December 6, 2015
The French historian Marc Ferro judges that Europe has no call to consider Russia an enemy.
Invited to Europe 1 on the occasion of the publication of his book The Blinding: an alternate history of our world, he declared that the West lacks the right to reproach Vladimir Putin over the “annexation” of Crimea, which didn’t belong to Ukraine from the beginning.
The Crimea had been offered to Ukraine to cover over the fact that a good part of the Ukrainians, particularly in the west, were favorable to the Nazis. *The more so as the West has broken their word in expanding NATO to the east to the very border of Russia.*
In his Europe 1 interview, Marc Ferro defended the position of Moscow regarding Crimea. In his view, it was fundamentally a justified act, even if one might reproach Putin about the way it the peninsula came back to Russia, *the more so as the West has broken their word in expanding NATO to the east to the very border of Russia.*
Do we have the right to judge, given that three fourths of the population in Crimea are Russian, and that Crimea became Ukrainian because Krushchev pushed the business through, after the war?
To questions posed to him, the historian replies that during the Second World War, a number of Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis, murdered numbrous Jews, and to cover this fact the Soviet authorities decided to recompense the other Ukrainians,** those who had not collaborated with the Germans, for their heroism, by offering them Crimea and lands to the east that had never belonged to it.
Meanwhile, Russia does not present any threat to the West. In the historian’s view, Europe is blind, because she does not see who her actual enemy is.
“Our foes, at the moment, are those that are killing our soldiers in Mali, in Syria. It’s those who mount attacks in France. And that’s not the Russians,” concludes Marc Ferro.
* This sentence appears to be a floating bit of text that Sputnik could have put somewhere else, and I have taken the liberty of placing it where it actually fits. — tr.
**This is certainly an alternative! I have never seen this rationale for Krushchev’s act of 1954; Rutskoi attributed it to sunstroke or hangover. (at the Ruskoi link, click “Page 5”) — Tr