Did the Violent Protests in Kiev Mark the Beginning of the End of the ‘Maidan Revolution’?

Did the Violent Protests in Kiev Mark the Beginning of the End of the ‘Maidan Revolution’?

Did the Violent Protests in Kiev Mark the Beginning of the End of the ‘Maidan Revolution’?

As well as Washington’s ‘Ukrainian project’?

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the Ukrainian crisis and the New Cold War. The main focus is on the August 31 ultra-nationalist protests against the government’s proposal to grant considerable autonomy to Ukraine’s insurgent Donbass regions, as called for by the Minsk agreement to negotiate an end to the civil war. Having resulted in violence and a number of deaths, the event reflects the profound contradiction in both the “Maidan Revolution” and its current government between forces seeking a Europeanized multi-ethnic Ukraine and those in pursuit of a purified ethno-nationalist Ukraine in opposition both to Russia and the West. As a result, a second civil war is unfolding in Ukraine, a “second front” as it been called, which also portends a deepening crisis both of the US-backed Kiev government and US policy itself. Washington’s two men in Ukraine become weaker by the week, President Poroshenko unable to fulfill his obligation to implement the Minsk agreement and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk so unpopular he has withdrawn his party from upcoming local elections. Nor are the violent protesters marginal figures. Their representatives sit in the parliament and command armed battalions on the Eastern front. Meanwhile, abetted by a front page New York Times article on August 30, forces in Washington virtually declared another new Cold War front against Russia—this one in the Arctic.

We cannot back down

We now confront a second Trump presidency.

There’s not a moment to lose. We must harness our fears, our grief, and yes, our anger, to resist the dangerous policies Donald Trump will unleash on our country. We rededicate ourselves to our role as journalists and writers of principle and conscience.

Today, we also steel ourselves for the fight ahead. It will demand a fearless spirit, an informed mind, wise analysis, and humane resistance. We face the enactment of Project 2025, a far-right supreme court, political authoritarianism, increasing inequality and record homelessness, a looming climate crisis, and conflicts abroad. The Nation will expose and propose, nurture investigative reporting, and stand together as a community to keep hope and possibility alive. The Nation’s work will continue—as it has in good and not-so-good times—to develop alternative ideas and visions, to deepen our mission of truth-telling and deep reporting, and to further solidarity in a nation divided.

Armed with a remarkable 160 years of bold, independent journalism, our mandate today remains the same as when abolitionists first founded The Nation—to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, serve as a beacon through the darkest days of resistance, and to envision and struggle for a brighter future.

The day is dark, the forces arrayed are tenacious, but as the late Nation editorial board member Toni Morrison wrote “No! This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.”

I urge you to stand with The Nation and donate today.

Onwards,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editorial Director and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x