Here are the five most common myths about events in Ukraine, together with a short explanation of why they are wrong.
The Russian propaganda machine has been full throttle in recent months, with television stations such as RT painting a completely different picture of the Euromaiden uprising in Ukraine than other, more independent outlets.
And it isn’t hard to work out why: Putin was constructing the purported rational for his invasion and annexation of Crimea which, according to the Russian narrative, was overrun by ‘fascists’ intent on persecuting Russian-speaking citizens and generally causing mayhem.
What’s been so depressing is the extent to which the Russian version of events in Ukraine has been so effortlessly adopted, to varying degrees, by some in the West.
Here are the five most common myths which are doing the rounds, together with a short explanation of why they are nonsense.
The EU/Nato ‘provoked’ Putin
Both Little Englander eurosceptics and the regressive left have been portraying Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea as a response to the ‘expansion’ of the European Union and Nato. Spouting the Russian line almost verbatim (some things never change), Seamus Milne wrote a few weeks ago that the Russian annexation of Crimea was the “fruit of western expansion”.
“The US and its allies have…relentlessly expanded Nato up to Russia’s borders, incorporating nine former Warsaw Pact states and three former Soviet republics into what is effectively an anti-Russian military alliance in Europe. The European association agreement which provoked the Ukrainian crisis also included clauses to integrate Ukraine into the EU defence structure,” Milne wrote.
In reality, Nato and the EU haven’t ‘expanded’ so much as welcomed into the security umbrella former communist states that were desperate to escape the Russian ‘sphere of influence’.
Considering these countries often languished under Russian-backed dictatorships for much of the 20th century, this should hardly come as a surprise. The Russian annexation of Ukraine should drive the point home further – are the Baltic states going to be watching events in Ukraine with a feeling of regret at joining Nato? Of course not. Russian aggression encourages Nato expansion, rather than the other way around.
It also isn’t necessary to speculate as to Vladimir Putin’s motivations in Crimea. As Putin said last week, he believes that “Crimea has always been part of Russia”. Less self defence in the face of ‘provocation’ and more naked imperialism. Putin has made no secret of his desire to restore the former glory of the Soviet Union. The invasion of Crimea should be seen in this context.
The new Ukrainian government is ‘fascist’
Were this actually true then it would be deeply concerning, only it isn’t. Ukrainian nationalists were certainly among those demonstrating against former President Viktor Yanukovych last month, but then so were plenty of Jews. And contrary to the Moscow line, the Ukrainian Jewish community believes that it is pro-Russian provocateurs, rather than Ukrainian nationalists, who are behind a recent spate of attacks on synagogues in Ukraine. Three of the new Ukrainian ministers denounced as ‘fascists’ by Moscow are also themselves Jews, such as deputy prime minister Vladimir Groisman.
Chairman of the Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities of Ukraine Josef Zissels has characterised Putin’s message of widespread Ukrainian anti-semitism as part of an “unprecedented massive Russian propaganda that recalls Soviet times”.
Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in an ‘illegal coup’
Listening to some of the more bitter arguments emanating from Russia and Russian apologists in the West, you could easily believe that former Ukrainian President Yanukovych was some kind of democrat, rather than a corrupt autocrat who had been beset by credible allegations of electoral fraud since he returned to office in 2010.
Rather than being thrown out in some sort of anti-democratic ‘coup’ last month, Yanukovych fled to Russia because the democratically elected Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to impeach him for the massacre of peaceful demonstrators. If you don’t believe that this is a good enough reason for the impeachment of a President (elected or otherwise) then I submit that you aren’t really a democrat.
Despite Russian rhetoric, the real coup was in Crimea, where the Crimean Assembly building was taken over at gunpoint by Russian forces pretending not to be Russian forces.
Russians living in Crimea are in danger
One Russian citizen has died in the current crisis, and he was shot by pro-Yanukovych snipers. Rumours spread by the Russian government – that Russian speakers in Crimea are threatened by the new government in Kiev – are just that: baseless rumours. More Crimeans have been fleeing from Crimea to other regions of Ukraine than Russians have been fleeing from Crimea and eastern Ukraine to Russia, mainly in order to escape heavily armed and violent Russian militias.
There is simply no evidence that Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine and Crimea are threatened by the government in Kiev. Russian claims also have a worrying historical precedent: Adolf Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia was based on a German claim of privations being suffered by the ethnic German population in the country.
There is a moral equivalence between the actions of the West and those of Russia/Crimea demonstrates the West’s ‘hypocrisy’
It isn’t difficult to make this sort of self-flagellating argument, but it doesn’t contribute anything very useful to the debate. It can also lead a person to make silly comparisons. So for example, in the New Statesman last week Mehdi Hasan compared the Russian invasion of Ukraine to Nato intervention in Kosovo, ignoring the fact that in the case of the latter, intervention occurred on the back of a “systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments” by Serb forces (not my words, but those of the UN).
As Hasan writes:
“it is ‘illegal and illegitimate’ for Russia to try to detach Crimea from Ukraine by means of a dodgy referendum, Hague says. Indeed, it is. But was it any less illegal or illegitimate for the west to detach Kosovo from Serbia in 1999 with a 78-day Nato bombing campaign?”
I don’t know about ‘legality’ (an unreliable construct based on who votes which way at the UN Security Council), but the Russian annexation of Crimea is self-evidently more ‘illegitimate’ than Nato action in Kosovo. As the Economist put it this week: “Nato’s bombing of Kosovo came after terrible violence and exhaustive efforts at the UN – which Russia blocked”. Kosovo also seceded on its own initiative nine years after intervention and was not annexed in the manner of the Russian invasion of Crimea.
Western states can certainly be hypocritical, but the issue here is that Russia under Vladimir Putin is bullying and blackmailing its neighbours. Talking about Kosovo/Iraq/what Tony Blair had for lunch/Henry Kissinger/ is pure whataboutery.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
48 Responses to “5 persistent falsehoods about events in Ukraine”
Asteri
Russia indirectly aided the secessions, but did not go as far as recognising them or pressurising others to do so. Presumably, the intention was to keep them ‘warm’ as an insurance policy should the host nation attempt to joint NATO. The Russians believed the host nations valued their territorial integrity over NATO, so eventually Russia would permit reintegration once the hosts had returned to the fold. They presumed wrong, but Saakashvili made a gamble that NATO would defend him anyway – it didn’t pay off.
A 1999 recognition would never have been seriously considered. Likely there would have been a local Serbian uprising, and Belgrade would have been compelled to resort to a military response, that Russia would be compelled, in turn, to support; which would have led to WWIII. Waiting a decade was well played as it let the dust settle and lured Belgrade and Russia into a false sense of security before they realized it was too late.
Suada
Russia provided direct military aid to the Abkhaz and Transnistrian separatists, and although it did not officially recognize them, that doesn’t change the fact it did de-facto separate them from their respective countries (as you say, to put pressure on them not to join NATO or the West), and has provided them with diplomatic and military support ever since.
Your claim that a 1999 recognition would have resulted in WW3, to be perfectly frank, is just speculation, and one which does not to me sound very credible. Russia after all, did practically nothing to help Serbia when it was bombed, except bluster and bluff, and was in no state to go to war with NATO at the time, similar to what Serb nationalist paper tiger did before and since. Still, we’ll probably never know for certain.
Trofim
“Putin has made no secret of his desire to restore the former glory of the Soviet Union”.
Just those words make it clear to me how reliant you are on second and third hand sources. You might care to look at this, then, Mr Bloodworth. At 1 min 15 seconds in, Putin clarifies what he said:
https://tinyurl.com/ownpuuo
“кто не жалеет распада советского союза – у того нет сердца, а у того кто желает
его восстановления в прежнем виде – у того нет головы”.
“Those who don’t regret breakup of the USSR have no heart. Those who want to
resurrect it have no brain”.
Now that’s definitely a bloke making no secret of his desire to restore the former glory of the USSR, eh? The first sentence is often quoted in substance if not in words as a longing to recreate the USSR, but, interestingly, western sources often forget to quote the second half. I can’t imagine why.
Asteri
Yes, its alternative history! However as much as Russia was unable or unwilling to start a war of Kosovo. They probably believed that Milosevic’s government (whom they had always hated) would not survive and a new government would be able to get Kosovo back eventually. That seems what both believed would happen. Any attempt to make it attempt to make it independent then would likely have provoked some kind of reaction – maybe an attempt to retake North Kosovo by force.
One of the reasons Putin came to power was because Kosovo was such huge diplomatic defeat for Russia and one that Jelcin could not recover from. It was that (and other factors) that motivated the remnants of the Soviet old guard to remove him and take over themselves. Most everything the Russians do can be traced back to this.
Suada
Hey, sorry if I sounded a bit rude. I agree that Serbia would have tried to carve out a part of northern Kosovo, and to destabilize the Kosovar state (something it already has attempted to do in fact) through the establishment of parallel institutions and diplomatic obstruction (as well as a racist propaganda campaign abroad attempting to delegitimize the Kosovar state), I however, don’t think Serbia, militarily weak, with a discredited regime, and on the verge of economic collapse, would have risked an open war with NATO over the issue. I don’t see how it would have provoked more of a reaction than the initial bombing campaign did; Kosovo’s independence naturally flowed from this. I don’t think punishing Serbia in 2008, with the Milosevic regime long gone, was a good idea.
Your point on Putin’s coming to power is interesting, and I had never considered that. I would however note that Putin was already quite powerful even before Kosovo, and I think Yetsin’s drastic unpopularity due to his disastrous internal policies played a larger role. Russia has a long history of interfering in its neighbour’s affairs, and I don’t find convincing the claim that “everything they do can be traced back to Kosovo”.