Ukraine–Divided or Diverse


Uilleam Blacker

On Wednesday, February 19, following the worst violence so far of the Ukrainian protests, BBC Radio 4’s Today program, probably the leading radio news show in the UK, reported on Ukraine. The program’s correspondent Daniel Sandford warned of the danger of a bloody civil war and of the splitting of the country. On February 20, the program spoke of half of Ukraine that ‘feels more Russian’ and half that ‘feels more European’. On Wednesday, Today presenter Mishal Husain asked Robert Brinkley, former UK ambassador to Ukraine and Russia, about the prospect of war and a split, saying that after all, ‘half the country speaks Russian’. Recognizing the risk of further unrest, Brinkley nevertheless cautioned that talk of a split was exaggerated. The country’s supposed East-West split is not clean cut, he said, neither are its ethnic or linguistic divisions. Sadly, Brinkley’s differentiated understanding of Ukraine is sorely lacking in wider Western commentary on Ukraine.

Talk of sharp divisions is not limited to journalists, but is also frequently heard from specialized commentators, for whom identifying Ukraine’s ‘deep divide’ seems to the first marker of expertise on the country. Stephen Cohen, emeritus professor at Princeton and New York universities, commented thus in The Nation:

But every informed observer knows—from Ukraine’s history, geography, languages, religions, culture, recent politics and opinion surveys—that the country is deeply divided as to whether it should join Europe or remain close politically and economically to Russia. There is not one Ukraine or one “Ukrainian people” but at least two, generally situated in its Western and Eastern regions.

A similar message came from two other North American academics, Lucan Way and Keith Darden, in their blog for the Washington Post (albeit presenting a far more nuanced view than Cohen):

We should be particularly wary when “the people” referred to are the people of Ukraine.  If 20 years of scholarship and surveys teach us one thing, it is that Ukraine is a country that is deeply divided on virtually every issue pertaining to relations with Russia or the West, with very deep historic divisions that continue to bear on contemporary politics.

This idea of a fatally divided state that can barely hold itself together because of political, linguistic, cultural and other differences is repeated so often that it has become a commonplace, and is widely reproduced in less specialized media coverage, as on the BBC.

Yet the BBC’s ‘received wisdom’ about Ukraine, and the statements made by Way, Darden and Cohen demand some scrutiny. Why should we be extra-careful when talking about the ‘Ukrainian people’? Why the quotation marks? Politicians and commentators the world over talk about the people of their countries and what it wants. No-one corrects them by pointing out that in fact the peoples they refer to are internally differentiated. Why is it necessary to establish overwhelming consensus in Ukraine in order to justify talking about the Ukrainian people?

Regional diversity is seen as the geographical basis for warnings of divisions, splits and wars. Certainly, strong regional political differences, based in historical, ethnic and/or cultural differences, can create fault lines within states: Northern Ireland is a case in point, separated from the Republic of Ireland and having autonomous status within the UK. Scotland is about to vote to separate from the rest of the UK. If one wants to talk about deep regional differences, the UK is a much more dramatic case than Ukraine. Ukraine has no strong separatist movements. There are no political parties who include cession of any part of the country in their programmes. There are no problems with separatist terrorist organizations.

Crimea, Ukraine’s most ethnically Russian region and an important site of Russian strategic interest, is the only place where some degree of separatism is really noticeable. The region, a small part of Ukraine with a population of around 2 million, has an identity powerfully distinct from the rest of the country, and enjoys a high level of autonomy. Rumblings are often heard about the prospect of ceding to Russia, but this has never really been seriously entertained, and voters overwhelmingly support Yanukovych’s party, which wants Crimea as part of Ukraine. Any potential conflict in Crimea is likely to be caused by Russian-Ukrainian geopolitical relations, potentially similar to the conflict between Georgia and Russia in South Ossetia in 2008, but neither side is likely to risk this scenario. Ethnic tensions or separatism on the ground are not strong enough to spark major unrest.

Compared to the UK, then, with Scotland and Northern Ireland, or Spain, with the Basques and Catalans, where threats of separatism are very real, Ukraine’s territorial integrity seems to be fairly safe. Nevertheless, Western observers see supposed regional splits as deeply threatening to Ukraine’s future as a state. At the same time, even the immanent prospect of the separation of Scotland from the UK and the continued terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, while of course causes for concern for many, inspire neither domestic or foreign observers to create a doom-laden discourse of political impossibility around the future of the UK.

Division is often drawn along linguistic lines – as the question posed by the BBC’s news presenter demonstrates. ‘After all, half the country speaks Russian, doesn’t it?’ Well, not exactly. In the country as a whole, the Ukrainian language dominates as the stated native language, though research suggests that actual language use brings Ukrainian and Russian closer. There are certainly regional differences – the East is generally more Russophone – but the geographical spread of the two languages is actually quite complex. Many people speak both, or mixtures of the two. It is often hard for an individual, even in the east, to define whether they are a Russian speaker or a Ukrainian speaker, never mind for an entire region. Anyone following the protests online will have noticed a robust mixture of Ukrainian and Russian voices in the Maidan camp.

But accepting that different languages are used across the country, with regional variation, is there any link between this and potential civil war and state collapse? One thing that is important to remember here is that in Ukraine (as in many other countries) language doesn’t mark ethnicity. Only about one-sixth of the population is ethnically Russian (and here it’s important to note that making any conclusions about Russians’ political views based on ethnicity would be hasty). There are more ethnically Ukrainian Russian speakers than there are Russian ones. Ukraine is not Yugoslavia (an analogy that is often cited) – over 80 percent of its inhabitants share the same national identity, and there is no history of ethnic conflict between the inhabitants of present day Ukraine.

The Russian language is a mainstay of life in Ukraine, and can be heard in any region. Most Ukrainians consume Russian media, watch Russian movies, read Russian literature or listen to Russian music to some degree, and in this the west of the country is actually no exception. But there is little difference between this language-based affinity and that found among Irish people for British culture, or among Brits for American culture. These affinities may speak to certain overlaps in identity, attitudes, historical experience, but they are not omens of any future political union.

Linguistic diversity in Ukraine is much less of a ‘problem’ than some outsiders seem to think: in everyday life, one might meet some resistance for speaking Ukrainian in Odessa or Russian in L’viv, but most people pay little attention. Ukrainians often hold conversations across two languages without really noticing. Surveys from the early days of Yanukovych’s rule have suggested that the ‘language question’, so inflated by politicians around election time, is actually of little concern to ordinary people, worrying only around 5 percent of the population.

And yet again, Western observers often pick up on these differences as evidence of a flawed society that is heading for catastrophe, despite the fact that linguistic diversity is in fact the norm in many countries, and is something that is openly promoted by the EU as desirable and important.

In both articles mentioned above, and in numerous others, observers point out that support for the EU is another point that splits Ukraine. It is true that support is not uniform across the country, and there is no clear majority support for the EU: Way and Darden cite a survey that shows that 43 percent supports EU membership, and 32 percent membership of the Customs Union (the survey doesn’t ask about the actual proposition of the EU trade agreement that was rejected by Yanukovych; it also suggests that of those willing to actually vote in potential referenda, 58 percent would favour the EU and 42 the Customs Union). But should the reluctance of a significant proportion of the country’s population to commit to supporting EU integration be seen as yet another fatal divide in the country? The situation in fact makes Ukraine typically European: Euroscepticism has become very strong in many European states. The UK may well hold a referendum on its membership. Polls suggest that support for EU membership in the UK is significantly lower than it is in Ukraine (only around 30 percent support for membership according to 2012 polls). Yet while this is fairly standard for some actual EU members, in Ukraine, where disapproval of the EU is lower and enthusiasm certainly more visible, division on the issue is seen as an insurmountable problem for closer ties with Europe.

All of this smacks of the most condescending kind of Western double standards. While political, linguistic, and cultural diversity seem to be desirable traits, signs of ‘normal’, tolerant, democratic European societies, in the Ukrainian case these traits are seen as signs of deeply threatening divisions in society. What’s okay for the rich nations of the West – regional, cultural, linguistic diversity that is reflected in a varied political landscape – is not okay for poor, chaotic Ukraine. The present unrest is seen as proof of this.

Yet it should be obvious to any observer that the unrest in Ukraine is not a result of any kind of ethnic, regional, linguistic or other split, nor does it foresee any territorial split or civil war: it is the result of the disastrous rule of a corrupt and brutal government that represents the interests of small elite that is determined to hang on to its wealth and power at any cost. Any future violence will not be between different ethnic, regional or linguistic groups: it will be between the state and its opponents. That opposition may be stronger in some parts of the country than in others, but those who are less willing to protest are unlikely to take arms against Maidan supporters. No-one is willing to fight for Yanukovych, other than the thugs he pays to do so.

One wonders what the ideal scenario would be for Ukraine, according to those who lament its lack of unity. Putin managed to achieve an impressive level of political unity and stability in the country for much of his time in power (with some notable exceptions to the rule, such as the bloody secessionist war in Chechnia). Is this kind of unity a desirable scenario for Ukraine? Perhaps it’s time to recognize that Ukraine’s perceived divisions are in fact simply typical signs of diversity; they are not a liability, but a sign of cultural richness, and can, if harnessed and embraced, provide the foundations for the emergence of a vibrant and differentiated democracy.

http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/02/12/who-are-the-protesters-in-ukraine/

http://www.socis.kiev.ua/ua/press/dani-zahalnoukrajinskoho-sotsiolohichnoho-doslidzhennja-monitorynhu-ukrajina-i-ukrajintsi.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/nov/17/eu-referendum-poll

http://life.pravda.com.ua/technology/2010/04/12/46531/

The author is Postdoctoral Fellow, St Antony’s College, Oxford

About DAVID R. MARPLES

Distinguished University Professor, University of Alberta

8 comments

  1. Alexander Sydorenko

    Stephen F. Cohen has long–if ever–ceased to be an objective observer of post-Soviet Ukraine. Like some others, he is an incorrigible Russophile/Putinophile who has never accepted Ukraine as a distinct nation or culture. He has no understanding of the Maidan or sympathy to its aspirations. Hence, his recent drivel in The Nation, is simply pathetic dogmatism.

  2. What a load of utter nonsense!

    I am the 52-year-old half-Ukrainian son of a post-war Ukrainian exile to Reading in the UK and the drivel above reminds me of those days in Ukrainian School on Saturday when all we were given access to were totally biased Ukrainian history books written by Ukrainian authors that presented a totally one-sided story and were delivered by “teachers” whose only remit was to instill their right wing nationalism into us kids!

    What this article actually says is “Well, in fact there IS a deep cultural divide in the Ukraine but we really must NOT mention it to anyone who isn’t Ukrainian”! Yes, like 40-odd years ago at Ukrainian School, here’s someone else trying to tell me how to think!

    In my more than half century on this planet, I have actually discovered a couple of things:

    1. Going around with my eyes open and mouth shut has let me learn far more about the world around me than sitting in a library with my head stuck in history books collecting university qualifications, and,

    2. Just because you have an Oxbridge University email address doesn’t make you any more an authority on the world around you than anyone else.

    The fact is that EVERY Western European country is facing cultural divides at the moment, you can thank the opening of country borders and cheap RyanAir plane flights for that!

    Ukraine has had less that a quarter of a century of self-government since the mid-1700s, therefore cultural diversity has never been an issue within its own remit to control. Consequently, it sees this as a new big issue, and rightfully so, it IS a big issue.

    But it’s a big issue for EVERY European country that is either already wealthy or moving towards wealth because (surprise surprise) people from poorer countries gravitate to richer countries, thus widening the ethnic diversity. (Yes, I worked that one out *ALL BY MYSELF* and I don’t even have a university degree!)

    So rather than re-inventing the wheel, a Western Europe-facing Ukraine can do what I did – look at what is happening elsewhere and learn from it.

    • Roman Solchanyk

      In an otherwise fine post, suggesting that anti-EU attitudes in Ukraine are a form of Euroscepticism is off base. As far as I can tell, Eurosceptics tend to be individuals who are already citizens of EU members states (e.g., the UK). They are sceptics because they feel that membership of the EU threatens their country’s sovereignty, that the EU’s bureaucracy is stifling, and the like. In short, their anti-Brussels attitudes are grounded in policy issues.

      In Ukraine, the sources of anti-EU attitudes are, for lack of better terms, ideological and/or “cultural.” Specifically, the EU is seen as “Europe,” “the West,” and a geopolitical opponent of Russia, in short, “the Other.”

  3. Pingback: Ukraine: Divided or Diverse - Sean's Russia Blog

  4. James Mostrokovitch

    “Perhaps it’s time to recognize that Ukraine’s perceived divisions are in fact simply typical signs of diversity; they are not a liability, but a sign of cultural richness, and can, if harnessed and embraced […]”

    “harnessed and embraced” —- Fifty Shades of Ukraine?

  5. Fine piece seeing a sense of balance and fairness in approaching the Other Europe. I’d be wary though of claiming 80% of Ukrainians share ‘national identity’. They might share nationality or citizenship but this fact, as in any country, doesn’t mean imagining your community in the same way.

  6. Albert Mitchell

    I like the view of diversity as ‘cultural richness’. Ukraine, in my view, has been extremely tolerant for far too long! It has so much potential for good, for improvement! Let it no longer tolerate the status quo but follow a new (much higher) standard! Good to see that with this new Government, perhaps there will be a new vision! JFK who was assassinated on 22 November (1963) –same day that the Ukrainian revolution began in full fling–had intended to say later that day: “Where there is no vision, the people perish!”. The same can be said of any generation, or people or nation. Let us hope and pray that this new vision Ukraine embraces will be as bright as their faith!

  7. Pingback: Ukraine–Divided or Diverse | Crisis in Ukraine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: