Then Jesus said unto
the chief priests,
and captains of the temple,
and the elders, which
were come to him...
“But this is your hour,
and the power of darkness”.
Luke 22:53
1. What has long been desperately and hopelessly prophesied by the most perspicacious political Kassandras has come true: the Ukrainian state of Leonid Kravchuk, Leonid Kuchma, and Viktor Yushchenko, fell and was replaced by the Russian protectorate of Viktor Yanukovych. Now, if experts will find out who is to bear the bulk of the blame, they can argue until they are blue in the face. The ultimate verdict is to be returned at the Last Judgment of History. Yet even now us witnesses of the dramatic spring of 2010, comparable to Berestechko and Chornobyl in terms of its implications, realize that all of us are to blame, active participants and silent majority alike.
We bear the blame for our voting “against all” and “for” petty leaders, for our democratic delusions, for our servile tolerance of mafia bosses and shady aliens, for our romantically pathetic Ukrainian delusions, for the thievish feudal administrative system which exists at our expense, and for our inborn, treacherous, lazy, and indifferent Little Russian attitude.
It takes a separate talk – and it’s still ahead – to show Viktor Yushchenko’s role in yielding the Ukrainian state to the gang of its worst foes. Yushchenko, the chief designer of our defeat, looks like a provincial amateur actor, who had undertaken to act as a decorative Ukrainian 17th-18th century style messiah under present-day circumstances, i.e., the overly complicated geopolitical, ethno-national, social, and economic situation in which Ukraine finds itself in this globalized world of ruthless competition and unrelenting fight for the future.
Despite outbursts of passion stemming from naive popular delusions and hopes, the slothful messiah, wrapped in Trypillian past, let his mask fall. A worthless Thespian, he substituted real governance with lengthy tedious sermons and histrionic gestures, compromising even the sacred truths of national existence. He did nothing to strengthen national security, defense, efficacy of the intelligence and counter-intelligence. He neglected vitally important reforms, long awaited by society, as well as the modernization of the state. Lamentations are heard on the rivers of Kyiv and Galicia, and victorious peals roll over the white stone walls of Moscow. The banquet of victors is not yet over in the Kremlin hills: the two “tandemocrats” of Moscow, overwhelmed by euphoria, are anxious to wipe off the tables of history Zbigniew Brzezinski’s immortal formula, “Without Ukraine, Russia will never be an empire.” They can once again believe in the restoration of their empire. Again, like in the Soviet times, they bring back statements of consolidation of Moscow-Kyiv relations “in the spirit of brotherhood, cordiality, and pragmatism” (Dmitri Medvedev). What is new in this incantation is the term “pragmatism.” Little Russians will have to make do with “brotherhood,” while Russia is going to use “pragmatism”: tough, peremptory, compelling one to make “brotherly” concessions. “Medvedev proved an even more successful Russian nationalist than Vladimir Putin.” (Gleb Pavlovsky)
Coming is the award presentation ceremony for all of the participants of the special Operation Ukraine: FSB and GRU analysts, those who elaborated and implemented Putin’s five-year plan (2005-10) of exterminating “colored plagues” in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan, of the subjugation of a neighbor which dared to claim to have its own place in Europe.
Also, decorations await the so-called Ukrainian politicians, devoted to the Russian two-headed eagle, with Russian heritage and Stalinist mentality – of the same ilk as those who in 1932-33 took orders from Moscow to eliminate the nation to which they did not belong. Each one will get what they have earned: all the SS men (from the abbreviation Sloviansky Soiuz, The Slavic Alliance), all the beefcakes, all the skinhead raiders and bearded analysts, all the turncoats, thugs, gentle gay Ukraine-eaters and brutal Ukraine-hating machos, all members, without exception, of the victorious coalition in Ukraine’s only legislature, the Verkhovna Rada, – in a word, all those who are known as the fifth column. No one shall be forgotten, not by Moscow nor Kyiv.
2. The rapid and outwardly chaotic and violent attack (retreat?) of the new regime conceals a thoroughly developed plan for the seizure of the state institutes, security and information structures. Even today, one can ascertain that in Ukraine, a single-handed, semi-authoritarian (“semi” for the moment) regime has been formed. It ignores the constitution and the laws of Ukraine, turning the state into something quite different from a presidential republic (which also is contrary to the current constitution) – into a feudal formation, impaled on the stiff “line of command,” where parliamentarism is destroyed (let us just recollect the ratification of the Kharkiv agreement). All the security systems and the judicial branch are subordinated to the suzerain’s supreme will. In a matter of a few months, Ukraine dropped from the sphere of light and hopes for positive change into the realm of darkness, losing its candidacy for NATO and EU and morphing from the subject of international politics into its object. Individuals, who lack honor, conscience, and national dignity, are trying to bring Ukraine to its knees and debase its European choice. They have declared a merciless war on the Ukrainian Ukraine, its national, cultural, and historical values. It is hard even to accuse them of national apostasy as they, with a few exceptions, are nothing but rolling stones, accidentally brought into our land by the evil winds of history. The new regime’s sole ideology – apart from the insatiable greed for profit, of course – is the unconditional, sycophantic service to the Kremlin.
Their methods are primitive and lack elementary flexibility, a desire to find compromise or consider the electoral situation in Ukraine. They are destroying what is sacred for millions of Ukrainian citizens, as they believe the nation to be no better than a herd of cattle that will do as they are told. The thirst for revenge is what nurtures their destructive energy. The team implementing “the Kremlin list” is working zealosly to dismantle the state: they are anxious to win their masters’ confidence and prove their loyalty and faithfulness. They very well realize how “highly” they are “valued” and “trusted” in Russia. Modest Kolerov, the former high official in the Russian presidential administration, wrote this after Yanukovych’s “victory”: “In all fairness, Viktor Yanukovych is one of the most disgusting phenomena in Ukraine’s modern history. The man who for the recent five and a half years has been steadily and methodically betraying his electorate... I can’t say that Viktor Yanukovych has lost because from the formal standpoint he has won. But his trademark is a professional and consistent yielding of his victories. It would be more correct to say that Yanukovych has not and will not win” (Russian Journal, Feb. 8, 2010).
3. That is why they are in haste. “The Kremlin list” does exist, it was compiled by Medvedev and Putin and decoded in detail by the loyal propagandists of the “sovereign democracy.” In his TV ultimatum show, aimed not so much at Yushchenko as at the Ukrainian nation, Medvedev clearly outlined the main parameters of the Kremlin’s demands. Yet he failed to say one more thing, which instead was voiced by the Russian anchorman Mikhail Leontiev: “Russia is interested in seeing the end to the Ukrainian project, because the Ukrainian project is a project specifically sharpened against Russia. It has never existed, and never will... There has never been anything like a Ukrainian national liberation idea. It has always existed as a parody, as someone’s project agains Russia” (Russian Journal, Jan. 27, 2010).
However, this is the final goal. Its intermediate stages are defined in numerous statements, interviews, analytical releases, and leakages of confidential information.
Konstantin Zatulin, Ukraine’s “mortal friend,” writes: “As far as Ukraine goes, just like with Leonardo da Vinci’s masterpieces, virtually no expense should be spared. Now, we must offer Ukraine a helping hand (!), rather than drive Yanukovych into a deadlock with the load of claims, amassed over recent years.” Meanwhile, he actually does this, demanding the acknowledgement of the “decisive contribution of the eastern regions to its economy, the needs of bilingualism, preservation of the country’s neutral status, and the abandonment of imposing doubtful (!) versions of history.”
He also sets an intermediate goal on the way to the total destruction of Ukraine: “All of the above can be achieved on condition of a successful, competent federative reform (!), which would guarantee a certain degree of self-government, as well as cultural and national identity to each subject of the Ukrainian Federation.” Zatulin concludes that “a struggle is taking place, and a serious one at that, a struggle for language, faith, interpretation of the past, and for the future. And Russia’s place in this Ukrainian future.” (Izvestiia, March 5, 2010).
Russia envisages itself in “this Ukrainian future” not merely as the Big Brother, but an absolute master of our fate, our lands, resources, and industry. It sees itself as a united center, settling the issues of our international policy and national security. After the Kharkiv agreements pattering about the “neutral” or “non-bloc” status is sheer blasphemy, yet some indulged in this at the recent Lviv Security forum (April, 2010). Ukraine IS ALREADY incorporated into the Russian block, in a brutal and obvious manner. It HAS ALREADY become an accomplice to the Russian international policy with all its implications. Those who cannot realize this today, will do so when it is too late to build castles in the air and suggest turning Ukraine into another Switzerland or Austria. It is not 1922, and the victors, the followers of General Denikin’s cause, will not play with communist slogans about the nations’ right to self-determination. Their disregard for the independence of the Ukrainian nation will result in Ukraine’s status as a south-western province of the Russian dominion. The Kremlin list includes the seizure of all of Ukraine’s strategic branches, from the gas transportation system to the nuclear complex to aviation, as well as the defense industry and profitable agrarian enterprises. Putin’s recent impromptu remark was particularly original and innocent: his suggestion to “unite” (which in their language stands for “annex”) Gazprom and Naftohaz. Why not go further still and unite the ministries of foreign affairs of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and then, their embassies as well? Just think of all the economies involved. What about frontier services? The ministries of defense? It is possible to start with joint staff tactical exercises and broad-scale military manoeuvers, and make a point of holding them on the territory of Ukraine (I will remind the readers that this constitutes the classics of pre-occupational preparations for the Soviet military occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Poland in 1980-81). There is a broad field for the joint activities of the Federal Security Service and Security Service of Ukraine, and also the International Intelligence of the Russian Federation and Ukraine! Aren’t we sister nations? Thus, we open all our safes to our friends and neighbors, revealing all of the pityful secrets of our miserable state, should there be any left. We should by all means meet the wishes of our Russian brothers (the big ones) and renew the activities of the Federal Security Service and the Black Sea Fleet, ban the presence of American consultants in the state bodies of Ukraine, and stop Ukraine’s military cooperation with NATO and Georgia. The fate of GUAM seems to have been already settled. What next?
In its statement of May 5, 2010, the World Policy Institute (Kyiv) “warns the leadership of Ukraine against steps which might considerably undermine the confidence in our state on the part of the international community, namely, from the acknowledgement of the statehood of separatist formations in Southern Ossetia and Abkhazia.” However, will it stop the ignoramuses from entering the sphere of international relations?
Meanwhile, the cleanup operation continues in the humanitarian sphere, namely, in everything concerning the Ukrainian language, history, education, religion – in a word, the problems which inspire special fury among Russian chauvinists. It is no mere coincidence that the abovementioned Zatulin warns: “...we in Russia have to clearly realize the following: the only sphere where the previous administration did make real progress is ideology and brainwashing. A considerable proportion of Ukrainian citizens has embraced the nationalist cliches. These individuals are quite sincere in their belief that Ukraine should by all means have a different language, history, and heroes (!).”
An entire generation in Ukraine has forgotten how our fellow countrymen were packed off to concentration camps for their love for Ukraine, for “nationalism.” Shall we see such horrible times again? The operative success in the destruction of the Ukrainian state will enable the Kremlin to expand the list of its demands, including the introduction of a common currency (surely that will not be the hryvnia) and the revision of Ukrainian state symbols: the emblem, the flag, and the anthem (here is where Yanukovych’s communist allies will do their best).
We are being tempted by the word “stability,” as if we had been living in Sudan or Sierra Leone hitherto. Now, Ukraine has a reliable “stabilizer.” A certain gentleman from Izvestiia of Apr. 29, 2010, obiously takes us for fools and informs us that “In the case of Ukraine, Russia has shown that it not so much aspires to expand its renowned ‘influence zone,’ as that it is ready to bear responsibility for the maintainance of stability – in those regions where it has amenities for this... Moscow is feeling more and more responsible not merely for the stability of the post-Soviet space, but also for its development.”
This theoretical postulate is nothing short of the idea of a fraternal military occupation in the name of the “stability” in the post-Soviet space. Yanukovych’s regime has aroused the appetites of our neighbors, who, encouraged by their success, are rapidly falling back into the 19th – early 20th centuries.
4. The establishing of Ukraine’s new status, the involvement of the state with Russia’s zone of primary interests and influences (as one “expert” on the problems of SIC wrote, “Ukraine is above all. Ukraine is more important than Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela together,” Russian Journal, Aug. 27, 2010), have upset the fragile balance between the regions of Ukraine. It has slashed the body of the Ukrainian nation, deepened the chasms between different irreconcilable, bellicose groups, and killed the illusions about the new regime’s capability of reconciling Ukrainians or doing something – anything – to appease the tumultous society. And when a commentator writes about “a foreboding of a civil war,” he is wrong: the cold civil war has long taken place in the country, and today it has every chance to develop into a “hot” war. For this, the regime only needs to add fuel to the fire in the new areas of political confrontation. The “egg ratification” of the Kharkiv agreement in the Verkhovna Rada, which made history on international TV as a gloomy political thriller, has become an important step forward in this direction.
Soon, the regime will face the question: What shall be done with the protests? There are very many reasons to believe that they will desperately (there is no going back) resort to the total dismantlement of democracy, suppression of civil rights and freedoms (which is already starting to take place). Their aim is the “putinization” of Ukraine. The struggle against Ukrainian nationalism and western influences (the Soros Foundation and other American and European institutions in Ukraine) is their method. It may be primitive and poor, but it is all they have.
A renowned Russian oppositionist Boris Nemtsov was not very politically correct when he compared Ukraine (more specifically, Yanukovych’s regime) with a prostitute: “Ukraine resembles a girl who was bought for a pretty sum of money, but who got neither pleasure nor love from this. In a word, she took the money, but remained resentful...” (Echo of Moscow, Apr. 24, 2010). But the same Nemtsov gives a painfully precise assessment of the situation in Russia: “Putin means corruption, censorship, and a dramatic decrease of the population (over the years of his rule, Russia has lost five million people). It’s the destruction of political rights and civil freedoms: totally falsified, unprecedented pressure on the opposition, manipulations and lies. The foundation on which he builds Russia – theft, cynicism, and cruelty – is so rotten that it is impossible to build a modern, successful Russia on it.” (Echo of Moscow, March 5, 2010). One can have different attitudes towards the statements made by Russian oppositionists. Yet it is impossible to ignore the fact that the domestic political and social situation in Russia is getting worse and worse. Meanwhile the antagonism between Putin and Medvedev increases, the backstage struggle is becoming more and more intense. There are increasing statements to the effect that Putin’s model is outdated and that Russia is facing a serious challenge. Ignoring this and voluntarily offering oneself to Russia as a puppet, thus losing the shreds of one’s own sovereignty and freedom of movement is tantamount to being a political, intellectual, and moral moron. In comparison with that, even Aleksandr Lukashenko looks like a great political thinker and a true guarantor of the independence of Belarus.
5. The West has surrendered Ukraine to Russia. Such a conclusion was made not only by Ukrainian political scientists and experts in international affairs, but also Ukraine’s few sympathizers in the USA and Europe. This is what our enemies in Russia gloat over now. Thus, a notorious Ukrainophobiac anchorman with an unexpected surname, Shevchenko, writes: “It is absolutely evident that Medvedev made a bid to support Obama’s course, whose situation in both domestic and international policy is deplorable. As of today, the new draft on SOW (Strategic Offensive Weapons) is Obama’s only achievement in foreign policy, and he must be well aware of it. In response to this Obama must have agreed to make certain concessions to Russia in the post-Soviet area. The position of the Democratic administration concerning Ukraine (and the virtual surrender of Yushchenko and Tymoshenko [by the Americans to the Russians – Ed.]), has shown that Obama is prepared to go a long way in order to deprive the Republicans of their critical achievements from the George Bush Jr. presidency. Yushchenko, Saakashvili, and Bakiyev are all Republican proteges and, as such, are totally worthless for Obama. Bakiyev and Yushchenko have already fallen (Russian Journal, Apr. 26, 2010).
Here is a triumphal speech by another “friend” of Ukraine, Gleb Pavlovsky: “In the Kharkiv deal with Kyiv there was an invisible third party, Obama. Obama brought up the issue of the enriched plutonium, Medvedev, and the ‘surrender of Sevastopol.’ Yanukovych would find it difficult meeting the demands of one and refusing the other. He met both at the same time... He might perhaps try to continue playing on the conflict Kuchma-style, but now he is facing a united ‘Washington-Moscow party committee’.” (Russian Journal, May 4, 2010). And yet Obama, the most socialist president in the history of the USA, and his toady Hillary Clinton who welcomes Yanukovych’s effort in the improvement of Russia-USA relations as well as the establishment of “balance”, do not speak for all of America. There will be a congressional election soon, and a presidential election will follow in 2012, which are bound to bring about drastic changes. Even now, voices in the USA worry about the dramatic reinforcement of Russia’s hold on Ukraine and the Black Sea basin. The Pentagon may face difficulties trying to station their battleships involved in the anti-missile defense system in the Black Sea. Washington is apprehensive that Russia’s imperial power-state ambitions might grow after its recent victory over Ukraine.
As usual, the position of France was the most disgraceful. The headline in Le Monde was the epitome of cynicism: Moscow – Kyiv – Warsaw: the Sky in the East Clears Up. The paper writes: “Paradoxically, the recent agreement between Moscow and Kyiv is good news for Europeans, too. The relaxation of the tension between Russia and Ukraine is a sign of detente in the East and evidence of Moscow’s desire to improve its relationships with many of its neighbors (!)” (InoPressa, Apr. 23, 2010). The German Frankfurter Allgemeine states that “Medvedev and Yanukovych have done away with last years’ arguments.” However, “Ukraine may turn into a kind of Belarus, as cheap energy from Russia will enable them to maintain outdated economic structures and the functioning, on a minimal level, of the social welfare system. Thus, the oligarchic elite of Ukraine may preserve its power at the cost of greater dependence on Russia.” (DW, Apr. 23, 2010).
It would be useless to waste words accusing the West of “treason.” What is treason for us, for them is but a cynical appeasement of predator states at the expense of weaker nations, of which Munich-1938 has become an eternal and shameful symbol.
Neither the European Union, which entangled in red tape and confusion, nor NATO, which is undergoing doctrinal and structural changes possibly leading to inviting Moscow to join the Alliance, are going to worry their heads about Ukraine and its fate. However, I am convinced that a moment of sobriety will surely come. NATO and the EU will realize that the situation in Central-Eastern Europe is critically out of balance in favor of one power. Sooner or later, this fact will cause enough concern and worry to become a reason for taking necessary measures.
6. Unlike some impatient politicians, I do not believe that today the people, tired of recent years of discord, will rise up in mass protest actions against the prolongation of the BF in the Crimea or even against the denial of the Holodomor as the genocide of the Ukrainian people. But the chain reaction of anger and protests against the “putinization” of Ukraine has begun. It will result in an outburst when the socioeconomic situation worsens. The exact timing of the outburst is unknown, but it is inevitable. Ignoring of the will of 50 percent voters in Western and Central Ukraine, who voted against Yanukovych, is a political crime against the state, a dangerous and shady venture for which today’s “victors” will have to pay. As always, the retribution will be unexpected, coming from Moscow and Donbas. It can be the result of dramatic changes in Moscow in the next two to five years, as well as significant social protests in Eastern Ukraine: one should not forget that Donetsk oblast, whose leaders are so proud for their contribution to the nation’s GDP, is the last when measured by the human development index, occupying the 26-27th position in Ukraine. This includes the bottom level indices of demographic development, health care, education, and living standards. In terms of its competitiveness, Donetsk oblast is on the same level as Botswana and Egypt. It has high newborn mortality, drinking and TB rates, and life expectancy is also generally lower.
A time will come when the population of the eastern and southern oblasts of Ukraine will understand who should bear the blame for their miserable existence.
Yet regardless of when History will have its say (as it was in 1917 and 1991), the organizations of the civic society, and those political forces in Ukraine who are concerned about the fate of the nation and state, must take an active course. It is not just a matter of signing of all sorts of petitions and appeals, although these, too, are useful. I don’t feel like repeating the ritual appeal to the opposition parties, asking them to come to their senses and unite: never will Yushchenko unite with Tymoshenko because he is affected with anti-Yulia paranoia and political blindness. It is useless to unite around petty leaders who hardly garnered 0.02 percent of votes. There is no use in creating a centralized structure like the disastrous Kaniv foursome. What we need is provisional situational agreements between the leading parties, aimed at specific goals for the sake of the salvation of Ukraine. The failure of one political force will inevitably result in the defeat of the others.
The struggle will be hard, long, and aggravated by impediments to democracy and media freedom. Under such conditions, the role of civic society structures will grow considerably. We will need to look at the experience of the national liberation and dissident movements from Soviet times, and learn the methods of the Polish Solidarnosc. Allies should be found not only in the national patriotic milieu, but also among small and medium businesses, and the workers and engineers of those industrial enterprises which the regime will surrender to Moscow.
Another critically important aspect of the salvation of Ukrainian statehood lies in providing adequate and honest information on everything going on in Ukraine for the public and governmental bodies of other European countries, the US and China. It is hard to overestimate the role of experts in unraveling the myths and lies found in official propaganda concerning the true causes and expected consequences of the fatal and treacherous decisions taken by Yanukovych’s regime. It is only society’s firm resistance that can chill the hot heads who want to remodel the geopolitical map of Europe, ruin the Ukrainian independence, and who despise the will of numerous generations and the immense sacrifice they suffered fighting for free Ukraine.
The darkness which has crept over Ukraine threatens everyone: workers and farmers who are far from politics; hypocrites who encouraged to vote “against all”; those who voted against the “white and blue”; the faithful of the “wrong church,” the young, the intellectuals, the politicians and business owners, and even the oligarchs who might have to try on Khodorkovsky’s prison outfit. But darkness does not last for ever. It will last as long as we will put up with it.
