Angry in the Great White North

Vladimir Putin, Russia's strong man prime minister, has not made it a secret that he thinks the Ukraine is part of Russia:

Putin used this tactic during the April 4 NATO-Russia Council meeting in Bucharest and again during his April 6 meeting with President George W. Bush in Sochi. On these occasions, Putin warned that if Georgia and Ukraine moved toward NATO membership, Russia might respond by recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia's secession from Georgia and by instigating a partition of Ukraine. According to a witness account, Putin told Bush that Ukraine was "not a real nation," that much of its territory had been "given away" by Russia, and that Ukraine would "cease to exist as a state" if it joined NATO. In that case, Putin hinted, Russia would encourage secession of the Crimea and eastern regions of Ukraine (Kommersant, April 7; Moscow Times, April 8).

Needless to say, Ukrainians disagree with all of this:

In statements on April 9 and 11, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Moscow's questioning of Ukraine's territorial integrity was "unacceptable" under international law.

The Liberal Party has made it clear that party policy is to respect the national aspirations of the Ukraine:

And it is for these same reasons that Canada will be steadfast in supporting a Ukraine which wishes to embrace our transatlantic community.

On December 2, 1991, Canada was the first among our NATO allies, in fact that first Western democracy, to formally acknowledge Ukraine's independence. During the 2004 Orange Revolution Canada became the first Western country to announce an unprecedented electoral mission of 500 official Canadian observers in support of Ukraine's threatened democratic processes and institutions.

That was the keynote address to Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic Future Forum II in June 2008, presented by Borys Wrzesnewskyj, a Liberal MP who is a third-generation Ukrainian-Canadian.

If Michael Ignatieff was prime minister when the Ukraine had achieved independence, would Borys Wrzesnewskyj be able to claim Canada as the first democracy to recognize the Ukraine as an independent state?

Based on Michael Ignatieff's statements on the subject, it is clear that, like Vladimir Putin, Michael Ignatieff is dismissive of the Ukraine's claim to statehood, though some suggest that Ignatieff is trying to be apologetic:

Contentious passages from his chapter on Ukraine might include the following: "Ukrainian independence conjures up images of embroidered peasant shirts, the nasal whine of ethnic instruments, phony cossacks in cloaks and boots, nasty anti-Semites" (p. 106). "My difficulty in taking Ukraine seriously goes deeper than just my cosmopolitan suspicion of nationalists everywhere. Somewhere inside, I'm also what Ukrainians call a Great Russian, and there is a trace of old Russian disdain for these 'little Russian'" (p. 108). Within the larger context of the book, however, such admissions could also be read as evidence of self-reflexivity-a willingness to lay bear rooted prejudices and stereotypes. See Michael Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism (London: BBC Books and Chatto & Windus, 1993; reprint, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1995), 103-42.

I think that's giving Michael Ignatieff too much credit.  To me it sounds less like an apology and more like someone making excuses.  Nevertheless, Ignatieff does not disavow his suspicion of nationalism, and in particular, what he considers an illegitimate form of nationalism practiced by Ukrainians, whom he considers to be Russians, or nearly so:

I feel like declaring my basic prejudices on arrival. Isn't nationalism just an exercise in kitsch, in fervent emotional insincerity? Especially so in Ukraine. It has been part of Russia for centuries.

Russians or little Russians.  Or perhaps Russian vassals, in the thrall of Russian nobles.

Of course, Michael Ignatieff claims he has been misunderstood.  During the 2005 election, he tried to defend himself, using the standard excuse that we're too dumb to understand what he is saying:

"Anyone who reads the entire chapter in question, rather than merely the phrases that have been cited in isolation and out of context, will quickly recognize that my sole purpose was to rebut, not assert, the odious stereotype of Ukrainians that has been wrongly and unfairly attributed to me," he said.

He also branded the criticism as an attempt to sow dissent in the riding in a "transparent attempt" to create division and strife ahead of an expected January vote.

Am I going over old ground here?  Perhaps.  But recent events are stirring up trouble on this front again.

It is undeniable that a Ukrainian-Canadian MP in the Liberal caucus, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, who enunciated Liberal Party support for Ukrainian independence, found himself without a job immediately after Michael Ignatieff took over.

Wrzesnewskyj was the Critic for Citizenship, Immigration & Multiculturalism until January 22, when Michael Ignatieff announced a new cabinet.  Maurizio Bevilacqua got Citizenship and Immigration.  Ruby Dhalla got Multiculturalism.

Borys Wrzesnewskyj, the vocal supporter of Ukrainian independence who worked very hard to get all-party support for sending election observers to the Ukraine in 2004, got nothing.

You don't have to be paranoid to think that Michael Ignatieff, the scion of Russian nobility, is deliberately making certain not to provide a soapbox to an upstart Ukrainian bent on causing trouble for a part of the world that rightly belongs to Russia.

You just have to be Ukrainian, because that is exactly what a lot of Ukrainians are thinking:

The first academic and political analyst to react to the news of Borys Wrzesnewskyj's removal was Taras Kuzio: "Borys Wrzesnewskyj is an energetic and committed Ukrainian-Canadian who has accomplished a lot in a short period of time in the Canadian Parliament. His removal from the shadow cabinet undermines the Liberal Party's professed allegiance to diversity and inclusiveness and throws a dark shadow over Michael Ignatieff's support for traditional Liberal values. Ukrainian-Canadians need to unite and refuse to be treated as second-class by a new Liberal leader who has repeatedly shown in his past behaviour a contempt for Ukrainians. If Ignatieff continues to treat Ukrainian-Canadians in such a manner the Ukrainian-Canadian community should bring home to the Liberal Party the realisation that Ukrainian-Canadians have a choice in a democracy; that is, to vote for alternative political parties. Ukrainian-Canadians should bring this message home by uniting with other ethnic communities who have suffered from Russian oppression."

I've been told, anecdotally, that Borys Wrzesnewskyj's banishment to the backbenches is a big deal in the Ukrainian community, much more so that it would normally be because of Michael Ignatieff's family background (which he can't help) and his statements that seem to provide comfort to Russian neo-imperialists (which are entirely his fault).

I suppose Michael Ignatieff can use his I've-been-misunderstood line, but then it's getting a bit old, and in any case, it's not the sort of excuse that a politician ought to be using too often.  Eventually the most patient Liberal supporter will demand a leader that is understood more often than not.

Michael Ignatieff can claim to have revised his thinking.  Again.  Like he did on Israel (twice) and the coalition and Iraq and torture and, well, you get the idea.  I suppose another revision can't hurt at this point.

But Borys Wrzesnewskyj is still out of a job.  Michael Ignatieff could backtrack on that, but then that could be seen as abdicating his leadership.  But then that's nothing new either.

All that presupposes that Michael Ignatieff cares what Ukrainians think.  I mean, they're just little Russians, after all.