The article uses generalizations and over simplification to explain these differences. For example, this little gem: "Georgians, traditionally mountain dwellers, have a legendarily fiery temperament, while Ukrainians' reputation is more as mild-mannered farmers." Or this lovely ethno-centric analysis: Russia values these inter-Slavic ties highly; its low birth rates and high death rates create the potential that Russians will, over time, become demographically overwhelmed by the non-Slavic minorities that surround Russia."
Yet the third article in this series continues on the same line discussing how the Tatars will be the "wild card" in the region. The article is a mix of summarizing the Tatar's history in Crimea and speculation. According to this report, nationalism grew after the Orange Revolution. While Yushchenko probably does cloak himself in nationalist rhetoric, nationalism is neither new nor especially powerful in Ukraine. He cites ones line from a speech the president made in 2007 and whose popularity was already in decline by then. Also this claim: "But the Ukrainian state is established now, and Kiev is still dragging its feet on the issues most important to Crimean Tatars". Government inaction is sadly not unique to Crimean Tatars, what about Gongadze's murder?
The fourth article continues where the last one ended, now looking a the naval fleet based in Sevastopol. Nothing new in what he writes about in the article, anyone whose studied Ukraine knows about this issue.
While Ukraine's relationship with Russia is certainly interesting its probably not the main problem facing the country, its the internal political conflict in the middle of an economic crisis.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment