The Crisis in Ukraine: Transatlantic Relations and the Crisis of the International System November 2013, Victor Yanukovych, former president of Ukraine, decided to postpone the association agreement with the EU, few people would have predicted that this would lead to prolonged conflict in Europe's border regions. The rather peaceful demonstration in support of Ukraine's pro-European orientation, organized by thousands of people on Maidan Square in kyiv, quickly turned into a brutal confrontation, which would soon begin to divide families, communities and the Ukrainian nation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayOver time, the crisis in Ukraine has become a tragedy, capable of changing the future of the state, and may -be that of Europe. Public response to the authorities' policies and actions, spreading rapidly across the country, transformed the conflict into a civil war and a humanitarian and economic crisis. An important question, asked by most, is what events occurred behind closed doors, to result in such an intense and turbulent conflict? The crisis in Ukraine represents a perfect example of how internal tensions can easily internationalize, and even turn into violent conflict.The crisisThe Ukrainian crisis that began with the Euromaidan protests in November 2013 and culminated until The now annexation of Crimea by Russia represents the biggest geopolitical shock to the European security system since the end of the Cold War. Russia, under the pretext of protecting its citizens, was ready not only to use military force, but also to go so far as to annex territories. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the Ukrainian crisis has forced Western powers to seek an agreement. a new balance between balancing Russia with forceful countermeasures or reconciling mutual security interests in an East-West dialogue. Fundamentally incompatible conceptions of security complicate the management of state relations in the spirit of a cooperative and inclusive Euro-Atlantic space. This calls for a qualitative assessment of the political objective underlying the Western attempt to promote political-economic integration in Eastern Europe, focusing on how this clashes with Russia's determination to contain this objective. At first glance, this new period is largely reminiscent of the Cold War, but it differs in important respects. The new situation has shifted the focus slightly towards ideology rather than the conflict between communism and liberal democracy. The current crisis has global implications, but it does not pose a central “threat” to the global system. An important feature is that, unlike the Cold War, the Ukrainian crisis is not the result of either world politics or even the foreign policy of the main adversaries of the conflict, in particular that of the United States. The severity of the crisis surprised many, including Ukraine itself, Russia, the European Union (EU), and the United States. The Ukrainian crisis was followed by competition between the European Union and Russia for Ukraine's geoeconomic direction. The roots of the crisis lie in the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, a war that ended the prospect of enlargementfrom the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Georgia and Ukraine, and in the onset of the global financial crisis, which appears to give more credence to regional economic arrangements. The EU and Russia subsequently drew different conclusions from the war and the crisis. The Europeans, through the Eastern Partnership program launched by the EU in 2009, sought to associate Ukraine, along with five other former Soviet republics, economically and politically with the EU. But rather than a step towards future EU enlargement, this initiative was an attempt to establish a “comfort zone” to the east of the Union border and to reinforce the Western orientation of these countries. Ukraine itself, led from 2010 to 2014 by then-President. Viktor Yanukovych and his supporters in the eastern Donetsk region habitually maneuvered between the EU and Russia, always looking for a better deal. Yanukovych, for domestic political reasons, raised high hopes for the link with the EU, on which he was apparently working. However, the Ukrainian president never managed to secure reasonable financial assistance from Brussels to compensate for the blow to Ukrainian industry from closer economic association with the EU. At the same time, Yanukovych had to take into account the pressure exerted by Russia. Moscow first showed Ukraine, in the form of trade barriers, what it would lose by choosing the EU over Russia and, later, in the form of an aid program, what she would win if she made the “right” choice. As a result, Yanukovych suddenly suspended in November 2013 a political and economic association agreement that kyiv was due to sign with the EU. The following month, he accepted a generous financial and economic package from Russia's Putin. Actors in the conflict Events in Ukraine have evolved from Euromaidan protests to an unprecedented event since the Cold War: the annexation of part of a sovereign state by another state. The crisis has raised complex questions, both diplomatic and geopolitical. By focusing on the context (social, political, economic), root causes and actors, one can achieve a better understanding of the situation and assess windows of opportunity and potential outcomes.UkraineThe origins of the conflict lie between the borders of this State; it started as a contradiction within the state, later reaching the international level, with Ukraine being one of the main players. The starting point of the crisis was November 21, when the suspension of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union was announced. . Several factors influenced this decision, including historical, geopolitical and economic. Putin said the deal would have posed a big threat to the Russian economy, revealing the influence the Soviet state still had over Ukraine. Therefore, Russia's push has made it more difficult for Ukraine to turn to Western Europe. Furthermore, he argues that Crimea is a historical region of great importance for Russia, where most citizens are of Russian ethnic origin, and where their protection, rights and wishes should only be taken care of by the “mother state”. , Ukraine, like today, can actually be described as divided in two: pro-Western or pro-Russian. The northwestern part of the state is characterized by pro-Western citizens, ethnic Ukrainians, who want to move closer to the West and hope to join the EU. The other half of the state is represented by pro-Russians, people who consider themselves ethnic Russians and cannot imagine a “relationship” with the West. THEoligarchs Ukraine is currently fighting on two fronts: of course, the first is territorial and political in the Eastern region, against separatists and Russian-backed militias, but there is another perspective: Ukraine is trying to at the same time to save ourselves from the total collapse of the economy and the oligarchs, who control more than 70% of the economy, are important. actors on this front. There is a whole different struggle for control when it comes to Ukrainian oligarchs. Who are they? Generally speaking, an oligarchy is a system in which power is concentrated in the hands of a very small circle of people. Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs acquired their wealth after the breakup of the Soviet Union; and not just wealth, but power. The system is financially supported by them; they are not always mentioned in the context of the Ukrainian conflict, but they have the political influence to change the course of actions. One of the demands of Maidan was to end the oligarchic system in Ukraine and under this flag Yanukovych was accused of abuse of power. However, the country's current president, Petro Poroshenko, is also an oligarch. Maidan ActivistsEuromaidan was a three-month protest in kyiv's main square, supported by roughly 50 percent of Ukrainians, that led Yanukovych and other officials to flee. the country. The aim of the protest was to end corruption, loosen ties with Russia and form a new way of politics closer to the West, to form a European identity. Russia has condemned the protests, saying the demonstrators are fascists, but the EU denies any presence. groups that adhere to Nazi ideology and use it to argue against Russian influence: two extremes, total denial and exaggeration. However, the presence of right-wing citizens and extremists is important to consider, because, as always, right-wing ideology is easy to embrace when times are tough. Therefore, the more Russians enter Ukraine and protect the "independence" of the breakaway regions, the more civilians turn to extremism, which means a new type of propaganda for Russia: troops entering the region to protect ethnic Russians of these extremists. There are also supporters of Russia. Then there are Ukrainian citizens who sincerely reject the conditions imposed by the European Union and the IMF and rely on the support that Russia has provided to Ukraine for decades. These civilians see that certain conditions are imposed on EU aid, while Russian aid is already there but may disappear as the country turns to the EU. Furthermore, most of them are Russian speakers, so the new government's decision to abolish the law allowing Ukrainian regions to impose Russian as a second official language was met with a lack of support among these people. . conflict, we move on to current events. The timeline of the conflict is vague and difficult to interpret, but the status and position of these fighters is clear: away from Ukraine. There are different attitudes and different plans to achieve this: some want even closer ties with Russia and annexation to Russia, others, the federalists, want a barely visible central government. According to Igor Strelkov, one of the leaders of the separatists, there are two types of fighters: those with military experience, veterans, and the others, a newly formed and inexperienced militia, who mainly try to maintain "order » in the occupied region. cities. As he said, two thirds of the separatists are not Ukrainian citizens, theThe rest are Russians of Ukrainian origin.RussiaWhen discussing Ukrainian differences, both Eastern and Western influences and interests were mentioned. Above all, Russia wants to maintain things as before and prevent Ukraine from changing its system and facing modernization and EU influence. In geopolitical terms, it is therefore easy to identify Russia's interests, taking into account that around a fifth of Ukrainians are of Russian ethnic origin. Ukraine, as mentioned earlier, is economically subordinate to Russia. Russia's position is that it is necessary to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine, while Russia's interest is to maintain its influence in the country, to create a sort of buffer zone between the East and the 'Ukraine. the West. Russia's foreign minister said Ukraine must maintain its neutrality to avoid further secessions. He also mentioned that NATO's promises to Russia regarding lack of eastward expansion remained a lie and that the "be with us or without us" strategy that the EU is imposing on Eastern countries practically forces them to interrupt their historic policy. relations with Russia. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and began supporting Ukrainian dissidents. The European Union and the United States, in other words the West: “You continue to reform, we continue to support” – could be the motto of relations between Ukraine and the West. Russian support was already present in Ukraine, while the EU promised changes in return for decentralization of governance, modernization policies, an end to monopolization of goods and services and strengthening of competition and, of course, as mentioned before, the end of Ukrainian and Russian rule. Just like the Russians, the West also sees Ukraine as geopolitically important, and aside from altruism (helping Ukraine achieve its goals, etc.), the United States is involved because it is a NATO ally, but they have a lot at stake: preserving the superpower for as long as possible. it is possible; avoid Russia's military or geopolitical expansion. The European Union took notice of Ukraine after its Orange Revolution in 2004, which resulted in a more Western-friendly government. This has given rise to a new wave of cooperation between the parties and could serve as something of an example for other states of the former Soviet Union, currently called the Eastern Partnership states. Of course, besides ideological reasons, there are also economic reasons; a new partnership is always important and Ukraine has quality arable land ready for investment and 45 million consumers. Conclusion The Ukrainian situation, despite the presidential elections of May 2014, is far from stable and presents the potential for social unrest, political upheaval and territorial fragmentation. . It will take years before Ukraine acquires a modicum of stability. Russia's tactics towards the country will change, but the goal will remain: at a minimum, maintain Ukraine as neutral ground, as a buffer, between Russia to the east and the EU and NATO to the east. 'west. The crisis in Ukraine is now over. once a tragedy, changing the future of the state. The public response to the authorities' policies and actions, which quickly spread across the country, transformed the conflict into a civil war and a humanitarian and economic crisis. The crisis has had numerous effects, both national and international. Conflicts continue to arise and tensions are still present, but not as much as in the early years of the crisis. Although for Ukraine it is not just about,

Essay / The Crisis in Ukraine: Transatlantic Relations and the Crisis of the International System November 2013, Victor Yanukovych, former president of Ukraine, decided to postpone the association agreement with the EU, few people would have predicted that this would lead to prolonged conflict in Europe's border regions. The rather peaceful demonstration in support of Ukraine's pro-European orientation, organized by thousands of people on Maidan Square in kyiv, quickly turned into a brutal confrontation, which would soon begin to divide families, communities and the Ukrainian nation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayOver time, the crisis in Ukraine has become a tragedy, capable of changing the future of the state, and may -be that of Europe. Public response to the authorities' policies and actions, spreading rapidly across the country, transformed the conflict into a civil war and a humanitarian and economic crisis. An important question, asked by most, is what events occurred behind closed doors, to result in such an intense and turbulent conflict? The crisis in Ukraine represents a perfect example of how internal tensions can easily internationalize, and even turn into violent conflict.The crisisThe Ukrainian crisis that began with the Euromaidan protests in November 2013 and culminated until The now annexation of Crimea by Russia represents the biggest geopolitical shock to the European security system since the end of the Cold War. Russia, under the pretext of protecting its citizens, was ready not only to use military force, but also to go so far as to annex territories. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the Ukrainian crisis has forced Western powers to seek an agreement. a new balance between balancing Russia with forceful countermeasures or reconciling mutual security interests in an East-West dialogue. Fundamentally incompatible conceptions of security complicate the management of state relations in the spirit of a cooperative and inclusive Euro-Atlantic space. This calls for a qualitative assessment of the political objective underlying the Western attempt to promote political-economic integration in Eastern Europe, focusing on how this clashes with Russia's determination to contain this objective. At first glance, this new period is largely reminiscent of the Cold War, but it differs in important respects. The new situation has shifted the focus slightly towards ideology rather than the conflict between communism and liberal democracy. The current crisis has global implications, but it does not pose a central “threat” to the global system. An important feature is that, unlike the Cold War, the Ukrainian crisis is not the result of either world politics or even the foreign policy of the main adversaries of the conflict, in particular that of the United States. The severity of the crisis surprised many, including Ukraine itself, Russia, the European Union (EU), and the United States. The Ukrainian crisis was followed by competition between the European Union and Russia for Ukraine's geoeconomic direction. The roots of the crisis lie in the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, a war that ended the prospect of enlargementfrom the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to Georgia and Ukraine, and in the onset of the global financial crisis, which appears to give more credence to regional economic arrangements. The EU and Russia subsequently drew different conclusions from the war and the crisis. The Europeans, through the Eastern Partnership program launched by the EU in 2009, sought to associate Ukraine, along with five other former Soviet republics, economically and politically with the EU. But rather than a step towards future EU enlargement, this initiative was an attempt to establish a “comfort zone” to the east of the Union border and to reinforce the Western orientation of these countries. Ukraine itself, led from 2010 to 2014 by then-President. Viktor Yanukovych and his supporters in the eastern Donetsk region habitually maneuvered between the EU and Russia, always looking for a better deal. Yanukovych, for domestic political reasons, raised high hopes for the link with the EU, on which he was apparently working. However, the Ukrainian president never managed to secure reasonable financial assistance from Brussels to compensate for the blow to Ukrainian industry from closer economic association with the EU. At the same time, Yanukovych had to take into account the pressure exerted by Russia. Moscow first showed Ukraine, in the form of trade barriers, what it would lose by choosing the EU over Russia and, later, in the form of an aid program, what she would win if she made the “right” choice. As a result, Yanukovych suddenly suspended in November 2013 a political and economic association agreement that kyiv was due to sign with the EU. The following month, he accepted a generous financial and economic package from Russia's Putin. Actors in the conflict Events in Ukraine have evolved from Euromaidan protests to an unprecedented event since the Cold War: the annexation of part of a sovereign state by another state. The crisis has raised complex questions, both diplomatic and geopolitical. By focusing on the context (social, political, economic), root causes and actors, one can achieve a better understanding of the situation and assess windows of opportunity and potential outcomes.UkraineThe origins of the conflict lie between the borders of this State; it started as a contradiction within the state, later reaching the international level, with Ukraine being one of the main players. The starting point of the crisis was November 21, when the suspension of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union was announced. . Several factors influenced this decision, including historical, geopolitical and economic. Putin said the deal would have posed a big threat to the Russian economy, revealing the influence the Soviet state still had over Ukraine. Therefore, Russia's push has made it more difficult for Ukraine to turn to Western Europe. Furthermore, he argues that Crimea is a historical region of great importance for Russia, where most citizens are of Russian ethnic origin, and where their protection, rights and wishes should only be taken care of by the “mother state”. , Ukraine, like today, can actually be described as divided in two: pro-Western or pro-Russian. The northwestern part of the state is characterized by pro-Western citizens, ethnic Ukrainians, who want to move closer to the West and hope to join the EU. The other half of the state is represented by pro-Russians, people who consider themselves ethnic Russians and cannot imagine a “relationship” with the West. THEoligarchs Ukraine is currently fighting on two fronts: of course, the first is territorial and political in the Eastern region, against separatists and Russian-backed militias, but there is another perspective: Ukraine is trying to at the same time to save ourselves from the total collapse of the economy and the oligarchs, who control more than 70% of the economy, are important. actors on this front. There is a whole different struggle for control when it comes to Ukrainian oligarchs. Who are they? Generally speaking, an oligarchy is a system in which power is concentrated in the hands of a very small circle of people. Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs acquired their wealth after the breakup of the Soviet Union; and not just wealth, but power. The system is financially supported by them; they are not always mentioned in the context of the Ukrainian conflict, but they have the political influence to change the course of actions. One of the demands of Maidan was to end the oligarchic system in Ukraine and under this flag Yanukovych was accused of abuse of power. However, the country's current president, Petro Poroshenko, is also an oligarch. Maidan ActivistsEuromaidan was a three-month protest in kyiv's main square, supported by roughly 50 percent of Ukrainians, that led Yanukovych and other officials to flee. the country. The aim of the protest was to end corruption, loosen ties with Russia and form a new way of politics closer to the West, to form a European identity. Russia has condemned the protests, saying the demonstrators are fascists, but the EU denies any presence. groups that adhere to Nazi ideology and use it to argue against Russian influence: two extremes, total denial and exaggeration. However, the presence of right-wing citizens and extremists is important to consider, because, as always, right-wing ideology is easy to embrace when times are tough. Therefore, the more Russians enter Ukraine and protect the "independence" of the breakaway regions, the more civilians turn to extremism, which means a new type of propaganda for Russia: troops entering the region to protect ethnic Russians of these extremists. There are also supporters of Russia. Then there are Ukrainian citizens who sincerely reject the conditions imposed by the European Union and the IMF and rely on the support that Russia has provided to Ukraine for decades. These civilians see that certain conditions are imposed on EU aid, while Russian aid is already there but may disappear as the country turns to the EU. Furthermore, most of them are Russian speakers, so the new government's decision to abolish the law allowing Ukrainian regions to impose Russian as a second official language was met with a lack of support among these people. . conflict, we move on to current events. The timeline of the conflict is vague and difficult to interpret, but the status and position of these fighters is clear: away from Ukraine. There are different attitudes and different plans to achieve this: some want even closer ties with Russia and annexation to Russia, others, the federalists, want a barely visible central government. According to Igor Strelkov, one of the leaders of the separatists, there are two types of fighters: those with military experience, veterans, and the others, a newly formed and inexperienced militia, who mainly try to maintain "order » in the occupied region. cities. As he said, two thirds of the separatists are not Ukrainian citizens, theThe rest are Russians of Ukrainian origin.RussiaWhen discussing Ukrainian differences, both Eastern and Western influences and interests were mentioned. Above all, Russia wants to maintain things as before and prevent Ukraine from changing its system and facing modernization and EU influence. In geopolitical terms, it is therefore easy to identify Russia's interests, taking into account that around a fifth of Ukrainians are of Russian ethnic origin. Ukraine, as mentioned earlier, is economically subordinate to Russia. Russia's position is that it is necessary to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine, while Russia's interest is to maintain its influence in the country, to create a sort of buffer zone between the East and the 'Ukraine. the West. Russia's foreign minister said Ukraine must maintain its neutrality to avoid further secessions. He also mentioned that NATO's promises to Russia regarding lack of eastward expansion remained a lie and that the "be with us or without us" strategy that the EU is imposing on Eastern countries practically forces them to interrupt their historic policy. relations with Russia. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and began supporting Ukrainian dissidents. The European Union and the United States, in other words the West: “You continue to reform, we continue to support” – could be the motto of relations between Ukraine and the West. Russian support was already present in Ukraine, while the EU promised changes in return for decentralization of governance, modernization policies, an end to monopolization of goods and services and strengthening of competition and, of course, as mentioned before, the end of Ukrainian and Russian rule. Just like the Russians, the West also sees Ukraine as geopolitically important, and aside from altruism (helping Ukraine achieve its goals, etc.), the United States is involved because it is a NATO ally, but they have a lot at stake: preserving the superpower for as long as possible. it is possible; avoid Russia's military or geopolitical expansion. The European Union took notice of Ukraine after its Orange Revolution in 2004, which resulted in a more Western-friendly government. This has given rise to a new wave of cooperation between the parties and could serve as something of an example for other states of the former Soviet Union, currently called the Eastern Partnership states. Of course, besides ideological reasons, there are also economic reasons; a new partnership is always important and Ukraine has quality arable land ready for investment and 45 million consumers. Conclusion The Ukrainian situation, despite the presidential elections of May 2014, is far from stable and presents the potential for social unrest, political upheaval and territorial fragmentation. . It will take years before Ukraine acquires a modicum of stability. Russia's tactics towards the country will change, but the goal will remain: at a minimum, maintain Ukraine as neutral ground, as a buffer, between Russia to the east and the EU and NATO to the east. 'west. The crisis in Ukraine is now over. once a tragedy, changing the future of the state. The public response to the authorities' policies and actions, which quickly spread across the country, transformed the conflict into a civil war and a humanitarian and economic crisis. The crisis has had numerous effects, both national and international. Conflicts continue to arise and tensions are still present, but not as much as in the early years of the crisis. Although for Ukraine it is not just about,

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch