Riabchuk, the Quintessential Ukrainian Nationalist Pundit.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010 at 12:16PM This is a nice look into the psychology of a Ukrainian nationalist. Bellow is my deconstruction...
The new [Yanukovych's] team is trying to roll out the system they established long ago in the Donetsk region through the whole of Ukraine. They are striving to monopolise all power completely and eliminate any pluralism, be it political, economic or even religious, cultural and linguistic. They will probably not succeed but tensions are likely to grow and violence, even bloodshed, may follow.
Anyone reading anything on how Ukraine works, knows that it had been the policy of every government since the creation of Ukraine to eliminate pluralism. Article II of the Ukrainian Constitution states clearly that Ukraine is a 'unitary state.' An idea of Economic pluralism was never present in Kiev. When Slovakia joined the EU and introduced visas for Ukrainians, it wished to make an exemption to Transcarpathians, who are forced to look for work elsewhere and not in their economically desolate region. Kiev informed Slovakia that Ukraine is a unitary state and such measures are therefore not possible.
Ukraine's leaders were trying very hard to create a Ukrainian church, independent of Moscow. Yushchenko for instance lobbied Constantinopolitan Patriarch Bartholomew to that end. I have noticed a number of Ukrainian trolls trying to sneer at the Moscow Patriarch stating that Bartholomew is more important than Kirill, they are always quelled by someone reminding them Bartholomew did never concede to Ukrainian ecclesiastical games. I do not know how Yanukovych's warm attitude to Moscow Patriarchate is challenging the Ukrainian ecclesiastical pluralism, which itself was created by the not well thought out policies of previous leaders.
As for ethnic pluralism, it was Yushchenko's minister of education who attempted to force Crimean children to study in Ukrainian, even though Russian is the mother tongue of the vast majority of Crimeans, and I bet those that declare their language to be other than Russian use Russian in social communication daily. The Rusyns do not feel that Yanukovych's attitude towards them is any different to Yushchenko's. All Ukraine's leader's strived towards abolishing regional, ethnic and linguistic identities. But Yanukovych certainly did reverse some of the nation-buiding' policies of the past government. He allowed Russian to be used in schools. He also revoked a stupid and probably costly law requiring courts to use Ukrainian exclusively. Russian speakers needed since the orange year 2005 to hire a translator. Is this not an acknowledgement of ethnic and linguistic pluralism?
I do not know how you monopolise the political scene in a country where half of a population did not support you. Without force of course, which Yanukovych is unlikely to use. The assertion that there will be blood is therefore laughable.
To sum up the above discussion, it should be noted that Yanukovych is no different to other Ukrainian leaders. Despite the fact that he might not gravitate too much towards supporting Ukrainian nationalism the way Yushchenko did. But was Ukrainian nationalism and nation-building ever about pluralism? Let's continue...
So are democracy and Western values once more lost to Ukraine? Or will Ukrainians kick Yanukovych out when they’ve had enough of his post-post-Soviet politics?
They may not be completely lost, but they are under really serious threat. Ukrainian society was as disappointed by Yushchenko’s chaotic democracy as the Russians were by Yeltsin’s feckless pluralism. They express a similar longing for a ‘strong hand’, which means primarily they are really fed up with dysfunctional institutions and yearn for some law and order. But, as opinion surveys reveal, Ukrainians are much less ready than Russians to sacrifice, or restrict, their civic liberties for a promise of prosperity. This may result from a different historical legacy. I don’t mean only the western part of Ukraine that, until WWII, had never been part of Russia or Soviet Union. I mean also Central Ukraine, which was historically part of the and was only fully incorporated into the Russian Empire at the end of the 18th century.
The whole thing rest on the notion that Russia lacks civil liberties? It is time to undo the myth. Does Russia censor the internet? Does it not allow people to demonstrate? You certainly do have a number of liberast fools who interpret the law the way they like, that's about as far as freedom of assembly is curtailed. There is nothing wrong about that. Internet and freedom of speech do not suffer in Russia. As Mike Hancock thinks Russia is fully fledged democracy. Is it really that different to Ukraine?
We can observe a typical nationalist history spin. Riabchuk wants to say that the Rzeczpospolita was in some way a better master than Russia was. It was so great that Khmelnytsky had to sign an alliance with Russia. The Ukrainian nationalist revile the Treaty of Pereyaslav. A number of Poles stood at the beginnings of the idea of Ukrainian nationhood. The Poles certainly have enough reasons to loath the Treaty of Pereyaslav but should that be the case with Ukrainians? Or can there be a different narrative of the event?
To say that Galicia was never was a part of Russia is not entirely true. Volhynia, another part of Western Ukraine certainly was. While Galicia and Bukovina never formed a part of the Muscovite Russian Empire, indeed the first time they were ruled from Moscow was following the capture of these lands by Stalin, Galicia nevertheless was a part of the Old Rus' (I don't use Kievan Rus'). In the nineteenth century the local nationalist intelligentsia was divided into the Russophile irredentists and Ukrainophile separatists.
In Russia, authoritarianism may have a broad popular appeal because it is associated with empire, with great-power ambitions, with traditional, deep-rooted anti-Westernism and chauvinism. In Ukraine, it might be attractive only for a small, Sovietophile/Russophile fragment of society. But even they understand that this would definitely be unacceptable for the other, Ukrainophile part of society. And nobody wants bloody conflicts here. So, Ukrainians are very cautious about any nationalism, as it could explode the divided country.
Actually, Yushchenko lost not because he was a nationalist, but because he was perceived and portrayed as one. And that was enough. So even if you were to get a strong pro-authoritarian majority in Ukraine, it would inevitably be radically split by a simple question: 'What kind of a ‘strong hand’ should it be – Ukrainian or Russian, Ukrainophone or Russophone ‘aboriginal’ or ‘Creole’?'
Yushchenko was not your regular member of the UNSO. However, he got support from the organisation during the Orange Revolution. I wonder why Yuschchenko was perceived as a nationalist? Was it because he attempted to immortalize Bandera and Shukhevych as heros of Ukraine? Or that he claimed that he might be descended from the coward and traitor Mazepa? I don't know about you but I'm of the impression that these steps were taken straight out of a Ukrainian nationalist cook-book. Notice the way Riabchuk tries to tie Russophilia with authoritarianism while Ukrainophiles are presented as champions of democracy.
By the same token we could say that Yanukovych is not that much of a Little Russian as one other pundit characterised him. He is just not anti-Russian unlike Yushchenko. The true Little Russians are even less politically relevant than the Ukrainian nationalists.
...Yanukovych and his team pursue a revengeful, confrontational policy line that intensifies divisions within the country. One of his ministers, Mr Tabachnyk, the minister of education, has made extremely Ukrainophobic statements. He has never apologized for them, claiming that his political views have nothing to do with his professional activities in the ministry. Mr Mogilev, the interior minister,that Stalin rightly deported all the Criman Tatars to Siberia because they were Nazi collaborators. Yanukovych’s Russian/Russophone team is pretty xenophobic and very unlikely to bring interethnic accord and consent to the country.
Tabachnyk committed a heresy against the religion, that is Ukrainian nationalism. His statements were not so much anti-Ukrainian as they were Russophile. One must understand that the essence of Ukrainian nationalism is Russophobia. This statement might sound a little too extreme and hard to believe but that is the only way to logical understanding of what we are dealing with here. The notion that Russophones, rejecting Ukrainian nationalism must necessarily be Ukrainophobic can only be explained through the logic of the Russophobic Ukrainian nationalism.
I also do not agree with the statement that the Tatars deserved to be deported, although a large part of them indeed did cooperate with the Nazis and committed hideous crimes. That said, there are enough outrageous and Russophobic statements made by Ukainian nationalists that are much less based in reality than the fact that many Tatars supported the Nazis.
Yushchenko's rule already created a discord within Ukraine, during his rule we had areas such as the Donbas, Crimea and even the West Ukrainian Transcarpathia, which has its own bad historical experience with Ukrainian nationalism, voice their displeasure with the policies of the central government and display separatist feelings. Now that the tables had turned, we are hearing the same demands from the so called Ukrainian Piedmont, Galicia and Volhynia. I would not be so dismissive of a potential Galician separatism. One can argue that this is the tragedy of contemporary Ukraine, but the question remains: 'Who is to blame?' Both Yanukovych and Yuschchenko seem to be appealing to their natural electoral base, which in turn means linguistic areas of Ukraine.
Either we make a tremendous effort to join the First World, the ‘golden billion’, the core of the world economy (in Wallerstein’s terms), or we remain on its periphery (or, like China or Russia, the semi-periphery). For Ukraine, the third way leads directly into the Third World. I’d like our politicians to state this clearly rather than flirt with unviable ideas. True, Ukrainians are divided in their orientations between the West and Russia (or, more precisely, the mythical East Slavonic/Orthodox Christian ‘umma’). But this choice is not just about politics or geopolitics or even identity. It’s about values, about both level and way of life, about a secure and decent future.
Notice the way he compares the Orthodox to Muslims by using the word 'umma' which means that Orthodox civilisation is somehow barbaric. This is nothing atypical for a Westerniser. I have encountered some Westernised, liberal minded Orthodox denouncing the conservative Orthodox in this way. Unfortunately Ukraine is destined to be the periphery, it is about choosing which of the centers is closer to it. I am of the opinion that Moscow is much closer to it than Brussels. The last attempt to integrate itself into the West brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy. The Western community of values that lead to a secure and decent future is perhaps even more mythical than Slavia Orthodoxa. This would have been believable a decade ago when general optimism would brush off any skeptical voices. But things had moved a little further since then, we can now observe other Occidental peripheries becoming economic basket cases, while people in those 'semi-peripheries' are getting rich without considering subscribing to Western values. What can today be called a 'semi-periphery' might be tomorrow's center.
As for other values the West takes as its own but which are not present in Ukraine, we might name federalism and grants of autonomy to regional minorities. Federalism is good, it gives regions the chance to decide what is best for them and helps economic development through competition. All EU countries, Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary and one non-EU country, Serbia recognise that the Rusyns are separate from the Ukrainians. Only Ukraine wants to claim that the Rusyns are what they do not wish to be, Ukrainians. Ukraine is simply not ready to join the West. The idea of joining the West is what is unviable here, joining with Russia makes much more sense.
If Belarusians, or Russians, are happy with their idea of happiness, then I’m not going to try and persuade them they’re wrong. Personally, I don’t think their countries are less corrupt. Informal censorship merely means they have less information about corruption. And the control of corruption exercised by their authoritarian rulers is more centralized and hierarchical. So, if you want me to reply, I would say: well, you have a single mafia headed by your president as the godfather. While we, so far (unless Yanukovych introduces the Belarusian system in Ukraine), have many competing mafias, which creates a kind of pluralism in the country. This is not democracy yet but it could evolve from this pluralism – as it has in Western Europe since the Middle Ages. Ukraine might be more chaotic, but it has some chance for a breakthrough. They don’t. Actually, I like Boris Nemtsov’s comparison of Ukrainian politics to a lunatic asylum, and Russian politics to a cemetery. 'In the lunatic asylum, theoretically, you can be cured. In the cemetery, you can’t'.
Comparing Belorus and Russia is off the hooks, Russia is much more pluralistic and opened than Belorus. Nothing indicates that Yanukovych would like to emulate Belorus, neither that he actually can. However I would be happy if he introduced one aspect of Belorussian politics, official bilingualism. Ukraine should finally acknowledge that the language of a large part, if not most of its inhabitants, is Russian. Having Nemtsov comment on anything and remember what he actually said is in my opinion a waste of time and memory...
Reader Comments (9)
UNSO participated on the Georgian side in the wars in Abkhazia an South Ossetia as well.
Yushenko lost not because he was a nationalist, but because the idyllic Ukraine glimpsed in his speeches failed to materialize outside those speeches. So it must ever be when a new leader is installed with the assistance of western interests whose helping hand owes more to the desire to destabilize a rival and force it on the defensive than any real desire to see progress. That can be left to the dreamers who see it where it isn't, and the scribbling cynics who announce its arrival in the gasbag journals.
Evidently, Ukrainians are not aws gullible as originally hoped.
Hi Mark
During his campaign for the Ukrainian presidency, Yushchenko spun a somewhat different note from what he was to become more known for. While leaning in a certain direction, his campaign also suggested good Russo-Ukrainian relations based on good trade relations. This presentation along with a comparatively not so swift Yanukovych campaign is what led to Yushchenko's stint as president.
Ukrainians aren't so gullible on a number of issues. When then Ukrainian President Kuchma was in Washington to honor the 50th anniversary of NATO, polls had 90% of Ukrainians opposed to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Despite efforts by Yushchenko's presidency, most Ukrainians remained opposed to Ukrainian membership in NATO.
In addition to yours truly, I'm glad to see some others in the English language like Leos taking on the ongoing biases that concern Ukraine.
As expressed elsewhere, this is my reaction to Leos' response to the oD interview he has responded to:
Re: http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/ukraines-new-regime-first-200-days/ingo-petz
Excerpt -
"But, as opinion surveys reveal, Ukrainians are much less ready than Russians to sacrifice, or restrict, their civic liberties for a promise of prosperity. This may result from a different historical legacy. I don’t mean only the western part of Ukraine that, until WWII, had never been part of Russia or Soviet Union. I mean also Central Ukraine, which was historically part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and was only fully incorporated into the Russian Empire at the end of the 18th century."
****
In conjunction with the rest of the interview, the suggestion in the above excerpted is that Russian influence on Ukrainian territory hasn't been as beneficial as that of the non-Russian variant.
Several points:
- Not mentioned is the Rus period which predated the Polish dominated occupation era. Modern day Ukraine, Russia and Belarus are descended from that Rus period in a way that Poland isn't.
- If Polish dominated rule was so beneficial, why did the Orthodox-Christians and to a certain extent converted Greek-Catholics oppose it? Why is Russia more popular in Ukraine than Poland?
- The Cossacks are considered a historical/cultural symbol of sorts for Ukraine. Generally speaking, the Cossacks remain among the most pro-Russian of elements in Ukraine. The Polish encouraged Greek-Catholic denomination didn't see many (if any) Cossacks leaving the Orthodox Christian faith. The Polish encouraged Greek-Catholic denomination remains a minority among Ukraine's Christian faithful. These observations aren't expressed to encourage anti-Polish and/or anti-Greek-Catholic sentiment. Rather, they're stated to balance out historically/culturally biased observations made against Russocentric sentiment in Ukraine.
- Note a poll cited in the above linked interview which is stated for the purpose of distinguishing Ukrainians from Russians. Not mentioned are polls showing Ukrainians to be generally favorable of their country having closer ties with Russia.
- Regarding the overview on the direction of media in Ukraine, consider the slant of the source stating such. There's no mention of how during Yushchenko's presidency a "Hero" status was accorded to World War II Galician Ukrainian nationalist leader Stepan Bandera. One poll gives Bandera a popularity rating of 28% in Ukraine. Another not so popular move by Yushchenko was his attempt to have Ukraine in NATO.
- There's a comment below the linked interview noting how Yushchenko contributed to a not so democratic situation in Ukraine. A follow-up comment notes the basis for perceiving Yanukovych as less democratic than Yushchenko, with the latter explained as a weak leader who nevertheless reflected good (as in Russia unfriendly) stances.
A just released news item on an ongoing issue that has been discussed at this blog:
Ukraine Deputies Seek To Upgrade Status Of Russian http://www.rferl.org/content/Ukraine_MPs_Seek_To_Upgrade_Status_Of_Russian_/2152383.html
Outside of gaining an official nationwide status in Ukraine, the Russian language can be further promoted by allowing the regions to individually decide.
Great commentary. I am glad to see that Ukraine's credit ratings and business climate improved after the fall of the Orange thieves. Yanukovich managed to form a government strong enough to enact the badly needed economic reforms Ukraine needs to attract investment. Despite which direction the government orients itself to, when it comes down to investors laying their money on the line, stability is a critical factor. Now that a new government has ushered in hopes of stability, investors seem to be once again lining up to enter Ukraine’s markets. That is a fact. Ukraine's Orange experiment failed because it was based on serving interests of outside countries instead of the people that live there. Ukraine's interests are more in line with Russia than Brussels. Another fact that took nearly two decades to play out before people realized how much time they wasted trying to reorient Ukraine away from its roots.
@ Misha
After accommodating Russians, Yanukovych might also stop repressions against the Rusyns. I know I tend to be repeating this a lot but I find what Ukraine is doing to them shameful. But then again, I think first Yanukovych will deal with the Russians who are far more important...
Leos, keeping in mind that Yanukovych has certain limits.
There remains that loud relatively influential minority that we're aware of and a number of important tasks for Yanukovych to look over.
Needless to be said, but said anyway, I second Andy's view of your commentary.
@YouKnowWho
"UNSO participated on the Georgian side in the wars in Abkhazia an South Ossetia as well."
As well as in the Balkans war on the Croatian side and in Chechnya not to mention the "democratic" opposition in Belarus.
Interesting article concerning Berezovsky last year
2 former cops detained in Israel for passing secrets to Russian-jewish tycoons
Two former Israeli policemen have been arrested on suspicion of transmitting secret data to a Russian-jewish oligarch, Russian newspaper Izvestia reports.
According to reports, the policemen had been working for jewish billionaire Boris Berezovsky or another so-called “Russian” businessman Mikhail Chernoy. Mikhail Chernoy or Mikhail Chorny (means “Black”) is a Russian-born Israeli entrepreneur. He is known for his business ventures and for founding the Michael Cherney Foundation.
The former Israeli policemen Eduard Gutman and Sergey Migdal have been involved with USSR citizens over the course of their professional careers. They were engaged in data exchange and wiretapping !!! However, several months before their dismissal from the office they copied the evidence and tried to sell it.
According to Israeli reports, Sergey Migdal was hired by after his discharge Russian-jewish media tycoon Boris Berezovsky or by Mikhail Chernoy. Eduard Gutman has been collaborating with both of the businessmen.
Gutman and Migdal were arrested on July 19. Israeli police discovered top-secret data during a search of their apartments.
http://eurorus4en.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/2-former-cops-detained-in-israel-for-passing-secrets-to-russian-jewish-tycoons/