Editor's Note: It is important to note that this was published after the Ukrainian civil war but before the Russian invasion of 2022.
Recall something of the recent history of the Ukraine:
A few years ago the country of Ukraine had a democratically elected government. Just like in a whole lot of other countries, the people of the Ukraine had a lot of disagreement about what was best for their country, and this disagreement was reflected within their democratically elected government. Many people in the western part of the country thought that the country would be best off by favoring trade ties and business relationships with the European Union and western countries generally. At the same time, many people in the eastern part of the country thought that the country would be best off by favoring trade ties and business relationships with Russia. Neither side of this trade policy disagreement thought that there should be any exclusive west or east focus respectively; it was just a matter of which direction was going to be favored and pursued as the generally best.
There were ethnic factors that influenced the opinions of the people of Ukraine on this trade policy issue. Many though of course not all of the people in the western part of Ukraine were of ethnic groups that did not have a good history with Russians. You will recall that from the 1920's up until the 1990's Ukraine, Russia, and a whole lot of other regions and countries were part of a big thing called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The USSR was a grouping that was not really that friendly or perfectly voluntary and which was dominated by Russia. So the people of the western part of the Ukraine feel a lot of historical resentment towards Russians, and so naturally they would prefer close relationships with others instead. At the same time, many though not all of the people in the eastern part of Ukraine are ethnically Russian, or at least are of ethnic groups that have closer ties to Russians than to the groups to their west.
As the people of the country were divided in opinion as to what were the best trade polices, so was the elected government. Eventually it came down to the point where there had to be a decision made about the issue of trade policy, and the elected representatives narrowly voted on the side of favoring trade ties with Russia. This didn't close off trade with the west, it just favored trading in another direction.
Now remember what happened next: The way the people reacted to the trade policy decision was markedly different. The eastern Ukrainians generally accepted it as the outcome of a thoroughly considered decision process that just had a lot of strong feelings attached to it. The western Ukrainians generally were really upset about this policy decision and took to demonstrating against it. These demonstrations turned into marches and then riots and then the burning of public buildings. The elected parliament was pretty much besieged in their places by the demonstrators and most government and business activity slowed dramatically. This situation continued until the day came when the elected president, feeling that he could not continue in office under these circumstances, left the country. Once this happened, the demonstrators, feeling like they were the ones who could call the shots for the whole country, basically appointed a new president and parliament. Needless to say, this new government made some changes to the trade policies.
Now at this point consider the reaction to this situation by many of the people of the eastern Ukraine. So there was a hotly contested vote over trade policies that favored one direction over another and one part of the country over another. Such things can happen in any country in the world. But after all the demonstrations and upheaval in the western part of the country they find themselves subject to a new government that they really had no part in forming and in which they had no say. As might be expected, many people in the eastern Ukraine were not inclined to accept the new government as a truly legitimate one.
Now this attitude should not be surprising, and that is easy to see that through a hypothetical similar situation in the U.S. Suppose the people of the East Coast were to have a sharp disagreement with some decisions of the elected U.S. federal government, and suppose they were to demonstrate this disagreement by rioting and burning public buildings, by attacking elected members of the congress, and by besieging the president in the White House. And suppose this upheaval continued until the president just left and the members of Congress decided to abdicate their positions. And suppose that the demonstrators were to appoint new people of their own choosing to all these offices and declare them to be the new government. And then finally suppose that the East Coast demonstrators were say to the people of the Midwest and South: "This is your new government, and you will obey it." Needless to say, the people of the Midwest and South would not be terribly happy about this and would not be inclined to accept this new government as legitimate.
So back in the Ukraine, there was a situation of political standoff. The people of the western part of the country decided that they will have this new government and that the eastern part just has to accept it too, while the people of the eastern part of the country have the attitude that this new government is not really acceptable because it was imposed on the country as a whole by a relatively small group of dissenters. Eventually, many people of the eastern part of the country made the decision that they can't accept this new government as their own. Some of them say that, as the western Ukrainians essentially broke off from the country as it used to be, they, the people of the east, have every right to break off from the new arrangement that was devised by the western people. And so they declare themselves to be separated. Quite soon after that, this fundamental political dispute becomes sharper and people start shooting at each other over it.
Now as might be expected, this situation in Ukraine does not take place entirely on its own; people on both sides of the disagreement are encouraged in their views by people outside of the country. In the European Union and other western countries, there are some people encouraging the western Ukrainians. In Russia, there are some people encouraging the eastern Ukrainians. Once the shooting starts, these outsider attitudes become more influential. One factor to recall is that many of the people of the eastern part of Ukraine are either ethnically Russian or at least have historical familial relationships with Russians. So once the shooting starts, there is a lot of feeling within Russia to do something to intervene on their side. And so it happens that there is a whole cascade of events: Russians help to arm and supply many groups in the eastern Ukraine and eventually move wholesale into the Crimea.
Ever since these events there has been significant criticism of Russia by the European Union and by the U.S. However, there is a serious problem underneath the criticism of the outcome from the U.S., and this problem undermines the usefulness of any reaction from the U.S. The Russians acted in the way that they did because of the ethnic ties with the people of the eastern Ukraine and because of the overall strategic and economic situation in the region as a whole: The importance of the Crimea as a naval base, and the importance of the industrial and resource attributes of the eastern Ukraine, for example.
The reason why the criticism from the U.S. has big problems is that the U.S. would have acted in exactly the same way that Russia did in any similar situation. And the reason why we know this is because the U.S. in its history did exactly as Russia did; not only did the U.S. do exactly as Russia did but went much farther than Russia ever even imagined doing. This happened with what used to be the Mexican province of Texas.
Now recall something of the history of Mexico:
In the early 1500's, just after the explorations of Christopher Columbus, the Spanish started making inroads into what they called the New World, what we call the western hemisphere. They started settling some places and setting up trading posts in other places and building resource-extraction efforts (like mines) in other places. Eventually, all kinds of different colonies formed in the New World as a result of Spanish expansion and growth efforts, in combination with assimilation of and intermarriage with native populations. The largest of these colonies was Mexico, which claimed territory all the way from part of British Columbia (but what is now Oregon) to the Mississippi and all parts south. Eventually, in 1821, Mexico gained its independence from Spain and became the Empire and later the Republic of Mexico, and started doing its own thing.
While all this was going on west of the Mississippi and parts south, there were other things going on east of the Mississippi, namely the British colonies that started on the Atlantic coast. They gained their independence from Great Britain and started doing their own thing too. One crucial event that was to involve both Spanish (and later Mexican) interests and the new American interests took place in 1803, before Mexican independence. Back in Europe, Napoleon I of France had influence over Spain and as a result the control of some of Spain's interests in the New World. Napoleon was looking for some extra cash and hit on the idea of selling some of what had been Spain's holdings here. So he made a deal with the new American government that sold them the province of Louisiana, which at that time was all the territory west of the Mississippi that was drained by that river, which of course included the Missouri River territory to boot.
So at the time of Mexican independence from Spain, Mexico spread from near the edge of the Columbia River basin all the way to the edge of the Mississippi/Missouri basin and south. At that time, within Mexico there was a province called Texas, at its northeastern corner. Now the province of Texas was a little different from most of the rest of the of Mexico. A significant number of people living in that province were people who came from the American States. They considered themselves Americans who happened to be living in Mexican territory. And they didn't think that they were treated very well by the rest of the country; they thought that they were being disadvantaged by policies of Mexico. So when Mexico fought for and won their independence from Spain, the Texicans started thinking that it was a good idea to consider independence for themselves. And this is what they did (1836), they rebelled against the rest of Mexico and considered themselves a separate republic.
This rebellion of the province of Texas ended up triggering a conflict between Mexico and the U.S. Many American citizens, including even a former member of the U.S. Congress, went into Texas to aid this rebellion, and the Mexicans were not happy about that interference. At that time, the U.S. federal government denied any formal involvement with these Mexican affairs, but it was clear that with many of the American people, their sympathies were with the Texicans, many who were Americans themselves or had American family ties. The Texican rebellion ended in success after a decisive battle (San Jacinto), and the result was an independent Republic of Texas. Of course Mexico was not happy about this and never really accepted it; they considered the loss in battle just one setback that they could eventually overcome. Later on (1845), Texas formally joined the U.S. as a State and everybody thinks that settles the issue, except of course the Mexicans, who did not recognize Texas as part of the U.S. any more than they recognized it as an independent Republic on its own.
What happens next is what the we call the Mexican War: American troops advance across what the Mexicans consider their northern border and Mexican troops advance across what the Americans consider their southern border. This triggers declarations of war by everybody. Big battles break out; the American army invades Mexico at multiple points from land and sea and soundly beats the heck out of every Mexican army unit they meet. And they win. Not only does the U.S. gain Texas permanently, but takes almost a third of the whole country of Mexico right alongside. Everything from what is now California and Nevada and Utah and (part of) Colorado and Arizona and New Mexico is lost to Mexico. And Mexico has never been happy about that either.
Clearly what triggered the Mexican War was a variety of factors: The historical ties between the U.S. and Texas, the strategic and economic importance of Texas, the expansionist goals of the U.S., and even something that many people do not like admit, the desire of the people of Texas to maintain slavery, which Mexico did not wish to allow. But it was the ethnic and national and familial ties of people that started the process rolling. And this is exactly the same as in the case of Ukraine: Parts of that country rebelled against other parts because of ethnic and national and familial ties outside of the country. At the very least, the U.S. by itself has limited grounds for opposing the Russian intervention in the Ukraine because of its own actions that were of the exact same nature with regard to intervention in Mexico. That does not mean that anyone has to accept the eventual division of the Ukraine into small segments or that we should not encourage Russia not to stop where it is. But it does mean that we have to accept the intermediate outcome of the division of the population of the Ukraine as an outcome of natural factors. Where people have close ethnic and familial ties no amount of force is going to stop them from reacting in some way in each other’s interests, which is exactly what happened in the history of Texas.
(published 6/16/19)
Copyright © 2019 philosopherstree.com - All Rights Reserved. Site and all material.
Powered by GoDaddy