It's not that surprising, especially in the European context. Even if you opposed everything they stood for you could be absolutely certain that the commies would give the fascists a swipe. Plus, there was significant influence of more developed and democratic communist parties especially in western Europe, in the form of Eurocommunism and the Frankfurt School.
In Eastern Europe many of the communist parties took up national identity politics as well, as well as a nostalgic sense (which ended up, in extreme cases, with National Bolshevism). In other cases they've gone almost down a libertarian socialist path; the old PDS (now Die Linke) in Germany was originally headed by a former human rights lawyer in the DDR.
That's because the communist movement is diverse nearly beyond comprehension. The French communist party for example has almost nothing in common with, say, the former Soviet communist party, both in terms of goals, principles, and most notably, methods.
In part; even prior to the Soviet Union the Crimean Tartars constituted about a quarter of the population, and they were the largest other ethnic group. They weren't considered allies of the Soviets, and Stalin came down pretty hard on them. When they largely backed Nazi occupation, about a quarter of a million were expelled entirely by Stalin, but that survived (and there were plenty who didn't) were allowed to return in '67.
Let's face it. the big players will always be moving the smaller ones around like chess pieces. We've been experiencing this first-hand for centuries over here.
I don't know how you can talk about Russian occupation of Crimea (one third of Ukraine!) without mentioning that by this Russia broke Budapest Memorandum that it signed in 1994. This Memorandum guaranteed to Ukraine "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” in exchange of Ukraine giving up it's third-largest nuclear arcenal
( ... )
The relevance is of the Budapest Memorandum is more disputed that you suggest. What you say is quite true from the perspective argued by the US, although I haven't seen it argued by Ukraine which is a little odd. However, according to the Russian perspective what is happening in Crimea is an internal desire to secede; one which would be evident even from the same year that the Budapest Memorandum was signed with the extremely pro-Russian Yuriy Meshkov elected as President of Crimea with over 70%. Ukraine's response was to abolish the presidency
( ... )
OK, thanks for that. I imagine that we both recognise that the Memorandum is, however, quite toothless with no means of resolving disputes let alone enforecement.
And this internal desire to secede coincidently happened right after occupation of Crimea by Russian military.
That's not true, and you know it's not true. The internal desire has been around for since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as even a cursory review of Crimea's recent history would illuminate. Even more recent opinion polls and surveys indicate this strong desire
Do you know that according to Russian Constitution one will go to jail for 5 years just for suggestion to secede any part of Russia? Do you like that?
Of course not, strawman. This is not about what is right or wrong about the Russian constitution, of which there is plenty and can be discussed at another time. It is whether you think oblasts have the right to self-determination or not, a question which you didn't answer.
Comments 18
Reply
In Eastern Europe many of the communist parties took up national identity politics as well, as well as a nostalgic sense (which ended up, in extreme cases, with National Bolshevism). In other cases they've gone almost down a libertarian socialist path; the old PDS (now Die Linke) in Germany was originally headed by a former human rights lawyer in the DDR.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
A brillliant overview all throughout.
Reply
Reply
I reckon.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
OK, thanks for that. I imagine that we both recognise that the Memorandum is, however, quite toothless with no means of resolving disputes let alone enforecement.
And this internal desire to secede coincidently happened right after occupation of Crimea by Russian military.
That's not true, and you know it's not true. The internal desire has been around for since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as even a cursory review of Crimea's recent history would illuminate. Even more recent opinion polls and surveys indicate this strong desire
Do you know that according to Russian Constitution one will go to jail for 5 years just for suggestion to secede any part of Russia? Do you like that?
Of course not, strawman. This is not about what is right or wrong about the Russian constitution, of which there is plenty and can be discussed at another time. It is whether you think oblasts have the right to self-determination or not, a question which you didn't answer.
It was Russian-Ukrainian border.
Obvious point is obvious.
Reply
Leave a comment