Over the past few weeks I've been thinking a lot about how to understand recent events in Ukraine; even as I struggle to understand it myself, I also wanted to write something here that might give readers in the West some sort of parallel to help them understand the situation. Here's the best I've come up with so far:
Let's imagine for a moment that the government in Canada was suffering from a period of significant instability. For almost a decade the people had high hopes for the country's development, but were sorely disappointed by political leaders who were ineffective or corrupt. Protests began in Ottawa; tens of thousands demanded that the government resign. Some of the strongest voice of protest came from Quebec, where political leaders had decided to move away from the idea of independence and toward a re-visioning of Canada as a whole. After months of protest and confrontation with the government, the protesters took power. The country's new leaders said that the country's way forward was to emphasize Canada's independence (in terms of language, culture and economy) from the United States; there was great fear among English-speakers (especially in the western provinces) that they would be
repressed. The atmosphere was tense. And strange things started happening - crime was on the rise, militias started to take over government buildings, there were rumors that English would be banned and that U.S. military men were secretly working in the country.... Relatively quickly, politicians in British Columbia decided to separate from Canada. They organized a referendum, and many more voted for union with the U.S. than for remaining with Canada.
Now, if you imagine this situation and you're an American, how would you react? What should the U.S. do? It seems to me that many of us would surprise ourselves by saying that we should let B.C. in...and that we might be open to Alberta and Saskatchewan joining them, if that is the will of the people.
It seems to me that if we use this (very far out) example, we can imagine, to a degree, why people in Russia are so overwhelmingly for annexing Crimea. They see that it is the will of the local people, and we are, after all, one people, with cultural differences that are really not any more significant than the differences within our own countries (e.g., the difference between Washington and Louisiana or Michigan and Hawaii...or, in Russia, between the Northern Caucasus region and Siberia or the Far North and Moscow.)
...and yet, there is another side to this story. What would happen if we were in the opposite position, if some territory wanted to leave the U.S.? Russia had that situation with Chechnya, and we know how Moscow reacted to that. And how would Washington (and probably most of the country) react if New Mexico voted to secede from the U.S. and join our neighbors to the south? They would be able to name lots of reasons to justify that action...but how would we feel about that?
Europeans can probably imagine this situation even clearer. What if the enclave of Russia between Poland and Lithuania, Kaliningrad, voted to return to Germany, becoming Koenigsberg once again? And what if, on the other hand, Bavaria decided to go its separate way from Germany?
Estonian President Toomas Ilves recently said that the annexation of Crimea represents “a complete and utter collapse of the fundamental assumptions of security in the post-World War II order." If you're looking at this situation from the Baltic states (or perhaps even from Russia's other immediate neighbors) this situation is, truly, very troubling. And I understand that, even if I cannot pretend to understand really what Ukrainians must be feeling about the situation in Crimea. But what I would hope is that this reexamination of questions of security does not turn in to the West uniting to treat Russia as an enemy. Instead what needs to happen, from my point of view, is a new commitment on all sides to the rule of law in international affairs, to firm commitment to international agreements that favor the long-term and the common good over the short-term and national interests. It means remaining committed to democratic principles and democratic processes even if these are sometimes very inconvenient.
The West has very little opportunity to effectively respond to the annexation of Crimea not because of questions related to military power, but because of a lack of moral authority. As Masha Lipman says in this article from the New Yorker: "Russia has become strong enough, Putin seems to suggest, to be as bad as the United States: to do as it pleases, to legitimate its aggression, and to act without a go-ahead from the U.N. And yet, at the same time, Putin claims that, unlike the United States, Russia does nothing wrong or lawless."
I believe that one of the reasons President Putin is sometimes shown in such negative light in the Western press is that he points out (with sharp wit, I might add) the hypocrisy of Western politicians when they condemn those who do not uphold human rights, etc. What he and his diplomats add, however, is a layer of cynicism to the whole question, an approach that seems to be reflected in Васька's comment on my last post below. Russians frequently say that democracy and the rhetoric of human rights are simply an ideological facade that allows the powerful to do what they want , when and where they want. Freedom, rule of law, and democratic structures (and independent judiciary and legislature, fair elections, etc.), this line of argument goes, are all illusions created by the powerful to control those who are weaker.
And so in this situation, we have hypocrisy vs. cynicism, with the "little guys" (who are not so little! Ukraine is a big, populous and important country in Europe!) stuck in the middle, frequently suffering because of battles between the two.
The question that many are asking now is - where does this stop? Is it possible that other territories in eastern Ukraine will want to join Russia? What would be Russia's reaction if they do? Will there be an echo effect around the globe, with new annexations taking place in areas of territorial dispute based on the principles of the right of local self-determination (+ a strong "friend" ready to take you in)? And will the West come to a reasonable conclusion about this situation - i.e., that we can no longer continue to demand that others hold to standards that we ourselves do not keep?
As a Christian living in this country I cannot share the joy that many are feeling about the triumph of "historical justice." Although it could quite possibly be the case that Crimea will have a better chance to thrive as a part of Russia than it did as a part of Ukraine and while I'm sure that Moscow will pump billions of dollars in to supporting development in the region, this whole situation has already done so much to harm relationships between Russia and the West (not to mention Russia and Ukraine!) that it is hard to imagine an outcome that is positive overall. As I see it the Gospel call us to remove barriers between people; the upshot of these events will be more separation, more distrust, more (I'm sad to say) hate.
If you're the praying kind, please keep the people of this region in your prayers. May God grant wisdom and compassion to all involved in order to reduce the chances of greater conflict.
 |
| Canadian Prime Minister Harper and acting Ukrainian leader Yatsenjuk. This picture inspired my far-fetched analogy comparing Canada and Ukraine. |
Let's imagine for a moment that the government in Canada was suffering from a period of significant instability. For almost a decade the people had high hopes for the country's development, but were sorely disappointed by political leaders who were ineffective or corrupt. Protests began in Ottawa; tens of thousands demanded that the government resign. Some of the strongest voice of protest came from Quebec, where political leaders had decided to move away from the idea of independence and toward a re-visioning of Canada as a whole. After months of protest and confrontation with the government, the protesters took power. The country's new leaders said that the country's way forward was to emphasize Canada's independence (in terms of language, culture and economy) from the United States; there was great fear among English-speakers (especially in the western provinces) that they would be
Now, if you imagine this situation and you're an American, how would you react? What should the U.S. do? It seems to me that many of us would surprise ourselves by saying that we should let B.C. in...and that we might be open to Alberta and Saskatchewan joining them, if that is the will of the people.
It seems to me that if we use this (very far out) example, we can imagine, to a degree, why people in Russia are so overwhelmingly for annexing Crimea. They see that it is the will of the local people, and we are, after all, one people, with cultural differences that are really not any more significant than the differences within our own countries (e.g., the difference between Washington and Louisiana or Michigan and Hawaii...or, in Russia, between the Northern Caucasus region and Siberia or the Far North and Moscow.)
...and yet, there is another side to this story. What would happen if we were in the opposite position, if some territory wanted to leave the U.S.? Russia had that situation with Chechnya, and we know how Moscow reacted to that. And how would Washington (and probably most of the country) react if New Mexico voted to secede from the U.S. and join our neighbors to the south? They would be able to name lots of reasons to justify that action...but how would we feel about that?
Europeans can probably imagine this situation even clearer. What if the enclave of Russia between Poland and Lithuania, Kaliningrad, voted to return to Germany, becoming Koenigsberg once again? And what if, on the other hand, Bavaria decided to go its separate way from Germany?
Estonian President Toomas Ilves recently said that the annexation of Crimea represents “a complete and utter collapse of the fundamental assumptions of security in the post-World War II order." If you're looking at this situation from the Baltic states (or perhaps even from Russia's other immediate neighbors) this situation is, truly, very troubling. And I understand that, even if I cannot pretend to understand really what Ukrainians must be feeling about the situation in Crimea. But what I would hope is that this reexamination of questions of security does not turn in to the West uniting to treat Russia as an enemy. Instead what needs to happen, from my point of view, is a new commitment on all sides to the rule of law in international affairs, to firm commitment to international agreements that favor the long-term and the common good over the short-term and national interests. It means remaining committed to democratic principles and democratic processes even if these are sometimes very inconvenient.
The West has very little opportunity to effectively respond to the annexation of Crimea not because of questions related to military power, but because of a lack of moral authority. As Masha Lipman says in this article from the New Yorker: "Russia has become strong enough, Putin seems to suggest, to be as bad as the United States: to do as it pleases, to legitimate its aggression, and to act without a go-ahead from the U.N. And yet, at the same time, Putin claims that, unlike the United States, Russia does nothing wrong or lawless."
I believe that one of the reasons President Putin is sometimes shown in such negative light in the Western press is that he points out (with sharp wit, I might add) the hypocrisy of Western politicians when they condemn those who do not uphold human rights, etc. What he and his diplomats add, however, is a layer of cynicism to the whole question, an approach that seems to be reflected in Васька's comment on my last post below. Russians frequently say that democracy and the rhetoric of human rights are simply an ideological facade that allows the powerful to do what they want , when and where they want. Freedom, rule of law, and democratic structures (and independent judiciary and legislature, fair elections, etc.), this line of argument goes, are all illusions created by the powerful to control those who are weaker.
And so in this situation, we have hypocrisy vs. cynicism, with the "little guys" (who are not so little! Ukraine is a big, populous and important country in Europe!) stuck in the middle, frequently suffering because of battles between the two.
The question that many are asking now is - where does this stop? Is it possible that other territories in eastern Ukraine will want to join Russia? What would be Russia's reaction if they do? Will there be an echo effect around the globe, with new annexations taking place in areas of territorial dispute based on the principles of the right of local self-determination (+ a strong "friend" ready to take you in)? And will the West come to a reasonable conclusion about this situation - i.e., that we can no longer continue to demand that others hold to standards that we ourselves do not keep?
As a Christian living in this country I cannot share the joy that many are feeling about the triumph of "historical justice." Although it could quite possibly be the case that Crimea will have a better chance to thrive as a part of Russia than it did as a part of Ukraine and while I'm sure that Moscow will pump billions of dollars in to supporting development in the region, this whole situation has already done so much to harm relationships between Russia and the West (not to mention Russia and Ukraine!) that it is hard to imagine an outcome that is positive overall. As I see it the Gospel call us to remove barriers between people; the upshot of these events will be more separation, more distrust, more (I'm sad to say) hate.
If you're the praying kind, please keep the people of this region in your prayers. May God grant wisdom and compassion to all involved in order to reduce the chances of greater conflict.
