Paul
Goble
Staunton, March 17 – Russian
nationalists claim that what the West did in the former Yugoslavia represents a
precedent for what Moscow is doing in Ukraine now, but in fact, Yekaterinburg
analyst Fedor Krasheninnikov says, there is no basis for such an analogy
because “Crimea is not Kosovo” and Russia’s actions are in no way like those of
the West earlier.
In a Facebook post that has been
reposted on Kasparov.ru today, Krasheninnikov says that Kosovo does not provide
the precedent Russian nationalists seek to invoke but rather highlights just
how different the behavior of Moscow in Crimea has been from that of the West
in the case of Kosovo (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=5326B7C3A2274).
In addition to the obvious fact that
“Kosovo was not joined to Albania (or even more to the US, Germany, or Great
Britain) but remained a separate state recognized by a quite solid number” of
states and thus “not like some kind of Abkhazia,” he suggests, there are four
reasons for this conclusion.
First, in the case of Kosovo,” there
was an entire coalition of countries on the side of the separatists (and not
just one country that had come to defend the interests of its compatriots.”
Second, “the history of Kosovo
separatism ... was [both] long and bloody.
In Crimea until the very most recent time, everything was peaceful and
it was completely integrated into the Ukrainian polity, there was no partisan
warfare [or] anything else.”
Third, Krasheninnikov points out
that “the Kosovar Albanians judging from everything hardly wanted to make their
land part of Albania.” In Crimea, on the
other hand, many Russians from the outset began talking about unifying that
Ukrainian peninsula with the Russian Federation.
And fourth, in the Balkans, “Albania in
general in all this history did not represent the main player. At most, it was
[simply] one of the participants.” Consequently, citing Kosovo as a precedent
for what Moscow is doing in Crimea is something that should not be taken
seriously by anyone.
Moreover, if one consider the Kosovo
case more closely, one sees, the Yekaterinburg analyst concludes, that those
who refer to it when talking about Crimea are engaged in an act of “betray
toward the very Serbs” about whom Russian nationalists “so love to cry about.”
Unfortunately, as Krasheninnikov does
not point out here, Moscow’s propaganda effort in this regard has had an impact
on the thinking of many in Russia and elsewhere, an example of the ways in
which, as the Nazis showed, the repetition of a lie often enough has an impact
even if it is entirely at odds with the facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment