Even CFR-types are questioning the new Ukrainian regime's legitimacy

[reformist2]

"“You have a revolution, with unelected guys seizing power,” said Andrew Wilson, a Ukraine expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“The people on the Maidan might be right, they might be martyrs, and they have good arguments, but no one elected them,” he said. “You need to get real politics and competition and more legitimacy. Of course, the counterargument is just concentrate on economy. But the credibility question is tearing the country apart, and the transfer of power cut a lot of corners constitutionally.”





After Initial Triumph, Ukraine’s Leaders Face Battle for Credibility

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/after-initial-triumph-ukraines-leaders-face-battle-for-credibility.html

[KG]

1. wait, this isn't some triumph democracy we should support?

[Igel]

2. There's this little thing called the Verkhovna rada.

It apparently lacks any legitimacy, being the elected representatives.

Making it worse is that after an agreement was signed Yanukovich, some ministers, and some truly loyal PR reps decided to leave. Some headed to the Western border. Some towards Russia.

Instead of signing the legislation he agreed to sign and working towards a consensus government, Yanukovich packed up a couple of semis with stuff and left. And he decreed that what the VR was doing--passing the legislation for him to sign--was illegitimate.

In the power vacuum--a good leader takes his ministers and leaves during a crisis, allowing if not hoping that things spiral into chaos?--something had to be done.

All that's left is deciding what the right thing would have been in hindsight. The pro-Russian guys don't justify Yanukovich's actions. They're mute on the matter, and just blame fears and what went before. They don't have an opinion on the day or two that counts--when Yanukovich left and his whereabouts unknown. They're rehashing what happened *before* he signed the agreement, since they obviously can't win an argument about what other course the VR had after Yanukovich left his manor in a huff.

The anti-Russian guys have the usual refrain: Yanukovich is an oaf, a pro-Russian tool. And his actions after signing the agreement were treasonous and merited impeachment so that the VR could get on with getting on. The PR wasn't left without representation, but it did have egg on its face: Numerous representatives switched sides or abandoned the party.


That said, Wilson's point still stands--they need to garner more legitimacy. However that won't be possible in the short run. Russian-majority areas aren't going to cough up new elected leaders in the next couple of days to represent them, and if they did the general attitude would be to refight the same battles and to demand that *their* views be heard. But by basically demanding the rights that they denied the ethnic Ukrainian protesters all they'll do is rankle. Nobody's in the mood to hear each other (even if Unian.ua did have a nice article precisely calling for the West and East to hear, chuty, each other).

It's descended into symbols. Russians are humiliated by having their symbol denigrated. Symbols aren't humans, so Yanukovich's foibles are beside the point. He's like a flag. Protesters are calling for the Maidan not to be rebuilt but to stand, at least for a while, as a symbol and a memorial. Others have resurrected Bandera and the army associated with his name: Some because they were into ethnic cleansing, some because they fought the Soviets (and hence fought on the Nazi side, even if they also fought the Nazis), some because they want an ethnic state. This isn't helpful because it's again a symbol--and the verbal fight is over events and interpretations from 1943 and 1944, a context that's fundamentally different from today, but handy for stoking fears--a Banderist uprising would purge ethnic Russians as it did ethnic Poles. (Fine. Bandera's dead. If he leads an uprising, we'd term it a "resurrection" and not an "insurrection".)