cul-2
EXPERT OPINION
Slavs or Aryans - Who Cares?
It is in Russia's interests to understand that Ukraine is "abroad"
The events in Yugoslavia, which coincided with hearings in our Parliament
on relations with NATO and the IMF and ratification of agreements on the
Black Sea Fleet bases in the Crimea, have brought on a wave of leftist
hysteria - declarations and decisions in a tone that seemed utterly impossible
until recently. The Left has again shown that its opposition to the authorities
is in fact opposition to the state they represent. As an alternative, they
offer the "good old USSR" or various versions of reunification with Russia.
It is of interest that in Russia itself there has long been a quite representative
political association opposing any reintegration (everyone seems to have
somehow forgotten that it was the Russian democrats who were first to publicly
denounce the imperial essence of the former USSR and the Moscow media that
laid the groundwork for its painless disintegration). But the point is
not even this, but the fact that our northern neighbor, contrary to widespread
opinion, is not busy 24 hours a day thinking about how to swallow Ukraine.
As a rule, it is busy thinking about its own problems and even if it changes
course (like over the Kosovo crisis), it perhaps also acts out of its own
interests (IMF will, in all probability, still give Mr. Primakov money).
The parliamentary events of the past few days showed that our politics
desperately lacks precisely this kind of judicious understanding: while
Russians think about Russia, we also think about Russia - some with an
incomprehensible longing and others with equally incomprehensible hatred.
The editorial board suggests to readers a sober view of Ukrainian-Russian
relations by that rational Russia which first of all pursues its own interests
and wishes us to do the same.
It is now, that the passions over ratification or non-ratification of
the Russo - Ukrainian treaty have calmed a bit, the right time to indulge
in idle speculation about what did or did not happen. As recently as the
summer of 1991 it seemed incredible that Ukraine might leave the USSR.
However, the December referendum in this republic put an end to the Soviet
Union. And the earth did not move as a result.
Now it seems totally unacceptable that Ukraine should join NATO, that
it will take too long, and NATO does not want us so far, either. But even
should it happen, would it have such terrible consequences? This is rhetorical,
of course. But there is also history which reminds us that Ukraine was
together with Russia for only 300 odd years and that the time was full
of conflicts, wars, contradictions, ethnic and religious discord. By the
end of the twentieth century, humanity has painstakingly developed civilized
principles to solve such problems but rarely keeps to them. Genocide is
a phenomenon of not only African but also European political life. And,
compared to Yugoslav nightmares, events in the CIS unfold far more humanely.
Take the ethnic question. We can by no means assert that the marriage
was long, happy, and without a cloud in the sky. But the past three hundred
years, however, were not only years of quarrels and ruin. And this refers
not to industrialization and collectivization that brought famine to Ukraine
but, above all, the years when, despite the sometimes foolish ethnic policy
of some Russian officials and, alas, tsars, the empire still performed
the function of uniting its peoples and enriching their cultures.
For we know very little about Ukraine, Ukrainians, and Ukrainian history.
For example, Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky) who, while still a bishop
and, hence, representative of the reactionary imperial clergy, defended
in the State Duma the Ukrainian Orthodox peasants of the Kholm (Chelmno)
region from national and religious discrimination by Polish landlords.
And he achieved his goal: the region was withdrawn from the Polish Kingdom
(incidentally, the partitions and enslavement of Poland were preceded by
some episodes in Russian history connected with Pseudo-Dmitries and sack
of Moscow). The Reverend Eulogius, by the way, also warded off Jewish pogroms
in the region.
There were other things too, e.g., Taras Shevchenko's diary in Russian,
a cosmopolitan (hence, also imperial) Odesa, New Russia, and in general
everything we now call the culture of Southwest Russia, etc. However, all
travels over the political map of Ukraine and Russia will inevitably bring
you to the Crimea and the Crimean problem.
For the point is not only Sevastopol. There is the Crimea of Admirals
Ushakov and Nakhimov, but there is also, no less important for Russia,
the Tavriya of Pushkin, Voloshin, and Nabokov who here said farewell to
Russia. But the admirals' names sometimes return to history as the names
of writers, which reminded us that, e.g., Serbs, such as Vojnovic, also
served the Russian crown. And what cannot be solved in legal terms can
be solved in moral ones. For example, a reciprocal recognition of rights
to a cultural condominium, i.e., joint authority over historic and cultural
treasures, not only fleets and bases. But everything is not that simple
even from the legal angle. The powers of people who signed the 1922 Union
Treaty were far more dubious than the powers of those who signed the Belaya
Vezha accords. The legality of Soviet power was illusory even in Russia,
much less the other republics. This resulted in a rather cautious attitude
toward the legality of territorial changes that took place in the Soviet
Union.
But the purpose of the Commonwealth is precisely to overcome what accumulated
in those years of the "friendship of peoples" propped up by deportations,
ethnic cleansing, and revision of borders. However, to start from square
one, it would be a good idea to clean the ground, i.e., display good will
toward cooperation.
In these notes, I do not want, as a matter of principle, to reiterate
facts we have heard so many times. Enumeration of the national offenses
caused by extremists and idiots (Russian and Ukrainian) to Russian and
Ukrainian culture and history nowadays only plays into the hands of extremists
and fools. However, existence not only within the CIS but also in history
obliges us to remember everything, without stressing what seems easy and
simple but is not in fact such. Why on earth do politicians think that
tension with Ukraine or the struggle for Sevastopol and the Crimea, will
delight the electorate? For so far even the active and morally justifiable
struggle for the rights of the Russian-speaking population in the Baltic
states has not yielded any significant political dividends. People are
far more interested in what is going on at home. The paradox is that the
attempt to have it out with Ukraine is rather useful from the viewpoint
of overcoming an old and meaningless stereotype - the legend of Slavic
unity so much touted by Belarusian President Lukashenka. Russia and Russians
have their own national interests which should not fit such ill-conceived
patterns as Slavic fraternity. Speculations about a Slavic union and unity
means remembering the racist experiments of Stalin who mimicked his rival
(but not enemy) Hitler. "Linden were being planted on Gorky Street," thus
writer Tendriakov expressed the sensation of Soviet power's succession
to the Nazi regime after World War II whose results Stalin called a victory
of the Slavs in their historical confrontations with the Germanic world.
Slavs or Aryans, what's the difference? The only result is national degradation.
The Slavic nations are only an ethno-linguistic community, as are the
Germanic and Romance nations. And it is senseless to explain that there
was, but is no longer such a thing as Slavic unity, which needs no proof
after the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Racism, unlike healthy bourgeois
nationalism, is irrational.
But a new pattern is being proposed, actively exploiting the old fears,
e.g., NATO-phobia. Or speculations about discriminations of the Russians.
With all my respect for Yuri Luzhkov, I do have to note that the Russians
in Ukraine are an ethnic minority. For 25%, a figure from his speech, is
really less than half. And Russians are foreigners in Ukraine if they are
citizens of Russia. And citizens of Ukraine, irrespective of ethnicity,
are foreigners in Russia.
The bare facts are as follows: you cannot be good neighbors and raise
territorial claims against each other. It only frays your nerves and empties
your wallets, for there will be no good without normalizing not only the
relationship but even the atmosphere of mutual existence. The treaty has
been ratified, but on certain conditions. From the viewpoint of international
law, this is an aberration, but members of the Council of Federation do
not seem to understand that all the same Ukraine is abroad. And they will
have to.
And while I was reflecting on all this, Ukrainian legislators were reported
to have fulfilled, as if in jest, the demand of the Russian governors.
It is for you to judge which of the Slav brothers remained wiser and which
made a whip for his own back.
By Dmytro SHUSHARIN,
www.gazeta.ru






