The EU overthrew the Ukrainian Government and started the Ukraine Crisis. That is the Russian party line for what has happened during recent years In Ukraine. Sadly this line is also gaining much traction in western countries. In the west amid the ending of the NATO mission in Afghanistan and the end of the Iraq War, the public are very suspicious about their leaders look for another opportunity to ‘get their gun off’. While some scepticism about the seeming imperiousness of one’s leaders is welcome in a democracy, such conspiracies can conspire to make those exposing these views to be wilfully ignorant about actual threats to security. While politicians stand discredited as calling out “wolf” too many times, the publics’ perception about wolves on the horizon can prove flexible and susceptible to other points of view.
Such sentiments are strong at a time when the three main UK parties are in one way or another discredited. David Cameron of the Conservatives is seen as too cavalier with diplomacy our EU allies as well as Russia, uttering strong words to make up for the failure to secure concessions from the EU for repatriating powers to the UK. Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats is too associated with EU which is now under suspicion after the Eurozone Crisis and its seemingly inflexible attitude to the concerns of it’s critics. Earlier policy compromises made by the Liberal Democrats at the behest of their Conservative Coalition partners have also damaged their credibility. Ed Miliband has barely spoken on foreign affairs, besides ruling out an EU referendum in the future and selling out the Syrian people for political gain.
Most foreign policy debate that takes place in the UK mainstream at the moment disproportionately is in relation to the EU or immigration or often both. The rest of the time seems to be devoted to discussing the nearly universally condemned terrorist group ISIL and the ongoing Ukraine Crisis. Many people including myself were and still are astounded by how quickly events unfolded in the Ukraine Crisis. First of all there was a news piece about an EU trade treaty being turned down by the President of Ukraine. This was followed by rumours and then confirmed news about Russia offering Ukraine a large economic recovery package in, while the EU trade treaty was mysteriously turned down. Protests followed. Skull cracking by riot police and government hired goons ensued. Then finally the President of Ukraine Victor Yanukovych resigned and fled to Russia. The Crimea was swamped by unidentified armed personnel, and then a referendum declared it a part of
Russia. When we thought it was all over a civil war broke out in the east of Ukraine, with credible evidence emerging of Russian support for the rebels. Then there was a ceasefire, which is a funny sort of ceasefire since 1,000 people have died during it. These events came thick and fast and many of them seemingly made little sense, a perfect recipe for conspiracy theories to take root. And took root they did.
The anti EU version of events, barely distinguishable from the Russian Government’s line, is the following. The EU in its insidious ambition to expand as far as it can tried to effectively grab Ukraine in a trade pact which would have effectively put it on course to become an EU member state. When the trade treaty was turned down in preference for Russian cash the EU stands accused of stoking up the protests and sending speakers to denounce the Ukrainian Government’s decision. The EU is accused of promoting a bloc like mentality along the lines of “if you are not us you are with Russia”. When the interim government was set up the EU was accused of backing a ‘fascist coup’ that overthrew a democratically elected President. The critics of the EU dismiss their protests at the Russian mobilisation and subsequent annexation of the Crimea. After all the majority of the population of the Crimea supported Russia anyway. As for the civil war
they agree with the Russian responses to the allegations of Russian support for the rebels. Dismissing NATO intelligence as well as sources within Russia and citing the newly prominent new source of Russia Today, they maintain that such allegations are unproven.
So what is wrong with this picture? The main problem is that it is simply not true. Where there aren’t lies, there is great exaggeration. The EU has been expanding since its inception, what conceivable reason does it have to stop if there are willing candidates? The trade treaty had been negotiated over for months, so if it was an aggressive take over it definitely wasn’t a swift one. Furthermore why should the EU be accused of having a power bloc mentality, when Russia seemed unwilling to allow Ukraine to have assistance from both themselves and the EU? As for the speakers at the Maiden Square protests they were members of governments for nearby countries that were also EU member states. While the EU has its own foreign policy portfolio it does not take away the right of individual representatives from its constituent countries to voice their own views, or the views of their governments. Being in the EU does not mean countries speak with a
hive mind, if it did a whole lot more would get done within the organisation.
The charge of supporting fascism has a slim bit of historical precedence. The Ukrainian nationalist guerrillas in WW2 were proven to have helped the Nazis fight against the Soviets, naively believing that Hitler would allow the Ukraine to become independent. In addition local anti-semitic sentiment as well as an urge to please the new overlords lead to shameful examples of the nationalists helping the Nazi’s to wipe out the Jews. But to say that today those who support Ukrainian independence from Russia are Fascists is a stretch at best. Yulia Tymoshenko the previous president is a political schemer no doubt, but a fascist she is not. Furthermore the composition of the parliament after the departure of Yanukovych remained unchanged apart from the fleeing of his close supporters. The new cabinet had very few members of the Svoboda party which is alleged to be fascist or far right. Now the cabinet has Svoboda members in charge of such terrifying
portfolios as forestry and food portfolios, although Svoboda do now have the Defence portfolio. However Svoboda do not have the interior ministry portfolio, flying in the face of Russian conspiracy theories about Ukraine becoming a police state against Russian speakers. As for the overthrow of a democratic president, it is true that Yanukovych was elected. However being elected did not give him licence to deploy force against peaceful protestors. The bulk of the violence from civilians occurred after weeks of state repression. I for one don’t begrudge people the right to strike back at a repressive state.
The EU does not dispute the outcome of the referendum of the Crimean referendum so much as it questions the circumstances through which it came about. It is almost certain that the self defence forces that appeared in the Crimea were badly disguised Russian soldiers. The Russian Government dubiously justified this move by citing a change in Ukrainian law not recognising the special significance of the Russian language in Ukraine. Rather that engaging in hard headed diplomacy to appeal against the law Russia simply took over the most Russian part of Ukraine. The law was quickly rescinded anyway.
As for Russia’s involvement in backing the rebels in Ukraine, there is simply too much evidence to seriously believe Russia’s party line. Families of Russian servicemen have reported the secret burials of their loved ones, after they have mysteriously been killed while Russia is apparently not at war. In March 2014 a huge March For Peace of 30,000 people took place in Moscow citing specifically Russian interference in the conflict. Russian scientists also signed a letter protesting ongoing Russian interference in Ukraine. Embarrassingly Russia’s own attempts to cover up their involvement have backfired. Russian hackers were caught trying to change a Wikipedia article about the Ukrainian Air Forces’ planes, increasing their altitude in the article give credence to the theory that Ukrainian fighters shot down the Malaysian Airways flight MH17. The presence of the advanced Puk air defence systems in eastern Ukraine, likely the cause of
MH17’s demise, have been sighted many times by the OSCE, NATO and eyes on the ground.
The mainstream public who subscribe to the EU causing the Ukraine Crisis theory are trying desperately to not see something they don’t want to see. They like to think that there is nothing to be scared of in Europe at the moment because the alternative is very unsettling. The alternative and the truth is that Russia under the direction of Putin is embarking on a campaign of destabilisation and intimidation in order to mark Russia’s sphere of influence. A 21st century member of the nuclear club is playing international relations in the 18th century rules; might is right. The problem is that people have free will and don’t always abide by spheres of influence, nor should they out of subservience. Contrary to what Putin claims the Eastern European countries that have entered NATO did so because they needed a security guarantee against Russia, not an unreasonable desire after centuries of Russian interference. All countries should be free to
choose their own alliances and determine their own destiny. It shouldn’t matter if Putin’s views run contrary to this with regards to Ukraine. It is the Ukrainian people who deserve the right to determine their own destiny and no one else.
Nigel Farage of UKIP is recklessly and irresponsibly helping to spread the cult of personality of Putin that is making unsettling headway in public opinion. Contrasting faceless EU bureaucrats and a seemingly hapless Prime Minister he presents Vladimir Putin as a strong and decisive leader worthy of respect. In this strange reordering of the world an international organisation that measures the size of bananas is more terrifying than a rogue state that ignites a civil war. Not all threats to peace need to be in the guise of a ranting wreck in the mould of Hitler. Cold and steely villains are a lot more of a concern, not in the least because they are harder to see coming. Say what you will about UKIP's stance on immigration. But it's tendency to redraw the reality of international relations to suit it's own narrow ideological vision does not bode well for realism, or maturity. It is time for Europe to wake up and face down this imminent threat.
