One year ahead of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, I interviewed Jeong Jae-won, a professor at Kookmin University (Department of Eurasia, Photography). ⓒEPN Cho Nam-jin How will the Russia-Ukraine war affect international relations in the future? Some believe that the ‘US-led world order (US unipolar system)’ will change to a ‘multipolar system’ in which several countries, including Russia and China, participate in ‘earth management’. For the time being, different orders such as ‘U.S.-led’, ‘Russia-led’ and ‘China-led’ may coexist peacefully and compete for global sovereignty. This is the so-called New Cold War. In this regard, Kookmin University Professor Jeong Jae-won (Department of Eurasia), a researcher specializing in Russia and Eastern Europe, is concerned that “this may not be the beginning of a new Cold War, but a return to imperialism and colonial expansionism of the 19th century.” It is a story that the barbaric era when the Korean Peninsula fell into the colony of Japanese imperialism and lost national sovereignty may come again. Professor Chung said on February 24 last year, when the Russian military fired missiles across Ukraine and crossed the border, “I was shocked that something like that actually happened.” Even now, it is evaluated as a “surprisingly unreasonable invasion”. He coined the expression ‘a shockingly unreasonable invasion’. However, it has often happened that a single country or coalition forces invaded another country. There is an international order formed after World War II. It means respecting the national sovereignty of other countries and not invading their territory. There is no need to comment on the act of invading a foreign country like Russia and annexing the occupied areas into its own territory. This type of warfare was a taboo that should never be committed. This is a principle that the Soviet Union as well as its successor, Russia, agreed to. Right before the invasion, Russia said that there would be no infringement on Ukraine’s sovereignty, and that “war rhetoric is hysteria in the West.” Moreover, Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council (one of the supranational efforts to maintain international order). Since such a country has embarked on an invasion and annexation, I can only express it as ‘reasonable’. Russia also invaded Georgia in 2008, but only stayed for a few days and withdrew its troops, but did not annex it to its territory. In 2014, Russia had already annexed Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula without war. In addition to Crimea, in this war, the Donbas region (Luhansk and Donetsk) in eastern Ukraine, Zaporiza and Kherson (connecting Donbas and Crimea in the south), and the port city of Mariupol have been newly occupied. It corresponds to 20% of the territory of Ukraine. President Putin even signed a law annexing the newly occupied territories into Russian territory. Some say that it was an inevitable situation for Russia. Didn’t NATO stimulate Putin by expanding right in front of the Russian border (NATO’s eastward movement)? If you want to protest NATO’s eastward movement, you have to attack NATO members. Why did you invade Ukraine? Why did they kill, abduct, torture, and kick out civilians? About 70,000 people have already been killed in Ukraine, and about 16 million (out of a population of 43 million) are wandering as refugees in other parts of the country or abroad. I can’t agree with the view that this invasion is a ‘Russian defensive war’. Several ethnic groups live in Ukraine. Besides Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, Jews, and even Koreans. Russians are also a minority in Ukraine. If so, isn’t there a minimum justification for Russia’s annexation? In the annexed regions, Russians insisted on ‘independence from Ukraine’, and then took the form of being incorporated into Russia after voting for and against. Nationalism? Indeed, Russia has brutally trampled on the independence of minorities within its territory without recognizing them. Even if the principle of national self-determination is right, it is difficult to justify the movement for independence within Ukraine (actually annexation to Russia). Non-resident Russian Federal Security Service, Special Forces soldiers, sabotage experts and “Russian Nazis” entered the area to incite separatism, oust dissidents, and manipulate polls and votes. It is now a public fact. Moreover, the proportion of Russians in Donbas is only 30-40%. On September 27 last year, a referendum was held in Donetsk, Ukraine, which was occupied by Russia. ⓒAP Photo The Russian side has argued about the invasion ‘to protect Russians in Donbass who are oppressed by the Ukrainian government’. It is said that even genocide was carried out against Russians. Since the 2014 Donbas War (a war that broke out when pro-Russian forces in Donetsk and Luhansk clashed with Ukrainian government forces after the declaration of independence from Ukraine. Russian forces supported pro-Russian forces), local warfare has been ongoing in the region for eight years. . According to official UN records, there were about 4,000 casualties. Russia claims that all of them are ‘victims of genocide perpetrated by the Ukrainian government’. However, none of the UN reports acknowledge ‘genocide by the Ukrainian government’. This is because it is the sum of the number of soldiers, militias, and civilians killed in the process of shelling each other by both sides. One of the justifications for the invasion that the Russian side insisted on was ‘De-Naziization of Ukraine’. It is said that the Ukrainian government is a Nazi. It is an exaggeration to justify the invasion. In the 21st century, Nazi-style hardline nationalism is prevalent throughout Europe. So did Ukraine. However, this trend in Ukraine started the latest in Europe and the degree is also the lowest. For example, Marine Le Pen’s National Front, called neo-Nazis in France, has successfully entered institutional politics. Ukraine’s far-right parties suffered a crushing defeat even in a situation where anti-Russian nationalist sentiment erupted after the seizure of parts of Crimea and Donbass. Ukraine was the region that suffered the most from the Nazis during World War II. Exaggerating some phenomena and claiming that ‘Ukraine was invaded because they were Nazis’ is nothing but blind sympathy for the aggressor. Then, how about the ‘Azov Regiment’, which was formed as a militia during the Donbas War and is now incorporated into the Ukrainian regular army? The Azov Regiment self-identified as the Nazis when it was created. The Russian side is using their foreign media interviews and video data as evidence of ‘Naziization of Ukraine’. The Azov Regiment is a militia formed by residents of eastern Ukraine, who were deprived of their hometown by Russia at the outbreak of the Donbass War. In the early days, there were certainly cases where members gave Nazi salutes or committed brutal war crimes. However, at the end of 2014, as it was incorporated into the Ukrainian regular army and expanded and reorganized, extremists were driven out through an ideological struggle that took place inside the Azov Regiment. Unless the Ukrainian government is an idiot, wouldn’t it be difficult to have Nazis in the regular army? However, for Russia, the existence of the Azov Regiment is a good excuse to insist on the ‘Naziization of Ukraine’. That is why the materials related to the early Azov Regiment are constantly presented. And if we discuss the characteristics of the forces called ‘Nazi’ as a standard, Russia now shows much more characteristics like Nazis or ‘National Fascism’. Countless people are arrested and sentenced to up to 15 years in prison and imprisoned just for opposing the war. What is this if not a Nazi? Russia’s ‘Naziization’ is serious. Russian neo-Nazis were also deeply involved in the process of annexing parts of Ukraine. ⓒTwitter Capture In fact, Putin has said that “Ukraine has always been part of Russia” or “Russia and Ukraine are ‘spiritual unity’.” Some see this war as Russia’s ‘irredentism’. It does smell like Nazis. Even if they are of the same ethnicity, it is unacceptable to invade and merge with other sovereign countries. Moreover, Ukrainians are a distinctly different race from Russians, and Ukraine is also an independent sovereign state. Ukrainians emphasize that they are a separate country that has followed a completely different development path than Russia. It is a way of claiming that Ukraine has a democratic and federalist tradition of Kazakhs who value freedom, while Russia has been strengthened in the process of (indirect) Mongol rule over 240 years. In fact, the two countries are very different from language to way of thinking and religion. Mystical political philosopher Alexander Dugin, who is called ‘Putin’s brain’, has openly shown off his affinity for Nazism. He sees modern universal values such as democracy, human rights and freedom as corrupting evil originating from the West and against human ‘spirit’. He also advocated so-called ‘Eurasianism’, which integrates Europe and Asia centered on Russia under the banner of anti-Western and anti-liberalism. Similar to Putin’s language. That is Nazism, and Dugin is a Nazi. Dugin has actually been a fan of the Nazis, and has made friends by attending several neo-Nazi seminars held in Europe. His pseudonym is ‘Sievers’, a name derived from ‘Wolfgang Sievers’, who was executed as a Nazi war criminal right after World War II He led the Nazi pseudo-scientific organization Annenerbe). Some positively evaluate Dugin’s Eurasianism as a reaction or alternative to ‘Western (Euro)centrism’ or ‘another ideological inspiration against the British and American imperialism of the past or modern American hegemony’. However, this Eurasianism is just another name for ‘Russian imperialism’ or ‘Russian fascism’. They routinely use expressions such as “Only Russia is pure, Europe is corrupt,” “Homosexuals must be exterminated,” and “Ukraine is the illegitimate child of European gays raping Russia.” Not only Dugin, but also people (ideological groups) around the Russian regime, such as the Izborsk Club, are talking about it a lot. Can it be interpreted that the ideology of the Russian regime had some influence on the invasion? At least, it seems that the invasion was not ‘to protect the Russian inhabitants of Donbas from the Ukrainian Nazis’. If Russia really went to war to protect the Russians in Donbas, why did they march as far south from the region as Kherson and Zaporizhia? Even during the 2014 Donbas War, attempts were made in Odessa (a port city in southwestern Ukraine adjacent to the Black Sea) to secede and merge with Russia, but failed. There may be an ideology behind this movement, but I believe that what is really important to Russia is the value of Ukrainian land. Numerous minerals are buried in a huge territory (six times the size of Korea). There are also regions that have achieved a significant level of industrialization, such as Donetsk and Luhansk. In addition, the southern part of Ukraine is adjacent to the Black Sea, so it has great geopolitical strategicity (Editor’s Note: Surrounding the Black Sea, Ukraine is located in the north, Russia and Georgia in the east, Turkey in the south, and Romania and Bulgaria in the west. The Black Sea is It is a strategic point where you can go out to the Atlantic via the Mediterranean). Russian President Putin (front) claims that “Ukraine has always been part of Russia”. ⓒREUTERS What was Putin’s original goal of invading Ukraine? His greatest goal must have been to establish a puppet regime or incorporate it into the Russian Federation after taking control of the entire region. If it is difficult to achieve this, it will try to secure Donbass in eastern Ukraine and the areas (Kherson and Zaporizhia) that connect Donbass by land to the already annexed Crimea. It’s in progress now. By merging these regions, new industrial zones can be developed by linking them with southwestern Russia. Also, in order to bring fresh water to Crimea, it is necessary to obtain Kherson in the lower Dnieper (Dnipro) River region. Taking control of the southern region of Ukraine in this way not only enjoys the geopolitical advantage of going to the Black Sea, but also can turn Ukraine into a landlocked country. Externally, while strengthening Russia’s influence in Eastern Europe and Turkey, Ukraine, which has become a landlocked country, will also gradually be incorporated or weakened. There is a view that this war is a sign of disintegration of the US-led international order. Taking this as an opportunity, I believe that a new world order can be formed in the future. Can the ‘new’ always be superior to the ‘old’? Everyone knows that the post-1945 international order (whether you call it American hegemony or Western hegemony) is problematic. I am of the same opinion and I have never changed it. An order against this is needed. However, no matter how undesirable the US-led international order may be, we do not have to forcefully seek positivity from ‘countries that have been on the other side of the US’. For example, Putin mentioned the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons in this war. In the international order so far, there has been a minimum agreement that no attack, no matter how heinous a hostile country may be, should not be attacked with measures that can shake the whole of humanity or even the foundations of civilization like nuclear weapons. It is difficult to expect an alternative international order from Putin’s Russia, which threatens even this order (in a positive sense). What are the values that Koreans should persevere while watching the development of the Russian-Ukrainian war? I feel great anger when I see some intellectuals in Korea and other parts of the world defending Russia and mocking Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians who are participating in anti-war and anti-Putin democratization movements. I don’t know why Ukraine, which was invaded, has to prove to its intellectuals one after another that it is a victim. Today’s Russia and China are strong members of the global capitalist system rather than alternatives. The protruding events related to these countries are also a kind of global struggle for supremacy, and cannot be regarded as the process of creating a ‘new and alternative order’. It should also be noted that democracy has retreated at an appalling level within those countries over the past decade. Russia’s invasion this time is an event in which the world witnessed how a large country that had invaded foreign countries with an imperialist policy in the past did not end with internal dictatorship, but went on to expand externally, not just threats, but even military attacks. The paradigm of the subsequent international order (if Russia wins) may return to 19th-century expansionism rather than a new Cold War. While we should criticize the world domination of the United States and the West, there is no need to be ambiguous about the attempted armed aggression and territorial changes from the opposing camp. Whether China invades Taiwan or the US attacks North Korea, our principles must be firm. ‘Oppose the act of violating sovereignty through force!’
ssn-general
“Putin’s logic of invading Ukraine is Nazism”
