Showing posts with label Malorossiya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malorossiya. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Donetsk Putsch Nipped in Bud, but Could Odessa or Kharkiv Be Next as Russia Eyes Ukrainian Mainland?


The Donetsk Republic is no more—at least for the time being.  Last week in this blog, I reported on the pro-Russian rebellion in Donetsk, in eastern Ukraine, whose leaders took over the regional government on March 3rd and by March 5th had declared a “Donetsk Republic” and were preparing to invite President Vladimir Putin to send Russian troops to support them.  The uprising enacted the worst fears that a parallel to the takeover of Crimea could happen in the Ukrainian mainland.

A map of how Ukraine’s oblasts voted in the 2010 election (with red being pro-Russian)
shows Donetsk in the far east, bordering Russia.
The following day, the local coup’s leader, Pavel Gubarev (pictured, center, at the top of this article), was arrested by Ukrainian federal police while he was holding a press conference (he was later sentenced to two months in prison) and the Ukrainian flag was raised again over the offices of Donetsk oblast’s regional government.  This did not end the conflict.  Supporters of Gubarev’s group, the People’s Militia of Donbas (Donbas being the larger region around Donetsk, on the Don River), staged street confrontations with police that night.  On March 8th, 3,000 people rallied in Donetsk’s Lenin Square to support the idea of the Russian Federation annexing this part of eastern Ukraine—as it is already gearing up to do in Crimea.  The crowds chanted, “Russia!” and “Referendum!” and surrounded the government building where the oblast’s new governor, Sirhiy Taruta, was holed up, challenging him to emerge.  Taruta, a multi-millionaire oligarch, was appointed by the new interim Ukrainian government in Kyiv (Kiev) partly in an attempt to mollify the long-corrupt national economy’s powerful tycoons and get them on the side of the anti-Kremlin opposition that returned to power late last month.  Donetsk is also, no one fails to note, the home oblast of Ukraine’s deposed pro-Kremlin president, Viktor Yanukovych.

Pro-Gubarev activists confront police in the streets of Donetsk.
Little is known about Gubarev, described as a 30-year-old advertising executive or entrepreneur from the Donbas region.  In the 1990s, he was a member of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, a post-Soviet but communistic and pan-Slavic political party which is stridently anti-Western and anti-globalization.  He has also, oddly enough, been a member of Russian National Unity, an extremist right-wing party often described as neo-Nazi.  If those seem like opposite ends of the political spectrum for one person to travel before the age of 30 (it is not clear in which order he belonged to these groups, or to which of the two, if either, he still belongs), then that possibly says as much about Gubarev’s peripatetic nature as it does about the topsy-turvy world of the Ukrainian political fringe.  As Marlon Brando said, in The Wild One, when asked what he was rebelling against, “What’ve you got?”  All Gubarev seems sure he’s for is seeing his home region swallowed up by an omnivorous Russia.

Supporters of the current Ukrainian government celebrate the snuffing out
of the Donetsk Republic uprising—but for how long?
The phenomenon of Gubarev also points up the absurdity of the Kremlin’s official line that the anti-Yanukovych, anti-Kremlin forces in Ukraine are in essence fascists and neo-Nazis—as opposed to Russia’s home-grown nationalists, who, in this view, are the moral heirs to the Soviet Union’s heroic defeat of the Nazis in what is still called “the Great Patriotic War.”  Here, as a bit of an antidote to that line of thinking, is Gubarev in the uniform of Russian National Unity:


Nice armband, huh?  As with many far-right groups in Europe, one wonders if they think people won’t notice that they are wearing modified swastikas, or if they are rubbing our noses in it.  Compare, for example, the insignia of Greece’s far-right Golden Dawn organization: ...


... or Hungary’s far-right ultranationalist party Jobbik: ...


... or the radical, neo-fascist Free Wales Army, in the United Kingdom: ...


... or, alas, Ukraine’s own extremist Rightist Sector party, which has revived the Nazi S.S.’s “Wolfsangel” (wolf’s hook) insignia (as has Ukraine’s more mainstream right-wing Svoboda, or Freedom, party) ...


... and then there’s Russia’s Movement against Illegal Immigration (D.P.N.I.): ...


... or the group Russian Deed (Russkoye Delo): ...


... and here is how members of Gubarev’s own Russian National Unity party like to greet one another at their little meetings ...


... including some fellows having a bit of fun, Busby Berkley style, via Mel Brooks ...


... and here is Russia’s National Bolshevik Party: ...


Phew.  Well, at least their emblem doesn’t look like a swastika.  What a relief!

If Putin does decide to pull a Crimean-annexation maneuver in the Ukrainian mainland, Donetsk oblast, which borders Russia, is an obvious place to start.  And, ironically, ethnic-Russian neo-Nazis like Gubarev will be his local confederates making it all possible.

... but “ethnicity” is a more malleable, and shifting, phenomenon than native language.
A point needs to be made here about the little matter of ethnicity.  I myself, in this blog, at times have been guilty of being insufficiently careful with defining what it means when one says something like “the 30% of Ukraine that is ethnically Russian.”  Those who follow the news will wonder at references to eastern Ukrainian regions where Russians are in the majority while some maps in news sources show Crimea as the only area where “Russians” exceed 50%.  The problem is that there are two concepts in use here: Russian-speakers and ethnic Russians.  Censuses and other data on what languages Ukrainian citizens speak is one thing, and here we do find Russian-speakers a majority in most of the eastern oblasts: Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk, as well as Odessa and Crimea.  But that is not the same thing as being ethnically Russian.  Many Russian-speakers in Ukraine have identified themselves as of Ukrainian nationality without further specification.  This is certainly the case with Yanukovych himself, who is of mixed Belarussian, Polish, and Russian ethnic background but, as president of Ukrainian, usually defined himself through his political career as simply Ukrainian.  But while data on language spoken at home might not shift much from one census to the next, ethnicity is very malleable.  Many Ukrainian speakers of Russian who have ethnically Russian ancestors have felt lucky to have landed in Ukraine, which emerged from the Soviet rubble in 1991 as the most prosperous of the Soviet successor states, and have defined themselves accordingly.  Crimea, which was part of the Russian republic until Nikita Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine in 1954, seems to have been the one part of Ukraine where the great majority of Russian-speakers felt, and feel, far more Russian than Ukrainian.  But it has yet to be seen how much the feelings of Russian-speakers on the Ukrainian mainland will change their sense of identity.  Many Russian-speakers are anti-Yanukovych, but how many, and for how long?

Pro-Kremlin rioters in Kharkiv last week tried to take over government buildings.
In other ethnic-Russian-dominated parts of Ukraine, tensions are high.  In Kharkiv (Kharkov), pro-Russian activists rioted as the Crimea crisis unfolded earlier this month, demanding the Yanukovych government be returned to power.  Kharkiv, sometimes called Ukraine’s most Russian city, is a charged symbol: it was the capital of the fledgling Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic during the Russian Civil War between Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and others following the Communist revolution in 1917 as it fought anti-Bolshevik Ukrainian statelets formed in the west, mostly based in Kiev.  Kharkiv was the first place Yanukovych fled to when he lost power, and last month ethnic-Russian activists in Crimea laid out plans (as reported earlier in this blog) for a Federated States of Malorossiya, embracing Odessa, the Donbas, and Crimea, with a capital at Kharkiv.  Ukrainian police have been stepping up security around Kharkiv’s public buildings, fearing that a “Kharkiv Republic” might be next.

Some Russian nationalists envision a separate “Malorossiya” that includes Crimea, Donetsk, and Odessa.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin revealed February 7th that Vladimir Putin’s recent phone-call with President Barack Obama included Putin informing Obama something that might or might not be true: that ethnic Russians in Odessa have asked the Kremlin to intervene to help them.  This is all supposedly to protect them from persecution by ethnic Ukrainians—something that international media and human-rights organizations have found no evidence for.

Is Vlad the Impaler preparing to ride onto the western Steppes?
Odessa, although it is the westernmost of the Russian-speaker-dominated oblasts of Ukraine, is in one sense far more Central European than Russian.  Closer to Vienna or Istanbul than to Moscow, the area around Odessa was part of the Ottoman Empire, and it was only in the late 18th century that Catherine the Great won it from the Ottomans and erected its capital city as a Russian city.  In the 2001 census, 62.8% of the oblast’s residents identified themselves as Ukrainians, while 20.7% chose “Russian.”  It is likely that all of the “Russians” were Russian-speakers, while many of the slight majority that were “Ukrainians” were possibly Russian-speakers as well—and these may now be feeling divided loyalties as never before.  (In addition, Odessa oblast in 2001 was 6.1% Bulgarian, 5% Moldovan (i.e., ethnic Romanian), and 1.1% Gagauz (a Turkic people of Moldova).  Going for Odessa next—as Putin seems to have hinted to Obama he might (but why would he reveal his motives?)—would have the advantage of completely cutting off nearly all of Ukraine’s remaining access to the Black Sea (assuming the annexation of Crimea) and putting Russia on a border with Romania, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  It would also allow Russia to complete its sort of de facto incorporation of the eastern sliver of Moldova, which seceded after the Soviet collapse as the puppet state of Transnistria.  This would prevent not just Ukraine, but Moldova, from ever joining NATO.  And Odessa oblast would now be Russia’s westernmost point of land, not counting the exclave of Kaliningrad Oblast, wedged between Poland and Lithuania on the Baltic Sea.

“Odessa = Ukraine,” reads a sign (left).  Not all in Odessa agree.
Mir” (peace), reads another (right).  Not everyone agrees with that one either.
Already, there have been street confrontations between pro- and anti-Russian elements in Odessa, and ethnic-Russian rebels—or, perhaps, as in Donetsk, imported provocateurs from Russia itself—have managed several times to break in and raise the Russian flag over Odessa’s government buildings.  On March 6th, a speaker told a large crowd of cheering ethnic-Russian demonstrators and ad hoc militiamen, “Our duty is to demonstrate against Kiev’s junta, whom America has paid $5 billion to take over political power; otherwise their armed fascist militia will force us to elect their oligarchs and turn our country into a NATO member!”  Etc. etc.

Pro-Russian demonstrators in Odessa on March 6th
What will Putin do if the Russians of Odessa get around to “asking” him to “rescue” them from Ukrainian “fascists” and invade?  Do you think he wouldn’t dare?  That’s what we used to say about Crimea.

Members of the Ukrainian feminist political collective Femen
brought a pre-Giuliani feel to Times Square in New York this week with an anti-Putin protest.

[For those who are wondering, yes, this blog is tied in with my forthcoming book, a sort of encyclopedic atlas to be published by Auslander and Fox under the title Let’s Split! A Complete Guide to Separatist Movements and Aspirant Nations, from Abkhazia to Zanzibar.  (That is shorter than the previous working title.)  The book, which contains dozens of maps and over 500 flags, is nearly ready for the printer and should be on shelves, and available on Amazon, by February 2015.  I will be keeping readers posted of further publication news.  Meanwhile, please “like” the book (even though you haven’t read it yet) on Facebook and see this special announcement for more information on the book.]


(Once again, thanks are due to Olga Buchel for directing me to some of the information used in this article.)


Monday, January 27, 2014

Partition Lines in Ukraine Sharpen as Crimean Russians Call for Separate “Malorossiya”


You don’t have to be a big believer in omens to feel that this one bodes particularly ill.  Yesterday in Rome, Pope Francis released doves at the Vatican to express prayers for the future of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.


Immediately, a seagull and a crow set upon the defenseless doves and an airborne battle ensued, with feathers flying.


The doves remain unaccounted for.

Indeed, prayers may be a little late at this point.  The protests in Ukraine over the direction of the country are beginning to take on some of the qualities of a civil war as ordinary Ukrainians rise up against the corrupt presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, who wants to bind his country closer to an increasingly isolated and authoritarian Russia instead of to the European Union and NATO.  Most of the ethnic Ukrainian majority favor a shift to the west and to democracy and an open society, while Yanukovych, who squeaked into office four years ago on the strength of votes from ethnic-Russians in the east and south of the country, is taking the opposite tack: cosying to Vladimir Putin and keeping the opposition leader and former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, behind bars on trumped-up charges.  Rapidly over the past few weeks, pro- and anti-Yanukovych riots have spread across the country, with a climbing number of fatalities at the hands of police and a sharpening geographic and ethnic divide.  Talks between the two sides have gone nowhere.  (See my recent article listing the Ukrainian divide as one of “10 Separatist Movements to Watch in 2014.”)

Ukrainians mourn an anti-government protestor killed by police.
The red and black flag is of Ukrainian National Self-Defense (UNSO),
armed wing of the Ukrainian National Party (Ukrayinska Narodna Partiya).
Initially, protests were concentrated in ethnic-Ukrainian-dominated areas, but then pro-Yanukovych counter-demonstrations in the past couple days began emerging, and in the past day or so anti-government protests have spread to places dominated by ethnic Russians, such as Odessa in the far southwest and cities in the eastern Donbas region such as Zaporizhia and Dnipropetrovsk.  The latter, though now ethnic-Russian-dominated, is Tymoshenko’s place of birth.  Tymoshenko is ethnically Ukrainian, but Yanukovych, who was born to the east, near Donetsk, is of Russian, Polish, and Belarussian ancestry.

A protest structure honoring the jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko.
(Georgian flags are visible too, but what’s the one with the single, inverted-colors Bolnisi cross?)
As reported the other day in this blog, the Crimean peninsula is where many battle lines are being drawn.  One of the most heavily-ethnic-Russian parts of the country, Crimea was part of Russia rather than Ukraine when both were part of Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union.  Nikita Khrushchev transferred the peninsula to the Ukrainian S.S.R. in 1954, though when he allowed hundreds of thousands of ethnic minorities deported eastward by Stalin to return home, the predominantly-Muslim Crimean Tatars were not on the list.  When Communism fell in 1991, Crimean Russians threatened to secede and got their own autonomous republic in the peninsula, and Tatars, who had been trickling back but are still a 12% minority there, also were granted their own largely symbolic Mejlis, or Council, as the voice of their people in Crimea.  In recent days, the Mejlis has come out strongly in favor of the anti-government demonstrators, while the Crimean autonomous parliament, which is controlled by Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, hinted that Crimean Russians would not consent to remain in a country ruled by Yanukovych’s mostly ethnic-Ukrainian opponents.


The prime minister of Poland, another of Russia’s formerly captive nations which today borders the ethnic-Ukrainian-dominated parts of Ukraine, predicted darkly on January 24th that Ukraine might even split apart.  “We have no doubt,” said the prime minister, Donald Tusk, “that the administration of President Yanukovych and his behavior have led to this critical moment, when the unity of the Ukrainian state is in question.”  And, indeed, the borders of a future partitioned Ukraine may be appearing, emerging beyond mere hints and spreading beyond Crimea.


Media reported January 26th on a large angry meeting held in Sevastopol, the largest city on the Crimean peninsula, to discuss secession.  Sevastopol, which is the only part of the peninsula not in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea but administered separately within Ukraine, is also home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, as part of a deal negotiated after the Soviet Union’s collapse.  At this weekend’s Sevastopol conclave, which brought together Russian nationalists, pro-Moscow Cossacks, youth groups, and especially the sports-club fans who have featured prominently in the pro-government protests, a “Coordinating Committee” (Севастопольский Координационный) was formed.  The idea is that, in case of an anti-Yanukovych coup d’état, Sevastopol should secede and declare an independent Federated States of Malorossiya (Федеративного Государства Малороссия) that would eventually include other pro-Yanukovych regions like Odessa Oblast or the Donbas as well.  Malorossiya (sometimes spelled, in English, Malorussia) means literally “Little Russia” and refers to the mainland areas north of the Crimean peninsula, i.e. Ukraine when thought of as part of the Russian Empire.  The eastern Donbas region around Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk is sometimes called “New Russia,” or Novorossiya.  That name was also tossed around by ethnic Russians in 1992 during Crimea’s brief secession attempt.

You know things are bad when the police are the ones throwing Molotov cocktails.
Other pro-Yanukovych activists have drawn an explicit parallel between today’s growing geographical divide and the period of the Russian Civil War after the 1918 revolution, when for a few years what is today Ukraine was divided between an anti-Bolshevik and more progressive Ukrainian People’s Republic, with a capital at Kiev (Kyiv) (modern Ukraine’s capital), and a pro-Bolshevik Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (S.S.R.), which eventually prevailed and became the Ukrainian S.S.R. that kept all of Ukraine under Kremlin control until 1991.  The Russian nationalists are now saying that the Civil War–era Ukrainian S.S.R., when Ukraine was divided, which had its capital at Kharkov (Kharkiv), was the predecessor of today’s nascent Federated State of Malorossiya (see map at top of this article).  The intent to revive a Soviet-style Russian domination of Ukraine could not be clearer.

He has Ukrainian independence in the crosshairs.
So far this Malorossiya idea has not spread in very concrete ways beyond Crimea to the rest of Ukraine, but that appears to be only a matter of time.

Oh: and if you’re wondering if the West could ever possibly just stand by idly and just watch Russia invade and dismember Ukraine, just ask the Republic of Georgia.


Many thanks are due to Olga Buchel for alerting me to Russian- and Ukrainian-language news items that would otherwise escape my dragnet.

[For those who are wondering, yes, this blog is tied in with a forthcoming book, a sort of encyclopedic atlas to be published by Auslander and Fox under the title Let’s Split! A Complete Guide to Separatist Movements, Independence Struggles, Breakaway Republics, Rebel Provinces, Pseudostates, Puppet States, Tribal Fiefdoms, Micronations, and Do-It-Yourself Countries, from Chiapas to Chechnya and Tibet to Texas.  Look for it some time in 2014.  I will be keeping readers posted of further publication news.]

Subscribe Now: Feed Icon