The revolution was named EuroMaidan, but that term captured its essence only until the night of Nov. 30 into
Dec. 1.
That night Ukraine’s regime ordered its special police unit
(“Berkut”) to disperse the protestors,
attacking and beating them with rubber and plastic night sticks. Many of
the student protesters were severely injured, one died and several were
arrested.
At the end, the size of the crowd prevailed and the Euro protest was
transformed into the Euro revolution. Its demands now included criminal
prosecution of those who ordered the attack, the dismissal of the Cabinet of
Ministers and the resignation of
Ukraine’s current president with a democratic election and referendum to
follow. Signing an EU association agreement was no longer the ultimate goal.
There would be further attempts by special police units to disperse the
“Euromaidan”, but in each instance the people prevailed.
As it turned out the revolution is really
about human and national dignity (“hidnist”).
That word has been spoken over
and over again. What it means is probably somewhat particular to different segments of the Ukrainian
society and, perhaps, even individually inveterate.
“Hidnist” means to live as a European. It
means to be rid of Russian oppression. For some it may even mean not to be
represented in the eyes of the world by a
convicted criminal. The words
“Zeka het’” (ex-convict out) ring
often throughout the “Euromaidan”. Most importantly it’s about national pride.
The specific venue of the revolution like the entire city of Kyiv is covered
with blue and yellow Ukrainian flags. Almost every speech concludes with the
words “Slava Ukrainy” (Glory to Ukraine) three times with the audience’s response “Heroyam slava!” (Glory to its
heroes).
As with most matters Ukrainian, Russia is
not a bystander. It actively pursues its own interests. Having devised a scheme
to counter European economic wherewithal, Russia insists that Ukraine join its
Customs Union and not the EU. Otherwise the Union is nothing more than Russia
and some largely insignificant players. Threats were the strategy for Moscow at
first. Then it offered and signed off on some enticements, in the form of
billions of dollars in credits and a discount on Russian gas. Coincidentally,
the timing has been ironic. On November 23, Ukrainians throughout the world
commemorated the “Holodomor” (Great Famine)of 1932-33. Seven million and more
Ukrainians perished at the hand of Moscow during that power play orchestrated from Moscow.
Very important to this equation has been
the support from the West.
The EU has made its support manifest through visits
and communications. Perhaps more so, the
United States has been forthcoming in support of EuroMaidan through the
visit of the assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian affairs to
both Moscow and Kyiv, leaving a veiled message in Russia and a strong one in
Kyiv. Then came an unequivocal condemnation of the use of force by Secretary of State John Kerry, harking back to admonishments to Ukraine’s leadership from Vice
President Joseph Biden made immediately prior to the
regimes brutal behavior.
And more recently two U.S. senators from different
sides of the aisle appeared at the EuroMaidan stage in support of the people and
introduced tangible substance to their words – a jointly sponsored Senate resolution with
teeth, providing for sanctions against particularly offensive members of the
ruling regime, with a burgeoning list of offenders that may include the current
president of Ukraine himself.
The revolution prides itself on being
peaceful, but after all, it remains an act of civil disobedience as more than
half of Kyiv’s main Khreshchatyk Street is barricaded and at least three
public buildings are under siege by the revolutionaries. Lenin’s most recent
demise in Kyiv was not only symbolic but
hopefully irreversible. The once protected grounds were taken over by
tourists and souvenir seekers until the authorities removed the remaining
carcass.
Thus, the government’s action of force evoked
an even stronger reaction, mostly in defense, but not meek. There could not have been more fallout.
The regime then resorted to politics, attempting to organize its own
manifestation of support – a counterrevolution, but with less than significant
results. Ukraine’s former first president suggested that if a government has to
organize (and pay) for a counterrevolution, then that government is not fit to
govern and should relinquish control. The regime’s humiliation was complete
when the counter-revolution announced its unlimited duration, only to adjourn
essentially by the very next day.
Despite the government’s seeming failings,
the end result is difficult to forecast. Hope springs eternal and the
revolution hopes to join Europe, depose the prime minister and his cabinet, the
president himself and procure the release of all the opposition’s political
prisoners, most importantly among them a former prime minister, opposition
leader and the current president’s worst nightmare.
The final outcome of the EuroMaidan is
impossible to portend. In fact there probably will not be a final outcome, only
a series of dynamic developments but with little certainty.
The only
certainties are that if the people of Ukraine are allowed to choose their own
strategy for their economic and cultural
future, that future would be
within Europe. Furthermore, perhaps more importantly that all else, the events of the EuroMaidan which arose as
a result of the current regime’s unwillingness to respect the will of the Ukrainian people and recognize the people as
determinants of Ukraine’s and their own future, these events have expedited
irreversibly the development of the Ukrainian nation. After all, the EuroMaidan in Ukraine is a revolution of national dignity.
Askold S. Lozynskyj participated in the Euromaidan
in Kyiv from Dec. 12-18.
