Europe’s Ukrainian Soul

Sep 29, 2014 Joschka Fischer

For Europe, Ukraine’s fate is a vital strategic question, because its independence has been the cornerstone of the post-Cold War European order and its framework for peace. Ukraine’s subjugation to Russia by military force would bring down the curtain on that order and its underlying principles.

BERLIN – This November marks the first anniversary of the Euromaidan uprising in Kyiv. Large parts of Ukraine’s population – and young people in particular – rose in opposition to then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the country’s European Union association agreement (finalized after many years of negotiations), in favor of joining a customs union with Russia. This would have amounted to an eastward shift for Ukraine, with accession to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Eurasian Union ruling out any possibility of ever joining the EU.

In view of Ukraine’s ongoing crisis, this starting point – the first pro-European revolution in the twenty-first century, brought about by opposition to Russian influence and post-Soviet corruption and inefficiency – is important to bear in mind.

A lot has happened since: Russia launched an undeclared war, first occupying and then annexing Crimea. In eastern Ukraine, the Kremlin continued the war – which, in military terms, seems unwinnable for the Kyiv authorities – in the Donbas region.

To continue reading, register now.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world's leading thinkers, including weekly long reads, book reviews, topical collections, and interviews; The Year Ahead annual print magazine; the complete PS archive; and more. All for less than $9 a month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 9 Comments on this article

Jean-Louis Piel Oct 21, 2014

There is one essential that Joschka Fisher misses in his comment : it is the long term view of Ukrainian History.
Ukraine has been colonised brutally by Russia since 250 years. In the late XVIIIth century Katherine II, a German, imposed Russian as the main language, servage system and localisation of the Jews of the Russian Empire on Ukraine. XIXth century was worst. XXith was THE worst moment of Russian colonisation of Ukraine.
Before this Russian colonisation - up to the end of the XIIIth century - Ukraine was an European country with the same level of development that any part of European continent. After the invasion of Mongol and later the colonisation of Russian moscovites , the development of Ukraine was linked to the development of Russia - around 50% of the West European development. It is still true today.
Despite of this Russian brutal colonisation , Ukraine has a nation and as a state has always perdured in the majority of the Ukrainian citizens.
As very well described by Professor Timothy Snyder's books - "Blood's lands", etc - this affirmation of the Ukrainian identity as a nation and as a state has been stronger and stronger during the XXth century and the beginning of XXIst century against the Russian colonisation.
One of the most interesting moment of this admission of the Ukraine identity as a nation and as a state was by Lenin , the September 21st 1922, during his discussion with and against Stalin about the constitution of independent Republics - free to leave - for the formation of URSS. Lenin was against the Russian Imperialism.
The break of URSS comes mainly by the fact that Ukrainians wanted - as Lenin has imagined almost 70 years before - to get back their freedom as an independent state.
During the past 22 years , Russian Federation leaders have done all they can to destroy this Ukrainian - mainly through the corruption of Ukrainian elites with the gas transportation from Russian Federation to Europe.
As History has tough us during the past 170 years, when a country of this size - 46 millions - wants his independence from the colonizer - here Russian Federation - which has only 110 millions ethnic Russians - the coloniser always failed . Russian Federation has already lost Ukraine and more it will try to maintain her colonisation more she will fail.
The process will be long ( five, ten or even twenty years) and bloody ( from 10,000 to hundreds of thousand of dead ) but it is irreversible.
The way Putin acts now is such a terrible mistake because the Ukrainians will hate the Russians fro decades to come.
Then the main question is not if Ukraine wants to be part of Europe or not, the main question is that Ukraine doesn't want to be anymore a colonised part of Russia.
European countries , USA and Canada will have no other choice than to help Ukraine to become an independent country - not because they want to fight against Russia but because Ukraine is part of the West - historically, geographically and of course economically. And that couldn't be denied by the West.
At the opposite Russia is not part of the West but is at best a Chinese province - meaning that in the long term Russia will become control in a way or another by the Chinese - most probably in a smooth way as they do with Indonesia or Philippines by controlling their economies.
Consequently for the West and particularly for the European countries the question with Ukraine is not how to deal with Russia, it is how to sale all the Western assets in Russia as quick as possible to Chinese state companies - in a way to make this Russia more dependent of China . Then to deal with China how they will constrain this Russia regarding to their own Chinese investments in Ukraine.
Basically is to reinforce the traditional Central Asia bound between China and Europe ( named also by the Chinese the new Silk Road), in a way to isolate Russian Eurasian vision as a part of the domination of the Chinese on the Central Asia region.
It is de facto what happens under our eyes.
There is no need for the West to contain this Russian Federation - and the sanctions are not against this Russia but a simple way to unite the West countries and their allies ( Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc ) in the dea with China about Russia. The desire and the goal of the West is that China takes care of Russia and as reward, the West will propose a better integration of Chine in the trade agreements USA-Europe-Asia
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 6, 2014

Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square in Kiev had been dubbed the "Euromaidan" since protests against Viktor Yanukovych last year. He rejected Ukraine's association agreement with the EU and preferred to moving closer to Russia. The Maidan had come to symbolise Ukrainians' aspiration for being part of Europe and they forced their president to disappear in February 2014.
The "Euromaidan"-movement marks its first anniversary next month and much has happened since. Ukraine had lost Crimea in March and is at risk of losing the Donbas region to Russia too. There's no appetite for an intervention from the US and its Nato-allies. Instead European leaders have condemned Putin's aggression and agreed to imposing tough sanctions against Russia. Although Putin has refrained from annexing Eastern Ukraine, in fear of unforeseen consequences, he is anxious to destabilise Ukraine, hoping to deter it from pivoting to Europe.
Joschka Fischer criticises European leader for failing to have taken the "Orange Revolution in 2004" seriously, as it had served both as "a warning and an opportunity". They should have been aware of Ukraine's aspirtion and brought it closer to Europe. In 2004 ten member-states: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus were admitted to the EU. There was much going on in Brussels. That Ukraine was neglected had nothing to do with "the West’s lack of interest". A few years later came the eurocrisis, which was also another excuse to shelf Ukraine's project.
It's true that "should Ukraine succeed in breaking its post-Soviet shackles, there will be no way around its EU membership". Ukraine had always looked up to Poland as its model. It would have to pull itself together, in order to become a qualified EU-candidate. Ukrainians will have to put up with Russia's bullyism and be ready to make sacrifices at the same time, like restructuring its economy and losing subsidies etc. Yet Ukraine finds itself engulfed in a "frozen conflict", that sees no end, unless Putin uses “Part of that Power which still/Produceth good, whilst ever scheming ill.”
- Jean-Louis Piel Oct 21, 2014
  
  Your comment is very good.
  However concerning Ukraine you don't consider the fact that Ukraine has been step by step colonised by Russia since XVIIth century - and brutalised by Russia since the end of XVIIIth up today. the worst period was between 1924 to 1954.
  What it means to have been colonised during so long - a period during the Russians have tried to suppress the Ukrainian language and to impose the Russian - de facto today all the Ukrainians speak Russian; And also to deny the very existence of the Ukrainian identity as nation and as independent state.
  To break from this Russian colonisation - a process which has started since the beginning of the colonisation but has really succeeded in 1991 has been and is today a very painful and bloody process because the Russians deny this possibility. For the Russians is much more a question a identity: if Russia loses Ukraine - they have already lost - they lose their own identity as an Imperialist Empire - it means that the other nationalities inside the Russian Federation who are not Ethnic Russians will fight fro their independence - around 25 millions people - Tatars, islamists North Caucasians, Mongols, Ukrainians, etc...
  Because the Ethnic Russians have a great difficulty to break with their Imperialist mentality, the only rational choice for them is to become a Chinese province - to go back to their position of a dependent province of the Mongol as they have been during three centuries between the XVIII and the XVI centuries.
  It explains also why so many leaders of the Russian Empire and of the Soviet union were not Ethnic Russians, were "foreigners"- German, Georgian, Ukrainian, etc. Russian mentality is to obey to a foreign master - the best for them are today the Chinese state - because China is a dictatorship and Russians need foreign dictator as the past three centuries has proved.
  European countries has made one mistake: it was to believe in 1991 that this Russian Federation could be part of European Union and of NATO - of the West - in a way or another. But this illusion was already dead in October 1993. Nobody serious wanted to act in consequence - and pretend during the 2000's that it was going in the right direction.
  The main traitor was above all Schröder who has destroyed European Union for his own small and narrow interest with Nord Stream . Nord Stream was a way to kill Baltic States, Poland and Ukraine, to make them dependent of Russia.
  The second stab in the back of European Union was made by Angela Merkel as she refused to EADS to join with BA - she kills the possibility of a military union between USA and European Union.
  Now Merkel seems to love to be humiliated by Putin in a very masochist way - the mast twelve months has been a demonstration of this Merkel masochism and has been used by Putin to destroy as much as he can the Ukraine state - territorial integrity .
  In conclusion, as a certain well known US politician has said, the fate of Ukraine depends of the will of Ukrainians to fight against the invasion of Russian army - to make them bleed enough that the Russian population - like in Afghanistan - find that ten thousands of Russian soldiers dead is more than enough.
  Despite the huge Russian propaganda machine, I have some doubt that above 100,000 Russian soldiers dead in Ukraine will not change the desire of the Russian population to consider that they will be better to take care of their own problem instead to nourish their own imperialistic desire to dominate the Ukrainians.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Walter Gingery Sep 30, 2014

"For Europe, Ukraine's fate is a vital strategic question"

This is the question, isn't it? Is Ukraine of vital strategic importance? Or better, to whom is Ukraine of vital strategic importance?

I would argue that it is a core strategic interest to Russia, but not to Europe.

It is vital to Russia because it lies right on Russia's doorstep. When Russian leaders look at Western social engineering in Ukraine, they worry that their country might be next.

Then, too, as an expanse of land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a buffer state of enormous strategic importance to Russia.

No Russian leader would tolerate the moving into Ukraine of a military alliance (NATO) that until recently was Moscow's mortal enemy, just as no American leader would tolerate a Chinese military alliance that included Mexico or Canada.

Today's Russia does not pose the threat of world domination. It's not Germany under Hitler, for instance. Russia is a declining power with an aging population, a corrupt political system, and a one-dimensional economy.

Western leaders recognize this, and that is why they have not resorted to military action, but have restricted their responses to economic sanctions.

The goal for the West should be to abandon the plan to westernize Ukraine and instead make it a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia. This would not mean that a future Ukrainian government would have to be pro-Russian or anti-NATO. On the contrary,the goal should e a sovereign Ukraine that falls in neither the Russian nor the Western camp.
- Jean-Louis Piel Oct 21, 2014
  
  You repeat the very basic and boring Putin's propaganda. Totally useless and nonsense.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Sep 30, 2014

The intervention, not careful and not well-considered, can do more harm than good, as in the case of that in Iraq. Sadam Hussein's authoritarianism had pasted together the religious animosty and enmity of different cults, sects and tribes, but the intervention felled down Hussein and left anarchy, not democracy. We should not fall into an easy deception that we could bring democracy in a region which lacks a historcal fermentation for democracy.

The West's response to the Ukrainian political and social divide was clumsy. It made the Crimean population driven to the periphery; where else but in Russia could it have sought "a political asylum?" Putin granted it on "the humanitarian ground." (I do not propose, however, that appeasement is always better or that it always works.)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Sep 29, 2014

I do not want to enter into an argument with Joschka Fischer's one sided assessment.
I think it is more important to analyze how Europe could have prevented the whole scenario, and how future such scenarios could be handled, prevented.

In short if the European Union would have fulfilled the ideological, visionary purpose it was established for, namely to provide a mutually complementing cooperation of nations in a supra-national manner for the better life of the public, none of this would have happened, even Russia would be happy to join such a positive, mutual assembly of people.

Especially in today's globally interconnected and inter-dependent human system there is no other viable option for a stable and prosperous existence, but integration and mutual responsibility, mutual cooperation on equal grounds.

But it did not unfold like this, the EU, the Eurozone, and any other "unifying" attempt all around the globe is purely and cynically about markets, financial institutions and profit, not for the better life of the public but based on the exploitation of the public.

The social inequality rising everywhere, the growing social tension even in the most developed, and peaceful countries, the sudden rise of extreme political forces, and growing xenophobia, racism are all the proof what a mistake Europe made, a mistake that is now probably irreversible.

So we are left with finger pointing, trying to create a common "evil", common enemy we can mobilize "coalitions" against, while separatism, breakup movements will continue to intensify.

There is no logical reason to stay in the EU right now, and this is why for example many post-Communist countries might even change direction and side with Russia despite the desperate, monotone Western propaganda.

The only solution is true and full integration, but again not on the basis of securing markets and increasing profit for a small minority in an economic system that is close to collapse, but to mutually find a way of building a new human society that is mutual, equal, and can adapt to the evolutionary conditions we exist in instead of chasing unattainable and harmful dreams.

Right now the "Western world/Western value system" is entering 'cold" or real war on many fronts, but until those leading these wars understand or accept that the real enemy is "within", until they are ready to correct themselves, their paradigm, value system first, these wars, and our common future is doomed even before they start.
- Iv Vasev Oct 1, 2014
  
  I stand behind every word you wrote Mr. Hermann ...
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Sep 29, 2014

It's hard to see how anything was lost in Ukraine that hadn't already been sacrificed during the course of the wars with Serbia. Fussia's actions in Ukraine were brutal but they were hardly unprecedented.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/yPCLrbu

Europe’s Ukrainian Soul

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Europe’s Ukrainian Soul

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification