Part of the argument of the social-patriots in Ukraine, and of social-imperialists in the West is that, unlike, say, Alsace-Lorraine, or the Sudetenland, where the majority ethnic population of the region sought to split away, this was not the case in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, and Crimea. As, the above shows, in terms of whether Marxists should support one side – NATO-Ukraine – in what is actually an inter-imperialist conflict, just as with WWI and II, that is irrelevant.
However, there is every indication that the majority ethnic Russians in those regions do, and always have looked East towards Russia for their defence against the oppression faced from the ethnic Ukrainian population, and the Ukrainian state. The fact that, in numerous elections, those regions elected, consistently, pro-Russian candidates, and supported pro-Russian policies, by far larger majorities than were obtained in the independence referenda, is indication of that. Indeed, the fact that Eastern and Southern Ukraine represents only a third of the population, and yet, in 2009, the pro Russian Yanukovytch won the Presidential election with 48.95% of the vote, shows the strength of that pro-Russian sentiment in the East.
The same is true, in relation to the US inspired Maidan coup in 2014 that removed the democratically elected Yanukovytch. Marxists, of course, have no reason to defend Yanukovytch, who, like all Ukrainian Presidents, before and after, was marked by significant corruption. But, precisely, because Yanukovytch was no different than any other such Ukrainian President, in that regard, rather undermines the argument of the Ukrainian social-patriots, and western social-imperialists, in using that as part of their justification for his removal in that coup! Indeed, the Guardian, prior to the current war, wrote extensively on the way Zelensky was just as corrupt as those previous Presidents. The other justification used is that Yanukovytch had opposed entry into the EU, and sought closer ties with the Eurasian Economic Union. But, this is also misleading. It logically means, also, justifying a coup against pro-Brexit governments, like that of Starmer, in Britain!!!
Yanukovytch had said that he was happy to have closer ties with the EU so long as he could also have ties with the Eurasian Economic Union, but the EU had said that such a solution was impossible. In fact, such a solution was not impossible as the same arrangement exists in The Northern Ireland Protocol, in which Northern Ireland is treated as part of the EU, as well as part of Britain, outside the EU! Moreover, these positions of Yanukovytch were known prior to his democratic election in 2009, as was his opposition to joining NATO, which, also, only 20% of Ukrainians, as a whole, supported. Consequently, the same division of Ukraine in terms of a Westward looking West and Central Ukraine, where ethnic Ukrainians dominate, as against an Eastward looking Eastern and Southern Ukraine and Crimea, where ethnic Russians dominate was manifest in the coup, to remove Yanukovytch.
Wikipedia, also, provides the data from various polls showing this same division.
“According to December 2013 polls (by three different pollsters), between 45% and 50% of Ukrainians supported Euromaidan, while between 42% and 50% opposed it. The biggest support for the protest was found in Kyiv (about 75%) and western Ukraine (more than 80%). Among Euromaidan protesters, 55% were from the west of the country, with 24% from central Ukraine and 21% from the east.”
It goes on to show not only a division in terms of region, but also of age, with younger people looking towards the EU, whilst a majority of older Ukrainians favoured a relation with the Eurasian Economic Union, which undoubtedly reflects the fact that they still looked back to the days of the USSR, as well as the fact that Russia was still the largest trading partner of Ukraine, until 2019, when it was replaced by China, not the EU. Even, today, Russia is the destination for 5.2% of Ukraine's exports, and source of 10.9% of Ukraine's imports. The figures for China are 11.7% and 13.9%, respectively. Only Poland, on Ukraine's border comes close to those figures, accounting for 7.2% of Ukraine's exports, and 9.4% of its imports. It is also not another EU country, but Türkiye that is in the highest of Ukraine's trading partners, accounting for 5.9% of Ukraine's exports, and 4% of its imports.
So, although western liberals might see an orientation to the EU, rather than the Eurasian Economic Union, as rational, the situation in Ukraine, particularly, Eastern Ukraine is not so clearcut. Ukraine has greater trade with the economies of the Eurasian Economic Union than with EU countries, and not surprisingly given that they are its immediate neighbours, but also, that Eurasian economic bloc is growing much faster than the EU, which has gone through 14 years of self-inflicted harm from austerity, and the effects of conservative social-democratic (neoliberal) ideology. Using the same arguments as those that apply to the Brexiters, there is every reason why Ukraine, particularly Eastern Ukraine, would look East rather than West.
“According to a 4 to 9 December 2013 study by Research & Branding Group, 49% of all Ukrainians supported Euromaidan and 45% had the opposite opinion. It was mostly supported in Western (84%) and Central Ukraine (66%). A third (33%) of residents of South Ukraine and 13% of residents of Eastern Ukraine supported Euromaidan as well. The percentage of people who do not support the protesters was 81% in East Ukraine, 60% in South Ukraine, in Central Ukraine 27% and in Western Ukraine 11%. Polls have shown that two-thirds of Kyivans supported the ongoing protests.”
(ibid)
No comments:
Post a Comment