UKRAINE - The Tragedy and Timidity of Understanding History
May I quickly observe that as a political historian I feel a little nervous about writing about the Ukraine as by the time I have written this piece, reflected on it, edited it and sent it the condition would probably have changed, however, as a someone trained within the World of International Relations (IR) I feel obliged to do so anyway. IR at its most basic level is all about considering and understanding 'inclusion and exclusion,' so if you de-construct the history of the United States, the Russian Federation and the European Union you have three good case studies in point. Hence, the Ukraine has become a key component in this running narrative about who we are, what we are and why we are...
The Ukraine is a border nation-state, it is just like a border town abet somewhat larger, in other words this is a social construct that sits geographically, culturally, and historically in a place and space that has been and remains open to numerous opposing political pressures and head winds that are traditional and transitional. The question is where does a border nation-state constructed from such an ancient and diverse religious and cultural pool belong in a contemporary world that has moved on and is now largely underpinned by large political unions ? The western media are keen to suggest that this region has become an arena; a dual between in the red corner from the East the cold blasts of Putin's austere Moscow and in the blue corner from the West comes the seemingly warmer winds of a bureaucratic but brio Brussels. As a Brit, understandably, I do not put much trust in either the weather forecasts or pugilism. However, we are still being asked to see the contemporary troubles in Eastern Europe as binary or dualistic in nature - simplistic or what. But of course, otherwise we would start asking some very awkward questions of ourselves.
In Kiev the democratically elected President was removed from office but not democratically. He was removed largely because of the destabilising violence used by far right fascist style groups under the guise of reasonable demonstrations from many ethnic Ukrainians who wanted 'their' nation to move closer or join the European Union. When the President decided not to accept Brussels friendly financed based overtures but to seek closer links to Moscow supported by the 'majority' in Parliament, alarm bells rang in Brussels and Washington, subsequently making their worries crystal clear, giving an opportunity for the more radical extreme groups inside Ukraine to move. Unfortunately, this lack of subtle diplomacy by the EU and the US had consequences that history often reveals, to paraphrase Shakespeare, 'Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war'. The subsequent response by Putin was to protect as he sees it his Russian citizens, you would expect no other response - read their history. Whilst Washington silent when the Ukraine's democratically elected President was unceremoniously ejected decides to make a bad situation even worse by issuing statements that creates more tension instead of reducing it.
Whether Brussels, Washington and Kiev like it or not the resolution of a border town dispute can only be achieved when law that recognises all citizens is upheld. This equates politically to talking to and including Moscow in future developments not excluding or punishing them. Putin acted because he saw his interests and that of his people being disenfranchised, if this dispute had been within the United States 'own backyard' how would have they had reacted, by not intervening ?
The challenge with history is that it revels much but as ever we need politicians that read all the pages and not just the bits they like. Moreover, we could also do with some decision-makers that lack a desire to rewrite history when it does not fit their understanding. Just like in any border town this is not really about some dualistic gun fight with the quickest draw winning, it is about recognising the inclusive nature to transition not the exclusive nature of tradition.
KK
The Ukraine is a border nation-state, it is just like a border town abet somewhat larger, in other words this is a social construct that sits geographically, culturally, and historically in a place and space that has been and remains open to numerous opposing political pressures and head winds that are traditional and transitional. The question is where does a border nation-state constructed from such an ancient and diverse religious and cultural pool belong in a contemporary world that has moved on and is now largely underpinned by large political unions ? The western media are keen to suggest that this region has become an arena; a dual between in the red corner from the East the cold blasts of Putin's austere Moscow and in the blue corner from the West comes the seemingly warmer winds of a bureaucratic but brio Brussels. As a Brit, understandably, I do not put much trust in either the weather forecasts or pugilism. However, we are still being asked to see the contemporary troubles in Eastern Europe as binary or dualistic in nature - simplistic or what. But of course, otherwise we would start asking some very awkward questions of ourselves.
In Kiev the democratically elected President was removed from office but not democratically. He was removed largely because of the destabilising violence used by far right fascist style groups under the guise of reasonable demonstrations from many ethnic Ukrainians who wanted 'their' nation to move closer or join the European Union. When the President decided not to accept Brussels friendly financed based overtures but to seek closer links to Moscow supported by the 'majority' in Parliament, alarm bells rang in Brussels and Washington, subsequently making their worries crystal clear, giving an opportunity for the more radical extreme groups inside Ukraine to move. Unfortunately, this lack of subtle diplomacy by the EU and the US had consequences that history often reveals, to paraphrase Shakespeare, 'Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war'. The subsequent response by Putin was to protect as he sees it his Russian citizens, you would expect no other response - read their history. Whilst Washington silent when the Ukraine's democratically elected President was unceremoniously ejected decides to make a bad situation even worse by issuing statements that creates more tension instead of reducing it.
Whether Brussels, Washington and Kiev like it or not the resolution of a border town dispute can only be achieved when law that recognises all citizens is upheld. This equates politically to talking to and including Moscow in future developments not excluding or punishing them. Putin acted because he saw his interests and that of his people being disenfranchised, if this dispute had been within the United States 'own backyard' how would have they had reacted, by not intervening ?
The challenge with history is that it revels much but as ever we need politicians that read all the pages and not just the bits they like. Moreover, we could also do with some decision-makers that lack a desire to rewrite history when it does not fit their understanding. Just like in any border town this is not really about some dualistic gun fight with the quickest draw winning, it is about recognising the inclusive nature to transition not the exclusive nature of tradition.
KK
RSS Feed
