I’ve taken some flack recently for posts suggesting that it may be appropriate for Ukraine to split into two separate countries. In particular Sunday’s post - Ukraine election rumbles on - prompted a criticism that I fantasized about obstructing the new government of Ukraine. I replied directly within the post, but I thought I’d post both Hektor Bim’s comment and my reply below, as I feel it sets out quite nicely my opinion on the matter and explores some of the possible futures that Ukraine might face. I’d also be very interested to hear what others think of the likelihood of the Orange Revolution taking hold or not over the next few years.
Here’s what Hektor had to say:
It’s very tiring to read these veiled threats of succession in Ukraine from Russians. The same people who get hysterical about Chechnya or even Abkhazia or the Kuriles are perfectly willing to openly discuss the dismemberment of Ukraine.
After every normal democratic election (though I understand Russians have little experience with them), there are lots of people who supported the losing candidate who are frequently geographically concentrated. It is normal. What is not normal is to openly fantasize about obstructing the government of a neighboring state and to hint darkly of succession if you don’t get your (Russian ) way.
Give it up. The candidate supported by the Russian state lost and lost decisively, despite the best efforts of Russian state power in all its forms. The least Russians could do at this point is be good losers and not openly welcome the dismemberment of another state.
And my reply:
Hektor,
Firstly, I’d like to point out that I’m not Russian. I have lived there, and I have studied the region extensively but, while I love Russia, I am not blind to its faults. It has many. In particular, I do not support the Putin administration’s shift toward authoritarianism and its blatant attempts to repress democracy in its neighboring states. Not only do I believe it is morally wrong, but I believe that it is against Russia’s best interests. I do, however, believe that Russia does have legitimate interests in countries such as Ukraine, where there is a massive Russian diaspora. It is not a disinterested party, and it should not be expected to always hold opinions in agreement with the prevailing US or Western opinion.
Secondly, I most definitely do not fantasize about obstructing the government of a sovereign state.
In my post, I merely pointed out what I believe to be a major potential problem that Yushchenko’s government will face in administering Ukraine. No government can function without legitimacy, and legitimacy does not come purely from the ballot box. And Yushchenko lacks legitimacy among a large proportion of the population. At its root, it is a fear of a tyranny of the majority - in this case the majority being ethnic Ukrainians. Most of this fear is due to scaremongering by Russia, and Ukrainian Russian politicians, but the fear and the problems of lack of legitimacy that come with it still exist. We cannot just wish them away.
Hopefully, though, this fear can be overcome. I believe that skilful government by the Yushchenko administration, combined with strong international support from both Russia and the West can succeed in allaying most people’s fears. I believe, and most strongly hope, that all the people of Ukraine can join together and build themselves a multi-ethnic state that is economically and democratically strong, and an example to others throughout the Former Soviet Union.
However, skilful government and strong international support can never be taken for granted. Should Ukraine not benefit from them, it will struggle to escape the fear and paranoia that currently imprisons it. In this eventuality, the best case scenario would be a government that is too weak to impose its will on corruption in the East. And, unless it can fight corruption throughout Ukraine as a whole, it will never succeed in defeating it in it’s heartlands in the West. Ukrainians will begin to wonder why they voted for a government that could not stem corruption and may well turn their backs on the Orange Revolution. The worst case scenario, which I happily believe is relatively unlikely to arrive, is an escalation of tensions into violent ethnic conflict of the kind which former Soviet states such as Moldova have yet to recover from.
I personally am not hung up on the idea that current state borders are sacrosanct. National and state boundaries have changed countless times throughout history. States have spit into two (or more) new states on many occasions. This usually happens violently, though; dissolutions like that in Czechoslovakia are very much in the minority. Because of this, it is never foolish to point out the dangers that face a state. By recognising early signs of tensions we can take steps to address them before they take on a life of their own. It is, however, inappropriate and even dangerous, to over-emphasise them, and it is certainly not acceptable to inflame those tensions.
On balance, I think that the tensions which currently exist in Ukraine are serious enough to warrant attention. They do have the potential to spiral out of control and so we must be wary of the situation, and open to all options. Thankfully, I believe that the Yushchenko administration is aware enough to take steps to reassure the Russian minority, and that Ukraine will flourish over the coming years as a democratic, unified state.
January 19th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
The only way separatism could happen in Ukraine is if Russia intervenes with money, materiel, and probably troops, as it has done in Moldova and Georgia. I think you are essentially barking up the wrong tree here. There isn’t this huge cultural and ethnic divide between ethnic Ukrainians and Russians, especially since everyone in the east isn’t Russian. The only people who advocated succession quickly backed down when even the oligarchs made it clear they would not support them.
I have to consider all of this solicitude for the hurt feelings of eastern Ukraine as a stalking horse for blackmail by the Russian government of the new government of Ukraine. It’s clear that the Russian government is very unhappy with the election of Yuschchenko and that they did everything they could think of to stop it and still failed. Yuschschenko isn’t an enemy of Russia or eastern Ukraine (hell, he’s from there!), but the Russian-language press and Russian government have done everything to convince Russian speakers of this.
I think the responsible thing for commentators like yourself to do is propose ways that Ukraine can succeed instead of openly speculating that the country will break apart and listing ways in which the losers of a democratic election can wreck the government and their country.
I don’t think there is any chance of Ukraine breaking apart unless easterners are given military support by Russia - in which case it isn’t a case of a country breaking apart but of an occupation, much like the Baltic states after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
I also think that speculation about breaking the country apart lend credence to efforts by the Russian government to claim some special role in Ukraine that they would deny to other countries like Poland or Hungary, which have similar claims to Russia on “interests” in Ukraine: (ethnic citizens of Ukraine, historical claims to ownership, etc.). These are irresponsible, in my opinion.
I will support changes in state borders for former members of the CIS when Russia is willing to consider changes in its own state borders (Chechnya, Kuriles, Karelia, Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad, etc.). Until then, forget it.
January 19th, 2005 at 7:45 pm
Your argument seems to have two strands, one of which I more or less agree with, the other which I completely disagree with. If I have misinterpreted, I apologize.
The first strand of your argument is that the chance of Ukraine splitting up, especially without external (Russian) interference, is relatively slim. I agree. The differences between West and East Ukraine are not massively pronounced. But these things do have a tendency to spiral out of control, and therefore I don’t rule it out entirely.
The second strand of your argument is that, by pointing out the potential for a separation, I am acting irresponsibly and, in effect, increasing the chances of a separation. I do disagree with this.
Although you are correct to say that the focus of analysis should be on how the new Ukrainian government can succeed rather than how it can fail, I believe that it is foolhardy to launch into any new exercise without considering the risks – all of the risks. Unless we are aware of the consequences of not addressing the legitimacy concerns of many in the east – and they do exist – we risk brushing them under the carpet to fester, turning what is today a very manageable problem into a potential flashpoint.
We risk, in effect, trusting the successful democratization of Ukraine to pure dumb luck.
January 20th, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Andy, we are just going to disagree. If secession is unlikely, why are we talking about it? Because it is a tactic used to pressure people - to blackmail. This is a tactic that losers can use - “Don’t push me or I’ll secede.” These kinds of tactics are poisonous in democracies - one only has to read the history of the US to see why.
The only people I see talking about secession are people who support greater Russian interference and let’s put it frankly, control, over Ukraine.
It is somewhat amazing to me that people believe Russia is allowed to push around Ukraine and prevent it from seeking associations or joining up in mutual defense pacts. Ukraine is a sovereign country - if it decides to join the EU or even NATO, that is its sovereign right.
Russians, instead of speculating about destroying Ukraine, might spend a little time thinking about why Ukraine seems so happy to elect someone who will be more independent from Russia. The obvious conclusion is that Ukrainians do not see great benefits in too close an embrace with Russia. Given the longstanding cultural, economic, and historical ties between Ukraine and Russia, the obvious conclusion should be very sobering for Russia.
I suggest that discussing this topic is both more moral and more enlightening than speculating about breaking up Ukraine because the Russian toady didn’t win.
Finally, the most successful strategy that I can see for Ukraine’s eventual democratization is it joining European institutions like the EU, which have a perfect record for forcing democratic changes in countries. By contrast, forming closer ties to Russia has a perfect record for suppression of democracy and the institution of authoritarianism. (See Moldova, Trans-Dniestr, Belarus, Ukraine, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Chechnya, Kirghizistan, etc.)