Ukraine: Timeline and An Two American Considerations

Ukraine: Timeline and An Two American Considerations

Political Food for thought: Sun Tzu writes in the “Art of War” that positioning is the greatest objective for any state. In reality, Sun Tzu credits deception as the key virtue of winning a war, and the best victors “triumph before their enemy’s threats become real.” When you approach another person, how you present yourself is how they will judge you. You hold the key to that judgment, meaning you CAN control what others think of you.


To understand the current situation of diplomacy involving Ukraine, it is important to discuss the chain of events that have led the Western nations to this point.


  • November 21st, 2013: Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych denies the offer by the European Union. At the time, the European Union was seeking to draw the Ukraine closer to it politically and economically. Officially, the EU labels Ukraine a priority partner country within several projects. The attached link contains all official goals of European-Ukrainian cooperation. At the same time as receiving an offer from the EU, the Ukrainian government received one from the Russian government.
  • November 30th: Protests begin to form, and in typical autocratic fashion, police begin to arrest protesters. Images go across the internet showing “brutality” and suddenly the Western states become ‘frustrated’ by the crackdown on freedom of expression in Ukraine. This does not reflect the true environment of Ukraine which has had terrible civil and political freedoms since its controversial elections in 2004.
  • December 1st: A gathering of 300,000 people forms in the capital of Kiev, the largest gathering since the Orange Revolution of 2004. These protesters storm the Kiev City Hall. While protesters stormed the City Hall, opposition leaders, like Vitaly Klitschko, called for protesters to stand down from violence and not to storm further government buildings. Other opposition leaders echo calls for peaceful protest.
  • December 17th: Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, announces that the Russian deal will include buying $15 billion of Ukrainian bonds, and drastically cutting the price of natural gas from Russia to Ukraine. Putin and Yanukovych claim no strings are attached to the deal being offered. Claims of an “EU-instigated revolt” begin surfacing as Kiev still remains in civil unrest. An opposition leader, Yulia Tymoshenko, who is currently imprisoned and being detained without trial is mentioned. This is the first instance of a separate famous leader from Vitaly Klitschko. A third opposition leader, Arseni Yatsenyuk, declares the President has “blood of our children, the blood of students, the blood of the youth on his hands.”
  • January 16th, 2014: On ‘Black Thursday’, the Ukrainian parliament passes the “Ukrainian anti-protest laws” as an attempt to overtly criminalize all forms of protest and end the unrest. The laws reduce the right to protest, partake in free speech, and participate in non-government organizations. EU and American journalists label the laws “Draconian” or “Dictatorship” laws as they “effectively make Ukraine a dictatorship.”
  • January 22nd: After nearly a 2 months of upheaval, Kiev has the first bloodshed when protesters and police clash violently. The protesters had been manning barricades, and in attempt to take back territory from the aggressive mob, police open fire. Two protesters die from the gunfire, and a third falls to their death in the clashes.
  • January 28th: The Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, resigns from his post. Azarov is most famous for his “Reforms do not fall into women’s competence” in the 2010 elections. After his resignation, the Ukrainian Parliament repeals all the anti-expression laws that had been instituted by Azarov and Yukanovych.
  • January 31st: Activist Dmytro Bulatov, who had been believed to have been kidnapped, reappears bruised and with his right ear mutilated. He claims he was kidnapped by pro-government agents and that he was forced to admit on camera “he had accepted money from the US Embassy.” Internet accusations of a grand US conspiracy begin.
  • February 16th: After nearly 3 months of protests, protesters abandon Kiev City Hall. 234 jailed protesters are released in exchange for the abandonment, as a sign of goodwill and ending unrest.
  • February 18th: Violence breaks out once again as protesters and police attack each other. 26 people die, at least 10 of them police officers. Protesters claim they attacked because the Parliament was stalling on passing a constitutional reform. Protesters charge at police lines and set fire to Kiev. As the night closes in Kiev, Police in riot gear storm Independence Square, trying to dislodge the arson-spreading protesters.
  • February 20th: Casualties begin to mount as the recent truce becomes violated. No side lays at fault as video shows police using stun grenades to combat protesters as they continue to set fire to Kiev and keep the fires going.


What Diplomacy, if any has the Western world suggested? SANCTIONS!

That’s right, the EU on February 20th, announced they would impose economic sanctions on the Ukrainian president and his senior officials, including travel bans into the European Union. Shortly after the EU announced its diplomatic response, the Canadian government increased their ante by declaring “they will medically aid the protesters in their time of need.” For the European Union, money and further growth of the Union lays in a stable and pro-European Ukraine. For the Canadian government, large minority populations of Ukrainian-Canadians demand the support of the democracy in the Ukraine.

But for the United States, what is best for us? Is our National Interest lie in a pro-European Ukraine? Do we or should we care about whether Ukraine is 1. Democratic, or 2. Whose side it is on? Clearly, our President is as confused as we are about the rights and wrongs of this situation, as the White House has still failed to join in the EU-Canada sanctions. Our President clearly believes the Ukrainian people deserve democracy, and their rights to expression, speech, and protest.

Opinion of Michael McKinney (Unilateral Internationalist): We should take the initiative and offer a stronger deal to the Ukrainian government than the Russian proposal being presented right now. We should also assist in the strengthening of sanctions at this point on the Ukrainian leadership. Freezing their assets and establishing travel bans will reduce the amount of places that will grant asylum to these former leaders. If America gives a better deal than the Russians, or the IMF, then the Ukrainian Parliament may have an incentive to end the schism of government much sooner. It is better than sitting on our hands. Sanctions and a $15+ bailout?

Opinion of Michael Tagan (Realist Unilateralist): Superseding the deal of the Russians would be in the furthering of the American national interest. But if we agree to the sanctions, then we simply drive these former leaders into the Russian arms. Dissident former leaders become rebels with a cause, and rebels with a cause start large rebellions due to foreign support. We can see our wonderful intervention into Yemen for how ousting a leader goes. If we really want to win the day for America, we need to put as part of our better deal to the Ukrainians an “amnesty for all partisans” clause, in which, the President, Prime Minister, Parliament, the police officers and military, and the protesters all are free from criminal charges. There isn’t a good or bad side in this conflict, and both sides have leaders mired in corruption. The best you can hope for is a white peace, in which the economic woes are mitigated for a time long enough for Ukraine to sort out Ukraine’s problems. It’d be nice, if we didn’t have to police this situation. Diplomatic Immunity for all and a $15+ bailout?

Here are some interesting US-Ukraine Business Groups:

US-Ukraine Business Council: List of Members
US-Ukraine Trade and Investment Council, Office of the United States Trade Representative, Executive Office of the President
US-Ukraine Foundation: Major Contributors and Individuals
Market of Ukraine: Portal for Business Partnerships

Congressmen pushing for action in Ukraine:
Senator John McCain
Senator Chris Murphy
Representative Eliot Engel
Senator Bob Corker
Senator Robert Menendez


Results of the Polling: The Discussions to fall

Since we have a 5 way tie for topics, it’ll be left to me, your gracious writer on Civility to determine the order of topics.

So we’ll be going in this order.

Blog #1: Diplomacy of the Ukrainian Sanctions, what the EU, USA, and Canada might do now that the truce has been broken.

Blog #2: International Violence: What’s happening in Venezuela and Syria that you may or may not know.

Blog #3: Illinois Politics: What’s The Democrat Party Doing this week? (This may become a weekly mini blogging, noting that my home state is in fact a Democrat stronghold, though its policy-making is quite erratic these days.)

Blog #4: US Politics: So those no longer gonna be FCC monitoring, can they come back legally? Also Jimmy Fallon’s declaration of no politics on late night and what it means for late night comedy.

Blog #5: Economy: Why Girl Scout cookie sales and Tax revenues can sell marijuana in some states and not others, or why is “Illegal-Legalization Doing so Well.”

Ambitious Ideas

Ambitious Ideas

My Main Goals (for Today)

So I thought about it for awhile and yes, I will begin a blog series. I don’t know how successful it will be, but I will try to get out a blog at least weekly. I’m going to cover some house-keeping things in this blog.

1. First I will establish I am no artist, and NONE of the art on my page is of my own work. It is from Deviant Art or from DC government websites. The male character portrayed in the image is “America, the Hero” from the Anime Series Hetalia, a series devoted to the interactions between nations of the world, if they were all people.

2. I am a Classical Liberal in the European Sense, meaning I am a Libertarian in the American Sense. What that means is that I don’t operate often on Social issues. I don’t believe the government should facilitate in removing social traditions or furthering them. In fact, the government I prefer is an amoral entity, since it has no soul. I would advocate having MORAL LEADERS, but a MORAL state is something that will gravitate to seizing the religious and societal power.

3. I am going to use a bunch of terms, and I will try to explain them. At the beginning of each article, I will address one term that I feel is an important thing to learn for the day. What that means is that there will be two things to get out of each article. First, you’ll get a snippet of political science terminology and become a better citizen and voter. Second, you’ll get the weekly briefing on some type of affairs in the world.

4. I will cover the following issues in my article: EVERYTHING. That being sad, I will try, and sincerely try, to avoid doing two things. Critically insulting one group and supporting one, as I see problems in politicians from both parties; I also will avoid using swear words, or “profane” language. However, as the environment in DC is one of unprofessional nature, I hear swear words every day, so I apologize in advance if I use a term that is “offensive” to you.

5. I encourage commenting and questioning of my opinions on this. I will try to get to this as often as possible. If you see a piece of information that is interesting, or you would like to have a blog-written opinion on something, you can contact me on my facebook, twitter, or my email address associated with this blog, .

6. I understand that in order to effectively carry out political debate in an efficient and sincere manner, it is important to remember the two KEY features of debate. One, all contenders must be honest and present the sources they are coming from or quoting, meaning you will be held to defending your arguments. Two, THERE SHALL BE NO INSULTING OF OTHER COMMENTORS. (I cannot stop trolling effectively, but I want to present an environment where bully tactics are not permitted.)

Who I am?

My name is Michael McKinney. I will go by certain terms that have been given to me over time from friends and associates. When I am giving a point of instruction, or answering a question about political science, you can refer to the name “Master Tagan” (as a joke really). When I approach an article that clearly has TWO sides, I will give an argument from Michael McKinney, and Michael Tagan. Michael McKinney will always be my own personal opinion, and Michael Tagan will always be the argument of my opposite.

If you feel that I have portrayed an argument incorrectly at some point, and you believe that you can more carefully and succinctly argue the side, email me your write-up and I will post it as a “Addressing the Public: #, and then the topic”

My aim is to present topics in a similar manner to the Federalist Papers, and allow arguments/discussions between people, but civility is my greatest concern. CIVILITY will be maintained on my blog.

Barring nothing else, you can always contact me on the various channels of internet communications, and I am always near a laptop/computer, and so I can adequately respond to topics. I am thinking about updating this every Monday at least, but if I feel ambitious enough I will take on a second day.  Perhaps Friday or Saturday as a “week wrap” kind of thing.

Bringing Discussion When Civility Dies
The Classical Liberal, Michael McKinney