EDITORIAL: The Election in Ukraine

EDITORIAL

The Election in Ukraine

Before voters ever went to the polls in Ukraine last weekend, they had already won.

They had already shown themselves to be far more civilized and advanced than their Russian neighbors, for instance, because they had carried out a real election, ousting the current regime and replacing it with a radically different opposition candidate. They repudiated the sitting president long before the votes were counted, and we can only wonder:  What sort of barbaric crimes would Vladimir Putin have to commit before Russian voters would do the same. Would he have to actually eat babies on TV? Would even that suffice.  Russia, behaving like a nation in the dark ages,  has never once ousted a regime in an election in its entire thousand-year history — not once, not ever.

Similarly, Ukraine is building a real economy, not relying on the accident of natural energy resources, and it is not attacking any of its neighbors in any way, but rather building solid relationships with Western nations that will last for centuries..

What’s more, as we reported in our last issue, Ukrainians have already made it clear that no matter who won, Ukraine would turn its back on Russia and look towards the West for its future prosperity and security.

So there was lots of good news, and Ukrainians have much to be proud of.  With that said, Ukrainian voters sadly made the wrong choice on Sunday when they handed power to the charlatan Victor Yanukovich.

We’ve previously provided copious documentation that Yanukovich is not fit to govern Ukraine, but you don’t need to read any of it to understand why. Just peruse the brilliant essay by Nina Khrushcheva in today’s issue, and your stomach will turn.

This runoff should have been between Victor Yushchenko and Julia Tymoshenko, whose different visions for Ukraine were nonetheless both healthy and interesting.  Ukrainian voters ought to have disqualified Yanukovich simply because of his malodorous resume, to say nothing of his disturbingly pro-Russian rhetoric on occasion.   It is true that Yushchenko’s behavior in the past few years has left much to be desired; but like Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia, Yushchenko has earned the benefit of many, many doubts.  He has repeatedly laid his life on the line for his country, presiding over an economy besieged by Russian aggression designed to destabilize and return the country to a position of slave-like submission to Moscow.  What’s more, the outrageous and craven failure of the Western democracies to stand up for Ukraine and push back Russian aggression, just as in Georgia, contributed mightily to his undoing.

It’s disappointing that Ukrainian voters could not see the serious danger that voting for Yanukovich poses.  To be sure, his “victory” is a setback for democracy in Ukraine.  However, it is very clear that Russia has bungled its Ukraine policy so badly that not even Yanukovich is much inclined to lean on Moscow, and his rival Julia Tymoshenko will continue to be his prime minister because there is no sign that he can create the coalition he needs in parliament to oust her.  What’s more, it’s clear that Yanukovich only won because his predecessor chose to urge his supporters to vote “against all” rather than for his rival.  Had that not occurred, it’s likely Yanukovich would not be president today.  It was a divided adversary, not an overwhelming endorsement, that  brought Yanukovich back to power.  Yanukovich did not even manage to win a majority of the vote and his margin over Tymonshenko was razor thin, his support confined to limited geographical areas populated by Russian speakers.  It was, in other words, no sort of mandate whatsoever for reintegration with Russia.

We are confident that voters of Ukraine will demand that Yanukovich follow their clear desire to enter the EU and NATO, and to avoid any possibility of slipping back under Russia’s thumb.  Should he stray from that path, we are sure they will, unlike their craven Russian neighbors, rise up as they have done before and issue a correction.  And we hope that when the see Yanukovich in action, they will realize they have made a mistake in choosing him and oust him at the next opportunity.

There has been some talk that Ms. Tymoshenko might challenge the results as fraudulent if she did not prevail. We advise against this.  What needs to happen now is that the democratic forces take the election of Yanokovich as a warning sign and redouble their efforts to unify. The squabbles between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko over the past decade have undermined Ukraine’s journey towards democracy and its ability to qualify for NATO and EU membership. Tymoshenko, ego in check needs to do the hard work of building a real pro-democracy, pro-West coalition or step aside in favor of someone who will, and then that coalition should easily unseat Yanukovich and continue Ukraine’s development as a free, Western-looking democracy.

67 responses to “EDITORIAL: The Election in Ukraine

  1. Wrong choice? I thought you were for democracy, What’s with all that talk about disqualifying/banning candidates.

    If the greatest part of the electorate wants a pro-Russian candidate who wants to recognise Ossetia that’s a result of a democratic system, not a wrong choice. This post sounds like nothing more than sourgrapes about the results of democracy being something other than what you wanted, in that sence it doesn’t sound any more princicpled than a blog writen by an apologist of Ahmadinejad lambasting the voters for playing into Washington. It’s nothing more than hypocrisy, I’m disappointed.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:

    Your comment is so asinine that it deserves deletion. We said we DISAGREE with their choice that that VOTERS should have disqualified Yanukovich when marking their ballots, not that the government should have done so. Your ignorant gibberish, which doesn’t even try to fairly characterize what we wrote, is indicative of the filth that supports the Putin dictatorship, and as such we are delighted you “spoke.”

    Your suggestion that we have no right to disagree with the Ukrainian vote, that we must agree with them regardless of what they do, and your failure to recognize THAT THIS POST CALLS UPON TYMOSHENKO NOT TO CHALLENGE the results, hardly is indicative of a the sort of fairness you seem to call for. To the contrary, it’s the indication of a clownish hypocrite nobody in his right mind would take seriously.

    You don’t, of course, even TRY to defend Yanukovich as a candidate on his merits, much less to refute the devastating attack on his credibility set forth by Khrushcheva.

    It’s simply ludicrious that you think this has something to do with Ossetia, WHICH WAS SEIZED BY MILITARY FORCE.

    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

    • >Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
      Right and your caps lock laced responses make you seem mature and intelligent, so does your dismissal of legitimate criticism.

      No, I’m not defending Yanuko, nor am I very fond of the autocratic politicians common in Eurasia(even if you love to tar any one who disagrees with you as a Kremlin stooge). I’m simply tiered of hearing the “wrong choice” rhetoric it essentially shows a lack of tolerance for the results of democracy. It’s this reason why movements like this are never taken seriously by the international community, why the EU doesn’t care to deal with insane ultranationalists like this, why apparently Ukraine’s electorate only gave 5% of their votes to that type of line of reason.

      No, a lack of tolerance for dissent isn’t going to make your blog or ideology seem more mainstream at all.

      Yanuko doesn’t need my defending, that’s the Ukranian voter’s responsibility, and no I simply was commenting that the Ukranian electorate apparently elected some one proRussian enough to make it a second language and recognise Ossetia(understandable given which cultural ties seem to be strongest), just an observation it didn’t need that much of a reaction…Although now that you mention it the EU’s comission did report that Georgia was the one that did the invading (breaking a treaty it signed under Shev no less). It’s because of actions like that and rhetoric like this that Georgia’s ended up a pariah state that Europe and even Washington won’t ever really touch. This isn’t a way to get the mainstream and fence sitters to back a cause, I expected better.

      • Well Jack,

        What the COE report actually found was that Georgia should have used more restraint when dealing with separatist attacks on its own civillians.

        However the report also blasted Russia for multiple breaches of international law both preceeding, during, and after the conflict.

        Then there is the small matter of ethnic cleansing by Russian backed separatists.

        Considering that the report specifically recognises Abkazia and South Ossetia as Georgian territory, and declares the recognition of those territories by Russia as independant as illegal under international law, I fail to see where you get the idea that Georgia “invaded” anywhere.

        Note, the report quite clearly labels the Russian invasion and occupation of Georgian territory as illegal.

  2. I’d like to congradulate the folks here at Russophobe, but more importantly, the Ukrainian people, with the election of Victor Yanukovich to the president of the Ukraine, as per the earliest exit polls. Today is truly a momentous day. The most important part of the near-abroad has finally found it’s way foreward. I’m sure that very soon, LR will start posting hysterical editorials about how this was all an evil plan hatched in smoke-filled rooms by Kremlin neo-stalinists, but for now, I’m just going to savor the sweet feeling of geo-political victory.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:

    You are unspeakably ignorant. Our editorial CLEARLY SAYS THAT WE ADVISE TYMOSHENKO NOT TO CHALLENGE THE RESULTS. You have the intelligence of a lemon.

    Did you even read the extremely hostile anti-Russian remarks Yanukovich needed to make to get elected? Did you read about the clan of Russian spies Ukraine just busted? Do you know that Tymoshenko IS STILL THE PRIME MINISTER?

    One would think even a brainless maggot like you would be able to recognize the breathtaking hypocrisy in attacking us for what you predict we will write in the future while calling upon us to be fair. Gosh you’re dumb. You make Russia look like a nation of apes. Was that your plan?

  3. Ukraine, a “free, Western-looking democracy”? :) That’s a good one. And talking about Ukraine joining the EU and NATO is a bit ridiculous, since a) the EU doesn’t want Ukraine and b) Ukrainians don’t want to be in NATO. It would take decades for Ukraine to qualify for EU membership.

    Ukraine may be slightly more democratic and possibly slightly more European than Russia, but “pro-Western” it is not. Let’s not be naive. Ukrainians had to choose between two pro-Russian candidates, so it’s pretty clear where their allegiance lies.

  4. Good editorial. I too disagree with the results, but it is a healthy indicator that even Yanukovich learned that to succeed in Ukrainian politics he has to play by the rules. I also think Tymoshenko should concede and let the government proceed to address the serious problems facing Ukraine now.

    It is unfortunate now that it is inevitable the Black Fleet will have a better opportunity to illegally station itself on sovereign Ukrainian land. NATO will definitely be on the backburner for the next 5 years. I only hope that Yanu doesn’t try to make Russian a second official language after Ukrainian has made such great strides since independence.

    Nothing is predicable though in Ukrainian politics. No one will be able to predict what will happen in the next year let alone the next 5 years.

    At least Yush made one final parting shot; Bandera was made a hero of Ukraine. SLAVA!

    • I fully agree with you, Brian.
      “I only hope that Yanu doesn’t try to make Russian a second official language after Ukrainian”. Dermova is apparently brain-killing language and 85% of ukrainians speak russian anyway. So it’s only logical to keep Russian there as the only state language.

      “Bandera was made a hero of Ukraine. SLAVA!”
      Yeah, that was great. Now anyone knows that it’s a great shame to be ‘Ukrainian’ and double shame to be ‘hero of Ukraine’.

      Actually i think the best option for Ukraine is to split into ‘Malorussia’ and ‘Malopolska’.

  5. [What’s more, as we reported in our last issue, Ukrainians have already made it clear that no matter who won, Ukraine would turn its back on Russia and look towards the West for its future prosperity and security.]

    Then we all agree: today is a great day in the history of Ukraine! Slava!

  6. {At least Yush made one final parting shot; Bandera was made a hero of Ukraine. SLAVA!]

    Yes, luckily for Poles, Jews and Russians, this nightmare is finally over:

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1960632,00.html#ixzz0evO04NTL

    In Ukraine, a Parting Shot From an Unpopular President

    Officially a lame duck after being eliminated in the first round of Ukraine’s presidential election last month, the country’s massively unpopular leader, Viktor Yushchenko, is going out with a parting shot that will stir up even more resentment among his critics. In one of his last acts as leader, Yushchenko has publicly honored a World War II-era nationalist leader believed by some historians to have collaborated with the Nazis and participated in the ethnic cleansing of Poles and Jews, naming him a “Hero of Ukraine.” The decision, quite predictably, has angered an array of parties, from Jewish organizations to the governments of Poland and Russia to everyday Ukrainians fed up with the disappointments of his presidency.

    Born in 1909 in what is now western Ukraine but was then a part of Poland, Bandera became a regional leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in the 1930s, a radical group modeled after other European fascist movements. The organization’s aim was to throw off the shackles of foreign domination — Russia in the east and Poland in the west — and establish an independent Ukraine. So when Nazi Germany invaded Soviet-occupied Poland in 1941, Bandera cooperated as a means of achieving that goal, including allegedly killing Jews.

    His followers carried out partisan attacks against the Germans, but also slaughtered thousands of Polish civilians in their drive to rid the country of foreign elements. In awarding the title of “Hero of Ukraine” to Bandera on Jan. 22, Yushchenko cited his “indomitable spirit in standing up for the national idea and demonstration of heroism and self-sacrifice for an independent Ukrainian state.”

    Yushchenko, who was enormously popular after he swept to power in the Orange Revolution of 2004, encouraged a nationalist-oriented revision of Ukraine’s history.

    But Ukraine is split on Bandera’s legacy to this day: many in the more nationalistic west supported Yushchenko’s move to honor him, while those in the Russian-speaking south and east of the country were furious, as they still hold to the Soviet-era view of him as a traitor.

    The Bandera award made waves outside Ukraine’s borders, too. The Russian government called the decision to commemorate him “odious”, and Polish President Lech Kaczynski said it went “against the process of historical dialogue and reconciliation.” The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights organization, wrote to the Ukrainian ambassador in the U.S. to express its “deepest revulsion.”

    There’s one thing most Ukrainians agree on — Yushchenko should have spent less time and energy on history, and more on the massive problems of the present. Yushchenko managed only a fifth-place finish in the first round of the presidential election last month, garnering 5% of the vote. “The state’s falling apart as he’s deciding who’s going to be the next Hero of Ukraine,” Marples says. Or, as the influential newspaper Dzerkalo Tyzhnia put it:

    “”Yushchenko is holodomoring” – this is not only a diagnosis of morals of society. This is the verdict of the nationalist policy Yushchenko. He has become the opposite of King Midas. He has managed to turn into ashes everything he touched. And he preferred to touch sacred shrines.”

    http://vsyapravda.com/news/id18700/digest

  7. Sergey Shelukhin

    Ah yeah, Yuschenko has an interesting vision for Ukraine, the one he sealed with his latest act of making a Nazi bandit hero of Ukraine, act condemned by Simon Wiesenthal center, and even is Polish allies. All for building up the so-called “true” Ukrainian history. Interesting that one of the comments from Polish officials said that they wished Yuschenko would be more “delicate”, as if saying, we know you Mr. Yuschenko love your nazies, but we hoped you wouldn’t be more brazen about it”. The clique that came to power during illegitimate “orange revolution” and spent its tenure in endless in-fighting, scandal, without much of any improvement, is out. Of course it’s not defeated and might come back but for once sanity prevailed.

    • LR makes a truly beautiful statement in this editorial. The writers, even as they extol the virtues of democracy early on in the article, have the gall to critisize the rank and file Ukrainian voter for excercising their democratic rights in the way that they see fit, instead dictating that the choice that a clear majority of Ukrainians made is somehow “wrong.” . It appears that democracy only has value to LR when the result is the one they prefer. This whole charade is so very similar to the Bush Administration’s stance on, say, the elections in Venezuela. Perhaps you and the State Department should get together and write some official-looking reports on the poor state of democracy in those places where the “american” candidate doesn’t quite win a general popular election.

  8. Sergey, as far as I know, Bandera, this “Nazi bandit”, was in a Nazi concentration camp from 1941-44. He may be many things but a Nazi collaborator he is not – as even the highly biased Time feature (which is just to say a “Time feature” :) referenced above indicates. Now can you legitimately make a national hero of a person who commited atrocities against other ethnic groups and nations? May be not, but it is a well-established tradition, the Russia’s Pantheon, in particular, presents many examples.

    Brian, don’t let us jump to any conclusions re geopolitical consequences of the elections, a status of the Black Sea bases etc. Ukraine, in many respects, has turned the corner.

    • Ilya, if a man is guilty of killing innocent civilians on an ethnic basis (Jews and Poles), as Bandera and his people seem to have done, how can his and his followers’ crimes against humanity be negated just because he himself ended up in a Nazi concentration camp?

      http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1960632,00.html#ixzz0evO04NTL

      When Nazi Germany invaded Soviet-occupied Poland in 1941, Bandera cooperated as a means of achieving that goal, including allegedly killing Jews. But the Nazis didn’t want Ukraine to be independent, either, and Bandera was arrested and sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. His followers carried out partisan attacks against the Germans, but also slaughtered thousands of Polish civilians in their drive to rid the country of foreign elements.
      ………………..

      Look, the NHVD heads Yagoda and Ezhov also ended up getting executed by Stalin, but that doesn’t negate or excuse their complicity in the executions of innocent people while they were heads of NKVD, does it?

      • So, how he could kill anybody on the Ukrainian territory while being imprisoned in a camp outside the Ukraine? Care to explain how a man could be in two places at the same time.

        I have no doubts that Ukrainian irregulars killed lots of Jews, Poles and Russians. I also understand his role in forming those nationalistic partisan groups.

        But the question still remains, what’s his personal role in those killings? That article from Time does not even say that he ordered any atrocities. I think the historical record has to be clarified before you level horrible accusations against a man who remains legally inoocent

        • RV,

          I don’t have time to study whether Bandera himself participated in actual murders. Maybe he didn’t, just as Hitler never participated in actual murders.

          At issue is that OUN – the fascist organisation that Bandera was the head of and gave orders to – committed genocide in WW2.

          Is it too much to ask that the head of a genocidal organisation NOT be declared a HERO of Ukraine?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera

          At the April, 1941, Krakow conference the OUN-B declared ” The OUN combats the Jews as the prop of the Muscovite-Bolshevik regime.”[32] In 1941-1942 while Bandera was cooperating with the Germans, OUN members took part in anti-Jewish actions. In May 1941 at a meeting in Krakow the leadership of Bandera’s OUN faction adopted the program “Struggle and action for OUN during the war” which outlined the plans for activities at the onset of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. [33] Section G of that document –“Directives for first days of the organization of the living state” outline activity of the Bandera followers during summer 1941 [34] In subsection of “Policy Minority” ordered: “Moskali, Poles, Jews are hostile for us and thus they must be exterminated in this struggle, especially those who would resist our regime: deport them to their own lands, importantly: destroy their intelligentsia that may be in the positions of power” … “so-called Polish peasants must be assimilated”… “Jews must be isolated, removed from governmental positions in order to prevent sabatoge, those who are deemed necessary may only work with an overseer… Jews’ assimilation is not possible.” [35] [36] [37] Later in June Yaroslav Stetsko send to Bandera report in which he indicate – “We are creating a militia which would help to get remove the Jews and protect the population.” [38] [39] Leaflets spread in the name of Bandera in the same year called for the “destruction” of ““Moscals”, Poles, Hungarians and Jewry. [40][41] [42].
          ……………………………..

          What a “hero”!

  9. Congratulations to the people of Ukraine for having a fair election.

    • Yes, even if you don’t like the result.

      And of course, the Ukrainians showed that once again they are more socially and culturally advanced than the barbarians in Moscow.

  10. I agree with the original post. Warm congratulations to the people of Ukraine on what seems to be a free and fair election. This alone distinguishes them as a civilized nation.

  11. I second these sentiments! Best of luck to Ukraine, and may it prosper!

  12. This was a hard fought election and a victory for democracy,

    Although the “Putinite” faction may end up disappointed,Yanukovich has won but by a very narrow margin, he does not have a mandate for radical change, So those who expect him to march the people of Ukraine back into the arms of the Russian Empire will be left disappointed,

    Yanukovich if he has any wisdom knows that any sudden shift could lead to civil unrest, I predict he will proceed with caution, NATO accession will be a non issue during his tenure, EU membership is only a distant dream for now, But again the last thing he will want to do is alienate the EU, ultimately Ukraine’s long term future prosperity lies in forging close ties with the union,Yanukovich can not afford to damage Ukraine’s partnership status and the capital investment earmarked for his nation.

    So I predict there will be no recognition of the breakaway republics of Abkhazia/South Ossetia, Yankovich will look to appease Moscow while his nation still heads west.

  13. What’s encouraging is that Ukraine has finally had what seems to be a democratic election (something which Russia hasn’t had yet) and that even Yanukovic has talked about economic integration with the EU. And it’s encouraging that a majority of Ukrainians have rejected the kind of lunatic, chauvinistic nationalism that makes heroes out of war criminals, suppresses minorities, formulates a paranoid version of Ukrainian history and flouts international law.

    However, while it’s in everyone’s interest that Ukraine becomes a civilized, democratic state, the fact that a country has free elections and would like to trade with the West doesn’t make it a Western-style democracy. A democratic political culture, functional institutions, eliminating organized crime from politics, the marginalization of extremist discourse, and a commitment to minority rights are sine qua nons for a true democracy.

  14. To A., Ouch, and Arthur et al, won’t fool Russophobes.

    If “political minorities” side with the enemies of a nations people, and just want to be in on the plundering, then it is a farce, like sexual tourism, wanting to be on the wining side of the coin. Peaceful people are not fools, just isolated in self defense. It can get ugly quick.

    The majority of the country wants justice… and when people have had enough…. the Parasites proclaim themselves an “innocent minority” that just happened to support Ukraine’s enemies. So what makes Ukrainians intolerant, or have no right national heroes, not politically correct, that stand up for the beleaguered nation?

    Political and business Minorities or whatever they call themselves cannot have it both ways, they are just like “Carpetbaggers” were in the American South after the civil war. Either they are with the people of Ukraine or be at risk. There are No “Dual Citizenships” allowed in Ukraine. The country is already destabilized enough. This East West confrontation is not grassroots, but created to divide the nation.

    The majority of its Rooshan population is an example of hubris and chauvinism. The Yanukovich vote was fairly Unanimous on the Moscal Colonists side. Mostly because he favored to take away more rights from “the” Ukrainians in their own state.

    Throwing off the Exploitative Colonizers and Kremlin Sponsored Thugs, their ilk, is not comparable to Lynching Blacks for their blackness, or going after Jews for their religious beliefs or exterminating American Indians as often claimed.

    Nationalists have heard the downtrodden nation, and want to protect its interests. That is why all nations have Armies and Borders. Touring Criminals are taking advantage of a destabilized country due to war, and occupation, committing economic crimes. Then just for spite start murdering local poets, journalists and musicians. Just to show Ukrainians that they can and will do what they want and their situation is hopeless.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuted_bandurists

    Then to get away from blame, scream “Ukrainian Nationalists are Punishing Minorities”. Yet Bandera and Petlura are murdered. Yet it is “The” Ukrainians still accused of intolerance.

    If Moscali or whomever act respectful and without malice, then we would not have these bullsh!t posts here, which are very revealing to Ukrainians, whom are being mistreated in their own country. Ukrainians “patience is not endless” the youth not binge raised under Savok do not understand why their county must be different.

    Mistakes are made when people are under stress. This last election just proved it. More time to make progress is lost, more instability, more exploitation favoring the enemies of liberty. This will not just end here.

    Ukraine is the Largest country, completely in Europe, and is the exact geographical center located in Western Ukraine.

    I thank LaRussophobe for this sensitive editorial.

    • Sergey Shelukhin

      You are forgetting that regions where those “colonizers” live were made part of Ukraine less than 100 years ago, and are now the engine of Ukrainian economy.
      From outside West Ukraine for Ukraine seems like “the South” for the USA – poor, religious and chauvinistic. Perhaps you guys should be taken by Poland again, maybe Poles will civilize you somewhat, while South-east Ukraine forms productive partnership with Russia, joins the EU, or whatever.

      And I’ve never heard of East Ukrainians being chauvinists, only West Ukrainians – both from history starting from founding of the state by bandit cossacks and on to WWII, to all the fabulous Ukrainian “moskal” jokes.

      Compare this map:

      and this map:

      It looks like poorest Ukrainians are also the most nationalistic, who would’ve though! If only they didn’t call it “patriotic”…

      • Well, lazy people are the most nationalistic. Hard working people have no time for nationalism: they have to work and provide material support for the lazy peasant nationalists in West Ukraine.

  15. Georg, I don’t know what “political minorities” you’re talking about, but before Ukraine can be considered a civilized country, it needs to start respecting the rights of ethnic minorities.

    I guess it’s understandable that Ukrainians feel bitter about Russian “colonists” but it’s still hypocritical to complain too much about that, since Ukrainians themselves have been doing the same thing, both in the territories given by Khrushchev to Ukraine, and in other Soviet republics (the Baltic states, Moldova, the Central Asian republics etc). Historically European cities like Lwow, Ungvar or Cernauti are currently populated predominantly by Ukrainian and Russian colonists, who took over the houses and properties of the original inhabitants. So if you’re going to use that sort of nationalist rhetoric, ok, get the Russians out of Eastern Ukraine, but then the Ukrainian immigrants should also get out of the cities they colonized.

    It’s not just the “moscali” who were offended by the rehabilitation of the war criminal Bandera, but also the Jews and the Poles. And it goes to show just how lunatic and suicidal the Ukrainian nationalists are that they went out of their way to offend the only country that took seriously their EU aspirations.

    • [Ukrainians themselves have been doing the same thing in other Soviet republics like Moldova.]

      Tell me, A., you and other Romanian patriots (rightfully) condemn Stalin’s actions in 1940, when he stole Bessarabia from Romania, took Transdniestria from Ukraine and formed his “Moldovan SSR”. You want Moldova to return to Romania.

      But what about Transdniestria? Should it return to Ukraine? Become an independent country? Be occupied by force by Romania?

  16. There is no room for change partially due to the wasted five years of infighting and a global economic downturn, and Viktor has no options except those that will be dictated to him by his handlers. But the people have spoken and everyone should respect that. Just don’t blame everyone else for the coming troubles which has become standard with the ex-republics.

  17. These territories were “given” to Ukraine because they were starving and RaSSiya could not hold them. After Crimea was restored by Ukraine, the Ukrainians were removed to Siberia so that Moscals could occupy their comfortable homes. Maybe Roosia should try take back Alaska?

    Displacing Ukrainians from Crimea and putting them into Siberia was not Colonization of these regions by Ukrainians. Moscali sent them there to be worked to death in the snow. Rooshans taking Ukrainian Kids from their parents for speaking Ukrainian as a bad influence, are Rooshan specialties.

    Flaying blind Ukrainian Bandurist musicians by the Poles during “Pacification” while living in the security of the city of Lviv. Poles want Ukraine in the EU just as a buffer state against Filthy Roosha. The EU tells Ukraine “Maybe yes and maybe no”. Bank Frauds and currency attacks and exploitation by the IMF are but another method of colonization. Corporations getting deals that would be too good to be true elsewhere. The name of the game to run down the enterprise and privatize is still being played.

    “Zbigniew Brzezinski’s dictum that, without Ukraine, Russia is no longer an empire is well-known in Europe too. Yet, its topicality for European security seems insufficiently appreciated in Brussels”.

    http://www.globalpolitician.com/26225-ukraine

  18. There has been some talk that Ms. Tymoshenko might challenge the results as fraudulent if she did not prevail. We advise against this. What needs to happen now is that the democratic forces take the election of Yanokovich as a warning sign and redouble their efforts to unify.

    This is amazing. Russophobe has lost its reason. How naive can you get? You think Putin’s henchmen are going to allow Ukrainian Democrats to reorganize and mount a challenge in the next election? What planet are you on? As long as Putin is in control of Russia, there will be no Democracy in Ukraine. It’s over. Gone. Just like in Russia. Wake Up please!

    • Kolchak,

      Sad to say, the Ukrainian Canadian observers agreed with the election results meeting international standards. Found some need for improvements to the system.

      “The observation mission notes that members of election commissions at all polling stations visited by the observers did their utmost to facilitate honest and transparent elections.”

      http://un.ua/eng/article/247329.html

  19. Ukrainian independence is not really desired by anyone, except Ukrainians and that idea was given up for “stability”.

    Ukraine will become a “Zone of influence” for Rasha and an Economic Free Trade Zone for the EU “Neighborhood Policy”.

    No competition for Europe because Ukrainians have to follow the feudal laws of the CIS and the EU. Finally an experiment that takes away all humanity from the “human resources”.

    Business and exploitation of resources can be accomplished with the least interference from citizens. Cheap labor in the “buffer zone” minerals, such as Uranium, oil and gas deposits, pipelines can be sold off with no real bidding.

    This business can be handled by corporations instead of local rule. Like a franchise, think globally. This nation of beggars is not alone.

    Happens in the best of places, look at the Obama Stimulus package where billions are spent without accounting. Protest groups like “Tea Parties” are just to relieve pressure about the discontent and valve off the forces.

    Electing a “Black Dope” of a candidate anywhere they want shows how well the methods are developed by the collectivists to keep people downtrodden.

    G7, G8, G9……G2o, and counting.

  20. Georg, what do Siberia and Crimea have to do with anything I said? (the original inhabitants of Crimea are the Tatars anyway, not the Ukrainians or the Russians). I repeat, by Ukrainian colonists I am referring to the Ukrainians who were given the houses and properties of locals who were deported or murdered, in the Baltic States, in Bassarabia, in the territories stolen from Poland, Hungary and Romania and given to Ukraine.

    And what do you mean by “These territories were “given” to Ukraine because they were starving and RaSSiya could not hold them”? They weren’t starving at all. Places like Lwow/Lemberg and Cernauti had a level of economic and cultural advancement that no city in Ukraine could even dream of. In both those cities, the native population is nowadays only about 5-6%, the rest being Russian and Ukrainian immigrants from the Soviet era, and Cernauti especially has been turned into a dirt-poor, miserable dump.

    And Georg, your venom against both the EU and Russia seems unfortunately to be symptomatic of paranoid Ukrainian nationalism. Instead of looking for enemies everywhere and trying to fabricate a new Ukrainian history, you should appreciate more the goodwill other countries have shown Ukraine. Only two countries supported EU integration for Ukraine, both of whom were willing to get over the past and have renounced any territorial issues: Poland and Romania. Poland was the most enthusiastic supporter, but of course the Ukrainians had to provoke them and make into a hero a killer of Poles. Romania had some reservations (because of the persecution that the Romanian minority suffers in Ukraine) but it still supported the idea of Ukraine joining the EU and NATO, and Romanian public opinion was generally favorable to Ukraine. But Romanians have gotten sick of the anti-Romanian fear-mongering spewed by Ukrainian politicians (including Timoshenko and Tigipko) and Ukrainian media, and of Ukrainian disrespect for international law and minority rights, so don’t count on us next time you want more favors, or advocates for EU/NATO membership.

    • Dear A. For a while I’ve been wondering where are you from, at least the way you spoke characterized you as an EU-citizen, even that hidden contempt of Ukrainians as non-european russian-like barbarians. This phrase was especially lovely “European cities like Lwow, Ungvar or Cernauti are currently populated predominantly by Ukrainian and Russian colonists, who took over the houses and properties of the original inhabitants”. What strikes me here the most is the viiew of these European cities seized by the Ukrainians as the outsiders having totally nothing to do with Europe. I’m not going to expound here on the issue of how in the world Lviw is a non-Ukrainian city since it was for centuries a capital of the first truly Ukrainian Kingdom of Halicia, such discussions are really counter-productive because borders were shifting all the time, different ethnic groups came and went and no doubt this city is a significant part of the Polish and Austrian historical and cultural legacy AS WELL AS Ukrainian one. Is it fair that these territories were taken away from Poland and given to us?? That’s a pointless question and it gets us nowhere, all wars started from trying to figure it out who’s more legitimate holder of these or those lands, let just say yes, we benefited from this and Poles got a just compensation or they are ready to give Silesia and Danzig back to Germany? But that’s just a remark.
      My point is the subtext your messages have like: We are Europeans while you are not, go back to Russia where you belong and be nice, polite and 100% PC even to them, though we despise them as much as we despise you, because only we, the elite European-Europeans are allowed to criticize Russia, not you “dirt-poor, miserable dump” of a country. And you are angry at the “venom against both the EU and Russia… symptomatic of paranoid Ukrainian nationalism”. You’ve already answered the question pointing out the fact only two countries supported EU integration for Ukraine, and I’m immensely grateful to those countries especially to Poland who is the most sincere and brave advocate of my country, a true ally and sister-nation, but what about he rest constantly humiliating us and betraying Ukraine whenever Russia starts its usual anti-Ukrainian blackmail, nobody stands up for us, and you just can’t understand what it means, you totally can’t since Romania enjoys NATO and EU membership how it feels to see that your only little, poor 46mln population strong country is abandoned by the entire world left totally to its own devices in a face of a huge nuke-armed totalitarian monster, and nobody cares, we feel alone and abandoned, having nobody stand up for us. Your situation is different…
      And the nature of our “venom” against both Russia and EU is totally different in those both cases. As for Russians the reason for these sentiments are due to their LUV to us and desire to take us over, to russify both lingually and culturally, while we want to be Europeanized and westernized, their overpresence in here. And with Europe we have a case of unrequited love: we want to become one of you but you deny us our aspirations and all this you-should-prove-us something-first demagogy in fact means “never”, EU is ready to admit just recovering from wars Balkan countries, having experienced not imaginary but real ethnic cleansings and genocide, but not Ukraine and our feelings are hurt, EU does its best of not even not promising us anything but doesn’t want to give us at least SOME hope, it insist on Ukraine reforming but we can’t be sure those reforms will ever get us to our ultimate goal, because to be just democratic and prosperous isn’t enough for Ukraine and we can’t become neither truly democratic nor prosperous outside EU and NATO, sometimes it’s wise to give something in advance, and thus accelerate the modernization in stead of waiting for centuries till the country is fully mature.
      But it seems Europeans would prefer us to be swallowed up by Russia, to spare them the trouble of trying to keep us out and reading your complaints about bad Ukraine harassing nice cool Romania who just drops hints on and on on how it wouldn’t mind to have South Bassarabia and North Bucovina back, I wonder do you really think that having Russia or a Russian satellite for a neigbor Romania would feel more comfortable? Poles at least understand this.
      But back to our Ukrainian colonists, that’s a question of responsibility, being a subject of an Empire and go where your masters make you and be a titular nation of empire builders is something totally different. Ukrainians populated these cities but as a nation they are not responsible for ethnic cleansings, killings and deportations orchestarted by Soviet (Russian) Empire. Your chief mistake, lots of other westerners make as well is your Ukrainians=Russians-color-blindness. The logic is like this there are post-Soviet countries and since Soviet Union was defeated, they are to be treated as defeated enemies, all of them but Baltic countries, for those are victims of the Empire, not its constituents, becauese their annexion was illegitimate (and for sure annexion of Ukraine or Georgia was) and again former Warsaw pact countries were recognized as liberated, not defeated. And the whole logic of who to admit to the western institutions and who not is based on this artificial line separating liberated captive nations from their former captors, but how you fail to realize it that we were the captives TOO!!! We were just conquered earlier, we are victims of Russia not its allies and you present us as a participants in its crimes and it hurts, millions of Ukrainians were deported (yes, we really populated and colonised not only Lviw and Cherniwci but Kolyma, Magadan, Sakhalin, so Japanese are welcome to blame us too), executed, famished but you are pushing us back into the confines of the prison of nations, where you think us to belong….

      • I understand how you feel, Damien Thorn. Many people in my country, Croatia, also feel that we’re being ignored by the EU who wants to put us in a new union with Serbia. But, that is far from the truth. The EU is no charity, and you must achieve certain standards to join. Period.

        Do you really think that it was easy for other countries to join NATO and EU? Remember, Poland and Romania became democracies in 1989, yet Poland joined NATO in 1999 and EU in 2004, and Romania joined NATO in 2004 and EU in 2007. And what about all the other countries, Slovenia, Estonia, Bulgaria…

        Do you think membership was given to them on a silver plate? No, they had to fight hard for it. And my own country became a true democracy in 2000, started negotiations with the EU in 2005 after handing over a national hero, Ante Gotovina, to the court in Hague, and it still isn’t a member. However, its hard work has been recognized, and now Croatia is expected to join in 2011 (we joined NATO in 2009). Ukraine will have to work hard too, even harder than the others because of strong links (read, chains that bind) with Russia.

        And don’t give up on competing with Balkan countries. Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania all have a looong road ahead of them in joining the EU, precisely because of ethnic conflicts and underdevelopment. The dates mentioned are 2015, 2018 or even after 2020. So, you have plenty of time to catch up.

        And what makes you think tha only Poland and Romania support Ukraine’s membership? What about Sweden? UK? Lithuania, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Croatia, when it joins?
        You guys will be in, we just have to persuade the Germans and the French ;). Oh, and watch out for the Russian bear.

      • Damien, I don’t think I ever said Ukrainians were barbarians, just as I don’t have any resentment against ordinary Russian people either. However, I do have a problem with Ukrainian ultra-nationalist/chauvinist types (not you, but there’s a few on the forum: Georg, Alexander, LES etc) who make heroes out of war criminals, support ethnic cleansing and deny Ukrainian participation in Soviet and Nazi atrocities.

        I think most Central and Eastern European countries (including Poland, Romania, Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine etc) share a mythology of victimization, that is not always justifiable. So instead of believing that you guys are alone against everybody else, you should realize that Ukraine could never be considered for EU membership unless if fulfills the requirements that all other CEE countries in the EU have worked so far to attain.

        It’s interesting that you see Poland as an ally, but you see a menace in Romania, a country that has renounced its legitimate claims to its historic territories, has overlooked Ukrainian systematic human rights violations against its Romanian minority and extended a hand of friendship to Ukraine, based on the principle that territorial squabbles will get us nowhere and it’s better to have an eastern neighbor that’s also in the EU and NATO rather than a Russian sattelite. Yet the Ukrainian response was hostility, hate-mongering and even more aggressive nationalism and forced “Ukrainization”.

        Before Ukraine can even think of the possibility of EU membership, it needs to reform its political culture, and it needs to respect the rights of ethnic minorities. In Romania, ethnic minorities (including Ukrainians) are represented in parliament, have the right to study in their native language, and in areas where a minority is at least 20% they have the right to use their language in administration and the judiciary, and all official signs are bilingual. When Ukraine does the same for its Romanian minority, when it returns the property that was stolen from the people who fled or were deported in 1940 and from 1944 onwards (including ethnic Ukrainians who had to flee to Romania), when it gives up its ambitions to steal even more Romanian land (it’s no secret that Ukraine hopes to annex Transnistria and will probably try to make a deal with Russia over that), when it allows double citizenship, then it would be great to have Ukraine as a solid, reliable ally.

    • Stephanie Barbosa

      Actually, the original inhabitants of Crimea were Greeks. The town of Yalta comes from the Greek ‘Yallas’, yelled out by sailors caught in a storm in the black sea when they saw ‘land’.

      also, big LOL @ Brian with ‘It is unfortunate now that it is inevitable the Black Fleet will have a better opportunity to illegally station itself on sovereign Ukrainian land.’

      this region has never been Ukrainian until it was given to Ukraine.

  21. LR: “[The Ukrainians] had already shown themselves to be far more civilized and advanced than their Russian neighbors, for instance, because they had carried out a real election, ousting the current regime and replacing it with a radically different opposition candidate…”

    Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here… Last word I heard is that the “Gas Pricessa,” Yulia Timoshenko, still has her perfectly manicured nails firmly clenched on the levers of power. Ms. Timoshenko has so far refused to recognize the election results and give up power. Now she is promising to “take it to the streets,” in a replay of the Western-backed 2004 “Orange Revolution,” which swept Timoshenko and Yushchenko to power in the first place.

    Brian wrote: “It is unfortunate now that it is inevitable the Black Sea Fleet will have a better opportunity to illegally station itself on sovereign Ukrainian land.”

    Um, Byron, the Russian Black Sea fleet is not in Sevastopol, “illegally.” It’s there under a treaty between Russia and Ukraine which allows the Russian fleet to stay in the Crimea at least until 2017 (and possibly longer if the treaty is extended).

    Ukraine’s ultra-nationalist former president, Viktor Yushchenko, frequently said that he had no intention of extending the treaty, and that’s all fine and well. However Yushchenko and his ultra-nationalist (neo-fascist) “program” for Ukraine are now toast, since he received less than 5% of the vote of the Ukrainian people in the recent general elections. (Note: This is a smaller vote share than any incumbent president in Europe has ever received—in all history!)

    Ukraine’s new President-Elect, Viktor Yanakovich, has frequently said that he is willing to approach the issue of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet (as well as a host of other Russian-Ukrainian issues) much more pragmatically than his predecessor.

    That Yanakovich is favorably disposed to Russia and Russians shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, he wasn’t elected as mayor of Cincinnati, but as president of Ukraine. Ukraine is a country where some 80% of the adult population speaks Russian, and about 30% speak Russian as their primary language. Russia is Ukraine’s energy supplier and its largest investor and export market. Russia and Ukraine are joined by bonds of shared history, culture, religion and language.

    Just as a short historical aside, the Crimea, where Russia’s Black Sea fleet is based, was historically a part of Russia, and the Russian Fleet has been based in Crimea for more than a century. To this day there are very few ethnic Ukrainians (or Ukrainian speakers) living in Crimea and 90% of the population of Crimea speaks Russian as their first language.

    The Crimea only became a part of Ukraine when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, “gifted” Crimea to the Ukraine in 1957. With the simple stroke of a dictator’s pen, the Ukrainian-born Khrushchev redrew the map of the USSR, and the Russian oblast of Crimea was removed from the Russian SSR and placed inside the Ukrainian SSR.

    You see that’s the way things were done in Soviet times. The Supreme Leader, whether he was Georgian (like Stalin), or Ukrainian (Like Khrushchev) or indeed Russian (like Brezhnev) could redraw the national borders of Soviet republics by simple proclamation.

    If anything was “illegal” it was Khrushchev’s original theft of the Crimea, which was done without the permission of the people of Russia (from whom it was taken) or the permission of the people of the Crimea (who were the most affected by it).

    When the USSR was dissolved in 1991, there were a number of items of business that needed to be concluded between Russia and Ukraine, and the disposition of the Crimea and the Russian Black Sea fleet were among these items of business. The two (now independent) countries concluded a “Friendship Treaty” that aimed to address some of the unfinished business between them. Under this Treaty Russia agreed to recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over the Crimea and Ukraine agreed to recognize Russia’s right to continue to base its Black Sea fleet there, at least until 2017.

    So if the newly democratically elected President of Ukraine now desires to extend the Status of Forces Treaty to allow Russia to continue to base its Black Sea fleet in the Russian town of Sevastopol, where it’s always been, then on what basis can anyone, especially a foreign outsider, object to that?

    Oh I can already hear the dogs barking… “It’s Illegal!” “Undemocratic!” “Wrong Choice!” “Yada-Yada-Yada.” But such views (exemplified by the original LR article above) display nothing but contempt for democracy, and certainly not any real respect for it.

    Democracy involves the free operation of the organic political processes that exist in a country, such as they are, whether or not some arbitrary “outsider” happens to agree with the choices The People make or not. Democracy does not mean that every country’s policies’ must always (“as if by magic”) just happen to align with U.S. geopolitical interests in each and every possible circumstance imaginable.

    The US frequently portrays itself as the “defender of democracy” in the world. But it needs to be said that the US has frequently aligned itself with manifestly undemocratic regimes when it has suited US geopolitical interests to do so, in examples almost too numerous to list (Saudi Arabian royal family, Shah of Iran, Egypt, Latin American military regimes, People’s Republic of China–against the USSR, etc., etc., etc.)

    And when the US has promoted “democracy” it was not because democracy was considered to be something good in and of itself (as a “pure value” to be sought for its own sake as it were), but rather democracy was sought merely as a means to further U.S. geopolitical ends. The U.S. has frequently sought to overturn the results of democratic processes when it furthered U.S. geopolitical interests to do so.

    The United States, through its enormous national security apparatus, has developed and perfected the techniques of undermining and subverting the operation of organic democratic processes in sovereign states, for the purpose of advancing US geopolitical interests.

    This ambivalent US attitude towards “democracy” has become so entrenched that Americans betray their contempt for real democracy (while all the while paying lip service to the idea of democracy) without even realizing how absurd their words truly sound.

    We can see this easily in the original LR article above, where LR first fawns over the Ukrainian elections and how “free and fair” they were (that the elections proved how “superior” Ukraine is to Russia). Then, in the very next breath, LR admonishes Ukraine for making the “wrong choices,” as if LR was called on to serve in the role of Moses, dispensing the Law of God to the sinful and ignorant masses from On High.

    But democracy doesn’t grant any role to would-be tablet carriers (read tablet writers) who seek to superimpose their own views over the views of The People. Democracy is not a set of pre-determined end points, where society is bound to finally arrive, even if society has to be dragged kicking and screaming. Rather democracy is a philosophy that says we can trust the people to make the right decisions. And if that’s not true, and we really can’t trust the people, then democracy would not be a good idea; it would be a horrible idea.

    It may be true that some countries simply do not lend themselves to democracy, as a form of government. For example, one can certainly find Russian commentators willing to argue that Russia simply cannot be government democratically, given the huge geographical expanse and its varied ethnic population. We know that historically Russia has always prospered when the Center has been strongest, and Russia has always done poorly when the Center was weak or indecisive.

    But if that’s truly the case, then it’s better to say so honestly, and have done with it, as opposed to paying lip service to “democracy” while all the while doing everything possible to undermine and subvert Democracy it at every turn (leaving only the surface appearance of democracy while removing the real substance of it).

    Likewise, many in the US extol the fact that, “we are a republic and not a democracy,” and they completely approve of the idea that a candidate who receives a smaller share of the popular vote still ought to “win” the election and take office.

    To return to the subject of foreign naval bases on other countries’ soil… Can someone remind me again of what the legal basis is for the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (aka, “Gitmo”)?

    I mean, I thought Cuba was a socialist country. I thought there was a lot of tension between Cuba and the US. Certainly there was a lot of tension between Cuba and the US during the Cold War, for example during the Missile Crisis. So why on earth would the Cuban government agree to allow the U.S. to operate a naval base on Cuban soil?

    If memory serves me right the US signed a “treaty” with the provisional military government that the U.S. installed in Cuba after the Spanish-American war. Now the U.S. claims this “treaty” grants the U.S. the right to base its navy in Cuba, essentially forever, and it does not matter how much the current Cuban government (or indeed any future Cuban government) might want the U.S. military to leave.

    The U.S. is currently signing the same types of “Status of Forces” agreements with the post-war governments that it planted in Iraq and Afghanistan, which agreements the U.S. will later use to claim that a perpetual American military presence in these countries is perfectly legal, regardless of how much some future government in these countries (say ten or fifty or a hundred years from now) wants the U.S. to finally get the hell out, once and for all.

    The US did the same thing in Japan and Germany, after WWII.

    The American people believe that their government promotes “democracy” and “freedom” around the world, and the only people who could possibly object to an American military presence on their soil are “ingrates.”

    The American people will not allow themselves to admit that many US bases around the world are firmly planted on hostile soil, and the people of the host countries would like nothing more from the U.S. than for it to go away and leave them alone, at long last!

    • Your message Misha was so long and meandering that I think by the end of it you even forgot what you meant to say. You certainly lost me, but of course you did not forget to make a few standard anti American statements and to show your contempt to democracy. That would probably identify you as a Russian or perhaps some kind of European leftist.

      To each his own, Russia doesn’t have to have democracy if she prefers not to. But in that case she should clearly state that, quit G8 and don’t try to pass herself as a developed industrialized democracy. Russian lies about this are truly disgusting.

      And finally, Khruschev was neither an ethnic Ukrainian nor was he born in Ukraine. We’ve been through this on this blog. As I recall from someone’s post, he was an ethnic Russian and was born in Russia proper (i.e., in a town or a village that was within the Russian borders then as well as it remains now).

  22. What a lopsided pro RuSSia fantasy Mr Mouse, oops I mean misha. Have you ever thought of becoming a science fiction writer, you’re a ‘cert’ for it!

    I’m not going to waste my time replying to your bolshevik fantasies, except to ask you why you never mentioned any of the following in your spiel.

    That Guantanamo Bay is under a perpetual lease for the area around Guantánamo Bay which was first offered in February 23, 1903, from Tomás Estrada Palma, the first President of Cuba. The newly formed American protectorate incorporated the Platt Amendment in the Cuban Constitution. The Cuban-American Treaty held, among other things, that the United States, for the purposes of operating coaling and naval stations, had “complete jurisdiction and control” of the Guantánamo Bay, while the Republic of Cuba is recognized to retain ultimate sovereignty.[4]

    In 1934 the Avery Porko treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and its trading partners free access through the bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars, and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it or until the U.S. abandoned the base property.[5]

    After the Cuban Revolution, then U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower insisted the status of the base remained unchanged, despite Fidel Castro’s objections. Since then, the Cuban government has cashed only one of the rent checks from the U.S. government, and even then only because of “confusion” in the early days of the leftist revolution, according to Castro. The remaining uncashed checks made out to “Treasurer General of the Republic” (a title that ceased to exist after the revolution) are kept in Castro’s office stuffed into a desk drawer.[6] The United States argues that the cashing of the single check signifies Havana’s ratification of the 99 year lease which the Americans are enforcing to the letter of the lease, and which the American have said they will return once the lease expires!

    And now, what about the Japanese Kurile Islands annexed by communist RuSSia at the end of WWII and although repeated attempts have been made by Japan for their return to their rightful owners, your beloved RuSSia has continued to Russify them and hang unto them – like all the other territories RuSSia has annexed in the past and made a part of its ever expanding “Greater mother Russia”.

    Alaska, which was sold by the Russian czars, started by Nicholas I and completed by Nicholas II to America for 7.2 million and out of this territory, especially Klondike, American miners extracted eventually over 150 million worth of gold alone. And which had any nation but the U.S. of A. purchased it, would have been forcibly repossessed by Stalin’s murderous regime. Sadly for Stalin, the U.S. was too much of a military might to be physically tangled with.

    Why didn’t you mention just how many Soviet bases are scattered over the world, where the word lease does not exist or is a pittance in value to the RuSSian occupiers.

    Also why didn’t you mention that the Ukrainian nation of Eastern Ukraine was physically uprooted from their soil and transported to that ‘Siberian paradise’ and their vacant land, houses and furniture reissued (i.e. repopulated) by Russians from RuSSia. Where after all no one but you idol Soso Stalin complained bitterly that at approximately 50 million the Ukrainian nation was just too large to exile in total to his Gulag ‘paradise’.

    Next you’ll be telling us that communist pigs can fly you weak excuse of a RuSSian Savok!

    Oops there goes a flying cow – happy now?

  23. Arthur:

    “Tell me, A., you and other Romanian patriots (rightfully) condemn Stalin’s actions in 1940, when he stole Bessarabia from Romania, took Transdniestria from Ukraine and formed his “Moldovan SSR”. You want Moldova to return to Romania.

    But what about Transdniestria? Should it return to Ukraine? Become an independent country? Be occupied by force by Romania?”

    To give you the short answer, Ukraine would be entitled to take Transnistria (even though it has a 40% Romanian population) if it returned Northern Bucovina, Hertza, Hotin and Southern Bassarabia.

    I don’t consider myself a “patriot” but I don’t see any legitimacy in borders artificially created by Stalin and Hitler.

    • And btw, dear A. maybe I have to explain to you Ukrainian fears concerning Romanian stand on the territories you’ve mentioned. Let’s talk about this: ” Ukraine would be entitled to take Transnistria (even though it has a 40% Romanian population) if it returned Northern Bucovina, Hertza, Hotin and Southern Bassarabia”. Actually as a Ukrainian of Romanian and Roma backgroud I’d consider such solution fantabulous, even though Ukraine would gain far less than gain: poor Transnistria populated by crazy Russian nationalists in return for strategically vital Danubian delta, but ok, it’d be worth it, to appease you this way and bury the tomahawk for ever, but our chief fear is that as it’s done in annuling Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, other countries might ask, are we worse than Romanian and Poland would want back Halicia, Hungary – Transcarpathia, then Russia starts cutting away slices, and nothing will be left of Ukraine, we”ll just seize to exist as a nation

    • Good for you, A.

      But:

      1. Afaik, the ethnic Romanian population of Transdniestria is 30%

      2. At least 90% of these ethnic Romanians are Russian/Ukrainian by language and culture and have constantly voted for independence from Moldova/Romania.

    • A wrote:
      [To give you the short answer, Ukraine would be entitled to take Transnistria (even though it has a 40% Romanian population) if it returned Northern Bucovina, Hertza, Hotin and Southern Bassarabia.]

      What percentage of Northern Bucovina, Hertza, Hotin and Southern Bassarabia are ethnic Romanians? Majority?

      • Hertza is around 90% Romanian, and the other provinces have areas with a Romanian majority. Overall, Northern Bucovina, Hotin and Southern Bessarabia have a Russophone majority but that is irrelevant because a) the vast majority of Russophones were transplanted there, therefore they are immigrants, not locals and b) national borders nowadays don’t always coincide 100% with ethnic borders, but are based on legal and historical legitimacy. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and Khrushcev’s arbitrary decisions don’t count in my eyes as historical legitimacy. According to your logic, Latvia should’ve stayed in Russia in 1991 because the Russophone immigrants had a relative majority at the time, especially in the larger cities. Or areas of London should be annexed to Pakistan.

      • As for Transnistria, you must be kidding me if you’re going to say that censes and elections held by the separatists can be taken in any way seriously. According to the last Soviet census in 1989, Romanians were 40%, by far the largest ethnic group (Russians and Ukrainians around 25% each). I don’t know where you get the information that “90% of Transnistrian Romanians are Russian by culture and language” (again the oh-so-reliable separatist websites?). It’s entirely plausible though that many Romanians in that region have been Russified, due to the fact that they don’t have access to education or media in Romanian, and that the Romanian language is forbidden, and any attempt to protect Romanian national identity carries a serious risk (ranging from harrassment to prison to murder). In addition, many of the Slavic population in Transnistria are relatively recent immigrants, including their “president” Igor Smirnov, who immigrated to Transnistria from Kamchatka in 1987.

        And for you “Damien”, if you are an ethnic Romanian but have abandoned your language and culture and have adopted the nationalist hysterias of people who are occupying parts of your country and are persecuting your fellow Romanians, then you are nothing but a quisling and a zombie.

  24. To all Russophiles to Misha in particular,

    What is going on on the perypheries of the so called Russian empire [I would call it barbaric idiocy] is very important but not vital. The internal desintegration of Russia [ which is unstoppable] will result in total collapse.
    The majority of Russians lives in settlements all over Siberia in 18 century conditions, no army, navy or air forces, no food, no hospitals, no running water, no electricity or gas. Russia is the third world country with aging nukes. Russia is the biggest country in the world [with 65% of useless permafrost] For God’s sake if it wasn’t for the generosity of
    Americans Russians would have been dying by thousands from starvation in the early 90s – remember the President Bush’s chicken?? Billions of dollars saved Russia during the 2nd world war; the Americans fed you, clothed you and armed you.
    Everything modern, progressive like technology comes from the West – the pride of Russia AvtoVaz is in reality the sixty year old obsolete car technology from Europe which is being rescued by your fearless leader Monsieur Putain – he calls for the rescue of Russian car industry. Is he drinking that contaminated samogon again?? We in the West should ask ourselves why this evil empire still exist? And the answer is simply; because of ‘great’ Russian people – born slaves that can be walked to the gulags without resistance, like pigs to the slaughter, always on their knees ready to defend mother Russia that slaughter their own.

    By the way, while condemning the foreign troops in the German army during the 2nd world war shouldn’t we discuss the Vlasov’s army the huge contingent of Russian collaborators in the Nazi army – their symbol was the present day Russia’s flag.

    And another think, my own impression of Russia during my only visit there. The only thing I remember with horror is the public toilet at Kursky Vagzal – walls covered with excrements layers upon layers all in shape of human hands, and on this sh..ty wall there was a Lenin’s portrait hanging, truly vintage Russia.

  25. Challenges for the new president

    I liked this article written the day after the final round of the presidential elections by Viktoria Syurmar in ‘U.P.’ I’ve roughly translated portions below:

    “On the first day after the presidential elections there are several challenges for Ukraine which have to be addressed otherwise the country will not develop, at least within its existing borders.

    Challenge 1. Acceptance of the results

    This will indicate whether Ukraine is a stable and democratic country. After the last five years national politicians have to understand that exchange of seats of power is the norm after elections and defeat is not the end of the world.

    Fear of losing power should not mean a fear of punishment of loss of assets, but while this fear exists every change of power will carry a serious risk of physical confrontation. However, the more examples of peaceful transfer of power take place without a redistribution of property the faster these fears, which are are exaggerated in current times, will diminish.

    Challenge 2. Political co-operation and arrangements for improved economic performance

    The biggest problem faced by any new government will be in tackling the economic crisis. Effective prescriptions to overcome it are known and are common to both leading political camps.

    The main branches of traditional industry will not pull the country out of crisis – the structure of the economy has to be reformed to encourage small and medium business, and the domestic market has to be reformed and redirected for increased consumption of domestic products. This will require a number of major economic decisions and the support of parliament. The ruling authorities must learn to share and not seek to introduce a monopoly of power by one political force, as this will automatically result in growth of opposition and further instability, making any reform impossible.
    Taking power must not be a means of obtaining access to resources and tools merely for benefitting individuals’ own business interests. This is a serious test for ‘Regionaly’ – if they did not pass it the next wave of the economic crisis will be their downfall.

    If the government and parliament, instead of working for coherent economic reforms, engages in division and distribution of powers, as traditionally happens, neither this government nor this parliament will remain in being for long. As a result, in the current situation, being in power will be significantly less comfortable than in opposition.

    Challenge 3. Politics of balance for improvement of the country’s unity

    Analysis of the 2010 election voting results show, once again, the country split – any abrupt steps may just break the country in half. The unexpectedly small gap between Yanukovych and Tymoshenko may be the result of rash statements on the introduction of Russian as a second state language by the former in the interval between the first and final voting round. Any attempts to introduce such measured during his period of leadership could even cost him his chair.

    A complication for Yanukovich is that as president he will have to manage Ukraine not from Donetsk, but from Kyiv, a city he never really understood. [In the capital he received 25% of votes cast, compared to Tymoshenko’s 65%. An astonishing 8% took the trouble of going to the polling station on a freezing cold February day and voting ‘against all’ – LEvko]

    In the capital he cannot rule as he did in Donetsk. Any attempt to apply pressure or acts of repression, or to redistribute property will cause social unrest. At the same time it is also clear that Yanukovych will have to pay attention to his own voters too, otherwise he risks losing them as did Viktor Yushchenko and Oleksandr Moroz over the last few years. They were not forgiven for making agreements with Yanukovych.

    Politics requires a balance of wisdom and political maturity. Success will only be achieved if and when both parts of society will understand any new government’s policies.

    Learning how to talk to the community is one of the first tasks to be mastered by the new president. He has to learn to explain the need to compromise to preserve unity, the need to “tighten belts” for the sake of stimulating the economy, the need to negotiate with various political forces, and to share power for the benefit of the country.

    Whether he understands this will be revealed by his decision to attend or not attend an open forum initiated by dozens of NGOs in the near future. This will be the first test of openness and willingness to communicate with his people. Otherwise, the newly elected president will soon realise what a crisis of confidence is, and what threats it poses in times of economic crisis.

    Challenge 4. Reforms to the political system

    The large number who voted “against all” [in large cities up to 7-8%] exposed a serious crisis of confidence in all political forces and the current political system in general.

    Many Ukrainian politicians are cut off from the Ukrainian society – they live their separate lives according to their own rules while the rest of society live their lives governed by different rules. Ukrainians have learned that they can solve many problems on their own, such as problems associated with their own homes and streets, either individually, or collectively in civic housing associations etc.

    Despite the highly centralized budget system, local government today is more efficient than central government.

    Similarly, Ukrainian businesses are alive and developing not because of, but rather despite the actions of the state. These businesses have learned to maintain social, civic and educational projects to the benefit of the country’s development.

    Ukrainians have learned to associate in professional associations and lobby effectively for their own interests. Despite the fact that Ukraine has outdated and ineffective laws on public associations, such associations are growing in number and are becoming more effective in protecting the interests of their members and society.

    Non-governmental organizations, primarily competing for grants, have now learned to associate and work together for changes in the country. Active citizens from different social backgrounds together in various clubs and platforms and are looking for answers to questions on the development of society. These changes occuring in society are more progressive than what’s going on in politics, which stuck at the level of banal populism and circus-like political television shows.

    At the same time the Ukrainian politicum is an extraordinary closed shop. For new independent thinking people with radically new ideas to enter is impossible under the current electoral system

    Any closed system without refreshment is doomed so either politicians realize this, reform themselves and introduce new appoaches to the process of governance, or they will be carried away by the energy that is now maturing in the depths of society.

    p.s. At time of writing, with only just over 0.5% of votes to be counted and trailing by just over 3% Tymoshenko has refused to concede and will be challenging the election result in the courts.

    http://foreignnotes.blogspot.com/

    Eat your hearts out you Putinistas, Ukraine is it’s way to a civilized society that will be unique and European.

    Moscovy Savokdom is left behind. The Iron Curtain, that will descend once more on a smaller Roosha, alone and in the dark. Moscali that are left behind face their enemies on all sides within the Kremlin Meat Grinder.

  26. The Ukraine has had trouble controlling spending, but at least they take elections seriously. Maybe the new government will get a grip on the budget.

    • Excuse me, Ron, but didn’t you make a solemn promise not to use “the” in front of Ukraine. I am not a stickler but it’s getting a bit irritating.

  27. Well said Georg! Sure the majority of Ukrainian sadly voted in a criminal of Yanukovich’s calibre, but than what a choice they had – him or the daddy liar of all time, Tymoshenko. But at least it was in a democratic manner, so unlike the NO, NO choices available to the Russian population ruled by that KGB thug Putin.

    I believe not much, if anything, will change in Ukraine until a younger fresh generation of Ukrainians enter politics, ones that are not tainted by the ex communists thinking of old who literally only changed their party name from communist to democrat but still used the modus operandi of the communists i.e. steal, lie and murder where necessary.

    This younger generation will hopefully have the heart to care for Ukraine and its citizens rather than lining their pockets with the ill gotten funds that they managed to wheel and deal by various nefarious means.

    It will be interesting to see what happens at the next Presidential elections? So unlike RuSSia where that proud KGB spy will have installed himself as President for life, and ruling over his Russian slaves with a fist of iron.

    But I doubt that your article will have any effects on bird brains the likes of Nikita, Ouch, Misha, A and last but not least the daddy bird brain of all – Arthur.

  28. Ron,
    “The” Ukraine is not a part of a sub region of another country with a superfluous article needed, such as “The Russian Federation”.

    Correct Ron, on Ukraine taking elections seriously. The people who came out to vote against all was 4.4% which would have carried the election either way.

    Political Populism and parliamentary blockading prevented the tough legislation of getting spending under control.

    The problem was the constitutional changes just before Yush took power. The Pres controlling the Central Bank and selected the Governors and maintained control of the military, and foreign policy. Yulia controlled the cabinet, and the budget, while the Pres just vetoed and stacked the court. The Yanukovich opposition was given the extra vote on the Central Election Commission among other things.

    The new government will be the Eastern Oligarchs that will service the interests of the POR or “Party of Russia” referred to as the Regions.

    The Parliament will of course have defections from their blocks. The citizens vote for a new Parliament in 2012, unless there is a shake up. Many ministers that changed sides will not be re-elected so they will run with the gang of Yanukovich for now in the POR, thus hoping to avoid elections which their political block would be punished by the voters. The problem is that the Parliamentary seats are sold to the highest bidder, and the voter just gets to vote for the whole damn party list, instead of a direct representative from one’s district.

    More changes are needed to the constitution. NATO would have helped in the building of civil and political institutions which the Rooshan are highly against, since their interests are to keep things the same.

    Of course the EU and the US has decided to let Georgia and Ukraine flounder on its own. Hillery pushed a “reset button” with Roosha for help with Iran, and a supply channel to Afghanistan which still has not worked out in practice.

  29. Aah lying again, oops I mean still ‘mouse’, or as you prefer Misha. You cannot even get the facts right about Nikita Khrushev!

    For you information, you lying ape, the fact is that N Khrushev was an ethnic RuSSian who was sent into Ukraine on a mission to cleanse that nation of its nationalistic spirit by any means, by no one else but the greatest mass murderer of all time, i.e. history – J. Stalin!

    And for your information Mr. retard, N. Khrushev complained on a number of occasions that he could not understand the Ukrainian language!!! Got that straight ape!

    So before you start trying in the classic communistic method of rewriting history to suit your decadent way, just remember that there are decent people who will expose you for the trash that you are and also expose you for the lies that you make up to justify your existence to your Putin masters.

    Bah, what a wasted space!

  30. It never fails ! As soon as anyone mentions
    Bandera , Shuchewych or the UPA , immediately
    there is a flurry of activity in the form of protests
    accusations and hand wringing from the sub-
    species of moscovites , the likes of Nikita , A.,
    Sergey , Ouch , Arthur etc. They of course ,
    being the humanitarians that they are , are only
    defending the interest of Poles , Jews , Rumanians and whomever those bloodthirsty
    ” banderites ” murdered indiscriminately by
    the hundreds of thousands . Then come the usual accusations of anti semitism , Nazi
    collaboration so on and so forth .
    Let’s look at antisemitism ; If Bandera and his
    followers were such antisemites and the UPA
    was responsible for indisccriminately killing
    Jews , than why is it that so many Jewish doctors
    and medical personel cared for and saved so
    many UPA fighters that fought both the Nazi
    and the Red Moscovite invader ? Why is it , that
    within the UPA there were VOLUNTEER , wholly Jewish units that were directly under
    the commander inchief Shuchewych ?
    And why is the question of antisemitism even
    being raised by creatures to whom antisemitism
    has been a way of life for centuries and is still
    today . ” Bey Zhidov , spasay Rasseyu “, does
    that sound familiar to you , you moscovite hypocrites .
    And now for the Polish card . Certainly there
    were artrocities commited during that period ,
    but they were commited on both sides and Poles,
    realize this as well as the Ukrainians . And to
    their credit , they try to put this painful past
    behind , as the cooperation between the two nations proves . It is only the moscovite filth
    that tries rake up old lies on the pretext of justice . If you moscovites are so concerned
    about justice for Poland and protecting Polish
    interests , than perhaps you could explain the
    senseless murder of approximately twenty
    thousand Polish officers murdered by you , which you unsuccesfully tried to pin on your allies the Nazis .
    Lastly , Nazi collaboration ; you morons have a short memory . It was not Bandera or Shuchewych that signed the Molotov -Ribbentrop accords becoming allies with Nazi
    Germany , it was you moscovites !
    If you want people to start taking you seriously
    you must change your outdated methods , because the old ones really stink and they make
    you look like a bunch of complete fools .

  31. “Bey Zhidov , spasay Rasseyu”

    “Beat the yids, save roosha”

    Muscovite hypocrites is exactly right.

    That sovok propaganda about Bandera just keeps getting repeated over and over and over and over and over again. Not facts – propaganda.

    I am very, very happy that Bandera still gives little sovok rooskies nightmares.

    For years and years, despite their best efforts, the sovoks couldn’t catch him.

    And now he still gives them nightmares.

  32. I quoted Time magazine:
    [Polish President Lech Kaczynski said it went “against the process of historical dialogue and reconciliation.” The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights organization, wrote to the Ukrainian ambassador in the U.S. to express its “deepest revulsion.”]

    elmer wrote:
    [For years and years, despite their best efforts, the sovoks couldn’t catch him. And now he still gives them nightmares.]

    I find your idea that the Polish President Lech Kaczynski and the Simon Wiesenthal Center are “sovoks” to be highly debatable.

  33. The Wiesenthal center has bought into the sovok propaganda – period.

    So has Time magazine.

    Kaczynski – well, he has his own reasons.

    To dredge up a little history – there was a time in Western Ukraine, in Halychyna and elsewhere, when Ukrainians were forcibly converted to Catholicism.

    One of the methods used by Poles for people refusing to convert was to sit them on sharpened poles, for all to see, and then the pole would work its way through the inside of the body by gravity, with obvious results.

    Kaczynski has nothing to be proud of here, if he wants to start dredging up history.

    Poland has been a friend to Ukraine since the fall of the sovok union – and still is.

    Oleksander has already pointed out some of the true history about Bandera.

    The Wiesenthal center is whining, and so is Time magazine, based on uninformed and brainwashed reflex.

    • The impalement thing may be true, but 1) I assume it happened hundreds of years ago and 2) as far as I know, Poland hasn’t made national heroes of the people you said impaled “Ukrainians” (an anachronistic term anyway, since the term “Ukrainian” didn’t exist back then)

  34. Nor has Ukraine made a hero out of anyone who impaled Poles or Jews.

    Bandera fought for Ukraine’s freedom and independence. Bandera and the Ukrainians who joined him were caught between a rock and a hard place. Bandera spent time in a Nazi concentration camp.

    The goal of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army was to fight for Ukraine’s freedom and independence.

    The Nazis and the sovoks made a pact, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, to carve up various areas, including Ukraine.

    And so they fought with whatever means they could. The sovoks put out propaganda against anyone who fought against them – and Time Magazine and others have bought into that propaganda.

    Funny how even today, little rooskie sovoks derisively refer to Lviv as “Lemberg” – to show its Polish and other occupation.

    little rooskie sovoks just love misery – and they can’t stand freedom – theirs, or anyone else’s.

  35. http://encyclopediaofukraine.com/

    Encyclopedia of Ukraine web site:

    http://encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?AddButton=pagesBABanderaStepan.htm

    (search for “Bandera”)

    On the eve of the German- Soviet war <> initiated the formation of the Ukrainian National Committee (- NL- – >Cracow) in order to consolidate Ukrainian political forces. He cultivated German military circles favorable to Ukrainian independence, initiated the formation of a Ukrainian military legion (see Legion of Ukrainian Nationalists ), organized OUN expeditionary groups, and prepared the 30 June 1941 Proclamation of Ukrainian statehood in Lviv. For his refusal to rescind the decree, <> was arrested and spent the period from July 1941 to September 1944 in German prisons and concentration camps. Elected a member of the OUN leadership in 1945 and head in 1947, <> held consistently to the principles of integral nationalism . In May 1953 he was elected leader of the sections of the OUN abroad. Following unsuccessful attempts in February 1954 to reconcile a dissenting faction, which later constituted itself as the OUN Abroad, <> remained the leader until his death. He was killed by the Soviet agent B. Stashynsky. At Stashynsky’s trial in the Federal Republic of Germany (8?19 October 1962), it was established that the assassination had been directed personally by the head of the KGB, A. Shelepin. In the memory of his followers <> became a symbol of the revolutionary struggle for a Ukrainian state.

  36. Bandera didn’t fight “for Ukrainian freedom and independence”. He was a lunatic ultra-nationalist who was agitating against the legitimate Polish government and aspiring for a Ukrainian state that would incorporate Polish, Hungarian and Romanian territory and erase the native population (an aspiration that was eventually put into practice by another “great Ukrainian”, Nikita Khrushchev). I don’t know if he personally “impaled” anyone, but his henchmen were guilty of massacres of Poles and Jews.

    It’s funny how the Ukrainian “Banderists” and the Russian Stalinists hate themselves so much, when they actually have the same mentality and the same goals. Thank god your crackpot ultra-nationalist president was kicked out of office, it was good to see that most Ukrainians are decent people and reject extremism.

  37. What’s really pathetic is that a) little rooskie sovoks continue to spout sovok propaganda about Bandera and b) more than 60 years after the end of WWII, and almost 20 years after the fall of the sovok union, little rooskie sovoks still rely on sovok propaganda about Bandera in order to try to undermine democracy in Ukraine – complete with falsehoods about massacres of Poles and Jews, which, as revealed in sovok archives, were actually done by NKVD.

    Bandera didn’t even live in Ukraine when the KGB hunted him down and assassinated him.

    Bandera had as his goal a free and independent Ukraine.

    Rooshan stalinists wanted, and still want a Ukraine subservient to the Kremlin.

    Whoever “A” is – you are a moron.

    And a LYING moron at that.

  38. The past of the majority if the Ukrainian diaspora in the US is uncovered now. Most were ex-nazis fleeing the stick after having lost the war. The US, as they did for example with Von Braun, took them in because they knew the ex-nazis would pursue the anti communist stuff.

    Orange is over, thank god. The self branded “nationalists” will pull back to their stinking villages. Their will become more and more radical and frustrated, a la Sarah Palin. When the first Salo Party?

    As to this website, it is designed by jews to split christians. Divide etc. The “nationalists” are just the puppets in the big game. But don’t tell them, they will assault you with insults.

  39. Poor little elmer, it must be difficult to be surrounded by so many “sovoks” (whatever that means in your Russian language) who operate in the guise of European heads of state, historians, journalists, blog commenters, and basically everyone who isn’t a rabid, brainwashed and anti-Semitic Ukrainian ultra-nationalist and doesn’t live in your fantasy world where Ukrainians are perpetually persecuted and Nazi and Soviet collaborators are “heroes”. Got any evidence that the massacres of Jews were committed by the NKVD, rather than by the Banderists?

    Until you bring any sort of evidence for your delusional claims, it is pretty clear who the moron is. And I think the blog owner should ban you and the other Ukrainian neo-Nazis who repeatedly post here and try to exonerate fascist war criminals (just as the Russian Putinist trolls need to be banned once they step out of line).

  40. Sooooo, let’s see –

    this site is “designed by Jews to split Christians” –

    but they nevertheless let “anti-Semitic neo-Nazis” on this site.

    twisted little moron brainless sovoks.

    I hope Bandera gives you some more nightmares.

    NKVD infiltrating and posing as UPA and carrying out extermination operations:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army#cite_ref-61

    From the beginning of 1944, the Soviets waged an active war against the UPA launching a large-scale assault against the Ukrainian underground in several directions, propaganda among the population; military operations; repression against members and their families. Soviet anti-insurgent propaganda was concentrated on discrediting and dividing the national liberation movement. Soviet propaganda emphasised their thesis on the treason and crimes of “Ukrainian-German nationalists” and their collaboration with “fascist invaders”.

    From 1944 through the 1950s initially frontal sections of the Red Army and SMERSH were directed against the UPA. Later the function of fighting the UPA fell to the NKVD.

    In 1944-1945 the NKVD carried out 26,693 operations against the Ukrainian underground. These resulted in the deaths of 22.474 Ukrainian soldiers and the capture of 62,142 prisoners. During this time the NKVD formed special groups known as spetshrupy made up of former Soviet partisans. The goal of these groups was to discredit the and disorganize the OUN and UPA. In August 1944 Sydir Kovpak was placed under NKVD authority. Posing as Ukrainian insurgents these special formations used violence against the civilian population of Western Ukraine. In June 1945 there were 156 such special groups with 1783 members.[58]

    The Soviets used”extermination battalions” (strybky) recruiting secret collaborators in each population point. Attempts were made to place agents at all leading levels of the OUN and UPA.

    From December 1945-1946 15,562 operations were carried out in which 4,200 were killed and more than 9,400 were arrested. From 1944-1953,the Soviets killed 153,000 and arrested 134,000 members of the UPA. 66,000 Families (204,000 people) were forcibly deported to Siberia and half a million people were subject to repressions. In the same period Polish communist authorities deported 450,000 people.[58]

  41. From the same page:

    A controversy exists that there were NKVD units dressed as UPA fighters[90] and committed atrocities in order to demoralize the civilian population.[91] among these NKVD units were those composed of former UPA fighters working for the NKVD.[92] The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) recently published information about 150 such special groups consisting of 1,800 people operated until 1954.[93]Bohdan Stashynsky was ex-UPA turned MVD fighter who would then climb the ladder of MGB (and later KGB) hierarchy to become a foreign agent who assassinated the OUN chief Lev Rebet in 1957 and later Stepan Bandera in 1959.

  42. From the same page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army#Soviet_infiltration

    By early 1943 the OUN had entered into open armed conflict with Nazi Germany. In 1944, the OUN formally “rejected racial and ethnic exclusivity”[74] Despite the allegations of the UPA’s involvement in the killing of Jews and earlier anti-Jewish statements by the OUN, there were cases of Jewish participation within the ranks of UPA, some of whom held high positions. Jewish participation included fighters[105] but was particularly visible among its medical personnel. These included Dr. Margosh, who headed UPA-West’s medical service, Dr. Marksymovich, who was the Chief Physician of the UPA’s officer school, and Dr. Abraham Kum, the director of an underground hospital in the Carpathians. The latter individual was the recipient of the UPA’s Golden Cross of Merit. A Jewish woman, Stella Krenzbach, the daughter of a rabbi and a Zionist, joined the UPA as a nurse and intelligence agent. She was arrested by the Soviets and sentenced to death after having been tortured, but was liberated from the Soviet prison by the UPA. She crossed over the Carpathians along with other UPA soldiers and in her memoirs, written in Israel, wrote “I attribute the fact that I am alive today and devoting all the strength of my thirty-eight years to a free Israel only to God and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. I became a member of the heroic UPA on 7 November 1943. In our group I counted twelve Jews, eight of whom were doctors.” [106] although her account has been challenged as a hoax.[107] One Ukrainian historian has claimed that almost every UPA unit included Jewish support personnel. Many Jewish families were sheltered by the UPA.[108]

    Soviet propaganda complained about Zionist membership in UPA [104] and described the alleged connection between Jewish and Ukrainian nationalists during the period of persecution of Jews in the early 1950s.[109]

    One can conclude that the relationship between the UPA and Western Ukraine’s Jews was complex and not one-sided [110].

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s