Russia’s reincorporation of Crimea: facts on why it's not Anschluss

Click banner for more info

The Western press and certain Russian liberals have been in hysterics over Russia’s reincorporation of Crimea. Hillary Clinton previously compared Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler and Andrei Zubov, a professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), scandalously slurred grassroots Crimean attempts at integration as an "Anschluss".

If one digs but an inch under the surface, they will see that neither of these attacks can be further from the truth. Just because one of them happens to originate from a highly respected academic within the Russian Federation itself, in no way lends any semblance of legitimacy to such political fabrications. Those making such absurd claims may likely be interested in self-promotion or furthering the domestic political opposition’s narrative.

The Comparison:

A mature and emotionally distant comparison of Nazi Germany’s Anschluss of Austria and Crimea’s reincorporation into Russia plainly shows that these two phenomenon are indeed very different. To spice up the argument, select provocative episodes of American history are included in the comparison. Several points are addressed:

1) Historical Relationships and the International System

Nazi Germany (NG): The Anschluss occurred during a time of illegal German militarization and a desire to revise the international order. Germany was in violation of international limits imposed on its military after its loss in World War I and bullied the international community into accepting its illegal seizure. Germany and Austria were last part of the same political entity in 1806.

Russian Federation (RF): Russia had no international legal limits imposed on its armed forces after the Soviet collapse and it seeks to retain law, order, and international norms. Crimeans wanted to restore the rule of law being violated by criminal Kiev and thus democratically opted to join their cultural and historical neighbor, the Russian Federation. Crimea used to be part of Russia until 1954 and the unified Soviet state until 1991.

United States (US): The US always revises common norms as it sees fit to accommodate for its interests. American settlers flooded into Texas, provoked the Mexican authorities, and then fought a war for independence (the "Kosovo precedent" before Kosovo). The US later annexes Texas after devastating the Mexican military and seizing half of its territory. Importantly, Texas was a political entity that had no relationship with the US prior to the short period of rapid American colonization. Pertaining to Hawaii, there can be no said historical relationship besides business connections that would explain its annexation.

2) Ideology

NG: The Anschluss was the epitome of the fascist and racist ideology laid out in Mein Kampf.

RF: Russia is prohibited by its constitution from having any sort of ideology. In fact, diversity is respected as a result of a 1997 Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations. The reintegration of Crimea into the Russian Federation had absolutely nothing to do with state ideology.

US: The US historically practiced the ideology of Manifest Destiny, the idea that it had a God-given right to expand across the North American continent and beyond. American Exceptionalism is the idea that the US has certain rights and exceptions that stand it apart from its international peers, thereby justifying double standards in every sphere. American Exceptionalism was a decisive factor in repeating the Texas scenario in California, when the 1846 Bear Flag Revolt led to the future state’s declaration of independence from Mexico City and subsequent annexation by the US after the Mexican-American War.

3) Coups

NG: Pro-German fascist forces staged a coup in Austria prior to its annexation by Nazi Germany. The annexation was illegal because it violated the Treaty of Saint Germain and the Treaty of Versailles. A "democratic" vote only occurred after Nazi troops fully occupied the country.

RF: Pro-Western forces staged a coup in Ukraine, plunging the nation into chaos. Extreme fascist groups gained power and influence, even feeling confident enough to threaten Russians and other minorities in the country. No Russian-sponsored coup occurred in the country, and the citizens overwhelmingly voted in a free and fair election to reunite with Russia on their own will.

US: Pro-American corporate interests stage a coup in Hawaii, and the 1893 Blount Report finds this to be an illegal act. There was never any kind of vote on whether or not Hawaiians wanted to join the US, but Hawaii still became an American territory in 1898. A full century later, Congress issued a full apology to the native inhabitants of Hawaii, which was also signed by President Bill Clinton.

4) Defense of Compatriots

NG: The Nazis selfishly absorbed Austria for power and status. The population was not under any threat or danger at all. A pro-Nazi coup preceded the Anschluss.

RF: Russians and other minority groups in Ukraine have been threatened by the Right Sector’s far-right militants and the nationalist Svoboda Party, whose leaders occupy important government posts such as Defense Minister and National Security Chief, among others. The West has not condemned these extremist groups, although their ideologies are contrary to Western values. Russia’s diplomatic, economic, and political involvement was not militant and it worked to further humanitarian ends in Crimea. Had there been no fascist disorder in post-coup Ukraine, Crimea’s inhabitants would not have felt threatened and sought protection from the Russian Federation.

US: In the Texas and Californian templates, American citizens were only under threat (if they can even be described as such) as a result of political crises that they themselves provoked. American-backed groups unilaterally declared secession from Mexico (a coup of sorts in its own way) as a step towards annexation by the US. Hawaii’s annexation was the direct result of a coup.

5) The Road to "Empire"

NG: After the aggressive Anschluss, the Nazis staged a false-flag provocation to ‘justify’ their invasion of Poland in 1939. World War II started immediately afterwards and the Third Reich continued its reign of chaos until the collapse of its empire in 1945. Millions of people died as a result of the war.

RF: There was no false flag operation by Russia before the Crimeans reunited with their historic homeland. The Russian Federation harbors no ambitions for empire and is content with the status quo (unless its citizens abroad are once more endangered, which German citizens prior to World War II were not). Russia’s actions have been purely defensive and in response to the aggression waged by others. Prior to the chaos in Kiev, Moscow had made no move to reintegrate Crimea into Russia. Nobody was killed during the reintegration of Crimea into Russia.

US: America covertly destroyed its own ship in Havana, the USS Maine, beginning the Spanish-American War in 1898. The US emerges from the conflict as an official colonial power, acquiring Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam. It also occupied Cuba afterwards. In order to justify the military escalation in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin conspiracy was carried out, whereby the US once more attacked one of its own naval units. Two million Vietnamese were killed during this war. These false-flag actions were taken on America’s own initiative in order to fulfill its geopolitical goals. To the present day, some characterize the US as an old empire in a new form.

Annexation Versus Reincorporation:

Russia’s indirect actions in Crimea amount to a reincorporation of territory, not an annexation. Annexations hold the connotation that a state is expanding into new territory that never formerly belong to it. Nazi Germany’s Anschluss was an annexation, since the German state was not even in existence the last time "Germany" and "Austria" (anachronistically understood) were unified. Russia, through the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, was unified with Crimea for a few hundred years, with only the most recent 23 years serving as an interruption. Russia also has a centuries-long history of liberating its occupied ethnic Russian territories from oppressors (the Polish-Lithuanian Wars over the lands of former Kievan Rus). The US, on the other hand, blatantly annexed the territories of Texas, California, and Hawaii. It had no established history of integration with those areas, and it was only through rapid American colonization and settler provocation that Texas and California became annexed. As for Hawaii, that was a signature coup that would later be repeated multiple times in a similar fashion during the Cold War, resulting in neo-colonialism instead of actual annexation.

Objectives:

Hillary Clinton likely used the Hitler comparison to bolster her credentials for a possible 2016 campaign. Democrats traditionally have been looked at as soft on foreign policy, so taking a harsh (hysteric) stance against Russia may increase her appeal among the largely uneducated electorate. In this sense, Hillary is shamelessly self-promoting herself for political purposes.

It is difficult to understand exactly what Mr. Zubov’s objective was in writing his offensive article. By looking at his post-article interview with RFERL, one might be able to get a clearer picture. Zubov says the following that can help answer this question:

"I think the main goal here is to make Ukrainians hateful to Russians, so that the Maidan is not perceived by Russians as their own experience. So that it is seen as the experience of an enemy that needs to be rejected."

It appears as though Zubov believes that there is some kind of conspiracy going on, insinuating that if Russians identified with the Maidan protests (which as is known, ended with the overthrow of the legitimate government), then the destabilization may migrate to Moscow and repeat itself here. This carries heavy undertones of the narrative pushed by liberal opposition groups here in Russia. Thus, it may be probable that Zubov has sympathies towards the opposition and in some way felt that he is fighting a political battle on their behalf. After all, he did say:

"When a soldier takes up arms, he is scared of being killed in the end. But there are times when you need to take up arms. I'm an old person -- too old to go to battle with a rifle. My computer is my rifle."

Zubov’s Responsibility:

Hillary Clinton is a classless American political beast, so it is a given that she would irresponsibly throw around Nazi comparisons about Russia for her own gain. Zubov, however, is a well-respected Russian scholar and prime professor at Russia’s most prestigious university. He should know better than Hillary would how controversial and distracting his statements can be, especially given his position and reputation in the country.

As the saying goes, "with great power comes great responsibility", but Zubov appears to have shortsightedly ignored this axiom. His article created an uncomfortable and awkward position for his employer and coworkers due to the strong comparisons with Nazi Germany. The controversy this started, which was picked up by international news mediums, could tarnish the MGIMO brand name and reputation abroad. It is not to state that this was his intention, but rather the thoughtless aftereffect of his article’s publication. As a Russian, Zubov is aware of the 26 million Soviet citizens who perished during World War II. The conflict is referred to as the Great Patriotic War, and it has near-holy reverence throughout the country. Any comparison of the country with Nazi Germany understandable generates an impassioned response.

There is freedom of speech in Russia, hence why Zubov still has his job contrary to false rumors that he was fired, but there is also a certain sensitive tact that must be followed when professionally drawing an historical comparison of such emotional magnitude. Zubov’s comments could be unintentionally misunderstood by others and taken out of proportion as comparing modern-day Russia (and its political system) with Nazi Germany, with all of the dark implications. Anytime Nazi allusions were drawn about anything, especially Russia, an academic conversation runs the high risk of degenerating into a circus, no matter how eloquently versed. The imagery evoked stops the debate and stirs up extremely negative feelings that distract from the actual argument at hand. Worse still, his eerie reference about Maidan may embolden anti-government extremists to attempt a recreation of the Kievan disorder in Moscow. They may now be convinced that this is what the government truly is afraid of, seeing as how Zubov’s Maidan comments could be interpreted by them as lending leading academic legitimacy to their plans.