Will the Ukraine Split in Two?

______________________________

Not for the first time, the question arises of the Ukraine possibly splitting into two parts… West and East. It seems that history itself gives the answer to this question. Despite the fact that Ukrainians voted for different candidates and that their cultural differences are clearly visible today, the Eastern Ukraine, which earlier belonged to the Russian Empire, and the Western Ukraine, which earlier was under Austria-Hungary, Poland, and Romania, have lived in peace in one state for 20 years now. This state of affairs was to the liking of the post-Soviet Russian élite; in fact, they gave up claims to the Crimea, which wasn’t part of the Ukraine until the time of Khrushchyov, for the sake of stability and calm in the neighbourhood. The Ukraine’s unity wasn’t called into question by its citizens either… nationalists living in the Western Ukraine regarded the Ukrainian nation’s unification into a single state… the result of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact… as a benefit, and Eastern Ukrainian businessmen had nothing against “Europe” and “independence”.

From the first, the EU and the USA didn’t stop reminding the Eastern and Western Ukraine about their differences, about their alleged irreconcilability. During the second round of the Maidan events (the first round was in 2004, when supporters of Viktor Yushchenko went on protests, to make him the President of the Ukraine), this confrontation reached its peak. However, before that, EU and American media outlets, supposedly civilised, pictured Eastern Ukrainians as not fully human. Once, Newsweek even used the term ‘homo sovieticus’, which Aleksandr Zinovyev, a Russian academic, invented for other uses. Denis Kiryukhin, a specialist at the Kiev Centre for Political Studies and Conflict Management, said, “Now, the success of its propaganda frightens the EU… feral sorts came to the fore in the Western Ukrainian opposition, who can cause the EU much trouble if there were ‘European Integration’. The ideological intention of the ultras and radicals is to conduct a thoroughgoing revolution in the country, to establish a dictatorship based on nationality, and not carrying out a state coup. Their ideology posits an ethnocracy, with ethnic Ukrainians lording it over all others”.

Sowing seeds of discord between Russian-speakers and Ukrainian–speakers in the Ukraine was a very difficult, but achievable, task, as the events of the past 10 years showed. The “Orange government” of Yushchenko and Timoshenko, as well as Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich‘s behaviour to please local nationalists added much to the discord-sowing process. At the least, Yanukovich was several years late with his statement about extremists in the country, which he made some time ago. The point is that the young people who threw Molotov cocktails at the cops, and who occupied Kiev with neo-Nazi slogans written on their banners, needed time to mature. They studied at schools and institutes… now, it’s clear why the opposition offered a fierce resistance to the reforms of Education Minister Dmitri Tabachnik. His attempts to return Russian classical literature to Ukrainian schools hampered the maturing of all those who fight now under the slogan, “The Ukraine Above All!” This is nothing but the Nazi slogan “Deutschland über alles” translated into Ukrainian. As you might remember, during last year’s heated debates about the language law, both the EU and the USA took the side of the Ukrainian nationalists. Thus, figuratively speaking, they drove a wedge into the Ukraine, where relative ethnic peace reigned supreme for many years, but the Ukrainian authorities ignored it.

Today, the Nationalists strive for absolute power over the entire Ukraine. They don’t merely want to run the cabinet of ministers or even to take over the presidency. They want to control both the legislative and the executive power. To meet this aim, they want new elections and they wish the reinstitution of the 2004 Constitution, as nationalists believer it’ll weaken Yanukovich. However, there’s a complication… the Ukraine is a centralised state; officials in Kiev decide almost everything. Therefore, if ethnocentric nationalists seized absolute power in Kiev, the Russian-speaking eastern regions would secede. Professor Valery Solovey, of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, noted, “The presidential side can try to federalise the Ukraine now. Even though it’s a risky affair, it can end beneficial. It isn’t a slavish return to the 2004 Constitution, but it adds amendments to the Constitution establishing the Ukraine as a federal state with a corresponding restriction of central authority in the regions”.

In 2005, when the EU and the USA pulled out a victory in the presidential election for Viktor Yushchenko, the Party of Regions attempted to establish autonomy in the eastern regions. Then, they weren’t successful because the Ukrainian élite and Ukrainian oligarchs struck a bargain to divide power and capital. It’s very doubtful whether they’d be able to do the same now. Oligarchs can enjoy power only when the grassroots are relatively passive. Like ships in olden days, oligarchs can pour oil on troubled waters, and, in this way, smooth out small waves around their business liners. However, when the masses roil into a rage, no oil can save anyone’s life from the waves on this ocean, and the oligarchs with all their capital and all the corrupt officials could end up on the rocks. That’s the exact situation gelling now. The genie of Ukrainian nationalism is out of the bottle… it’s impossible to push it back in.

In conclusion, we can say the following. At present, centrifugal forces in Ukrainian society aren’t strong enough yet to pull the state apart. Both western and eastern regions realise that if the country split, the east would immediately fall under EU and American sanctions, and the west would fail as a state without eastern subsidies. Russia takes a neutral and balanced position in this conflict between the Ukrainian west and east, but still the European media accuse Russia of interfering in the situation. Nevertheless, centrifugal forces might receive a strong impetus from nationalists on the Maidan, from the EU dallying with nationalists, and from Yatsenyuk and Klichko trying to ride on the nationalist wave. If the Ukraine falls apart, it’ll be on their conscience.

5 February 2014

Dmitri Babich

Voice of Russia World Service

http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_02_05/Will-Ukraine-split-in-two-6767/

 

4 January 2014. Weigel Declares War on the Ukraine

Here’s what George Weigel‘s pals did in the VOV… they were traitors who fought for the Nazis and who helped the Nazis in the Holocaust.

******

Here’s a Uniate UGKTs priest in Nazi uniform… Weigel doesn’t mention this, does he?

******

On the other hand, Weigel supports this… or, his pal Yushchenko did (and Weigel didn’t utter a peep)! Weigel supports American warmongering in foreign parts, which included the American-fomented War in South Ossetia (Colonel General Novogitsyn testified to that). Weigel’s a nice guy with great pals, ain’t he?

______________________________

George Weigel crawled out from underneath his rock… of course, he’s bleating away on the Ukraine (click here for his trashy submission). In his eyes, the Great White Hope of the Ukraine is the UGKTs… but he doesn’t tell you that the UGKTs represents less than 10 percent of the Ukrainian population. He also doesn’t tell you about how the UGKTs blessed SS VOLUNTEERS in the VOV. Weigel also doesn’t tell you that the main Church in the Ukraine remains the UOC/MP. In all of his dreck, he rarely mentions Vladyki Vladimir Sabodan. Needless to say, for him, Talerhof didn’t happen, Ss Maksim Sandovich and Aleksei Kabalyuk are nonentities, the Galizien Division were patriots, he marginalises Fr Dmitri Sidor, Bandera’s a hero, and Yushchenko’s a martyr. In short, Weigel is EVIL and no Orthodox Christian should have anything to do with him or his ilk.

I felt dirtied just by reading his rubbish. Nevertheless, READ IT. It’s what many in the Russophobic Catholic hierarchy truly believe about us. Yet, don’t take it out on ordinary RCs… they didn’t make the policies, and most of them don’t even know that they exist. However, do read Weigel’s nonsense as it tells you what the official papists really say about us behind our backs. I admire Pope Francisco’s political and social stands… I oppose the church that he heads. I’d give a warning, though… Weigel and his ilk oppose their pope’s social teaching… and some of them have access to Western intel agencies. Remember 1948… Langley engineered a coup against Ecumenical Patriarch Maximos Vaportzis. I’d advise Francisco to watch his back.

To end this, I’ll quote the Carpatho-Russian delegation that met Patriarch Aleksei Simansky in 1946:

We’re strongly opposed to joining our territory to the Ukrainian SSR. We don’t want to be Czech nor Ukrainian, we want to be Russian (Ruthenians); we want our land autonomous, but within the USSR.

Now, that’s TRUTH… and it’s a good antidote to all the shit spouted by Weigel. Keep it focused.

BMD 

 

Former Ukrainian President Yushchenko Pledges to Set Up Right-Wing Party

This is an impious pseudo-icon painted by the Galician Uniates… don’t be angry, they’re on the way DOWN. History’s on our side…

______________________________

Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko said that he’d establish a right-wing political movement that’d win the upcoming parliamentary election slated for 28 October, saying, “We’ll gain not only five percent, but more”, referring to the five-percent threshold needed for his party to enter the Verkhovna Rada (the unicameral Ukrainian parliament). The ex-president said his new political force would unite over 30 parties and organizations, including The Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists and Nasha Ukraina (Our Ukraine), headed by Yushchenko. According to a recent opinion poll held in Ukraine, the Yushchenko-led Nasha Ukraina only has the support of about one percent of the respondents.

26 June 2012

RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/world/20120626/174256876.html

American Clergy Support Restrictions on Russian Officials in Magnitsky Law

______________________________

American religious leaders expressed support for the financial and visa restrictions in the so-called Magnitsky Law targeting Russian officials. On Monday, a spokesman for Hermitage Capital Management stated that a vote on the bill is due on Tuesday in the US Congress, saying to our Interfax correspondent, “Nine religious organizations said in a letter sent to Congress that the adoption of this law will be help to prevent reprisals against fighters for religious freedom”. The spokesman cited an excerpt from the letter, “The opportunity to visit the USA is a privilege. In cases where foreign officials are involved in torture, killings, restrictions of religious freedoms, and other human rights violations, they should be deprived of this privilege”. The letter’s signatories expressed the hope that “the sacrifice of Sergei Magnitsky won’t be in vain, and that it’d lead to the emergence of an important new tool in the fight against violation of human rights in the world”. Amongst the organisations expressing support for the letter were the International Institute for Religious Freedom, the American Islamic Congress, and the Hindu American Foundation.

In particular, the Magnitsky Law envisages reprisals against those people who the USA deems directly or indirectly responsible for so-called “irregularities” related to the arrest and death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, an employee of Hermitage Capital {a shadowy outfit incorporated under the lax laws of Guernsey: editor}, or who tried to hide the facts of what happened, and profited from his death. Magnitsky faced charges under Article 199 of the RF Criminal Code (tax evasion); he died in a Moscow detention centre on 16 November 2009. Magnitsky’s supporters claim that the cops arrested him after he exposed a corruption scheme involving some Russian officials. His death caused wide public attention, not only in Russia but also abroad. MVD investigators have completed their investigation, but they aren’t going to release any information to the public, in order to spare Magnitsky’s relatives.

18 June 2012

Interfax-Religion

http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=45963

Editor’s Note:

Hermitage Capital is a crank institution, all the way around. It’s a stalking horse for the American and British special services, and Russia was correct in slapping them down hard. Let’s cut out all the smarmy and pietistic froufrou. The only reason that the US Congress is doing this is that the Russian government blacklisted Hermitage’s founder William Browder as a “threat to national security” and denied him a visa. Ergo, this is nothing but a childish tit-for-tat gussied up in splashy rhinestones and paste. Do note this smarmy passage from the letter:

In cases where foreign officials are involved in torture, killings, restrictions of religious freedoms, and other human rights violations, they should be deprived of this privilege.

Gee… does that mean that we should deny GWB, Richard Cheney, King Rush, Queen Ann, and Wafflin’ Willy entrance to all civilised countries as they’re proponents of torture (as the CIA black sites proved to the whole world)? Perspirin’ minds wanna know… if it applies to the Russians, it applies to the Americans too! Should we put Yushchenko in the hoosegow for ordering the beating of Fr Dmitri Sidor? Should we shun the KSA for its restriction of religious freedom? You do see how untenable the above quoted assertion is… it shows how ungrounded and unhinged the West has become. It should leave the Orthosphere and the Islamosphere alone… they don’t share the West’s cultural prejudices, and that’s that.

This is a real conundrum for Fathausen. On the one hand, he wants to support his rightwing pals in dumping on Russia. Magnitsky was a zapadnik traitor who wanted Russia to be like the USA… unbridled capitalism, no social safety net, double-dealing with states smaller than it was… in short, he was an amoral monster. That means that he’d have to go against the Centre… and the Centre is his last support in canonical Orthodoxy. Fathausen’s in a real pickle. If he supports the Centre, he pisses off his rightwing pals; if he supports the American rightwing, he pisses off the Centre. Not an enviable position to be in, I’d say. There’s no way to tell which way that he’ll go… so, no one can say what the fallout will be. Nevertheless, he’s facing a LARGE order of Crow Supreme, no matter what course he takes, and that’s beyond question. Quo Vadis, James Paffhausen?

BMD