It is so important to have these translations.

The West certainly aggravated and exploited Ukrainian nationalism but the Soviets perpetrated the Holodomor. so there have been long standing differences as always between ethnics.

This goes back to the Peace of Paris after WW1 which divided up the Habsberg and Ottoman empires into polyglot miniatures. with all the antagonism now handled by one national minority rather than the old imperial "schlamperei" which tempered absolutism with inefficiency. The Communists brought a certain murderous efficiency to the old Tsarist regime as well

Efficiency was a bourgeosie perogative that worked in commerce and industry but was Robesierre incarcanate in Old World poltics. America even had trouble with it i.e North and South of the Civil War.

Mark Twain's banter with Europe regularly cited its pomp and inefficiency (except for Joan of arc-here, Clemens was reverent) although he had little use neither slavery nor ABolitionsits.

Importantly, the Ba'athists, arab national socialists and inter-war European nationalist movements made the best of the polyglot situation in considering most people living within Germany, Italy, France, whatever as nationals so long as they acted like nationals i.e. a federation of sorts. The 3rd Reich would no longer tolerate Jewish separateness as a consequence of Communism but Mussolini had far less trouble and paid far less attention. However, Germans and Italians of the time felt they had finally acheived a sense of national identity over the regional kingdoms which had prevailed under the Habsergs.

This is important in understanding Syria, Iraq and Iran today. They are polyglot nation states, many deliniated by the same peace commissions after WW1, trying to make a go of it "as is", "warts and all".

If they fail, which is what the U.S.-Israeli policy seems to intend i.e. "divide and conquor", I doubt the Turks will be able to re-establish their old Caliphate and the Isrealis probably won't be around to push their Greater Isreal project.

Exploiting contnetion is always easier than ameliorating it and the post-Modern world cannot tolerate the inefficicencies of the Old World. The size and borders of the governing states is key in just how much contention any can manage both within and without.

From this view, Israel under U.S. influence is by far the most contentious although also making the regional common enemy of itself which may well end in a more unified Middle East of polyglot nation states.

Expand full comment

In this context yes, nationalism is usually bad (at least during our current time period), but the word nationalism has different meanings in different contexts, one is its the opposite pole of imperialism or capital "G" Globalism.

Expand full comment