Discussion: The political rebellion in eastern Ukraine

By Roger Annis

May 17, 2014 – A Socialist in Canada, posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with permission – There are sketchy and misleading reports in mainstream press that steelworkers in eastern Ukraine have mobilised, including into street patrols, to rebuff the political movement for autonomy in eastern Ukraine. On May 11, successful plebiscites were held in the southeast regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in which the big majority of those who cast ballots opted for political sovereignty from Ukraine.

The Guardian is one of the few English language media outlets to (finally) examine the rise of fascist and rightist militias in Ukraine. On May 15, it published a lengthy account by two of its journalists who are in the country. They interviewed leaders of the political parties and groupings of the far right and they attended a covert training camp of rightists in one of the eastern regions.

Truthout published on May 13 a comprehensive overview on Ukraine written by myself. Events continue to move at a rapid pace. This article is an effort to describe the meaning of the latest events and look at several of the political options for Ukraine’s future that are being debated.

Class divisions within the Maidan movement

I began to write on Ukraine in late February because of two concerns. I was disturbed by the interpretations published in many sources of the events surrounding the overthrow in late February of the Ukraine government led by President Victor Yanukovych. Many of these writings described the overthrow as a "fascist coup" rather easily orchestrated by the US and its European allies. That is simplistic and factually wrong. The class forces engaged as well as their respective interests and historical backgrounds were and remain far more complex and conflicting than this interpretation describes.

Accompanying simplistic interpretations of the change of government was an absence of analysis of the multi-class and politically conflicted protest movement that reached its zenith in Maidan Square in Kyiv. (For example, we’re learning more and more of the little-analysed but highly destructive role of NGO funding in Ukraine over the past several decades. This is one of the issues now being intensely debated by the left in Ukraine and Russia. Who would have guessed how relevant Haiti’s lessons could become for Ukraine!)

My first two articles, in February, were superficial and were mistaken in their interpretation of the Maidan movement. They downplayed or ignored the conflicting class interests involved, including the illusory beliefs of protesters that a hoped-for, closer economic association with Europe could improve the standard of living in Ukraine, which is significantly lower than in Russia and other neighbouring countries.

I pressed on with writing when eastern Ukraine exploded in early March. Again, too few articles of in-depth analysis were being written for an audience in North America. We were newly told that the protest movement in the east was in response to the "fascist coup" in Kyiv. But the social and class content of the movement in the east was little analysed. As well, too little, or flat out mistakes, were being written in answer to the sharp rise of imperialist hysteria that followed their ‘loss’ of Crimea in March.

A working class rebellion in eastern Ukraine

Several readers of my latest article in Truthout question the assertion that a deepening working-class and popular revolution is unfolding in eastern Ukraine. That’s a fair argument that merits attention.

I based my assertion on four sources—the articles of Russian writer and socialist Boris Kagarlitsky; the statements and other materials on the website of the left-wing political party in Ukraine, Borotba Union; a few, translated statements by trade unions in the east; and anecdotal reporting in a wide variety of news sources.

I found Kagarlitsky’s article "Ukraine: The logic of a revolt" written in April, translated by Australian socialist Renfrey Clarke and published on May 1 on Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal to be particularly insightful. I quoted from it in my May 13 Truthout article. Here is a paragraph from it, an example of the rich insight he provides:

The main trigger for the revolt [in eastern Ukraine], however, was not the pro-Russian sympathies of the local population, or even the declared intention of the Kiev rulers of repealing the law that had given Russian the status of a “regional language”. Discontent had long been building up in the south-east, and the final drop that caused the cup to spill over was the dramatic worsening of the economic crisis that followed the change of government in Kiev [late February 2014]. After signing their agreement with the International Monetary Fund, the authorities decreed steep rises in the charges for gas and medicines, and a social explosion became inevitable. In the west of the country and in the capital, growing indignation was restrained for a time through the use of nationalist rhetoric and anti-Russian propaganda. But when applied to the inhabitants of the east, this method had the reverse effect. Trying to douse the fire in the west, the authorities poured oil on the flames in the east.

I have purposely stayed away from offering predictions or suggestions of how the protest movements should proceed, except insofar as I cite knowledgeable sources near to the action. My various selections of news quotations of people in eastern Ukraine were intended to provide the reader with some understanding of the depth and complexity of feelings there, not to indicate agreement, necessarily. Thus, there is the woman who wishes Ukraine to become the Switzerland of the east but as a result of the regime’s attacks now firmly believes that to be impossible. Others who are cited want close association with Russia, undoubtedly a widely held sentiment. (As in Crimea, such sentiments have material foundation – association with Russia would improve pensions and other social benefits for the people of eastern Ukraine and could avoid the wholesale destruction of their economy and social life that Europe-style austerity has in store for them.*)

I share the views of the writers Renfrey Clarke and Boris Kagarlitsky that a political or military intervention into eastern Ukraine by Russia would be harmful, disastrous even, for the movement in the east. Clarke, who has translated a series of articles by Kagarlitsky from Russian and has lived in Moscow, wrote recently, “Both Boris and I argue explicitly that the only way forward for the uprising is to embrace class-struggle demands that can forge links with workers elsewhere in Ukraine.”

I hinted as much in one of the quotations I selected from Kagarlitsky for my article, from an earlier article, mid April, "From the Maidan to the revolution":

Official Moscow has let it be understood, in no uncertain terms, that it makes no claim to Ukraine’s rebellious provinces. This is not a diplomatic move, and not a concession to the West; more correctly, it is a step dictated, among other causes, by a desire to avoid any escalation of a conflict that has far exceeded the bounds of anything the Kremlin finds convenient or manageable. Unlike Crimea, where everything was controlled and where, after two or three demonstrations, the transfer of power was carried out by the local elite, in Donetsk and Lugansk we are witnessing the elemental force of a popular movement, which it is simply impossible to manage from outside.

We are hearing news (New York Times, CBC Radio, etc) of the Ukrainian tycoon Rinat Akhmetov mobilising his workers into the streets of cities in the Donetsk region to disperse the pro-autonomy movement (termed by many in the east as a movement for "federalisation", i.e. decentralisation, of Ukraine’s governing structures). The inaccurate or misleading reporting that this development is receiving urgently obviously requires some serious attention and interpretation.

Here is a brief comment by email from Boris Kagarlitsky on May 17:

A brief report, dated May 5, from the Russian-language website journal that Boris helps to publish, Rabkor (Worker Correspondent) explains there is a growing wave of protest and calls for nationalisation of the properties of precisely such figures as Rinat Akhmetov.

Renfrey Clarke has provided me with his views of the recent, reported mobilisations of steelworkers:

Trying to work out what’s happening in places like Ukraine from articles in the New York Times has overtones of Plato’s cave. This assertion in the Times article is plain wrong: “Russia itself exports steel, so it has never been a significant market for the output of the Donetsk region”.

What we can say is that the miners and steelworkers have entered the political picture in a massive and organised (though not yet independent) way. The NYT has tried to spin this as a blow against the autonomy movement. But it seems that in the cities where the steelworkers have come into the streets, they are clearing out police as well as the Donetsk People’s Republic. It’s quite obvious that the Kiev regime has no sway in the region.

Rinat Akhmetov has tried to act as a conduit between the Kiev authorities and the autonomist movement. He also seems to have played some kind of role in this latest development. But the notion that he exercises any kind of control over the political responses and actions of the worker masses of the region is far-fetched.

Akhmetov couldn’t possibly have called thousands of workers into action (if, indeed, these are the numbers that have appeared) if the workers were not already inclined in their own minds to taking over their cities. A mass mobilisation of workers is a tiger that oligarchs like Akhmetov have small chances of riding.

The suggestion that the miners and steelworkers were necessarily at cross purposes with the Donetsk People’s Republic is speculative. My reading of the situation is that the workers of the Ukrainian Donbass hate the Kiev regime and have a deep fear of its austerity plans. They want as little to do with it as possible, even though there seems to be no broad sentiment for incorporation into Russia. If the May 11 referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk were an unscientific opinion poll, they at least established that the desire for autonomy is powerful and widespread.

There is an historical resonance of these latest events that goes back to the huge Donbass miners’ strikes against Gorbachev* in 1989. That period also saw the Donbass miners move into political action in a big way, though it served the political goals of the pro-capitalist elements in the Soviet bureaucracy of the time.

Now the rulers in Kiev, and the neo-cons in Washington, could be faced with a phenomenon of similar scope. Historical justice! Needless to say, their chances of successfully imposing an austerity program in the Ukrainian Donbass at present are negligible.

* Mikhail Gorbachev was the seventh and last head of state of the Soviet Union, 1988 to 1991. He tried but failed to lead the Soviet Union through a stage of reform of its political and economic institutions that would permit accelerated capitalist investment but retain a heavy overseer role by the Soviet state, similar to what has evolved in China.

Here is what the editors of the New York Times think about the situation in the east, from a May 12 editorial:

The slogan ‘For an independent and socialist Ukraine’

A very good statement has been recently issued by writers, activists and academics in Europe and (a few) in North America (including Greg Albo in Toronto). It’s called, "Odessa: The last warning/Call for international solidarity".

The statement concludes with a demand for an "independent, socialist Ukraine". This slogan seems disconnected from the current situation in the east of Ukraine. Yes, the popular will there is anti-capitalist. But it is also strongly in favour of autonomy. It seems more appropriate for progressives to be advocating a "socialist federation of Ukraine".

The demand for an "independent" Ukraine dates back to the many decades in which Ukraine was not the least independent. During Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union, Ukraine lived a very harsh dictatorial regime in which millions died from forced collectivisations of land during the 1930s, millions more died due to political and military blunders by Stalin and his leadership entourage leading up to the invasion by Germany in 1941, and Ukrainian language and culture was at best tolerated. A restrictive autonomy evolved within the Soviet Union following the death of Stalin in 1953.

I’m not convinced of the relevance of a slogan (political outlook) for "independence" in today’s Ukraine when the country won formal independence 20-plus years ago and right-wing ideology is the dominant trend in Ukrainian nationalism.

Ukraine remains a country subject to national oppression by virtue of its subordinate economic and political status in Europe. It has a complex and diverse national and linguistic makeup. Taken together, these factors will make it a difficult challenge to eliminate the last vestiges of national oppression.

The real threat to Ukraine political independence today comes as much, or more, from the West as from the east, especially via the threat of economic subordination to an aggressive, Europe-inspired austerity. I think the inclusion of the notion of "federation", instead of "independence", in a political outlook or slogan helps direct attention to this, immediate challenge.

There is a great deal to learn about the complex, social, cultural and historical reality of Ukraine. I had the good fortune of receiving a very informative report from a correspondent in Ukraine just a few days ago. I enclosed it below. I have titled it, "The external powers have only fueled this latent conflict: Report from Ukraine, May 13, 2014". I have edited it very slightly for language, and the one highlight in the text is by me.

Fascist militias organising

The Guardian is one of the few English language media outlets to (finally) examine the rise of fascist and rightist militias in Ukraine. On May 15, it published a lengthy account by two of its journalists who are in the country. They interviewed leaders of the political parties and groupings of the far right and they attended a covert training camp of rightists in one of the eastern regions.

A leader of the training camp explains that the Ukraine army has proven unreliable in the shooting of civilians: “It is hard to trust the army and the national guard”, said Semenchenko. “There are cases when they have just given up their weapons and fled. I don’t understand it at all, how can you give an oath to a country and then not stick to it?”

The Guardian writers explain that the consequences can be very grave when untrained and fanatical militias insert themselves in tense political situations. My May 13 Truthout article explained what happened in the Black Sea port city of Mariupol on May 9. The army and rightist militias entered the city during Victory Day ceremonies to seize the police building. They were repulsed, but eight people were killed. This new Guardian article reports that the dead included unarmed civilians whom the militias fired upon as they were retreating.

The Guardian explains the background of Andriy Paruiby, a leading fascist in Ukraine and head of Ukraine’s national security and defence council (that is, a minister in the governing regime in Kyiv):

Parubiy himself has an extremely dubious past, having set up the neo-fascist Social National party of Ukraine together with the current leader of far-right Svoboda, Oleh Tyahnybok, in the early 1990s. While there has been little evidence that the militias have been motivated by any kind of far-right ideology when fighting in east Ukraine, there is no doubt that radicals have been the people most willing to fight, and this has led to a number of situations which appear to be well beyond the bounds of normal military behaviour.

As I have reported, the leaders of all of Ukraine’s main political parties are calling for the formation of militias. One fascist candidate in the presidential election, Oleh Liashko (Lyashko), has plastered the country with election posters saying, “Death to the occupiers!”

Liashko has become infamous of late because of the wide circulation of a video over the internet showing him interrogating Igor Kakidzyanov, the captured defence minister of the Donetsk People's Republic. Kakidzyanov is shown in his underwear with his hands bound.