Paul
Goble
Staunton, May 5 – Commentators have
long celebrated the fact that the USSR broke up with little violence in 1991 –
the conflicts in Abkhazia, Tajikistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transdniestria and
Chechnya typically have been treated as exceptions that prove the rule. But
now, many of the unresolved issues from 23 years ago are leading to violence as
in Ukraine.
In an editorial article in today’s “Vedomosti,”
Nikolay Epple and Maksim Trudolyubov argue that for two decades, Russia and
Ukraine sought to avoid the outcome that had occurred in Serbia and Croatia,
but that did not mean that “the revolutionary processes” in the two were “overcome
but only “put off” (vedomosti.ru/opinion/news/26101331/otlozhennye-posledstviya).
The ongoing crisis in Ukraine shows
more sharply than ever before that Ukrainians cannot avoid facing some critical
issues any longer, including “the geopolitical choice between Europe and
Russia, real sovereignty or dependence on ‘the elder brother,’ the unificatioin
of the country on the basis of a new national self-consciousness or its split
via ‘federalization.’”
And “the development of the
postponed revolution in Ukraine will inevitably have an impact on Russia as
well” because “the exit of Ukraine from the post-Soviet space will confront
Russia with the need to reformat its own historical matrix.”
“For a long time it has been considered,”
the two editorial writers say, that “no other basis besides the Soviet exists
for Russians.” That appears to be
changing with Vladimir Putin’s talk about “a Russian world,” about “the largest
divided people in the world,” and about Crimea “as part of pre-revolutionary
Russia” that was “lost in Soviet times.”
It is thus “not excluded” that Putin
views the annexation of Crimea “as the restoration f a symbolic link with
imperial Russia.”
Putin’s choice for the citizens of
Russia of a new identification combining ethnic and political ones (“russky”
and “rossiisky”) points toward the basis of “something larger than a nation
state” because “the ‘Russian world’ spreads across borders.”
And that in turn means, “Vedomosti”
says, that “an internal issue – the development of the [ethnic] Russian nation –
is entering into a contradiction with the logic of the development of
neighboring nations which possibly do not intend to voluntarily sacrifice territory
and population to Russia.”
When Yugoslavia fell apart, the
Serbs refused to accept the borders of the other countries that emerged, a
failure that sparked “the most destructive armed conflicti n Europe after World
War II,” the editorial writers say. That war resulted in thousands of dead and
millions of refugees. Is it possible, they imply, that the Russians may now be
heading down the same road?
No comments:
Post a Comment