[aaus-list] Papadopolous reply

[stephen velychenko]

Why Europe should step-up pressure on Russia.

It was amusing to read about someone like Putin expessing concern
about democracy. It is also pathetic to read about "lavish" government
receptions for such a man in France. Would Russian payment of pre-1917
French loans have anything to do with this?

In any case, Mr. Papadopoulos goes too far in his article when he
begins repeating politicized neo-soviet neo-imperial  Russian views as
if they were  accepted truths.

1. There is no  "historical closeness" between Ukraine and Russian
other than the sort that was produced by 200 years of domination and
million of unnatural Ukrainian deaths during that time. By this kind
of logic Greece and Turkey are also "historically close" and should
therefore be united in one state -- Turkish dominated naturally. The
author also refers to an "East Slavic Group" as if this were a basis
for political unity. Again, imperial minded Russian think like this,
but should, therefore all "South Slavs" belong to one state? Should
all "Semites' or "Aryans' belong to one state?

2. The author talks about resentment among  "Ukrainians" without
distinguishing exactly which "Ukrainians" he his talking about. The
pro-Russian Russian citizens of Ukraine, or pensioners who were
educated in Soviet schools and know only what they learned there, or
the extremist fringe who like to claim they represent a majority?

3. The is no single entity called "the West" with a collective will
and policy. Does the author think that EU countries and Japan and the
US agree on everything all the time? The author must surely know that
Sweden and Poland, to mention only the most important states, do not
fawn before Putin's gas-threats and are not concerned that a minority
of pro-Russian anti-NATO extremist groups in Ukraine are indeed
anti-EU, anti-US, anti -democratic, and anti-semitic to boot. By
supporting such groups, the EU will indeed not  "provoke the ire" of
people like Putin -- but should it?

4. The author also seems to ignorant of the fact that Ukraine's
neo-soviet Russophile Party of Regions likes to oppose NATO when out
of power, but not when in power, and that Russia and Putin during the
last decades have taken part in more NATO exercises and agreements
than Ukraine. If NATO is good for Putin's Russia, why not for Ukraine?

5. NATO already borders Russia, in case Mr. Papadopoulus doesn't know,
and that does not seem to have led to war or a "weakening" of Russia.
In the age of intercontinental missles and mach-2 jets, a few hundred
kilometers in one direction or another is meaningless.  The real issue
is not NATO but good old-fashioned imperial domination-- which the
Russian ruling-elite, unlike all the other European ruling-elites,
cannot forget and shed. Preferring direct control of land population
and resources, to trade, today's Russian old-fashioned elite threatens
EU with instability. By not opposing this kind of neo-colonialism on
the Eurasian continent the EU is digging its own grave.



-- 
Stephen Velychenko
CERES Associate;
Research Fellow,Chair of Ukrainian Studies;
Munk Center
University of Toronto
Devonshire Place
Toronto M5S 3K7