In the Nüremberg trials, we decided that one aspect of our global democratic culture is that those who engaged in the Holocaust and mass murdered Jews and other groups were war criminals even if their excuse was that they followed orders.
While I agree with the conclusion, I really do vehemently object to the framing. Who is “we”, and what on earth is “global democratic culture”?
Attempts to rewrite history and glorify fascists go both against our general Western consensus
I mean these are two separate things, and depending on who you ask rewriting history is what the West is pretty good at. But again, what “Western consensus”? Depending on who you ask, either Russia or the West is massively “rewriting history” regarding Ukraine.
Stepan Bandera was at a time a leader of the faction of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists in Kyiv where Ukrainian nationalists together with German death squads committed pogroms.
If I’m not mistaken, Bandera was interned at a German concentration camp when the atrocities took place. Which is quite a major detail, “our Western consensus” generally considers people innocent by default.
From my German perspective, where we consider the Holocaust as one of the worst episodes of the 20th century, declaring people who participated in the Holocaust to be national heroes who shall not be criticized feels deeply wrong
Ah, a German perspective, this somehow fits in very well with the extreme focus on nazis and/or nazi symbols as a kind of axiom from which everything else is derived. Here’s an anecdote: I was friends with an Ukranian, who once wore a stylized swaztika necklace. Was she a Nazi? She was adamant that she was not. Turns out she just liked the pattern, had seen it being used in India, and didn’t treat it as anathema the way a German would. The take that symbols that were used by nazis aren’t proof of evil is an underrated one (especially in Germany). It’s your actions that define you, not which symbols or Russell conjugation you use (or don’t use) when talking about them (“I am a patriot, he is a nationalist, they are a government with a democratic mandate to put their population first”).
That said: nationalism really is a problem in Ukraine at the moment. But I’m more worried about the kind of nationalism the West tends to support (making sure everyone says “Kharkiv” instead of “Kharkov”, calling Russian soldiers “orcs”, insisting that Crimea “is” Ukranian), rather than the “using Nazi symbols sometimes” form.
Right-wing ethnonationalism seems to me the best explanation for Ukrainians needlessly creating both internal conflicts that alienate internal minorities and conflicts with Europeans, at a time when Ukraine wants European support.
Unfortunately I don’t think this harms their European support much—these are all things that are far in the past, and haven’t stopped the EU waxing poetic about how Ukraine is fundamentally one of them. In fact, since in Ukraine, nationalism = against Russia, and “against Russia” is popular in Eastern Europe (for obvious reasons), the nationalist aspects may even find them support from the West. That said, it’s just morally a bad policy, and absolutely affects how Ukraine is seen by Russia.
If we believe that Russia might have manipulated the counting of the referendum, the straightforward way to get a sense of what the Crimeans think is to look at polling data.
Unfortunately not, people who don’t want to be in Crimea will have left, and polls aren’t always reliable.
When pollsters asked again in 2017 in Crimea, 86% of non-Crimean Tatars say they would expect the same result in a repeat referendum
The non-Crimeans Tatars are somewhat irrelevant here given that most are Russian.
Punishing Crimeans for voting for the annexation feels morally wrong to me
There’s a strong case that punishing Syrians for being ruled by Assad might just feel morally wrong too, but who am I to argue with a moral authority like the “Western consensus”.
The fight of Ukraine against Russia is not one with clear lines between good and evil
Thank you for the great post on the clusterf*ck that is Ukraine and Ukrainian politics. Really this is a great case of a situation where it isn’t clear what is actually going on given the rather one-sided reporting on both sides.
Crimeans deserve [..] a peace agreement [...] that respects the referendum of 2014
No they don’t. The “referendum” of 2014 was a joke. Nobody needs to respect this joke.
It seems somewhat more complex, according to this link “Bandera was in occupied Poland when on June 30, 1941, his comrades proclaimed an independent Ukrainian state in Nazi-occupied Lviv — and the Germans banned him from traveling to Ukraine.”
If I’m not mistaken, Bandera was interned at a German concentration camp when the atrocities took place.
Bandera was in prison when the atrocities in 1943 took place but not when those in 1941 took place.
The non-Crimeans Tatars are somewhat irrelevant here given that most are Russian.
It was also the case before 2014 that the majority in Crimea was Russian and there were a lot fewer Crimean Tatars.
But even if you want to ignore the Russians the poll also separates out self-identfying Ukrainans and a majority of them were also in support of the referendum.
Unfortunately I don’t think this harms their European support much—these are all things that are far in the past, and haven’t stopped the EU waxing poetic about how Ukraine is fundamentally one of them.
It was a reason why Ukraine got less military support from the EU before the invasion in 2022 than it wanted.
Ukraine still wants to be in the EU. The EU works in a way where every member state has a veto. Hungary has an easy time justifying that veto as long as Ukraine’s law is not really compatible with EU law regarding minority protections.
There are probably also a lot of others who at the European institutional level think “We already have enough problems with Polish and Hungarian nationalists, do we really want to deal with Ukrainian nationalists as well?”
Bandera was in prison when the atrocities in 1943 took place but not when those in 1941 took place.
First of all, thanks for catching this, I was mistaken. That said, it seems somewhat more complex, according to this link “Bandera was in occupied Poland when on June 30, 1941, his comrades proclaimed an independent Ukrainian state in Nazi-occupied Lviv — and the Germans banned him from traveling to Ukraine.”
This doesn’t, of course, vindicate him in any way—he was head of an organisation that performed atrocities and worked with Nazi Germany. But it also doesn’t make him guilty of said atrocities.
It was also the case before 2014 that the majority in Crimea was Russian and there were a lot fewer Crimean Tatars.
I’m loosely familiar with the history of Crimea, my point is that non-Crimean Tartars (many of who live, and have always lived in Russia) are irrelevant to Crimea. But maybe I’m misunderstanding things, and you mean “non-Crimean” Tartars who happen to live in Crimea?
But even if you want to ignore the Russians the poll also separates out self-identfying Ukrainans and a majority of them were also in support of the referendum.
So what? It’s a feature, not a bug, of the modern system of states that not everybody who wants a referendum to secede gets one.
It was a reason why Ukraine got less military support from the EU before the invasion in 2022 than it wanted.
The reason Ukraine got less military support from the EU than it wanted was primarily so as not to antogonize Russia, as far as I can tell.
There are probably also a lot of others who at the European institutional level think “We already have enough problems with Polish and Hungarian nationalists, do we really want to deal with Ukrainian nationalists as well?”
Yes, hence Scholz’s ridiculous pivot away from unanimity in the EU in Prague recently.
I’m loosely familiar with the history of Crimea, my point is that non-Crimean Tartars (many of who live, and have always lived in Russia) are irrelevant to Crimea. But maybe I’m misunderstanding things, and you mean “non-Crimean” Tartars who happen to live in Crimea?
I did link to the article of the poll that’s the source for the claims. The poll asked a bunch of different questions, if you are interested in understanding what Crimean think at that time, it’s worthwhile to read it.
I did refer to people who identify as either Ukrainian or Russian and not as Crimean Tartar when I said non-Crimean Tartar. So non-‘Crimean Tartar’.
While I agree with the conclusion, I really do vehemently object to the framing. Who is “we”, and what on earth is “global democratic culture”?
I mean these are two separate things, and depending on who you ask rewriting history is what the West is pretty good at. But again, what “Western consensus”? Depending on who you ask, either Russia or the West is massively “rewriting history” regarding Ukraine.
If I’m not mistaken, Bandera was interned at a German concentration camp when the atrocities took place. Which is quite a major detail, “our Western consensus” generally considers people innocent by default.
Ah, a German perspective, this somehow fits in very well with the extreme focus on nazis and/or nazi symbols as a kind of axiom from which everything else is derived. Here’s an anecdote: I was friends with an Ukranian, who once wore a stylized swaztika necklace. Was she a Nazi? She was adamant that she was not. Turns out she just liked the pattern, had seen it being used in India, and didn’t treat it as anathema the way a German would. The take that symbols that were used by nazis aren’t proof of evil is an underrated one (especially in Germany). It’s your actions that define you, not which symbols or Russell conjugation you use (or don’t use) when talking about them (“I am a patriot, he is a nationalist, they are a government with a democratic mandate to put their population first”).
That said: nationalism really is a problem in Ukraine at the moment. But I’m more worried about the kind of nationalism the West tends to support (making sure everyone says “Kharkiv” instead of “Kharkov”, calling Russian soldiers “orcs”, insisting that Crimea “is” Ukranian), rather than the “using Nazi symbols sometimes” form.
Unfortunately I don’t think this harms their European support much—these are all things that are far in the past, and haven’t stopped the EU waxing poetic about how Ukraine is fundamentally one of them. In fact, since in Ukraine, nationalism = against Russia, and “against Russia” is popular in Eastern Europe (for obvious reasons), the nationalist aspects may even find them support from the West. That said, it’s just morally a bad policy, and absolutely affects how Ukraine is seen by Russia.
Unfortunately not, people who don’t want to be in Crimea will have left, and polls aren’t always reliable.
The non-Crimeans Tatars are somewhat irrelevant here given that most are Russian.
There’s a strong case that punishing Syrians for being ruled by Assad might just feel morally wrong too, but who am I to argue with a moral authority like the “Western consensus”.
Thank you for the great post on the clusterf*ck that is Ukraine and Ukrainian politics. Really this is a great case of a situation where it isn’t clear what is actually going on given the rather one-sided reporting on both sides.
No they don’t. The “referendum” of 2014 was a joke. Nobody needs to respect this joke.
There were two Lviv pogroms soon after each other, from 30 June to 2 July, and from 25 to 29 July, 1941.
Bandera was arrested on 5 July 1941. So he probably was responsible for the first one.
EDIT:
Seems like he was out of Ukraine even during the first one.
It seems somewhat more complex, according to this link “Bandera was in occupied Poland when on June 30, 1941, his comrades proclaimed an independent Ukrainian state in Nazi-occupied Lviv — and the Germans banned him from traveling to Ukraine.”
Bandera was in prison when the atrocities in 1943 took place but not when those in 1941 took place.
It was also the case before 2014 that the majority in Crimea was Russian and there were a lot fewer Crimean Tatars.
But even if you want to ignore the Russians the poll also separates out self-identfying Ukrainans and a majority of them were also in support of the referendum.
It was a reason why Ukraine got less military support from the EU before the invasion in 2022 than it wanted.
Ukraine still wants to be in the EU. The EU works in a way where every member state has a veto. Hungary has an easy time justifying that veto as long as Ukraine’s law is not really compatible with EU law regarding minority protections.
There are probably also a lot of others who at the European institutional level think “We already have enough problems with Polish and Hungarian nationalists, do we really want to deal with Ukrainian nationalists as well?”
First of all, thanks for catching this, I was mistaken. That said, it seems somewhat more complex, according to this link “Bandera was in occupied Poland when on June 30, 1941, his comrades proclaimed an independent Ukrainian state in Nazi-occupied Lviv — and the Germans banned him from traveling to Ukraine.”
This doesn’t, of course, vindicate him in any way—he was head of an organisation that performed atrocities and worked with Nazi Germany. But it also doesn’t make him guilty of said atrocities.
I’m loosely familiar with the history of Crimea, my point is that non-Crimean Tartars (many of who live, and have always lived in Russia) are irrelevant to Crimea. But maybe I’m misunderstanding things, and you mean “non-Crimean” Tartars who happen to live in Crimea?
So what? It’s a feature, not a bug, of the modern system of states that not everybody who wants a referendum to secede gets one.
The reason Ukraine got less military support from the EU than it wanted was primarily so as not to antogonize Russia, as far as I can tell.
Yes, hence Scholz’s ridiculous pivot away from unanimity in the EU in Prague recently.
I did link to the article of the poll that’s the source for the claims. The poll asked a bunch of different questions, if you are interested in understanding what Crimean think at that time, it’s worthwhile to read it.
I did refer to people who identify as either Ukrainian or Russian and not as Crimean Tartar when I said non-Crimean Tartar. So non-‘Crimean Tartar’.
Aaah got it. My bad.