The Left is Back in Greece

Shockwaves have rippled throughout Europe as the anti-austerity party, Syriza romped to victory in the elections held in Greece on Sunday. Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza has promised to renegotiate the bailout terms with Greece’s international backers known as the Troika (a coalition of Eurozone countries, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank). His aim is to end the devastating austerity that has caused the Greek economy to experience near perpetual recession for the past six years. When asked what Syriza’s victory meant, Tsipras responded “the vicious cycle of austerity is over.”

Following the financial catastrophe of 2008, Greece’s debt became a massive problem for government finances. Greece needed to borrow money to keep the country running, but was unable to borrow from the banks due to the extortionate interest rates it was being charged. To save the Greek economy from collapse the Troika offered the Greek government a bailout. In exchange the Greek government would have to slash spending by huge amounts to balance its books. However this was the wrong time for austerity, private spending was already low due to the crash, so government spending was required to keep the economy afloat. Unfortunately the terms of the bailout resulted in plummeting private and public spending, creating a vicious cycle of decline. As many Greeks lost their jobs or had their pay cut, government tax revenues went down and welfare payments went up. However since the government was required to try and balance its budget, this created a bigger imbalance and forced further cuts. This meant less money in the economy, so more people were made unemployed, which in turn made government finances even worse off.

No wonder people voted for the most viable anti-austerity party; Syriza.

In the election Syriza managed to win 36.4% of the vote and 149 seats (just two short of a majority) compared to 27.8% and 76 seats for New Democracy, the senior party in the ruling coalition. This victory for Syriza is a line in the sand for both Greece and Europe. It has shown what will happen when you unleash harsh austerity on your people. Greece is far from unique, in Spain the anti-austerity and left-wing party Podemos was leading in the polls at the end of last year, despite only being founded in January! It also serves as a warning to establishment left-wing parties across Europe, including Labour hear in Britain. The rise in popularity of Syriza has been possible thanks to the collapse of the establishment left-wing party, Pasok. It entered into a collation with the conservative New Democracy and helped to unleash the austerity Greece has had to undergo. Other establishment left-wing parties should be wary before carrying out similar programs back home.

It is a new day in Europe, what happens next with Greece will decide the fate of the European integration project that is the European Union.  

Syriza supporters celebrate following victory in the election
Souce: BBC

Crisis in Ukraine

By the time 2014 rolled in, Ukraine was already in the middle of mass protests. The protests, nicknamed Euromaidan, were initially in response to pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych suspending preparations for the signing of an association agreement with the EU. The harsh crackdown by the government helped to embolden the protesters, which eventually resulted in Yanukovych fleeing the country on the 22^nd of February. Many Westerners assumed that would have meant the end of unrest in Ukraine, however that could not have been further from the truth.

Pro-Russian supporters in Crimea
Source: www.bbc.co.uk/news

The ousting of pro-Russian Yanukovych outraged his supporters and the Russian minority in Ukraine. The outrage was especially concentrated in the south and east of the country, where Yanukovych had drawn much of his support in elections. Outrage was especially pronounced in Crimea, which had the largest Russian minority in Ukraine. In fact ethnic Russians actually outnumbered ethnic Ukrainians in the peninsula. By the 26^th of February pro-Russian protesters had taken control of many positions within Crimea. Many of these ‘pro-Russian protesters’ were actually Russian servicemen in disguise. Many international observers believed that this was actually orchestrated by Russian President Vladimir Putin. When asked about this in April Putin seemed to confirm Western suspicions when he said that “of course Russian servicemen backed the Crimean self-defence forces.” A referendum was held on the 16^th of March on whether Crimea should join the Russian Federation. The vote (which was rigged) went overwhelmingly in favour of joining Russia, as a result Russia now considers the territory Russian, despite little international recognition.

After the remarkable success of Russia in taking Crimea, Putting turned his attention to eastern Ukraine. The eastern Oblasts (provinces) of Donetsk and Luhansk, known collectively as Donbass, have sizeable populations of ethnic Russians. However unlike Crimea, where ethnic Russians make up a majority of the population, they are only minorities in Donetsk and Luhansk. In the former they make up 38% and in the latter 39%. As a result simply taking the Oblasts would be far more difficult, and would be resisted much more by Ukraine. In early March pro-Russian militias began seizing government buildings in eastern Ukraine, many demanding independence from the country. They were remarkably similar to the protests in Crimea the previous month. Over the next six months the unrest turned into a full scale revolt with obvious, though unofficial, material support from Russia. Eventually a ceasefire was signed on the 5^th of September, which has been violated by both sides but is largely holding.

2015 will be an important year for Ukraine. Its government in Kiev is actively pursuing closer ties to Europe, whilst parts of the country are trying to separate. If Donetsk and Luhansk do break off this will be absolutely remarkable, and should worry countries with a Russian border. 

UKIP in the Ascendancy?

Nigel Farage has called the result an “earthquake in British politics” as his party charges into first place with almost 30% of the vote and 24 seats. Yet is this result, in a European election with a 34% turnout, an indication of the 2015 General Election? The answer: Not if history is anything to go by. Nobody is claiming that UKIP will beat the Tories or Labour in next year’s election, not even the party itself, the question is will it gain any seats, and if so, how many?

Remember back to 2009 when UKIP placed second in the European elections with 16.5% of the vote? Everyone predicted that in the 2010 General Election that UKIP would gain some seats in the House of Commons, especially considering voter hostility to both Labour and the Tories. Well in 2010 UKIP didn’t gain any seats and only received a paltry 3.1% of the vote. Obviously a lot has changed in five years, but I doubt Farage will cause an earthquake when the results of the 2010 election are revealed.

There was some good news though, support for the BNP crumbled into nothing! In the 2009 European elections the BNP managed to gain two MEPs, Nick Griffin in the North West and Andrew Brons in Yorkshire and the Humber. This time around both MEPs were handily defeated.

The Greens had a reasonable night, although their share of the vote actually decreased slightly they managed to gain one seat. This is particularly th

anks to the implosion of the Lib Dems, who slipped into fifth place and lost 10 of their 11 seats. This result, along with their obliteration in the council elections has meant many in Nick Clegg’s own party calling for his head.

Party	Vote	Change	Seats	Change	Pro or anti EU
UKIP	27.49%	+10.99%	24	+11	Anti
Labour	25.40%	+9.67%	20	+7	Pro
Conservative	23.93%	-3.80%	19	-7	Mixed
Greens	7.87%	-0.75%	3	+1	Pro
Liberal Democrats	6.87%	-6.87%	1	-10	Pro
SNP*	2.46%	+0.34%	2	0	Pro
Plaid Cymru*	0.71%	-0.13%	1	0	Pro
BNP	1.14%	-5.10%	0	-2	Anti

*The percentage of the vote is when you take all of Great Britain (not Northern Ireland). In Scotland the SNP got 29% of the vote and in Wales Plaid Cymru got 15%. 

Undoubtedly Eurosceptics did quite well, but the result was not as Eurosceptic as you might have been lead to believe. 42% of people voted for pro-EU parties, 31% for anti-EU parties and 25% on parties that have mixed attitudes to the EU.

A Victory for Euroscepticism?

So the results are now in, but what do the results of the European Parliamentary elections mean?

Well they are certainly the most important elections that the EU has held since voting to the European Parliament began in 1979. Eurosceptic parties did well across the continent, but in particular they did well in Greece, Italy, France, Britain and Denmark. In Greece the radically left-wing (and Eurosceptic) SYRIZA won the largest amount of seats whilst the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn won three seats. In France Marine LePen’s National Front managed to place first. In Italy Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement came in second to the pro-EU Democratic Party. In both Britain and Denmark Eurosceptic parties managed to beat out pro-EU left wing rivals to the top of the podium. Note: I will be doing separate posts on Greece, France and Britain, so I won’t write about them anymore in this post.

A lot of the media attention has been on the success of the far-right, but thankfully it has been largely exaggerated. In Hungary the neo-Nazi party, Jobbik, was hoping to increase the amount of seats it held in Europe from three. Fortunately it was unable to do so and in fact their share of the vote declined very slightly from 2009 (-0.48%). In Britain support for the BNP crumbled into nothing, France’s National Front isn’t truly far-right anymore. The only real success the neo-Nazis got was in Greece where Golden Dawn managed to gain three seats.

It is extremely important to note that the four largest European Parliament groups are all pro-EU and together they received 63.6% of the vote and 498 of the 751 seats in the European Parliament. Although the Eurosceptic parties did have their best night in European election history, don’t be fooled into thinking that they did far better than they actually did.

Parliamentary group	Vote	Change	Seats	Change	Pro or anti EU	Countries
EPP	24.2%	-8.33%	208	-59	Pro	12
S&D	24.4%	+1.62%	186	-2	Pro	5
Liberals	7.6%	-2.47%	58	-23	Pro	4
Greens	7.4%	+0.02%	46	-9	Pro	1
Left	6.1%	+2.09%	42	+7	Anti	1
EFD	5.2%	+0.28%	38	+9	Anti	2
Conservative	4.2%	-0.65%	45	-11	Mixed*	0
Other	21.0%	+7.45%	117	+88	Varies**	1

*They wish to repatriate powers from the EU, but do not wish to withdraw from the EU.

**As it is not a parliamentary group, the parties in this category do not have a defined political opinion. Yet most of the parties in this category are Eurosceptic.  

The Anti-EU vote includes all of the Left, EFD,
Conservatives and other

The difference between the 2009 and 2014 European elections
Colour represents the country's largest delegation
Purplish red - Left
Red - Socialists & Democrats
Light blue - EPP
Dark Blue: Conservatives
Purple: EFD
Green: Greens
Yellow: Liberals
Dark Grey: Even split or other

Britain - the Best Place to be Gay

Britain has been revealed to be the best place to be gay in Europe, according to the International Lesbian, Gay, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA). The organisation rates countries based on their treatment by the law, rather than by society at large. It rates countries based on five categories (the percentage indicates how much it contributes to the final score)

1.       Laws & policies against discrimination (25%)

2.       Family recognition (25%)

3.       Protection against hate speech/crime (20%)

4.       Legal gender recognition (15%)

5.       Respect of freedom of assembly, association & expression (10%)

6.       Asylum (5%)

Britain scored 82%, coming in well ahead of Belgium (78%) and Spain (73%). It should not surprise you that Russia had the poorest score of only 6%, marginally worse than Azerbaijan (7%) and Armenia (9%).  Malta wins the award of most improved country, the country added 22% to their old score of 35%, which means that they are now one of only fifteen countries to have a score greater than 50%. Montenegro also improved significantly over the past year, adding 20% to their score of 27%, meaning they are just short of 50%. Bulgaria was the third best improver, increasing from 18% to 30% (a change of 12%).

The mean score for Europe unfortunately only went up 3% from 33% to 36% and only 15 countries are above 50% (Austria, Croatia and Malta are the new members of this group). The split in Europe can be seen clearly when you look at non-EU versus EU countries. The average for the EU is 46% whereas for non-EU countries the average is a measly 24%.

Thankfully it looks likely that Europe’s improving rights for LGBTI* individuals will improve again for the 2015! Already there are bills pending or proposed in 15 countries that would improve the recognition of same-sex couples**.

Britain’s score of 82% is an improvement of 5% on 2013’s score. The improved score was as a result of increased recognition of same-sex families and gender identity. The legalisation of same-sex marriage in England & Wales, and Scotland was the most important factor here. Northern Ireland also finally equalised adoption rights for same-sex couples. There’s a certain irony to Britain being the world’s leading voice when it comes to LGBTI rights. When Britain colonised the world it brought with it its homophobic laws and ideas to places which previously had none. If you look at a map of the countries which still criminalise same-sex relationships, they tend to fall into two of the following categories: Muslim majority or former British territory. A legacy like this is embarrassing to say the least, but the best we can do it show how wrong we were and continue to lead the world on gay rights issues.

For more information visit ILGA's website: http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/publications/rainbow_europe

*lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans & intersex

**Full marriage bill pending in Andorra, Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Civil union (or equivalent) bill pending in Croatia and Italy, proposed in Cyprus.

Other recognition of same-sex couples bill pending in Austria, Estonia, Germany, Greece and Poland, proposed in Albania, San Marino and Slovenia.

In Ireland same-sex marriage is to go to a referendum in 2015, highly likely to succeed.

Ukrainian Crisis Approaches Boiling Point

The crisis in Ukraine has continued to get even hotter over the past week despite attempts by diplomats to secure a peace deal.

Eastern Ukraine has a large proportion of ethnic Russians, and many Ukrainians who are supportive of Russia. This is why the Kremlin has moved its focus from Crimea to the rest of eastern Ukraine. The series of events which resulted in Crimea joining Russia has begun to play out across the east. Armed men have taken numerous government buildings, erected Russian flags and demanded that they be allowed to join Russia. Just like the armed men in Crimea they are too well-organised to simply be pro-Russian locals. Rather, they are mostly members of the Russian armed forces. Of course Russia denies that the militia are connected to the Russian military, but they made the same statements about the militia in Crimea and have since admitted that they were actually Russian soldiers.

Yet, as I have said in my previous posts, these areas are not like Crimea. They are not majority Russian and hence the Ukrainian government will put up more of a fight for control of the region. Already Kiev had sent troops in to take some key positions back from the Russians.

Despite the chaotic situation in the east, there did seem to be some hope that a peaceful solution might actually be reached! The governments of Ukraine, Russia, the US and EU reached an agreement in Geneva. The agreement called for the dissolving of all illegal military groups, amnesty for all anti-government protesters and that the militias that have taken control of government buildings must leave them. Unfortunately that deal seems dead in the water as one of the spokesmen for the separatists has said that they are not bound by the deal.

This all plays perfectly into Putin’s hand; he gets to look like a sensible diplomat whilst continuing to destabilise eastern Ukraine through these separatists. If you want any more proof that Putin is planning on take eastern Ukraine, all you need to do is watch the press conference he held earlier this week in which he referred to the eastern parts of Ukraine as “new Russia”! If that isn’t a clear sign that he plans to go even further into the territory of Ukraine, I don’t know what could be!

We Need to Talk About Appeasement

When Russia took Crimea from Ukraine the West responded with shock. The reaction in Eastern and Central Europe was very different, for years leaders in those countries had warned that Russia had never lost its imperialistic ambitions. Fear is particularly rife in the Baltic States who, bar a brief period of independence between World Wards, spent several centuries under the rule of Russia.

If we look at demographics they may have a reason to fear Russian aggression. Estonia and Latvia have sizeable ethnic Russian minorities, particularly in the east of their countries. The county of Ida-Viru in north-eastern Estonia is over 70% Russian, even more ethnically homogenous than Crimea! When Putin decided that he was going to invade Crimea he used the excuse that he was only doing it to protect Russians from the new government in Kiev. In Latvia, Russians are frequently treated like second-class citizens. Perhaps Putin could use this as a pretext to invasion?

Yet there are massive differences between Ukraine/Crimea and the Baltic states. The origins of the Crimean Crisis is the debate of whether Ukraine should tie itself closer to Russia or the EU. There is no such debate in the Baltic States, all three are members of the EU and NATO and are fully within the Western fold. Membership of NATO is of key importance here, no sovereign nation has invaded on of its members since its formation in 1949.

Another difference between Ukraine/Crimea and the Baltic states is of demographics and population. Estonia and Latvia have the highest proportions of ethnic Russians of the former USSR with 24.8% and 26.9% respectively. Compare this to Ukraine which has ‘only’ 17.3% ethnic Russians. But comparing country-wide percentages is not being intellectually honest. Russia has not invaded all of Ukraine, only Crimea. In Crimea 58.8% of the people are Russian. The population of these states is also important. Crimea has a population of 2.4 million, larger than both Estonia (1.3 million) and Latvia (2 million), only Lithuania with a population of 3 million is larger than Crimea. Lithuania has also got far fewer ethnic Russians, who make up only 5.8% of the population. There are more Russians in Crimea than the three Baltic States combined. The Estonian county of Ida-Viru has only 140,000 people in it. Would Putin really risk war with the West over an insignificant Estonian county? (no offence people of Ida-Viru county) When looking at the Baltic States Putin would be forced to do a cost-benefit analysis. He would then find the potential costs way too high and the benefits too few. It would seem inconceivable, but Putin has proved to be unpredictably before and will likely be so in the future.

So if the Baltic States will not be his next target, what will? The most commonly talked about are eastern Ukraine and Moldova.

Moldova is a small, landlocked country sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania. The fact that it does not border Russia, or even the sea, makes it seem strange that it might be the next flashpoint in a new Cold War. The fact that only 9.4% of Moldova is ethnically Russian further confuses the situation. Yet, as was the case with Ukraine, the problem is only part of the country. When Moldova seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991 the eastern portion of Moldova, Transnistria, seceded from Moldova. Although no UN member recognises the independence of Transnistria, it has been de facto independent for over 20 years. Another key issue is the demographics of the pseudo-independent state, it is roughly evenly split between Moldovans, Russians and Ukrainians (32, 30 and 29 respectively). Unlike the Baltic States, Moldova is not an EU or NATO member and hence is not well protected from foreign aggression.

Yet the major problem with invading Transnistria would be how could they get there? The most likely scenario would involve going through Ukraine and possibly Moldova. This could further destabilise the situation in Ukraine, especially since it would put Russian troops extremely close to Ukraine’s 4^th largest city, Odessa. Once they had control of Transnistria there would be the issue of what to do next? To move in/out of Transnistria would involve going through Ukraine, or Moldova and Romania. Considering Russia would have violated the sovereignty of the former two, they would be unlikely to willingly help Russia. Another option would be to take more territory, considering Putin’s actions already, it is not unthinkable. One issue that could prevent Russian action in Transnistria is the reaction that the rest of Moldova would have. Moldova is hoping is one day enter the European fold, Russia violating their sovereignty would likely cause them to seek closer ties with Europe sooner.

So if Transnistria is unlikely to happen, what really are the chances of Russia invading eastern Ukraine? As I have explained previously, no Ukrainian Oblast has more than 40% ethnic Russians (other than Crimea). Yet who says that Russia has to take an entire Oblast, perhaps just part of it. The city of Donetsk is 48% Russian, could Putin decide that he would likely to take that city?

Assigning probabilities is pointless as it all depends on how the West acts going into the future. If the West does nothing then the chances of Russia taking action in Transnistria, eastern Ukraine or the Baltic states would increase. If Putin does go further and the West does not take military action then we are taking about appeasement. I know accusing Putin of acting like Hitler seems drastic, but it is true. Hitler took Czechoslovakia and Poland to ‘protect’ ethnic Germans. If Putin takes Ukraine and Moldova to ‘protect’ ethnic Russians then how is he any different?

Chaos in Crimea

So the results of the referendum in Crimea are in and with a turnout of 83%, 96.6% of people voted to join Russia.

If you believe that, then you’ll believe anything. From the minute I heard about this I was convinced that it would be rigged. There’s certainly no way that the election could be considered fair, after all it’s very hard to have a fair election when there are men with guns that demand that you vote in a particular way.

Elections/referendums in which over 90% of the votes of one way are not necessarily rigged, last year the Falklands voted 99% to remain British, and not even the Argentinian government disputes the results. In the case of Crimea it does seem far-fetched that 96.6% of the voters would want to join Russia considering what we know about Crimea. Crimean Tartars are terrified of joining with Russia after how badly they were treated under the USSR. The Ukrainian population is more split, some supporting Kiev and others supporting Moscow.

I fundamentally believe in the right to national self-determination, within certain limits. I believe that if the Crimeans want to join Russia, then they should be allowed to, but it has to be done in the right way. You cannot hold the referendum whilst Russia is occupying the region and you must wait until the political climate cools, so that people can make rational choices.

Crimea becomes the third territory that Russia has taken off a sovereign nation. In 2008 Russia invaded the Caucasian nation of Georgia and took Abkhazia and South Ossetia from it. They have since become pseudo-independent nations that are in reality satellite Russian territories. Now people are wondering if Crimea will be the last territory that Russia steals, what about southern and eastern Ukraine? What about Transnistria, the pseudo-independent state formally part of Moldova?

It is important to note the special case of Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Crimea I majority Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared their independence in the early 1990s. This is important to note as no other Ukrainian Oblast has more than 40% ethnic Russians and Transnistria has no border with Russia. Is it possible that Russia will take more of Ukraine? Yes. Is it likely? No.

Source: wikipedia

Crimean Annexation Imminent & Repeating History

The Crimean Parliament voted yesterday to become part of Russia, pending a referendum. This will further raise tensions between Russia and the West who have been exchanging verbal blows over the crisis. So what will the referendum actually say and when will it be held?

The Crimean Parliament is hoping that it can hold the referendum as the 16^th of March. It will contain the two following questions:

1.       Are you in favour of reuniting Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?

2.       Are you in favour of retaining the status of Crimea as part of Ukraine?

I have an issue with the wording in the first question, the use of the word ‘reuniting’ looks like an attempt to change the result. A better word to use would be joining.  Another problem with the referendum is over it constitutionality. Article 73 of the Ukrainian constitution states that only an all-Ukrainian referendum can change its territory. For a referendum to be called, the following conditions must be met.

1)      President of Ukraine calls for a referendum

2)      The Verkovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) calls for a referendum

3)      The people demand a referendum using the following conditions:

i)                    3 million people eligible to vote have signed a petition on the matter

ii)                   Two thirds of Ukraine’s 24 oblasts have at least 100,000 signatories

It is quite clear that these steps have not been followed, but nonetheless the Crimean Deputy Prime Minister, Rustam Temirgalier, denies that the move is unconstitutional. He claims that since the Crimean Parliament does not believe that the government in Kiev is legal, the move is perfectly constitutional. That makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no doubt in my mind that this referendum will be rigged. There is no way that the Crimean Parliament would pull something like this off without talking to Putin first. So think about this: Putin would be absolutely humiliated, both domestically and internationally, if the referendum were to turn out pro-Ukrainian. So he needs to make sure that there is no chance of losing the election, and so he will definitely make sure that it is rigged.

According to the latest Ukrainian census, Russians make up 58% of Crimea, which means that there is a good chance that they could lose this referendum if it was held fairly.

At this point I feel like Crimea may be a lost cause, but we cannot give in to the Russians.

Repeating history:

7^th of March 1936: Nazi Germany remilitarises the Rhineland, contrary to the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI. Other than some angry speeches, Britain and France do nothing.

12^th of March 1938: Nazi troops march into Austria

30^th of September 1938: Czechoslovakia agrees to hand the Sudetenland over to Nazi Germany

16^th of March 1939: Nazi troops take the rest of Czechoslovakia

1^st of September 1939: Nazi Germany invades Poland and WWII officially begins

August 2008: South Ossetia War results in Georgian loss of territory

16^th of March 2014: Crimea votes to join Russia.

??th of ????? 20??: Russia takes more of Ukraine

Fear of War Rises in Ukraine

The crisis in Ukraine is turning out to be the biggest geopolitical crisis in Europe this side of the millennium. The demands of the protesters, in the beginning, was simply a call for President Yanuchovych to turn towards the EU, rather than Russia.

Then everything changed last week.

The protests descended into chaos when the police attempted to take parts of Kiev that had been controlled by the protesters. As the situation got bloodier, a truce was hashed out between the government and the opposition, but it was not to last. The truce was declared on Thursday the 20^th of January, and dead by the 21^st! Friday turned out to be the bloodiest since protests began with an estimated 100 people killed, mostly on the opposition side.

As a result President Yanuchovych promised fresh elections, but it was too late, the Ukrainian Parliament voted unanimously to impeach him and replace him with the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament, Oleksandr Turchynov. Almost immediately Yanuchovych fled the country, fearful of his safety.

Unfortunately things have gotten even worse for Ukraine, the country may actually break apart! It has been evident throughout the portests that support for the EU is highest in the north and west of Ukraine, whilst support for Russia is highest in the south and east. This is because there are higher portions of ethnic Russians in the latter. This schism is being most acutely felt in Crimea, which is majority Russian.

Russia is trying desperately to make sure that Ukraine stays within its influence. Before the breakup of the USSR, Moscow held sway over all of Eastern Europe, today only Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine are under its wing. If Russia were to lose Ukraine, it would be a massive blow to its influence in the region. As a result Russian President, Vladimir Putin, is doing everything he can to make sure that he does not lose Ukraine. On 26^th of February, Putin put 150,000 troops along the Ukraine-Russia border ‘on alert’. Two days later armed men took control of several government buildings in Simferopol, Crimea’s capital, and raised the Russian flag. Some suspect that the level of organisations of the men indicates that they had likely been trained and that the Russians were behind them.

To make matters worse, the Upper House of the Russian Parliament voted today, unanimously, to allow troops to be used in Ukraine! This looks like the beginning of the first war in Europe since Kosovo in 1999!

So what should the West do? I say fight fire with fire. We must promise that if Russia invades Ukraine, that we will send in troops to oppose them. I know it sounds drastic, but the only language Putin understands is brute force. By showing him that the West remains strong, he will have no choice but to stand down.

Horrific Violence in Ukraine

Violence has descended upon the streets of Ukraine once more, as clashes between police and protesters worsened. So far 26 people have been killed, 14 of them protesters and 12 police.

This is absolutely horrific, especially considering that just last week there were hopes of a deal. Protesters had agreed to leave some parliament buildings, in exchange the government would grant amnesty to the protesters. At the moment we don’t know whose fault it is for the violence, as both sides blame each other. Yet in the ensuing chaos it’s pretty clear that the government side has acted a lot worse. They have repeatedly broken promises they made and even set a building on fire, forcing people to jump out of buildings to escape the flames!

It was hoped that a truce agreed yesterday would give the politicians a chance to agree to something more long term. Unfortunately that truce has broken down thanks to the government. It didn't even last 24 hours! Today alone at least 17 protesters have been killed according to the BBC! This raises the total killed this week to 43, 31 of them protesters.

The only way out is for fresh elections, and if the government wins then I would be in favour of ending the Euromaidan protests. The current president, Viktor Yanukovych, won the highly dubious 2010 election with barely 3% more than his opponent. Some people would argue that as he won that election, that the protesters should simply wait until the next election in 2015, after all he was democratically elected! The problem with this argument is that Ukraine is not a stable democracy like Britain or America. This makes it more vulnerable to destruction. Four years may not appear like enough time to turn a democracy into a dictatorship, but remember: it only took Hitler two.

Thankfully the West has decided to act, America is preparing to impose sanctions and the EU is probably going to in the next few days. This has angered the Ukrainian and Russian governments who hope to crush the opposition. Russia’s foreign ministry blamed the West’s “conniving politics” for the protests. The great irony is: it was Russia’s ‘conniving politics’ that was the cause of the protests in the first place!

One of the many injured people
Source: BBC

Ukraine Should Remind us that the EU is Still Important

The EU has not had a great few years, the Euro currency has been in constant pain since the economic crisis of 2007-2009. The wealthier Euro nations such as Germany, Netherlands and Finland have had to support the appropriately named ‘PIIGS’ countries. All across the EU euro-scepticism is rising with the likes of the National Front in France and UKIP in the UK. You might think that with all that pain on the inside, non-EU nations would be hesitant about creating closer ties with the organisation. Especially when there is a viable alternative.

It will then come as a surprise to you to learn that there is a country in which pro-EU sentiment is strong enough to spark a revolution! That country is Ukraine.

The EU has eyed Ukraine as a country that it wishes to create closer bonds with. As part of the European Neighbourhood Policy it was trying to get Ukraine to sign an Association Agreement, so long as it implements certain reforms. The major problem was that the agreement is opposed by Ukraine’s ally, Russia. The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, really hates the deal as he wants Ukraine to join the Eurasian Economic Community of five former Soviet States and eventually the customs union that includes only Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The strong opposition from Putin caused Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to refuse to sign the Agreement on the 29^th of November as he was supposed to. This sparked fury in Ukraine.

For the past ten days people have protested in cities all across Ukraine, but particularly in the capital, Kiev. The Ukrainian people have grown fed up with the historic influence of Russia and the Kremlin. They wish to leave its bitter embrace and join with Western Europe, in the hopes of some fresh air. The statue of Lenin in Kiev was torn down yesterday, as it was seen as a symbol of Russian oppression. It was replaced with the European Union’s flag – now a symbol of hope and democracy in the poor Eastern European country.

This is not the first time Ukrainians have taken to the streets to protest against Yanukovych. In 2004 he won a highly disputed election that resulted in mass demonstrations and the election being annulled. In the second election Yanukovych was easily beaten by his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko. The Orange Revolution, as it was later called, should have served as a warning to Yanukovych that if he messed with the Ukrainian people, then he would pay a high price.

It is difficult to say whether these demonstrations will actually cause a change in government, but they nonetheless show that the European Union is still important. To many people living in well-established democracies like the United Kingdom and France, the EU has outlived its usefulness. Founding it was meant to make war impossible amongst the ‘Great Powers’ of Europe, and in that it has succeeded. Yet to those who live in fledgling democracies, which could fail at any given moment, the EU is a beacon of light. It is something that they can work towards and will help stabilise their countries. It is something that has proven to bring economic well-being to the less advantaged nations. Ireland, Greece and Portugal may seem to be in a bad economic situation now, but it is still better than what it was in their pre-EU days. If the countries that did not ‘need’ the EU were to leave, you would find a significantly weaker EU, one that could not help the nations that need it.  

The Rapid Rise and Decline of the Far Right (Hopefully)

When times are hard, people turn to extremes. This was very evident following the 1929 Wall Street Crash, all across the world people looked for alternatives to the system that had just destroyed their lives. Some went to the communists and others went to the fascists. Without a doubt WWII can be directly linked to the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Fast forward 79 years to 2008 and you find yourself in the midst of another economic catastrophe, again Wall Street has failed. People once again were forced to the extremes, but this time it is all very different. Unlike in 1929, only the far-right seems to have really made gains, the ranks of communists and socialists have barely increased at all whilst across the world the far-right has made fantastic gains!

 In the European elections in 2009 the BNP managed to gain two seats. In last year’s election in Greece the neo-Nazi party, Golden Dawn, managed to win 21 seats in Greece’s parliament. In France the National Front candidate, Marine Le Pen, took 20% of the votes in the first round. In Italy the Northern League has helped to form a right-wing coalition! In America the Tea Party movement sprang up following the election of Barack Obama. There are a few non-economic reasons for their rise, immigration is usually a major campaigning tool for the far-right, and that isn’t exactly a new issue.

Yet, thankfully, the tide appears to be turning, at least in some countries. In the UK the BNP is already falling apart, in the 2010 General Election they failed to gain any seats. In the 2012 London Assembly elections they lost their one MLA. The next European elections in 2014 should see their success in 2009 reversed.

In the states, the popularity of the Tea Party seems to be dwindling. Although they are still a vocal minority, only 21% of Americans in a recent poll actually approve of the Tea Party.

In Greece the government appears to be finally cracking down on Golden Dawn. Six of their MPs have been arrested, including the leader of the party, Nikolaos Michaloliakos, and the deputy leader, Christos Pappas. The Party was the most neo-Nazi of all the new movement, actively advocating racial superiority. Most other parties across the West were more subtle when it came to being that extreme.

The next big test for the far-right will be the 2014 European Elections. How many seats the far right gets in the European Parliament will be extremely telling when election time comes. Let’s hope they fail – and don’t forget to vote!

Britain Won't Intervene

Syria has dominated the headlines over the past few days and for good reason. It was announced that the UN inspectors would be finished and out of Syria by Saturday, the BBC revealed a new regime-committed atrocity, and France and America will likely intervene in Syria. But the biggest news came out of the UK.

Last night the House of Commons rejected David Cameron's proposal that we should have some form of limited intervention in Syria. This was despite Cameron conceding that intervention would have to follow the UN inspectors' report, that there would be a second vote in the House of Commons and we should at least try to go through the UN. The pro-intervention side said that we must show Assad that we are serious and that intervention would be perfectly legal from a humanitarian standpoint. Unfortunately Labour won the vote, 285 against intervention, 272 in favour. This means that Britain will not be able to intervene in Syria and it sends the message to Assad that Britain will not act against him if he uses chemical weapons again.

As this vote was taking place last night, the BBC was releasing evidence of a new atrocity in Syria. A Syrian air-force jet dropped, what is believed to be, some form of incendiary bomb on a school playground. The BBC reported that the injuries from nearby victims was consistent with that of napalm. So far, ten have died.

Meanwhile the US has revealed that it is certain that Assad used chemical weapons earlier this month. The report claimed that the US knows exactly when the attack took place and where the chemicals were launched from. The report claims that 1,429 people were killed and 426 were children. So the US and France are intervening, whilst Britain sits on the sidelines and Russia raises tensions by sending a warship to the eastern Mediterranean.

Watch this space folks.