Why Unions of Culturally Close Nations is Horrible Idea

 

Recently received popularity received the idea that culturally close countries should either stick close to one another or even unite into single country or a union. In Russia idea that Ukrainian and Belarussians are "brotherly" was always popular. That idea justified special treatment of these two countries. Most recently it was used to justify Russian War in Ukraine. Defenders of this idea would explain war not as one between distinct nations, but more of a "family argument." No matter how preposterous that sounds, for defenders of this idea in Russia it somehow makes sense. China too started to use this argument towards Japan and South Korea, arguing that these three East Asian nations should be closer to each other politically and ideologically.

To justify such ideas, various family like terminology is used. Nations are called "brotherly" so that collectively they can be called "family". That way supporters can argue that family must stay together and that outsiders should not mess with internal family relationships. At first glance they sound as innocent and even benign ideas. If countries are close culturally would not, they have easier time to understand each other and get along? Reality's answer to this question is resounding no.

Take for example Yugoslavia. It had all the ingredients of such cultural union: culturally close "Brotherly" nations, single ideology, even single language for 4 out of 6 members of the union. What could have gone wrong? A lot. In fact, so much that wars of dissolution of Yugoslavia were plagued by literal genocide. The two most distinct members with their own languages: North Macedonia and Slovenia seceded easily but it was complete bloodbath between the remaining four. The closest members of the union hated each other more than more distinct ones.

Reasons for this hatred are many, but most of them stem from the very common root that connects them. Because of old grunges that four had against each other, they could not agree who should own what or why. Each side had a score to settle and blame the other one for myriads of different reasons. Long time existing next to each other accumulated lots of issues that one held against the other. Eventually these issues became so many that when Milosevich pushed for reforming Yugoslavia in Serbia's favor it became the last straw and Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia declared independence, Serbia responded with war.

One may counter-argument that these conflicts were due to different religion. For example, Serbs are Orthodox Christians and Croats are Catholics. That may be true, but Slovens are also Catholics like Croats, yet Serbs hardly had any issues with them and let them out of the union without an issue. With Croats Serbs instead fought a long bloody war over who owns what. On the other hand, common religion did not prevent Slovens and Croats from arguing over territorial waters to the point that Slovens even blocked Croatian accession to EU until that issue was resolved.

Finally North Macedonia who could divorce their Yugoslav brothers without an issue or resistance due to having different language and culture, later get involved in conflict with Greece over Macedon heritage as well as Bulgaria over language and identity. Language of Macedonia is closer to Bulgarian that to Serbian and so Bulgarians see it as dialect of Bulgarian rather than independent language. North Macedonians disagree.

From all this real-life experience we can learn that there are two main reasons for conflicts between nations, common borders and common origin. Having something in common does not create harmony and eliminates conflict. Far from it, common things create conflict over who really should own it, how it should be used and so on.

It was the same in the past. For example, 100 years' war between Valois France and Plantagenet England only happened because both kings were related to the late Capetian French king and both claimed to be rightful successor to the throne.

It works the same on individual people's level. People fight lengthy and expensive court battles over inheritance. Relatives end up being much worse enemies than outsiders.

Neighbors too are often worse than someone more distant. During WWII the worst atrocities against Soviet people were committed not by Germans but by their allies, Ustase Croats, Fins and Romanians. Romanians had a grunge on USSR for forcing them to give up Bessarabia (modern Moldova and surrounding areas). After Operation Barbarossa, Germans not only returned Bessarabia to Romania but also gave them gave them territory between Dnisro and Southern Bug, including Odesa. That area saw a much crueller and more oppressive regime compared to Reichscommisariat Ukraine administered by Germans. Anti-western and pro-Russian sentiment still lingers there much stronger than around Kherson further east. Finns lost territory to USSR in brutal Northern War of 1940, in Continuation war as German allies Finns have special reason to take revenge on Soviets for their past invasion. Brutal fights between Partisans and Ustase was a precursor to future Yugoslav dissolution wars.

As you can see common origins and borders create conflicts not unity or ability to cooperate.

Current war in Ukraine is no exception. Russia calls Ukrainians "brothers" but that does not mean Russia will treat Ukraine and its people well. 

[continue next]