Thursday brought the violence in Kiev, Ukraine to a new bloody high in this ongoing crisis. Rioters and armoured police forces clashed again in the capital city's Independence square. After a failed truce and advancement of protestors on police lines, snipers brought down and killed what is estimated to be 70 people and wounding over 500. 3 members of police are confirmed to be dead, in addition to many captured by the protestors.
Ukraine's strife stems from the tug of war between loyalties to the Russia-friendly central government and loyalties to western Europe. Citizens remain angered by the nation's poor economy, government corruption, and lack of say most of all. There is also publicised lost faith in affairs from government officials. Following their parliament's approval of an "anti-terrorist" operation, it is believed that snipers were given permission to shoot. The EU has spoken with President Yanukovych and called for sanctions against those responsible for the shooting. Numerous nations have expressed a desire for the violence to end.
The immediate cause for the peaceful protests becoming frenzied riots was one thing: Yanukovych changing his mind on EU partnership in order to accept Russia's offer of $15 billion and temporary energy price advantages. There was no "pocketing". The bailout is dealt through Russia buying a load of Ukrainian government securities over a period of time. Reasoning for that amount has to do with the threshold for which Ukraine goes legally bankrupt. (It is a bit different than, say, China mass investing in US treasury bonds.) More importantly, many Ukrainians' greatest concern is what Russia receives in return for their loan agreement, possibly annexation.
Both sides did reach a shaky agreement involving legal changes and new government figures. It does involve turning over weapons and ending occupation, so by no means is the crisis over. The interior minister did get removed after having been determined to order the shooting of civilians.
Regardless of how this ends, in my opinion neither side will have won. In effect becoming a police state, resorting to mob rule, employing street justice, and flirting with civil war leaves an ugly stain. There are parallels to other former Soviet republics like Georgia.
I would argue that technically wars are always won by at least one party through annihilation or forcing surrender. Abstractly, there is always the theme of the true victim in war being humanity. The conflicts in Kiev and other areas do not constitute war under the formal definition, so this agreement does not qualify as an armistice. As loosely as they can be compared historically, massacres such as in Boston and Tianenmen Square had highly significant repercussions.
By Limxzero (5329)
