Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 13 -- Irina
Bekeshkina, director of the Kucherin Foundation, says that those who initially
supported the Russian occupation of the Donbass did so because they expected
that would lead to an improvement in their lives. It hasn’t, and consequently,
the sociologist says, ever more of them want again to be part of Ukraine.
“Now,” the sociologist says, “people are returning to their accustomed
life and want everything to be the same as it was: they even in their majority
do not want autonomy for their regions.” What matters is that they not be shot
and that they have good jobs (apostrophe.ua/article/politics/2017-09-13/rossiya-ih-ne-hochet-lyudi-na-donbasse-gotovyi-vernutsya-k-prejney-jizni---sotsiolog-irina-bekeshkina/14404).
“I wouldn’t
exaggerate their pro-Ukrainian nature, although identification with Ukraine is
growing, especially among the young.”
She adds that “the more successful the [Ukrainian] economy will be, the
more such attitudes will grow as will their pro-Ukrainian dispositions.” People
are tired. They want a clear definition of who and what they are to be.
If their land is to be Ukraine, Bekeshkina
says, then they will accept Ukraine. “if it will be Russia, they will accept
Russia. But they already understand now that Russia doesn’t want them and
therefore they would like to return to their former lives.”
This means that there is a growing
practical basis for the recovery of the Donbass, she suggests, although
ideologically things may be more difficult because for many in the
Russian-occupied regions, their identity is not with Russia but with the USSR. “Look
at home the streets are called there: everything remains as it was in the
Soviet Union.”
The situation with regard to Crimea
is “much more complicated than with the Donbass,” the sociologist says. On that
peninsula, there have been significant “demographic changes,” with Russia
introducing ever more people from the outside and oppressing the pro-Ukrainian
population which in the first instance consists of Crimean Tatars.
In the course of her 3,000-word
interview, Bekeshkina made a number of other unrelated comments worth
mentioning:
·
One
must not exclude the possibility that Ukraine will have another revolution. It
has had two already in the 21st century and neither were
predicted. The attitudes of the masses
are uncertain, and now that many people have arms, small groups may be in a
position to play a larger if unfortunate political role.
·
Ukraine
today now has no political force or leader who has “more or less significant
support from the population.” Most have
only single digit backing or in the low teens.
·
“When
people say that there was never as much corruption as now, this is not true.” What
is true is that it has never been the subject of so much media attention.
·
Predicting
the outcome of the next presidential election is a fool’s errand. People should remember that a year ahead of
the last presidential elections, “sociologists did not even include in the list
of candidates the man who is the current president.”
·
The
Ukrainian government has committed “a great stupidity” in its handling of
Saakashvili. The regime didn’t need to expel him: he had no support and no
legal right to run for president. But by
acting as it has, Kyiv has entered into a situation where each of its steps
makes the situation worse. At the same time, however, Saakashvili while a media
sensation is no more likely to assemble a coalition now than he did
earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment