Ukraine thread -

[Elheru Aran]

Related:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014 ... st/100667/

Picture 32 is interesting. Why would the police be pitching Molotovs at the protesters? Isn't it generally the other way around, or are the Ukrainian police out of better options?

I suspect it's more a case of the Molotov landed near the cop and he decided to throw it back before it went off on him.

[Lonestar]

So it turns out that the Ukrainian police are firing door breaching/car stopping rounds into the protesters

[madd0ct0r]

A number of protesters seem to be acquiring riot shields of their own. One had a smiley painted on it.

[madd0ct0r]

A number of protesters seem to be acquiring riot shields of their own
. One had a smiley painted on it.

[fgalkin]

I've never seen people act so strongly against their own self-interest. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Even leaving aside all the problems of the EU, what do they think free trade with Europe will do to their own crumbing industry? Their two big complaints are corruption and unemployment, do they seriously believe they will get BETTER with the EU agreement?

Really, it's all about the younger generation thinking that they will somehow magically be elevated to a Western European standard of living, and wanting to go to Europe without a visa. That is what they're really committing acts of armed insurrection (like raiding houses and hostels throughout Kiev at night and kidnapping government supporters and police officers) for. Sad.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Siege]

We've been here before during the 'Orange Revolution' of 2004-2005. Very little seems to have changed since then.

That's also why some of the earlier comments in this thread regarding how the EU is getting "schooled" in "ruthless diplomacy" don't sit well with me. I think the EU is doing the right thing by opening the door to Ukraine but leaving it up to the Ukrainians to decide whether to step through it or not.

I don't think it's okay for the EU to impose itself on others. Ukraine has problems, but the Ukrainians can think for themselves, they can make their own choices, and they're the ones who'll have to live with them. The EU doesn't need to come swooping in to save them. If they want and ask for help that's one thing, but brow-beating them into a relationship they do not want is a terrible idea and almost certainly counterproductive in the long run. Perhaps that does not matter as much when you're a strong-arming oligarchic mobocracy like Russia, but I'd like to think the EU is at least better than that.

Besides, if the idea that the cooperative model is superior to ye olde stickbeat diplomacy holds any water there's no need to rush things anyway. Because in that case if in one year or five or ten Ukraine decides to come around the EU will happily take 'em then.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, quite a few things are different since the "Orange Revolution". Namely, there's been no improvement in the living standards, and maybe even a worsening, and it's been like a decade!

But fgalkin is right: Ukraine won't become a Western European country overnight, and those hoping for it are just misguided. The Ukraininan nationalists do understand it better: Ukraine's economy might go down the drain, but it won't be subject to Russian pressure anymore if it enters the EU. That's the real goal, not some economic revival. At best, it can hope for a Bulgaria/Romania-like situation, where a sizeable fraction of the population leaves for Western Europe as gastarbeiters and prop up the economy through remittances. Cruel, but that will be the only thing left. Industry, which isn't terribly competitive overall, will die. The more competitive enterprises are in high-value added sectors that Europe will not tolerate (e.g. aviation, rocket construction), so these will go down as well. Not that Russia is terribly helpful to Antonov, too, but they keep the enterprise afloat and even give it a chance to try and sell their services on the world market - the joint design work on future Chinese aircraft with AVIC comes to mind here.

For Ukraine it's a matter of choosing between bad and worse, though. Is it going to be strong-armed into remaining Russia's subordinate failed state, or will it become failing East-European periphery, both choices don't really give it a chance at a decent future.

Although of course just watching the glee on Russian TV is... disgusting. They're using this once again to warn people "how bad revolutions are". Well sure thing. They are bad, and that's why they are the last resort, when other options are exhausted.

[Thanas]

We've been here before during the 'Orange Revolution' of 2004-2005. Very little seems to have changed since then.

That's also why some of the earlier comments in this thread regarding how the EU is getting "schooled" in "ruthless diplomacy" don't sit well with me. I think the EU is doing the right thing by opening the door to Ukraine but leaving it up to the Ukrainians to decide whether to step through it or not.

Of course they are doing the right thing. I don't want them to become as ruthless as Putin.

But being nice also leads yourself to being outmaneuvered by people with no scruples, which is what happened here.

[Siege]

We're in agreement on what really matters. I'm not comfortable describing these circumstances with a term like "schooled" though. That implies the EU has something left to learn, whereas in reality it's more to do with simply not wanting to stoop to that level. "Outmaneuvered" maybe, but even that sounds kinda dodgy, like this is a game of tag and Ukraine is the prize. It's a little too zero-sum for me.

The EU offers one thing, Russia another. Whichever offer the Ukrainians accept shouldn't mean an automatic loss for the other guy, because that sort of thinking sounds like it's a long way up spheres of influence creek, and that creek leads to nothing but trouble. Diplomacy should strive for non–zero-sum solutions. Putin probably doesn't agree, but then neither would Don Corleone. I don't see why we'd take our lessons on international relations from guys like them and I suspect Brussels agrees with me on that. And that's why I feel it's not the EU getting schooled here.

Then again maybe that's just me being very particular about choice of words.

[Thanas]

You may not think so, but to me it is quite clear that a lot of nations operate under the principle of who is the big dog on the block, for lack of better wording. Thankfully their opinions do not matter that much to the EU (yet), so we got that going for us.

However in those nations who in the past have been occupied by the soviets and who feel it every time Putin decides to play tough and hike gas prizes for no reasons (remember that game which happened every winter until two years ago?) the populace might care a bit more. They might very well think of this in terms of the "how much will the EU really sacrifice when push comes to shove" litmus test and view this as just one more instance of the EU caving in the face of Russian pressure. And I think that over the past few years the EU and especially Germany (what with Schröder and Putin being buddies) failed to assuage those fears.

I am not sure if offering the Ukraine concrete investment benefits to at least match the soviet offer would not have been a good choice, it would have shown the EU to be serious about investing into the welfare of the Ukraine instead of demanding a lot of change for no tangible short-term benefit.

[K. A. Pital]

who feel it every time Putin decides to play tough and hike gas prizes for no reasons (remember that game which happened every winter until two years ago?)

Thanas, I'm afraid you're simply a bit out of touch with the news if you think the hikes don't have very clear reasons. Each of the hikes had a very precise political objective. Gas and oil are political tools just as good as anything. The last hike in Belorussia, for example, had the goals to coopt the leader into the new "Customs Union" that Putin was building. Initially Lukashenko was opposed, but after his country was put back to the wall he agreed. Now the very same things may happen to Yanukovich if he steers in Russia's side and decides to play with the Customs Union a bit - in the end they'll just force him in. Unlike Kazakhstan and Russia which are the primary beneficiaries, the "transit nations" like Ukraine and Belorussia that have two large income sources: remnants of advanced Soviet industry and transit pipelines, are clear losers, but imperialist revanchists in Russia seem to get their way sooner or later.

[Siege]

"Match the Soviet offer", eh Thanas? That's an interesting slip of the tongue .

You're right when you say the EU has in the past failed to assuage the worries of East-European nations with respect to Russia though. I think that's mainly because the EU has until very recently been very inwardly focussed and only relatively recently actually come up to the edges of Russia's "sphere of influence", for lack of a less dirty word. Until Poland et al entered the EU Russia was a long ways away, and until even more recently than that EU common foreign policy was scattershot at best (and to a large extent it still is). This is an area where improvements can be made and are necessary, albeit preferably in a shape that gives states the assurance that the EU will stand up for them without needlessly alienating or antagonizing the Russians.

I'm less sure about offering to match the Russian offer though. I'd prefer not to get into splurging matches, it feels too much like trying to buy off corrupt states to me. I wouldn't want to start a partnership off that way. And if we hand billions of euros to the Ukrainians, what are other potential partners to make of that? Won't they take it as a signal that if they get in dire enough straits the EU will come galloping in on its white horse made of money to bail them out?

Whatever incentives are offered should be meaningful long-term and preferably also address the issues Stas raised with regards to uncompetitive industries. Ideally those industries should receive partnerships, limited protection or some other impetus to get them competitive again, so that they won't collapse in an instant when suddenly forced to compete with western European challengers. I'm not sure how to go about doing it, but I'd like to prevent a situation like the post-reunification East Germany if at all possible.

[Thanas]

"Match the Soviet offer", eh Thanas? That's an interesting slip of the tongue .

Da.

I'm less sure about offering to match the Russian offer though. I'd prefer not to get into splurging matches, it feels too much like trying to buy off corrupt states to me. I wouldn't want to start a partnership off that way. And if we hand billions of euros to the Ukrainians, what are other potential partners to make of that? Won't they take it as a signal that if they get in dire enough straits the EU will come galloping in on its white horse made of money to bail them out?

I think they might have gotten that message from, Greece, Ireland, Iceland (who was not even a member of the EU and likely will not join), Portugal and Spain already.

Whatever incentives are offered should be meaningful long-term and preferably also address the issues Stas raised with regards to uncompetitive industries. Ideally those industries should receive partnerships, protections or some other impetus to get them competitive again, so that they won't collapse in an instant when suddenly forced to compete with western European challengers. I'm not sure how to go about doing it, but I'd like to prevent a situation like the post-reunification East Germany if at all possible.

Sure. But post-reunification East Germany went pretty well all things considered. It let a lot of decrepit industries die, invested in things that matter (infrastructure) and kept high technology manufacturing like Zeiss alive. There are worse examples, like the reconstruction of Kosovo (Mafia galore). And I don't have faith of Ukrainian industry being able to become suddenly competitive, not without decades of catching up - which is unrealistic IMO.

But you need something of an immediate nature to help the populace get the message. Money talks. Putin is willing to spend that money. I am quite okay for spending a lot of money to get the Ukraine into the EU because in the long run I believe this to benefit the community. Besides, we are already spending billions to bail out Greece and the rest. One billion or two more will not matter that much and might be spent more productively on the Ukraine than on Greece.

[Siege]

I think they might have gotten that message from, Greece, Ireland, Iceland (who was not even a member of the EU and likely will not join), Portugal and Spain already.

Those rescue packages came with harsh conditions attached. I'm not up to date with the terms and conditions Russia attached to its bailout of Ukraine, but it seems to me that if we'd wanted to match or improve on their offer in a way we probably wouldn't be able to do it on the same terms as the EU bailouts. I imagine in the mirror universe where we did and Ukraine accepted it there are violent riots much like there are in ours, except it's pro-Russian activists throwing molotvs at the pro-EU government instead.

Sure. But post-reunification East Germany went pretty well all things considered. It let a lot of decrepit industries die, invested in things that matter (infrastructure) and kept high technology manufacturing like Zeiss alive. There are worse examples, like the reconstruction of Kosovo (Mafia galore). And I don't have faith of Ukrainian industry being able to become suddenly competitive, not without decades of catching up - which is unrealistic IMO.

I can't speak to that. I think it's important to find a way to relieve what's sure to be a painful transition though. If I were managing the transition just letting Ukraininan manufacturing collapse in on itself would be unacceptable, because letting hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs is not how I would want to start off my new partnership. That's a great way to generate resentment and bitterness, increase the existing divide in the country and basically turn an entire nation into a variant of post-Thatcher Scotland or any other wasteland of sudden industrial collapse. Allowing that to happen to Ukraine also doesn't actually benefit anyone except the owners of established western industries and they have plenty benefits already, they don't need any more.

Perhaps Poland, the Czech Republic or other Eastern European nations can provide do's and don't's on how to manage such a transition.

But you need something of an immediate nature to help the populace get the message. Money talks. Putin is willing to spend that money. I am quite okay for spending a lot of money to get the Ukraine into the EU because in the long run I believe this to benefit the community. Besides, we are already spending billions to bail out Greece and the rest. One billion or two more will not matter that much and might be spent more productively on the Ukraine than on Greece.

In the grand scheme of the bailouts 15 billion is not all that much money, that's for sure. I'm not fundamentally opposed to helping Ukraine out with a sack of cash, but I doubt that's actually enough money to make a structural difference. And is that money going to be spent on the right things, or will it just line the pockets of some corrupt assholes in Kiev? What kind of message does handing Yanukovich billions of euroes send to the populace anyway? Is that the message we want to send? And once we've sent 15 billion abroad, how much more will we be expected to fork out to keep ourselves in the good books of the Ukrainian government? Won't this turn into a race between Moscow and Brussels as to who can throw the most money at this situation? All in all I'd be extremely hesitant to go down this route.

[Omega18]

I've never seen people act so strongly against their own self-interest. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Even leaving aside all the problems of the EU, what do they think free trade with Europe will do to their own crumbing industry? Their two big complaints are corruption and unemployment, do they seriously believe they will get BETTER with the EU agreement?

Really, it's all about the younger generation thinking that they will somehow magically be elevated to a Western European standard of living, and wanting to go to Europe without a visa. That is what they're really committing acts of armed insurrection (like raiding houses and hostels throughout Kiev at night and kidnapping government supporters and police officers) for. Sad.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

There seem to be some economic assumptions in this thread which are simply wildly off base regarding Ukraine joining the EU.

The Ukraine's nominal GDP per capita is currently about $3,682 per capita (with nominal in some ways being the key stat here) while even Romania has a GDP per capita of about $8,630, and its $13,334 for Poland for example. It should be noted that Greece still has a nominal GDP per capita of $21,617 for perspective. (Greece's problems specifically involve the sheer exceptionally high level of debt loads they managed to accumulate and the standards of living people in the country are used to among other things. The Ukraine simply would not have a comparable situation to the Greek one anytime soon since they are starting from a much lower GDP per capita.)

The Ukraine would immediately have a lower wage advantage over other countries in the EU, and this makes the industry question may more complex than some of the analysis in this thread. While some companies would presumably go out of business, others would presumably adapt and take advantage of the lower costs they are paying for salaries versus other EU zone competitors. There also should be instances where foreign companies end up moving their factories to the Ukraine to take advantage of the lower wages such as has occurred with Poland. This wage advantage factor should also apply to companies and other industries and in total should provide the Ukraine with much of its GDP growth. (Even in the case of Romania it should be noted that the general trend for Romania's GDP has been growth with the only years of decline being 2009 & 2010 with the effects of the general EU wide recession.)

In other words, while it certainly would be disruptive, those protestors have strong reason to believe the Ukraine would ultimately economically benefit from joining the EU.

For all the corruption issues the EU might genuinely have, its still vastly better than the current situation in the Ukraine.

In general, unless the Ukraine truly move definitely towards Russia in the rather near term, they certainly are not going to get closer in the long run. The key is there are dramatic differences in the fertility and birth rates in favor of the western Ukraine (generally far more strongly pro-EU) in comparison to the eastern (and by far most pro-Russian side) with the lowest birth rates, specifically in oblasts such as Luhansk and Donetsk which are key strongholds for pro-Russian sentiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine
http://demographymatters.blogspot.com/2 ... aphic.html

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I've never seen people act so strongly against their own self-interest. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Even leaving aside all the problems of the EU, what do they think free trade with Europe will do to their own crumbing industry? Their two big complaints are corruption and unemployment, do they seriously believe they will get BETTER with the EU agreement?

Really, it's all about the younger generation thinking that they will somehow magically be elevated to a Western European standard of living, and wanting to go to Europe without a visa. That is what they're really committing acts of armed insurrection (like raiding houses and hostels throughout Kiev at night and kidnapping government supporters and police officers) for. Sad.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

There seem to be some economic assumptions in this thread which are simply wildly off base regarding Ukraine joining the EU.

The Ukraine's nominal GDP per capita is currently about $3,682 per capita (with nominal in some ways being the key stat here) while even Romania has a GDP per capita of about $8,630, and its $13,334 for Poland for example. It should be noted that Greece still has a nominal GDP per capita of $21,617 for perspective. (Greece's problems specifically involve the sheer exceptionally high level of debt loads they managed to accumulate and the standards of living people in the country are used to among other things. The Ukraine simply would not have a comparable situation to the Greek one anytime soon since they are starting from a much lower GDP per capita.)

The Ukraine would immediately have a lower wage advantage over other countries in the EU, and this makes the industry question may more complex than some of the analysis in this thread. While some companies would presumably go out of business, others would presumably adapt and take advantage of the lower costs they are paying for salaries versus other EU zone competitors. There also should be instances where foreign companies end up moving their factories to the Ukraine to take advantage of the lower wages such as has occurred with Poland. This wage advantage factor should also apply to companies and other industries and in total should provide the Ukraine with much of its GDP growth. (Even in the case of Romania it should be noted that the general trend for Romania's GDP has been growth with the only years of decline being 2009 & 2010 with the effects of the general EU wide recession.)

In other words, while it certainly would be disruptive, those protestors have strong reason to believe the Ukraine would ultimately economically benefit from joining the EU.

For all the corruption issues the EU might genuinely have, its still vastly better than the current situation in the Ukraine.

In general, unless the Ukraine truly move definitely towards Russia in the rather near term, they certainly are not going to get closer in the long run. The key is there are dramatic differences in the fertility and birth rates in favor of the western Ukraine (generally far more strongly pro-EU) in comparison to the eastern (and by far most pro-Russian side) with the lowest birth rates, specifically in oblasts such as Luhansk and Donetsk which are key strongholds for pro-Russian sentiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine
http://demographymatters.blogspot.com/2 ... aphic.html

You think you have better sources of information than two ethnic Russians?

[madd0ct0r]

The GDP argument is pretty persuasive. Coupled with the gastarbeiter injection of cash and (five years later) returning entrepreneurs, I can see why the eu might be desired. Plus, of course, Soviet memories.

[K. A. Pital]

The Ukraine would immediately have a lower wage advantage over other countries in the EU, and this makes the industry question may more complex than some of the analysis in this thread.

Latvia is a good example - industrially that place is a cripple, it survives on remittances from a very large number of emigrants. The only people still there are either too place-attached or too old to move out into the EU, since the gap in living standards is so enormous. Ukraine would be immediately in the same situation if it ever joins the Eurozone: it will be stripped of its best engineers and specialists, who will go work somewhere else. Even more affluent countries like Spain and Italy are feeling the sting of this, and people there are way more attached to their respective homelands.

Even in the case of Romania it should be noted that the general trend for Romania's GDP has been growth with the only years of decline being 2009 & 2010 with the effects of the general EU wide recession.

Romania and Bulgaria remain the poorest parts of the Union. Also, GDP growth does not equal industrial growth, as many nations on the Europeriphery found out the hard way.

Now, I do think that being a Bulgaria is better than being Ukraine. So I'm fairly confident even these marginal benefits are worth the fight. But I'm not having any illusions that it will be a rosy future.

[Siege]

Ukrainian opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk says protests will continue after he rejected President Viktor Yanukovych's offer to appoint him as prime minister of the country.

Mr Yatsenyuk said the opposition was generally ready to accept leadership, but several key demands must be met, including new elections.

Clashes continued overnight. Activists stormed a Kiev building housing police.

The president's proposal came amid new efforts to end the deadly unrest.

He offered the post of prime minister to Mr Yatsenyuk and the position of deputy PM to former boxer Vitali Klitschko following talks on Saturday.

But the BBC's David Stern, in Kiev, says the opposition - confident in its position - appears to have taken these offers as a sign of weakness on Mr Yanukovych's part, and is forging ahead with the campaign to unseat him.

'Not afraid'

Speaking to large crowds in central of Kiev late on Saturday, the opposition leaders repeated their demands.

"Viktor Yanukovych announced that the government wasn't ready to take the responsibility for the country and offered to the opposition to lead the government," said Mr Yatsenyuk.

"What is our response to this? We are not afraid of the responsibility for the destiny of Ukraine."

Later, in a tweet Mr Yatsenyuk said: "No deal @ua_yanukovych, we're finishing what we started. The people decide our leaders, not you."

Mr Yatsenyuk says that Tuesday, when a special session of parliament has been called, will be "judgement day".

Full article at the link. The opposition must feel confident indeed. Also I can't help but admire that particular bit of rhetoric on Yatsenyuk's side, it's very clever and compelling spin indeed.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I guess the offer was to get appointed PM the same way Papadimos was appointed in Greece. That would mean Yatsenyuk would have to work with the party currently in power and get them to cooperate with his proposals, while they can presumably withdraw support the moment it is most humiliating to him. I can't fathom why he refused.

Also, for those with heads on the ground there beyond the media: what's the perception regarding the riots? Are they viewed as punks out to smash shit? If that's the case, then any proposed elections would be tough for the pro-EU side.

[Irbis]

We've been here before during the 'Orange Revolution' of 2004-2005. Very little seems to have changed since then.

That's also why some of the earlier comments in this thread regarding how the EU is getting "schooled" in "ruthless diplomacy" don't sit well with me. I think the EU is doing the right thing by opening the door to Ukraine but leaving it up to the Ukrainians to decide whether to step through it or not.

I don't think it's okay for the EU to impose itself on others.

Ahem, one point of order. Here's something about the supposed Orange Revolution how I saw it from a city quite close to Ukrainian border. A view a bit different than idealized sugary presentation seen in western media. In a sense, EU did impose itself on Ukraine, or at least its Russophobic elements did, for better or worse reasons.

Let's start from the beginning. The elections later dubbed the Orange Revolution, in 2004. Yushchenko vs Yanukovych. First being seen as pro-EU, the other as pro-Russian candidate. The results of first vote, implied to be falsified, was 49% to 46%. The EU anti-Russian states and USA immediately applied huge pressure on the victor, Yanukovych, and after 2 weeks of relentless propaganda, Yanukovych finally agreed to relent and make third round, this time declared fair due to results: 51% to 44% for Yushchenko.

This is 5% change - after 2 weeks of extremely one-sided campaign and threats from the west. I at the time wanted Oranges to win, but I remember I was extremely disgusted at the tone and loudness of it. To me, back then, it wasn't democratic as Yanukovych wasn't given any chances to defend itself. And yet, the so called falsified votes showed just minor, barely larger than margin of error change compared to fair ones...

Why I say this? Falsified elections in post-Soviet zone is nothing new, right? for two reasons. One, because EU compromited itself supporting Yushchenko. 3 years of searching, and Yushchenko's men had little to nothing to show for the election frauds. No one important was prosecuted. No big proof was found. All they had to show were minor, local officials with small irregularities. That bit him in the ass big time in the next election - in 2010, Yushchenko vs Yanukovych rematch ended up 49% to 5%. Yes, man who was made vile cheater 5 years earlier returned in glory of victim as no one could prove it.

Two, and it's the biggest irony of this, Yanukovych was not pro-Russian, despite propaganda. Party that backed him, was primarily party of Eastern Ukrainian big oligarchs, interested in money, not ideology. They paid lip service to Russian electorate, but wanted to be close with EU, more interested in EU markets, homes, technologies and money than anything Russia could offer. Too bad after Yanukovych was crushed with the same EU blessing the very strong EU backing group in his party lost most of its influence. EU could easily bring them within their own sphere of influence - but instead they backed western oligarchs of Yushchenko, who turned out to be so weak and corrupt the internal infighting all but destroyed that group until 2010. That's why Yushchenko got just 5% of votes in election he himself overseen.

Anyway, the point of it is - it's extremely naive to expect Yanukovych, who was burned and humiliated by the last deal he did with EU, which basically amounted to coup d'etat, to agree to anything EU has to say without a huge sweetener. Putin doesn't have to promise him much - all he needs to do is to not attach too many strings to a deal. Yanukovych knows this time he won't deal with weak Yushchenko who tried to at least keep up a semblance of law - the protests are inspired by nationalists, and the best he can expect from them is a bullet, if one grabs power. Look at the protest map - the whole east of Ukraine is mostly calm, the protests are strongest where right wingers are.

There might be some 'democrats' involved, too, but these groups are small and divided, none of them can match the fascist groups in strength. Not without people who back Yanukovych, and these didn't joined the protests. Frankly, Ukraine can't be a democracy without everyone who isn't nationalist agreeing to keep them out of power, and the 'democratic' groups foolishly alienate east by trying to ally with right wingers. Just like parties in certain state in 1933 did.

The EU offers one thing, Russia another. Whichever offer the Ukrainians accept shouldn't mean an automatic loss for the other guy, because that sort of thinking sounds like it's a long way up spheres of influence creek, and that creek leads to nothing but trouble. Diplomacy should strive for non–zero-sum solutions.

But it is zero sum game. Ukraine needs either EAEC or EU markets. The problem is, joining one free trade zone means not joining either - as neither of them will agree to Ukraine being customs-less hole to the other zone. Therefore, Ukraine must pick, and its nationalist west wants to join EU, away from Russia, while east that still considers itself Russia proper wants to join EAEC. How do you solve it without splitting the country?

[mr friendly guy]

This is a silly question, but aren't there European countries who have access to the EU common market without being members? Is it possible legally for Ukraine to join Putin's Russia's Eurasian Union and have access to the European market? In effect a best of both worlds scenario.

[Irbis]

This is a silly question, but aren't there European countries who have access to the EU common market without being members? Is it possible legally for Ukraine to join Putin's Russia's Eurasian Union and have access to the European market? In effect a best of both worlds scenario.

These countries are members of the EFTA. This is pretty much 'we're non-committed members of EU without right to vote and with deniability before our electorate'. They are all small, old democracy countries with strong ties to important EU members. They combined have smaller population than any of 8 big EU countries. For comparison, Ukraine + EAEC would be almost 50% of EU population, opening customs hole of that size would require pretty much agreement of every EU state to let Russia and Belarus de facto join EFTA. I don't see it happening, sadly. It's one or the other.

Related:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014 ... st/100667/

Picture 32 is interesting. Why would the police be pitching Molotovs at the protesters? Isn't it generally the other way around, or are the Ukrainian police out of better options?

I suspect it's more a case of the Molotov landed near the cop and he decided to throw it back before it went off on him.

Yeah, pretty much. If you look, identical, broken bottle lies behind him.

One thing I love is how under every picture you can see 'pro-EU protester' throwing 'incendiary device' or 'firework', not 'rioter throwing a grenade'. Without massage, it wouldn't be so sweet, would it? Anyway, interesting thing of note is lower leg armor and high boots on many of the protesters. I actually saw that explained on the TV interview yesterday - cut bottles and stones fired by catapults as 'artillery support' shatter on pavement and go right under riot shields, producing nasty leg wounds. This is no longer a riot, in some areas it's open battle with police forces.

Two photos to put these mostly in perspective: here's how the situation looked yesterday:



Blue - mostly calm, teal - protests, orange - clashes with police, red - protesters trying to grab power and replace authorities. This map, sadly, shows divide in country well. Kiev is the city in circle.

Another photo form the protests:



Looks calm, until you notice portraits of Bandera and black-red flags of UPA. These are people that even today preach need of ethnical cleansing of parts of eastern Poland and Slovakia (San river tributary) to return them to motherland. In red areas of the above map, protesters started hanging black-red next to EU blue with stars. The irony.

[TronPaul]

40 or so pictures of the streets of Kiev with some commentary here.

[Irbis]

40 or so pictures of the streets of Kiev with some commentary here.

The commentary is a bit one sided, though. He focuses on main democratic protest, on Majdan, where most of the journalists and sane people go, ignoring the other centres of dissent. Here is relation from the other side, on second protest near Dynamo football stadion, where right wingers, nationalists and football hooligans gathered. As the author points out, this 'protest' is a big problem for opposition leaders and a gift for government.