Deep Divide

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (7)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  Hmmm. The one thing that has bothered me about all of this, since the media started reporting on it (who can follow everything happening in the world?), is the substitution of drama for information.

  Who is the pro west Yuschenko? Personally, If pro west means pro US (pro neoliberal capitalism), then I’ve got a serious problem with the guy. He’s a former banker?! Ppppff!!

  Pro east vs pro west means what? Communists versus capitalists? Putin versus Bush? Undeveloped and chaotic Russia versus developed (it’s relative I suppose) and stable and prosperous Europe? I think folks had better think on this some. All other things being equal - and not necessarily good - I would say that given the sraightforward choice of being a part of Russia or else a part of Europe, I have no trouble understanding, and agreeing with, Ukraine’s, and Yushchenko’s, desire to join up with Europe.

  One of the problems I have with Putin is that the only thing he has on his mind is capitalism, which means exploitation and oppression and, often, terrorism. One of the many problems I have with Bush is his gangsterism. He will rob millions of their freedom and security in pursuing the best interests of his capitalist class. He just stole a whole country in plain view of the world for gosh sake, because he is the most powerful man in the world. It helps that he is, in fact, godless. No one who believes in, and follows, God could think and act like this nut.

  If it’s true that Ukraine is divided, fundamentally, in ways that the ITT article I’m responding to outline, then that should be addressed ‘before’ the Ukraines go for electing a single prime minister to rule over them. If they are in fact divided, then it seems to me that the rational thing for them to do is formally acknowledge that and then take legal steps to end the fiction of Ukraine as we now know it. These elections, under these circumstances, can only create chaos, and only those who believe they have the most power, who also see that as the most important value one might possess, can want such chaos. For when you have chaos and laws and so forth don’t matter, only the powerful will finally get their way.

  Another thing to consider here is this: Is this chaos, and the likely outcome (power will win), in the best interests of the working class in Ukraine (and elsewhere) or international capitalism?

  Posted by Arby on Dec 5, 2004 at 5:06 PM

  The conundrum is finding a way to keep nation-states together that are so clearly riven with fundamental differences in worldview. In fact, it begs the question whether preserving today’s national boundaries is a worthwhile goal. How can such nations continue to exist in a unified form? How can people see each other as countrymen when they agree on virtually nothing? Would not a repeated series of close-but-disputed elections feed an eventual civil war, to the detriment of all? I often wonder if some form of devolution wouldn’t be of benefit, but then what do you do with the minorities that will exist in each half if “West Ukraine” were to become a separate state from “East Ukraine”? The history of the region (and the planet) doesn’t favor the view that such minorities will be anything but victims and insurrgents, and massive relocation programs only lead to further conflict and hatred (ala India and the former two halves of Pakistan) that lasts for generations. There’s all kinds of speculation about what divides the Ukrainians, but I ask, what is it that unites them as a nation in the first place, here and now? Are the Russian-oriented Ukrainians simply the descendants of Russians who spread into the various Soviet republics during Stalin’s russification efforts? Is there something else at work here? Any insights from informed posters would be appreciated.

  Posted by Kuya on Dec 5, 2004 at 6:56 PM

  Note to Arby:  Not only can belief in a god be concordant with insane activity, it usually fosters it.  See a few thousand years of human history for other examples.

  Posted by rocco on Dec 7, 2004 at 2:20 AM

  I’m happy to see that you said ‘usually’ and not ‘always’. ;-)

  Posted by Arby on Dec 7, 2004 at 11:50 AM

  So another semi-authoritarian, oligarch-backed regime which almost certinally stole the election, i thought you were going to report on the US election.  Maybe in Kiev people are not afraid of the government but here people are terriffied!!!  Only when millions of Americans peacefully assemble and and bring our corrupt government down will we have a chance at democracy. ( We could use some of those CIA millions to help our strugle for democracy too.)

  Posted by Jim on Dec 22, 2004 at 2:24 PM

  Arby:
  Who is the pro west Yuschenko?  Who, indeed.  Well you should ask, cause you were right on track.  As head of the National Bank of Ukraine, he was instrumental in implementing with great wholehearted gusto the “shock treatment” agenda of the IMF.  In 1994 he deregulated the national currency as directed by the IMF resulting in: price of bread up 300%; electricity price up 600%; public transportation price up 900%.  By 1998 real wages had fallen by more than 75% in relation to 1991 level.  Trade liberalization required by the ecomomic package allowed dumping of US grain surplus and “food aid” on the Ukraine domestic market, contributing to destabilizing what was once one of the world’s most productive breadbasket economies.  Grain production dropped 45% in one decade, and livestock, poultry and dairy production collapsed.  Privatization made Yuschenko’s cronies into very wealthy people.  Yanukovych sought to undo some of this.  How are the ordinary people of Unkraine talked into voting for impoverishing themselves?  Massive funding from our own US built trojan horse, the National Endowment for Democracy, drives the propaganda campaign that builds the opinion/consensus that there is “no pain, no gain” (awfully extreme pain, isn’t it) and no other viable political alternative to the “free market”.  What’s the answer?  I have no idea.  It seems to me both sides were getting advantages from massive outside manipulation and interference.  Two massive powers engaged in a tug-of-war with the Ukrainian people making up the rope in the middle.

  Posted by seannsail on Dec 25, 2004 at 12:51 PM

  I would like to comment on the last entry made by seannsail.  As a specialist (bachelours degree in both international studies and Russian as well as having lived in Russia), I certainly understand the emphasis which is made on the inflation and reduction of wages (not to mention the reduction of agricultural production).  I also agree on the outside funding and other kinds of support given by both the West and the East.  I would have to disagree because I feel that the comment made was simply in disregard of historical influences.  You hit one nail right on the head.  Yuschenko was the proponent to the economic reform which took place in Ukraine (often this is attributed to Kuchma).  Ukraine by itself (after the collapse of the Soviet Union) had very little to infrastructure.  They had very little to keep them afloat and shock therapy is often the route which is taken by countries that are near rock bottom.  Poland and former Czechoslovakia were great exceptions to the rule of privatization and economic reform.  It has not yet been seen that any country which was part of the Soviet Union for as long as Ukraine was had any easier transition.  One may think, “well, what about the Baltics?”.  The Baltics were acquired after The Great Patriotic War(WWII), they were already well integrated into a western economic patern.  Yanukovich looked to relieve the pressure of shock therapy, but the only option was to move backwards and become completely dependent upon Russia and establish a kind of central planning again.  Though shock therapy may be painful, the slower transition through economic reform and privatization would only (for a country like Ukraine) delay the moment in which the disaster comes.  This transition was and is healthy for Ukraine.  Though their wages are low(like most of the other countries around them) their level is equal to that of Russia (a country which has the potential for a greater current infrastructure) who chose the opposite path of reform.  Therefore, the Ukrainians saw these possibilities and sticking to the traditional Slavic spirit persisted during a difficult transition as opposed to taking one step forward and two back. Besides, the thing to keep in mind as a Ukrainian is this “It is not about economic prosperity from the beginning, it is about independence in the Long Run.”

  Posted by Voloshin on Mar 20, 2005 at 5:00 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Fred Weir

• Russia’s Monroe Doctrine
  Cornered by NATO’s expansion, Moscow reasserts its imperial ambitions
• Putin Is Gone! Long Rule Putin!
  With new president, Russians continue to forgo political voice for economic security
• From Autocracy With Love
  
• Ethnic Cleansing in Russia
  Putin stokes the flames of xenophobia by targeting non-Slavs in Georgia.
• No Reason to Exist
  
• ‘Managed’ No More
  Russians take to the streets to protest the privatization of their social welfare system.