Ukraine President: Russia Encouraging Unrest

[gazza]

well if thay go to war, least we wont be worring bout the credit crunch and which bank is to go next

[Skeddan]

... It would mean that EU members would be obliged to help out any attacked nation. And an extension of the EU's economic and political influence into its large neighbour is hardly going to be looked upon favourably by Russia, especially while a significant minority of the population is Russian.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French and current EU president, put an affirmative spin on the offer, saying it was "the first time the union pronounces itself so clearly on the European destiny [of Ukraine]." But Ukrainian officials expressed palpable dismay that the EU did not go further.

 

there is strong sentiment in the union to wait until Ukraine and Russia find a more settled accommodation.

 

Reading between the lines I'd say this means Ukraine will join EU but only after after Ukraine and Russia find a "more settled accommodation". i.e. Ukraine will be partitioned, with the ethnic Russian regions annexed into Russia. This will then provide a 'settled accommodation' with Russian acceptance of the remaining 'West Ukraine' becoming a member of the EU. A Yalta style carve-up.

 

How this will be played out will probably be a bit different though - probably by tacit agreement through signalling rather than explicit agreement like Yalta or Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia in 1939. Russia will/is destabilising Ukraine, and with Georgia tactics and military intervention this will lead to dismemberment. US and EU will not be involved other than making a few shouts and token gestures. In return Russia won't raise objection to the remainder of Ukraine joining EU. This part of the EU-Russia border will then be stable and settled.

 

How else do you see the situation resolving itself?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

... It would mean that EU members would be obliged to help out any attacked nation. And an extension of the EU's economic and political influence into its large neighbour is hardly going to be looked upon favourably by Russia, especially while a significant minority of the population is Russian.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French and current EU president, put an affirmative spin on the offer, saying it was "the first time the union pronounces itself so clearly on the European destiny [of Ukraine]." But Ukrainian officials expressed palpable dismay that the EU did not go further.

 

there is strong sentiment in the union to wait until Ukraine and Russia find a more settled accommodation.

 

Reading between the lines I'd say this means Ukraine will join EU but only after after Ukraine and Russia find a "more settled accommodation". i.e. Ukraine will be partitioned, with the ethnic Russian regions annexed into Russia. This will then provide a 'settled accommodation' with Russian acceptance of the remaining 'West Ukraine' becoming a member of the EU. A Yalta style carve-up.

 

How this will be played out will probably be a bit different though - probably by tacit agreement through signalling rather than explicit agreement like Yalta or Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia in 1939. Russia will/is destabilising Ukraine, and with Georgia tactics and military intervention this will lead to dismemberment. US and EU will not be involved other than making a few shouts and token gestures. In return Russia won't raise objection to the remainder of Ukraine joining EU. This part of the EU-Russia border will then be stable and settled.

 

How else do you see the situation resolving itself?

 

In terms of separatists? Unsure, I don't have any sympathy for nationalisties who simply wish to have their 'own' government or be rules by another government of another country. This is not to say I oppose it, I just see it as a distraction from what really matters in the world. If the separatists wish to secede, however, I have a problem with it.

 

The US and EU governments are just as hypocritical and aggressive in their foreign policy as Russia. I just don't want to see any war. But if there is fragility in these countries, I think it folly for NATO and the EU to start pushing into these regions. I am not surprised the Ukraine wants to join, and be a part of The Club, but not if it angers the Russian government. The chance of nuclear weapons being used is very slim, and a general war maybe even more slim, but the Russian military could occupy the easter portions of the Ukraine, and such a fait accompli would serve to anger the EU and the US, not that they could do much about it, but Russia would rather not risk confrontation.

[P.K.]

Russia has got to get used to the fact that buffer/proxy states are no longer an option. However I don't see a "Georgia style" annexation i.e. by force. Although they would if they had to.

 

I would expect the Crimea and a land corridor to Russia probably via Donetsk being the aim, as that's where the Russian minority are. Ideally the military would probably want the entire area east of the Dneipr river. But without a major military intervention that would be unpalatable to the west they're not likely to get it. They want to secure their naval base at Sevastopol (which the ethnic Ukrainians want out) and it gives them a strategic hold on the Black Sea oil/gas effort. Win/win.

[Skeddan]

Russia has got to get used to the fact that buffer/proxy states are no longer an option. However I don't see a "Georgia style" annexation i.e. by force. Although they would if they had to.

As I see it, the key thing underlying Russian policy is that Russia has got the idea that buffer/proxy states are no longer an option. Hence redrawing borders to incorporate territory in states which are no longer functioning as proxy states.

 

You may well be right about how Ukraine will end up being partitioned - I don't know. However this is effected, I can't see any realistic alternative to some form of partition, with parts of Ukraine territory being annexed into Russia and what remains of Ukraine joining the EU following this 'settlement'.

 

Essentially it is a process of partitioning former buffer/proxy states - and this is exactly what Russia seems to be intent on doing by one means or another.

[Chinahand]

I really dislike irredentism - I think good governance absolutely requires states to be blind to nationality.

 

Western Europe has managed to put this genie pretty much back in the bottle - lots of people who previously thought of themselves as German live in France, Italy, or Denmark. The various nationalities in Switzerland fit into its Federal structure - even in troubled Belgium there isn't a demand for its nationalities to come under the sway of the motherland.

 

This is still a huge problem in Eastern Europe and there is almost a contradiction in the EUs attitdue. Its moves to ensure good governance and to stop economic nationalism are one of the main reasons these problems have been disarmed. But now it seems to take the attitude that these problems have to be solved before it will allow entry.

 

I only hope sensible outreach measures - associate membership or whatever - help eastern European countries bring in good governance measures, but as has been said the attitude of Russia is vital. If they become a trouble maker, encouraging irredentist groups thoughout the ex-USSR then there could be huge problems and great violence.

 

All for a mythical ideal of nation.

[P.K.]

I really dislike irredentism - I think good governance absolutely requires states to be blind to nationality.

Don't you mean ethnicity?

 

You only have to see the racist taunts from East European football crowds to know it's going to be a problem.

[Skeddan]

I really dislike irredentism - I think good governance absolutely requires states to be blind to nationality.

 

Western Europe has managed to put this genie pretty much back in the bottle - lots of people who previously thought of themselves as German live in France, Italy, or Denmark. The various nationalities in Switzerland fit into its Federal structure - even in troubled Belgium there isn't a demand for its nationalities to come under the sway of the motherland.

 

This is still a huge problem in Eastern Europe and there is almost a contradiction in the EUs attitdue.

...

All for a mythical ideal of nation.

In a sense irredentism of a kind is what is being applied (cultural, historical and not just ethnic). The EU recognise Ukraine as being 'European' - being a natural part of the 'European sphere' (EU). Russia regard part of Ukraine as being Russian. The EU don't recognise Russia as being a natural part of Europe. Somewhere there is a line to be drawn between the EU sphere and Russia. That line runs somewhere through Ukraine. It's a bit like a fault line where tectonic boundaries meet - not precisely defined, but somewhere along there will be a split. Like it or not, that's pretty much what's going on.

 

Rather than see it in terms of nationalist ideology or irredentism, might be worth considering in terms of system dynamics (See for example Critical Mass by Philip Ball, Ch.14).

 

Why do you think nation is a mythical ideal? Nation states, federations of states, even EU style super-states exist and are a reality - just like companies and corporations, which in a sense are no less a mythical ideal. That's how things are conducted. Maybe there is a utopian notion where we might imagine a John Lennon ideal with no countries and no possessions too, but it ain't how it is.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I really dislike irredentism - I think good governance absolutely requires states to be blind to nationality.

 

Western Europe has managed to put this genie pretty much back in the bottle - lots of people who previously thought of themselves as German live in France, Italy, or Denmark. The various nationalities in Switzerland fit into its Federal structure - even in troubled Belgium there isn't a demand for its nationalities to come under the sway of the motherland.

 

This is still a huge problem in Eastern Europe and there is almost a contradiction in the EUs attitdue.

...

All for a mythical ideal of nation.

 

In a sense irredentism of a kind is what is being applied (cultural, historical and not just ethnic). The EU recognise Ukraine as being 'European' - being a natural part of the 'European sphere' (EU). Russia regard part of Ukraine as being Russian. The EU don't recognise Russia as being a natural part of Europe. Somewhere there is a line to be drawn between the EU sphere and Russia. That line runs somewhere through Ukraine. It's a bit like a fault line where tectonic boundaries meet - not precisely defined, but somewhere along there will be a split. Like it or not, that's pretty much what's going on.

 

Rather than see it in terms of nationalist ideology or irredentism, might be worth considering in terms of system dynamics (See for example Critical Mass by Philip Ball, Ch.14).

 

Why do you think nation is a mythical ideal? Nation states, federations of states, even EU style super-states exist and are a reality - just like companies and corporations, which in a sense are no less a mythical ideal. That's how things are conducted. Maybe there is a utopian notion where we might imagine a John Lennon ideal with no countries and no possessions too, but it ain't how it is.

 

In terms of your first paragraph, I think the ethnicity of the Ukraine is not that important. As you may agree, in terms of culture and history there is nothing clear cut about Ukraine, or Russia for that matter. The EU would not want to recognise Russia as being part of Europe because the sheer size of the country, it's ambivalence to whether it belongs in Europe or not, and former (most of the Soviet Union period) superiority of this nation in terms of economy strength, diplomatic and military strength disproportionate to any other individual nation, serve to make Russia seem non-European and undesirable as a player in the club.

 

The situation is that you are either in the EU system or you are not (and therefore an economic competitor); and that you are in NATO or not (and a potential enemy).

 

Yes it is true, nation states do exist but it is a myth that people that where people can find the most and most important commonality is in their language, ethnicity, and culture. And that the people of the nation have interests and common goals. It also presupposed that there are stark differences between the peoples of other nations simply based on their language and culture. The assumption lying behind nationalism have been reified into the nation state.

(I haven't spent a long time thinking about this answer, so would be interested to look at other perspectives if anybody has any or something I have not taken into account)

 

Going back to what you were saying though, Russia does consider parts of the Ukraine to be Russian, this is understandable because those people see themselves as Russia. And given the importance of national identity to so many people and the problem it can cause, I think it would have made sense for these Russians to be in Russia. But any alteration to the borders also serves as a bad message to other separatists who see national independence as something desirable under the misguided idea that it confers freedom.

 

Oh and just to add to the post, what is interesting is that the expansion of NATO and the EU has already led to Russia and the Central Asian Republics (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc.) forming their own military bloc, though I forget the name of it.

[Chinahand]

Why do you think nation is a mythical ideal? Nation states, federations of states, even EU style super-states exist and are a reality - just like companies and corporations, which in a sense are no less a mythical ideal. That's how things are conducted. Maybe there is a utopian notion where we might imagine a John Lennon ideal with no countries and no possessions too, but it ain't how it is.

No quite the opposite really - I just feel that if you were so minded you could easily double, triple, quadruple the number of nation states in the world if you were so minded.

 

Yorkshire, Cornwall, The Zulus, The Xhosa, Basques, The Danelaw, Alsace, etc etc etc - I basically think where you make the cut, draw the line on the map, is a construct - its a contingent historical process with very little other basis - I don't think there is any such thing as a natural basis for a nation, and the process is incredibly malleable - areas which not long ago were regarded as a hodgepodge of mutually antagonistic ethnic groups are now proud historic nations.

 

Nations like to portray themselves as inevitable, or unchangeable - words like Father- or Motherland are used.

 

Alot of it leaves me cold.

 

I feel this has very little to do with real community - which is a local thing and which can have very little to do with things people tend to think are important in nations - I've lived in various multilingual communities for example.

 

I presume you know about the concept of imagined community coined by Benedict Anderson?

 

I feel that the process of imagining is very contingent and is often solidified by a foundational myth which draws these individual communities into a larger immagined community.

 

Where borders have shifted or have been newly minted it is fascinating seeing how old myths are slowly replaced by the new - I cannot recommend this book by Anastasia Karakasidou more highly; it is a most beautiful and touching book about this process.

 

I do admit that the connection between actual community and the larger imagined one is not entirely arbitary - it has to be in the scope of imagination, and so John Lennon's dreams are really just that, dreams, as we do not (yet) have an ability to imagine all peoples unified.

 

But we do have nation states which are able to do it for populations numbered in the billions - and please do not claim that India, or China are natural units with any inevitability in their existence or I will quote you the opening lines of The Romance of the Three Kingdoms!

 

Forming nations is an amazing process, but what results seems to me in most instances to be pretty arbitary and when borders have changed the myth just bends or forms anew.

[Skeddan]

Russia Proposes New European Security Pact. clicky