The basis for a compromise could be an agreement on early presidential elections

On January 19, the political crisis in Ukraine entered a new phase. After the day before the Verkhovna Rada, despite the resistance of the opposition, adopted a package of laws aimed at sharply increasing responsibility for participants in mass protests, there was a new surge in “Maidan” activity. More than 100,000 people gathered at the next People's Assembly on Independence Square, as in December last year. Leaders of the parliamentary opposition announced their intentions to create parallel government bodies, self-defense units, develop and approve a new Constitution, and hold a popular vote of no confidence and resignation of President Viktor Yanukovych. At the same time, it was stated that the use of violent methods in the fight against power is inadmissible. But the first reaction of many rally participants showed that not everyone present on the Maidan shared the strategy of peaceful struggle. And a few hours later, the most radical protesters stormed the police cordon, which blocked the way to the government and parliament buildings.

quote_block node/248107

What happened in the center of Kyiv on the evening of January 19 and Monday January 20 can be called a “strange war.” Clashes occurred in only one place - near the Dynamo stadium (not far from the Maidan and the government building). Elsewhere in the capital of Ukraine, there were no clashes between police and protesters. The clashes were of a purely positional nature and were limited to a specific “shootout.” Dozens of people were injured, including about thirty journalists who were injured by targeted shots from traumatic weapons. The police could have launched a counterattack on the attackers several times, but they never did. And the attackers clearly did not have the strength to break through the cordon. On the morning of January 21, the clashes stopped as suddenly as they began.

What was it? A spontaneous release of aggression from the radical wing of the protesters who “stagnated” in the peaceful protest on the Maidan? Joint work on a television picture, when one side (radicals) tried to rekindle the fire of the revolution, excite its potential supporters and attract the attention of the international community, and the second side (the authorities) demonstrated the “aggressive face of the Maidan” and prepared a reason for the forceful suppression of protests? A spontaneous rehearsal for a future civil war?

There is some truth in each of these statements.

But something else became obvious. The situation remains stalemate. Neither the government nor the opposition have a decisive advantage. The crisis began to get out of control. The leaders of the parliamentary opposition can no longer restrain the radical wing of the Maidan and those protesters who simply demand more decisive action. The country has come close to the point beyond which political confrontation can develop into a violent conflict, and in fact, into a civil war. Both sides are afraid of crossing the fatal line, but they are not going to retreat either.

What's next? The following scenarios are possible:

Moderate-force scenario . Gradual (step-by-step) restoration of order with limited use of force and repressive measures. The large-scale use of force against Maidan in the current situation is fraught with casualties (the first people killed in clashes became known on the morning of January 22), and this could provoke a real civil war, at least in partisan forms, as well as inevitable sanctions from the West. For many Ukrainian leaders, this will be a sensitive blow, since they have businesses, real estate and bank accounts in Europe and the USA. Therefore, under this scenario, they will try to avoid arrests of opposition leaders, large-scale repression and excessive use of force. But will it be possible to keep the zealous performers and the Berkut, thirsty for revenge, within limits? And will there be a retaliatory use of force on the part of the Maidan, whose defenders and activists have nothing to lose (either a way out of the crisis on acceptable terms, or prison).

Negotiations between the government and the opposition, agreement on a compromise formula for overcoming the political crisis . The opposition's demands (early re-elections of the president and parliament, resignation of the government) are unacceptable to Yanukovych. And until recently, the Ukrainian authorities ignored the basic political demands of the Maidan and the very communication with opposition leaders. But the outbreak of the crisis prompted the president to change this tactic. He met with the most popular opposition leader, Vitali Klitschko, and also created a working group for negotiations. But real negotiations never started. The parties are bargaining over who should talk to whom (opposition leaders are demanding public negotiations personally with Yanukovych), insisting on the fulfillment of preconditions.

It will be even more difficult to find a compromise that will require mutual concessions.

A potential compromise is possible on the following issues: repeal or suspension of the “anti-Maidan” laws adopted on January 16; guarantees of democracy in the upcoming presidential elections (the presence of opposition representatives in the Central Election Commission; legal and political guarantees for the participation of opposition leaders in the presidential elections, since they do not want to allow Vitali Klitschko to participate in them); demilitarization of the center of Kyiv (withdrawal of Berkut and internal troops, removal of barricades on the Maidan, unblocking of the government quarter, liberation by the opposition of the buildings of the Kyiv City Administration and the House of Trade Unions seized by it). It will be much more difficult (and hardly possible) to find a compromise on the issue of the resignation of Mykola Azarov’s government and the formation of a new cabinet. Negotiations can break down at any moment. But even if a compromise is reached, part of the Maidan may not recognize it and will try to continue the confrontation. Serious problems may also arise in the process of implementing a compromise, which is associated with risks of renewed conflict.

Creation of parallel authorities by the Maidan . Such a plan has already been announced by the opposition, but its practical implementation raises serious doubts. At best, it can be implemented only in three regions of Galicia, partly in Kyiv and in a number of cities and regions of Central Ukraine and Volyn. But then this is the path to splitting the country. In the worst case, this will provoke forceful actions by the authorities against the opposition.

The crisis confrontation will continue until the end of the presidential elections, with periodic outbreaks of conflicts and a subsequent relative decrease in political tension. Within this option, partial manifestations of the three above-mentioned scenarios are possible.

No matter how the political situation in Ukraine develops, it is obvious that a quick and easy way out of the current crisis is not expected. Overcoming it will take time, as well as a more responsible attitude of the elites towards the fate of their country.

Confrontation in Kyiv: what next?