Why is the EU hiding the “more and more strengthened” conclusion that the very people in power in Kyiv were behind the events that brought them to power?
In any democracy worth its name, these men would be behind bars for using force to get them what democratic elections did not. Because they have powerful international backers, they are not.
Expect Gagauzia to increasingly agitate for independence, and expect Moscow to back that play as it backs Transnistria now.
Those countries that are working toward Western ideals, however haltingly, are the good ones. The satrapies of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan do not care, and so medieval brutalities are commonplace.
This is not to say that anti-Semitism is uniquely confined to these states; rather, in the absence of a healthy polity, anti-Semitism takes root, sickening civil society and government, which in turn breeds more anti-Semitism.
With Latvia’s economy outgrowing the rest of Europe’s, returning to its 2007 peak, the Baltic country is prepared to enjoy the benefits of the euro currently not really enjoyed by the European south.
2014 will be the year that Europe’s mettle is truly tested.
An end to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict would end reliance on Russian military power; an end to blaming the grandchildren of the Ottomans for the sins of a long-fallen empire would allow new trading vistas and hope to open again.
Beneath the success of these individual stories is a somewhat odder truth: the Baltics only fit the European Union slightly better than they did the Soviet one.
It probably struck everyone involved as terribly clever, the problem is that someone left it to Kyrgyzstan’s government to execute it.