More than twenty years after its independence, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukraine experienced a political instability that worsened considerably between 2013 and 2014, risking to lead to a civil war. Since its birth as an independent state, the country had shown a serious internal conflict, deriving from the cultural division between the pro-Western tendencies, which look to the European Union and Poland, and the pro-Russian tendencies, aimed at preserving as much as possible a relationship with the Russian Federation.
After 1991, the Ukraine experienced a troubled transition following a model of authoritarian democracy not very different from the Russian one, albeit in a more peaceful way, first under the presidency of Leonid M. Kravčuk (1991-94) and then under that of Leonid Kučma (1994-2004) . Relations with Russia were regulated through the denuclearization of the country and the agreements that allowed Moscow to largely inherit the Soviet fleet, giving Sevastopol a special status. Energy dependence on Russia was a source of conditioning not only economically but also politically, since Moscow considered the country as part of its own sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space. For Ukraine 2005, please check ehealthfacts.org.
In December 2004, the Ukrainian transition experienced an important turning point, when the electoral victory of Kučma’s designated successor, Viktor Janukovič, was contested by a spontaneous popular protest movement. After the electoral outcome was invalidated due to fraud, a new election brought the opponent Victor Yushchenko to the presidency, the protagonist of a long battle against corruption together with Julia Tymoshenko. The so-called Orange Revolution represented the culmination of a long wave of the collapse of communism, revealing a genuine democratic and reforming drive from below. However, it also manifested serious limitations: it did not produce an authentic political stabilization, it did not recompose the existing fractures in the country and on the contrary it fed them by producing a growing political polarization, also due to the emergence of strong nationalist tendencies. The very components of the ‘revolution’ came into conflict with each other, while Moscow’s hostility manifested itself through the blackmail of high-cost energy supplies. The result of a long season of instability was Janukovič’s return to power in the 2010 elections. He turned to liquidate the legacy of the ‘Orange Revolution’ by persecuting opponents also with the unscrupulous use of the judiciary and restoring a neo-authoritarian regime..
The internal conflict experienced a further escalation with the contrast between nationalism and pro-Russian sentiments, which in reality did not reflect the complexity of Ukrainian society nor its linguistic and cultural differences, but ended up acting as a serious factor of division. At the same time, the influence of international tensions between the European Union (v.) And Russia (v.) Acted as a catalyst for a new, much more serious crisis. At the end of 2013, political polarization was defined in terms of a clash between proponents and opponents of Ukraine’s association with the European Union. Yanukovich’s decision to renounce the association treaty by accepting aid from Moscow sparked a sudden mass protest, gathered in Kiev’s Maidan Square. but soon extended to other areas of the country. After a long tug-of-war and a violent crackdown on protesters, Janukovič was forced to leave power in February 2014, replaced by a pro-Western interim government.
At that point the internal crisis became a serious international crisis. Vladimir V. Putin did not recognize the legitimacy of the new government. The Crimea it declared its independence and, by referendum, decided to annex it to the Russian Federation. Unrest caused by secessionist forces broke out in the eastern part of the country, especially in the Donetsk area but also in Kharkiv and even in Odessa, and resulted in violent conflicts with hundreds of victims. Moscow and Kiev accused each other of fueling armed clashes. The Geneva agreements concluded on April 17 between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the European Union remained a dead letter. The West imposed economic sanctions against Moscow, which it retorted by accusing Europe and the United States of supporting extreme nationalist forces and threatening vital Russia interests. The Ukraine found itself on the verge of a civil war and a dismemberment of its territorial integrity, with the risk of a direct involvement of the Russian power. On May 25, 2014, new presidential elections were held, which recorded the affirmation of Petro Poroshenko, an entrepreneur determined to restore order in the country, but also to avert the scenario of a war civil. Despite the persistence of violent conflicts for months, Poroshenko succeeded, at the end of 2014, in the objective of restoring some control of Kiev over the eastern territories and of easing the strong tensions with Russia. However, at the beginning of 2015 there was a new escalation of armed clashes in all regions of the East, in violation of the ceasefire established in Minsk in September 2014. A second compromise, reached in Minsk on February 12, 2015, did not prevent further waves of violence, which lasted until the summer, between mutual accusations of non-compliance with the agreement. A precarious truce was established by mutual agreement between Kiev and Moscow in September 2015. However, the main points of the Minsk agreements, which provide for the reestablishment of government control, the application of humanitarian measures and the autonomy of the eastern regions, remained in place. suspended.
The stabilization of the Ukraine therefore she remained very uncertain. The country appeared divided and oscillating between the attraction of Europeanization and Russian influence, while the idea of exercising the role of a ‘bridge’ between East and West seemed hardly sustainable, at least until the European Union and the Russia would not have been able to build a genuine partnership.
