The month of November in my country, the United States, is usually most notable for its Thanksgiving holiday. The day reserved for the holiday, a Thursday in the later part of the month, is usually
a day of remembrance and of fellowship in thanksgiving for the blessings of life. It frequently falls on a forlorn, overcast day that presages the coming of the anticipated long, bleak days of winter. It nevertheless always seems to bring forth to us renewed cheer and good spirits.
This year, I celebrated with a few friends at the Lemoncello Restaurant here in Kyiv, in Ukraine, the land of my adopted residence. A fine turkey, ham and all the trimmings were expertly prepared by Mike McDermott, the Lemoncello's chef, a native of Northern Virginia. The dinner was "Thanksgiving satisfying" to say the least; that means that the four of us left the table hardly capable of movement from our overindulgence. That uncomfortable but satisfying feeling is a hallmark of a good Thanksgiving meal, a part of the tradition. The affair in Kyiv has become something of a tradition since it is hosted by and we are the guests of our British friend and compatriot in spirit David Payne. For several years now, David has provided us with this delight and we are always grateful for his gift and his company. It was a fine Thanksgiving Day.
Yet on the streets of Kyiv at the time there was turmoil. I do not wish to discuss politics as such, so I use turmoil in its dictionary neutral sense: tumult, commotion, uproar, confusion.
I would like to make some observations on some primarily Western newspaper reports and other commentaries relating to Ukraine and the events now occurring, the turmoil.
Two things particularly. It seems the reports speak of 1) the Ukrainian-speaking West and the Russian-speaking East and 2) the dividing issue of Western-leaning Western Ukraine and Russia-leaning Eastern Ukraine. If one reads the mass of reports, this seems the essence, the sine qua non, even, maybe, the primordial cause of the turmoil.
These ideas are not true. Ne pravda. They are dangerously harmful to helpful analysis.
Oh, the ideas have elements of a necessary thought process that may be helpful to a Westerner attempting to gain some understanding, some small grasp of the turmoil. But, only a scintilla of such, unless accompanied by some historical analysis and perspective.
Language
The language of business and commerce, primarily in the large urban, metropolitan areas is Russian. The language of Ukraine is Ukrainian. Throughout the rural areas, many speak Ukrainian mixed to some greater or lesser extent with Russian in different dialects, commonly grouped and referred to as surzhik.
It is true that in the cities a Westerner will hear Russian spoken in meetings and in other discourse with educated Ukrainians. It is true that more publications, even most, will be in the Russian language. At least this is true in all cities except certain cities in Galicia, particularly L'viv and Ivano Frankivsk. But at night, at home, with parents, the elderly, even most, and even where Russian may have been spoken some, or even throughout the day, Ukrainian becomes the language of communication.
The above seems true to me with some exception given for what is known as the Donetsk industrial belt in the furthermost eastern portions of Ukraine (an area near the Russian border and in part colonized by Russians) and slightly further north in the Kharhiv area. There, in those areas, for historical reasons, Russian has some prevalence, but still, even there Ukrainian or a version is spoken by large minorities.
On a map of Ukraine, count the oblasts (provinces) that contain Kharhiv, Donetsk, Lugansk and Zaporozhia and which are east of the Dnipro River as having possibly a prevalence of Russian. Consider Dnipropetrovsk and Sumy oblast, also east of the Dnipro and the oblasts containing the cities of Kherson, Mykolayiv and Odessa, which are west of the Dnipro as having a considerable, but certainly minority status for the Russian language. Crimea is a separate autonomous entity and a primarily Russian-speaking area on a peninsula in the south. This map analysis leaves several large regions east of the Dnipro where clearly, except in the urban cities (and then largely only in the daytime, and only among the business elite) where the spoken language is Ukrainian.
So, language is not clearly East or West for Ukrainians. And, while not an unimportant issue in Ukraine, except for the small portion of Ukraine that constitutes Galicia (and seemingly the Ukrainian Diaspora worldwide), it is not a relevant cause of the turmoil on the streets of Kyiv this November.
West-leaning, East-leaning
Western Ukraine supports affiliation with and courts the European Union (and by association generally, the United States). Eastern Ukraine supports a Russian affiliation (some say even to the point of a reunification with Russia).
Not for lack of strong words, but to be charitable and polite, I'm tempted to shout "Balderdash!"
Truly, there are many in Ukraine who have strong opinions on the subjects of the benefits of the EU or NATO versus Russia and a more Slavic union. Some can even be categorized by group (e.g. some communists and some elderly, for reasons of nostalgia, ideology or whatever favor Russia). Mostly though, it is individual Ukrainians who, for a similar variety of reasons, have these opinions to some degree. These individual opinions are not easily categorized or grouped into those from the Eastern or Western areas of Ukraine.
So, OK, one may find tendencies in certain areas. But the "groups" (i.e. business, the elderly, the young, political alliances, academics - even, the so-called "clans" and "criminal elements") don't divide so easily, and they are more prevalent; and the Dnipro River is not their dividing line.
Conclusion
I find the East/West division analysis, including the language issue, to say the least, unhelpful. Further, I believe it uninformed. So uninformed as to be intellectually bankrupt.
So why does this analysis exists and why is it so prevalent, particularly in Western reports?
My answers are two: First, it sounds so simple as to be true and therefore even journalists can comprehend it. Also it fits well with the storyline to my second answer. Second. The West (the EU, the U.S.) has a geopolitical battle to fight with Russia. Russia, vice versa. Therefore it's useful to these two post-Cold War ideological enemies. And, frankly, the outcome is damned important to them.
Ukraine, the territory and its people are where they have been for centuries: A battleground for others.
But, for the people - and by this I mean all the people of Ukraine, with no Dnipro River as their dividing line - the turmoil in the streets this November is mostly about something else.
Something more important.
|
