Splitting Ukraine in three? (Or Unheard Voice of the East)

The revolutions of 21st century are represented as a romantic struggle of oppressed against their tyrants. People go on streets to express their disgust and combatĀ for their future. However, it is not the beginning of revolution what matters, but its end.

The first wave of revolution in Ukraine looked as hope to everyone, who saw videos or photos of it.

article-2516473-19C22A9E00000578-178_964x642

Unfortunately, there is a sad fact about revolutions. The number of factions who try to fight with regime does not necessarily bring positive outcome. The general image of successful revolution is that ‘more people go on streets, more chances there are for success’, but what kind of success? Success to overthrow the current government? Yes. Success of building better future? No.

In 2011, the world has seen what some people in academic world called ‘new wave of democratic revolutions’. Ā This wave took place in the Middle East and brought the overthrow of leaders in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

In all of these revolutions, the various factions and political elements got involved, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, rebel and Islamist forces in Libya etc. What started as ‘struggle’ for democracy has become a great political game inside the country, tearing country apart and de facto creating small independent power zones in different parts of the state. So when this transition from ‘united struggle for democracy’ to ‘separated struggle for power’ happens?

The revolution even in the most oppressive regimesĀ does not necessarily bring prosperity and bright future. The problem comes with the weakening of central government and decay of the country into several so – called power centers.

The best example is the situation in Ukraine since the beginning of mass protests in November last year. The real escalation of the situation started not on ‘Euromaidan’ protests, but when the Eastern Ukraine decided to separate. The central government of Kiev with its interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk showed their weakness when they stopped being under control of the situation in Crimea. The recent events in the cities of Donetsk, Lugansk and Kharkov show that the Interim government loses control even in those crucial regions.

The reason of this is not the ‘covert actions of Russia’ , but in protests in Maidan. The protests, which started there involved mainly people from Kiev and the West of the country, while people of the East remained silent.

It is better not to tell ‘ifs’ , but in case of participation of Ukrainian East in Euromaidan, the current situation could be completely different. Today, East of Ukraine feels excluded from Kiev, and understands that nobody cares about them. While Yatsenyuk is doing his ‘West Tour, Easterners are asking , where is our voice in the new future of Ukraine?’

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Standard

Ian Bremmer “It’s Russia vs. West”

Ian Bremmer is an American political scientist specializing in US foreign policy. In the interview he told that it’s “Russia vs. West”. It’s impossible to deny his argument. Since the beginning, it was obvious that the political events in the Ukraine are purely geostrategic and have nothing to do with the economy (economy involved, but not the priority).

Ukraine is located in the centre of Europe and plays a key military, economic and political role. let’s go through them quickly.

1) Ukraine maybe does not have the most modern, well equipped and trained army, but its location is important for at least three countries. The first country or let’s call it a coalition called NATO. The strategic position of Ukraine next to the sea ports is a massive region where key military points could be based. it’s a good land and sea position.
Russia’s interest in Ukraine as military place is clear. The naval port and the use of Ukraine as a “buffer zone” is important. Also, Ukraine is a centre of production of military equipment for Russian military, particularly helicopter engines. This industry, land and sea access cannot be left, especially it’s important not to let NATO to come so close to the borders.

Let’s talk about Turkey, which could be interested in Crimea. Despite that no official claims were made… Historically the battles for Crimea were important for Turkey, so won’t be surprised if one day in the future Turkey will decide to take some actions.

2) Political.
There are still two systems of government, two ways of controlling mentality and desire to be open to a bigger market. Ukraine has a capability to grow and expand, the question who is it going to be. Let’s be clear here, Russia is interested in Ukraine because of its gas pipelines, and as long as South channel for delivering Russian gas to EU is not opened, Russia is both controlling and at the same time dependent on Ukraine. Russia would be a clear winner if the south line would be already opened. Imagine switching off the gas, therefore heat in entire country… meanwhile not damaging your trade relations with EU partners..

3) Political process.

Ukraine is a buffer zone of political competition. It’s really dependent on who is going and in what kind of way to govern Ukraine. The possibility for Russian economy to grow is widely dependent on Ukraine’s big market.

The problem for Ukraine currently is about where is it going to get money? Is EU with its own economic situation ready to give money and take the responsibility for the country of 46 million? I don’t think so.
What about US? Is 1 billion which is promised going to save Ukraine? No.

The only hope right now is about IMF, but some analysts say, the amount of money for support is too high. The only country which could save Ukraine, if the deal would be successful was Russia. As the protests began Russia promised 15 billion dollars for stabilisation… Hmmm… It’s different from 1 billion, which is promised to Ukraine right now…

P.S. Unfortunately I could not embed the video into the post for technical reasons here is the direct link : http://www.bloomberg.com/video/embed/GcuYUKk_R4yaWx7jgDkaJw?height=395&width=640

Standard

Edward Snowden’s speech at SXSW. “Would I do it again? Absolutely yes!”

The Verge:
“NSA leaker Edward Snowden addressed a packed auditorium at South by Southwest today, speaking via livestream from Russia. In response to questions from ACLU program director Ben Wizner, Snowden called on internet service developers to thwart the NSA by making strong encryption ubiquitous. “They’re setting fire to the future of the internet,” Snowden told the audience. “The people who are in this room now, you’re all the firefighters. And we need you to help us fix this.”

In conjunction with Wizner’s co-presenter Christopher Soghoian, Snowden called for end-to-end encryption that would keep the NSA from snooping on data simply by tapping into servers or internet backbone cables. The goal, they insisted, wasn’t to “blind the NSA” but to make bulk collection unfeasible. Encryption technologies like Tor can effectively secure communications, but they’re difficult to implement for many people, especially when less secure options are virtually painless (Snowden’s talk was held through Google Hangouts.) Nonetheless, Snowden said they could provide real protection against surveillance. “Encryption does work. It’s the defense against the dark arts in the digital realm,” he said.

After absconding with leaked NSA documents, Snowden is living in Russia under a temporary asylum agreement, and his future is precarious; US officials have called for him to return and face charges for the leaks. Nonetheless, he said in today’s talk that he doesn’t regret his decisions. “Would I do it again? Absolutely yes,” he said. “I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I felt the Constitution was being violated on a massive scale.” Snowden’s talk has concluded, but the ACLU will be posting a replay, and a live-blog archive is currently available.”

Here’s the full speech of Mr. Snowden at SXSW

Standard

Attention! Propaganda!

modern-slave-consume-fear

In the recent events in Ukraine, the media has showed what real soft – war means. In this soft – war , sides use many non – lethal weapons to win the hearts and minds of the people. The most of the times this battle is going on large media channels such as CNN, Fox News, BBC, Al – Jazeera and RT. These companies showed how reporting from a different angle is. Ignoring the facts, which ‘break’ the image they want to show or maintain. Here are the reports by RT correspondent, Gayane Chichakyan, which shows the perspective of some media agencies. I know this report is one sided too, but it gathers the opinion of the main news outlets and I could not find any similar report as this.

Propaganda episode 1.

Propaganda episode 2

Propaganda episode 3

Standard

National Security reporters are the new kind of refugees

The Verge:

Speaking via SkypeĀ before an audience of thousands at South by Southwest, Julian Assange made the case for a new golden age of national security reporting, conducted largely by Americans in exile. “National security reporters are a new kind of refugee,” Assange said, then ran down a list of American reporters and activists who have left US borders in order to continue their work, including Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Wikileaks’ Sarah Harrison, and Tor researcher Jacob Appelbaum.

Ā FULL POSTĀ 

Standard

Investigative Journalism?

 

 

When the Olympic Games had begun, the first reports in mainstream media were unfinished toilets without walls, stray dogs, and door handles. Luckily, it was not only that and as Jimmy Kimmel prank showed, the case of real investigative journalism is long over. I recommend you to watch it and comment below.

Standard