Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 2 – Many people,
horrified by the actions of pro-Moscow forces in Crimea and the Donbas or
unwilling to continue to resist Russian aggression, have concluded that the
rest of Ukraine would be better off without those two regions and could move
forward by sacrificing them to Vladimir Putin.
“If only everything were so simple,”
Aleksandr Skobov writes in a commentary for Kasparov.ru. But it isn’t and it is
time for the world to recognize that the dividing line between the “two worlds”
is more complicated and that sacrificing these territories to Moscow would only
lead to more Russian aggression (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=55E5D189CAA78).
One of those horrified by what is
going on in Russian-occupied areas is Karina Orlova, who in a recent blogpost
suggested that it would be better to give Crimea and the Donbas as well to
Putin given its pro-Stalin people. “The normal part of the world would only
benefit from this,” she suggests (echo.msk.ru/blog/karina_orlova/1613042-echo/).
She is hardly alone in feeling that
way, the Russian commentator says, given that pro-Moscow forces in in the
Donbas have called for destroying all memorials to those who suffered political
repression in Soviet times and to the victims of the Soviet dictator’s terror
famine (vlada.io/vlada_news/boeviki-dnr-snesli-pamyatniki-zhertvam-golodomora-i-politicheskih-repressiy/).
If only this problem could be
resolved so easily by yielding territories and building walls, Skobov says, and
even if one made provision for those living on each side of this line who
preferred to live on the other to move. But the problem isn’t that simple, and this
“solution” is no solution.
Not only would such a handover
sacrifice the rights of the Crimean Tatars and others to self-determination, he
continues; what is “the most important thing is that [those to whom the
territories would be given] would never be satisfied.” They would simply take
what was offered and demand or try to seize more.
The pro-Moscow forces who are
glorifying Stalin now have “forgotten everything and learned nothing. But what
is most important, they do not want to learn anything. They do not want to
understand anything.”
“It is possible to argue about which
of the two totalitarian regime-twins – the Stalinist or the Hitlerite – brought
the greater evil. It is possible to argue about which of them is worse. But
those who glorify Stalin today,” Skobov argues, “are worse than Nazis.” That is
because “to justify Stalinist terror is the same as justifying the Holocaust.”
The Nazis “didn’t promise all
peoples freedom, equality and brotherhood. They didn’t present themselves as
humanists,” he says. “The Stalinists on the other hand always lied, to others
and to themselves. And if during the life of the regime, some of them were
themselves deceived by these lies, present-day idolizers of Stalin lack that ‘mitigating
circumstance.’”
“Today, no one can say that he didn’t
know about the victims of Stalin’s regime,” Skobov argues, and those who want
to restore his regime and to tear down the monuments to his victims are thus “worse
than Nazis.”
Skobov points out that “this is not
a question of ethnic, linguistic, cultural or civilizational membership. In any
nation or civilization there are brothers of those who protested in Tianamen
Square and also brothers of those who suppressed those who took part in those
demonstrations with tanks.”
“These are two worlds, the struggle
between which has a universal character, and reconciliation is impossible. And
those who rise under the song ‘Bring Back Stalin’ and wipe out the memory about
his victims are not my brothers,” Skobov says. “They are my enemies” and the
enemies of all those who care about human rights, freedom and dignity.
“Today,” he continues, “such people
are being cynically used as cannon fodder” by the Kremlin kleptocracy “which is
seeking with their help to rearrange the contemporary world according to
[their] criminal understandings.” In brief, “contemporary neo-Stalinism” is a criminal
agenda that would be marginal if it did not enjoy the support of the Kremlin.
Consequently, he argues, “Ukraine is
not fighting for parts of its territory seized by an aggressor. Simply it is on
the line of the front between two parts of the world: the normal one in which
human life is valued and the abnormal one” in which the executioners seek to
impose their will.
Sacrificing territory won’t end this
fight, he says, and “the normal part of the world will not be able to sleep peacefully
even if its opponent will be thrown back beyond the Urals.” It will only be
able to do so when regimes of executioners “from Minsk to Pyongyang” will be
defeated and replaced by regimes who don’t celebrate killers.
Because Skobov is right, one can
only agree with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s call today for “the
peoples of the free world to stand up against Russian aggression in Ukraine” (http://echo.msk.ru/news/1614764-echo.html).
What is at stake is far more than just two plots of land: the international
order and human rights are at risk if the West does not.
No comments:
Post a Comment