“Do you hear the people sing, singing the songs of angry men? It is the music of a people who will not be slaves again.”

The refrain of this number from award-winning musical Les Misérables may call to mind the stages of Broadway or the shaky cameras of the 2012 Hollywood production, but since November 2013, the song has been given a shocking real-world analogue: in the streets of Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, public protests and skirmishes between activists and law enforcement have proven that truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

What started off as a small protest of 2,000 people on Nov. 21 has since exploded into mass riots across the country, primarily in Kiev and Western Ukraine. Thousands more join the demonstrations every week. Protesters and police forces have now met in several clashes, and government buildings have been seized by activist groups. Numbers of protesters have now been estimated between 400,000 and 800,000, and the movement has been given an unofficial title by those involved: the Euromaidan, or Eurosquare.

So what caused this all to happen? What launched Ukraine, a country whose daily happenings tend to fall under our radar, into international headlines? The short answer is this: the catalyst for this uprising was the announcement by President Viktor Yanukovych that the country was renouncing the European Union in favour of closer economic ties with Russia.

To some observers, this may seem inconsequential, but Ukraine has been divided between these two powers since gaining its independence just over two decades ago, and the country has played a careful balancing act ever since: as a former Soviet state, Ukraine’s recent history has been coloured by its negotiated relationship between the EU to the west, and Putin’s Russia to the east.

What started off as a small protest has since exploded into a series of mass riots across the country.

For example, Ukraine has some basic agreements with NATO, but also leases the port of Sevastopol to Russia for its Black Sea Fleet. The nation has made several steps towards integrating with the EU, but also maintains close economic ties with Moscow, its largest trading partner. The western regions of the country tend to be pro-Europe and the eastern and southern regions pro-Russia, to the point where it defines political parties.

This dichotomy has even lead to fist fights in the Ukrainian Parliament over a bill to adopt Russian as the country’s official language.

The Euromaidan protests have also united the opposition parties of Ukraine. One of the demands of the European Union was that President Yanukovych release his archrival Yulia Tymoshenko — the former Ukrainian prime minister and leader of the oppositional All-Ukrainian Union “Fatherland” party — from prison, where she is currently serving a seven-year sentence for abuse of power and embezzlement.

Many, including members of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, have expressed skepticism over Tymoshenko’s sentencing, seeing it as a form of revenge the president has taken against the woman who helped overturn his 2004 election amid allegations of vote-rigging.

Supporters of Fatherland include Vitali Klitschko, a former world heavyweight boxing champion and the head of the pro-EU Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms. Ukraine’s far-right nationalist party, Svoboda, has also joined in the protests, all of them calling for the resignation of the president and for new elections to take place.

For many in the pro-EU crowd, there is a fear of Ukraine once again being subjugated to Russia, a situation the nation finally escaped in 1991 with the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Apart from a brief period between the downfall of the Russian Empire and the establishment of Soviet rule, Russia has dominated Ukrainian culture, economic practice and political process since the Middle Ages.

Perhaps the most glaring reminder of Russian oppression in Ukraine is the Holodomor, or Extermination by Hunger, a man-made famine wherein seven to 11 million Ukrainians starved to death due to Stalin’s attempts to collectivize Soviet farming. It is easy to see why one would be resentful of Russian interference in Ukrainian life.

Ukraine is also in the unenviable state of living next to a powerful neighbour who wants access to its resources, and is not afraid to do whatever is necessary to get them. Russian President Vladimir Putin has his own reasons for pressuring the former Soviet Republic into rejecting the EU — not least of which is his proposal of a rival economic union known as the Eurasian Economic Union, or the EAU.

Putin has gone so far as to threaten economic sanctions on Ukraine. During the pro-Western government of Yulia Tymoshenko, Russia shut off natural gas exports to Ukraine twice, which did significant damage to the nation’s economy. Putin is also a shrewd politician — shortly after Yanukovych rejected the EU, Russia offered a $15 billion stimulus package and a 33 per cent price cut for natural gas, which will certainly help the Ukrainian economy in the future.

Historically, Ukraine has been the breadbasket of the Soviet Union as well as its predecessor, the Russian Empire. With its large coastline on the Black Sea, it has also been the site of some of Russia’s only all-weather ports, making the nation both economically and strategically important to the Russians. On a more cynical note, and perhaps in the thoughts of many in the pro-European camp, Ukraine has acted as a defensive buffer for Russia against invasions from the West — something Putin still fears, and perhaps with good reason.

If Putin can’t bring Ukraine back into the Russian fold, he will do everything in his power to keep it separated from the West.

Civil war in Ukraine has the potential to change the face of Europe, and possibly the whole world.

His unpopular decision to derail the deal with the EU and sign with Russia aside, President Yanukovych is not the most popular character. He was blocked from office in 2004 amid the aforementioned allegations of vote-rigging, and since returning to power in 2010, he has been accused of corruption and mismanagement of the nation’s economy.

Indeed, one might argue that it was the president’s decision to send in the riot police that caused a peaceful protest to escalate into the ongoing violent situation which has dominated news stories over the past months.

As the sun rose the morning after riot police violently broke up what was at that point a small, peaceful rally, the cries were no longer for integration with the European Union. They were for the resignation of the president, and a guarantee for human rights and democratic freedoms for all Ukrainians — something protesters continue to fight for to this day.

Government tactics have only become more oppressive and violent since that first day: the initial death of four protesters has led to many others, and uploaded YouTube videos of activists being beaten and abused have multiplied.

In late January, sources revealed that text messages had been sent to those suspected to have engaged in the Euromaidan protests by the Ukrainian police, warning them that they “are registered as a participant in a mass riot.”

On the other hand, supporters of the government have seen riot policemen set aflame by Molotov cocktails thrown from the crowds, the statue of Vladimir Lenin in Kiev’s Bessarabska Square toppled and replaced with a red and black insurgency flag, and several government buildings occupied by protesters. Barricades were torn down by police forces, but were promptly rebuilt.

Even more terrifying for the government — and also denied by them — are reports that some units of the military had refused orders to deploy to Kiev, renouncing the use of force against the protesters.

The situation further escalated again in the New Year, as the Ukrainian Parliament passed sweeping anti-protest laws that criminalized each and every method employed during the protests. This was done despite the fact that opposition members were not present, and the texts of the documents weren’t available to be read before going to a vote.

This led to an outcry both from opposition parties and the international community, with the US Department of State expressing that “the process and substance of the Rada’s (Ukrainian Parliament) actions today cast serious doubt on Ukraine’s commitment to democratic norms.”

The German Foreign Minister also commented that “the limitation of civil rights will lead Ukraine only further away from Europe,” which seems to be exactly what Yanukovych is going for.

Far from discouraging the protesters, this move was met with a gathering of 200,000 activists in central Kiev, who marched on Parliament in defiance of what they termed the “Dictatorship Laws.” They were met by police forces, and several were injured and killed during the clashes between the two groups.

Later in January, prominent Euromaidan activists Ihor Lutsenko and Yuriy Verbytsky were abducted from the Kiev hospital where they were receiving treatment. Lutsenko was found beaten in a forest the next day — Verbytsky’s dead body was recovered hours later.

These anti-protest laws, coupled with the increasing levels of brutality on the part of government forces, have begun to erode Yanukovych’s traditional support base. Most of the laws were rescinded shortly thereafter, while protest numbers continue to grow.

With the Olympics in Sochi currently occupying the world’s attention, it is unlikely that we will see any big moves over the next couple of weeks. Both sides will likely bide their time until they can once again gain the attention of the world.

At this point, there are really only three possibilities for the future of the Euromaidan protests.

Possibility number one is that the government manages to strike a deal with the opposition leaders, and muddles through for another year until the 2015 election. Given that 82 per cent of protesters, when interviewed in early February, maintained that they would continue protesting until their needs are met — namely, that Yanukovych resigns and elections are held — and that a third of Ukrainians have come out in favour of closer ties with Russia, this outcome seems highly unlikely.

Possibility number two is that Yanukovych does resign as president, fulfilling the wishes of most Euromaidan activists. Though the pressure on the Ukrainian president increases with each public protest, this too seems to be an unlikely outcome; the president has already focused a wealth of time and energy on securing ties with Russia and maintaining his control over the nation. It will take a lot to force him out of office.

The third possibility (and, unfortunately, the most likely) is that violence will continue to escalate, Yanukovych will panic and call in the military to disperse protesters — an act that would likely lead to the civil war many have already begun to predict. Given the staunch opposition between the two sides concerned, as well as the international debate it has sparked, this seems to become more and more of a foregone conclusion with each passing day.

If that happens, it is likely that Russia will step in to protect its interests as it has done countless times before, and we will be looking at a whole new situation, one that has the potential to change the face of Europe, and possibly the whole world. For now, we in the West can only watch and wait, hoping that a peaceful solution can still be reached.