Wessel provided a presentation of the purpose of the book and its key themes. Although a historical book, its purpose is also to contribute to the political debate by showing that Russia’s war against Ukraine has “deep historical roots” and that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is in fact not Putin’s, but Russia’s war. The argument of the book is illustrated through three concepts: the epoch, continuities, and contingencies of Russia’s imperial policy toward Ukraine and Poland. The first argument that Wessel makes is that we ought to see Russia’s policy in epochal terms, which means that Putin is operating in the epochal framework of the Russian empire. Consequently, Russia’s aggression should not be seen as a historical deviation from, but rather as a continuation of Russian imperial policy. He further draws parallels between the cooperation of Peter I with German territorial states – Mecklenburg and Holstein – to constructs canals linking the Baltic and the North Seas to bypass Danish customs duties for the export of timber to England and the Russian-German cooperation to build the Nord Stream pipeline, both of which Wessel regards as “imperial infrastructures”. He further argues that through these political structures in international politics, Russia has exercised imperial rule over Poland and Ukraine, and that this long-lasting continuity has been created through high culture. Russian literature, and Pushkin more specifically, according to him, have provided imperial support and legitimacy by painting an almost mystical image of the ties between Russia and the rest of the Slavic nations, which are considered inseparable from each other. This imagery has further strengthened the view that Ukraine has no legitimate national aspirations. Wessel concludes by arguing that to achieve lasting peace, the West must support Ukraine and Russia must break with its imperial paradigm.Sasse’s book is written for a non-specialist audience and her purpose has been to discuss the reasons and timing of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She presented some of the key arguments of the book by discussing the developments in Russia and Ukraine since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Ukrainian independence in 1991, and the implications of the war. Sasse considers Putin as a catalyst for the war; however, she maintains that his role needs to be understood against a background of the strengthening of an authoritarian system. An additional background element that strengthens Putin’s role as a catalyst is the democratisation and Western orientation of Ukraine and its strengthened civic identity. She further argued that Putin’s decision to invade comes as a result of a process of centralisation of power in the political, economic, and propaganda realms and from the need to use foreign policy to legitimise domestic policies of centralisation and repression. With regards to Ukraine, she addressed the issue of Crimea and its historical connection to Russia, which had been one of the key arguments made in the wake of the 2014 annexation. Although Crimea had been Ukraine’s key territorial challenge during 1991-1996, the issue was diffused through Crimea’s status as an autonomous republic and had been well-integrated into the Ukrainian political system since then. This is supported by the fact that before the 2014, there was no pro-Russian mobilisation, which had occurred previously in 1991. She argues that throughout the years of independence, Ukrainian identity has been strengthened and that there has been a rise in the percentage of Ukrainians who favour a democratic system. Concerning the implications of the war, she sees an increased process of regional and international disorder and re-ordering and a need to decolonise perceptions and policies whilst rethinking the international security order.
During the question and answer session, the authors provided additional perspectives on the European Union’s reaction to the annexation of Crimea and its failure to prevent the February 2022 invasion, Putin’s role, the debate in Germany concerning the war, the relationship between Russia and China, and potential approaches to help Ukraine gain its territories. According to Sasse, Russia’s intentions were underestimated, political will within the EU and NATO was lacking, and the lure of cheap gas created the illusion that Russia could be managed from the outside. Wessel argued that Putin’s role has been decisive and without him there would not have been a war. Concerning the debate in Germany, the authors argued that it was ambivalent. According to Wessel, the tendency in Germany is to manage the war: while Russia should not win the war, Ukraine should not be very successful. Sasse pointed out that despite this ambivalence at the political level, German public opinion has been leading the support of Ukraine. The authors also agreed that the current dynamic between Russia and China clearly shows an asymmetric tendency whereby Russia has been increasingly dependent on China. Similarly, the authors agreed that the West should increase support for Ukraine. Additionally, Sasse argued that Russia’s imperial gaze, which is reflected on the West, needs to be broken; for Wessel, there is a need to think about what should happen after a potential ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia and how an unfair peace can be prevented.
by Alban Dafa (ESC Research Assistant)
No comments:
Post a Comment