Timothy Snyder über die Ukraine

Aktualisiert am 9. März.

Als einer der besten Kenner der ukrainischen Geschichte ist Timothy Snyder ein plausibler Analyst der aktuellen Ereignisse. Sein letztes, dunkles Buch besprach ich im Rahmen dieser Sammelrezension. Für die New York Review of Books schrieb er in den letzten zwei Wochen drei sehr lesenswerte Beiträge.

In Fascism, Russia and the Ukraine beleuchtet er unter anderem die ideologischen Hintergründe der von Putin forcierten Euroasischen Union:

The strange thing about the claim from Moscow is the political ideology of those who make it. The Eurasian Union is the enemy of the European Union, not just in strategy but in ideology. The European Union is based on a historical lesson: that the wars of the twentieth century were based on false and dangerous ideas, National Socialism and Stalinism, which must be rejected and indeed overcome in a system guaranteeing free markets, free movement of people, and the welfare state. Eurasianism, by contrast, is presented by its advocates as the opposite of liberal democracy.

The Eurasian ideology draws an entirely different lesson from the twentieth century. Founded around 2001 by the Russian political scientist Aleksandr Dugin, it proposes the realization of National Bolshevism. Rather than rejecting totalitarian ideologies, Eurasianism calls upon politicians of the twenty-first century to draw what is useful from both fascism and Stalinism. Dugin’s major work, The Foundations of Geopolitics, published in 1997, follows closely the ideas of Carl Schmitt, the leading Nazi political theorist. Eurasianism is not only the ideological source of the Eurasian Union, it is also the creed of a number of people in the Putin administration, and the moving force of a rather active far-right Russian youth movement. For years Dugin has openly supported the division and colonization of Ukraine.

Im gestern veröffentlichten Blogbeitrag Ukraine: The Haze of Propaganda analysiert Synder die russische Desinformationskampagne:

Interestingly, the message from authoritarian regimes in Moscow and Kiev was not so different from some of what was written during the uprising in the English-speaking world, especially in publications of the far left and the far right. From Lyndon LaRouche’s „Executive Intelligence Review“ through Ron Paul’s newsletter through „The Nation“ and „The Guardian“, the story was essentially the same: little of the factual history of the protests, but instead a play on the idea of a nationalist, fascist, or even Nazi coup d’état.

In fact, it was a classic popular revolution. It began with an unmistakably reactionary regime. A leader sought to gather all power, political as well as financial, in his own hands. This leader came to power in democratic elections, to be sure, but then altered the system from within. For example, the leader had been a common criminal: a rapist and a thief. He found a judge who was willing to misplace documents related to his case. That judge then became the chief justice of the Supreme Court. There were no constitutional objections, subsequently, when the leader asserted ever more power for his presidency.

Im dritten Teil vertieft Snyder und weist überzeugend die Putschpropaganda zurück:

Parliament declared that he had abandoned his responsibilities, followed the protocols that applied to such a case, and continued the process of constitutional reform by itself. Presidential elections were called for May, and a new government was formed. The prime minister is a liberal conservative, one of the two deputy prime ministers is Jewish, and the governor of the important eastern province of Dnipropetrovsk is the president of the Congress of Ukrainian Jewish Organizations. Although one can certainly debate the constitutional nuances, this process was not a coup. And it certainly was not fascist. Reducing the powers of the president, calling presidential elections, and restoring the principles of democracy are the opposite of what fascism would demand. Leaders of the Jewish community have declared their unambiguous support for the new government and their total opposition to the Russian invasion.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *

  • RSS Feed for Posts
  • RSS Feed for Comments
  • Twitter
  • XING
  • Facebook

„Die Presse“ meint:

"Aber das Internet ist nicht schuld daran, dass Zeitungen reihenweise ihre Literaturseiten „gesundschrumpfen“. Vielmehr hat es das Monopol der traditionellen Medien auf seriöse Literaturkritik gebrochen. Blogs wie die „Notizen“ des promovierten österreichischen Literaturwissenschaftlers Christian Köllerer (koellerer.net) zeigen: Es gibt genug Qualität, man muss sie nur suchen."
(5. Januar 2013)

Aktuell in Arbeit

Kategorien

Tweets