The situation in the east and south of Ukraine remains very unstable. Important administrative buildings, such as city councils, police headquarters, and security service headquarters have been seized by armed men in a number of towns in Donetsk region, including Donetsk, Slaviansk, Kramatorsk, Yenakievo, and Makeevka. Obviously, Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to replicate the Crimean scenario in the eastern Ukraine, to some extent by playing on pro-Russian sentiments of the local population, but to a larger extent by using Russia’s special forces and agents who are deliberately destabilizing the situation there. Any further escalation of the situation in the east and south of Ukraine may lead to the imposition of a state of emergency in those regions which will make elections impossible.

Voting by the inhabitants of the annexed Crimea, who still have Ukrainian passports, is also under threat since it is impossible to organize a voting process in occupied territory. The Mejlis (the highest executive body of the Crimean Tatars) has suggested giving Crimean Tatars an opportunity to vote in the neighboring Kherson region, but no decision has been taken yet.

But let us assume that despite all the ongoing unrest the elections will still be held as scheduled. What results can we expect and what will be their impact? As of now, it looks like these elections will not significantly change the existing political and economic system in the country, and therefore, will not satisfy the expectations of the people who stood three months on the Maidan for the sake of changing the system, and not just the leaders.

There are 23 candidates registered at the moment. According to the most recent opinion polls, the frontrunners are an oligarch, Petro Poroshenko, who owns the large chocolate company “Roshen” and the 5th TV channel, with 28% in current polls, and Yulia Tymoshenko, ex-premier of Ukraine and loser of the 2010 presidential election runoff to Viktor Yanukovych, who is polling at 13%.

The Party of Regions is represented by three candidates – Mykhail Dobkin, former mayor of Kharkiv, with 3.6%, former Central Bank head and estranged former Yanukovych ally Serhiy Tyhypko with 6.1% and Oleg Tsarev (rating is unknown).Dobkin is the only one official candidate from the Party of Regions, while Tyhypko and Tsarev will run as independent candidates. While Tsarev and Dobkin are close to the ex-president Viktor Yanukovych in their political views, Tyhypko is more moderate and has more potential to win votes in the central Ukraine.

There is also a pool of the so-called “Maidan candidates” who actively participated in the revolution’s events. It includes the leader of the right-wing party “Praviy Sector” (“Right Sector”) Dmytro Yarosh, Olga Bogomolets – a doctor who saved many lives on Maidan, leader of the Radical party, Oleg Liashko, and leader of the party “Grazhdanskaya Pozitsiya” (“Civic Position”), former defense minister Anatoliy Grytsenko. All of them have much lower ratings than the frontrunners: Yarosh – 1.2%, Bogomolets – 3.7%, Liashko – 3.7%, and Grytsenko – 3%.

It is worth noting that these ratings were published on April 9, 2014, when the presidential campaign had only just begun. But it looks unlikely that any of the candidates from Maidan will be able to overcome the huge gap separating them from the frontrunners. It is very probable that either Poroshenko and Tymoshenko, or Poroshenko and Tyhypko, will make it to the run-off.

And this is tragic. The “revolution of virtue,” as it is now commonly called in Ukraine, aimed not only at ousting Yanukovych, but also at the complete reloading of the political system in Ukraine, at bringing new faces into power. It has lasted three months, required immense sacrifice from people, and led to the deaths of 100 protesters, and the injury of over 1,000 more. And what do we see as the result? All the three frontrunners are very affluent people who have been involved in Ukrainian politics for a very long time.They merit closer inspection.

Petro Poroshenko, despite claiming in his political advertising “We will live in a new way,” has been present in the Ukrainian politics since 1998. He was a member of the notorious SDPU(o) party which supported the authoritarian Ukraine’s leader Kuchma from 1998 to 2001; in 2001 he was one of the founders of the Party of Regions, which later brought forward Viktor Yanukovych. He later became opposition presidential candidate and Our Ukraine leader Viktor Yushchenko’s ally. After the 2004 Orange Revolution’s victory, he was appointed as Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council. In September 2005, he had to resign due to a corruption scandal. He was also an economy minister in Mykola Azarov’s government during Yanukovych’s presidency (March-November 2012).

Poroshenko is also the 7th richest man in Ukraine (according to Forbes) and owner of the large confectionary “Roshen” and a number other companies, nicknamed “the chocolate king.” He owns the independent 5th TV channel too. It is not clear how a politician who served authoritarian regimes in Ukraine – and prospered under them – can pretend to be a “single candidate from the democratic forces,” as now he presents himself in the political campaign.His distinct advantages are an unambiguous pro-European stand and political experience from having served in different positions, including foreign minister and economy minister, as well as his managerial experience from running several companies. But it is also quite evident that he will not break the existing oligarchic system, as he is an oligarch himself. He is well integrated into this system.

It was a big disappointment for many when world-famous heavyweight boxer and leader of his own Udar party(“punch” or “hit”) Vitaliy Klitschko, who was much more of a “new face” in Ukrainian politics, withdrew his candidacy in favour of Poroshenko. He regularly appeared on Maidan during all three months of the revolution, spoke regularly to the people, dared to go the scenes of violent clashes and to make his own negotiations with Yanukovych. Thus, many revolution’s participants favoured Klitschko (despite his lack of experience). He was also a candidate who could unite the East and West of Ukraine, as he is a Russian speaker and never emphasized such sensitive issues as language and history.Allegedly, he made his decision to withdraw under pressure from the oligarch Dmytro Firtash, owner of the company “Rosukrenergo” and the ex-head of Yanukovych’s administration, Serhiy Levochkin, who were spotted together with Klitschko and Poroshenko in a Vienna hotel a couple of days before this announcement. Since 2012, there have been persistent rumors that Klitschko’s party has been funded by Firtash, an arch-rival of Tymoshenko as well as opponent to Yanukovych’s “Family.” Firtash would do everything to prevent Tymoshenko from becoming president, remembering how in 2009 she removed his company from the gas market, depriving him of millions in profits. But there still was a hope that if Klitschko became president he would pursue an independent policy – which is less likely with Poroshenko.

Now voters have to face a choice between “old” Poroshenko and Tymoshenko in the run-off, or Poroshenko and Tyhypko, which is even worse.

Yulia Tymoshenko was the charismatic heroine of the Orange revolution, but afterwards showed herself to be a very ineffective prime-minister in 2005 and again from 2007 to 2010. She was also involved in clandestine negotiations with Yanukovych about the creation of a grand coalition in Ukraine, though she publically denied any talks with him and his party.During her time in office, in 2009, Tymoshenko also concluded very unfavorable and non-transparent gas contracts with Putin which have seriously undermined Ukraine’s economy. Fortunately, many Ukrainians remember her legacy very well and hesitate to vote for her.

However, Tymoshenko’s close allies are now de facto ruling Ukraine – namely, her “right hand” Oleksandr Turchinov is a parliamentary speaker and the acting president, while another member of her party, Arseniy Yatseniuk, is the current prime-minister. One more representative of Batkivshyna, (“Fatherland”), Sergey Pashinskiy, is acting head of the presidential administration. Taking into account her low rating and proximity to power at the moment, Tymoshenko may be very interested in postponing or cancelling the forthcoming elections as she will more time to improve her rating, or, if elections do not take place, politicians from her team will remain in power. Allegedly, she is doing everything to ensure that elections do not take place in May, so she indirectly benefits from the further escalation of the situation in eastern and southern Ukraine.Experts also point out that her electoral headquarters has not become fully operational, though in the past she has been unstinting in electoral campaign spending and activity.

With regard to Serhiy Tyhypko, it suffices to say that he was campaign manager for Yanukovych in 2004, vice-prime minister in Azarov’s government since 2010, and deputy head of the Party of Regions since 2012. With this pedigree, he can hardly be an acceptable candidate for those voters who supported the revolution.

From today’s vantage point, one must conclude the likely winner of the presidential election will be Petro Poroshenko, if the elections take place.A postponement or cancellation of the elections will play into hands of Yulia Tymoshenko. While Poroshenko would definitely pursue the goal of Ukraine’s European integration, it is unlikely that he would strongly fight corruption or change the existing oligarchic economic system. Given the EU member states’ pronounced reluctance to expand further, it is Ukraine that must abandon and replace rule through high-level corruption if it is to become a credible applicant for membership.

For those who expected that the revolution would bring radical, fundamental changes, these elections will probably be a disappointment. This could have been reversed if there were a united Maidan candidate – in this case such candidate could have made it to the run-off. But given strong differences between existing “Maidan candidates”, this is highly unlikely. Also he/she would face a really hard task of pursuing voters from east and south to vote for him/her in the run-off, as around 70-80% of residents in those regions did not support Maidan. Klitschko was the one who could have made a bridge between these opposed regions due to his brilliant sport record and relatively “clean image.” He has already squandered this opportunity.

The likely victory of Poroshenko may signify the second betrayal of the revolution’s ideals in less than a decade. Ukraine wasted its chance for fundamental reforms in 2005. It may do so again, because one of the main demands of Maidan – the complete reloading of the political system – would not be fulfilled, and oligarchs would then maintain their tight grip on Ukrainian politics.

So this new stage in Ukraine’s history will bring new challenges.As the proverb says, “A revolution has a beginning, but does not have an end.” In case either Poroshenko or Tymoshenko becomes the new president, both the parliament and the civil society will need to perform strong watchdog and monitoring roles with the aim of gradually eradicating corruption and the oligarchs’ domination of Ukraine’s economy and political life. The parliament will have to adopt important anti-corruption laws, and civil society should closely monitor the observation of these laws and prevent politicians from possible misuse of power. It is also crucially important that early parliamentary elections, based on an open proportional system, be held. The parliament acquired more powers on 21 February when legislators voted to revert back to the 2004 Constitution, which stripped the president of some of his powers. Bringing “new faces” at least to the parliament will make it more likely that the revolution’s goals will be achieved.

If these steps are not taken, Ukrainians may very soon face a disappointment worse than that after the successful, but squandered, Orange Revolution.

The post May’s presidential elections in Ukraine – the same old faces appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

The same day, Mykola Azarov, Ukraine’s Prime Minister since 2010 and a close ally of the President Yanukovych, resigned. His resignation letter was signed by the President, thus leading to the dismissal of the whole government.

These are the clear signs that the ruling regime in Ukraine is fragmenting. Growing protests across Ukraine since January 23, which led to the seizure of ten out of twenty-four regional state administrations and the proclamation of people’s administrations there, are one reason. Protests have sparkled even in Presidential strongholds, such as Zaporizka and Dnipropetrovska regions. Another reason is the growing split within the regime itself. This phenomenon accompanies virtually all successful revolutions. The “hawks” within Ukraine’s regime – newly appointed head of the Presidential Administration Andriy Kluyev, Justice Minister Elena Lukash and former Kuchma-era head of Presidential Administration and ardent opponent of the European integration Viktor Medvedchuk – strongly advocated imposing a state of emergency. According to MP Inna Bogoslovskaya (in an interview on Channel 5), this was reportedly under consideration until early morning of January 28, when MPs close to the oligarch Rinat Akhmetov and former Central Bank Governor and presidential candidate Sergiv Tygypko resisted imposition of a state of emergency and the violent crackdown. This division drove President Yanukovych yield to the people’s demands.

Geopolitical factors may have also influenced the moves of Ukraine’s authorities. The European Union, composed of 28 member states, is slow to react to even the most outrageous world events. The adoption of targeted sanctions against Ukrainian officials may take months due to complicated bureaucratic procedures. But events that brought Ukraine to the brink of civil war generated alarm in Europe, posing a threat to its security and safety. Europe has no interest in a “failed state” of 46 million directly on its borders, driving flows of refugees and illegal workers. Former Polish President of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski alluded to this in a statement last week. A full-fledged dictatorship in Ukraine or civil war would torpedo have the EU’s Eastern Partnership, leaving only Moldova and Georgia still moving towards the EU. Last but not least, the complete defeat of democracy of Ukraine would also spell Europe’s defeat in the face of an increasingly authoritarian Russia which is trying to rebuild its empire through a so-called Customs Union.

Therefore, the European Union has applied considerable diplomatic pressure on Ukrainian officials. Last week EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso called President Yanukovych, reporting that he had received assurances that the Ukrainian leader did not foresee the need to impose a state of emergency. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said it was not yet the time to consider sanctions against the Ukrainian government, but added that it must comply “with its obligations to secure fundamental democratic rights.”

Personal visits of EU officials to Ukraine – and to the Maidan, in particular – demonstrated solidarity. On January 28, the Maidan and the surrounding area, including Grushevskogo Street, the scene of violent clashes, were visited by a large delegation of the thirteen European Parliament deputies chaired by Catherine Ashton and including Elmar Brok, Marek Sivets, and Rebecca Harms. The MEPs also had talks with the authorities and the opposition.

On January 24, EU Enlargement Commissioner Štefan Füle visited Kyiv for talks with the opposition and President Yanukovych. In a press statement, he said “I stressed to my Ukrainian partners that the EU would remain engaged in this process assisting them in de-escalating the situation and finding a way out of the crisis, as demonstrated by the scheduled visit of High Representative/Vice-President Cathy Ashton to Kiev next week.” Commissioner Füle also visited the Maidan.

There has also been significant American diplomatic support for the Ukrainian revolution in the form of demands that President Yanukovych and Ukrainian authorities abstain from violence. On Thursday, January 23, just after the Unity Day attack on protesters, which left two dead from shootings, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden called President Yanukovych and urged him to immediately de-escalate the standoff in Kiev and end the bloodshed. The White House said Biden also called on the Ukrainian leader to address the protesters’ legitimate concerns and protect democratic freedoms. Vice President Biden also reportedly asked that the special police forces unit “Berkut” be withdrawn from the streets of Kyiv. The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv has also revoked the U.S. visas of several Ukrainian officials allegedly responsible for violence against peaceful demonstrators.

Ukrainian officials implicated in instigating violence against protesters are vulnerable to visa and financial sanctions; many have bank accounts in Europe. As former U.S. Ambassadors to Ukraine John Herbst and Steven Pifer, among others, wrote in their op-ed published in New York Times, entitled “What the West Must Do for Ukraine”:

“American and European officials should directly engage Mr. Yanukovych’s inner circle and underscore that they need to act now to promote a settlement or face Western visa and financial sanctions. Washington took a good first step on Jan. 22 when it announced the revocation of visas for officials linked to the use of force. It should add financial sanctions and threaten also to target those close to Mr. Yanukovych, as well as their families, if they do not use their influence to end the crisis. The European Union should join in; it is in Europe that Ukrainian oligarchs close to the president park their money, buy luxury residences, travel on holiday, and send their children to school.”.

Meanwhile, Russia calls this diplomatic pressure from the EU and the USA “meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine.” Russian political pressure is now less prominent, probably due to the approaching Olympic Games in Sochi. However, there have been repeated, though unproven, allegations that Andriy Kluyev and Viktor Medvedchuk have acted in accordance with Russian wishes, including in promulgating the repressive January 16 laws, pressing for a state of emergency, and the abduction of civil activists.

The current battle for Ukraine is an important geopolitical battle which may shape the future of the Eastern Partnership region for years ahead: will the region progress toward democracy or slide back into authoritatrianism? As former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili put it in his article for the Wall Street Journal on January 27, Ukraine’s revolution is the first geopolitical revolution of the 21st century:

“What we have been witnessing in Ukraine, with protests that began in November and have gained a volatile intensity in recent days, is the first geopolitical revolution of the 21st century. The burning dividing line between the hundreds of thousands of protesters in cities across the country and the Yanukovych regime’s police lies between two ideologies, two visions of the world and two choices of life: independent, Western democracy or Vladimir Putin’s Russia.”

The post Battle for Ukraine appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

Why did Ukrainians resort to violence on January 19 after almost two months of exclusively peaceful protests?The answer is neither because they were provoked by radicals and ultranationalists nor because they were “brain washed” by the politicians. They did it because of despair.

16 January is now known in Ukraine as Black Thursday. On this day, 235 MPs from the ruling Party of Regions adopted a package of the draconian laws severely restricting human rights and freedoms and propelling Ukraine toward a dictatorship comparable to Belarus and the authoritarian Central Asian regimes. They include a law on criminalization of libel on the Internet and another classifying all NGOs receiving foreign grants as “foreign agents.” Ukrainians now we can get two years imprisonment for defamation on the Internet. Citizens can also be jailed for two years for group violations of the public order (a nonviolent protest action, for example) and 10-15 years in prison for so called “mass disruptions” (again, protests qualify as such).This is only a small fraction of the new offences and penalties now written into law.

It is remarkable that these laws were adopted by violating all the normal parliamentary procedures. The vote was taken by a show of hands, counted in just 15 seconds with numbers just declared. Allegedly, the number of votes was considerably fewer than 235, the number needed to achieve a simple majority in the Verkhovna Rada. The opposition did nothing to prevent these bills from being adopted.

These bills were promptly signed into law by Viktor Yanukovych. At a large meeting on the Maidan on January 19 (at which I was personally present), people chanted “We want a leader!” and “We need action!” While the opposition called for continuing the protest on Maidan, some speakers called for a blockade parliament. The agitated crowd followed that call.

The road to the parliament was blocked by the special police forces – “Berkut”, and around 3-4 PM, on Sunday, the clashes initiated by radical youth from the so-called Praviy Sector (Right Sector) began. The police has so far claimed only causalities, but no deaths.

It is clear that the escalation of the protests stemmed from the despair when all parliamentary and political options seemed to be exhausted. The demands of the protesters include cancellation of eight repressive laws, the resignation of the Interior Minister, and criminal penalties for all members of the Berkut unit who broke the law. President Yanukovych has made no concession to people two months of protest.Therefore, the ultimate goal of the protesters is the resignation of Yanukovych and early elections. Many swear to continue the struggle until Yanukovych leaves office.

The regime responded with the excessive violence. Since Sunday the 19th, “Berkut” police committed many atrocities. They shot rubber bullets at the heads and eyes of protesters and journalists and used water cannons during subzero temperatures, which is prohibited by the international conventions. They also tortured people whom they apprehended, a fact substantiated with video footage.

The terror has escalated on Ukraine’s Unity Day on January 22. While the President was congratulating people on occasion of the holiday, firearms were used, leading to four confirmed deaths. There are unconfirmed rumours that Russian snipers shot the victims. But most protesters treated the shootings as the opening of the war against the people by the government. People have also been abducted from the streets be persons in civilian clothes.One abductee, Yuriy Verbitskiy, was found dead in the forest with the traces of torture. Another, Dmytro Bulatov, the leader of protest group Automaidan is still missing.

The European Union officials have repeatedly expressed their “deep concern,” but Ukrainians expect no prompt sanctions against Ukrainian officials. They are resigned to relying upon themselves.It looks like this new stage of a revolution born out of despair is now a resolute and firm struggle for freedom.It will not end until Yanukovych resigns.

Authorities may yet employ even tougher methods to suppress the protests, such as imposing a state of emergency – this is being allegedly discussed now at the Presidential administration. But even a state of emergency is unlikely to stop the people’s revolt.Since January 24th, ten state administration regional offices across Western and Central Ukraine have been seized by protesters, who now proclaim “people’s administrations” there. In Western regions, the police did not resist these seizures.Protesters mostly abstained from looting. Only portraits of President Yanukovych were reportedly destroyed. It appears that the momentum of the protests across this country of 46 million would be difficult to break, even with a state of emergency.

“Red depicts in oblasts in which state administration offices have been seized by protesters. Black – crackdown of public protests. Pink denotes blockade of such offices, and tan public protests.”

The post Revolution of Despair appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.

This new Maidan initially emerged as EuroMaidan – a civic protest against the rapid U-turn of Ukraine’s foreign policy. On November 21 the government officially suspended the process of the preparation to signing the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (scheduled at the Eastern partnership summit in Vilnius on November 28-29). This unexpected move from the government, which had repeatedly advocated the European integration sparkled the first civic protest in the centre of Kyiv on November 22. Journalists, civic activists and students were at its core, chanting “Ukraine is Europe” and demanding President Yanukovych to reverse his decision.

According to opinion polls, the majority of Ukrainians (around 59%) believe that European integration should be the main vector of Ukraine’s development. But the government’s decision could at least arguably be justified in view of the huge economic pressure from Russia and the deplorable state of country’s economy. The establishment of a free trade zone with the EU which is an inherent part of the Association agreement may have indeed brought some losses to Ukraine’s economy, especially to the agriculture, as was the case in Latvia with its EU membership. Therefore, when I heard about the suspension of the agreement’s signing, I personally was disappointed, but not enough to take to the street… Furthermore, the proposed Association Agreement did not explicitly open the door to eventual Ukrainian membership, nor did it offer a visa-free regime with the EU, which many Ukrainians dream about.

Still, thousands of young people continued to camp on EuroMaidan. Many were furious about the abruptness of the government’s decision and the reluctance to allow the incarcerated ex-premier Yulia Tymoshenko to receive treatment in Europe, which was a de facto condition for the EU. Ukraine’s position was perceived by the protesters as the “insult” to the EU.

But the real trigger for the growth of protest occurred later. It was not exactly the suspension of European integration that infuriated me personally and millions of Ukrainians. In fact, after the Vilnius Summit EuroMaidan was gradually losing its power and determination. But on the night of November 30, something very atypical for Ukraine occurred – the peaceful students remaining on Maidan were violently beaten by special police forces “Berkut” unit at about 4am, under the pretext of clearing the central square for the erection of New Year Tree (the “yolka,” as it is known). This was apparently urgently needed in the early morning of Saturday, a month before the actual New Year! The absurdity of the official justification is obvious.

Protesters were absolutely peaceful, but were confronted with a very violent and bloody crackdown. Young girls were among the victims. The armed police officers were assaulting people all across the central square and Khreshatik, the main street, even when people tried to escape to the underground passages. Many victims have found shelter in the Mykhailivsky monastery, which Berkut was not allowed to enter. Innocent blood was shed. This was unprecedented in the modern history of Ukraine. Even 10 years of rule under the increasingly authoritarian Leonid Kuchma never saw such a brazen assault on peaceful demonstrators.

This act galvanized public anger. I, many of my friends, and thousands of others decided that this could not be tolerated – that Ukraine had reached the point of no return. On Sunday, December 1st, around half million people went out to the streets to the spectacular march. This launched a new Maidan assembly, with the main goals of securing the resignation of the government, especially the interior minister. Many protesters also demanded the impeachment of President Yanukovych.

The brutal beating of around 40 journalists in the evening of the 1st December, during the clashes between protesters and special police forces, also stoked the fire of public anger toward the regime. It is widely believed that clashes were provoked by a group of radical young people who threw stones at police and deliberately spoiled the predominantly peaceful protest. This, however, did not justify the violent and bloody beating of accredited journalists, who had cameras and badges.

After this incident it has become clear that if we, the Ukrainian people, don’t stop this violence now, if we fail to demand legal punishment for those who committed these crimes, Ukraine will become like Azerbaijan and Belarus, where all the peaceful protests are violently dispersed, where journalists are persecuted, arrested and beaten. The main demand of Maidan now is the resignation of Yanukovych. One can repeatedly hear chanting of thousands of voices – “Zeka – get!’”, which means “Criminal – out!” The “criminal” is Yanukovych, who was twice convicted for criminal offences in his youth. It is highly doubtful that Yanukovych will cede power peacefully. He has apparently adopted the repressive strategies of Putin and Lukashenka, with the former’s explicit support.

The revolution is taking place not only in Kyiv, but across central and western Ukraine. The small “Maidans” regularly take place virtually in all Ukraine’s cities, but in the eastern Ukraine, in places like Kharkiv and Donetsk, only few dozen people come. In contrast, in Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and other western towns, the number of protesters reaches thousands – many of whom took unpaid leave to travel to Kyiv to protest. I would argue that without the determination of the people from western Ukraine this revolution would not have been possible.

Many EU politicians express their solidarity and visit Maidan – German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, Elmar Brok, Jerzy Buzek, former Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, former PM of Moldova Vlad Filat. Western diplomats have been visible observers – the US Ambassador has regularly gone to Maidan, though without making speeches. The U.S. Embassy earlier issued a statement calling on all parties to refrain from violence.

In brief, the protest that is staged now is more about the defense of democracy and freedom – and the change of the brutal regime – than European integration. Yanukovych crossed a red line after peaceful young people and dozens of journalists were violently beaten by police. This could not have occurred without his personal order. The Maidan 2013 has many features of the Orange Revolution – signing of anthems and patriotic songs, speeches by politicians and artists, free food and drinks for protesters sponsored by the people themselves, tents where people live, very positive and patriotic mood. As in 2004, protesters seized some administrative buildings serving as their headquarters – the Kyiv city administration building, the trade union hall, and the October Palace concert hall. This time the revolution is not completely non-violent, as blood has been already shed by the government. The protesters have erected barricades around the Maidan area and get ready for the assault of the police each night. The eviction from the Maidan could happen any night…

On Sunday, December 8th, another spectacular “Million’s March” was held in central Kyiv. It is estimated that the number of people reached one million, however, the protest remained absolutely peaceful. The protesters completely blocked the government’s building, and the demands remain the same. On Sunday evening, Lenin’s statue in central Kyiv was finally pulled down by demonstrators – an act I found long overdue. Though some people worried about the provocative nature of this act, others have compared it to the falling of Berlin Wall or the symbolic end of communism in Ukraine. During the spontaneous celebration at the site of the statue people chanted “Yanukovych – you are next!” That is, if he fails to start a dialogue with protesters or at least fulfill some of their demands.

The post DPC Senior Associate Iryna Chupryna in Kyiv, Ukraine appeared first on Democratization Policy Council.