July 1, 2014

The Fourth Russian-Ukrainian War. Part 2

The Independent Analytical Center for Geopolitical Studies “Borysfen Intel” affords ground to the analysts generation for expressing their point of view regarding the political, economic, security, information situation in Ukraine and in the world in general, according to their personal geopolitical studies and analyses.

 

Note that an authors’ point of view
can disagree with the editor’s one

Valeriy Shvets, Professor

Part 2

A decent, intelligent Russian will never be our enemy

So, what is the main reason for the fourth Russian-Ukrainian war? On whom does the Kremlin place its stake, replenishing its army of invasion? Who creates a fertile ground for all its political provocations in Ukraine? This is definitely a part of ethnic Russians deep down considering themselves the invaders, but openly not calling themselves so. What differs an occupant from other citizens? He despises the language of the indigenous people, its culture, history and heroes, all its accomplishments, the current government (if it is not strictly occupation one). This blatant display of blasphemy when he considers curse holy names of our heroes, calling them “Mazepians”, “Petliurists”, “Banderites”. I myself in my life had the experience of this burning hatred for all Ukrainian things. Last curse in the form of the holy flag of a new religious war, which has united around itself a lot of Russians on both sides of the Russian-Ukrainian border. I cannot dare to state categorically that all ethnic Russians in Ukraine are a monolith ready to fulfill any whim of the Kremlin. A decent, intelligent Russian will never be our enemy. I am far from regarding a monolith Ukrainian people in our darkest times of national disagreements. Lumpen has neither nationality, nor national interests. This was once said by Karl Marx, who, to be exact, used the word “proletariat” instead of “lumpen”.

Back in the mid-nineties I came across results of opinion polls in Russia and Ukraine. 70% of Russians perceived Ukraine negatively, while only 30% of Ukrainians negatively perceived Russia. Already then I told my party members from “Rukh” that Russia is ready for war with Ukraine, but Ukraine is not ready for war with Russia. Since this I kept a close watch on that index and saw that it actually did not change. My conclusion against the background of such a bleak situation was as follows: the war between Russia and Ukraine was a matter of time. Moreover, Ukraine would not be ready for it comprehensively. That is what happened in the spring of 2014.

History of military confrontations of Ukraine and Russia
History of military confrontations of Ukraine and Russia
http://obozrevatel.com/

The honest Ukrainian soul sees no difference between word and deed. To it, the word is action. Prior to the events in the Crimea, majority of Ukrainians (100% — 30% = 70%) considered Russians brotherly people. Saying “brotherly people” was constantly used by the Russian president in regard to Ukrainian people, although the level of support for such a slogan among Russians have always been modest (100% — 70% = 30%). The Russian mentality is completely different from the Ukrainian one. For a Russian the word has nothing to do with deed. The word is one thing; the deed/action is another one. An outstanding German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the late nineteenth century, speaking of Russian unreliability, noted that no treaty with Russia is worth the paper on which it is written. For some unknown reason, it took Ukrainians almost 150 years, to realize this again in the spring of 2014.

...during the last hundred years the permanent war of Russia against Ukraine has never stopped, with phases of aggravation to the level of military conflicts and phases of temporary reconciliation

Under the current law of “newspeak” in modern Russia, like in the days of the Soviet Union, each definition should be interpreted at least to the exact opposite (see the beginning of the article). Therefore, the words “brotherly people” regarding Ukrainians in the mouth of the president of Russia have always sounded quite ominous. Like a verdict, like an application for a new hypocrisy.

Once I was speaking on the Odesa state television before the Crimean events. When the TV host asked me to talk about what unites us with the great fraternal Russian people, I could not find in my memory a single example of the fraternal Russian-Ukrainian relations. Although, frankly speaking, I did expect such a question. However, I reminded TV viewers that during the last hundred years the permanent war of Russia against Ukraine has never stopped, with phases of aggravation to the level of military conflicts and phases of temporary reconciliation.

The symbolic beginning of the first of such wars can be considered the famous battle at Kruty in winter of 1918, when our glorious youth's small forces tried to resist the Russians' attack on Kyiv. And then for some years there was a full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war, which, according to the laws of “newspeak”, even now in textbooks on history is qualified as civil war. The NEP (New Economic Policy) introduced by Bolsheviks, can be compared with their having raised the white flag of the vanquished. Demonstrative Ukrainization of the colonial administration of Ukraine without words had to show that Ukrainians, even having lost a military campaign, at least partially, did win. That was a mistake.

The second Russian-Ukrainian war was the bloodiest in the number of victims. It caught Ukrainians off guard. The Russian axe this time struck at the root of the Ukrainian nation — at the Ukrainian peasantry. True, at this was wiped up the Ukrainian intelligentsia as well. This war according to the laws of “newspeak” was called collectivization, though in reality the land was not collectivized but confiscated in favor of the Russian state. Remember the blasphemous Bolsheviks' slogan: “Land — to peasants”. Again in full compliance with “newspeak”. For Ukrainians, this second war was payback for the defeat in the first war, inhuman punishment for attempting to realize their age-old dream of their own state. Russia started this war, and Russia finished it. Because it needed to finish with internal wars and to start the all-out preparations for the Second World War. Experts in “newspeak” called this war the world revolution.

The third Russian-Ukrainian war began after Germany’s attack at Poland — in the middle of September 1939 — along with the occupation of Western Ukraine by the Soviet Union, called according to the laws of “newspeak”, liberation. Nature of this war again was armed, and it lasted until the mid-fifties.

All the three wars were lost by Ukrainians. The main reason, in my opinion was unfavorable for Ukraine political situation. In none of these wars Ukrainians were supported by Western democracies, defining the contours of the political map of Europe at the time. The only hope then Ukrainians could impose on Germany. Remember, the first Russian-Ukrainian war was lost by Ukraine because Germany lost the First World War. When Ukraine was being finished off in the second Russian-Ukrainian war, Germany was still too weak. Germany's defeat in World War II made ‚Äč‚ÄčUkrainians' chances to establish their own state almost zero. Currently the fourth Russian-Ukrainian war is ablaze. Do we have real chances to win? The international situation around Ukraine has radically changed. Now not only Germany is with us, but the whole civilized democratic world a part of which has finally become Germany itself. Now with us is the leader of this world — the United States of America. Now the world has realized that the Russian empire, whatever it is called today, actually is a threat to the Western civilization, not just to Donetsk and Luhansk regions or even to the whole Ukraine.

What can we do about it? We should not hope that in a few weeks, the war in the East of Ukraine stops. Even if we overcome military resistance in the East (which is quite realistic) soon enough, the military threat from Russia will keep growing. No negotiations with Russia can help it. Agreements with it are worthless. The reality is the fact that Russia is an Asian-pattern empire resembling that of Genghis Khan. With the same internal impulses to mechanical spreading to the largest possible area. To reach the last sea — that was Genghis Khan's testament to his descendants. Having inherited Genghis Khan's empire (or, rather, its part, occupying poorly populated outskirts of Eurasia), Muscovites (so they should be called more correctly), inherited the entire arsenal of its spiritual and moral values.

Since the times of Kyivan Rus', Ukraine's role has been to be an outpost on the border of the civilized world and a large steppe, beginning in the steppes of Ukraine and ending in the steppes of Mongolia, being mainly what today is called Russia. During the Moscow enslavement we had lost this role, but now circumstances force us to return to it. We should at last abandon the “newspeak”. Not Kyivan Rus', but Rus' with its capital in Kyiv. There have never been any other Rus'. Not Russia, but Muscovia, as it was marked on the maps of medieval Europe. Now Rus'-Ukraine is no longer a part of Muscovia, and there are no legal grounds to call Muscovia Russia.

...we should remember that the main supertask today is our survival as a nation on our traditional, since Trypillya culture, lands

It should be also remembered that at the time of Bohdan Khmelnytskyi, when our relations with Moscow were beginning, there were 11 million Ukrainians in our land, and there were 10 million Muscovites on their lands. That is, there were more Russians- Ukrainians than Muscovites-Russians. Now, after 350-year-old interaction between the two ethnic groups (which was far from being fraternal), Muscovites, there are three times more Russians on their lands than Russians-Ukrainians in our lands. The hopeful trend for them, and not too optimistic — for us.

Step by step, Ukraine should become a military camp, a powerful military, economic and political power. We have a genetic desire for democracy — power of the people. This tendency of ours should be developed, but at this we should remember that the main supertask today is our survival as a nation on our traditional, since Trypillya culture, lands.

And finally, we should remember our brilliant visionaries' testament, in particular: “There can be no compromise on the modern Russian statehood. The only way out for the existence of the Russian state is complete destruction of the Russian great power. Ukraine will be free not after the liberation of Kyiv, but after destruction of Moscow as the capital of the Russian superpower” (Yuri Lypa).