Ukraine, alas: ” “will it be revolution?

While events follow their course in Ukraine, we are following the unfolding of the tragedy of history. Many have suffered bitter violence, but people’s willingness to suffer underlines the prevailing yearning for change. As the mood improved, the quest for a comforting prosperity characterizing our daily life started to appear squalid. Nonetheless, political disquiet is rarely clear and without ambiguities, and the fear is realistic. It appears that the euphoric hopes of the “Arab spring” (at this stage, that is not the final one) have produced their poisoned fruits in Syria’s massacres that threaten the stability of bordering Countries. The international community is paralyzed: unable to decide whether its disrespect of the government in force is greater than the fear of the triumph of some among the rebels. How will this hazy, wavering “international community” react to the crisis in Ukraine? Moreover, the primary reality is Ukraine itself. There the events are so important that they should shape our perspective. The corrupted opposition in power of Victor Yanukovich has acquired strength with the passing of months and years. It represents different generations, different religious and ethnic groups. It has not been, as Russia says, a coup d’état. It was not promoted by unhappy military financed by Western secret services, nor does it lean on the sabotage of the economy or of public bodies. It’s a wide, diversified and relatively spontaneous movement, that proved to respect the rules, disciplined and moderate, thanks, not least, to the Churches that have been equally near the Ukrainian protesters as they had been in the shipyard of Gdañsk in 1980. There have not been strong attacks against minority groups. Also the palaces of the corrupted regime have been spared, not plundered. Hovering dark clouds still prevent feelings of triumph. It would be too much to speak of “two Ukraines”, but a substantial part of the Russian-speaking population doesn’t trust the new government. Secondly, the popular movement encompasses right-wing, presumably anti-Semitic stands, although it is not clear to what extent it could have an influence. Thirdly, if we speak of a “revolution” we are well aware that the 2004-2005 “Orange revolution” (that overthrew also Viktor Yanukovich) failed to achieve a decisive change, since Yanukovych won the election – considered to be correct by international observers – in 2010. Now, for the umpteenth time, he waits in the wings, “available” to lead his country, though perhaps he was personally dwarfed by Russia itself. What can be changed in a decisive manner is the geopolitical context. The response of Russia, which has virtually occupied the semi-autonomous region of Crimea, was deliberately defiant. Russia, however, has to face not only the determined attitude of the United States but also that of the European Union, which has so far acted with caution, but has spoken with force. After the summit of March 6, Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, resorted to quasi-apocalyptic language, speaking of “Ukraine’s fatidic moment”, and of an “unprovoked violation of Ukrainian sovereignty” on the part of Russia. He concluded: “The majority of the people of Ukraine has made a decisive choice in favour of our European values”. The Ukrainians “have refused to continue living in Yanukovych’s era of lies, corruption, manipulation, blackmail and poverty. Europe must and wants to support them on the road they have boldly chosen for a better future”. Most of all, after the enlargement of 2004 and 2007, the EU included some States that are well aware of what it means to be subservient to Moscow. It is likely that these States, especially, will ensure that the EU keeps its promises.