Yesterday I posted my thoughts on the fraught relationship between Russia and Ukraine. Then last evening on the PBS Newshour, Nick Schifrin interviewed Oksana Markarova, Ukraine's ambassador to the United States. You can watch the interview below:
While one would not wish to excuse Russian aggression towards her country, Markarova's comments reveal the unrealistic aspirations of the current Volodymyr Zelensky administration in Kiev. This is why NATO would be unwise to take on Ukraine as a full member.
There are principal issues which are very important for Ukraine, as I said: to be independent, to be sovereign, to decide our future by ourselves, to be part of the European Union and NATO, and to be whole again, to restore our territorial integrity.
Given the divided character of Ukraine, these goals are almost certainly mutually incompatible. With the southern and eastern sections of the country within the Russian cultural orbit for more than two centuries, we cannot reasonably expect that their inhabitants would countenance full membership in the EU and NATO, which they perceive to be inimical to their own interests and to those of their close neighbours across the border in Russia. Even if Moscow were to tolerate such affiliations, which is unlikely, western-leaning Ukrainians would view their restive compatriots in the Donbas and Novorossiya as potential or real fifth columnists, ready to betray their country to the Russian Federation's interests.
The only way that membership in the EU and NATO might be feasible would be for Kiev to accept jurisdiction over a much smaller territory encompassing only those parts of present-day Ukraine that view themselves as part of a larger European civilization. This would likely divide the country along the historic boundary once separating the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth from the former Russian Empire, deprive Ukraine of its Black Sea coast, and effectively make it the largest landlocked country in Europe. That such a rump Ukraine is unpalatable to Zelensky and his supporters is understandable, but they will undoubtedly have to choose which of the goals Markarova lists above is most important to them.
As for deciding their future by themselves, few nations, except perhaps for the most powerful, are in a position to do this. This is why, for example, Hannah Arendt disliked the notion of sovereignty, which is based on a denial of the human condition of plurality and on the grand pretence that we can go it alone without considering the impact of our decisions on our neighbours. Ukrainians are deceiving themselves if they continue to assume that their future is theirs to determine on their own. Far from bringing lasting peace to a war-torn Europe, Woodrow Wilson's proposed principle of national self-determination sowed the seeds of further conflict because it failed to account for the complex realities conditioning all these ostensibly sovereign national selves.
If Ukraine continues on its present path, attempting to achieve all the aims articulated by Markarova without qualification, then conflict with Russia is probably inevitable. If, however, the Zelensky administration will take a more realistic approach, it might yet avert the coming conflict.
6 comments:
This is a welcome attempt at analysis, but it is fatally flawed. First, the notion that the East and South of Ukraine gravitate toward Russia because Russia has been dominant there since the 17th c. is false. For one thing, there's nothing like a few centuries of Russian rule to make one very anti-Russian! For another, eight years of war have shifted Ukrainian public opinion further away from Russia and closer to the EU and NATO. Moreover, before Muscovy annexed Ukraine in the 17th-18th centuries, much of Ukraine was under Poland-Lithuania, starting in the 14th c., and thus politically and culturally very much a part of Europe. Ukraine's turn to the West is very much a return.
Second, this comment is essentially saying that national self-determination is the privilege of certain nations, such as ours, but not of others. So the American colonies had the right to self-determination and separation from the British empire, but Ukraine does not have these rights and may not separate from a revived Russian empire? This is certainly not justice.
This commentary in effect argues that self-determination applies to some nations, like the US or Canada, but not to others. What is the criterion? If sovereignty should be tempered by regard for one's neighbors, should this principle not be applied first to powerful nations like Russia?
As for the notion of Ukraine's South and East being orientated towards Russia because of their historical experience, this is highly questionable. Linguistic and cultural and even ethnic identity does not determine political orientation. Before Muscovy annexed Ukraine in the 17th-18th c., much of Ukraine was under Polish and Lithuanian rule, imbuing it with Western political, legal, and cultural values that remain today. Hence, Ukraine's turn to the West is a return. Besides, there's nothing like three centuries of Russian rule to make one opposed to Russia.
This commentary in effect argues that self-determination applies to some nations, like the US or Canada, but not to others. What is the criterion? If sovereignty should be tempered by regard for one's neighbors, should this principle not be applied first to powerful nations like Russia?
As for the notion of Ukraine's South and East being orientated towards Russia because of their historical experience, this is highly questionable. Linguistic and cultural and even ethnic identity does not determine political orientation. Before Muscovy annexed Ukraine in the 17th-18th c., much of Ukraine was under Polish and Lithuanian rule, imbuing it with Western political, legal, and cultural values that remain today. Hence, Ukraine's turn to the West is a return. Besides, there's nothing like three centuries of Russian rule to make one opposed to Russia.
Obviously the events of the past few days have altered my analysis of the situation in Ukraine. Russia has dangerously overreacted and has almost certainly brought all Ukrainians together against them. My original analysis has been overtaken by events, but I will leave this up all the same. Watch for future posts on this topic.
I appreciate your honesty and willingness to take new data into account. That is the mark of an intelligent analyst.
Yes, obviously I wouldn't have written it this week after everything that has transpired since then. I unequivocally condemn what Putin has done, and he has made it likely that, not only Ukraine, but Finland, Sweden, and Austria will seek membership in NATO. Not his intention, of course, but the net result.
Post a Comment