Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 10 – In a
wide-ranging and even programmatic interview with the After Empire
portal, Ukrainian commentator Vitaly Portnikov describes three often
acknowledged truths about Ukraine and Ukrainians that not only now play but
will continue to play a key role in the development of that nation (afterempire.info/2019/09/10/portnikov-5/).
First of all, he
says, “Ukraine as a former colony of the metropolitan center is with difficulty
catching up with Russia and now it is about where Russia was in 1999.” This
lag, he says, also reflects the fact
that “in Ukraine there was no perestroika … there was no major movement for independence
and there were no changes.”
“In August 1991,
there were practically no mass demonstrations against the putsch like those we
saw in Moscow.” Indeed, Portnikov says, one really can speak of the beginning
of mass movements in Ukraine only as having taken place in 2004, thirteen years
later, with Yushchenko’s Maidan.
And what is
happening in Ukraine today recalls what happened in Russia in 1999-2000 when
Vladimir Putin came to power. Now it is Ukraine’s turn to see the possibility
of authoritarianism, although how far that will go and how long that will last
are certain to be different.
According to Portnikov, Vladimir
Zelensky or even more probably his successor will be “an individual who will
attempt to establish here a genuine harsh authoritarian regime,” but if he
tries to do so, it is difficult to see how such a regime can find support in
the various parts of the country which have very different ideas about hat the
state should be.
In the commentator’s opinion,
because Ukraine is so divided, it should become a genuine parliamentary
democracy with a weak president so that the various parts of the country will
have to work together rather than rely as now on the decisions of a single
individual and his small team of advisors.
Second, Portnikov says that those who
think that ethnic Ukrainians in the Russian Federation are a lever that Kyiv
should be using do not understand the situation. They are ethnically Ukrainian
but they are very much part of the Russian political nation and thus potentially
are a greater resource for Moscow than for Kyiv.
Ukrainians “by ethnic origin” do
live in Russia, “but these Ukrainians long ago have been part of the Russian
political nation. They are Ukrainians by ethnic origin but in no way politically
Ukrainians.” Those who were have returned; those who remain in country which
has occupied part of Ukraine are on the other side of the divide.
According to Portnikov, Russia has
the chance to use these people as leverage rather than Kyiv. If Russia occupies
more of Ukraine, it will likely use them in much the same way the Soviet
government used Latvians who had been living in the RSFSR to govern occupied
Latvia in 1940 and then again after 1945.
When Moscow occupied Latvia and her
two Baltic neighbors, it did not trust the local communists. Instead, it
brought in people who were “ethnically” members of the titular nationality but
who had become completely absorbed by the “imperial” vision of the center. In
Latvia at the head of these people stood the infamous Arvid Pelshe.
None of the Ukrainians in Russia is
going to become “an agent of Ukraine” because “the majority of people you
consider Ukrainians are Rossiyane [non-ethnic Russians], just like people of
Russians, Armenian, Jewish or Chechen.”
For them, “the Russian Federation itself is a value” – and if it
expands, they will be pleased.
And third, Portnikov continues, despite
what many believe or at least say, “Russia has never conducted any work with
ethnic Russians in Ukraine. It has done so with the Russian-speaking population
but this is not one and the same thing.” It works with Russian speakers who “feel
themselves part of a large imperial space” rather than members of a particular
nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment