When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.


Ukraine: Why 2014 Isn't Another 1989 For Eastern Europe

Snow, fire and determination in Kiev
Snow, fire and determination in Kiev
Yves-Michel Riols


PARIS — Is this 1989 all over again?

One generation after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the protests in Ukraine instinctively bring to mind the revolutions that swept away the dying communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe. The images of crowds, initially peaceful and festive in Kiev’s Independence Square, are similar to those showing throngs braving the cold on Prague’s Wenceslas Square during the winter of 1989.

As for the violence that shook Ukraine last week, it echoes back to the scenes of civil war in the streets of Bucharest that accelerated the overthrow of Romanian President Nicolae Ceausescu, whose summary Christmas day execution marked the bloody epilogue of European communist dictatorships.

Then, like now, people rejected authoritarian and incompetent governments, a mass renunciation of a deaf and blind power.

“Like Ukraine today, the communist states in 1989 were morally discredited, economically feckless and running out of steam,” says the Carnegie Endowment’s Judy Dempsey.

What has happened in Kiev is very similar to what was expressed 25 years ago in the streets of Warsaw, Bratislava and Bucharest. The civic burst that winter was a claim to finally live in “normal” countries, clear of arbitrary justice, nepotism and the culture of privileges.

The same demand for a huge clean-out emerged from across the Ukrainian protest. But that’s where the parallels end. In 1989, communism collapsed from the inside. Its ideology was a hollow shell, and the system’s breakdown was inevitable. Until the end of the 1980s, Poles still lined up outside empty shops, and most Romanians only discovered the taste of oranges after Ceausescu’s downfall.

But most importantly, after four decades of power punctuated by many uprisings, from Budapest in 1956 to Prague in 1968, “communist regimes no longer had the resources, or the legitimacy, to do battle until the end,” says Nicu Popescu of the Institute for Security Studies. “This was not the case for the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, who, just a few days ago, still had support in certain parts of the country.”

[rebelmouse-image 27087812 alt="""" original_size="640x427" expand=1]

Protesters in Prague on Nov. 25, 1989 (Sju)

Another major difference is that there were already available leadership replacements when the Berlin Wall fell. An opposition fueled by years of resistance — Poland’s Solidarity trade union had 10 million members in the 1980s — embodied a huge opposition force.

“At the time of the transition, Poland had three assets that Ukraine lacks today: trust, an organized civil society, and a regime resigned to backing off,” says Michal Baranowski, director of the Warsaw office of the German Marshall Fund, a transatlantic think tank.

Heading West

The context is also different. The Russia of 1989 was weak, incapable of opposing the emancipation of satellite countries in Europe or the secession of Ukraine. After the collapse of the USSR, there was also an alternative — a turn-key model to look towards, embodied by the two powerful symbols of the European Union and NATO. The horizon was drawn, and there was a general consensus on which direction to take: West.

This perspective of light at the end of the tunnel played a fundamental role in stabilizing new democracies in Central Europe. The European project represented integration for states that were fragile and economically worn out after the ravages of the Soviet system. Another element was also decisive, especially in Poland and Hungary. A tacit compromise was made with the communist leaders that if they abandoned power, no charges would be brought against them.

The absence of a “Nuremberg of communism” still causes much debate today, with the crimes of the Soviet bloc still haunting so many memories. But it was probably the bitter price to pay to avoid a bloody struggle for power in countries occupied by the Red Army where senior communist officials had destabilizing capacities at their disposal thanks to their security networks.

Despite the precedent of the “Orange Revolution” in 2004, Ukraine has neither managed to renew its elites (no Lech Walesa, no Vaclav Havel), nor to overcome its many divisions, of which the bloodbath in the streets of Kiev was the tragic expression.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

That Man In Mariupol: Is Putin Using A Body Double To Avoid Public Appearances?

Putin really is meeting with Xi in Moscow — we know that. But there are credible experts saying that the person who showed up in Mariupol the day before was someone else — the latest report that the Russian president uses a doppelganger for meetings and appearances.

screen grab of Putin in a dark down jacket

During the visit to Mariupol, the Presidential office only released screen grabs of a video

Russian President Press Office/TASS via ZUMA
Anna Akage

Have no doubt, the Vladimir Putin we’re seeing alongside Xi Jinping this week is the real Vladimir Putin. But it’s a question that is being asked after a range of credible experts have accused the Russian president of sending a body double for a high-profile visit this past weekend in the occupied Ukrainian city of Mariupol.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

Reports and conspiracy theories have circulated in the past about the Russian leader using a stand-in because of health or security issues. But the reaction to the Kremlin leader's trip to Mariupol is the first time that multiple credible sources — including those who’ve spent time with him in the past — have cast doubt on the identity of the man who showed up in the southeastern Ukrainian city that Russia took over last spring after a months-long siege.

Russian opposition politician Gennady Gudkov is among those who confidently claim that a Putin look-alike, or rather one of his look-alikes, was in the Ukrainian city.

"Now that there is a war going on, I don't rule out the possibility that someone strongly resembling or disguised as Putin is playing his role," Gudkov said.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest