The op-ed by Mr. Andriy Yermak, head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, on April 24, allowed me to present to Daily Sabah readers some perspectives and positions alternative to those stated by the author about Eurasian history and political situation. Economizing space, I will limit myself to some humble remarks and questions.
First and foremost, what does this expression mean exactly, “imperial chimera?” What is in fact an empire? Does this word have a negative or a positive connotation?
Does all that mean that empires may be “good” (just like the United States, for example) and “bad” or “evil” like Russia, which some tend to blame for all the sins of the world? Of course, who is there to judge and throw the first stone? And how would Mr. Yermak assess, for example, the historical heritage of the Ottoman Empire?
Who precisely is meant by “those who, for reasons of financial and political gain, help Russia circumvent restrictions?” Could the author name such people and states?
It looks more than evident that the publication of Mr. Yermak’s op-ed, just like the outstanding media activities of my distinguished Ukrainian colleague, Mr. Vasyl Bodnar, may be considered as a clearcut denial of the legend of “overwhelming Russian presence” in the information field – here, there and everywhere.
It is not Russia that is discrediting itself as a “mediator between the East and the West” simply because Russia has never pretended to play such a role. But indeed, there were large hopes after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War that it would be up to Ukraine to serve as a bridge between Russia and the West – for their mutual benefit and mutual interest. Chances seemed very real as Ukraine was best placed for that speaking both languages and capable of helping the sides better understand each other. Unfortunately, such hopes were doomed to fail largely due to Kyiv’s evident stake in oppressing the rights of the Russian-speaking population, including the Orthodox believers, forbidding Russian books, Russian films and songs, and, in general, Russian culture. Examples are there: They are numerous and they are impressive.
Just imagine for a moment that in a state pretending to be democratic and “civilized,” authorities start limiting the use of a language and culture of, let’s say, a Turkic minority. I think that the reaction would be appropriate.
The multilateral formats cited in the article were not aimed at preserving someone’s exclusivity. On the contrary – they were created to either preserve what could be saved from the common positive heritage of the USSR, like the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), or to protect the security of the post-Soviet states from the trials and tribulations of our more than turbulent times, or to promote a new-type and large-scale regional cooperation on the vast space of the Eurasian mega-continent (and the popularity of such a concept is fastly growing, without anyone’s exclusive influence or dictate).
“Imperial practice of drawing borders without taking ethnic maps into account,” of course, is a practice of British and French colonialists in Africa and Asia that is meant here.
Regarding political realism, it is not “greatness” that Russia is obsessed with, but “security.” Too often, my country (which some time ago used to be Mr. Yermak’s, too) became a victim of disastrous aggression coming, in most cases, from the West. This is why we find it impossible to consent to a military alliance, initially conceived against my country and preserving its hostility toward it, steadily approaching our frontiers. Nothing personal, just security.
Last but not least, looks like Mr. Yermak’s article aims to mobilize Central Asia to support Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. Even a film is cited – the widely watched classic which is so loved by generations of Soviet and Russian people – "The White Sun of the Desert." However, if we do not only watch the film but read the screenplay (the original and the full one), we would learn that the Red Army soldier Fyodor Sukhov came to Central Asia not to conquer it but to search for his wife who was deported to the region during the Soviet-era purges. And his antagonist Abdullah, a Basmachi commander, spent most of his life not in the desert of Central Asia but in the ballrooms of St. Petersburg, and his beloved one killed at the beginning of the film, was called "Sashenka," i.e., Alexandra.
Life is full of paradoxes and things may be very different from what they seem or how they are presented to us. So, the “conquerors” may, from a closer view, turn out to be brothers-in-trouble and those pretending to be mobilizing peoples against “tools of pressure” – only trying to exploit them for their own conjectural needs.
