A Postmodern Idea of 'Freedom'

It hasn’t gone away, you know. The Ukraine crisis, set off by aggressive ‘western’ intervention in that cockpit region, is still churning away, just below the surface.

 

But how should we read it? I think most recent developments confirm my view that Ukraine is an invented state, which came into existence because of the temporary (and predictably temporary) absence of Russian power rather than because it had the real components of a country – a common unifying language and culture (definitely absent) an economy ( never present in the first place) , viable defensible frontiers bearing some relation to its physical existence (not so much absent as actually negative) , the rule of law (absent) , the ability to defend itself against internal and external physical threats (absent) . Ukraine is a sort of John Major among countries. Just as Mr Major became Prime Minister because he wasn’t Margaret Thatcher, and stayed Prime Minister because he wasn’t Neil Kinnock, Ukraine became and remained a country not because of any positive qualities of its own, but because of the negative qualities of others. (For US readers, think of Gerald R. Ford, who became Vice-President because he was not Spiro T. Agnew, and President because he was not Richard M.Nixon) . In both cases, it was found that *not* being someone was not an adequate qualification for being somebody. And *not* being stifled by a feeble Russia in 1991-2 was not a sufficient qualification for sustaining an independent existence in 2014.

 

Had Ukraine been a true sovereign state, the removal of Crimea by Russia would have been inconceivable. The danger of war would have been far too great for Russia to have risked it.  As it was, the action was completed with amazing ease, speed and efficiency, and those who claim they disapproved of it have implicitly admitted that it is irreversible.  If they really believed that Crimea belonged in Ukraine, or that Ukraine exercised real sovereignty, they would not have behaved in this way. As it is, they plainly regard Ukraine as a playground, in which they can intervene at will. They only become sensitive about its supposed inviolability when a bigger boy turns up in the sandpit, knocks over their sandcastles, and kicks sand in their faces.  

 

(**By the way, when I asked for historical references from a  reader, to justify his remarkable claim about the Greek Junta’s true aims in Cyprus (where the world has also accepted that Turkey’s similar 1974 actions were justified) I meant references to reputable  historical works which confirm his thesis).

 

In fact, if they really believed that Ukraine was a proper country, the ‘West’   would never have intervened in it in the first place. I’ve tried by various analogues (mainly directed at Americans)to explain why the behaviour of the ‘West’ was so astonishing and outrageous. But various literal-minded people, seeking an exact similarity, and indeed a direct connection with today’s reality ( I *know* Quebec isn’t really planning a treaty with Moscow. I *know* Britain has made it clear it is ready to accept Scottish independence)rather than the rough parallel I was trying to make, missed the point.

 

Let me now try again.

 

Say (for the sake of argument) that the EU underwent in the medium term future a major political and economic crisis, during which Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania,  Greece and Cyprus all seized the chance to leave it, mainly to avoid the increasingly disastrous effects of the Euro, the mismanagement of the economy by the ECB and the unwanted free movement of labour imposed by Schengen.  US forces finally left the European continent and the NATO alliance was dissolved. Say that Russia, immune from this crisis, took the opportunity to reabsorb Belarus and Ukraine into a customs union and political co-operation alliance (this, by the way, is intended to be a parallel to the break-up of the Soviet Union, the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact and the reunification of Germany which came after the collapse of the USSR). Say that Moscow sent envoys to Brussels to say that, in return for being allowed to ‘reunify’ with Belarus and Ukraine, it absolutely promised not to expand any of its alliances any further westwards.

 

And then say that within ten years, it had offered ‘Eurasian Union’ membership to (and been accepted by)  Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia (for which read the recruitment of the Baltic States, Poland etc to NATO, . And that Moscow had offered military co-operation and training (with the possibility of a future full alliance)  to Portugal, where a pro-Russian government had been installed after huge street demonstrations in Lisbon ( allegedly co-ordinated by outsiders) had chased out the old pro-Brussels government - for which read, the ‘Rose Revolution’ and NATO intervention in Georgia) .

 

And then imagine that the EU had regained much of its strength in this time, and that Russia then offered a partnership deal to Poland, and that Poland’s government , having initially welcomed the idea, was then made a counter-offer by the EU, and rejected the Russian proposal. And that huge demonstrations then engulfed the centre of Warsaw, against the alleged corruption of the government, and the lack of jobs for the young, and that Russian, (and other Eurasian Union) politicians appeared among the demonstrators in Warsaw, smiling and handing out blinis and red caviar….

 

Well, if you haven’t got it by now, you never will, so I won’t spell out the rest.

 

But back to what’s actually going on, have you noticed that claims that Russia is behind the anti-Kiev demonstrations in eastern Ukraine are being widely and thoroughly reported, though so far, I’ve not seen any proof that this is so.  Now, I strongly suspect that Russia *is* behind these demonstrations, and think it is perfectly proper for these suggestions to be reported. It’s quite right to alert the public to this very real possibility

 

But weren’t there similar claims, from Russia, about the pro-EU demonstrations in Kiev that turned into the February Putsch? But were these claims reported as widely and as thoroughly? I think not. And that’s despite the fact that something equally shocking was happening *in plain sight*,  perfectly substantiated, undeniable and undenied. That is, and I can’t stop making this point, the open identification of foreign politicians with an anti-government mob in the centre of a supposedly sovereign capital. And one of these was actually exposed, through a leaked phone-call speculating about her preferred figures in a future sovereign government.

 

I’ve been asked what I mean by a ‘postmodern putsch’ . the term was actually invented to describe one of the more recent military overthrows of Turkish governments by the army, which used to be a regular event in that country.

 

But what I mean is the use of modern methods – social media, TV, mobile phones, (and, by my guess, ‘NGOs’ and similar groups) to create, sustain and direct revolutionary mobs large and organised enough to become self-sustaining, having to be covered by the media simply because they exist, and growing thanks to the power of electronic media to create mass mimicry of mass events.   Within these bodies, serious, conscious and informed political activists, with coherent if undeclared objectives,  can swim like fish in the human sea, and direct the mob to fulfil their aims.

 

Now, I noted some time ago the absence of mainstream coverage of the public (and indeed televised) beating and intimidation (by members of the ‘Svoboda’ (Freedom) Party of the head of a major Ukrainian TV station, Oleksandr Panteleymonov. We were promised, at the time, some sort of investigation into this shameful event, but if there’s been one, I’ve heard nothing of it.

 

Now, some of you may have seen TV or newspaper reports of a brawl in the Kiev Parliament on Tuesday. That's probably all you were told, that there was a brawl.  But how many of you know what it is about? I’ve been able to find  extracts from AFP and Reuters reports which appear to explain how and why it began.

 

Petro Symonenko, a Communist deputy, accused his opponents of helping create the Crimea crisis by using ‘extreme tactics’ to oust President Yanukovich.

 

According to Reuters: ‘Symonenko stirred nationalist anger when, referring to pro-Russian protesters who seized buildings in eastern Ukraine, he said nationalists had set a precedent earlier this year by seizing public buildings in protest at the rule of ousted President Viktor Yanukovich. Now, he said, armed groups were attacking people who wanted to defend their rights by peaceful means. "You are today doing everything to intimidate people. You arrest people, start fighting people who have a different point of view," he said, before being pulled away from the rostrum by the Svoboda deputies.’

 

Read that carefully. And note that it is our old friends ‘Svoboda’ who actually object so much to the accusation being made that they rush the podium ans attack the accuser physically. This is the same party that beat up the TV chief. This is the same party whose leader was expelled from the Parliament for making anti-Semitic remarks, some years ago.  These are the friends of the ‘West’. And they obviously have a radically postmodern idea of what ‘freedom’ means.

 

I have been accused of following some sort of Kremlin agenda in these articles. No , I am not. I regard the Russian government as self-evidently corrupt and squalid, and will repeat this readily at any time.  I am simply telling what seems to me to be the sober truth, because others will not do so. It is why they will not do so that is interesting, as always.