Labels

Pages

Friday, 6 May 2022

Best Practice

In the East and in Crimea, people want to speak Russian. Leave them alone, just leave them alone. Give them the legal right to speak Russian. Language should never divide our country. I’m of Jewish heritage, I speak Russian, but I’m a citizen of Ukraine. I love this country and I don’t want to be part of another [...] Russia and Ukraine are brotherly nations. I know thousands of people who live in Russia who are great people. We are one colour, one blood, we understand each other, irrespective of language [emphasis added].”[1]

Five years before he ran for president, these comments were made in March 2014 by then showbiz personality Volodymyr Zelensky. His reference to ‘one colour’ offends western liberal sensibilities, but it perhaps isn’t worth getting too moralistic about. Kiev and Casablanca are roughly equidistant from the UK, but who honestly believes that a similar outbreak of violence in North Africa would generate as much scandalised indignation in the Home Counties as the current conflict?

More importantly, Zelensky’s plea on behalf of Russian-speakers in the East and Crimea rings hollow in light of his actions since he became president. In essence, this is because he’s been confronted with the hard reality of things he used to joke about. Ukrainian leaders really have had their room for manoeuvre severely constrained, since 2014, by the wishes of their masters in Washington. And neo-Nazis and their sympathisers really are embedded in the political, security and military establishment.[2] Additional clarification was provided in March of this year by David Hendrickson, Emeritus Professor of international politics and US foreign policy at Colorado College:

“I think [the US] bears a tremendous amount of responsibility. We’ve made a whole series of decisions over the last twenty years, first to put Ukraine’s membership of NATO on the table. That represented a departure from the solution of the 1990s, which was neutrality. We sponsored the revolution in 2014 which was a really serious breach of international law and Ukraine’s constitutional law, which had the effect of violating the electoral law, and thereby handing power to extremists. It split the country. In the most recent episode, NATO expansion was a magic trick, a kind of ‘now you see it, now you don’t’. To the Russians, ‘Yes, you ought to understand this as a threat’, to the Ukrainians, ‘Yes, you ought to understand this as reassurance’; to the American people, ‘We don’t want to get involved’. Well that magic trick ended very badly, in the current circumstance, and to say that we had nothing to do with it, is to say that ‘Well it was inevitable. He was going to invade anyway. He’s a monster and will do what monsters do’, but I don’t think that’s a plausible reconstruction of what happened.”[3]

Thus, in spite of his sane 2014 remarks, President Zelensky was obliged to oversee the implementation of the ‘Law on Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language’. Intended to ensure the long-term eradication of Russian, it imposes Ukrainian throughout the education system and requires media outlets to produce a Ukrainian-language version of everything they publish. That English publications are exempt, but not Russian, is absurd. Contrary to official figures, Russian is the native language of at least 70% of Ukrainians (including the overwhelming majority of Kiev residents). Ukrainian-speakers are concentrated in the area around Lviv, in the far west.

And at the same time, presumably under instruction from the White House, in March 2021 Zelensky declared Ukraine’s intention to retake control of the Crimea.

Colonel Volodymyr Baranyuk of the 36th Separate Marine Brigade is a patriotic and courageous officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. For his exploits during the 2022 Siege of Mariupol, on 19 March Zelensky conferred him with the title of Hero of Ukraine; the highest honour that can be awarded to an individual citizen. In February 2014 he was one of 600 marines captured by the Russians in Crimea. Some weeks later he was among 140 who chose to return to Kiev-controlled territory – the rest stayed to serve in the Russian armed forces. Before leaving the peninsular he was interviewed by Simon Ostrovsky of VICE News:

Volodymyr Baranyuk: “Nobody is wounded. Everyone is OK. Nobody except me [Baranyuk had a cut above his eye, a dressing on his cheek and blood on his uniform].”

Simon Ostrovsky: “How did you get hurt?”

Baranyuk: “Well, let’s say these are occupational hazards. This happens when you get captured.”

Ostrovsky: “Did you get into a fight with them?”

Baranyuk: “It’s not that I was fighting with them. It just happened.”

Ostrovsky: “Please describe how the takeover went down. We haven’t spoken to anyone who witnessed it yet.”

Baranyuk: “They smashed down the gates with an APC and entered from all sides. It was a classic move, so to speak. They entered, blocked the building, and used tear gas grenades. Stun grenades.”

Ostrovsky: “Helicopters?”

Baranyuk: “[Yes,] helicopters…”

Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin considers its 2014 Crimea operation as the gold standard for operations against Ukraine, since only six people died (three pro-Russians and three Ukrainians). Loss of life – even Ukrainian military loss of life – is bad practice and bad PR. Atrocities such as massacres of civilians can be faked, as veteran BBC correspondent Allan Little discovered in 1999-2000. Over the course of a seven-month investigation of the Račak massacre in Kosovo, he came to realise it had been staged by the Kosovo Liberation Army and falsely validated by CIA-linked William Walker.[4] This gave embattled president Bill Clinton a pretext to start bombing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; just as the Bucha massacre has given Joe Biden a pretext to ramp up the supply of weapons to Ukraine. Returning though to Baranyuk:

Simon Ostrovsky: “Now you’re heading to Ukraine to serve there?”

Baranyuk: “Yes. We’ll serve in Ukraine now.”

Ostrovsky: “How many of you are going to Ukraine and how many are staying?”

Baranyuk: “As of yesterday, there were 140 soldiers who were going. But right now I don’t know.”

Ostrovsky: “And what was the total amount?”

Baranyuk: “Somewhere around 600 people.”

Ostrovsky: “Why are so many soldiers staying here?”

Baranyuk: “I have no idea. It’s their choice.”

Ostrovsky: “What do you think about what’s happened in Crimea?”

Baranyuk: “I think the Ukrainian government is partially responsible, and the Russians took advantage of this moment. It’s not a secret that Crimea has always been pro-Russian. They’ve been dreaming of joining Russia for a long time [emphasis added].”[5]

It’s worth noting that you can’t really dispute the legitimacy of Baranyuk’s point of view. If he – a Hero of Ukraine – can hold to this, it can certainly be held by an outside observer. Someone like Andrew Lambert for instance: Professor of Naval History in the Department of War Studies at King's College, London, and distinguished author (he has also taught at the Royal Naval Staff College and the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst). In a September 2017 lecture entitled ‘The Other Crimean War’ he explained:

“For the Russians Sevastopol is a ‘hero city’, from the 1850s and from the 1940s. At least a million Russians died fighting for Sevastopol in two major wars, and the idea that they were going to let anybody else have it, I think is laughable. I had the good fortune to be in Main Building[6] on the day Putin marched in, and I reminded them that this was far too important an issue to make a fuss about [emphasis added].”

Queen Elizabeth II showed an inclination to see Crimea in a similar way in September last year. One of her ladies-in-waiting was given permission to reply to a letter from an English-language schoolteacher in Sevastopol. Naturally, that meant addressing the envelope “Sevastopol, Russia”, and it was picked up by Russian media.[7]

The Queen’s excellent grasp of the situation seems to have been further manifested in a little-publicised episode just after the major escalation in February. Her first public engagement of this year was expected to take place on 2nd March; a reception of all the ambassadors accredited to the Court of St James.

““The Queen has accepted the foreign secretary's advice that the diplomatic reception at Windsor on March 2 should be postponed,” Buckingham Palace said in a statement.”

Reading between the lines, there’s surely a fairly high likelihood that she was urged to snub the Russian and Belarus envoys, but refused.

“The Times newspaper reported that [Foreign Secretary Liz] Truss and her officials considered it was the wrong time to hold the event, while others said it could have been used as means of humiliating Russia and Belarus, which has provided assistance in the invasion of Ukraine, by uninviting the diplomats [emphasis added].”[8]

HM’s commendable attitude is in sad contrast to that of almost the entirety of Britain’s political class, and indeed of her eldest son. During a May 2014 visit to Winnipeg, Canada, Prince Charles was thinking of recent events in Crimea when he told a lady whose family had fled Europe just before WWII:

“…now Putin is doing just about the same as Hitler”.

In the previous month, Volodymyr Baranyuk had recounted the storming of his Crimean garrison to a Ukrainian newspaper:

“I clearly knew what exactly we should do and how to behave. There was not even a thought about changing the oath [of allegiance]. Not before the assault, not during, not after. But those officers who remained to serve Russia, I also do not blame. I don't consider them traitors. In order for someone to have the right to condemn them, you need to be in their shoes. Many have families there, children, a well-established life. They’ve lived all their lives in the Crimea [emphasis added].”[9]

Baranyuk’s commitment to his country can hardly be doubted – yet he understood that the people of Crimea wanted to be part of Russia. Maybe that’s the difference between a Ukrainian willing to sacrifice his life in defence of his homeland, and British politicians (and pseudo-politicians) willing to sacrifice Ukrainians for their own selfish purposes.



[6] A reference to UK Defence HQ, Whitehall

No comments:

Post a Comment