Paul
Goble
Staunton, August 29 – Given how
often Vladimir Putin lies, it may be a mistake to make too much of any of his
statements as an indication of where he is heading. But his use of the term “Novorossiya”
in his statement yesterday, the first time he has talked about that space
within Ukraine as a contemporary issue, is worrisome.
That is because it suggests that the
Kremlin leader is doubling down on his invasion of Ukraine and plans to create
a Transdniestria-like “partially recognized state” and “frozen conflict” in a
large swath of southeastern Ukraine regardless of Ukrainian and international
opposition to his aggression.
According to Ekho Moskvy journalist
Vladimir Varfolomeyev, a search of the records of Putin’s official statements
shows that Putin has used the term “Novorossiya” only once before, in the
course of his conversation with Russian citizens, and did so explicitly in
terms of history rather than current events (http://www.echo.msk.ru/blog/varfolomeev/1389552-echo/).
On that earlier occasion, Putin said
that Novorossiya included Kharkov, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and
Odessa, areas that he said “were not included within Ukraine in tsarist times”
but “handed over to Ukraine in the 1920s by the Soviet government. Why they did this, God alone knows,” the
Kremlin leader said.
But as a result of that Soviet
action, the “victories of Potemkin and Catherine II” were ignored and Novorossiya
disappeared. “For various reasons, these territories disappeared,” Putin said,
but the people there remained.”
(Although the Ekho Moskvy
commentator does not point this out and Putin certainly does not stress,
tsarist Russia was not divided into ethnic republics. There were Ukrainians and
Georgians and Uzbeks, among others, but there as not a Ukraine or a Georgia or
an Uzbekistan as an officially recognized entity.)
Now, as Varfolomeyev points out,
unlike in his Putin’s April remarks, “’Novorossiya’ has been transformed from a
subject of historical interest into a subject of policy. If of course,” the
Ekho Moskvy commentator adds, “words today still have any meaning,” given Putin’s
cavalier treatment of the truth.
Other Moscow commentators are also
discussing the meaning of Putin’s attachment to the idea of “Novorossiya.” One of the most thoughtful observations is
provided by Vitaly Portnikov, who suggests that Putin sees Novorossiya as
something he can seize and then create the kind of state he wants more
generally (grani.ru/opinion/portnikov/m.232462.html).
The Moscow commentator says that
Putin in some ways is like Stalin but in other ways is not. Like Stalin, he
works at night at least when it comes to Ukraine, but he does this not because
he prefers to sleep during the day as Stalin did, Portnikov says, but rather “simply
because then Obama isn’t sleeping.”
But unlike Stalin, he continues, Putin
didn’t take Russia away from his rivals but was handed it by his predecessor in
order to save it. Novorossiya offers Putin a chance to seize something and thus
make it his own in the way that Stalin made Soviet Russia his own via
collectivization, the purges and war.
“Therefore,” Portnikov says, “for
Putin, the first real country is not Russia but Novorossiya. He has taken it
out of the hands of its own population and is now creating it according to his
own image,” one that involves a situation in which “it is possible to shot,
kill and torture without punishment.”
“It is certain,” the commentator
continues, that Putin “already feels himself president of both these countries …
enormous Russia” which he did not seize earlier and “little Novorossiya” which
he is in the process of taking and in which he is showing exactly what kind of
a regime he would like to extend to Russia.
But Portnikov says, Putin is
mistaken in this. “In Russia he really is president,” but “in Novorossiya, he
is a night porter.” And “there where in
battles and tortures is being creating the ideal Putinist Russia, he is not
present.” But in some ways that makes his obsession with Novorossiya even more
disturbing than as an occasion of military aggression.
That is because, the commentator says,
it shows exactly what he wants to do in Russia itself and in any other
territories he can, like Stalin, “take away” from someone else.
No comments:
Post a Comment