The Political Paralysis of the Ukraine Narrative

everythingleft.co.uk

As the blame game begins and the conspiracy theorists start painting their pictures of what might have possibly happened to Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, political analysis based on inevitably futile investigations provide an unhealthy distraction.

The smoke was still thick in the air on Thursday as Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko released his first statements declaring that “those responsible for the given tragedy would be brought to justice” as he also denied any involvement of the Ukrainian military in what he described as an act of terrorism. Meanwhile, a number of representatives of the self proclaimed “Donetsk Peoples Republic” claimed that not only were they not responsible for the alleged attack, but that they do not posess the military equipment or capabilities to shoot down an aircraft travelling at the altitude of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17. Nevertheless, the media delivered around the clock coverage analysing the event based on photographs emanating from social media as we listened to the guessing games of political analysts willing to take on the role of flight crash investigator.
The main problem of focussing efforts on trying to develop theories of what exactly happened in events of such magnitude, or even dealing with investigations of specific events of a sensitive nature, the sniper shootings at Maidan for instance or where certain weapons or funding in East Ukraine has originated, is that in the public sphere, we will never have access to the classified evidence needed to paint an accurate picture. Political analysis reduced to the realms of unsubstantiated suspicion will always fall into the realms of conspiracy and until we have access to the evidence, an assertion without it can be refuted without it.

In her book, “The Shock Doctrine”, Naomi Klein describes a paralysing shock that occurs following certain events throughout history. According to Klein, this state of shock is not necessarily something that happens to us at the moment of a specific event as it happens, but something that occurs when we lose our narrative and remain disorientated and vulnerable. It is only through rediscovering our narrative, our situation, within the context of our history that we become more alert and responsive. As each media outlet chose to report Thursday’s plane crash by focusing their reporting on issues concerning BUK Missile systems, supposed leaked phone calls and accusations or denials from both sides of the Ukrainian conflict, I was struck by the ongoing paralysis and vulnerability that we have become accustomed to with regards to any real political analysis of the situation in Ukraine, and to many aspects of geopolitical analysis in general.


In March of this year, I was in East Ukraine reporting on Royal Dutch Shell’s accelerated ambitions to begin fracking practices in the Yuzivska gas fields in Donetsk Oblast. I met with local activists that opposed these developments with understandable concerns regarding dangers to public health caused by fracking. In less than a month however, their local cities became engaged in some of the fiercest military battles between the Ukrainian military and the ‘Donbass People’s Militia’ and the city of Izyum became the main headquarters and military base of Ukrainian troops in the east of the country. Despite armed separatists seizing control of city halls and important government and security buildings in both Donetsk and Lugansk, the Ukrainian military chose to focus their efforts on the small outback cities of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk, both situated within the area of the Yuzivska deposits. Now, as risky as fracking can be, it became evident that those fighting to keep the Ukrainian military from taking control of the areas on top of the Yuzivska deposits were not taking up arms and laying their life on the line because of environmental safety concerns, but rather than any real analysis which asked the questions as to why the fighting took place here, the majority of the media coverage was content to stay within the realms of unsubstantiated conspiracy. Slavyansk and Kramatorsk were turned into bloody war zones as the media circus chose sides in a battle of the Ukrainian military shelling “Russian agents and terrorists” and the “Donbass People’s Militia” defending their territory against EU Fascists trying to confiscate property and persecute all that was Russian.

Whilst these military battles were taking place in April, I was in Kiev reporting on the visit of United States Vice President Joe Biden to Ukraine and it came as no surprise that the media focused their coverage entirely on his comments on the military campaign itself, with the mainstream media focusing their attention on his unfounded claims of Russian involvement and the alternative media outlets deciding on the slightly more inventive narrative of “antifascist” eastern Ukrainians opposing “US sponsored fascists” in Kiev and how Joe Biden had given the Acting President Turchinov the all clear to restart the military campaign.

US Vice President Biden however made it quite clear from the offset what the purpose of his visit was, yet this was largely ignored in place of more exciting developments. A U.S. official told reporters the day before his visit to Kiev that Biden would discuss energy security with Ukraine’s leaders, including ways to increase domestic production of natural gas. Biden told the legislators it would take time for Ukraine to achieve energy security but it was within the country’s power to do so.

“Imagine where you’d be today if you were able to tell Russia: keep your gas. It would be a very different world,” Biden said.

As well as $50 million in aid to Kiev, Biden promised technical assistance on how to boost production in Ukrainian natural gas fields and the extraction of what one U.S. official accompanying Biden called “unconventional” gas resources, also known as “fracking.” Within a matter of weeks, Burisma, Ukraine’s largest private gas producer, appointed Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s youngest son, to their board of directors. Purely on merit, of course.

The reasons behind ongoing conflict are usually, without exception, economic reasons. However, arguing the case that corporate interests have historically taken advantage of, and continue to exploit certain events and political developments is a very different approach to those trying to conclude that those pulling the corporate strings are responsible for the event itself. In the absence of sensitive evidence and information required for such conclusions, this type of political analysis will always be reduced to arguing a position that will inevitably rely on varying degrees of assumption. This will forever remain a futile task that only serves as an unhealthy distraction from political and economic developments that unfold in spite of, and as a result of such events.

Unfortunately, it is very likely that we will never know who shot down Malaysian Airlines MH17. It is just as likely that we will never be privy to top secret information that would shed light on historical events that are, and will remain controversial or questionable but have changed the political and economic landscape regardless. As political analysts, it is important then that we stop trying to take on the role of an investigator trying to put together a jigsaw that is missing an unlimited number of irretrievable yet vastly important pieces, and instead rediscover our narrative within a more accurate, more analytical, less presumptuous, historical context. We should not be prioritising our own private investigations as to who was responsible for Thursday’s plane crash, but focus our attention on the moves of those who may benefit from such an event and who have the means to exploit the developments to further their own political and economic ambition.

As political analysts are busy painting pictures, history is happening beneath the canvas.