The Dish

There was something rather delightful in the way that Ukraine’s refusal to be forced into a Euro-Asian Community of Putin-favored despots ruined the new Tsar’s Olympics. The revolt of the Ukrainians – even some supporters of Yanukovych –  exposes the stark limits of Putin’s approach to politics: always zero-sum, contemptuous of the West, posturing across the globe, acting the way dumb tyrants always act. The Kremlin is now touting the Friday “truce” agreement that its representative refused to sign. And so it is unsurprising that the Kremlin has gone completely over-the-top in reacting to the weekend’s epic events:

“If you consider Kalashnikov-toting people in black masks who are roaming Kiev to be the government, then it will be hard for us to work with that government,” prime minister Medvedev said. “Some of our foreign, western partners think otherwise, considering them to be legitimate authorities. I do not know which constitution, which laws they were reading, but it seems to me it is an aberration … Something that is essentially the result of a mutiny is called legitimate.” …

The Russian foreign ministry statement pressed all the buttons that will have the west and Kiev alarmed about ethnic and religious strife fracturing the country in two. It complained that ethnic Russian rights were already being violated after the parliament rescinded the status of Russian as a second language. “Referring merely to revolutionary expediency, [the parliament] is imposing decisions and laws aimed at repressing the human rights of Russian and other national minorities. There are even calls for a complete ban of the Russian language,” it said.

Now we’ll see how mature the opposition is, and whether it can control its more radical elements, which would only goad Russia to more brinksmanship. Fisher says it’s a positive sign that the parliament took the lead in pushing out Yanukovych on Friday:

What makes this an even bigger deal is that, while foreign countries have played a role, it’s ultimately Ukrainians pushing through a resolution, and doing it democratically. Most of the time, these sorts of crises end when one side is simply defeated outright, or cuts a middle-of-the-night deal brokered by foreign powers. But what’s happening right now in Kiev is being driven by procedural, by-the-letter votes in the country’s own parliament. In many ways, it’s a victory not just for but by democracy and the rule of law.

And that’s maybe the most amazing thing about Parliament so aggressively undermining Yanukovych — that they’re doing it democratically, within the rule of law, following all the rules of procedure and form. That’s just extremely rare in “transitional” states in the long process of developing from an authoritarian to democratic system, particularly post-Soviet states.

It is. But now the president is being charged with mass murder:

The Kyiv Post reports that acting Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced on his Facebook page this morning that Mr. Yanukovych and “other [former] government officials” are wanted for “mass killings of civilians.” Though the charges do not name the alleged victims, the Post writes that it is “presumed that the investigation centers on whether Yanukovych hired snipers or ordered riot police to shoot EuroMaidan [Independence Square] demonstrators in January and February.” At least 100 people have been killed in Ukraine‘s political turmoil, including at least 75 in the past week.

Ioffe worries that demobilizing the protesters’ armed contingent might be a challenge:

The so-called self-defense groups patrolling and ruling the Maidan these last few months are now highly organized groups of men who have tasted victory—and their own power. What do you do after you take up a baseball bat and topple a president? Go back to your day job? The new interim Interior Ministry head said he promised the groups posts inside the Ministry, but the devil will absolutely be in the details: there are a lot of these guys, and some of them really are extremists. Will there be room for all of them? If not, what will happen to the rest?

Uri Friedman says to watch the power struggle:

It’s also worth keeping an eye on what happens among Ukraine’s opposition leaders. The triumvirate —Oleh Tyahnybok of the Svoboda (Freedom) party, Vitali Klitschko’s of the Udar (Punch) party, and Arseniy Yatsenyuk of the Batkivshchina (Fatherland) party—may have united against Yanukovych, but their uneasy alliance is beset by power struggles and ideological divides, particularly between the mainstream opposition parties and the far-right Svoboda party (what U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, in his leaked “Fuck the EU” call with U.S. diplomat Victoria Nuland, referred to as “troubles in the marriage”). Now the powerful Tymoshenko, who some activists support and others view as part of the corrupt political elite, has entered the mix. And the extent to which these leaders can win over the diverse mix of protesters in the street remains an open question.

Max Boot predicts shenanigans from the Kremlin:

We can expect a riposte from Putin before long, and from his allies in Ukraine who are down but not defeated. How the revolution will unfold no one knows, but Ukraine has had plenty of experience of thwarted upheavals. This is, after all, the second popular uprising against Yanukovych, the first being the Orange Revolution of 2004-2005. Although thwarted in his attempt to steal that election, Yanukovych returned to power in 2010, managing to win a fair election after his political adversaries failed to show results while in office.

Bershidsky points out that revolution or no revolution, Ukraine is still broke:

Sweet as revenge may be, what Ukraine needs now isn’t a Yanukovych trial or tourist destinations such as Mezhihirya (pictures of gold-laden interiors of the former prosecutor general’s home are also popular on the social networks). Right now, the country needs $35 billion to avoid default, according to acting Finance Minister Yuri Kolobov, until recently a Yanukovych loyalist. If Ukraine is to get that money from the International Monetary Fund, the European Union the U.S. and, possibly, Russia, it needs to concentrate on finding ways to go forward, not look back at its ugly past. Otherwise, there will be plenty of politicians and bureaucrats hungry for a bite of the aid package, and their gnawing will go unheard in the revolutionary din.

And lastly, Brian Merchant implores us not to stop watching now that that the “excitement” appears to be over:

It’s certainly an overused technique, but framing stories as “apocalyptic” or “dystopian” gives audiences an easy window for empathy. We’re all afraid that our world will fall apart, after all, and seeing it happen anywhere gives us a paroxysm of worry, fear, and guilt. The bombs and clubs are coming down on our fellow humans, and we imagine their specter looming over us too—it’s healthy, I think, to stare, engrossed, with trepidation and sympathy.

But in order for the experience to amount to much more than looking at porn, we have to keep watching. The livestream is still rolling, you know. After the fire-licked glow and apocalyptic combat comes real, 3D-life: the scenes now filling the stream reveal the tumult of compromise, the measuring of loss, and a mass of people groping for the next step.

(Photo: A wanted poster showing a portrait of ousted Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych on February 24, 2014 in Kiev, Ukraine. Ukrainian interim interior minister has today announced that an arrest warrant has been issued for the ousted president. By Rob Stothard/Getty Images.)

Ed Krayewski sees the protests in Ukraine, Venezuela, and Thailand as part of a global backlash against irresponsible “democratic” governments:

To varying extents, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Thailand have democratically-elected governments.  And in each case, those governments, rather than working to do their best to represent all people, have demonized and alienated the opposition, claiming their slim margins of victories as mandates to act in any way they please.

The root problem in each country is unaccountable government. That unaccountability, in each case, is an outgrowth of the attitude that a mere democratic majority (of the actually-voting voting population) suffices to permit the government to do anything it wants under the guise of having a popular mandate for it.

Dalibor Rohac and Juan Carlos Hidalgo note several “striking parallels” between Ukraine and Venezuela. On the two countries’ economies:

In 1990, Ukraine’s GDP per capita was $8,200, which was roughly identical to Poland’s.Today, Poland’s GDP is $18,300 and Ukraine’s has gone down to $6,400. Unlike its post-communist neighbors to the West, Ukraine did not pursue deep institutional reforms and its economy was seized by a narrow group of oligarchs, with close connections to political power and to the Kremlin. The son of the President Viktor Yanukovych, Oleksandr, has become one of the richest men in the country during his father’s time in the office, while incomes of most Ukrainians stagnated.

In Venezuela the economic situation has deteriorated sharply since the death of Hugo Chávez last year. The country has the highest inflation rate in the world (officially 56 percent in 2013, although according to Steve Hanke’s Trouble Currency Project, the implied annual inflation rate is actually 305 percent). After years of nationalizations, expropriations, and currency and price controls—all under the name of “21st Century Socialism”—the private sector has been decimated. Hour-long lines in supermarkets are a daily occurrence and shortages of basic food staples and medicines are widespread. And just like in Ukraine, corruption is rampant as the ruling elite rake in the profits from oil revenues. This has resulted in the rise of a new privileged class called the “Boligarchs.” so-named because they’ve prospered tremendously under the so-called Bolivarian revolution.

(Photo: A man attends a protest against the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas on February 23, 2014. By Raul Arboleda/AFP/Getty Images)