There had never been an Ukrainian nation state until the last twenty five years. The boundaries of the old Soviet Socialist Republics were never intended to define nation states, and indeed were in part designed to guard against forming potentially dangerous cohesive units. The Ukrainians are a nation and f they wish are certainly entitled to a state, but that its borders must be those defined, and changed several times, by the Soviet Union for the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is not axiomatic.
It is not true that there is a general desire for secession for Ukraine on the linguistic and broadly West East split. It is true that key political attitudes do correlate closely to the linguistic split, with Russian speakers identifying with the ousted government, and favouring closer ties with Russian over closer ties with the West, while Ukrainian speakers overwhelmingly favour EU integration. But that does not translate into a general desire by the Russian speakers to secede from a Ukraine that goes the other way. The key to this is that two thirds of Russian speaking Ukrainian nationals view themselves as ethnically Ukrainian, not Russian. Only a third of Russian speakers, a sixth of the general population, regard themselves as ethnically Russian. It does appear to be true that among those who view themselves as ethnically Russian, there is a significant desire for union with Russia, and that there is probably a majority in some Eastern provinces for that idea, probably including Crimea. But the area involved is far smaller than the linguistically Russian area.
Ethnicity is of course a less tangible concept than linguistic identity, and has little claim to objective reality, particularly in an area with such turbulent history of population movement. But it is futile to pretend it has no part in the idea of a nation state, and is best regarded as a cultural concept of self-identification.
The historical legacy is extremely complex. Kievan Rus was essential to the construction of Russian identity, but for Russia to claim Kiev on that basis would be like France claiming Scandinavia because that is where the Normans came from. Kievan Rus was destroyed and or displaced by what historical shorthand calls the Mongal hordes, almost a millennium ago. Ukrainian history is fascinating, the major part of it having been at various times under Horde, Lithuanian, Polish, Krim Tartar, Galician, Cossack Federation, Russian and Soviet rule.
Still just within living memory, one in seven Ukrainians, including almost the entire intellectual and cultural elite, was murdered by Stalin. An appalling genocide. Like Katyn a hundred times over. That is the poisonous root of the extreme right nationalism that has rightly been identified as a dangerous element in the current revolution. Pro-western writers have largely overlooked the fascists and left wing critics have largely overlooked Stalin. His brutal massacre and ethnic cleansing of the Krim Tartar is also relevant – many were forcibly deported to Uzbekistan, and I have heard the stories direct.
Having served in the British Embassy in Poland shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I regard as blinkered those who deny that membership of the European Union would be a massive advantage to Ukraine. In 1994 there was very little difference in the standard of living in both countries – I saw it myself. The difference is now enormous, and that really means in the standard of living of ordinary working people. Poland’s relationship with, and eventual membership of, the European Union has undoubtedly been a key factor. Those who wish Ukraine instead to be linked to the raw commodity export economy of Putin’s Russia are no true friends of the working people. Ukraine’s accidental boundaries include, of course, the great formerly Polish city of Lvov.
Ukraine is an accidental state and its future will be much brighter if it is a willing union. It needs not just Presidential and Parliamentary elections, but also a federal constitution and a referendum on whether any of its provinces would prefer to join Russia. That can give an agreed way forward to which Russia might also subscribe, and defuse the current crisis. It would suit the long term interest of both the Ukraine and the West. I fear however that the politicians will be too macho to see it.
CanSpeccy; Imagine armed commentators on Craig’s blog.
Stalin was a great man
“Stalin was a great man”
_____________________
And a great prophet (“Life is getting better, life is getting merrier” – J. Stalin, ca. 1932)
I’d love to hear from the Defenders Of The West on this blog opine on the subject of neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian cabinet.
Since the coup obviously happened without any kind of foreign encouragement (cough) do the DOTW (Constant War and Surveillance are great) see this as a triumph of people power?
Mike
Does the fact of Russian chauvinist in Kremlin makes Russia better or worse? There are (and have long time been) right wing Ukrainian nationalists. In political and power vacuum like this such forces usually surface. One of the reasons of such forces existence in Ukraine is (I repeat it again and again) historical tensions between two Slavic nations and over 7 centuries of Russian hegemony over Ukrainians, including 1 in 7 Ukrainians deliberate allowed to starve to death by Stalin. Taking this out of historical context and mixing with anti-western/russian chauvinist propaganda and the picture becomes very gloomy indeed.
One insignificant, unexplained Russian navy ship in Cuba, and American commentators go wild about the resumption of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Actually, there were no significant Soviet surface vessels during that crisis, only all the cargo ships with Soviet medium-range missiles, with nuclear warheads, hidden on their decks under tarps.
Putin knows how to read American counter-intelligence like a book.
A fairly well-balanced, informative and interesting article. Interesting because it is written by a former ambassador with experience in Poland and what had been the Soviet Union.
I find myself slightly at odds with two aspects, though – one by omission and one by commission.
Taking the latter first: how relevant is it that Poland seems to have accelerated ahead of Ukraine economically? Though Ukrainians may be relatively poor by European standards, I don’t suppose they’re starving (unlike in the ’30s!) and they are probably not poor by wider international standards. How do they compare with contemporary Greece, for example, which has been in the E.U. for a while now? How much of Polish relative success can be attributed to the E.U. and how much freedom is it worth losing just to join the consumer society?
Secondly, can there be any real doubt that the E.U. and the U.S.A. have engineered a coup in Kiev and that they only discovered their dislike of Yankovitch when he decided to refuse the E.U. offer in November. After all, he was just as corrupt, his election was just as dubious and Timoshyenko was just as banged up before that date as after, but they were quite happy to do business with the bugger until he turned towards Moscow. Now their much vaunted democratic principles have led to the selection of a new “government” by petrol bombs and bullets – very impressive! With their infantile and bungled meddling they have made what was already a potentially unstable situation much worse. They don’t learn very quickly, do they?
A fine display of ignorance of Ukrainian (and Russian) history by all (with notable exception of Uzbek – thanks). CM’s post reminded me of one of Easop’s fables, the one about the cat and the mice.
I noted a complete absence of Ukrainian news sources. Here’s one that I find adequate, with some Russian and English coverage (IE8 seems to struggle with it, Firefox OK).
http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrayinska_Pravda
Uzbek, I wonder if you have read СТРАНА МОКСЕЛЬ by Владимир Белинский. Unfortuately it’s in Russian and no English translation exists I think, but an interesting debunking of the fairy-tale version of the oppressor nation’s history that we were all spoon fed at school.
” can there be any real doubt that the E.U. and the U.S.A. have engineered a coup in Kiev ”
Well, yes actually. Sometimes these things do kick off with no external influence. Like the armed take over of the Crimean Parliament buildings and the massing of Russian troops on the border which I’m sure is an unrelated military exercise planned months ago. Makes the “infantile and bungled” meddling of the west look subtle and professional.
From a comment on Medialens.
‘A long time ago I worked for a while in a factory with a couple of guys who looked like two musketeers, except they were Italians with strong sympthies (sic) for Mussolini and his Fascists. They knew lots of Fascist marching songs. One we particularly liked to sing was ‘Onward black Fascists, onward, heroes never die!’ So imagine my surprise to hear the same words chanted in the centre of Kiev, brought back memories, of a long, hot, summer, slumming it with the scum of the earth. Ah, those were the days!’
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1393523180.html
Good post, Craig. I have little knowledge of Ukrainian politics (except for some historical stuff I learnt about from the 1930’s, of course), so I am trying to piece things together from those who are knowledgeable on the subject.
But you ask this question: “Why Should Ukraine Not Split?
Reading from others, it seems there is an important reason why, and that is because as part of an agreement for Ukrainian nuclear weapons to be sent to Russia following Ukraine’s secession from the Soviet Union, the US, the UK and Russia agreed certain terms including the current borders and promises not to militarily intervene in Ukraine:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
Also interesting is that the Crimea is often mentioned as the most ethnically Russian area of Ukraine, yet the population figures show that Tatars are returning in much greater numbers from the Soviet times when they were driven off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Ethnic_groups
An article which I found very informative was by the author of Bloodlands, called Timothy Snyder, who argues against the narrative that the protesters are all a bunch of neo-Nazis:
“The protests in the Maidan, we are told again and again by Russian propaganda and by the Kremlin’s friends in Ukraine, mean the return of National Socialism to Europe. The Russian foreign minister, in Munich, lectured the Germans about their support of people who salute Hitler. The Russian media continually make the claim that the Ukrainians who protest are Nazis. Naturally, it is important to be attentive to the far right in Ukrainian politics and history. It is still a serious presence today, although less important than the far right in France, Austria, or the Netherlands. Yet it is the Ukrainian regime rather than its opponents that resorts to anti-Semitism, instructing its riot police that the opposition is led by Jews. In other words, the Ukrainian government is telling itself that its opponents are Jews and us that its opponents are Nazis.
“The strange thing about the claim from Moscow is the political ideology of those who make it. The Eurasian Union is the enemy of the European Union, not just in strategy but in ideology. The European Union is based on a historical lesson: that the wars of the twentieth century were based on false and dangerous ideas, National Socialism and Stalinism, which must be rejected and indeed overcome in a system guaranteeing free markets, free movement of people, and the welfare state. Eurasianism, by contrast, is presented by its advocates as the opposite of liberal democracy.
“The Eurasian ideology draws an entirely different lesson from the twentieth century. Founded around 2001 by the Russian political scientist Aleksandr Dugin, it proposes the realization of National Bolshevism. Rather than rejecting totalitarian ideologies, Eurasianism calls upon politicians of the twenty-first century to draw what is useful from both fascism and Stalinism. Dugin’s major work, The Foundations of Geopolitics, published in 1997, follows closely the ideas of Carl Schmitt, the leading Nazi political theorist. Eurasianism is not only the ideological source of the Eurasian Union, it is also the creed of a number of people in the Putin administration, and the moving force of a rather active far-right Russian youth movement. For years Dugin has openly supported the division and colonization of Ukraine.
“The point man for Eurasian and Ukrainian policy in the Kremlin is Sergei Glazyev, an economist who like Dugin tends to combine radical nationalism with nostalgia for Bolshevism. He was a member of the Communist Party and a Communist deputy in the Russian parliament before cofounding a far-right party called Rodina, or Motherland. In 2005 some of its deputies signed a petition to the Russian prosecutor general asking that all Jewish organizations be banned from Russia…
…
“What does it mean when the wolf cries wolf? Most obviously, propagandists in Moscow and Kiev take us for fools—which by many indications is quite justified.”
This was written before the overthrow of Yanukovych, but it is definitely still worth reading in full here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/mar/20/fascism-russia-and-ukraine/?pagination=false
Angrysoba, good to see you again after so long.
Interesting. Neo-Nazis or not, there seems to be a very violent faction among the protesters. I was finding it easy to assume that extreme Right-wing elements would be committing the violence. Your contribution challenges that. Any ideas?
Angrysoba
Well spotted about Russian propaganda about neo-Nazis in Ukraine. There are no doubt some radical elements amongst protesters, but they are by far in minority even in western Ukraine. Russians tend to brand anyone who is opposing their hegemony either terrorist (if they are Muslims) or neo-Nazis (if they are not Muslims).
Reading many Russians blogs, the main narrative about Ukraine uprising (that has been carefully invented by KGB and is reappearing more and more often) is that there are 2 groups of protesters. One group consists of ball-less pro westerners (Russian KGB invented a specific word for them Maydanshik or sometimes even more abusive Maydavoshka) and others are radical neo-Nazis who will start ethnic cleansing of everyone who is Jewish or Russian origin. Both claims have been carefully invented by KGB and bear only little truth. What is beneath however; it is over 7 centuries of oppression that cost Ukrainians over 4 millions of lives in 20th century alone.
Euroasianism as mentioned in the (mentioned) article was in fact not invented in 2001 but few years earlier. In the height of ethnic cleansings by Serbs in Yugoslavia, when NATO finally intervened and Russians were loosing grounds, Kremlin started rethinking their foreign policy and relationships’ with the West. Pro-Westerns foreign minister Kozyrev was replaced by former intelligence officer and knowledgeable orientalist (especially about Middle East) Evgeniy Primakov. Primakov drew heavily on Alexander Gorchakov’s (former Russian chancellor in second half of 19th century) policy which manifested in that Russia needs to reinforce itself in the east (Gorchakov took over after Russian defeat in Crimean War) in order to become strong and bargain with Western Powers. First decade of Gorachakov’s tenure Russia significantly decreased its western oriented foreign policy, went on occupying Central Asia (concerning Tashkent), dealing with the Caucasus, and implementing reforms (abolishing medieval serfdom in 1861). Gorchakov also made sure that nationalist in both Ukraine and Poland are silenced. As it happened Gorchakov’s policy was absolutely spot on. Western Powers fought and weakened each other in 3 further wars, after which Gorchakov abolished Treaty of Paris which prohibited Russia using Crimea as navy station. Russia then yet again became major European Power and was only second to Britain in the world stage by the time Gorchakov retired.
Hi Clark,
Nice to speak to you again. To be honest, I don’t really know very much about what is going on there. It does seem that there are some right-wing groups, certainly. And they may even be responsible for the violence. As well as the security forces, of course. But, as we know even from riots in the UK, we don’t need neo-Nazi groups to do that kind of thing.
Uzbek in the UK,
Good to see you too. I certainly wish I could read Russian, as it would be interesting to see those blogs. On another forum, somebody was arguing that even most of the ethnic Ukrainians in the East speak Russian as their first language, and they suggested it would make them more loyal to Russia. I think it is a bit of a stretch to make that claim, and language does not always indicate loyalty.
“The Geopolitical Dimensions of the Coup in Ukraine – A Struggle for Power and Influence”
““When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world,” wrote former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in his recently published memoirs. Gates was referring to the then-Secretary of Defense, and later US Vice President, Dick Cheney.”
http://rinf.com/alt-news/business-news/geopolitical-dimensions-coup-ukraine-struggle-power-influence/
Well, russification (enforced education of Russian language, Russian culture and literature) was common in 19th century but became even more so after 1917 and with Communist modernity which followed. Most of so called intellectuals (to whom I might have impudence adding myself) spoke Russian as their/our first language and were more familiar with Russian culture and literature than with our own. And I repeat it again, it has peaked under Communists with their compulsory education (which was very positive in many areas of former Russian empire including Russia itself where by 1917 only 10% of population could read). The irony is that ideological narrative of Communists in USSR was creation of Soviet citizen without ethnic boundaries (which soviets called outdated thinking), but at the same time it was hidden russification which now has negative effects, not at least in Ukraine.
For all their negative propaganda about imperialism, soviets have learnt and in many way more successfully implemented colonial policies. Especially the one which manifested in hegemony over colonised.
“and language does not always indicate loyalty”
Yes, but at the same time watching Russian propaganda on Russian TV, reading Russian propaganda on Russian internet, reading Russian newspapers (and guess what, yes, yes, with Russian propaganda) is effective way of influencing ones opinion.
There are many in Russia (and what is more surprising) in Central Asia, and (what is even more surprising) in Ukraine who think that Russian intervention to Georgia was necessary and was not at all Russian made trap in which Georgians walked it.
Russians are playing dirty game ever now and again.
Kremlin is denying that armed men occupying Crimean airports have anything to do with Russian armed forces, and at the same time Russia is calling all security servicemen in Crimea to join Russian army and issuing them Russian passports.
Now, just for information. Ethnic Russians living in Central Asia (and elsewhere except when Russian government needs to annex territory) have to wait for an average of 3 years to get permission of settlement in Russia (not even citizenship).
Excellent points, Uzbek. I agree with you that Soviet imperialism went hand-in-hand with Russian imperialism, of a kind, and ironically Stalin – despite being Georgian – was a huge proponent of Russo-centrism and destruction of other dangerous nationalisms.
More of the BBC’s inverted commas in use.
28 February 2014 Last updated at 11:53
Ukraine crisis: ‘Russians occupy’ Crimea airports
Live
Key video
Crimea explained
BBC on ground
Key players Yanukovych surfaces
Christian Fraser says barriers and armed men are blocking Sevastopol airport
Ukraine crisis
Crimean airports occupied Live
Crimea explained
Profile: Viktor Yanukovych
Key players
Ukraine’s interior minister has accused Russian naval forces of occupying Sevastopol airport in the region of Crimea.
Arsen Avakov called their presence an “armed invasion”.
But Russia’s Black Sea Fleet has denied that Russian servicemen are taking part.
The other main Crimean airport, Simferopol, has also been occupied by armed men, thought to be pro-Russia militia.
/..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26379722
Not sure how trustworthy it is (as it is coming out of Russian sources) but…
Over 40% of respondents in Russia believe that Ukraine uprising is a criminal offence led by criminals and consider Yanukovich to be rightful president of Ukraine.
Also 60% believe that Crimea is Russian territory and needs to join Russia, since majority (as propagated by Russian media) are Russians.
Interestingly, what would their answer be if someone asked them if Ichkeria (Chechnya) have right to separate from Russia since 98% of population there are Chechens? Or Tatarstan where 72% of population are Tatars?
According to this reliable source the fascists have taken charge in the Ukraine.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrainian-neo-nazis-declare-that-power-comes-out-of-the-barrels-of-their-guns/5371126
John Goss, that is a) Paul Craig Roberts, on b) Global Research, citing c) Russia Today.
That’s three strikes against the claim “reliable source”.
I posted that before John. Professor Michel Chossudovsky is widely travelled in the region and is particularly well informed. I thought the content in some of the photos was chilling.
Yanukovich in this press-conference in Russia (one should ask himself why in Russia) claims that he never ordered police to shoot people in Kiev.
Yes, of course I believe him. Just like I believe that Karimov never ordered to slaughter people in Andijan in 2005.
All these communist buggers are the same. Killing their own people blessed by Kremlin.
This analysis is good.
Reviving the Cold War
Dr Strangelove over Ukraine
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/28/dr-strangelove-over-ukraine/
Jeffery Summers
28 February 2014
‘[..]
The scene for the original plot was set in the closing stages of the Cold War. George Bush (the elder) promised Gorbachev that if the Soviets let the Warsaw Pact go, Russia would never have to worry about the expansion of NATO. The US responded to this deal by immediately taking the former Warsaw Pact into NATO and then moving into the former USSR territory itself by taking in the Baltics. Nobody could blame the new entrants for wishing NATO entry, given their Soviet occupation past. But, neither could anyone blame the Russians for feeling utterly betrayed by the US and NATO for breaking their word.
Thereafter, Eurasionists in the US State Department wanted more. For them, the goal was the further break-up of Russia and its ‘near abroad’ and remaking it in the image of a neoliberal periphery. For Russia, the ‘game’ has had an existential character. Russia was imploding (whether by their own actions, pressure from the West, or a combination of the two are all points for debate). For Russia, NATO’s moves into Georgia cut too close to the bone and Russia responded, yet the threat of NATO taking Ukraine represented taking Russia’s ‘heart’: the very ancestral home where ‘Russia’ was founded.
Meanwhile, the EU has thought it could reprise its earlier eastward expansion into the former Warsaw Pact that delivered a consumer goods export windfall. This alleviated West European unemployment resulting from the Maastricht Treaty’s punishing fiscal and monetary requirements to create its currency union. Ukraine’s purchasing potential, however, is less than the countries that bordered Germany who were integrated into West European markets. An export boom is unlikely to occur with the proposed Association Agreement. Indeed, the possible damage to Ukrainian markets from poorly executed trade liberalization and non-visa regimes could flood the EU with cheap labor. This outcome would work to further erode Europe’s historically unique (and largely successful) ‘Social Market.’
Ukraine has suffered in this Big Powers crossfire that has left them indebted to both Russia & the EU. Meanwhile, ethnic Ukrainians see the EU as a ‘savior.’ What they fail to recognize is that they are only seeing the last vestiges of a ‘Social Europe’ that in the main has been sacrificed on the alter of neoliberalism. In short, Ukraine’s ‘savior’ is a phantom that no longer exists.’
[..]
From Yanukovich’s press-conference where he described those who drove him from power as “young neo-fascist thugs”.
Here we go again. And John Goss, bless him, swallowed the same KGB bait that many Russians are offered today.
Trusting source relying on RT on a conflict in which Russia is directly involved (Yanukovich’s presence in Russia is not out of the blue) is either being very stupid (I hope this is not John) or very naïve.