Instead, Merkel, whose discovery of diplomacy and foreign policy has been the hallmark of her third term in office, found a compromise worthy of war veterans and the huge suffering of the people of the Soviet Union. She could not attend the Victory Day Parade because of how Putin has manipulated it. The German chancellor knows all too well the historical and present complex relationship between Berlin and Moscow-and Germany’s responsibility and culpability. Still, the leaders of China and India will attend, as will Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, and his Turkmen counterpart, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, both of whom have appalling human rights records.īut there is one European leader who had to weigh up particularly carefully what decision to make: Angela Merkel. And Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea, has canceled, apparently after first accepting the invitation. Aleksander Lukashenko, the president of Belarus, a member of Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union, isn’t going to turn up either. Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary, is staying at home, and so is the country’s president, János Áder. Some of Putin’s closest allies haven’t made any travel arrangements. The Kremlin has already blamed the United States for being behind Europe’s refusal to attend the parade-as if the United States had that much influence. Old Europe doesn’t want to be associated with Putin’s triumphant nationalism and with a Kremlin that has manipulated history by invoking an antifascist narrative to justify its war against Ukraine. The decision by most EU leaders or heads of state, with the exception of those of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, to stay away from this year’s May 9 Victory Day Parade signifies a shift by Old Europe. Old Europe had not taken those warnings seriously.īut it was Putin’s attempts to destabilize Ukraine-in a bid to jeopardize the country’s chances to become a vibrant democracy with a market economy and tied to Europe -that changed Old Europe’s view of Putin’s Russia. Those conflicts didn’t disturb New Europe’s sense of security, but in the case of Georgia, the warnings by some governments in New Europe of Russia’s intentions were vindicated. This interference was in sharp contrast to the wars in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s and Russia’s quick war in Georgia in 2008. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in March 2014 and Russia’s military support for pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine punctured that sense of security. Entering those organizations meant being reunited with Europe. That is why joining the Euro-Atlantic structures of NATO and the EU was their goal. New Europe, particularly Poland and the Baltic states, craved security. As soon as the Nazi yoke was lifted in 1945, populations across Eastern, Central, and Southeastern Europe were saddled with an oppressive totalitarian system that was to last until 1989.Įven after regaining its independence, with few exceptions, New Europe never shook off its suspicion of Russia. The Soviet Union’s Red Army was seen not as a liberator but as an oppressor. New Europe’s view of the Victory Day Parades was completely different. Rereading British historian Tony Judt’s Postwar and American historian Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands on the war and its aftermath is a salutary reminder of the original and noble intentions of the founding fathers of the European Union. In the Soviet Union, an estimated 16 million people died, half of whom were soldiers. Over 5.7 million Jews were sent to the Nazi death camps. Nazism managed to destroy Europe’s rich and old Judeo-Christian heritage, despite attempts after 1945 to build Jewish communities and life in some parts of Europe. Nearly half that number consisted of noncombatant civilians. It is estimated that about 36.5 million Europeans died between 19.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |