The world is now focused on what Russian President Putin’s next move can be, with tens of thousands of Russian troops changing their status from being stationed on the borders of Ukraine to having invaded Ukraine. In what is being called a ‘Military Operation’ by the Russian side, it is very evident to the people elsewhere around the world that it is a full-fledged war to claim Ukraine. Russia has been very clear in their ambitions with the states that were earlier part of the USSR, like Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia and many more. Putin has been very clear in the case of Ukraine that the nation was and is a part of the Russian state and has wavered off with influence from the west.
The Ukrainian population and culture are also actually very similar to that of Russia’s. Many Russians actually believe they are the same people divided by a border. However, Ukraine has its own identity, language, flag and many more factors that make it distinct from that of Russia. A majority of east Ukrainian people tend to support Russian propaganda and seem to be in favour of joining what one may call its ‘Parent Land’, that being Russia. This has always been a matter of difference between the people of east and west Ukraine, the population of the latter believes in their sovereignty and seems to be under western influence with their strong appeals to be a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) which was a military alliance of American and western European nations setup in 1949 as a counter measure against the USSR.
However, years after the disintegration of the nations of USSR, the NATO nations are still a strong organisation in international politics and continues to expand. While written agreements were in place for NATO to not expand into nations of east Europe, it’s efforts to do so and make countries associate with the western alliance has led Russia to be taking military actions and protecting what it believes is or should be a part of the Russian nation.
Here we are faced with a conflict of the concept of ‘self’ and ones identity of being a Ukrainian. However similar may Ukraine and Russia’s cultures be, the former has a sovereign state and an identity believed in collectively by its people which is now being threatened by the Russian forces invading in an attempt to take over the country. One might even consider this as reaction by the Russian side arising out of its insecurities. A Russian take over will threaten the very existence of Ukraine and its people. Their history and culture altogether may be just eroded in an attempt to make them ‘Russian’. A similar invasion was carried out by the Russian forces in 2014 when they invaded Crimea. It is a peninsular region south of Ukraine which Putin also believed to be part of Russia. A referendum was also taken where a majority of the people in Crimea wanted to be a part of Russia, however this was completely under Russian authorities and no third party was able to confirm the authenticity of the polls.
As Ken Booth mentions in the reading
Reflections of a Fallen Realist, many scholars often look at a problem or security concern as being ‘out there’ while acting distant to it and considering themselves away from it by believing that there is a difference in what goes on ‘within’ their nations. Instead of looking at security concerns like they are away from us, one should be looking at them with rigour as they arise from a collective change in society and not just one sole actors. What also applies well to the situation with Ukraine and Russia and the identity of the people are the quotes mentioned by Booth. Them being, Anais Nin: `We see things not as they are, but as we are'. The second one by Mahatma Gandhi: `We must be the change we wish to see in the world'. Through these he explains how there is more to security than just wanting or demanding change outside. We infer from these quotes that always demanding change outside is not going to provide us with solutions, but instead an effort by ourselves is where we can change to get to what we desire. As Nin’s quote mentions, we apply our thinking to events and not always see them objectively as they are. Like in the case of the Ukraine and Russia war, the Russian side feels that their self is being threatened and are not looking at the objective side, which clearly tells us that there is much more to lose than to be gained by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Security measure arise from many deep entrenched issues that threaten our self and identity be it individual or a nation. We see from Gandhi’s quote, a change can only be made in society when one changes themselves.
We tend to believe and become based on the events and languages and things going around us, forming an individual that has interests of the society and self while thinking of security. We see how in the ongoing war, citizens on the Ukrainian side have picked up weapons to save their identity of being an Ukrainian, through what seem as traditional security measures of realism.
Your post gives a detailed and insightful analysis of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis and ties really well with your understanding of 'self.' As you pointed out that there exist a conflict of 'self' amongst Russia and Ukraine in the sense that Russia perceives that its national security is threatened if Ukraine joins NATO, while Ukrainians think of it as an attack on their identity of belonging to their nation. I believe the entire idea behind evacuating people from Ukraine is also an effort by different national governments to protect and safeguard their 'self' since war results in distortion of multiple identities. Given the international context wherein a number of countries including India are demanding peaceful negotiations and a diplomatic approach to reach a consensus on this matter, to what an extent you think diplomacy can save such an identity crisis? My personal opinion is that unless there is an attempt to create a sense of collective belonging, even diplomacy cannot produce productive outcomes. Nations need to acknowledge that they are rooted in an international structure that is composed of strong networks of exchange and relationships. So, if Russia and Ukraine continue to see themselves as just Russians or Ukrainians, an effective solution is less likely. I think that diplomacy can only win if the international community is able to convince both the parties that they are rather 'global citizens' or people who have historical and cultural continuity. Otherwise, a phenomena as disastrous as war will lead to unparallel consequences for all if not dealt through a collective understanding of 'self' and 'security.' Therefore, I truly feel that the personal, political and international are a seamless web as noticed by Ken Booth in his paper. I Would like to hear your thoughts as well in this regard.
ReplyDeleteThe blog here undoubtedly paints a descriptive account of what is a very animated event. Given the flux of the Ukraine invasion it is certainly difficult to ascribe any tangible precipitation to it. The notion of self as the blog seems to understand it to be, nonetheless comes out amorphous. While the occupation of Ukraine by Russia is a transgression of the fundamental principles of modern conceptions of sovereignty “Ukraine has its own identity, language, flag and many more factors that make it distinct from that of Russia”. The form and matter of this Sovereignty and thus steaming identifications of self seems to be out of sync. While Ukraine might be understood to have historical links with the Russia. The nature of those relations is nevertheless not that of national unity but rather of an empire and subjection. Ukraine as a nation-state performs an identity which is deeply rooted in the tradition of modernity marking a break from earlier conceptions of polities: non- national empires or city state. While the “Russian self” might experience security anxieties to see Ukraine turning towards west via NATO, away from its “historical affiliation”. The Russian self itself is a problematized notion. As President Putin himself points in his noted essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukraine” published by Kremlin on July 12, 2021: “Ukraine is an inevitable part of our history, culture and spiritual space”. But the “our” here seeks to restore a posture of far gone Russian empire. In this regard Gandhi suggests in Hind Swaraj in context of British Empire pointing to the self-Dissolving tendencies of an empire. How in empire there exist a center and all rest- periphery. Existing only in relation to the center. Thus, understood the “Russianness” seems to be an aphorism to legitimize the despotic undertaking of President Putin. I would certainly wish to seek some light from you on this regard.
ReplyDelete