BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
NORTON META TAG
07 March 2014
A Struggle Amongst Oligarchs in Ukraine Pt.1 7MAR14
HERE is a very different look at the situation in Ukraine and Ukrainian Crimea from TRNN's interview of Aleksandr Buzgalin, no fan of vladmir putin and his Russian dictatorship but no fan of the Ukrainian oligarchs in power in Kiev either. After listening to and reading this interview it seems this is more a dangerous geopolitical conflict between Russia and the West with little regard for democracy and the human rights of all the citizens of the Ukraine. I do not believe we should support the Russian imposed government in Ukrainian Crimea, and I do believe if the "referendum" on 16 MAR 14 results in Ukrainian Crimea declaring their desire to be part of Russia the West must impose wide ranging, strict, punitive sanctions and restrictions on Russia and the people controlling the Russian government and economy. The West must also insist all loan guarantees to the current Ukrainian government include mandatory transparency of government and economic operations to prevent a repeat of the financial rape of Ukraine as committed by ousted cabal of oligarchs who controlled pres yanukovych.
Professor Aleksandr Buzgalin explains historical relations between the
Crimea region of Ukraine and Russia, ahead of a referendum vote which
could bring Crimea under greater Russian control - March 7, 2014
JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.As
Russian and Western diplomats work towards a political solution for the
crisis caused by the Russian intervention into Crimea, we'll speak with
our next guest about just why Russia decided to seize control of the
peninsula region.We're now joined by our guest, Aleksandr Buzgalin. Aleksandr is a professor of political economy at Moscow State University.Thank you so much for joining us, Aleks.ALEKSANDR
BUZGALIN, PROF. POLITICAL ECONOMICS, MOSCOW STATE UNIV.: Thank you for
the opportunity to have this interview and to tell important things, I
hope, for you.DESVARIEUX: So, Aleksandr, can you just
start off by talking about how Crimea became a part of the Ukraine in
1954, as well as the history of the region and the relationship with
Russia?BUZGALIN: So it's a long history. First of all, I
want to remind that during many hundreds of years, many decades, Ukraine
was part of Russian Empire, and it was really not bad relation between
Ukrainians and Russians, and it was difficult to say where there is a
border, because Kiev, the modern capital of Ukraine, was one of the most
important and cultural centers of our country, and Gogol and Shevchenko
and other writers, painters, actors, were part of our common culture.
And for us, Ukraine was part of our civilization, and for majority of
Ukrainians, it was the same. So this is important.Of course it was oppression, but it was oppression of everybody but tsar elite and the Russian brutal capital in past.After
collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine became independent. And it was
also important basis for conflict, because it was mainly conflict of
Ukrainian pro-Western oligarchs and Russian or Ukrainian pro-Russian
oligarchs, who were real exploiters Ukrainian people and Ukrainian
nature, both, and it is difficult to say who was better, who was worse.
Both worse.This Crimea, another story. Crimea was part of
Russia before it was part of Tartar and so on. It was long history then
in 18th century. It was part of Russian Empire. And only 50 years ago,
it became part of Ukraine artificially because Khrushchev, general
secretary of Communist Party, decided to make this present to Ukrainian
first secretary of Communist Party. Absolute majority of
Crimea people are Russian-speaking people, and a few are Ukrainians, and
Ukrainian language was artificial for this territory. I was many times
in this region. All my holidays I spended there. I delivered lectures in
Sevastopol, federal of Moscow State University. It's absolutely Russian
territory, not because of occupation attempts, but because of the
reality.Also, it was agreement between Russia and Ukraine
that in Sevastopol, the very important base for Navy, for military
troops, for airplanes, and so on will be common base of Russian and
Ukrainian fleet and Ukrainian and Russian troops, Ukrainian and Russian
airplanes, military airplanes, and so on. It was mutual control with
some conflicts, but typically it was the same people who were officers
in Soviet Union in past, with the same traditions, with the same
historical symbols, with the same victories, defeats, and so on.Also,
Crimea was part of absolutely heroic struggle against fascist
occupation, and defense of Sevastopol was extremely brutal and extremely
heroic. And this is part of the history of mankind, not only of our
countries, because it was real fight against fascism, German fascism,
Romanian, Italian troops, and so on, fascist troops during Second World
War. It's important prehistory. And now it's not really
intervention of Russian troops. Already it was Russian Navy and Russian
troops and Russian military airplanes and so on, because it was
agreement between Russia and Ukraine before.The problem is
that some military forces decided to participate in support of peace
and absence of battles in Crimea. This is question mark, because
according to agreement, it was necessary to do--the police was--or
militsiya of Ukraine was responsible for the peaceful situation in this
region, as in all regions of Ukraine. But when emissaries
from a new transitional government, if I can say so, came to Crimea, and
they came with support of Ukrainian nationalists, some of them with
fascist slogans and fascist symbols, it was like attack of occupants
from the point of view of majority of population in Crimea, and military
forces became more peaceful forces than the forces who occupied
territory of Ukraine. It's very contradictory. And I'm sure that
referendum will say no to modern Ukrainian government and they tell: we
want to have independence.And really I don't know why,
after collapse of Soviet Union, Ukraine said, we want to be independent,
and it was okay until everybody said it's not occupation or something
like this. Now if Crimea want to be independent, it's their business.Of
course, I'm very afraid that it will be real intervention of troops by
the NATO or Russian or both NATO and Russian troops. It can be
provocation for war. We have now nearly 100th anniversary of World
War I. And why this war took place? Why former friends, Germans and
French people, who were in one cultural Europe, started to kill each
other and 10 million peoples were killed? For what? It was the same
democratic country--Germany was democratic bourgeois country; France was
democratic bourgeois country. And then terrible battle for nothing,
because of imperialistic conditions.Now, of course, there
is problem of geopolitical ambitions of Putin and other officials of
Russia. And I am not supporter of such ambitions at all.DESVARIEUX:
I'm so glad you mentioned Putin, because I want to speak to why Putin
decided to move with such urgency to intervene in Crimea. Why do you
think?BUZGALIN: First of all, I am not Putin, and very
often I cannot understand his logic. So it's not question to me. It's
question to Putin. And he made some explanations, gave some explanations
in his interviews. I do not want to repeat them. But I do give you
advice. I do advise you to translate his interviews and to then think,
is it true or not; but not to ignore his interview.I think
it is both attempts to show that Russia is big state which plays a big
role in international world politics. And this is one of the ambitions
of Putin and Russian bureaucracy in general. But there is also another
aspect, because after such speech of Putin and decision of our
parliament, it became much more peaceful situation in Crimea than
before. And now these nationalists, Ukrainian nationalists, are afraid
to come to Crimea and to say, go out to people who came on the basis of
voting in the Square.In Crimea it was the same like in
Kiev. It was Maidan in Crimea. And people came to the squares and said,
we do not want to have the government which was established in Kiev.
It's not our government. We don't like them. We have our will. We people
of Crimea want to have our power. But please don't come to us. We don't
respect you. We don't think that you are elected. Don't. Why--.DESVARIEUX: And that's why they're going to have a vote at the end of March, is that right? There is a referendum vote.BUZGALIN:
[They] want to make referendum, and I think it will be more or less
democratic, as all voting in the situation of semi-revolution. You know,
now it's--in Ukraine, their power is based on the view of the squares,
and this is initiative not of majority of Ukrainians, but this is
initiatives of those people who came to Maidan, who came to squares in
Crimea, in Kharkiv, in Donbass, in other regions, in western regions of
Ukraine.From my point of view, it's necessary to respect
this opinion, but not to think that this is the only opinion of
Ukrainian people. There are different stratas, different interests, very
deep social-economic contradictions between oligarchs, pro-Western
oligarchs and pro-Russian oligarchs they're behind.By the
way, new emissaries of new Kiev for eastern regions are huge oligarchs,
owners of the biggest capitals in Ukraine. So it's not alternative to
Yanukovych or anybody else--the same bureaucratic oligarch capitalism,
which will organize the same bureaucratic manipulation, or even worse
than it was before.People were tired from Yanukovych, and I
understand very well that it is necessary and it was necessary to make
democratic revolution. But what was happened in Ukraine, unfortunately,
is not real democratic revolution on the basis of the--on the backs of
the ordinary people who wanted to change bureaucratic, corrupted power,
came to the power another--representatives of another oligarchical
groups, another geopolitical forces who want to manipulate with Ukraine.
And also--this is extremely important; I want to stress.
Their real force, which helped to receive power for modern Ukraine in
government, this is force of Ukrainian nationalists. And they directly
use symbols and slogans of troops in Ukraine which supported fascism,
German fascism, for terrible actions against peaceful population,
against Jews, first of all, against Belarus people, against Ukrainian
and Russian people who did not support fascism or who did not want to
collaborate with fascist Germany. It was anti-red, by the way, struggle,
anticommunist struggle. And now in some regions of Ukraine, regional
authorities said that Communist Party must be forbidden because this is
pro-Russian party.The law which restricted using of
fascist symbols now is not actual. Now they said you can use any symbols
of fascism; it doesn't matter; no problems.So I don't like Russian nationalism. I hate it. But I also hate Ukrainian nationalism or any nationalism.A
very important aspect (I'm sorry, Jessica; I want to stress this also),
this is position of United States and some European commentators--I
mean, not position of North Americans, ordinary people and democratic
people in the United States, but position of government and some
mainstream mass media. It is only one way of reflection of the events,
no very deep analysis of contradictions, no analysis of social-economic
backgrounds, even class contradictions, which did exist in the Ukraine
and which are very important.That's why I want to give
more complex, more contradictory reflection of the situation. We do not
have good solutions. We have choice between bad and very bad solution.
This is the case, unfortunately.DESVARIEUX: Alright. Aleksandr Buzgalin, professor at Moscow State University. In
part two I'd like to pivot back to Russia and just talk about some of
the internal politics at play. So please stay tuned for part two.Thank you so much for joining us, Aleksandr.BUZGALIN: Thank you.DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Bio
Aleksandr
Buzgalin is a Professor of Political Economy at Moscow State
University. He is also editor of the independent democratic left
magazine Alternatives, and is a coordinator of the Russian social
movement Alternatives, author of more then 20 books and hundreds of
articles, translated into English, German and many other languages.
JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.As
Russian and Western diplomats work towards a political solution for the
crisis caused by the Russian intervention into Crimea, we'll speak with
our next guest about just why Russia decided to seize control of the
peninsula region.We're now joined by our guest, Aleksandr Buzgalin. Aleksandr is a professor of political economy at Moscow State University.Thank you so much for joining us, Aleks.ALEKSANDR
BUZGALIN, PROF. POLITICAL ECONOMICS, MOSCOW STATE UNIV.: Thank you for
the opportunity to have this interview and to tell important things, I
hope, for you.DESVARIEUX: So, Aleksandr, can you just
start off by talking about how Crimea became a part of the Ukraine in
1954, as well as the history of the region and the relationship with
Russia?BUZGALIN: So it's a long history. First of all, I
want to remind that during many hundreds of years, many decades, Ukraine
was part of Russian Empire, and it was really not bad relation between
Ukrainians and Russians, and it was difficult to say where there is a
border, because Kiev, the modern capital of Ukraine, was one of the most
important and cultural centers of our country, and Gogol and Shevchenko
and other writers, painters, actors, were part of our common culture.
And for us, Ukraine was part of our civilization, and for majority of
Ukrainians, it was the same. So this is important.Of course it was oppression, but it was oppression of everybody but tsar elite and the Russian brutal capital in past.After
collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine became independent. And it was
also important basis for conflict, because it was mainly conflict of
Ukrainian pro-Western oligarchs and Russian or Ukrainian pro-Russian
oligarchs, who were real exploiters Ukrainian people and Ukrainian
nature, both, and it is difficult to say who was better, who was worse.
Both worse.This Crimea, another story. Crimea was part of
Russia before it was part of Tartar and so on. It was long history then
in 18th century. It was part of Russian Empire. And only 50 years ago,
it became part of Ukraine artificially because Khrushchev, general
secretary of Communist Party, decided to make this present to Ukrainian
first secretary of Communist Party. Absolute majority of
Crimea people are Russian-speaking people, and a few are Ukrainians, and
Ukrainian language was artificial for this territory. I was many times
in this region. All my holidays I spended there. I delivered lectures in
Sevastopol, federal of Moscow State University. It's absolutely Russian
territory, not because of occupation attempts, but because of the
reality.Also, it was agreement between Russia and Ukraine
that in Sevastopol, the very important base for Navy, for military
troops, for airplanes, and so on will be common base of Russian and
Ukrainian fleet and Ukrainian and Russian troops, Ukrainian and Russian
airplanes, military airplanes, and so on. It was mutual control with
some conflicts, but typically it was the same people who were officers
in Soviet Union in past, with the same traditions, with the same
historical symbols, with the same victories, defeats, and so on.Also,
Crimea was part of absolutely heroic struggle against fascist
occupation, and defense of Sevastopol was extremely brutal and extremely
heroic. And this is part of the history of mankind, not only of our
countries, because it was real fight against fascism, German fascism,
Romanian, Italian troops, and so on, fascist troops during Second World
War. It's important prehistory. And now it's not really
intervention of Russian troops. Already it was Russian Navy and Russian
troops and Russian military airplanes and so on, because it was
agreement between Russia and Ukraine before.The problem is
that some military forces decided to participate in support of peace
and absence of battles in Crimea. This is question mark, because
according to agreement, it was necessary to do--the police was--or
militsiya of Ukraine was responsible for the peaceful situation in this
region, as in all regions of Ukraine. But when emissaries
from a new transitional government, if I can say so, came to Crimea, and
they came with support of Ukrainian nationalists, some of them with
fascist slogans and fascist symbols, it was like attack of occupants
from the point of view of majority of population in Crimea, and military
forces became more peaceful forces than the forces who occupied
territory of Ukraine. It's very contradictory. And I'm sure that
referendum will say no to modern Ukrainian government and they tell: we
want to have independence.And really I don't know why,
after collapse of Soviet Union, Ukraine said, we want to be independent,
and it was okay until everybody said it's not occupation or something
like this. Now if Crimea want to be independent, it's their business.Of
course, I'm very afraid that it will be real intervention of troops by
the NATO or Russian or both NATO and Russian troops. It can be
provocation for war. We have now nearly 100th anniversary of World
War I. And why this war took place? Why former friends, Germans and
French people, who were in one cultural Europe, started to kill each
other and 10 million peoples were killed? For what? It was the same
democratic country--Germany was democratic bourgeois country; France was
democratic bourgeois country. And then terrible battle for nothing,
because of imperialistic conditions.Now, of course, there
is problem of geopolitical ambitions of Putin and other officials of
Russia. And I am not supporter of such ambitions at all.DESVARIEUX:
I'm so glad you mentioned Putin, because I want to speak to why Putin
decided to move with such urgency to intervene in Crimea. Why do you
think?BUZGALIN: First of all, I am not Putin, and very
often I cannot understand his logic. So it's not question to me. It's
question to Putin. And he made some explanations, gave some explanations
in his interviews. I do not want to repeat them. But I do give you
advice. I do advise you to translate his interviews and to then think,
is it true or not; but not to ignore his interview.I think
it is both attempts to show that Russia is big state which plays a big
role in international world politics. And this is one of the ambitions
of Putin and Russian bureaucracy in general. But there is also another
aspect, because after such speech of Putin and decision of our
parliament, it became much more peaceful situation in Crimea than
before. And now these nationalists, Ukrainian nationalists, are afraid
to come to Crimea and to say, go out to people who came on the basis of
voting in the Square.In Crimea it was the same like in
Kiev. It was Maidan in Crimea. And people came to the squares and said,
we do not want to have the government which was established in Kiev.
It's not our government. We don't like them. We have our will. We people
of Crimea want to have our power. But please don't come to us. We don't
respect you. We don't think that you are elected. Don't. Why--.DESVARIEUX: And that's why they're going to have a vote at the end of March, is that right? There is a referendum vote.BUZGALIN:
[They] want to make referendum, and I think it will be more or less
democratic, as all voting in the situation of semi-revolution. You know,
now it's--in Ukraine, their power is based on the view of the squares,
and this is initiative not of majority of Ukrainians, but this is
initiatives of those people who came to Maidan, who came to squares in
Crimea, in Kharkiv, in Donbass, in other regions, in western regions of
Ukraine.From my point of view, it's necessary to respect
this opinion, but not to think that this is the only opinion of
Ukrainian people. There are different stratas, different interests, very
deep social-economic contradictions between oligarchs, pro-Western
oligarchs and pro-Russian oligarchs they're behind.By the
way, new emissaries of new Kiev for eastern regions are huge oligarchs,
owners of the biggest capitals in Ukraine. So it's not alternative to
Yanukovych or anybody else--the same bureaucratic oligarch capitalism,
which will organize the same bureaucratic manipulation, or even worse
than it was before.People were tired from Yanukovych, and I
understand very well that it is necessary and it was necessary to make
democratic revolution. But what was happened in Ukraine, unfortunately,
is not real democratic revolution on the basis of the--on the backs of
the ordinary people who wanted to change bureaucratic, corrupted power,
came to the power another--representatives of another oligarchical
groups, another geopolitical forces who want to manipulate with Ukraine.
And also--this is extremely important; I want to stress.
Their real force, which helped to receive power for modern Ukraine in
government, this is force of Ukrainian nationalists. And they directly
use symbols and slogans of troops in Ukraine which supported fascism,
German fascism, for terrible actions against peaceful population,
against Jews, first of all, against Belarus people, against Ukrainian
and Russian people who did not support fascism or who did not want to
collaborate with fascist Germany. It was anti-red, by the way, struggle,
anticommunist struggle. And now in some regions of Ukraine, regional
authorities said that Communist Party must be forbidden because this is
pro-Russian party.The law which restricted using of
fascist symbols now is not actual. Now they said you can use any symbols
of fascism; it doesn't matter; no problems.So I don't like Russian nationalism. I hate it. But I also hate Ukrainian nationalism or any nationalism.A
very important aspect (I'm sorry, Jessica; I want to stress this also),
this is position of United States and some European commentators--I
mean, not position of North Americans, ordinary people and democratic
people in the United States, but position of government and some
mainstream mass media. It is only one way of reflection of the events,
no very deep analysis of contradictions, no analysis of social-economic
backgrounds, even class contradictions, which did exist in the Ukraine
and which are very important.That's why I want to give
more complex, more contradictory reflection of the situation. We do not
have good solutions. We have choice between bad and very bad solution.
This is the case, unfortunately.DESVARIEUX: Alright. Aleksandr Buzgalin, professor at Moscow State University. In
part two I'd like to pivot back to Russia and just talk about some of
the internal politics at play. So please stay tuned for part two.Thank you so much for joining us, Aleksandr.BUZGALIN: Thank you.DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
No comments:
Post a Comment