戦争をめぐるいくつかのナラティブ
チョムスキーの米国批判とフクヤマの「〔中露結託による〕歴史の終わりの終わり〔を許してはならない〕」論への論評。
How Chomsky and Fukuyama Look at Russia’s Ukraine Invasion? | Kashmir Life
次の評価が興味深い。
... the wrong interpretation of liberal democracy and its implementation through force might have resulted in the erosion of the democratic concepts all over the world. Its main champions the United States and Great Britain both seem to be faltering and trying to impose their will or version of the concept with the use of force, which may ultimately result in the establishment of a non-democratic global system, instead of the new world order which the so-called western liberalised world is trying to implement.
次に2020年の記事。フクヤマの予想に反してロシアが権威主義・正教の道を邁進していることを指摘している。ハンチントンの方に先見の明があったとも。
Francis Fukuyama, who spoke for much of the foreign policy establishment, argued in 1989 that post–Cold War Russia was trending toward a political system in which “the ‘people’ should be truly responsible for their own affairs, the higher political bodies should be answerable to the lower ones, and not vice versa, and that the rule of law should prevail over arbitrary police actions, with separation of powers and an independent judiciary.” For many Western thinkers, it seemed inconceivable that Russia would choose the retrograde course of returning to its authoritarian and Orthodox roots.
By Huntington’s civilizational standard, Ukraine is a severely cleft country, divided internally along historical, geographic and religious lines, with western Ukraine firmly in the European corner and eastern Ukraine and Crimea firmly in the orbit of Orthodox Russia. Even though it was published years before the 2013 Ukrainian crisis, Huntington’s most famous book, The Clash of Civilizations, is rife with warnings about the dangers of the Ukrainian situation and predicts that Ukraine “could split along its fault line into two separate entities, the eastern of which would merge with Russia. The issue of secession first came up with respect to Crimea.”
中核国家（core states）の役割と、当時の情勢下での外交による安定化の見込み。
These core states are key to managing the challenges that would emerge in cleft nations such as Ukraine. Rather than sponsoring a proxy war in Ukraine and risking a bigger war, the leaders of the core states need to step back and acknowledge that both Russia and the West have legitimate claims in Ukraine and that a diplomatic solution is the only path forward. Whether that solution is a partition of Ukraine, a federation where the aspirations of both parts of the country are respected, or some other compromise—only sincere efforts at diplomacy on the part of Russia and the United States can solve this problem.
一方、文化の境界を挟んでの紛争よりも政治体制をめぐる紛争の方が多く、その意味でハンチントンよりもフクヤマの方に説得力があるとする見解もある。
Ukrainian War: a clash with the Russians or a fight with Putin? (cne.news)
「堕落した西洋文化」に対する戦いだとのナラティブがロシアでは流布しているが、ウクライナ側からは権威主義政体を嫌って民主政体を求める戦いだとの指摘。
... political scientist Anna Khakee says. She has written a book about Ukraine that reflects on “Clashing civilisations”. In it, she asserts that the tensions between Russia and Ukraine are first and foremost about the desired form of government. It is not “really a conflict about a civilisation or a conflict about alternative political systems”, she writes in line with the theory of Francis Fukuyama. The war in Ukraine juxtaposes “the liberal democracy, individualism and the judicial state” and “autoritarianism, nationalism, order and ‘traditional’ values.”
Is the war in Ukraine a cultural war or a war about a political system? Do the Ukrainians fight against the Russian culture as a whole, or do they battle Putin as an autocrat?
There is no ultimate answer to this question. At the most you could say that Putin sees the conflict as a cultural war, while many Ukrainians interpret it to be a fight against their form of government primarily.
もっと明白にフクヤマ・サイドで書かれた記事。テクノロジーによって結び付いたグローバル世界においてはあからさまな抑圧はもっぱらコスト高となる、とする。
The return of the end of history | The Japan Times
