Recently Yahoo News on-line reported the following:
Putin Calls Ukrainian Statehood a Fiction. History
Suggests Otherwise. (2/2)
The New York Times - Michael Schwirtz, Maria Varenikova and
Rick Gladstone
Tue, February 22, 2022, 11:03 AM
(continue)
Now, with an estimated 190,000 Russian troops surrounding
Ukraine like a sickle, Putin’s declaration that Ukraine’s very existence as a
sovereign state was the result of historical error threatened to send a shudder
through all the lands once under Moscow’s dominion. It also elicited
expressions of contempt from Ukrainians.
“For the past few decades, the West has been looking for fascism anywhere, but not where it was most,” said Maria Tomak, an activist involved in supporting people from Crimea, a Ukrainian territory Putin annexed in 2014. “Now it is so obvious that it burns the eyes. Maybe this will finally make the West start to sober up about Russia.”
It is not clear whether Putin believes his version of Ukrainian history or has simply concocted a cynical mythology to justify whatever action he plans next. But his contention that Ukraine exists solely within the context of Russian history and culture is one he has deployed at least as far back as 2008, when he attempted to convince George W. Bush, who had expressed support for Ukraine’s NATO membership, of the country’s nonexistence.
Last summer, Putin published a 5,300-word essay that expounded on many of the themes he highlighted in Monday’s speech, including the idea that nefarious Western nations had somehow corrupted Ukraine, leading it away from its rightful place within a greater Russian sphere through what he called a “forced change of identity.”
Few observers, though, believe that historical accuracy is of much importance to Putin as he sets forth justifications for whatever he has planned for Ukraine.
“We can be clear that Putin was not trying to engage in a historical debate about the intertwined histories of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples,’’ said Joshua A. Tucker, a political-science professor at New York University and an expert on Russia. Instead, Tucker said, the Russian leader was laying the groundwork for the argument “that Ukraine is not currently entitled to the sorts of rights that we associate with sovereign nations.”
Moscow had vowed to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty as a condition of Ukraine’s giving up its nuclear weapons after the Soviet collapse. But Putin, analysts said, has made clear that pledge is of little importance to him. In 2014, after protesters drove a Kremlin-backed government from power in Kyiv, he ordered his military to seize the Crimean Peninsula and then instigated a separatist war that resulted Ukraine’s de facto loss of two rebel territories in the east.
On Monday, Putin moved to formalize that separation by recognizing those territories, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, as independent. Soon afterward, he ordered troops into the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in eastern Ukraine.
But Putin’s efforts to wrest Ukraine back into Russia’s orbit have, in many ways, had the opposite effect. In a country that was once ambivalent about NATO at best, or openly hostile at worst, polls show that a solid majority now favor membership in the U.S.-led military alliance.
In Kyiv, where Ukrainians had been nervously awaiting Putin’s decision, the reaction to his speech was one of disgust and foreboding.
Kristina Berdynskykh, a prominent political journalist, gathered with colleagues at a bar called Amigos and sat around a phone watching Putin’s speech, by turns crying and cursing.
“It is hatred for all of Ukraine and revenge for the country’s movement toward the EU and NATO and democracy — albeit chaotic, with huge problems, slow reforms and corruption — but where people elect and change power in elections or revolutions,” Berdynskykh said. “The worst dream for an old lunatic is both scenarios: fair elections and revolutions.”
Translation
現在，估計有 190,000 名俄羅斯軍隊像鐮刀一樣包圍著烏克蘭，普京宣稱烏克蘭作為一個主權國家的存在是歷史錯誤的結果，這有可能讓曾經在莫斯科統治下的所有土地不寒而栗。這也引起了烏克蘭人的蔑視。
有參與支持克里米亞，於2014年被普京吞併的烏克蘭領土的人民的活動人士 Maria Tomak 說： “在過去的幾十年裡，西方一直在任何地方尋找法西斯主義，但不是在最嚴重的地方” 。現在它是如此很明顯，它會灼傷眼睛。也許這最終會讓西方開始對俄羅斯保持清醒” 。
目前尚不清楚普京是否相信他對烏克蘭歷史的看法，或者只是編造了一個曖昧的神話來證明他接下來計劃採取的任何行動是正當的。但他認為烏克蘭僅存在於俄羅斯歷史和文化背景下的論點, 是他至少早在 2008 年就已經使用的論點。當時他試圖說服曾表示支持烏克蘭加入北約的喬治布殊(George W. Bush) 相信該國的不存在。
去年夏天，普京發表了一篇 5,300 字的文章，已闡述了他在周一的演講中強調的許多主題，包括邪惡的西方國家以某種方式腐蝕了烏克蘭，通過他稱為“強制改變身份”的所作所為, 導致烏克蘭離開了在大俄羅斯範圍內應有的地位”。
然而，很少觀察家相信歷史的準確性對普京來說是非常重要，因為他只是為他對烏克蘭的任何計劃作出了一個辯解理由。
紐約大學政治學教授、俄羅斯問題專家Joshua A. Tucker 說： “我們可以很清楚，普京並沒有試圖就俄羅斯和烏克蘭人民相互交織的歷史進行歷史辯論” 。相反，Tucker說，這位俄羅斯領導人正在為“烏克蘭目前無權享有我們認知與主權國家連帶的各種權利”的論點奠定基礎。
他補充說: “這是一個信號，表明普京打算爭辯說，對烏克蘭的軍事干預不會侵犯另一個國家的主權” 。
莫斯科曾誓言尊重烏克蘭的主權，作為烏克蘭在蘇聯解體後放棄核武器的條件。但分析人士表示，普京已經明確表示，這承諾對他來說並不重要。 2014 年，在抗議者在基輔將克里姆林宮支持的政府趕下台後，他命令軍隊佔領克里米亞半島，然後煽動分裂戰爭，導致烏克蘭事實上失去了東部的兩個反叛領土。
但普京試圖將烏克蘭拉回俄羅斯軌道的努力在許多方面產生了相反的效果。在一個曾經對北約抱有相反態度，或者在最壞的情況下公開敵對的國家，其民意調查顯示，現在絕大多數人讚成加入以美國為首的軍事聯盟。
在基輔，烏克蘭人一直在緊張地等待普京的決定，對他的講話的反應是一種厭惡和不祥的預感。
著名政治記者Kristina Berdynskykh 與同事們聚集在一家名為 Amigos 的酒吧裡，圍坐在手機旁觀看普京的演講，時而哭泣時而咒罵。
Berdynskykh說: “這是對整個烏克蘭的仇恨，也是對該國向歐盟、北約和民主運動的報復 - 儘管烏克蘭混亂、存在巨大問題、改革緩慢和腐敗 - 但當人們選擇, 以選舉或革命中改變權力時”
; “對於一個老瘋子來說，最糟糕的夢是兩種一齊的情況：公平選舉和革命” 。
So, all along Ukrainian identity
politics and nationalism have been irritants in Russia since the feudal czarist
times. Ukraine is seen by many Russians as their nation’s “little brother” and
should behave as such accordingly. In the eyes of Putin, it was the crumbling
Soviet government of Mikhail Gorbachev that allowed Ukraine to slip free of
Moscow’s grasp, and the Western nations somehow have corrupted Ukraine, leading
it to turn away from its rightful place within a greater Russian sphere. One
thing is sure: Russia’s economy will be more difficult when the international
community impose sanctions. In the 21-century, economic might is more
powerful than military might in many respects. I am wondering what benefits Russia
will gain if it occupies Ukraine militarily without winning the hearts and minds of
the people there.
沒有留言:
張貼留言