|
Taras VoznyakMaidan and its significance.
Historical retrospective Written specially for project – “Maidan: (R)Evolution of the spirit” – on
the day Crimea was annexed by Russia (March 2014). In the past six
months, the world has seen some amazing political activity in Ukraine. We watch
and take part… sometimes without even realizing it, experiencing not only
thrills and deep emotions, but also swaying from despair to triumph, from admiration
to anger. Many uninvolved
observers see Maidan as some kind of local Ukrainian revolution or people’s
revolt…a revolt against kleptocrats, or to say it simply – petty criminals. In
fact, the quiet and gentle Ukrainian people could no longer bear such contempt
and outrage and rebelled. They rebelled spontaneously, the only way they knew.
That is how some people like to portray what happened on Maidan Nezalezhnosti
(Independence Square) in Kyiv and all over Ukraine. However, this
event is much more important. Putin’s Russia and the annexation of Crimea, the
threat of large-scale war between Russia and Ukraine, and Russia’s
confrontation with the whole world are part of a much wider series of events,
in which Maidan constituted a mere “foundation stone”. It exploded, and the
entire world order, which had been neatly arranged at the Yalta Conference in
1945, collapsed almost overnight. In international legal terms, the main thing that the
Yalta Conference and similar international conferences signified is that
“agreements are to be kept” – pacta sunt servanda. Such global
diplomatic congresses usually occur after a geopolitical catastrophe. In the nineteenth century, the collapse of Napoleon’s
empire brought about a “catastrophe” for monarchical Europe. After the Battle
of Waterloo, the Congress of Vienna in 1815 laid the foundations for Europe’s
social and political structure – pacta sunt servanda. The First and Second World Wars constitute the most
important geopolitical catastrophes in the twentieth century. After the First
World War, political leaders signed a number of agreements that shaped the
world for two decades – pacta sunt servanda. In 1919, the
Allies concluded the Treaty of Versailles with the Hohenzollern Empire. Germany
lost a number of regions, such as Alsace and Lorraine (ceded to France) and
German New Guinea (ceded to Australia, and the Samoa Islands (ceded to New
Zealand). I mention these historical curiosities so that readers may understand
how the shot in Sarajevo echoed across almost every continent, even in distant
Samoa. However, the
world order continued to shift and change. The Treaty of
Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1919 declared the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire and the creation of several countries – the Republic of Austria,
Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
The West Ukrainian People’s Republic was proclaimed on November 1, 1918. The Treaty of
Neuilly-sur-Seine in 1919 required Bulgaria to cede several territories. The final
borders of Hungary were decided by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920 – Transylvania
and eastern Banat were ceded; Croatia, Bachka and western Banat became part of
the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; Slovakia and Transcarpathian Ruthenia
(Ukraine) were incorporated into Czechoslovakia. The Treaty of
Sèvres in 1920 ended the Ottoman Empire – Turkey was also dismembered. Of course, many
were dissatisfied…from Germany to Hungary. De facto, the First World War did
not end. It took root in the minds of people and nations, and eventually led to
revisionist movements throughout Europe. However, the principle of pacta sunt servanda survived
for almost two decades in interwar Europe. World War II was a continuation of World War I. Not
only was it a revanchist attempt to return everything to its former state, but
to impose a “New Order” in Europe, i.e. new relations and solutions, but from a
position of strength. Any agreements or treaties were openly and
demonstratively rejected. The very principle of pacta sunt servandawas
denied. I draw special attention to Hitler’s demands that the capitulation of
France take place in the same railroad car where twenty-two years
earlier the Germans had signed the Armistice ending World War I.
Theatricals…politics of signs and symbols. Russian
President Vladimir Putin also made use of symbols and signs when he proclaimed
the annexation of Crimea…acting as “Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, of
Moscow, Kyiv, Vladimir, Novgorod; Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, King
[Tsar] of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Chersonesus Taurica, Tsar of
Georgia, Sovereign of Pskov, Grand Duke of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia,
Podolia and Finland; Prince of Estland, Livland, Courland and
Semigalia, Samogitia, Belostok, Karelia, Tver, Yugorsky land, Perm, Vyatka,
Bolgar and others; Lord and Grand Prince of Nizhny Novgorod, Chernigov,
Ryazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslavl, Udorsky land, Obdorsk, Kondia, Vitebsk,
Mstislavl, and all of the Northern Lands; Lord and Sovereign of the lands of
Iberia, Kartli and Kabardia lands and Armenian provinces, Circassian and
Mountainous Princes and their Hereditary Lord and Owner; Heir to Norway,
Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, Stormarn, Dithmarschen and Oldenburg, and others,
and others, and others (full title of the Tsar of Russia). Some milkmaids
and collective farmers probably wept for joy, like in the thirties and forties
when Western Ukraine, the Baltic countries and Bukovyna were annexed, or rather
“liberated”. It is even a little funny – before his throne speech, Putin
probably looked into the mirror and saw his spiritual predecessor, staring at
him from Hell. Today, the
Russian historical calendar finally presents a logical row of leaders:
Lenin-Stalin-Putin. I congratulate the Russian people. Even the names rhyme,
almost like Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un! It would be logical if the next act of restoring the
empire were also be signed in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha (Białowieża Forest,
Belarus/Poland). The capitulation
of the Third Reich in 1945 divided the world. Germany lost its territories in
East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia. Germany was sliced into two entities.
Japan also lost several territories. The world became bipolar. The Cold War began and
continued quite peacefully throughout the last century as the principle
of pacta sunt servanda was still observed. Military forces
were relatively equal – and therefore there was no war, no world war. In
accordance with the Yalta Agreement, half of Europe was integrated into
Stalin’s empire. Yes, there were pockets of resistance. There was resistance in
Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. However, the Soviet Empire lived
on and expanded with the addition of Cuba, Vietnam and other similar regimes
around the world. Nevertheless, this was all a geopolitical “partisan” game,
insignificant skirmishes on the outer flanks. This state of
affairs continued until the collapse of the USSR in 1991. There are many explanations
for its disintegration. There is an economic explanation – the soviet economy
was so ineffective that it could not compete with western economic structures.
This was especially true of modern weapons. I should also mention the
degradation of the ideological foundations of the communist empire. Conspiracy
theories abound… The protests in
Poland under the leadership of the Solidarity movement constituted an important
feature of the collapse of the USSR. They happened in the right place and at
the right time. Yes, martial law was declared and repressive measures were
applied. In the late nineties, national movements swept across the soviet
republics. All this merged into one big picture of popular protests. The “Big
Black Box” showed the whole world how diseased communist regimes really were. The political structure of Europe was reconstituted in
the early nineties. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved and agreements in Central
Europe and the USSR were denounced. On December 11, 1991, the Belavezha Accords
declared the Soviet Union effectively dissolved. Several documents established
the political structure of the former Soviet Union. Thus, Belovezhskaya Pushcha
was the scene of the same events that took place in Yalta; it ratified the real
situation through international agreements… and political leaders respected
them as pacta sunt servanda. However, just as
after the First World War, many people remained dissatisfied in the Russian
Federation, or Eurasia. Putin will later call the collapse of the USSR the
greatest geopolitical catastrophe ever. We might agree with him, but not in the
sense that is meant by Putin-the-apologist of the soviet empire. The breakup of
the Soviet Union eliminated a political ruin from the historical scene. But, KGB
apologists continued to insist. When the newly elected President Putin publicly
declared his plans for revenge – remember the Munich Security Conference
(Münchener Sicherheitskonferenz) – it was perceived as some kind of
political extravagance. Putin’s Munich
speech in 2007 triggered an explosion of political and human emotions – shock,
anger, irritation, frustration, confusion, surprise, admiration and
condemnation. We did not have to agree with him, but Munich is where he openly
showed Russia’s real position and its vision of the future world order; he shook
Old Europe and made it think about its priorities. He accused the
U.S. of imposing legal and political norms on other countries, undermining
global stability – threatened by unipolarity – starting a new nuclear arms race
and so on. Here are some quotes by the President of the Russian Federation,
which illustrate the tone and emphasis of the Russian message: “The U.S. has
gone beyond all limits; no one can be protected by international law”,
“American actions worldwide have not resolved any problems”, and “the authority
assumed by the U.S. is destroying the country from within”. This all sounded
like a revanchist seeking public recognition. The same terms were used by young
Adolf Schicklgruber. No one paid attention to him either. Video We should
underline that Putin’s Munich speech is the result of events that took place in
Ukraine in 2004, namely the Orange Revolution. Ukraine made a desperate attempt
to escape from Russia’s sphere of influence. No matter how negatively the
Orange Revolution ended, it triggered Putin and his revanchists in the Kremlin.
They proceeded to implement their plans for a new world order. No wonder that
Russia’s first “plans” to attack Ukraine – fake or true – appeared widely in
2008. Psychological pressure was once again applied on Ukraine. Putin continued
to develop more realistic plans and underhanded occupation of post-Soviet space
which, incidentally, included not only post-Soviet republics like Ukraine or
Belarus but also Poland, Hungary, etc. Everyone understood
that Ukraine was an important symbol for both Russia and the future European
project (EU +). All sectors were interested, from banking institutions to
energy industries. After Yanukovych was “installed” as president of Ukraine,
even security, defense, education and many other sectors were considered for
investment. One element of
Putin’s plan was to keep post-Soviet countries away from non-Russian
integration projects and associations – whether NATO and the EU or the
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. This was not very successful as Ukraine
cooperates with NATO, while Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are members of the OIC. First, Putin
disrupted Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic plans at the Bucharest NATO summit on April
2-4, 2008, where Ukraine and Georgia were denied NATO membership at his
request. He convinced both Angela Merkel and George W. Bush. We all know what
happened next – Russian intervention in Georgia on August 8-11, 2008, just four
months after Georgia was refused membership in NATO. It was a tactic to see
whether the West was ready to fight. It was not…and Georgia was dismembered. In
2012, Bidzina Ivanishvili, Russia’s puppet was installed as prime minister. Putin’s plans
for Ukraine were more honed and subtle as it is a much bigger country. He wanted
to control Ukraine from the inside and not just install his agents – from
defense minister to director of Security Services – in key government
positions. Rampant corruption and demoralization would do the trick. Ukrainian
state institutions were supposed to simply dissolve into a deadly mixture of
immorality, cynicism and corruption. He almost succeeded. Just look back on the
Ukrainian judiciary system and secret services However, Putin
did not take into account the specificity of Ukrainian society, at least the
majority. Ukrainians have changed, but not in the way that Putin has changed
Russians in 14 years as leader – voiceless, cynical towards the world and
revanchist. And so a new
Maidan – Euromaidan – started at the end of November 2013. It was a popular
protest against open attempts to humiliate and subdue Ukrainian society
deliberately on Putin’s orders not to sign the EU Association Agreement. It was
also a strong protest against the savage cynicism and immorality of
Yanukovych’s government. It was a protest of dignity. We can continue this
series of metaphors to infinity, and everything is true. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/ukraine-suspends-preparations-eu-trade-pact Special EU envoys
AlexanderKwasniewski and Pat Cox react to Ukrainian parliament rejection of
EU-Ukraine Association Agreement However, such
protests occur everywhere and all the time…even in modern Russia. However, not
everywhere do they become so powerful, dramatic and successful as in Ukraine
(despite the Russian occupation of Crimea in Match 2014). Why did Maidan
2013-2014 win? The first sign was Putin’s hysterical reaction when his troops
invaded and occupied Crimea. Some say that that it was not a war, but a simple
intervention. No, wars can be different. Russia waged a cyber war with tiny
Estonia in 2007, a “real” war in Georgia in 2008, and has led a creeping war of
destabilization in Ukraine since 2014. Maidan won because, just like the Polish Solidarity
movement, the Lithuanian Sąjūdis and the Narodny Rukh Ukrayiny
(National Movement of Ukraine), it was a global trend. Two worlds clashed on
Maidan – the world, for which pacta sunt servanda makes sense,
and the world of revenge and violence – il fine giustifica i mezzi (the
end justifies the means). Not only did
Maidan become the heart of a modern Ukrainian political nation, but also a test
for the whole world… and this is not just some literary metaphor! The future world
order will be determined by global reaction to Putin’s provocation. Either the
U.S. and EU agree to this and fail to confront Putin on major issues and not
just impose decorative sanctions against selected Russian personalities or they
will raise the glove – “accepter un défi pour un duel”. Maidan has
raised important issues related to geopolitics. Many Western politicians have
tried to dismiss what they know and who they are dealing with. We point to the
“collective Putin”, i.e. revanchist forces that have taken root mainly in
Russia. It is enough jus watching the almost erotic ecstasy – stylized as in
the Third Reich or North Korea – in the Kremlin when Putin delivers his
triumphant messages. Putin is not alone… neither was Hitler. We deal with
revanchism that has seized millions of Russians. But, revanchism is a
contagious disease. Today (March
2014), many citizens of Crimea have become revanchists. I do not want to remind
them about the fate of Sudeten Germans. Anyway, none or almost none of them
will read this article. I also do not want to make it look like a threat.
Crimea has merely plunged into the past – the soviet past – and gone against
the tide of history. Well, Crimeans will have to go through it again when Putin
and his regime collapse and, God forbid, accompany Russia in its
disintegration. Hopefully without us… At the beginning
of the article I listed the old European nations that created old empires; they
also enthusiastically rushed to cut up and redistribute the map of the world –
from Galicia to Samoa. And how did it all end? They disintegrated… I do not
wish to end this article with “prophetic judgments” like “truth will prevail”
or “evil shall be defeated”. Maybe this will happen in the future, but will we
live to see it? No one knows. The people who were burned in the Majdanek
concentration camp did not know that Nazi evil would be defeated. Survival was
what mattered to them, a potato peel hurriedly swallowed while squatting over
the cesspool. Please excuse my blunt and ungracious words! I know this
firsthand from an ex-inmate imprisoned in the Solovki concentration camp in the
thirties who tried to educate me. So, this is also not a metaphor. Standoff on Maidan December
10-11 Not only should
Ukrainians, who created history on Maidan, not disappear from world history,
but neither should the Europeans and Americans. There is no doubt that the
2013-2014 Maidan made history, a history that was created and developed more
actively than in Vienna or Copenhagen during those inspiring but tragic winter
months of 2014. And yet, this history was created for Vienna and Copenhagen
although they were not aware of it and still seem unaware. After all, they were
not too concerned when the Nazis occupied Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in
1938, followed closely by Belgrade and Oslo because they were far away. They
turned out to be very close… Maidan became a small keyhole through which we can
look into the future, not only Ukraine’s future, but the future of the world.
Considering the events of Maidan, we must draw the right conclusions and act
accordingly. The future remains the future, and it is not doomed. We can
arrange and manage everything any way we want, but we must want it. We must
want to change the world, but for the better. That is what Maidan activists
dreamt during those long cold and sleepless nights on Independence Square in
Kyiv (Maidan Nezalezhnosty)… not only a new world for Ukraine, but also for
Europe. |