Ukraine, Russophobia & The Death of Neutrality

I recently came across an interesting article by security and organised crime expert (and Moscow Times Columnist), Mark Galeotti, on his blog https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/.  In this article, he talks about, among other things, the death of neutrality.  The heightening of tensions in relations between East and West,  US, NATO vs Russia, an apparent return to Cold War footing and rhetoric,  has made it more difficult for objective analysts such to present themselves, or be accepted as truly disinterested parties. In particular, when considering the events in Ukraine - the article struck a chord with me.

"The death of neutrality. It is increasingly difficult not to be on one side or the other. We’ve already seen this over Ukraine (I’ve been castigated as a Kremlin stooge for not using the word “terrorist” to describe the rebels, and a Western shill for claiming that Russian troops are present, all for the same article!), but I think it’s also happening with Russia. Not to regard Putin as a murderous mafioso-fascist-tyrant-kleptocrat who kills for the hell of it is to be an apologist. To refuse to believe the State Department is actively trying to install Navalny in the Kremlin makes you a tool of Western “colour revolution.” Analysis increasingly, I’m sorry to say, takes second place to assertion of the world as the observer “knows” it to be." Mark Galeotti

I'm no apologist for the Putin regime, and have been supportive of UK and US policy, perhaps in the naive belief that Western democracies, led by the US, have generally been a benign, positive  force in the world, but I have been astounded at the outcomes we have managed to achieve over the last decade or so foreign policy adventures. I think this echoes the sentiments of British Journalist and Author, Peter Hitchens, who said this recently in his Sunday Mail blog:

"Perhaps, after years in which I genuinely believed that our Government and the Americans were a pretty straightforward force for good, I now find it harder to accept, having seen the wrong and foolish things we do in the Middle East and now also in Ukraine."

I have no axe to grind on this matter, but what we are being told about Ukraine and Russia is a crock of shit.  The US and EU stirred things up in Ukraine, encouraged the opposition movement towards a 'color revolution',  and played some kind of shadowy role in the overthrow of Yanukovich's regime in Ukraine - an apparent masterclass in "hybrid" warfare.  The result - a failed state, a collapsing economy, political turmoil and civil war - right on the borders of a nuclear state, Russia.

But those that assert this or question what what the mainstream media is presenting,  are branded a "useful idiots", deluded pro-Putin members of the awkward squad, Russian internet trolls,  or RT propagandists.

The rampant Russophobia, the anti-Putin and anti-Russian sentiment in the mainstream media of the West  has crowded out any kind of objective and measured analyses of the situation or, for that matter, alternative viewpoints.  As a consequence of this, the tragedy unfolding on Europe's doorstep, in the Donbass, and the Ukraine regime's substantial role in this, has largely been ignored by the mainstream media.  

Eurozine - A farewell to Russia - Vitaly Portnikov

Eurozine - A farewell to Russia - Vitaly Portnikov

Ukraine has gained a whole world of sympathetic people who support the country in its fight for something that should in fact be just as much a necessity for Russia too: freedom

Yeah, great bunch of friends they turned out to be: they encourage you to overthrow your government, to turn your back on Russia, join the EU, join NATO.  They promise to support you financially and militarily, but then don't come up with the goods.  They have singularly failed to support you in your hour of need. Great friends.ну не наглость, друзья еще называются!

They were never interested in your freedom: NATO just likes to poke the Russian bear with a stick, whereas the great EU Ponzi scheme needs your cheap labour, land, coal, wheat, and access to Black Sea ports. 

Your freedom is Russia's freedom, but the actions of Ukraine (and its friends) have worked to strengthen Putin's regime and its popularity. Ukraine is still corrupt, as is Russia. Great Success!

Moving article, but deluded.

Chicken Kiev

If you had asked me any time before about 6pm today, from where did the dish Chicken Kiev originate, I would have confidently answered: it was a dish specially created by Russian chefs for the opening of the Soviet pavilion at the Paris World Exhibition in 1954.  It wasn't.  There wasn't even a exhibition in Paris that year.  I'm probably thinking of the Paris exhibition of 1947 at which the Worker and Collective Farm Woman statue unveiled. Such is the fallibility of memory - mine in particular, in seems.

A Google search reveals that there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the origin of the dish - much like the origin of the territorial split of Kievan Rus into Russia and Ukraine. Some say it was invented by Russian emigrés in Brighton Beach in the 1930's, others say that it was created by chefs in Kiev to welcome back a delegation from Berlin.  My 1990 Russian Cookbook by Seva Novgorodsev & Karen Craig states that the dish was created to celebrate the opening of the Moscow Hotel in Kiev in 1961.

Although taking the name from Ukraine's capital city, the dish is not Ukrainian.  Its name certainly has Russian (if not Soviet) origins, but it seems the dish was in fact imported from France.

Anyway, enough of this drivel! The reason I was thinking about Chicken Kievs at all was that I have just had my first crack at trying to make them.  I had got some chicken breast out for tea and was trying to decide what to cook with them.  I had some bread crumbs to use up, some creme fraiche, cheese and some spinach - all passed their use by date, and I thought "right, I'm gonna try to make Chicken Kievs, with a little twist.  The usual recipe involves wrapping garlic butter with chicken breasts and coating them with bread crumbs, then baking or frying them.  In my version, I combined the garlic with my out of date items.  The turned out great and the were delicious.

0/10 for presentation

Former General supports Russian position over Crimea

Last week's Sunday Times, 28 September 2014, contains an interview with one of Britain’s former top soldiers, General David Richards, who retired last year.  The article was essentially discussing the crisis in Iraq and Syria, and Friday's vote in the House of Commons to commit the UK's armed forces to airstrikes against the terrorist group ISIL in Iraq, but in it he expresses some refreshingly honest, and accurate views on Russia, which run counter to the prevailing Russophobia in the western press.

General Richards outlines his solution to the crisis, which includes, among many other things, some kind of arrangement with Russia - their assistance in tackling Islamic terrorism is crucial.  But he does on to express some pro-Russian views in respect of the events in the Ukraine and Russia's annexation of Crimea.  In respect of Crimea, he refers to the annexation as Putin's "cleverly executed plan".   

“I don’t want to sound an apologist for Russia, but think Falklands, think Cuba, and you begin to understand what Russia feels about Ukraine.....it’s been a part of their country for hundreds of years." In respect of Crimea, he refers to the annexation as Putin's "cleverly executed plan" 

I do tend to think that you are on dodgy ground when you try to establish borders and rights to territory on the basis of a arbitrarily selected point in time (or a point in time chosen to support your case), especially in the case of historically contested territory and fluctuating borders of nation states, kingdoms, princedoms, tribes.  However, General Richards goes on to state:

"Crimea is Russian. The Russians, British and French went to war over Crimea 170 years ago. The idea that Crimea was ever going to be allowed by Russians to be part of Ukraine, or a Ukraine that was hostile, was cloud-cuckoo-land. And from a purely military sense, it was a rather cleverly executed plan."

On the events Ukraine, he expresses a more honest opinion than you usually read in the western press; he asks:

"are we really certain those protesters in the early days were properly representative of the majority of Ukraine? There were certainly some dodgy elements, and a president who was democratically elected was kicked out, however much you don’t like him."

He goes on to express his worry, which I believe is quite an honest assessment of western actions in Ukraine, Georgia, Syria and elsewhere: we get involved, we give encouragement, moral support, but we don't follow through; we keep encouraging people to get to the top of the hill but don't do enough to get them there. Perhaps like Sisyphus in Greek mythology: as a punishment for chronic deceitfulness, Sysyphus is compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this action forever.

Taras Schevchenko - Ukrainian poet

Me and Taras Schevchenko

Born 9 Match 1814, Taras Schevchenko was a Ukrainian poet, writer, artist, public and political figure, as well as folklorist and ethnographer.

Shevchenko dreamed of a Ukraine that would be free of the stifling rule and censorship of the Russian Tsarist Imperial government. Some of Shevchenko's works were also censored by the Soviet Union. Shevchenko was not only a national poet of Ukraine he was also a universal poet. He defended the rights of all peoples to freedom, of human dignity, of women, of Jews, and stressed the importance of education, tradition and heritage. In addition, the renaissance of the Ukrainian language since 1991 is a tribute to Shevchenko's role as the founder of the modern literary Ukrainian language.

Here is his statue which stands in front of the Ukraine Hotel in Moscow.

Joe Biden visits Ukraine - says nothing useful

Just heard him on Radio 4, PM news programme.  He needs winding up - how many times is he going to say the same thing twice  . . really slowly      for.   dramatic.    effect.  He said something about Ukraine not being reliant on Russian gas - I think Russia would probably like that too, or at least some kind of payment for gas delivered.  Yeah, let them pay world prices for their gas . . . not sure that would go down too well in Ukraine.   What a tit.

Ukraine crisis

Much has been said about the crisis in the Ukraine and much criticism leveled at the Russian state, Putin in particular, over its invasion / occupation / interference in Ukraine's affairs; and criticism has been leveled at comments in the blogosphere, by those ill equipped to comment on international affairs or strategy - as if this was the preserve of journalists in the traditional media.  I'm talking about you, David Aaronovitch.

Much as I enjoy David Aaronovitch's articles in The Times newspaper, I take exception to his dismissal of alternative points of view in relation to the Russian action in Ukraine - by all means use your skill to demolish opposing arguments with facts, reasoning and logic, but the valid points you make are diminished by categorising alternative viewpoints as: "There’s the irritate-your-neighbour “Putin’s got a point” brigade", "The amateur strategists", "The Ladybird Book demographers".   I might be all of those things, but I also have a viewpoint.  Right. Here's my two penneth worth:

I was supportive of the popular will to rid Ukraine of its corrupt and incompetent leader Yanukovich. I was glad to see the back of him, and as far as I can judge from interviews I saw on TV before his ousting, so were of some of the Russian population in Crimea. I don't think any of the population of Ukraine want to see one set of crooks replaced by another set of crooks whatever their orientation - pro EU or pro Russian. I'm sure that all they want is an end to their economic woes, an end to corruption and an improvement in their political freedoms.

I'm certainly not anti-west, and I'm not Putin apologist either, but I do have a certain sympathy for the Russian position in this matter, although I don't exactly agree with all of the actions they have taken nor do I believe the propaganda they are putting out for justifying their actions. I can't pretend to know what their endgame is, what they are hoping to achieve or whether they are trying to annex Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine (or whether they will stop at that).

I do think that the actions in Crimea are no more or less illegal than the takeover by the protesters of the Ukrainian government in Kiev (and the ousting of Yanukovich).  Very few countries - and certainly not Russia - would tolerate an unstable country on their doorstep especially when it seems that their is an overt courtship by western countries and institutions (NATO and EU) to bring Ukraine under its sphere of influence and control.  Ukraine is a failed state: it is bankrupt;  it is not politically and culturally cohesive; the protesters might have been united in their hatred of Yanukovich, but they were so divided themselves, there was no guarantee they could have put up a serious democratic challenge to Yankovich's presidency in the elections originally scheduled for later this year.

It seems entirely logical and legal that Russia beefed up the protection of its military assets in the Crimea, however much they over-egg the pudding on the threat from Ukrainian extremists.  But I think the Russians are right to feel an existential threat to their sovereignty. Since the end of the Cold War, despite promises from the US not to make a single step eastwards, the EU and NATO has steadily advanced eastwards.  On its western borders, Russia is now flanked by NATO countries (Belarus and Ukraine being the exception).  One by one, the former Soviet republics of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and former client states of Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czech republic, Slovakia have become NATO members and part of the EU.

In addition, the US and EU have long been interfering in the affairs of former Soviet republics, encouraging anti-Russian sentiment and political movements, in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia.  They stir things up but pay no heed to the consequences.  They lack the military clout or political will to follow through with their meaningful support to these countries / opposition movements in their hour of need.  Neither side can bale out Ukraine economically and there is no appetite for any military confrontation with Russia.

Remember the Balkans in the 1990s?   Germany and the EU were keen to encourage Croatian independence and separatist movements - Germany was the first to recognise Croatia as an independent country.  But they stood by and watched while Yugoslavia broke up and a humanitarian crisis of grave magnitude unfolded. Same with the Kurds in Iraq. And with the Arab spring - especially Syria (although Russia's intervention here was self-serving and morally repugnant).  

The West needs to wake up to the fact that by trying to get Ukraine under is sphere of influence, by encouraging it into the EU or NATO, it has in fact handed a huge chunk of territory to Russia - which Russia grabbed from under their noses via a stealthily executed coup d'état.

Ukraine - a country on the edge

.. literally  - at the western edge / border of the Russian Empire -  y Krayinye - borderlands.  But its present problems are caused, in no small part, by the continued legacy of Stalin's "poison pill" nationalities policy - a term used by Paul Goble of the Azerbaijjan Diplomatic Academy in Baku in his 2008 article

The Ukraine has strong historical links to Russia, and is considered perhaps the birthplace of Russia itself, with Kiev being the capital of the Medieval Kievan Rus empire.  After the collapse of the Kievan Rus empire, the area was divided, occupied, fought over, by a variety of  invaders: Poles, Lithuanians, Cossacks, Russians, Turks.  This happened over many centuries until it was eventually subsumed by the Russian Empire, by and large, by the 18th century - but its territory was by no means fixed by that point.

Under the Russian Empire, a policy of assimilation and Russification occurred in Ukraine as it did throughout the empire.  National identities were discouraged and even suppressed.  With the advent of the 1917 revolution, the Communists vowed to correct the age-old oppression of the 100+ minority nationalities that existed within the Russian borders.  They officially recognised equality and sovereignty of all the peoples of Russia; their right for self-determination,  including secession or independence; freedom of religion; and free development of national minorities and ethnic groups on the territory of Russia.  The first line of the Soviet National anthem celebrated this "unbreakable union of free-born republics"

However, as with everything else in the Soviet Union, such nominally positive policies were negated / upturned by the exigencies of power and the effecting (or effectuation if there is such a word) of communist dictatorship.   Stalin subverted the nationalities policy by drawing up internal borders designed to create tensions between ethnic groups, ensuring there was always a local minority that would do Moscow's bidding in return for being protected by the Soviet centre.

The borders of these "independent" republics and "autonomous" regions did not often make sense in terms of their ethnic make-up, historic nationhood or cultural integrity.  The leaders of the Soviet republics or autonomous regions were often a representative of the ethnic majority of that area, but their deputy would be an ethnic Russian and a higher ranking member of the communist party - to ensure the local leader did Moscow's bidding.  The state apparatus and the hierarchy of the Communist Party were very closely linked.  You couldn't rise through the ranks of the state bureaucracy unless you were a member of the Communist Party.

Paul Gole claims that this system worked only so long as there was coercion.  He describes the structure as a "poison pill" - a description of business arrangements that make it difficult, if not dangerous, for anyone to try to takeover or even change the basic arrangements of another firm.  In terms of the Soviet union, Gole contends, Stalin's system "ensured that anyone who sought to dismantle his totalitarianism would have to cope with ethnic anger and borders that guaranteed it would likely get worse".

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Soviet republics became independent nations - preserving their the Soviet-defined borders and ethnic composition.  As we have seen with Georgia and now with Ukraine, where a sizeable ethnic minorities exist, tensions have risen (and been exploited) through ethnic divisions leading to fault lines in the territorial integrity of these nations.