First the dissertation will produce a case study questioning how Lithuania was able to severe ties with Russia, post-independence, compared to Ukraine? Then in order to contextualize the four problem areas, reference will be made to Ukraine’s four post-independent presidents; Leonid Kravchuk (1991-1994), Leonid Kuchma (1994-2005) in chapter 2, and Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010) and Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014) in chapter 3. In conclusion the dissertation will argue that twenty-seven years of perpetual crisis management is due to the inaction of Ukraine’s post-independent presidents to tackle Kleptocratic-oligarchy, Identity, Dependency and Security, as areas identified for stifling the nations progress.
Independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 promised to be a fresh start for Ukraine and its peoples; a sovereign nation with the ability to pave its own destiny, free from the bloodied shackles of its Communist past. A nationwide referendum solidified the Ukrainian parliament’s declaration of independence garnering an irrefutable show of support for statehood.
Twenty-two years since gaining independence Ukraine was set to sign a landmark, comprehensive Association Agreement with the European Union; an agreement seen by many to represent the first phase of Ukraine’s alignment with the Western world. Even Ukraine’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych had euphorically proclaimed “we [Ukraine] are walking towards Europe”. However by August 2013, with three months to go before the official signing of the deal, Russia implemented a de facto trade embargo on Ukrainian exports, in addition, the EU demanded the immediate release of jailed opposition leader, Yulia Tymoshenko, a move Yanukovych flat out rejected. Facing stalemate on both fronts, on the 21st November 2013 Ukrainian Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, announced the suspension of preparations to sign the EU Association Agreement, opting instead for closer alignment with Russia.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1:
How Lithuania was able to severe ties with Russia, post-independence, compared to Ukraine?
Chapter 2:
The Kravchuk-Kuchma era (1991-2005)
Chapter 3:
The Yushchenko-Yanukovych era (2005-2014)
Conclusion
Bibliography
Research Objectives and Core Themes
The dissertation investigates why Ukraine has remained in a cycle of perpetual crisis management since its independence in 1991, contrasting this experience with Lithuania's successful transition toward European integration. It argues that post-independent Ukrainian leaders have consistently prioritized personal economic and political gains over necessary institutional reforms, thereby failing to resolve foundational issues within the state.
- The persistent influence of kleptocratic-oligarchic structures in Ukrainian politics.
- Challenges to national identity formation and the impact of societal divisions.
- The role of energy dependency on Russia as a tool for political coercion.
- The evolution of national security strategies and the pursuit of Western alignment versus Russian influence.
Excerpt from the Book
Lithuania’s Aversion to Kleptocratic-Oligarchy
Lithuanian democracy and independence was short lived, during the Soviet era it endured through the hearts and minds of the Lithuanian peasantry, as Krickus points out “the resistance relied upon common folk for support years before a substantial number of intellectuals challenged Soviet hegemony” (Krickus, 1993: 167), the parliamentary system established in 1918 gave Lithuanians, the majority of which were Catholic, poor and worked in agriculture, a voice and representation with parties such as the Christian Democratic party, the Peasant Union and the Farmers’ Association. It is for this reason that Krickus is right in his initial argument of Lithuanian independence being a romanticized struggle. It is perhaps why in the 1990 Soviet Council election the pro-independent “Sajudis-backed candidates won… 80 percent of the seats” (Krickus, 1993: 173), this saw Vytautas Landsbergis, Sajudis party leader, elected chairman of Soviet Council, to then have it dissolved, and create the “newly established Lithuanian Supreme Council, the single most powerful body in the new Republic of Lithuania” (Krickus, 1993: 173), which saw the return of the parliamentary system. The transition from a single party state to a multi-party system proved to be much more difficult for the Ukrainian populace to spearhead.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides an overview of Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union and establishes the four core problem areas—Kleptocratic-oligarchy, Identity, Dependency, and Security—that frame the analysis of the country's governance.
Chapter 1: How Lithuania was able to severe ties with Russia, post-independence, compared to Ukraine?: Analyzes Lithuania as a case study, focusing on how its unified identity, rejection of kleptocracy, and energy diversification allowed it to successfully break free from Russian influence.
Chapter 2: The Kravchuk-Kuchma era (1991-2005): Examines the presidencies of Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma, arguing that their leadership failed to address structural weaknesses and instead fostered crony capitalism and dependency.
Chapter 3: The Yushchenko-Yanukovych era (2005-2014): Evaluates the presidencies of Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych, focusing on failed reform efforts, ongoing gas wars, and the escalation of kleptocratic power leading to the Revolution of Dignity.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, asserting that Ukraine’s prolonged crisis is a result of failed reformist leadership and the persistence of oligarchic interests, calling for the election of genuine reformists to break the status quo.
Keywords
Ukraine, Lithuania, Independence, Kleptocracy, Oligarchy, Energy Dependency, Post-Soviet, Crisis Management, Nationalism, NATO, Yushchenko, Kuchma, Yanukovych, Revolution of Dignity, Governance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this dissertation?
The work examines the reasons behind Ukraine's inability to achieve a stable, post-independent statehood compared to Lithuania, focusing on systemic political and economic failings.
Which specific areas of concern are identified as central to Ukraine's crisis?
The author identifies four specific problem areas: Kleptocratic-oligarchy, Identity, Dependency, and Security.
What is the main research objective regarding Ukraine's presidents?
The goal is to analyze the actions and failures of Ukraine's four post-independent presidents (Kravchuk, Kuchma, Yushchenko, and Yanukovych) to demonstrate how their negligence stifled national progress.
What methodology does the author employ?
The dissertation uses a comparative case study approach, contrasting Ukraine with Lithuania, and provides a chronological political analysis of Ukraine's leadership and its impact on the country's development.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The chapters detail the historical trajectory from the Soviet collapse through the presidencies, analyzing key events such as gas wars with Russia, the Orange Revolution, and the Revolution of Dignity.
Which keywords best characterize the political landscape described?
Keywords include Kleptocratic-oligarchy, Energy Dependency, Post-Soviet, Crisis Management, and Crony Capitalism.
How does the author characterize Lithuania's success in contrast to Ukraine?
Lithuania is highlighted for its ability to unify its populace, diversify its energy sources, and maintain a robust parliamentary system, which stands in direct contrast to the oligarchic entrenchment in Ukraine.
What role did the 1994 presidential election play in Ukraine's development?
The election is depicted as a turning point where Kuchma, supported by regional oligarchs, institutionalized kleptocracy, further deepening the divide between the country's linguistic and ethnic regions.
How is Yushchenko's presidency evaluated in the context of security?
While recognized as the most genuine attempt to move toward Western alignment and NATO, his presidency is also criticized for his inability to fully separate his political agenda from existing oligarchic and intermediary structures.
What final conclusion does the author reach regarding the path to peace and prosperity in Ukraine?
The author concludes that institutional reform is necessary and that long-term stability can only be achieved by electing reformist, non-establishment candidates who lack ties to the existing oligarchic structure.
- Quote paper
- Samuel T Whitehouse (Author), 2018, Since gaining independence in 1991 why has Ukraine remained in a state of perpetual crisis management?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1003219
