Putin's Point of View
I recently discovered, more-or-less by accident, Putin's recent (July 2021) essay, on Ukraine-Russian relations; lengthy but honest and personal; his view of the relations that he thinks should subsist between Russia and Ukraine. I realised (by extrapolation) that there must be a very large number of people in the English-speaking world who do not yet know of this important document and I consequently felt a duty to point to it, and attempt to evaluate it as fairly as I am able. The Kremlin's official ENGLISH TEXT CAN BE FOUND HERE [1].
It is Putin's amplification of an off-the-cuff response to a question raised at his annual question-and-answer session. Dated 12th July 2021, it clearly represents the thoughts building in his mind, that led eventually to the invasion of Ukraine on 24th February 2022.
My precis
Mr. Putin used 2000 words traversing the history of Ukraine/Russia from AD 800 to the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, covering much the same ground as I covered in my recent posts [2-6], and I think Putin and I agree rather well.
He uses another 2000 words to cover the Bolshevik period (1917-1990), and in this he is much better informed than I; but seems balanced and fair. In the Soviet Union "borders between republics were never seen as state borders; they were nominal [borders] within a single country". He is not pro-Bolshevik; he admits the famines, and the social experimentation.
In the last 2000 words Mr. Putin covers developments since the break-up of the Soviet Union, and the formation of the present Ukrainian state. In 1990 Russia and Ukraine were "natural and complementary partners"; their trade was considerable and mutually beneficial. Even in 2013 the two countries were close allies, with:
"hundreds of agreements and joint projects .... aimed at developing our economies, business and cultural ties, strengthening security, and solving common social and environmental problems. They brought tangible benefits to people – both in Russia and Ukraine. This is what we believed to be most important. And that is why we had a fruitful interaction with all, I emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine."[1]
It all went wrong in February 2014, when it turned out that the people of northern Ukraine were far more enamoured of the European Union than was their more-pro-Russian government [7]. It seems (to Putin) that 'the people' of Northern Ukraine have been seduced/fooled by the free-running, capitalist, West.
"This is also a disguise for the takeover [by the West] of the rest of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources. The sale of agricultural land is not far off, and it is obvious who will buy it up. From time to time, Ukraine is indeed given financial resources and loans, but under their [the capitalists] own conditions and pursuing their [the capitalists] own interests, with preferences and benefits for Western companies. By the way, who will pay these debts back? Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today's generation of Ukrainians but also by their children, grandchildren and probably great-grandchildren."
In southern Ukraine, and along the border with Russia, there are (no doubt) more Russian-speakers, and more commercial links with Russia.
"and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support" [1].
Mr. Putin objects to the government-imposed hostility to Russia and to the Russian language;
"And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors, but also to believe that Russia is their enemy."
Comment
It seems to me that any arguments that support the right of Ukraine to free itself from Moscow, must also support the right of the Donets Coal Basin (Donbas) to be independent from Ukraine. Whoever governs the Donbas should do so with that in mind.
The southern and eastern sections of present-day Ukraine contains a Black Sea coastline, Zaporizhzhia's nuclear power plant, and the Donbas coal fields (though at fearsome depth). There is a lot at stake. For Ukraine to loose ¾ of its coast and all of its coal might render the state non-viable. It may seem to Kyiv to be worth fighting for, even if that south eastern region is Russian-speaking and hostile to Kyiv.
There were right-wing paramilitary elements in the February 2014 rising, and there were pro-Russian paramilitary elements in the Donetsk and Luhansk [7]. There has been a lot of assistance/interference from Russia in the form of heavy weapons and advice, and maybe also personnel; and now also a lot of assistance/interference from The West to the government in Kyiv.
The Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 [8] were serious attempts by third parties to de-escalate the violence in the Donbas Region between pro-Russian separatists and the Ukraine state. Such a de-escalation would require both of the warring parties to see benefits. In the event, neither party seem sufficiently to want peace. On that point Putin seems correct.
It is not at all clear how strong the indigenous pro-Russian sentiment is, in the disputed areas. Pre-emptive, illegal, and un-monitored referendums are unconvincing and unhelpful.
I believe the world would like to see a Minsk-type cease-fire and some well-monitored referendums.
References
[1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
[2] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/03/kyiv-1.html
[3] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/03/kiev-2.html
[4] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/04/alexei-razumovsky.html
[5] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/03/kyiv3.html
[6] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/04/kyiv4.html
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity
[8] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-minsk-agreements.html
Please address comment to cawstein@gmail.com
1 comment:
I am not going to comment on the pre-2014 history of Russia and Ukraine. Nearly all the nations of Europe are an ethnic and cultural mix of centuries of movements of peoples, political upheavals and intermarriage. You could probably make multiple arguments for redrawing boundaries, allegiences etc anywhere in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe. I feel that the only starting point for fair and just drawing of borders, is to start with the current views of of the people living there.
That brings me to the revolution of early 2014 that ousted President Yanukovych. As far as understand, he was elected in 2013 in elections that were judged fair. His overthrow was mainly a movement of the cities of Western Ukraine who were increasingly looking westwards for their future. In the horror of the brutality of the 2023 Russian invasion, I had forgotten that I thought at the time that the people of the Donbas and maybe the south as well (the actual percentage is probably lost in the propaganda war of both sides and the effects of the war) had a point. The President that they had elected had been ousted by a basically non-democratic movement that overthrew the result of a probably democratic election.
What I object to I the implication that the anti-Yanukovych movement was manipulated by outside forces - by 2023 these had become 'Fascists and neo-Nazis' . This is a deeply undemocratic sentiment. I am sure there were some 'Fascists' but it is difficult to have a democratic state without respect for peoples' right to draw their own conclusions. Sure, some are mislead, some indifferent or short-sighted, many probably enticed by what appears to be the greater affluence of the West. This is their right. I don't think our own electorate would bear close examination on these score but what is the alternative. It is the easy argument of the threatened autocracy to argue thar their opponent are dupes of foreign interests (see Iran).
To return to the point. Yes, eastern Ukrainers had a legitimate case but Putin has exploited it ruthlessly and abdicated any moral high ground. The sheer brutality of the 2022 invasion is not the behaviour of a state looking to defend a persecuted minority. I suspect that the balance of feeling towards Russia has shifted away from them in the 4 years of the war and this is mostly a situation of Russia's own making. I saw on TV in the early days of the invasion an interview with an elderly man fleeing the advance. You could tell he had been a soldier by his upright bearing even in his old age. He had been a Red Army soldier for 30 years and proud to have served in Afghanistan! Now - and a I quote - 'I could tear them apart with my bare hands'. Of course, he may have been a western stooge but!! Certainly the anti-russification direction in the Ukraine has intensified since 2022. This is not to Ukraine's credit and we must be careful not to idealise Ukrainian democracy. After all, they were part of the USSR for 70 years and must have learned a thing or 2!
The argument that neither side want peace is mostly true. The Russians cannot lose long term as they will be the winners in a war of attrition. If half the reports of their treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied areas are true, they will inherit a maelstrom of resentment that will take generations to assuage ( see the article in 'Prospect' March 2026 on the men of the Donbas conscripted into the Russian forces for just a flavour of this).
Ukraine cannot prevail longterm without the full intervention of NATO, the implications of which are too horrendous to imagine. They will have to compromise over borders eventually but their hesitation is understandable. If they compromise now, will Russia come back for more later?
I have gone on long enough so will stop now
Post a Comment