There is a history going back nearly two centuries, some
might say a millennium, underlying current events between Russia and Ukraine,
as well as an aspect that could effect what in some quarters is currently one
of the most important issues in international relations.
First, the history.
EuroMaidan was not a plot by Western imperialists to get one
up on the center of power of the former Soviet Union, as too many talking heads
of the neoleft either wearing Moscow-colored glasses or simply unable to climb
out of a paradigm that no longer exists protest. Nor was it a plot engineered by rightists in
Ukraine to create a fascist anti-Semitic Russophobic state as the Kremlin and
its propaganda outlets and its sycophants proclaim.
These two views of events are as patronizing and
condescending as any of the worst of those more upfront and bald in their
imperialist intent and sentiment.
No, EuroMaidan was a popular uprising initiated by the
people of Ukraine for a variety of reasons, chief of which were the rampant
political and financial corruption of those in power, the worsening economic
situation in the country. The final
straw that broke the camel’s back was the prospect of being dragged into an
inescapable orbit around the power from whose gravity well it had escaped in
1991 when its kleptocratic president threatened submission of the country to
Czar Vladimir in the form of joining the Putin/Russian-dominated Eurasian
Economic Union. That’s why the rising in
November.
The protestors are still camped out on the Maidan, because
they do not trust or have much love for those who returned to power. They want their country back from all the
oligarchs, not just the ones recently kicked out but their successors as well.
A thousand years ago, Kiev was the center of power in
Eastern Europe north of the Roman Empire governed from Constantinople
(“Byzantine” is a misnomer, a neologism coined a century after it fell). With the rise of various empires, wars,
migrations, and invasions its star fell while that of Moscow rose. Eventually, Ukraine came totally within the
Russian Empire. Peter the Great was the
first to order its “Russification”, but he recommended that it be carried out
slowly and subtly, like first having ethnic Russians migrate there.
The strategy worked remarkably well and by the twentieth century,
Ukrainian nationalism was buried deep.
Increasing repression banished the Ukrainian language from public life
and printing in the Ukrainian language was outlawed. Ukrainian schools were eventually banned in
the mid-1800’s and the formerly autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church was
subordinated to the Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow.
Then came the February Revolution in 1917, followed by the
October Revolution the same year, the latter actually more of a coup d’etat by
the Bolshevik Party. As part of its
program to gain the loyalty of the disparate peoples of the former Russian
Empire, the Bolshevik Central Committee launched a propaganda program promising
non-Russian nationalities a certain amount of autonomy in a Bolshevik utopia.
When Stalin, the former Bolshevik Commissar of
Nationalities, years later announced his policy of “socialism in one country”,
he included in it an unwritten but no less intense policy of
Russification. Among other features,
this meant that the Russian language was the sole official language throughout
the USSR and “nationalist deviations” would be stamped out. This process was most intense in Ukraine, and
included the decimation of party members of the Ukraine SSR to half in two
separate purges, 1929-1934 and 1936-1938.
The most horrific act toward accomplishing complete
Russification in Ukraine was the 18-month famine engineered in 1932 and 1933,
in which at least 3.5 million, and possibly as many as 7 million,
perished. The latter figure exceeds the
death toll for Jews under the Nazi regime 1933-1945 and was carried out in much
less time. Ukrainians call this atrocity
the Holodomor (“Extermination by Hunger”).
Don’t just take my word for it. Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer of Jewish
descent who had fought with the Polish
Army against the Germans then escaped when that collapsed, referred to what
happened in Ukraine as genocide. He
later became the founder of the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide in 1948.
Lemkin actually coined what was then the neologism
“genocide” in his important 1944 book Axis
Rule in Occupied Europe. In addition to the then ongoing slaughter of
Jews, Roma, Poles, and others, he cited as examples the Armenian Genocide of
1915 and the Holodomor. For Lemkin,
genocide went beyond just the killing of mass numbers of people to include the
intention destruction of their culture, suppression of their language, and
dissolution of their national life.
Ukrainian nationalism remained submerged until the breakup
of the Soviet Union in 1991. The new
nation suffered the same corruption and insane mismanagement of former state
resources as Yeltsin and his younger former KGB protégé Putin allowed in Russia
which has led to two revolutions, first the Orange Revolution of 2003 and now
EuroMaidan. In 2003, once what they
thought was a better government was installed, the protestors went home. With that experience in the rear view mirror,
this time they have stayed out.
The turbulent past is the main reason so many in Ukraine
support Svoboda, the right-wing party pandering to extreme anti-Russian
xenophobic chauvinism. It is important
to point that although members took part in EuroMaidan, they neither initiated
it nor led it, and while many of its members are part of the current caretaker
government, they do not dominated it and its members who are officials hold
only less important posts, except for one.
Contrary to widespread belief, fomented both by Putin’s
Wurlitzer and the lazy mainstream media broadcasting without fact-checking, the
new Ukrainian government did not outlaw Russian. What the MP’s voted on was to overturn a law
granting Russian and three other languages status as official state languages. However, Oleksandr Turchynov, the acting
president, vetoed that.
Now, to other issues in international relations and how they
might be affected.
Three years into its independence, the same year Nelson
Mandela was elected President of South Africa, Ukraine surrendered its nuclear
weapons for destruction. As part of the
agreement for it to do so, the United States, United Kingdom, and Russian
Federation Statement guaranteed its borders, its sovereignty, and its economic
independence in the Trilateral Statement, with France and China giving their
assent and support.
The only other nation known to have voluntarily surrendered
its nuclear arms is the Republic of South Africa. It ended its nuclear program, which had been covertly
supported by the State of Israel, and dismantled its six devices in 1989.
The Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin has violated
this agreement on several occasions in as many ways possible, perhaps most
egregiously in the invasion and conquest of Crimea and its absorption into its
borders, but also in its repeated economic extortion of its neighbor.
Here’s something to think about…
But first, let me point out that I don’t give a damn, a
shit, a flying fuck, or a rat’s ass whether or not the Islamic Republic of Iran
has nukes or not. I mean, I hate that
anyone at all has them because any use of them in any circumstances whatsoever,
especially just to show a rival that one has the will to deploy them, is a
crime against humanity.
Iran doesn’t have them now and its programme is many years
away from achieving that. But as much as
I despise Iran’s mullahs and what they have done to the country and its people,
Iran’s leaders are not nearly as dangerously psychopathic as the current
leaders of Israel, which has hundreds of nukes, and even they haven’t used
them.
Now, suppose you are a leader of Iran in talks with five
world powers who are trying to convince you to give up attempts to begin
creating a nuclear arsenal. The five
powers promise that they will guarantee your country’s safety against all
enemies in return for this, just like they promised the same to Ukraine in
1994. Given the aggression of Russia,
the apathy of China, and the impotence of the USA, the UK, and France, how
likely do you think Iran’s leaders will trust such guarantees of protection for
an agreement to come to pass? Yea, me
either.
No comments:
Post a Comment