True; but I think one of the Viktoria’s main points was that any “compromises” which surface in popular discussions from time to time, those that involve ceding parts of Ukraine to Russian control, will doom the people living there to the same fate people in Russia are already facing (or worse, because the regime on the newly-annexed territories will be more evil simply due to how the Russian system works).
Right now there is an opportunity to liberate the occupied territories, including Crimea, and at least the people of those lands will be saved. When considering any compromises, the invisible loss of those people must be factored in. Once this opportunity passes, another might not arise for a long time.
Also, there is a “theory” that Crimea is the Putin’s phylactery. In the sense that so-called “Crimean consensus”, the popular approval rise he got out of annexing Crimea, was a major factor in propping up his current power, and after losing Crimea he won’t be able to survive as every faction will turn on him. We cannot know if that’s true, but it will certainly destabilize the regime, and it may buy new opportunities for the Russian domestic players.
those that involve ceding parts of Ukraine to Russian control, will doom the people living there to the same fate people in Russia are already facing
That’s true, but at an 80% approval rating for Putin, a majority of them do like their current fate.
As far as what fate the people in Crimea want, different people in Crimea want different things.
In 2014 before the invasion you had 67.9% identified as Russian, 15.7% as Ukrainians, and 12.6% Crimean Tatars.
When searching in Western media we have an absence of polling data about what the people in Crimea want. If a majority of Crimeans wanted to be part of Ukraine, I think it would be likely that Western players would have commissioned those studies.
KIM: Kupayev says international sanctions have made finding work in commercial shipping harder. But like many Crimeans, he calls economic hardship the acceptable price of joining Russia.
And then list a few examples of people critical of Russian governance without saying their view is held by many Crimeans.
Dissolving the Tatar civil society organizations is certainly bad, but unfortunately, Ukraine doesn’t care about freedom of association either, and outlawed parties representing the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine.
Infringing the freedoms of 13% is less bad than infringing those of 68% of Crimeans.
As far as Hizb ut-Tahrir goes, they are forbidden in Germany where I live because they advocated the usage of violence for political ends. Interestingly, Russia and Germany both outlawed the organization in 2003. I agree, that the actions of Russia are excessive and I would certainly prefer them not to throw people into prison for 10 to 20 years for belonging to Hizb ut-Tahrir.
We cannot know if that’s true, but it will certainly destabilize the regime, and it may buy new opportunities for the Russian domestic players.
Destabilizing the regime does open up new opportunities but the way Putin is likely to react to that is to use political violence against anybody who isn’t loyal but is a threat to his power.
I don’t think these restrictions to freedom of association are comparable. First of all, we need to account for magnitudes of possible harm and not just numbers. In 1944, the Soviet government deported at least 191,044 Crimean tatars to the Uzbek SSR. By different estimates, from 18% to 46% of them died in exile. Now their representative body is banned, and Russian government won’t even let them commemorate the deportation day. I think it would be reasonable for them to fear for their lives in this situation.
Secondly, Russia always, even before the war, had rigged elections with fake opposition parties. That may be why the man in the interview says he had no choice. There are 4 parties in Russian parlament, but they are “pocket opposition”, they all vote the same on all important questions. Navalny wasn’t even allowed to participate in president elections. And if he were to participate and win, the votes would be miscounted anyway. So in Russia 100% of people lack a democratic representation, because there is no democracy.
Ukraine is at least a democratic country. Poroshenko didn’t poison and imprison Zelensky or vice versa. And Zelensky, by the way, started out pretty pro-Russian. His election campaign movie, “The servant of the people”, has a theme that Europe is not so great and Russians and Ukrainians are brothers and allies. He got elected, which shows that Russian-sympathetic views can get represented.
It’s true that Ukraine suspended 11 parties with links to Russian government for the period of martial law, after Russia started a full-scale invasion. That sounds like a reasonable measure to me. I don’t think Great Britain is an unfree country because it banned the British Union of Fashists party in 1940. When I look at those banned parties, it looks similarly justified.
For example, Evgeny Muraev, the leader of the NASHI party which suspiciously shares its name with the NASHI youth pro-Putin movement in Russia, called on Ukraine to capitulate when the invasion started.
The “Opposition platform—for life” party in its program suggests canceling decommunization laws. USSR caused a famine in Ukraine, deported over 191 thousands of people, and now they want to cancel decommunization?! If that was not enough, their representatives reportedly collaborated with the occupants, helping correct fire in Mariupol. Their leader Medvedchuk is Putin’s friend, Putin is his daughter’s godfather. I think this shows that British Union of Fashists party is a good analogy here. A country has to defend itself from foreign government agents and inhumane ideologies.
I haven’t looked at them all. Maybe there is a party there that doesn’t deserve it. But then these parties are only suspended for the duration of martial law. They should become legal again after the war ends.
When it comes to Hizb ut-Tahrir, it seems I was indeed mistaken to believe that they never advocated violence. Calls to destroy the state of Izrael and kill people living there sure sound like calls to violence. I guess I should have investigated further instead of just trusting Wikipedia and ovd-info. Now I am confused why this org is legal in Izrael itself. I see this issue is a lot less clear-cut than it seemed at first. I am going to edit the post.
It’s true that Ukraine suspended 11 parties with links to Russian government for the period of martial law, after Russia started a full-scale invasion. That sounds like a reasonable measure to me. I don’t think Great Britain is an unfree country because it banned the British Union of Fashists party in 1940. When I look at those banned parties, it looks similarly justified.
Countries are usually less free in wartime and that’s one of the problems of war. That said, the British Union of Fashists did not represent a significant number of people and even those that it does represent aren’t an ethic minority together.
In early February 2015 according to Western polling 90% of Crimeans said yes in some form to “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?”.
Let’s imaging that the Ukrainian military attacks Crimea, and as wars go some Crimeans die as a result. Is there likely to be peace after Ukraine has regained the full territory of Crimea? Very unlikely. It’s likely that there will be a bunch of Crimeans who do guerilla warfare with weapons that Russia graciously provides.
It’s very unlikely that the Ukrainian response to that is to give the Russian minority some minority rights back. It’s much more likely that they will further reduce Russian minority rights which in turn further inflames opposition.
It’s also worth noting here that the polling suggests that the Crimeans are much more pro-Russian than people in Donetsk and Luhansk, so you can’t generalize from the amount of support that staying part of Ukraine gets in those regions to Crimea.
For example, Evgeny Muraev, the leader of the NASHI party which suspiciously shares its name with the NASHI youth pro-Putin movement in Russia, called on Ukraine to capitulate when the invasion started.
Calls to capitulate seem to me valid speech. From what I see by googling The British Union of Fashists didn’t represent many people.
The “Opposition platform—for life” party in its program suggests canceling decommunization laws. USSR caused a famine in Ukraine, deported over 191 thousands of people, and now they want to cancel decommunization?!
From Wikipedia:
The laws have raised some concerns about freedom of speech, as well as international concerns that they honor some organizations and individuals that participated in the mass murder of Jews, Poles, and Communists during the Holocaust in Ukraine and massacres in Volhynia.
The Venice commission (which exists partly to tell Ukraine how they have to change their laws to be compatible with the EU if they want to join) comes to the conclusion that the laws go to far in violating various rights. One exerpt:
113. While this interference might, on the grounds stated above, pursue legitimate aims, it is not proportionate to these aims because it excludes political parties from participation in elections without taking into account the severity of non-compliance with the Law by the political party.
Just because the law is named “decommunization law” and there’s a history of communism causing problems doesn’t mean that the law is justified. If you think that a party that represents a minority and who calls for laws that discriminate against those minorities in a way that’s seen as illigitamte by the Venice Commission is illigimate because it calls for those laws to get repealed that’s a good sign that there’s a problem.
The EU approach to getting Ukraine to protect the rights of minorities seems more… sustainable… than Russia’s approach, so I propose a different compromise:
How about Russia withdraw all its troops back to the 2014 borders and we all give the slow, non-violent path a chance to work.
I believe that the decommunization laws are for the most part good and necessary, though I disagree with the part where you are not allowed to insult historical figures.
These laws are:
Law no. 2558 “On Condemning the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) Totalitarian Regimes and Prohibiting the Propagation of their Symbols” — banning Nazi and communist symbols, and public denial of their crimes. That included removal of communist monuments and renaming of public places named after communist-related themes.
Law no. 2538-1 “On the Legal Status and Honoring of the Memory of the Fighters for the Independence of Ukraine in the 20th Century” — elevating several historical organizations, including the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, to official status and assures social benefits to their surviving members.
Law no. 2539 “On Remembering the Victory over Nazism in the Second World War”
Law no. 2540 “On Access to the Archives of Repressive Bodies of the Communist Totalitarian Regime from 1917–1991” — placing the state archives concerning repression during the Soviet period under the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance.
Venice commision criticizes the specifics of some laws, insisting that they should be formulated more clearly, that sanctions should follow the principle of proportionality etc. Getting these details right is important and I support it. But as a matter of general principle,
“The Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR recognise the right of Ukraine to ban or even criminalise the use of certain symbols of and propaganda for totalitarian regimes.”
The Opposition Party—for Life, on the contrary, proposes to repel all these laws. There was no decommunization in Russia after the USSR fell. No lustration or opening of archives. This allowed a former KGB officer to consolidate power and start an aggressive war which many people justify as a way to bring back the “good old times”. Just as there are many people in Russia dreaming of bringing back USSR, there also such people in Ukraine. They shouldn’t be allowed to bring totalitarianism back. This is why decommunization is important.
There’s a difference between disagreeing about whether a law should exist and whether opposing a law should be ground for voters being barred from voting for a party that advocates the law. I disagree with many laws that are passed but I do believe in the right of voters to elect the parties that advocate those laws. That’s part of what being a Democracy is about.
Venice commision criticizes the specifics of some laws, insisting that they should be formulated more clearly, that sanctions should follow the principle of proportionality etc. Getting these details right is important and I support it.
Laws are either constitutional (or in the case of the EU compatible with its principles) or not. Courts usually invalidate unconstitutional laws and then it’s up to the government to make new laws that are constitutional. The ability to have political parties argue that such laws should be abolished seems to me a central feature of a healthy democracy.
Countries do have the right to criminalize the use of certain symbols and propaganda for totalitarian regimes but they don’t have a duty to do so. As a result, it’s very hard to argue that this topic should not be one that’s openly discussed where political parties can take both sides of the debate.
If your goal is peace between multiple ethnicities, honoring fascists who took part in the mass murder of Jews, Poles, and Communists while making sure that Communists are condemned is very unlikely to produce ethnic harmony.
Law no. 2540 “On Access to the Archives of Repressive Bodies of the Communist Totalitarian Regime from 1917–1991” — placing the state archives concerning repression during the Soviet period under the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance.
Advocating a nationalist, revisionist history that glorifies the country’s move to independence — and purges bloody and opportunistic chapters — Viatrovych has attempted to redraft the country’s modern history to whitewash Ukrainian nationalist groups’ involvement in the Holocaust and mass ethnic cleansing of Poles during World War II. And right now, he’s winning.
[...]
The consolidation of Ukrainian democracy — not to mention its ambition to join the European Union — requires the country to come to grips with the darker aspects of its past. But if Viatrovych has his way, this reckoning may never come to pass, and Ukraine will never achieve a full reckoning with its complicated past.
In that context, it seems very clear to me that opposing such a law should be within the realms of allowed democratic discourse. From a German perspective “Don’t empower people who want to purge the crimes of people who did mass murder of Jews” is just very common sense.
True; but I think one of the Viktoria’s main points was that any “compromises” which surface in popular discussions from time to time, those that involve ceding parts of Ukraine to Russian control, will doom the people living there to the same fate people in Russia are already facing (or worse, because the regime on the newly-annexed territories will be more evil simply due to how the Russian system works).
Right now there is an opportunity to liberate the occupied territories, including Crimea, and at least the people of those lands will be saved. When considering any compromises, the invisible loss of those people must be factored in. Once this opportunity passes, another might not arise for a long time.
Also, there is a “theory” that Crimea is the Putin’s phylactery. In the sense that so-called “Crimean consensus”, the popular approval rise he got out of annexing Crimea, was a major factor in propping up his current power, and after losing Crimea he won’t be able to survive as every faction will turn on him. We cannot know if that’s true, but it will certainly destabilize the regime, and it may buy new opportunities for the Russian domestic players.
That’s true, but at an 80% approval rating for Putin, a majority of them do like their current fate.
As far as what fate the people in Crimea want, different people in Crimea want different things.
In 2014 before the invasion you had 67.9% identified as Russian, 15.7% as Ukrainians, and 12.6% Crimean Tatars.
When searching in Western media we have an absence of polling data about what the people in Crimea want. If a majority of Crimeans wanted to be part of Ukraine, I think it would be likely that Western players would have commissioned those studies.
What we do have is an NPR article, How People In Crimea View The Union With Russia, which says:
And then list a few examples of people critical of Russian governance without saying their view is held by many Crimeans.
Dissolving the Tatar civil society organizations is certainly bad, but unfortunately, Ukraine doesn’t care about freedom of association either, and outlawed parties representing the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine.
Infringing the freedoms of 13% is less bad than infringing those of 68% of Crimeans.
As far as Hizb ut-Tahrir goes, they are forbidden in Germany where I live because they advocated the usage of violence for political ends. Interestingly, Russia and Germany both outlawed the organization in 2003. I agree, that the actions of Russia are excessive and I would certainly prefer them not to throw people into prison for 10 to 20 years for belonging to Hizb ut-Tahrir.
Destabilizing the regime does open up new opportunities but the way Putin is likely to react to that is to use political violence against anybody who isn’t loyal but is a threat to his power.
I don’t think these restrictions to freedom of association are comparable. First of all, we need to account for magnitudes of possible harm and not just numbers. In 1944, the Soviet government deported at least 191,044 Crimean tatars to the Uzbek SSR. By different estimates, from 18% to 46% of them died in exile. Now their representative body is banned, and Russian government won’t even let them commemorate the deportation day. I think it would be reasonable for them to fear for their lives in this situation.
Secondly, Russia always, even before the war, had rigged elections with fake opposition parties. That may be why the man in the interview says he had no choice. There are 4 parties in Russian parlament, but they are “pocket opposition”, they all vote the same on all important questions. Navalny wasn’t even allowed to participate in president elections. And if he were to participate and win, the votes would be miscounted anyway. So in Russia 100% of people lack a democratic representation, because there is no democracy.
Ukraine is at least a democratic country. Poroshenko didn’t poison and imprison Zelensky or vice versa. And Zelensky, by the way, started out pretty pro-Russian. His election campaign movie, “The servant of the people”, has a theme that Europe is not so great and Russians and Ukrainians are brothers and allies. He got elected, which shows that Russian-sympathetic views can get represented.
It’s true that Ukraine suspended 11 parties with links to Russian government for the period of martial law, after Russia started a full-scale invasion. That sounds like a reasonable measure to me. I don’t think Great Britain is an unfree country because it banned the British Union of Fashists party in 1940. When I look at those banned parties, it looks similarly justified.
For example, Evgeny Muraev, the leader of the NASHI party which suspiciously shares its name with the NASHI youth pro-Putin movement in Russia, called on Ukraine to capitulate when the invasion started.
The “Opposition platform—for life” party in its program suggests canceling decommunization laws. USSR caused a famine in Ukraine, deported over 191 thousands of people, and now they want to cancel decommunization?! If that was not enough, their representatives reportedly collaborated with the occupants, helping correct fire in Mariupol. Their leader Medvedchuk is Putin’s friend, Putin is his daughter’s godfather. I think this shows that British Union of Fashists party is a good analogy here. A country has to defend itself from foreign government agents and inhumane ideologies.
I haven’t looked at them all. Maybe there is a party there that doesn’t deserve it. But then these parties are only suspended for the duration of martial law. They should become legal again after the war ends.
When it comes to Hizb ut-Tahrir, it seems I was indeed mistaken to believe that they never advocated violence. Calls to destroy the state of Izrael and kill people living there sure sound like calls to violence. I guess I should have investigated further instead of just trusting Wikipedia and ovd-info. Now I am confused why this org is legal in Izrael itself. I see this issue is a lot less clear-cut than it seemed at first. I am going to edit the post.
Countries are usually less free in wartime and that’s one of the problems of war. That said, the British Union of Fashists did not represent a significant number of people and even those that it does represent aren’t an ethic minority together.
In early February 2015 according to Western polling 90% of Crimeans said yes in some form to “Do you endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea?”.
Let’s imaging that the Ukrainian military attacks Crimea, and as wars go some Crimeans die as a result. Is there likely to be peace after Ukraine has regained the full territory of Crimea? Very unlikely. It’s likely that there will be a bunch of Crimeans who do guerilla warfare with weapons that Russia graciously provides.
It’s very unlikely that the Ukrainian response to that is to give the Russian minority some minority rights back. It’s much more likely that they will further reduce Russian minority rights which in turn further inflames opposition.
It’s also worth noting here that the polling suggests that the Crimeans are much more pro-Russian than people in Donetsk and Luhansk, so you can’t generalize from the amount of support that staying part of Ukraine gets in those regions to Crimea.
Calls to capitulate seem to me valid speech. From what I see by googling The British Union of Fashists didn’t represent many people.
From Wikipedia:
The laws have raised some concerns about freedom of speech, as well as international concerns that they honor some organizations and individuals that participated in the mass murder of Jews, Poles, and Communists during the Holocaust in Ukraine and massacres in Volhynia.
The Venice commission (which exists partly to tell Ukraine how they have to change their laws to be compatible with the EU if they want to join) comes to the conclusion that the laws go to far in violating various rights. One exerpt:
113. While this interference might, on the grounds stated above, pursue legitimate aims, it is
not proportionate to these aims because it excludes political parties from participation in
elections without taking into account the severity of non-compliance with the Law by the
political party.
Just because the law is named “decommunization law” and there’s a history of communism causing problems doesn’t mean that the law is justified. If you think that a party that represents a minority and who calls for laws that discriminate against those minorities in a way that’s seen as illigitamte by the Venice Commission is illigimate because it calls for those laws to get repealed that’s a good sign that there’s a problem.
The EU approach to getting Ukraine to protect the rights of minorities seems more… sustainable… than Russia’s approach, so I propose a different compromise:
How about Russia withdraw all its troops back to the 2014 borders and we all give the slow, non-violent path a chance to work.
That’s unlikely going to happen in the real world.
When thinking about the world it makes sense to think in terms of what’s actually possible.
I believe that the decommunization laws are for the most part good and necessary, though I disagree with the part where you are not allowed to insult historical figures.
These laws are:
Law no. 2558 “On Condemning the Communist and National Socialist (Nazi) Totalitarian Regimes and Prohibiting the Propagation of their Symbols” — banning Nazi and communist symbols, and public denial of their crimes. That included removal of communist monuments and renaming of public places named after communist-related themes.
Law no. 2538-1 “On the Legal Status and Honoring of the Memory of the Fighters for the Independence of Ukraine in the 20th Century” — elevating several historical organizations, including the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, to official status and assures social benefits to their surviving members.
Law no. 2539 “On Remembering the Victory over Nazism in the Second World War”
Law no. 2540 “On Access to the Archives of Repressive Bodies of the Communist Totalitarian Regime from 1917–1991” — placing the state archives concerning repression during the Soviet period under the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance.
Venice commision criticizes the specifics of some laws, insisting that they should be formulated more clearly, that sanctions should follow the principle of proportionality etc. Getting these details right is important and I support it. But as a matter of general principle,
“The Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR recognise the right of Ukraine to ban or even criminalise the use of certain symbols of and propaganda for totalitarian regimes.”
The Opposition Party—for Life, on the contrary, proposes to repel all these laws. There was no decommunization in Russia after the USSR fell. No lustration or opening of archives. This allowed a former KGB officer to consolidate power and start an aggressive war which many people justify as a way to bring back the “good old times”. Just as there are many people in Russia dreaming of bringing back USSR, there also such people in Ukraine. They shouldn’t be allowed to bring totalitarianism back. This is why decommunization is important.
There’s a difference between disagreeing about whether a law should exist and whether opposing a law should be ground for voters being barred from voting for a party that advocates the law. I disagree with many laws that are passed but I do believe in the right of voters to elect the parties that advocate those laws. That’s part of what being a Democracy is about.
Laws are either constitutional (or in the case of the EU compatible with its principles) or not. Courts usually invalidate unconstitutional laws and then it’s up to the government to make new laws that are constitutional. The ability to have political parties argue that such laws should be abolished seems to me a central feature of a healthy democracy.
Countries do have the right to criminalize the use of certain symbols and propaganda for totalitarian regimes but they don’t have a duty to do so. As a result, it’s very hard to argue that this topic should not be one that’s openly discussed where political parties can take both sides of the debate.
If your goal is peace between multiple ethnicities, honoring fascists who took part in the mass murder of Jews, Poles, and Communists while making sure that Communists are condemned is very unlikely to produce ethnic harmony.
That institute was led by Volodymyr Viatrovych at the time. ForeignPolicy (a respected journal for the US elite) has an article The Historian Whitewashing Ukraine’s Past—Volodymyr Viatrovych is erasing the country’s racist and bloody history — stripping pogroms and ethnic cleansing from the official archives.:
In that context, it seems very clear to me that opposing such a law should be within the realms of allowed democratic discourse. From a German perspective “Don’t empower people who want to purge the crimes of people who did mass murder of Jews” is just very common sense.
From 2014:
GALLUP, pages 25, 27, 28, 29, 30
Pew Research Center, pages 4, 6, 9, 16
Putin is an evil dictator, but it doesn’t mean that everything he and Russia did in the last 22 years was evil.