By Adam Taylor
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin
gestures as he addresses a joint session of Russian parliament on
Crimea in Moscow on March 18, 2014. (Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP/Getty
Images)
On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an agreement that formally recognized the “reunification” of breakaway Ukrainian region of Crimea with Russia.
”To understand the reason behind such a choice,” Putin said in a speech to parliament, “It is enough to know the history of Crimea and what Russia and Crimea have always meant for each other.”
History. That was the central point of Putin’s speech. And he wasn’t just creating history by agreeing to accept Crimea – he was correcting history. Correcting the historical mistake from 1954 that saw Crimea end up as part of Ukraine.
Putin didn’t stop there. He lashed out at the West about events such as the downfall of the Soviet Union, Kosovo, NATO expansion, Libya, Iraq and Syria. He argued that the Western historical narrative of these things was twisted; that U.S.-led military actions in places such as Kosovo and Libya had been illegitimate, and that America’s reaction to Crimea’s referendum was, at best, naive and hypocritical.
Few Western observers failed to note the historical rhetoric that formed the core of Putin’s argument. Fareed Zakeria called it “the most significant geopolitical problem since the Cold War,” while Brookings scholar Steven Pifer argued that it was the “most blatant land grab in Europe since WWII.”
Putin believes he has learned history’s lessons. But has he?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/18/what-history-can-tell-us-about-russia-crimea-and-vladimir-putin/
”To understand the reason behind such a choice,” Putin said in a speech to parliament, “It is enough to know the history of Crimea and what Russia and Crimea have always meant for each other.”
History. That was the central point of Putin’s speech. And he wasn’t just creating history by agreeing to accept Crimea – he was correcting history. Correcting the historical mistake from 1954 that saw Crimea end up as part of Ukraine.
Putin didn’t stop there. He lashed out at the West about events such as the downfall of the Soviet Union, Kosovo, NATO expansion, Libya, Iraq and Syria. He argued that the Western historical narrative of these things was twisted; that U.S.-led military actions in places such as Kosovo and Libya had been illegitimate, and that America’s reaction to Crimea’s referendum was, at best, naive and hypocritical.
Few Western observers failed to note the historical rhetoric that formed the core of Putin’s argument. Fareed Zakeria called it “the most significant geopolitical problem since the Cold War,” while Brookings scholar Steven Pifer argued that it was the “most blatant land grab in Europe since WWII.”
Putin believes he has learned history’s lessons. But has he?
World War II
One of the most common references in the unfolding crisis in Ukraine, Crimea and Russia has been that of World War II and Nazi Germany. In his speech today, Putin invoked his favored tactic for criticizing the Kiev government, calling them “fascists, neo-Nazis and anti-Semites.”http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/03/18/what-history-can-tell-us-about-russia-crimea-and-vladimir-putin/
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου