The Use and Abuse of History in the Recent Ukrainian Crisis
A revisiting of Ukraine's geography and historical narrative would clearly shed light on the recent Ukrainian crisis and how the turmoil and sentiment in the Orange Revolution and the 2014 confrontation originate from a long history of struggle over the delicate status of Ukraine between East and West. Through the correct use of history, one would understand that history drew the dividing lines and spurred the conflict that spanned centuries. Eastern Ukraine was occupied by Russian imperialism in the 1800s, followed by Western Ukraine. This provides an explanation of the reason Eastern Ukrainians have largely remained loyal to politicians who support Russian policies. In contrast, Western Ukraine experienced several colonial occupations from European imperialists, such as Poland. This, to a certain extent, gives an explanation as to the reason Western Ukrainians have been more likely to advocate politicians who are friendly to Western countries. Eastern Ukrainians are more traditional and speakers of the Russian language, with portions of Western Ukraine inhabited by speakers of the Ukrainian language and with greater connections to the Roman Catholic faith.
Thus, the concern of Plokhy is that Ukrainian history has been largely misunderstood because of the antiquated way of looking at it. As he stated in his introduction: “This book tells the history of Ukraine within the borders defined by the ethnographers and mapmakers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which often (but not always) coincided with the borders of the present-day Ukrainian state”. This statement indirectly claims that in order to understand the modern history Ukraine one must reevaluate old notions of these ancient borders, identity, and nation-building. The recent Ukraine crisis is an expression of this changing history, of the complex interaction between history and geography.
Ukraine is a nation with a dynamic sense of identity and a remarkable history, but a nation bounded and destined by its geographical realities to exist in the obscurity of voracious neighboring countries, whether the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Habsburg Empire, or Russia. Ukraine simply drew the attention of Western societies after the fall of USSR, and Putin insists on casting off his neighbor as an unreal nation. Plokhy, in his book The Gates of Europe, redeems Ukraine from such unfair and abusive ambiguity-- and, in the process, abolishes Putin's deception. In 2014, Ukraine has become a site of the most severe and atrocious geopolitical stalemate since the post-Cold War period. The use and abuse of history does not simply concern geography or the unlimited utilization of human, industrial, and natural resources of a massive Eastern European nation. Primarily, the demise of Ukraine and the emergence of an autonomous Ukrainian nation implied the destruction of the widely recognized historical perspective making Ukraine an indivisible, integral portion of the Russian civil society.
Perhaps, of all the destructive outcomes of the fall of the USSR, it was the core existence of Ukrainian sovereignty and self-determination that became the most damaging for Russia, as it delivered without overemphasis a fatal impact on the Russian national identity's ethnic and political groundwork and on the center of Russian history. The Russian historical narrative and perspective have constantly been anchored in a firm conviction that Ukraine is simply an integral component of Russia. This is the reason why Ukraine's breakup from the Soviet Union-- or Russia-- provoked an overwhelming astonishment among Russians. Thereby, at the latter part of the 20th century, Russia saw itself at a crisis, whether to move away from its long imperial history and transform itself or shift into a new democratic and emancipated nation; or to muster the resources and capability to reclaim the previous imperial strength, although in the face of a possible global conflict.
Regardless of Moscow's decision, the approach of Russia toward an autonomous, sovereign Ukraine would certainly mirror its general capability and inability for internal change. Within the Russian perspective, not official but true acceptance of an independent Ukraine essentially gives rise to a full reevaluation and reshaping of the position of Russia as an empire. In contrast, turning down or repudiating Ukrainian independence and viewing it as some short-term anomalous event works as the most decisive case of Russian imperialism. Therefore, the role of history in the recent Ukrainian crisis refers to the profound history of conflict between Ukraine and Russia. The use and abuse of history in this case rests in the enduring issue of Ukrainian national identity and the value and role of outside nations in this history, particularly the USSR and Russia, in shaping the destiny of Ukraine and its people.
The recent Ukrainian crisis can be mitigated or fully settled if there is a proper use of history. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian crisis has been politically manipulated through the distortion of the country's historical narrative. Propaganda against Ukraine, such as misleading facts about Ukrainian history-- comparing Putin to merciless tyrants like Hitler and calling the Ukrainian people as supporters of fascism-- severely misleads and tarnishes Ukraine's contemporary history. Plokhy, in order to do justice to the abused history of Ukraine, has reevaluated and reconstruction the history of Crimea and Ukraine so as to provide a clear and unbiased explanation of the wider background and the diverse aspects of the recent Ukrainian crisis.
Sadly, within the dominant Western media and political discourses and Russian and Ukrainian discussions, historical narratives have been many times perverted and misused for political motives. World War II, thus far the most destructive tension in the contemporary history of Eastern Europe, is the core of such abuses. These distortions are promoted not only by radicals and fanatics in Ukraine, but also of American and Russian politicians that methodically maneuver historical narratives. The objective of these distortions and the act of connecting or likening historical figures to infamous historical characters in world history, like comparing Putin with Hitler, is to create a bad image of it.
Therefore, overcoming conflict demands abandoning the political misuse or distortion of Ukraine's historical memory; Ukrainian identity remains an ambiguous notion. Russians keep on identifying themselves with a bigger imperial dominion that encompasses Ukraine, whereas numerous Ukrainians exhibit the desire to return to its 'past identity' by relating themselves to Russia in an ethnical or political way.
Putin as President of the Russian Federation
Since Putin became the president of the Russian federation, the Russian government has gained considerable approval and support from the public. It has differed annually, but within a scale majority of U.S. leaders would immensely want. In comparison to the 1990s, the stage between 2000 and 2008 was recognized as a remarkable improvement in economic performance, with a considerable annual growth under Putin's presidency. By the conclusion of the second term of Putin's presidency, a larger number of Russian people had chosen 'allegiance', an unquestioning commitment to the political institution and an expectation that everything will keep on improving. Although the political situation of Russia would involve the peoples of numerous nations, a huge number of Russians are satisfied with a consolidation of policymaking strength for the sake of a stronger and more stable Russian economy.
When Vladimir Putin took on the presidential position in the Russian Federation, the economy of Russia, which had been experiencing recessions for many years, recovered, showing more stable growth and progress than the other industrialized countries across the globe. Over the initial period of his term, the gross domestic product (GDP) of Russia has rose substantially, pension rose, investment in education increased, and personal income rose. The Russian people has been benefitting from the returns and gains of Putin's economic program by means of a greater average salary, an increasing enrollment in college, a remarkable rise in travels outside the country, increase in importation, and the procurement of real estate. Therefore, based on these facts alone, it seems logical to presume that Putin is an exceptionally effective and competent president of the Russian Federation. Indeed, he is planning large-scale structural programs, the outcomes of which are to be gained and felt in the next decade. However, a more thorough analysis of the facts reveals that the opposite is occurring.
The performance of the Russian economy did not improve under the presidency of Putin, its reliance on importation of natural resources or raw materials has simply escalated, manufacturing firms remain threatened and weak, and its GDP is still low. Ultimately, the existence of new businesses-- a major marker of economic progress-- is still weak in comparison to its counterparts in Western and Eastern Europe. Only a small number of major industrial financial firms own or possess control over the bulk of the Russian economy. Moreover, corrupt and fraudulent practices which had been unmanageable during Yeltsin remain highly prevalent, making Russia one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
The Different Reactions to the Panama Papers in Ukraine and Russia
Immediately after a circle of investigative journalists discovered evidence seemingly revealing the fact that several politicians and global leaders may be involved in different type of financial corruption and fraud, such as tax avoidance and money laundering, the revelations were showcased generously on news outlets across the globe. Media coverage of the International Committee of International Journalists (ICIJ) in the online media and newspapers of Russia showing that colleagues of President Putin secretly transferred money offshore seemed to be politically disunited, with the grasps of liberal autonomous media branches awarding information and further leakages massive coverage. The response to the exposure of the offshore accounts was more vigorous and elated in the social networks and social media of Russia, although the Russian people largely talked about the bias of the mass media in reporting findings delivered by the ICIJ.
The public disclosure of the alleged Panama Papers could have been the biggest exposure of the global media in history, yet in Russia, in spite of the disclosure of quite a few powerful Russian figures in the evidence, it failed to elicit the overwhelming reaction it had in Ukraine and somewhere else across the globe, in part due to the fact that the Russian people had already been informed of the leakage of the confidential, controversial documents. Moreover, this could be due to the fact that state-owned media channels largely diverted people's attention to the involvement of Petro Poroshenko-- Ukraine's president. With regard to the Russian involvement in the controversy, numerous Russian people reacted that the media coverage had exhibited a certain extent of anti-Russian sentiment.
The reactions of the Ukrainians to the Panama Papers, to the involvement of their president in the alleged corruption, were harsher and more rigid than those of the Russian people. Such difference in reaction further demonstrates how different Ukraine and Russia is. In Ukraine, almost nobody claims that the president can do anything s/he pleases. Ukrainians were more critical about the responsibility and integrity of their political leaders, and more accepting of a political sanction against those involved. Ukrainians also demanded an extensive response from anti-corruption agencies, and they believed that their president must be held accountable to his wrongdoings. This only shows that Ukrainians continue to assert themselves, actually taking part in the rewriting of their history. They are reclaiming their national identity as citizens of an independent nation. In contrast, the Russian people showed greater loyalty to their president than their Ukrainian counterpart.
Bibliography
De Vries, Manfred and Shekshnia, Stanislav. “Vladimir Putin, CEO of Russia Inc.” INSEAD. http://sites.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=1666 (Accessed April 13, 2016).
Plokhy, Serhii. The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine. London: Basic Books, 2015.
Portnikov, Vitaliy. "Reaction to the 'Panama Papers'-- How Ukraine Differs from Russia." Euromaidan Press. http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/04/05/reaction-to-the-panama- revelations-how-ukraine-differs-from-russia/ (Accessed April 13, 2016).
Sinelschikova, Yekaterina. "Panama Papers Scandal: What Was the Reaction in Russia." Russia Beyond the Headlines. https://rbth.com/politics_and_society/2016/04/07/panama-papers- scandal-what-was-the-reaction-in-russia_582725 (Accessed April 13, 2016).
