Casting aside lurid headlines asserting the guilt of Vladimir Putin & Russians in general what are the true factors surrounding the conflict in Ukraine that has now cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
The mentality that Russia is fighting is well known to humanity. It is the most intrinsically evil mentality historically encountered down the ages, one that was reemphasised in relatively recent times. Its characteristics are of extreme intolerance for those conceived of as ‘the other’. Its basis is the most extreme form of nationalism possible where that ‘other’ cannot be tolerated but must be either utterly destroyed or delivered by other means out of sight of those holding these views.
Ultranationalism was last seen in its most grotesque and extreme form in Germany in the mid-Thirties where it grew to proportions surely familiar with every adult reading this commentary. For those with this mentality at that time the ‘other’ were seen as sub-human, undeserving of life and an intolerable presence to be eliminated. This mentality, wherein no trace of compassion or empathy for ‘the other’ is to be found, represents an unlimitedly lethal threat which finds its outlet in killing and other acts of inhumanity toward those seen as comprising ‘the enemy’. For those with such a mentality no difference is accorded to those conceived of as outside their sphere of ‘rightness’ irrespective of age or condition, be they infant, elderly, infirm or incapacitated.
Where such an extreme form of nationalism raises its head a cult-like following inevitably arises where others join who are attracted to the certainties and seeming dynamism of those most imbued with the extremism that fuels their utterly simplistic world view. Otherwise aimless individuals feel themselves bonded within an essentially black and white universe where they are the good and all others are evil, where they know the truth, have all honour and are imbued with utmost dignity and have an almost God-inspired cause of vital importance. Where these conditions exist a movement is born that at its core has the essential element of racial intolerance at its heart.
In the case of the Nazis all who thought other than they or who did not have the necessary racial credentials or who failed to live up to their self-promoted ideal status were candidates for elimination without an iota of sympathetic reaction toward them. All such movements throughout history had such motivations and fixed mindsets fuelling them. In all such cases those who felt entitled to judge others saw themselves as ‘exceptional’ and ‘superior’ and thus justified in ‘dealing with’ the ‘others’ whose presence they could not tolerate. We know such people as displaying the following ‘isms’, ‘Nationalism’, ‘Nazism’ and ‘Fascism’. All share extreme intolerance for ‘the other’, for the perceived ‘weak’, ‘sub-human’, for those seen as ‘racially and ethnically deficient’, those to be expelled as ‘rejects’ whose presence is intolerable.
In the case of western Ukraine we can see the extreme form of ultra-nationalistic mentality described above in its most fervent form. There, due to circumstances during the second world war involving the Nazi occupation of Ukraine and the support given them by the ultranationalist leaders of that time, an ethos mirroring the Nazi mentality arose. It is this mentality that is at the root of the animosity which was the genesis of the raging conflict seen in Ukraine now. It was this mentality that saw its chance in the Maidan protest of 2013-14 to forward its dreams of racial and national purity. Those of eastern Ukraine who spoke Russian rather than Ukrainian were the obvious target for those whose selective history included the Nazis as benefactors of a racially and ethnically pure Ukraine. It was those they named ‘Moskals’, the Russian-speakers who, since the Maidan insurrection/coup of 2013-14, were relentlessly targeted for elimination and ethnic cleansing through a distinctly genocidal mindset.
The ultranationalist movement in western Ukraine violently attached itself to the West-sponsored and supported insurrection which brought down the democratically-elected president and government in Ukraine in 2013-14. It was this selfsame movement who, through the Socialist National Party, renamed Svoboda, gained power in decisive government positions after the Maidan insurrection/coup. It was also this ultranationalist movement with its fervent support base imbued with a vast and abiding hatred of all Russian-speakers who were called upon to take a crucial military role in taking back the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine when it rose up in response to the elimination of democratic process through the Maidan. The Ukrainian army had proven somewhat unwilling to kill fellow Ukrainians. Those with the most extreme of ultranationalist convictions however had no such qualms.
Thus, with all of the above in mind, it can clearly seen that Russia, having lost some 25 million of its population due to the advent of the Nazis in the Thirties and the mounting of the Nazi ‘Operation Barbarossa’ to invade and occupy Russia, could not possibly do otherwise than oppose the rise of a similar movement in western Ukraine, a movement solidly backed by those in the West who saw themselves similarly ‘exceptional’ and ‘superior’. The crisis that arose, partly due to the leadership of the West seeing an opportunity to spread western liberalism further east and certainly due to its incorporation of the ultranationalist mentality described above, was inevitable.
Russia had no choice but to defend those in eastern Ukraine who were so intimately and traditionally Russian in speech, historical/cultural history and with interwoven familial bonds. To leave them to their fate as they came under the shellfire of a Ukrainian army infested with the tens of thousands of ultranationalists desiring the genocide of all Russian-speakers, was unthinkable. Unthinkable also was a Ukraine with an undemocratic, totally western-influenced and directed leadership, inimical toward Russia, determined to gain NATO membership. However, despite all of these factors the Russian leadership sought a peaceful solution of these factors through dialogue with the parties concerned. This seven year process resulted in the Minsk Accords which, if carried through to completion would have meant all regions of Ukraine remaining within Ukrainian agreed borders but with the Russian-speaking majority in the Donbass having a high-degree of federalised autonomy guaranteeing its future security including language rights.
The Minsk Accords proved to have been undertaken by the Ukrainian authorities, in league with their western sponsors, as a sham process only, never with the view to establishing anything approaching peace and reconciliation. This has been admitted in recent times by notably the first president of Ukraine after the events of Maidan, Petro Poroshenko and the German chancellor of the time, Angela Merkel. The aim from their side was, as they have admitted, merely to strengthen Ukraine militarily, never to implement the agreements within the Minsk Accords. It should be clear to anyone reading this therefore that it was not Russia that sought war in Ukraine but rather those that found the Minsk Accords useful only to prepare for what they clearly saw as an inevitable war. All Russia’s attempts to resolve matters, including an appeal for a new security architecture for Europe to be agreed fell on deaf ears. A related appeal to NATO to resolve all differences suffered no better.
Despite the continued attempts to label Russia as the aggressor within the context of the Ukraine conflict and across even wider fields in a process of universal demonisation it is to be hoped that through this commentary and further research into the history of the conflict in Ukraine you will now easily discern that quite clearly that it was not Russia that initiated present events but rather those imbued with a mindset of total intolerance toward Russia.
No comments:
Post a Comment