 |
| My bike lights now |
Putin on Ukraine
Vladimir Putin's article ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“ [way back machine] of 12 July 2021 may be the best place to start to understand what is motivating his current invasion and attempt to conquer Ukraine. Early military plans and preparations for this invasion were probably already underway when he penned it; this war was clearly many months in the making.
It's a massive piece on his problems with Ukraine, and curiously in this 6,979-word tome, NATO doesn't even come up 'til word 6,184. Clearly it wasn't top of mind. It's a long history of mother Russia, and how all this, meaning Ukraine, the Baltic republics, parts of modern Poland, Austria, etc. were once hers, and how it was all taken away by the western imperialists, or given away by the Bolsheviks—Vladimir Lenin's Communist Party. Its main theme, expressed clearly in the first paragraph is “that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole.”
But Putin doesn't just seek a reunification of Russia and Ukraine, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, he longs for what he calls “Ancient Rus.” He tells us:
Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and other tribes across the vast territory – from Ladoga, Novgorod, and Pskov to Kiev and Chernigov – were bound together by one language (which we now refer to as Old Russian), economic ties, the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, and – after the baptism of Rus – the Orthodox faith.
He tells us that “both the nobility and the common people perceived Rus as a common territory, as their homeland.” He recalls the “tradition of ancient Russian statehood.” How “Moscow princes...cast off the foreign yoke and began gathering the Russian lands.” He tells us how, in 1654 “dozens of cities, including Kiev...swore allegiance to the Russian tsar,” and after 1686 “The Russian state incorporated the city of Kiev and the lands on the left bank of the Dnieper River, including Poltava region, Chernigov region, and Zaporozhye.” He claims “the word ”Ukrainian“, judging by archival documents, originally referred to frontier guards who protected the external borders.”
I don't know enough Russian history to confirm or dispute Putin's telling of it, but his main point comes through clear enough—that the Russian and Ukrainian people represent one indivisible whole, and that Ukrainian lands have always been a part of Russia.
He continues:
In the second half of the 18th century, following the wars with the Ottoman Empire, Russia incorporated Crimea and the lands of the Black Sea region, which became known as Novorossiya...the Russian Empire regained the western Old Russian lands, with the exception of Galicia and Transcarpathia, which became part of the Austrian – and later Austro-Hungarian – Empire.
The incorporation of the western Russian lands into the single state was not merely the result of political and diplomatic decisions. It was underlain by the common faith, shared cultural traditions, and – I would like to emphasize it once again – language similarity.
Putin sees the nationalism of the national minorities in the Soviet Union, and before that, in Czarist Russia, as a tool used by outside forces to divide the Russian people. Already, in the second paragraph he complains about “attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people,” and here again to “the desire of the leaders of the Polish national movement to exploit the ”Ukrainian issue“ to their own advantage” in the late 19th century.
As to “the idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians...there was no historical basis – and could not have been any.” He blames the Bolsheviks for creating Ukraine:
On 15 March 1918, the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) directly ordered that delegates be sent to the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, including from the Donetsk Basin, and that ”one government for all of Ukraine“ be created at the congress.
....
In 1922, when the USSR was created, with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic becoming one of its founders, a rather fierce debate among the Bolshevik leaders resulted in the implementation of Lenin's plan to form a union state as a federation of equal republics. The right for the republics to freely secede from the Union was included in the text of the Declaration on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, subsequently, in the 1924 USSR Constitution. By doing so, the authors planted in the foundation of our statehood the most dangerous time bomb, which exploded the moment the safety mechanism provided by the leading role of the CPSU was gone, the party itself collapsing from within. A ”parade of sovereignties“ followed.
Putin considers this the great tragedy of the 20th century. He goes on to tell us that “modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped – for a significant part – on the lands of historical Russia.” He is outraged that “the Bolsheviks' efforts to detach from Russia its historical territories are not considered a crime,” saying "One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.”
Of course, the Bolsheviks didn't create the Ukrainian nation, they merely recognized its existence. They didn't “rob” Russia; they gave Ukraine its due. All the world can now see that Putin is wrong; there is definitely a Ukrainian national identity that is distinct from Russian. His attempt at genocide will fail!
Lenin often referred to Czarist Russia as “a prison house of nations.” Even though it was Russian authoritarian rule, he realized that it oppressed the Russian people along with everybody else. When they broke the chains of Czarist Russia in 1917, they sought to free all the inmates of the prison, not just themselves. Putin seems to think they should have kept the others in prison, and made them work for the new boss.
Putin thinks any reference to national minorities unhelpful, “if you are talking about a single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who people consider themselves to be – Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians.” He considered what was happening in Ukraine before his invasion “a forced change of identity.” Now he's exercising his kind of “forced change” with tanks and artillery.
After many references to their “great common Motherland,” multiple complaints about “blatant aggressive Russophobia,” and “the anti-Russia project,” he gets to the threat he's currently carrying out:
[W]e will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.
Then he ends with “I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia...we are one people.”
Putin doesn't think Donbass should have been given to Ukraine in the first place. He blames the Ukrainian government for the civil war in the region, a civil war that most likely would not be going on without Russian support and connivance. Finally, he gets to complaints about the “deployment of NATO infrastructure.”
It must be noted that Putin hasn't always been so stridently anti-NATO, as this 2012 Sputnik News headline attests:
Russia Approves Ulyanovsk NATO Hub
12:35 GMT 29.06.2012The Russian government has given approval for the United States and its NATO allies to use a Russian air base in the Volga city of Ulyanovsk as a hub for transits to and from Afghanistan...More
Only later did NATO become his mortal enemy, as he pursued his drive to reclaim the Russian Empire, and faced the reality that many of those 'little nations' had flocked to NATO for protection. His big problem with Ukraine is not that someday it might join them, but that it isn't part of Russia anymore.
He doesn't just want to reclaim the territory occupied by the Soviet Union, he wants the Czar's “prison house of nations” back under Russian, meaning his, control. All of this could have been known about Putin's motives for creating a crisis about Ukraine more than six months ago by anyone who cared to look.
😉😉😉😉😉
In his 21 February 2022 address about his plans for Ukraine, Putin gives what I think is a pretty decent one-paragraph description of Bolshevik policy, saying Lenin:
[S]uggested making concessions to the nationalists, whom he called “independents” at that time. Lenin’s ideas of what amounted in essence to a confederative state arrangement and a slogan about the right of nations to self-determination, up to secession, were laid in the foundation of Soviet statehood. Initially they were confirmed in the Declaration on the Formation of the USSR in 1922, and later on, after Lenin’s death, were enshrined in the 1924 Soviet Constitution.
Then Putin asks: “[W]hy was it necessary to appease the nationalists[?]” “[W]hy was it necessary to make such generous gifts, beyond the wildest dreams of the most zealous nationalists and, on top of all that, give the republics the right to secede from the unified state without any conditions?” He calls it “absolutely incomprehensible,” and so there can be no doubt that he opposes Marxist-Leninist principles on the right of nations to self-determination, he exclaims:
When it comes to the historical destiny of Russia and its peoples, Lenin’s principles of state development were not just a mistake; they were worse than a mistake, as the saying goes.
Make no mistake; Putin doesn't want the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics back. His vision of the future is much darker. He wants the old Czarist Russian Empire back. He wants the “prison house of nations” back!
The bulk of this address is a diatribe about how Ukraine is nothing without Russia. “[M]odern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia.” How Ukraine “has historically been Russian land,” and “historically Russian land.” What “Lenin and his associates did...was extremely harsh on Russia." Putin also complains about what he calls “Lenin’s harsh instructions regarding Donbass." Putin is quite pleased that “what Stalin fully implemented was not Lenin’s but his own principles of government” which gave few rights to the minority republics as a practical matter, but thinks it a problem that Stalin never changed the Soviet constitution, saying “it is a great pity that the fundamental and formally legal foundations of our state were not promptly cleansed of the odious and utopian fantasies inspired by the revolution.” Meaning the “fantasy” that the minority republics could ever be free of the Russian yoke. Putin complains “The virus of nationalist ambitions is still with us." Great Russian nationalism excepted. Putin is outraged that upon the breakup of the USSR, the leadership actually followed the constitution, and allowed the republics to exercise their right of self-determination. He calls it the “outright pillage of Russia.”
In many ways, Putin's narrative on Ukraine reminds me of an abusive husband, the kind that would rather kill his woman than set her free. First, it's, “We're inseparable, babe. Look at all we've been through together.” Then it's “I made you! You'd be nothing without me! Look at all I've done for you. Look at all the gifts I've given you." And when the answer is still No! The gun comes out.
Even Putin's remarks about how any republic leaving the union should have been forced to return to its pre-1922 borders, reminds me of the angry ex, “Just leave your bank book and car keys on the counter before you go!”
The whole world can now see that he has little concern for “the interests of the Ukrainian people,” or the security and welfare of “our Ukrainian colleagues." Putin's war “is not aimed at creating better conditions in the interests of people’s well-being,” to send his own phrase back at him.
Still, one can't help but admire the brazen hypocrisy of Putin's complaint about the Ukrainian government:
[I]ts electoral and other political procedures just serve as a cover, a screen for the redistribution of power and property between various oligarchic clans.
I don't know about the rest of the government, but one thing I know for sure, they have a much better president than Russia!
To justify his planned invasion, he continues his complaint about how badly the Ukrainian government has mismanaged things:
Many people simply do not have the money to pay for utilities. They literally struggle to survive.
No! Mr. Putin! That is a struggle many people face in capitalist countries, and we often use hyperbole to describe it. You, Mr. Putin, are showing the whole world what it really means to “literally struggle to survive.” One day, you're worried about how you're going to pay a utility bill. The next day, you don't have any utilities. You don't have a home. You are hiding from Russian bombs in a basement, or running for the border with what's left of your life in a back pack. That is “literally” the struggle to survive you have made reality for millions.
Since this address is being made on the eve of the invasion, Putin's NATO subterfuge gets a lot more attention, and comes up sooner. Still, he's more than 60% through this 7,566-word tirade before he gets to it. But before he gets to NATO, he accuses Ukraine of “preparation for hostilities against our country, Russia.” Like it's about to attack Russia? Right. He also says “Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons.” Oh, WMD! That's always a handy charge for a nuclear country to throw against a non-nuclear adversary. I wonder whatever gave Putin that idea?
Finally, he gets to NATO:
Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises.
Putin goes on about Ukraine's involvement with NATO for five paragraphs, before he moves on to a subject dear to the hearts of Trump Republicans in the US—the destruction of monuments—I kid you not:
A monument to Alexander Suvorov was recently demolished in Poltava. What is there to say? Are you renouncing your own past? The so-called colonial heritage of the Russian Empire?
Then he gets back to the problem of NATO expansion, and his often-repeated story that:
In 1990, when German unification was discussed, the United States promised the Soviet leadership that NATO jurisdiction or military presence will not expand one inch to the east and that the unification of Germany will not lead to the spread of NATO's military organisation to the east. This is a quote.
Many others have disputed Putin's recollection of what was said, and Putin cites no treaty or official document. Putin just says “They issued lots of verbal assurances.” Well, Mr. Diplomat, Mr. KGB, you didn't get it in writing?
Timothy Snyder spoke about this on Democracy Now, Monday:
So, when Germany was unified, the Americans and the Soviets did make an arrangement about West Germany and East Germany. That arrangement, however, did not foresee and had nothing to do with the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. We’re talking about something that happened in 1990. In 1991, to everyone’s surprise, the Soviet Union no longer existed. And after that point, it’s very important to remember that the world isn’t just about Washington and Moscow. It’s also about other sovereign states and other peoples, who can express their desires and have their own foreign policies.So much for the so-called broken promise about NATO expansion. Not that such a broken promise could ever justify a full-on invasion, but just such drastic escalation is in keeping with the rejected-abuser metaphor: You broke your promise (never to leave me, never to go with him, whatever), so now I'm going to kill you.
So, when we speak of NATO enlargement, I mean, that’s a bit of a misnomer. NATO was not there to enlarge. There wasn’t much willingness on the part of Western Europe or the U.S. to enlarge. It was the East Europeans themselves who pushed the process forward. I mean, we can decide that they didn’t understand their own national interests, but that’s how the process unfolded. It came from the East Europeans. And there was never an understanding between the United States and Russia after 1991 that this wasn’t going to happen.
Putin complains that NATO has “a policy of containing Russia,” and, in so much as he has the goal of absorbing Ukraine and other neighboring countries into Russia, in this he is correct. Putin see's Ukraine membership as an existential threat to Russia because he considers Ukraine to rightfully belong to Russia. That is the short story. Now he is trying to take it by force. The foreseeable results of his actions put the lie to his reasons:
- He complained that NATO was getting too close. By occupying Ukraine, he will have put four new NATO countries on his border, more than double the current three.
- He complains about the influence of far-right and neo-Nazis elements in Ukraine. His attack on Ukraine will very likely make them stronger. War favors the growth of such elements.
- He objects to the militarization and rising military budgets of the West. Thanks to his invasion of Ukraine, calls for increased defense spending will be heard in capitals around the world.
Without delving into all the back and forth about what really happened in the Maiden, or who's really responsible for the civil war in Donbass, all the charges and counter charges, I think it's safe to say, after the lies about not invading Ukraine and about not targeting civilians, that one side can't be trusted. That side has shown, by its actions, that it has little concern for truth or humanity, therefore, every claim they have made is suspect, and must be disregarded without independent proof.
On the other hand, the Ukrainian people have shown, though the unity and courage with which they are facing Putin's horrific war machine, that they are a nation of the first caliber, and further, their president is nobody's puppet. He's a leader, in the truest sense of the word, and enjoys broad support from his people. That is what democracy looks like!
Anti-war and pro-Putin?
Before the invasion, the loudest voices in the western Left and peace movement were uncritically echoing the Kremlin line on Ukraine. This has been most unhelpful.
The page for this event has mysteriously gone missing from codepink.org, but it still can be found by the wayback machine. The co-sponsors read like a who's-who of the US Left, and includes CODEPINK, Answer Coalition, Black Alliance for Peace, Popular Resistance, World Beyond War, Veterans for Peace, and ADDICTED To WAR. It featured the now seemingly bizarre opinion that "the US is reaping what it sowed in Ukraine." This is also the name of a 13 Jan 2022 piece by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davis which takes Putin's narrative on Ukraine as truth:
If the United States and NATO are not prepared to negotiate new disarmament treaties, remove U.S. missiles from countries bordering Russia and dial back NATO expansion, Russian officials say they will have no option but to respond with “appropriate military-technical reciprocal measures.”
That is how they framed Putin's threat to invade Ukraine. The main point of unity for all these groups seems to be that whatever trouble Ukraine was in, the US and NATO were to blame. “Hands Off Russia!” By spreading his disinformation, and running interference against anyone who might intervene, they were rendering practical support to Putin's Ukraine project. The problem isn't NATO “expansion” disturbing “peace with Russia.” It is being disturbed by Russia wanting a piece of Ukraine.
⧫⧫⧫⧫⧫⧫⧫
Just about a month has gone by. How things have changed! Code Pink and all have come over to the side of the Ukrainian people suddenly. They are planning “Stop the War in Ukraine” rallies for this Sunday. Their main demands now are “Russian Troops Out! No to NATO Expansion.” Never mind that last goes against the wishes of most Ukrainians. They want membership in NATO. Especially now!
The US anti-war movement has not been helpful in preventing this war of Russia against Ukraine because they have been too busy carrying water for Vladimir Putin.
- They promoted every Kremlin conspiracy theory about how the 2013 popular uprising that became known as the Maiden was the product of western puppet masters; how the revolt that sent Putin's puppet packing was a coup d'état led by neo-Nazis. They never had much to say about the Ukrainian president, Zelenskyy, until now.
- They pretty much ignored the blaring horns that Putin's threats against Ukraine were based on plain old imperialist domination, and trumpeted far and wide Putin's claim that this was all happening because of NATO aggressiveness and expansion. They protested NATO and their main demand was “No War Against Russia.” It never occurred to them to protest Russia, and demand “No War Against Ukraine.”
- When the Biden administration took the unprecedented step of making public US intelligence to alert the world of what was coming in an effort to stop a war, they reminded everyone of the times fabricated US intelligence was used to start a war, accused the messenger of warmongering, and repeated, uncritically, Putin's denials.
Putin seems to never tired of threatening the world with nuclear weapons. He is seeking to dissuade anyone from coming to the aid of Ukraine militarily. In the beginning of the crisis, he made a point of scheduling, and personally overseeing, military exercises of his nuclear forces. In his 24 February declaration of war on Ukraine, Putin warned that any country that attempted to “interfere in these developments” will be met “immediately” with consequences “such as you have never seen in your entire history,” and on Sunday, Putin bragged that he had ordered Russia's nuclear forces be put on “combat alert” because of “aggressive comments” made by some leaders in NATO countries.
These “anti-war” activists from Code Pink, Veterans for Peace, and such, never seem to tire of backing Putin's play by reminding us that Russia has nukes, so we dare not oppose his aggressive use of military power with our own lest WW3 breakout. They have been using this logic to oppose a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians from Russian bombs for the better part of a decade now, but Syria tells us another story.
Russia having nukes is a big deal, but it can't be allowed to mean that Putin can commit genocide with immunity.
Now that the horrors of Putin's plan is being visited on Ukraine, all of these same pro-Putin “anti-war” activists are scrambling to present themselves as being on the right side of the struggle, but they still aren't. While they all claim to support the Ukrainians in their struggle against Russia, as a practical matter, they don't:
- They oppose sanctions, saying sanctions will only hurt ordinary Russians.
- They oppose sending weapons to the Ukrainians, even though this is their number one demand. They say more weapons will only make things worse. yeah, tell that to Putin.
- They oppose a no-fly zone, even while the Ukrainians are demanding the protection. They argue Putin will start WW3 if he is denied his targets.
- They oppose Ukraine joining NATO. In a post invasion poll 76% of Ukrainians want to join NATO, according to Pravda.
They need to stop kowtowing to imperialism, and re-think their whole approach to the people's struggles.
Clay Claiborne, 2 March 2022
Allways nice to read you!
ReplyDeleteI would add this document;
https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/arbeitspapiere/Consent_to_Nato_ks.pdf
Thank you for posting this. A long read, but very informative on the Soviet positions (many) on NATO 1989-91. The short story is that the famous Baker "not one inch East" promise has been cherry-picked from a mountain of back-and-forward, and not the final conclusion of any negotiation or agreement.
Delete