Edward Lucas Rebel defeat will be little cause for celebration It is better when bad guys lose than when they win. But it is not necessarily cause for cheer. The spectre of the Russian-backed insurgency in Ukraine spreading north and west from Crimea, and the prospect of an all-out civil war has receded. But the end (or a pause) of Europe’s bloodiest conflict since the war in ex-Yugoslavia is no great cause for celebration. Ukraine is in dire straits. Russia – if it indeed allows its proxies to be defeated – will need to salve its pride, meaning more problems elsewhere. And the West, divided and distracted, is in no state to deal adequately with what is still Europe’s gravest security crisis for decades. Any one of Ukraine’s three crises – economic, constitutional and geopolitical – would be enough to capsize the country. The combination looks like a perfect storm. Even before Russia began its dismemberment of Ukraine, the country was in economic meltdown. During its four years in power the regime of the now-disgraced president Viktor Yanukovych reversed economic reform, corrupted state institutions, and (with the help of Western bankers and lawyers) stole tens of billions of dollars. The scale of that is ably documented in ‘Looting Ukraine’, a new study by the Legatum Institute. Anger at this propelled the new pro-Western authorities into power – but its foul legacy would be daunting at the best of times. Coupled with the cost and dislocation of war, it is overwhelming. Unemployment and inflation are rocketing. The currency is plunging. The economy is likely to shrink by 7% this year. Public finances are stricken, with unpredictable tax rises dealing yet another blow to business confidence. Almost none of the stolen money has been recovered. And all this before winter, when Russia’s grip on gas supplies is most potent. Ukraine’s government is a mess. Public administration, with a few shining exceptions, remains mired in the habits of Soviet provincial bureaucracy. The Rada (parliament) was elected under the Yanukovych regime, and its composition reflects the worst features of his reign. What hope is there of establishing the rule of law, with lawmakers who brazenly bought their seats in the hope of personal gain? War and revolution, even if the better side wins, breed bitterness, grudges and divisions. Ukraine was not a divided country before its recent woes. Much outside coverage hugely overstated and simplified differences in language and attitudes to history. But the wounds of the past year would take decades to heal, even without meddling from a malevolent neighbour. To win the war, the Ukrainian authorities have struck two devil’s bargains. One is with the oligarchs – politically influential tycoons who loathed the predatory Yanukovych regime but inspire little confidence when it comes to creating a law-governed, open society. They have bankrolled the war. They will expect a reward. That will infuriate the idealists who once thronged the Maidan in central Kiev, and who want their country to treat them with the openness, dignity, legality and efficiency that they regard as their European birthright. Secondly, the regular armed forces are fighting alongside volunteer militias with questionable (and sometimes revolting) political views. What happens to them when the fighting stops? Marauding bands of tough, confident armed men, expecting to be treated as national heroes, will undermine country’s fragile political system, not strengthen it. On top of all that, the reconstruction of the east will be a monumental political as well as economic task. Before the war Ukraine’s rustbelt was badly run, even by the pitiful standards of administration elsewhere. Restoring ruined homes, roads, schools and hospitals to their former state will be a huge burden on the empty public purse, let alone making public services good enough to inspire loyalty and enthusiasm. Equally difficult will be the restoration of constitutional government. Although Russia stoked the rebellion, the suspicion in some parts of the east of the pro-Western protests and the new leadership they installed is real. Many locals will be all too ready to see government rule as occupation. Meanwhile loyalists will want justice for forced labour, beatings, looting and arbitrary imprisonment meted out by the insurgent authorities. The best hope for peace and reconciliation within Ukraine is decentralisation – but it is hard to imagine that in a form that does not leave the country vulnerable to future Russian meddling. Mr Putin is not the type to lick his wounds quietly at home. His propaganda machine – channelled through hysterical hate-fuelled programmes on state-controlled television – has successfully persuaded much of public opinion that the Kiev authorities are fascist monsters, and part of a wider Western conspiracy against Russia. That threat demands to be met with victory, not a truce. Many hardliners already berate the Russian leader for not offering the insurgents more support. Faced with the insurgency’s defeat, Russia may yet intervene militarily – perhaps creating a temporary humanitarian corridor to allow evacuation from the besieged cities of Donetsk and Luhansk. It could easily then prove permanent. While the Kiev authorities wrestle with the messy aftermath of victory, the ball is in Mr Putin’s court. He may open a second front in Moldova, where the Russian-backed breakaway enclave of Transdniestria offers the Kremlin mischief-making ability in a country even poorer and more ill-run than Ukraine. Or he could try a stunt in the Baltic states, hoping to expose what he sees as the thinness of the West’s security guarantee. Or he may stoke economic pressure on Kiev, betting that the West will not bankroll indefinitely a failing state run by corrupt politicians, oligarchs and paramilitary thugs. Even at the height of the crisis in Ukraine, the West found it hard to focus. Nobody wants confrontation with Russia. The European Union imposed sanctions too late and too lightly. NATO, as its summit in Wales approaches, is still wrestling with unpleasant reality: it is back in the business of territorial defence, but without the armed forces or political will to do it properly. America under President Barack Obama seems magnetically drawn to the side-lines. Mr Putin sees this. He may have lost a battle, but he still aims to win the war: splitting Europe from America, rewriting the rules of the energy market, and regaining his country’s historic hold on its neighbours. So hold the champagne – and brew some strong coffee.
Posted on: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 08:34:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015