in improving relations with Russia. Not only for economic
and geopolitical relationships with Moscow in Europe but also having in
mind the “reconstruction market” in Syria, a cynical but potentially a very lucrative market.
Although for the moment it’s not clear how, Putin will certainly try
to reinforce his position in the East of Ukraine and take advantage of
the situation. It’s for this reason that the pro-Poroshenko media and
politicians have claimed that Saakashvili is being funded by pro-Russian
businessmen. Of course, we cannot exclude anything, but it seems very
unlikely that Russia is supporting Saakashvili.
Concerning workers and the popular classes of Ukraine, they will
continue to be trapped in this reactionary struggle between Russia and
the Western imperialists for control of their country. There will never
be an independent Ukraine as long as the imperialists and Russia
continue to use their country as a playground for their own interests.
In the current situation, there is no alternative that really represents
their interests. Neither Poroshenko nor Saakashvili, nor the
nationalist and far-right parties, nor Putin’s Russia and its local
allies, let alone the imperialist powers.
More than 25 years after the fall of the USSR, the Ukrainian people
are still paying for the political inheritance of the Stalinist regime
that prevented workers from organizing independently of the state and
the bureaucratized Communist Party. That is the main reason that
shameful politicians like Saakashvili, Poroshenko and others of their
kind are still deciding the future of millions of people. But we can’t
exclude that this crisis between those on the top could create for
workers and the masses an opportunity to defend their own interests
independently of the capitalists and their state, the imperialists or
Putin and his local allies.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire