The idea to ponder what constitutes a pro-Russian political activist occurred to me while reading a recent article on Karlin’s blog about the rampant censorship of opposition media in Ukraine…
Anatoly Karlin made this statement:
Since the start of this year, the Ukraine has mounted an accelerating campaign to shut down all “pro-Russia” (apostrophes because more often than not they’re not so much explicitly pro-Russian, as merely less anti-Russian and more oppositionist than the mainstream) media.
Well, the climate in many East European countries is such that any conciliatory tone towards Russia is considered pro-Russian. That is, only hysterical Russophobia will do. You must believe any accusation towards Russia no matter how ridiculous that is. You must believe that not doing business with Russia is great thing. Otherwise, you will be branded pro-Russian, and will be cast out of polite society.
However, are any of these people branded pro-Russian any good for Russia? I have already questioned the pro-Russianness of Ukrainian political parties earlier on this blog. I am someone, who reads the Peremogi blog daily, and there is a central thesis there, no pro-Russian parties in Ukraine, and nobody Russia should trust. Well, I think the Russian official circles have already taken the memo to heart judging by attitude they take towards the various individuals branded as pro-Russian in Ukraine.
Here is something I found recently on the Peremogi. Recently there was a vote in the Ukrainian parliament on “addressing the UN to ask the countries of the World not to recognise the upcoming Russian parliamentary elections”. It was a classic ritualistic spitting in direction of Russia but let’s see how the pro-Russians voted?
None of the members of the Opposition Platform for Life voted against this motion. You would think that friends of Russia would vote against? So, whenever hysterical Russophobes accuse someone of being pro-Russian, the Russians should not take that at face value. Instead, before you call anyone “pro-Russian” ask these questions.
If he is Ukrainian or Belarusian, does he believe that his respective nations are a part of one Russian nation that was divided by the enemies of Russia? Or does he believe notions such as Ukrainians are more European than Russians, or more Slavic? Does he ever express those ideas in public?
The above is a fundamental of any pro-Russian sentiment among Eastern Slavs. You may further ask if they desire any integration with Russia. You might surprised how many of the pro-Russian start blathering something about sovereignty or neutrality. The latter is no pro-Russian sentiment.
If he is from the former eastern block, does he believe in normalizing trade relations with Russia? But a grade further would be, does he want any further economic integration with the Russian Federation?
Many of the Russophiles in Eastern Europe are nationalists and very much about self reliance, many support exiting the EU, and would not trade it for a Russian led union. And I am one of these.
Also, opposition to the glorification of Nazi collaborationists and defence of the Russian language in Ukraine are rather domestic issues than they are pro-Russian positions. Most Ukrainians use the Russian language daily, and most have ancestors that have fought the Nazis. Naturally, there is a part of the population that is receptive to such slogans. But anyone taking up these issues should not be automatically viewed as pro-Russian. Alexei Honcharenko once supported rights for the Russian language, but he switched sides after the Maidan.
It is without mentioning that any pro-Russian movement in Ukraine in the last 30 years was hopelessly unsuccessful and nothing worthy of Russian support…
We understand the desire of the allies to meet in secret on the Summit to discuss transatlantic unity… However, we totally do not understand how it is possible to conduct closed summit of NATO while Russia is behaving aggressively against Ukraine in the Black Sea region, and against members of the alliance. I have in mind the recent results of investigation in the Czech Republic. This we cannot understand, how can you not invite Ukraine, why isn’t there a place for Ukraine in this summit?
Kuleba is thankful for the policy of open doors declared on the summit in 2008.
However, 13 years have passed since that summit. When we in Ukraine are blamed for the slow pace of reforms, what then can we say about the implementation of the decision of the Alliance, which are catching dust? It is very important for Ukraine that the policy of open doors does not become feeding us promises.
If Ukraine was in NATO, there wouldn’t be escalation in the Donbas.
That means, we would have the obligation to defend you?
Yes that is so because today we are defending Europe. We are thankful to Europe for her policy of sanctions. We are thankful to United States. But you cannot return people’s lives through sanctions.
You must understand that today it is Ukraine. But who is next? This is a provocation. Tomorrow it could be any European country or the United States. We are not just talking military matters. We are dealing with an information war…