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.
48 Responses to “5 persistent falsehoods about events in Ukraine”
James Todd
You think “the West” is responsible for the Syrian Civil War? You certainly believe in no-holds barred self-flagellation, that’s for sure.
Asteri
Serbia’s reaction to Kosovo and north Kosovo was entirely predictable and understandable. Serbia has a duty to protect the Serbs in Kosovo who are Serbian citizens. The west does not have to like it, but it is Serbia’s right to reject and diplomatically challenge the secession; its not doing anything illegal or anything Georgia or Ukraine aren’t doing.
Serbia’s political situation since 2000 has been a disgrace and no country has been so betrayed and let down by their own political class as Serbia has. All the infighting, stalemate and looting the place blind (worse than under Milosevic) only helped to discredit the country and suited the west just fine in regard to Kosovo.
The only comparison was Jeltsin’s Russia. What was interesting was this small clique of liberal minded reformers who genuinely believed they could have a good relationship with the west and gradually integrate with it. They were competing with the Soviet old guard and the oligarch interests, and after Kosovo they were blamed for Russia’s defeat and discredited, allowing for the Putin and those around him to take over and purge the Jeltsin oligarchs. Of course there was a huge pile of kindling caused by the collapse of the USSR, the defeat in Chechnya and all the corruption and lawlessness, but I think Kosovo was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Suada
I’m not talking about what Serbia allegedly had the ‘right’ to do (I’m pretty sure Serbia wouldn’t find the prospect of Hungary, Albania and Bosnia interfering in its internal affairs on account of their nationals to be very congenial, but that’s a different issue), I’m talking about what it could do under the circumstances. And it is my position that Serbia would not have risked an open military confrontation with NATO in 1999, but would have instead used diplomatic means to destabilize the Kosovar state, just as it has done. Whether or not it has a moral or legal right to do this is another question (truth be told, I didn’t initially support Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, but I find Serbia entirely unworthy of any sympathy).
I think here in BiH we have been let down by our political classes as much as Serbia :), but yes, I agree with you on Serbia’s political class. Serbia’s own extremely disruptive policies in the region since the late 1980s also discredited the country, but I do believe it has come considerable way since the days of Milosevic.
You could be right in relation to Putin’s rise. I admittedly am not an expert on the topic, though then again I can’t say I have very much sympathy for them.
Asteri
In the cases of Bosnia and Albania, their con-nationals (co-religionists in Bosnia) never lived in a either an Albanian or Bosnian state or had citizenship. The Kosovo Serbs were/are part of Serbia always had citizenship and passports which is a big difference. Hungary is a different story, but it has bigger issues with Slovakia and Romania.
Milosevic had a popularity boost during the NATO attack and could have conceivably turned this into launching a military operation into the north, I think the army and citizenry would have taken up arms and done it for free if it came to it. He had always said that taking Kosovo from Serbia was what was always being intended and if NATO validated that belief straight away he may have been emboldened. Pure speculation but people do crazy things when they are desperate.
I think that when it comes to Serbia, the Russian position can be understood in two ways. One is rooted in pan-slavism and a genuine romantic nationalism that sees the Serbs as a brother nation. The other that sees Serbia as the last hold Russia has in the Balkans and if Serbia goes west their influence will disappear forever. The more astute Serbian politicians know how to play them off. Even in Bulgarija there is a strong pro-Russian sentiment, but thats faded with NATO/EU membership. In the 1990s it was a mix of both these mindsets. They supported the Serbs as a cause, even though they loathed the regime in Belgrade. They hated Milosevic ever since he stupidly backed the August coup rather than wait to see what would happen. Ironically, if Russia had had more influence, they could have ousted Milosevic when the first opportunity came in 1992.
Its a similar situation to the relationship between the Turks and Bosnian-Muslims.
Stephen Hildon
I think the Tymoshenko tape released a few hours after this article was posted has proved the Russians right.
I thought the Ukrainian parliament impeached Yanukovich because he fled the country and not the other way round. Not that the parliament followed the constitution in any case.