U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC): http://www.usubc.org

 

Analysis & Commentary: By Askold S. Lozynskyj, New York, NY, Tue, Aug 18, 2009 

Action Ukraine Report (AUR), Washington, D.C., Monday, August 31, 2009                                                            

 

On August 6, 2009 President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev wrote to President of Ukraine Victor Yuschenko expressing indignation over Russia-Ukraine relations, resulting from President Yuschenko’s tenure as president. This communication read in part:

          Problems in bilateral cooperation have, of course, existed before. This was natural following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, when we had to  

          develop relations between two sovereign states. However, what we have witnessed during the years of your presidency cannot be interpreted as

          anything other than the Ukrainian party's departure from the principles of friendship and partnership with Russia, embodied in the Treaty of 1997…

 

          A negative public reaction was caused by Ukraine's anti-Russian stance in connection with the brutal attack on South Ossetia by Saakashvili's regime.

          A year after those tragic events, once again the question of why civilians and Russian peacekeepers in Tskhinval were killed with Ukrainian weapons

          has arisen. Those in Kiev (sic) who supplied the Georgian army with weapons and, by the way, do not intend to stop doing so, fully share with Tbilisi

          the responsibility for the committed crimes…Ignoring the views of Ukrainian citizens as well as Russia's well-known position, the political

          leadership of Ukraine stubbornly continues to pursue accession to NATO.

 

         And as a so-called argument you hint at a “Russian threat” to Ukrainian security, something which, as you are well aware, does not and cannot exist.

         Unfortunately, the logical continuation of this destructive reasoning is the incessant attempts to complicate the activities of Russia's Black Sea Fleet in

         violation of the fundamental agreements between our countries governing the parameters of its base in Ukraine…

 

          At the same time, it seems that Kiev (sic) has consistently sought to sever existing economic ties with Russia, primarily in the field of energy. These

          actions threaten the ability of our countries to reliably use what is, in fact, a unified gas transmission system that ensures the energy security of Russia,

          Ukraine and many European nations…

 

          Russian-Ukrainian relations have been further tested as a result of your administration's willingness to engage in historical revisionism, its heroization

          of Nazi collaborators, exaltation of the role played by radical nationalists, and imposition among the international community of a nationalistic

          interpretation of the mass famine of 1932-1933 in the USSR, calling it the “genocide of the Ukrainian people”…

 

          The ousting of the Russian language from public life, science, education, culture, media and judicial proceedings continues…

 

          the harmful practices of intervention by the government of Ukraine in the affairs of the Orthodox Church beg attention. The conditions that were

          created artificially on the eve and during a recent pastoral visit to Ukraine by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia could hardly be described as

          favourable. Against this background, it is particularly gratifying to see the genuine and broad support for the unity of Orthodoxy demonstrated by  

          Ukrainians who welcomed the Patriarch…

 

          I would like to inform you that in view of the anti-Russian position of the current Ukrainian authorities I have decided to postpone sending a new

          Russian ambassador to Ukraine. Specific dates will be determined later in light of the future development of Russian-Ukrainian relations…

 

          For Russia, from time immemorial Ukrainians have been and remain not just neighbours, but also a fraternal people for whom we will always cherish

          the very best feelings, with whom we share a common history, culture and religion, ties stemming from close economic cooperation, and strong    

          kinship and human relations…

 

          In Russia we hope that the new political leadership of Ukraine will be ready to build relations between our countries that correspond to the genuine

          aspirations of our peoples and help strengthen European security. [1]
    

Ukraine’s President Yuschenko replied firmly yet diplomatically. The latter was quite remarkable considering that in essence, the President of Russia had entered brazenly as a critic into Ukraine’s upcoming presidential foray [2]. 

 

As to the merits of his comments, Mr. Medvedev appears disingenuous. Point by point his accusations can be refuted with facts known to almost anyone who

is familiar with Russia and Ukraine, certainly Mr. Medvedev:

 

     [a] the Treaty of 1997 could have been terminated by President Yuschenko, instead Mr. Yuschenko permitted the treaty to renew automatically even after

          Russia’s invasion into Georgia [3];

     [b] Ukraine’s sale of arms to Georgia is  consistent entirely with international norms [4];

     [c] a sovereign state naturally determines its own foreign policy since that is one of the elements of sovereignty and forges security alliances such as

          NATO which it deems most beneficial;

     [d] Russia’s Black Sea fleet stationed in Sevastopil remains on Ukrainian territory until the expiration of its lease [5];  

     [e] the energy crisis between Russia and Ukraine which ultimately affected other European countries was precipitated and repeated every time by

          Russia’s cutoff or reduction as Russia was in control at all times [6];

     [f] Ukraine having condemned Nazism and fascism is coming to grips only now with its communist past and its relationship with Russia, which has

          dominated Ukraine over the last three hundred fifty years [7];

     [g] Ukraine is becoming aware that Communism equaled or even exceeded Nazism in terms of atrocity and number of victims due to longevity; Ukraine is

          only beginning to discover it’s history which had been purged or rewritten by Russia and the USSR[8]; 

     [h] the true heroes of Ukraine have been forgotten or besmirched largely by Russian and Soviet historiography and present day Ukraine is attempting to

          rehabilitate them with honors they long deserved [9];

     [i] the Russian language has flourished in Ukraine at the expense of the Ukrainian language and Ukraine funds some 4000 Russian language schools while

          Russia funds no Ukrainian language schools [10]; 

     [j] Ukraine clearly separates church from state, guarantees freedom of conscience to all and thus has remained fertile ground for all religions among them

          Orthodoxy under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate;

     [k] on the other hand neither Ukrainian Orthodoxy or Catholicism have not been permitted to develop in Russia [11].

On May 5, 2009 the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations held a briefing entitled “The Outcome and Lessons of World War II and the Present” at the UN headquarters in New York. The event was opened and presided over by Ilya Rogachev, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN.  

 

In the course of his presentation and answering questions, Mr. Rogachev praised the Soviet Union and even Josef Stalin, and went out of his way to calumniate contemporary Ukraine and the Baltic states [12]. This presentation was not an aberration, rather another example of contemporary Russia flexing its historical muscles and attacking its neighbors, once within its sphere of influence.

Indeed Russia has a lengthy history of imperialism and thus Mr. Medvedev’s communication should not surprise. Furthermore, it should concern not only Ukraine, but all countries once within Russia’s sphere of influence and apparently very much within its purview today. Additionally, given the experiences of modern history and relations between the West and Moscow in the past, Mr. Medvedev’s assertions should alarm the West.

 

If the West is intent on defending democracy and protecting the world from the second largest nuclear arsenal controlled by what is becoming a rogue regime, then the West must be vigilant.

 

Aside from rhetoric, over the last few years Russia has:

 

     [a]  manifested a disregard for democracy within its borders [13],

     [b] displayed arrogance in the face of international opprobrium [14],

     [c] refused to investigate seriously murders within its borders [15] or

     [d] cooperate in solving killings involving Russia abroad [16],

     [e] directed aggression against its own ethnic minorities [17] and

     [f] violated the sovereignty of its neighbors. [18]
 
Taking a cue from Ilya Rogachev, let us consider the lessons of World War II, indeed. The war was precipitated by Berlin and Moscow via the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact concluded in Moscow on August 23, 1939, euphemistically referred to as the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact which, in essence, conveniently enabled each side to invade territory which each had long desired [19]. This collaborative effort from the Soviet side, in essence, made the USSR the single most significant Nazi collaborator in history.

 

The particulars for this conspiracy to perpetrate a crime appeared in the Secret Additional Protocol, not published at the time the Pact was announced, which carved up Eastern Europe with specificity[20] and, in retrospect, outlines what transpired subsequently.

 

A further document which should be considered in assessing contemporary Russia’s rhetoric and action in view of historical precedent, is the notorious Yalta Agreement concluded by the apparent victors of World War II in February 1945 - Winston S. Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and J. Stalin.

 

The Agreement addressed the imminent defeat of Germany, its occupation and control, reparations by Germany, the convening of a United Nations’ conference, terms of reference for micromanaging by the three parties’ foreign secretaries, some rhetoric on unity of action in peace as in war and most importantly the fate of “liberated” Europe, in particular Poland and Yugoslavia and the other countries.

 

The result was that Stalin assumed control over Eastern Europe with power to set up internal conditions, establish governments and oversee elections albeit with input from the US and the UK which subsequently proved minimal [21] and resulted in the “cold war.”

 

Following Yalta, Winston Churchill wrote how poor Neville Chamberlain had been duped by Hitler, but that he (Churchill) could trust Stalin. However, the sad realty was that even if appeasement was not in the minds of Churchill and Roosevelt, appeasement was the result. Soviet secret archives as well as the accounts of Soviet agents have determined that Winston Churchill came to Yalta in a disadvantageous position.

 

The Cambridge Five had provided sufficient information on British thinking well in advance. President Roosevelt was even more vulnerable since he was in failing health (he died two months later).

 

Furthermore, the US delegation to Yalta included one Alger Hiss, later proven to have been working for Soviet military intelligence within the US State Department since 1935. Additionally the venue was arranged so that there was no British or American intelligence to speak of.

 

Stalin knew what points Churchill and Roosevelt would negotiate and graciously conceded on irrelevant issues, i.e. allowing some democratic individuals into the puppet Polish provisional government since he could ensure their subsequent removal.[22] Churchill and Roosevelt proved to be Yalta’s “useful idiots.”

 

Contemporary Russian aggression is not limited to rhetoric. For this reason, Medvedev’s letter to Yuschenko should be viewed as a harbinger of further saber rattling and even active aggression.  Last year’s Russian invasion of Georgia sent a chill throughout the neighborhood which was felt in the West. The cease fire did little to alleviate the tension.  Russian troops remain very much in Georgia despite Russia’s agreement to vacate as part of a cease fire.[23]

 

Is the West prepared to respond to Russian aggression? To the contrary, some members of Congress have referred to the post-Soviet world situation as “an international disaster.” 

 

Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has urged that U.S. policy “be directed toward supporting Prime Minister Putin's dream of eventually restoring Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe. A strong Soviet Union provided a counterbalancing force to offset U.S. imperialism,” Schumer has contended. As a start, Schumer has insisted that all U.S. weapons and personnel be withdrawn from Europe:

 

          U.S. forces are inhibiting an organic resolution of intra-European relations...The Russians feel powerless and humiliated. The gains they won from

          defeating Hitler have been frittered away by weak leaders and American pressure. A withdrawal of our pressure would give Russia the confidence it

          needs to reassert itself in Eastern Europe—thereby, restoring the region to the status agreed upon at the historic Yalta Conference in 1945. [24]

On the other hand President Barack Obama gently rebuked Russia for its lack of respect for the sovereignty of its neighbors during his July visit there:

          State sovereignty must be the cornerstone of international order.  Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the

          right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies.  Any system that cedes those rights will lead to anarchy.  That is why this principle

          must apply to all nations, including Ukraine. [25]

 

Vice President Joseph Biden went further to provide assurances to Ukraine[26] and subsequently to Georgia, underlining US support for their sovereignty and NATO membership during his visit to both countries two weeks later:

          As we reset the relationship with Russia, we reaffirm our commitment to an independent Ukraine. And we recognize no sphere of influence, or no

          ability of any other nation to veto the choices an independent nation makes as to with whom and under what conditions they will associate.  We also

          do not believe in zero-sum thinking.  We do not believe that a partnership with one nation must come at the expense of another.  It has not.  It does not,

          and it will not…We reject the notion of spheres of influence as 19th century ideas that have no place in the 21st century.  And we stand by the

          principle that sovereign states have a right to make their own decisions, to chart their own foreign policy, to choose their own alliances. President

          Obama, in his speech in Moscow two weeks ago, strongly affirmed this principle…We also re-affirmed the security assurances that the United States,

          Russia and the United Kingdom provided Ukraine in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum…Ukraine has also been a leader in what President Obama and I

          believe is our greatest security challenge -- the greatest security challenge that is facing the world -- and that is reducing the world’s arsenal of

          nuclear weapons, renewing the non-proliferation system, and securing vulnerable nuclear fissile material…The United States also supports Ukraine’s

          deepening ties to NATO and to the European Union….

 

Russia’s Interfax reported recently that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has introduced a bill in the Russian parliament that would allow the country's armed forces to intervene beyond Russia's borders. The bill would allow Russian troops to be used abroad "to rebuff or prevent an aggression against another state" or "protect Russian citizens abroad".

 

Mr Medvedev said the bill was linked to last year's war with Georgia over South Ossetia. Moscow said it was protecting Russian citizens in South Ossetia.[27] The bill will be debated by the Russian “Duma” in September before passage. However, given the standard of democracy in Russia and the composition of the “Duma”, there is little doubt about the outcome.

 

The question is not whether Russia will act on its rhetoric, rather how forcefully and expeditiously. What will be the reaction of the West? Senator Schumer and the like in Congress may not be Alger Hiss, but, “useful idiots” nonetheless. Are President Obama and Vice President Biden committed to democracy and freedom? What about our allies? Will principle prevail over historical appeasement?

 

Dmitry Medvedev may not be Josef Stalin, but he, certainly, has set off an alarm. His comments may be mendacious to the point of absurdity, annoying and intrusive, still Ukraine, its democratic neighbors and the West dare not dismiss them as raving. We have to be concerned. 

 

NOTE:  Askold S. Lozynskyj is past president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) and past president of the Ukrainian World Congress.  He is an attorney in New York City. 

 

FOOTNOTES:
[1] Official website of the President of the Russian Federation    
[2] Ukraine’s presidential election is scheduled for January 17, 2010
[3] Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Russia and Ukraine signed by President Boris Yeltsin and President Leonid Kuchma in 1997 automatically renewed by its terms for an additional 10 years on October 1, 2008.
[4] In his response President Yuschenko acknowledged the lawful sale of arms by Ukraine to Georgia, pointing out that Georgian arm sales are not precluded by any international sanctions or embargoes (UN, OSCE, EU or others) and that Russia’s attempt to have the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe do so, were denied.
[5] Twenty year lease for Russian fleet in Sevastopil, Crimea expires on May 28, 2017. Article 17 of the Constitution of Ukraine does not allow foreign military bases on Ukrainian territory.
[6] In January 2006 Russia cut off the flow of gas to Europe via Ukrainian pipelines citing a price dispute for supply and transit. Similarly Russia cut off or reduced service to Ukraine in March 2008 and January 2009 resulting in reductions in Europe. At all times Russia controls the flow to Ukraine.
[7] In 1654 the Ukrainian Cossack leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky signed an agreement with Russia assuring Ukrainian autonomy within the protection of the Russian czar. The Russians invaded, systematically took apart the Ukrainian Cossack army and annexed eastern Ukraine to the Russian Empire. In 1939 following Molotov-Ribbentrop the Soviets invaded Western Ukraine and annexed it to the USSR
[8] The demise of the USSR and the opening of archives have shed light on this matter by revealing the results of the previously suppressed 1937 census. According to the 1937 census, the number of Ukrainians within the USSR in 1937 was 26.4 million almost 5 million less that in 1926, the prior census, a decrease of 16%. The normal growth rate of non-Ukrainians in the USSR from 1926 to 1937 was at a 17% increase. Ukrainians should have numbered 36.5 million in 1937. The conclusion is that between 1926 and 1937, the Ukrainian population within the entire USSR declined by 10.1 million. In assessing the number of actual victims an allowance should be made for children never born to the victims. During that same period the Russian population in the USSR increased by 23%.
[9]President Yuschenko has honored heroes of Ukraine who struggled against the Russian Czarist empire and those who fought against both the Nazis and the Soviets during World War II.  No one honored has been mentioned, let alone made the object of the Nuremberg proceedings or any other war crime investigation.
[10] There are more than 2000 strictly Russian language schools and almost an additional 2000 bi-lingual Ukrainian and Russian schools all funded by the Ukrainian government. The Russian government funds no Ukrainian language schools.
[11]  There are 7500 churches in Ukraine belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate. There are no Ukrainian church structures in Russia.
[12] The conference was organized by the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations to celebrate the Soviet victory in World War II.
[13] During the Russian “Duma” elections in December 2007, the presidential party “United Russia” received 70 %, the Communists 13% and all other parties 17%. In the Presidential election of March 2008 Dmitry Medvedev, President Putin’s chosen successor received 70 %, the Communist Zyuganov 18% and Vladimir Zhirinovsky 9%. All others remotely democratic candidates garnered less than 3% combined.
[14] In response to OSCE criticism that Russia had precluded the OSCE from sending an appropriate number of international observers for Russia’s presidential election, at a press conference President Putin stated: “Do not teach us democracy. Teach your wives how to make cabbage soup.”
[15] Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist-critic of President Putin, shot in a Moscow elevator on October 7, 2006 and numerous others.
[16] Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB agent who defected, who died in London allegedly as a result of poisoning by a Russian agent on November 23, 2006..
[17] The most flagrant case is Chechnya. Ingushetia and Tatarstan may be next.
[18] The most flagrant is Russia’s invasion of Georgia in August 2008. Additionally, Russia has made informally through surrogates and continues to make claims to the Ukrainian Crimea peninsula. Previously, Russia made claim to the Ukrainian Tusla peninsula, but then withdrew.
[19] The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement: Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers. Article II. Should one of the High Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third Power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support to this third Power. Article III. The Governments of the two High Contracting Parties shall in the future maintain continual contact with one another for the purpose of consultation in order to exchange information on problems affecting their common interests. Article IV. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties neither shall participate in any grouping of Powers whatsoever that is directly or indirectly aimed at the other party. Article V. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties over problems of one kind or another, both parties shall settle these disputes or conflicts exclusively through friendly exchange of opinion or, if necessary, through the establishment of arbitration commissions. Article VI. The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years, with the proviso that, in so far as one of the High Contracting Parties does not advance it one year prior to the expiration of this period, the validity of this Treaty shall automatically be extended for another five years. Article VII. The present treaty shall be ratified within the shortest possible time. The ratifications shall be exchanged in Berlin. The Agreement shall enter into force as soon as it is possible.
[20] Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party. Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San. The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments. In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement. Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas. Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret. 
[21] Declaration on Liberated Europe .The Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and the President of the United States of America have consulted with each other in the common interests of the peoples of their countries and those of liberated Europe. They jointly declare their mutual agreement to concert during the temporary period of instability in liberated Europe the policies of their three Governments in assisting the peoples liberated from the domination of Nazi Germany and the peoples of the former Axis satellite states of Europe to solve by democratic means their pressing political and economic problems.  The establishment of order in Europe and the rebuilding of national economic life must be achieved by processes which will enable the liberated peoples to destroy the last vestiges of Nazism and Fascism and to create democratic institutions of their own choice. This is a principle of the Atlantic Charter -- the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live -- the restoration of sovereign rights and self-government to those peoples who have been forcibly deprived of them by the aggressor Nations. To foster the conditions in which the liberated peoples may exercise these rights, the three Governments will jointly assist the people in any European liberated state or former Axis satellite state in Europe where in their judgment conditions require (a) to establish conditions of internal peace; (b) to carry out emergency measures for the relief of distressed peoples; (c) to form interim governmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the population and pledged to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of governments responsive to the will of the people; and (d) to facilitate where necessary the holding of such elections. The three Governments will consult the other United Nations and provisional authorities or other Governments in Europe when matters of direct interest to them are under consideration. When, in the opinion of the three Governments, conditions in any European liberated state or any former Axis satellite state in Europe make such action necessary, they will immediately consult together on the measures necessary to discharge the joint responsibilities set forth in this declaration. By this declaration we reaffirm our faith in the principles of the Atlantic Charter, our pledge in the declaration by the United Nations, and our determination to build in cooperation with other peace-loving Nations world order under law, dedicated to peace, security, freedom, and general well-being of all mankind. In issuing this declaration, the three powers express the hope that the Provisional Government of the French Republic may be associated with them in the procedure suggested. Poland A new situation has been created in Poland as a result of her complete liberation by the Red Army. This calls for the establishment of a Polish provisional government which can be more broadly based than was possible before the recent liberation of western Poland. The provisional government which is now functioning in Poland should therefore be reorganized on a broader democratic basis with the inclusion of democratic leaders from Poland itself and from Poles abroad. This new government should then be called the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity. M. Molotov, Mr. Harriman, and Sir A. Clark Kerr are authorized as a commission to consult in the first instance in Moscow with members of the present provisional government and with other Polish democratic leaders from within Poland and from abroad, with a view to the reorganization of the present government along the above lines. This Polish Provisional Government of National Unity shall be pledged to the holding of free and unfettered elections as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and secret ballot. In these elections all democratic anti-Nazi parties shall have the right to take part and to put forward candidates. When a Polish Provisional Government of National Unity has been properly formed in conformity with the above, the Government of the U.S.S.R., which now maintains diplomatic relations with the present provisional government of Poland, and the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the U.S.A. will establish diplomatic relations with the new Polish Provisional Government of National Unity, and will exchange ambassadors by whose reports the respective Governments will be kept informed about the situation in Poland. The three heads of government consider that the eastern frontier of Poland should follow the Curzon line with digressions from it in some regions of five to eight kilometers in favor of Poland. They recognized that Poland must receive substantial accessions of territory in the North and West. They feel that the opinion of the new Polish Provisional Government of National Unity should be sought in due course on the extent of these accessions and that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should thereafter await the peace conference. Yugoslavia We have agreed to recommend to Marshal Tito and Dr. Subasic that the agreement between them should be put into effect immediately, and that a new government should be formed on the basis of that agreement. We also recommend that as soon as the new government has been formed it should declare that:  1. The anti-Fascist Assembly of National Liberation (Avnoj) should be extended to include members of the last Yugoslav Parliament (Skupschina) who have not compromised themselves by collaboration with the enemy, thus forming a body to be known as a temporary Parliament; and, 2. Legislative acts passed by the anti-Fascist Assembly of National Liberation will be subject to subsequent ratification by a constituent assembly.
[22] Andrew, Christopher and Mitrokhin, Vasili, “The Sword and the Shield, The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB”, Basic Books, 1999 
[23] The New York Times, April 2, 2009 “Russia Keeps Troops in Georgia, Defying Deal”: Nearly eight months after the war between Russia and Georgia, Russian troops continue to hold Georgian territory that the Kremlin agreed to vacate as part of a formal cease-fire, leaving a basic condition of that agreement unfulfilled...Observers and diplomats say Russia has also used attack helicopters and stationed tanks in areas where none existed before the war. The sustained Russian military presence on land captured last summer — evident during two recent days spent in the area by two reporters — provides a backdrop of lingering disagreement between the West and Russia at a crucial time: The Obama administration is pledging to recalibrate the relationship with Russia, restore cooperation in other areas and explore a new treaty on nuclear arms. It also underscores the strength of Russia’s military position in the southern Caucasus and its enduring confidence in undermining President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia and standing up to the West, even as Mr. Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia have signaled an intention to improve relations. Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev met on Wednesday, and exchanged warm remarks and pledges to cooperate, raising questions in Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital, about whether the United States would push to have the cease-fire plan fully honored. Under the conditions of the cease-fire, the armed forces of all sides were to return to the positions they held before the war, which erupted Aug. 7. The agreement required a cessation of fighting, corridors for aid delivery and no use of force. It also granted Russia a loosely defined permission to take further security measures while waiting for international monitors. In the weeks after open hostilities ended, Russia did withdraw many armored and infantry units to prewar boundaries, including units posted along Georgia’s main highway and or near Georgia’s military bases. The withdrawal eventually allowed many displaced Georgian civilians to return to villages that had been behind the Russian positions. But even though European monitors have long been on the ground, Russia still holds large areas that had irrefutably been under Georgian control, and thousands of Georgians have not been allowed free access to homes far from the disputed territory where the war began. Several areas under Russian control are at odds with the terms of the cease-fire plan. The most obvious examples are in the Kodori Gorge and the agricultural valley outside the town of Akhalgori — two large parcels of land dotted with Georgian villages that were partly deserted over the winter. No Russian forces were in either place before last August. Russian armor remains in defensive positions on the road to Akhalgori, blocking access to the valley beyond. The checkpoint is jointly administered by Russia and South Ossetia, and the senior official present during a visit last week by two The New York Times journalists identified himself as a Russian Army major.Russia also holds a fortified position and checkpoint at Perevi, and an observation post near the village of Orkhosani that overlooks Georgia’s highway. Further, in recent months, Russia has conducted military patrols on territory it did not hold, landing helicopter-borne units just behind the boundary, according to the European Union Monitoring Mission, which was established after the war. The Russian military also conducts aviation patrols just inside the line with helicopter gunships, the monitoring mission said, and has built a military highway through the mountains linking the Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, with Akhalgori. The Russian government declined multiple requests to explain the composition and roles of its forces. Gilles Janvier, deputy head of the European monitoring mission, said in an interview that Russia had told diplomats that it had entered its own military agreement with the two breakaway regions in Georgia, which the Kremlin recognizes as independent states, and that these newer arrangements rendered the troop withdrawal component of the cease-fire plan obsolete. “They say there is now a new bilateral agreement between them and South Ossetian and Abkhaz forces that lets them station troops,” Mr. Janvier said. The posture has frustrated diplomats and the Georgian government alike. A senior American official said that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton raised the subject in her meeting in early March with Sergey V. Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, to no apparent effect.
[24] Schumer, Charles, “Russia Can Be Part of the Answer on Iran”, The Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2008 24 Moscow, July 7, 2009 at the New Economic School graduation in Gostiny Dvor. 
[25] Moscow, July 7, 2009 at the New Economic School graduation in Gostiny Dvor. 
[26] Kyiv, Ukraine, July 22, 2009 Ukraine House.
[27] Sochi, Russia, August 10, 2009, meeting with Russia’s largest political parties, reported by various news services.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC): http://www.usubc.org

 

By Dmitry Solovyov, Reuters, Moscow, Russia, Thu, August 27, 2009

 

MOSCOW - Russia accused Kiev of attempting to seize property belonging to its Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine on Thursday, in a sign of escalating tension between the two ex-Soviet neighbors.

Russia's Black Sea Fleet said it had barred Ukrainian court bailiffs as they tried to seize navigation equipment at a lighthouse in Khersones, on the outskirts of the Ukrainian Crimean port city of Sevastopol -- home to the Russian fleet for more than two centuries.

Russian television showed fleet servicemen in full combat gear with submachine guns at the ready forming a chain to guard the territory of the lighthouse. Bailiffs were shown being handed over to Ukraine's police by the Russians.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia's Black Sea fleet found itself based on territory belonging to independent Ukraine. Kiev has told Moscow it must abandon the base at Sevastopol when a 20-year lease expires in 2017, but Russia wants to extend the arrangement.

Thursday's incident highlighted the emotional nature of the Sevastopol dispute, part of broader tensions between the two countries that have led to interruption of gas supplies to Europe and harsh exchanges between their leaders.

"The command of the Black Sea Fleet warns that the responsibility for possible tragic consequences of such incidents will rest entirely with those organizing such provocations," the fleet said in a statement posted on the Russian Defense Ministry's Web site www.mil.ru.

It said only Russian laws were valid on the territory of Russian Black Sea Fleet facilities, despite it being in Ukraine.

Ukraine accused its neighbor of "twisting the facts," Interfax news agency reported, citing a source in Ukraine's Foreign Ministry.

BROTHERLY LOVE
"The incident...(reflects a wish) to blame the Ukrainian side for the escalation of conflict," the agency quoted him as saying. It gave no details of Ukraine's version of events.

Ukrainian officials could not be immediately reached for comment. Officials in Kiev had said earlier that despite the fact some facilities like lighthouses are under Russia's jurisdiction, Ukraine may claim its rights to them because they are deployed on lands that do not belong to Russia's military.

The issue of Sevastopol and Russia's Black Sea Fleet deployed there is a painful irritant in the icy relations between former imperial master Moscow and Kiev which has been seeking closer ties with the West and NATO membership.

In 1954 Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave Russia's Crimean peninsula to Ukraine in a gesture of "brotherly love." The act had little beyond symbolic importance at the time as Russia and Ukraine formed part of the Soviet Union under Kremlin control.

Ukrainian refusal to accept any extension has angered Moscow and pro-Russian locals who see Sevastopol as the natural home of the Russian fleet.
(Reporting by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Ralph Boulton)

 

LINK:  http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE57Q3O220090827

 

Analysis & Commentary: By Halya Coynash, Kharkiv Human Right Protection Group (KHRPG)

Kharkiv, Ukraine, Monday, August 31, 2009

The seventieth anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 should be primarily a time of remembrance. Perhaps in some Western European countries it is.  Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States, are, however, finding themselves increasingly under an “information war” attack from the present regime in Russia.

 

This anniversary should also be a time of reflection, most especially on terrible and treacherous mistakes made including both the 1938 Munich Agreement and the 1939 non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

 

With Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel arriving the day before the ceremonies of remembrance on 1 September, presumably for friendly talks and the increasingly aggressive tone taken by both Russian leaders about Ukraine, Poland and the “correct view of history”, reflection on those past mistakes seems urgently needed.

On 30 August in an interview to the TV Channel “Rossiya”, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev claimed that the Parliamentary Assembly of the countries of Europe had said that Nazi Germany and the USSR bore equal responsibility for the Second World War. He stated that this was a “cynical lie”.

 

It is, but it was never made by either the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe or by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Both these assemblies have called for 23 August to be marked as a “Europe-wide Remembrance Day for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes”.

 

The OSCE Resolution states that “in the 20th century, European countries experienced two major totalitarian regimes, the Nazi and the Stalinist, which brought along genocide, violations of human rights and freedoms, war crimes and crimes against humanity;” It was certainly something of a statement to choose the day the Molotov – Ribbentrop Pact was signed as Remembrance Day, yet there remains no assertion that they were both equally responsible.

False allegations become no less false for being repeated, however if you can assume that nobody will ask uncomfortable questions, then repetition has its uses. On Russian television those assumptions have long been possible, and judging by other ominous remarks made by Medvedev in the interview, the aim is to ensure that children never even think to ask awkward questions.

 

NO MORE "MUDDLED HEADS"? 
Following Vladimir Putin’s lead, President Medvedev also addressed the issue of school history textbooks.  Saying that they had been written by different people with different capabilities and ideas, he concluded “this is bad since schoolchildren end up with their heads full of nonsense”.

 

He considers that order needs to be established “so that absolutely obvious things are interpreted in the same way in these textbooks. You can’t call black white. You can’t name, for instance, somebody defending themselves an aggressor”. http://www.rian.ru/edu_news/20090830/

 

Presumably the people appointed by Medvedev in May to his new “Commission for Countering Historical Distortions which harm Russia’s Interests” were deemed to understand what is obvious. One of the members of the Commission, Natalya Narochnitskaya, has been extraordinarily active of late presenting a somewhat specific view of historical events. It has many features in common with Soviet historiography and cannot therefore be considered original, however non-standard it most definitely is.

 

Before quoting particular statements, it is worth noting that Ms Narochnitskaya echoes key points made in the "Concept plan for contemporary Russian history in the first half of the twentieth century", a guide for Russian history teachers.

 

This 2008 work, and another such guide in 2007, reflects a clear move in Russia towards whitewashing Stalin, minimizing information about repressions, and trying to justify such clear crimes as the Katyń massacre (http://www.unian.net/ukr/news/news-276590.html)  This move was hailed as “positive” by President Putin in June 2007.

 

The extracts here are from an interview (in Russian) at: http://kp.ru/daily/24350.3/538016/print/. In places the questions are also cited, since in my view they give some indication of the purpose of this text. A previous interview by the same warrior against historical distortion was published on the effectively government controlled “Rossiya” TV channel http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=311615 on 23 August.

 

Molotov and Ribbentrop also signed for their respective governments a secret protocol which divided Eastern Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres of influence. It was on the basis of that agreement that the Nazis invaded Poland on 1 September 1939 and the Soviet Union occupied its “agreed share” on 17 September (and then the Baltic States in 1940) 

 

          "(Interviewer) But still, why is it specifically Poland that seems like the victim of the War, particularly of the deal between Hitler and Stalin?

 

          "Natalya Narochnytskaya [NN] Poland presents itself as an absolutely innocent victim. Supposedly if it hadn’t been for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Hitler wouldn’t have invaded Poland. Yet there are documents showing that on 1 March 1939 the date of the invasion of Poland had been fixed. And do you know what the Poles were doing during those six months? The Russophobe Minister of Foreign Affairs Jozef Beck was negotiating with Hitler to become his ally, offering assistance in invading Ukraine so that Poland could extend from sea to sea.'

          “As a result of the Second World War we gave the Poles a third of their present territory. So they could behave in a more restrained manner and not slander us”.
 

Who does she mean by “us” and who is slandering them? There is a clear and thoroughly distressing assumption that the Soviet Union under Stalin and Russia are one and the same, and that any criticism of the Pact is somehow “anti-Russian”.

 

          “In the middle of the 1970s the strategy of the West towards our country changed and there was a determined shift in the treatment of the Second World War. They began saying that Hitler’s main crime lay not in claims to territory and peoples, and not even in the race doctrine, but in the absence of American democracy, and since we also didn’t have Western democracy we were just as awful.”

 

          “The Munich Deal of 1938, signed by Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler and Mussolini, the division of Czechoslovakia is a disgrace for the West.   (Quite correct, however her bellowing is only for local consumption. Nobody in other countries is disputing that this was an act of betrayal - HC)

 

          "Later Hitler swiftly extended his success, and western states wanted to appease him only at the expense of the East. And literally on the eve of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the British were holding secret negotiations with Hitler and Goerring was supposed to fly to London to sign a separate agreement with Germany.

 

          "The diplomatic struggle of the last pre-war year revolved around the question of who Hitler would invade first. It was clear to everybody that war was inevitable and would be on two fronts. Everything had the smell of war. And we fruitlessly tried to reach a comprehensive agreement with the West against Hitler, understanding that we were being led by the nose, and at the last moment outwitted the West in that game!

 

          "Even former American Secretary of State Kissinger admits that the “measure of Stalin’s achievement can be deemed to have been a change in the timetable of the war, and of Hitler’s priorities”.  [I have omitted only one sentence regarding Kissinger’s view on the Machiavellian nature of the trick. No details about the allegations made are provided].

 

          “[Interviewer] If the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had not been signed, how would events have developed?

 

          "Hitler would have invaded us first and we were not at all ready for war. 

 

[Ms Narochnitskaya clearly considers it simply too “obvious” to explain how exactly Hitler could have done this. Presumably we are meant to assume that the invasion would have been with the full support of Poland whose territory is, after all, somewhat in the middle].

 

          “All the European part, all of Ukraine and Byelorussia would have been wrenched away from us, i.e. we would have had what happened in 1991, only with the total destruction of the state. And that would have been the end of our history. As for the territory which our forces went into after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, let’s look at what was Western Ukraine, which Warsaw calls “Eastern Poland”.

 

          "That was territory of the Russian Empire occupied by Josef Pilsudsky’s Poland during the Civil War. Except for a piece of Bukovyna which before the First World War was not Russian. Why is the carving up of Ukraine and Byelorussia by Pilsudsky not considered a crime, while the return of these territories to the historical borders of the Russian state, albeit of the communist regime, branded as a crime?

      

        “England wanted to turn Hitler to the East in order to make itself safe in the West. Not to mention its permanent desire to deprive us of the Baltic

Coast. 

          "Britain’s dream from the time of Peter the Great was to topple us from our position [as a great state]. Therefore the West was so delighted when the Soviet Union collapsed. Finally the hated Russian empire had collapsed. After all, the price paid by Gorbachev for totalitarianism was 300 years of Russian history.”

She says that the original classifying of “Trophy” Archives for 60 years has been extended for several decades.

 

          “It’s quite possible that material will be found there which undermines many accepted clichés and labels. For example, there might be material on secret negotiations between Hitler, the USA and Britain. Anything who can think of! And maybe they’ll show that they were all up to their ears. It’s no accident that there’s unanimity between the rivals – the USA and our country - that we have to hold fire”.

          “[Interviewer] Natalya Alexeevna, why do we so seldom recall the death of hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers in Polish captivity in the 1920s?

          "It’s completely unfair when they keep throwing Katyń at us, which Yeltsin apologized for by the way. Not to mention that the issue of Katyń has not

been studied fully. There were undoubtedly NKVD crimes, however the Nazi crime also left its trace.

 

          "And for some reason nobody blames Poland over the fact that in 1920 on the territory occupied by Pilsudsky around 100 thousand Red Army soldiers

ended up prisoners of war on the territory occupied by Pilsudsky. And those prisoners of war were simply starved to death. They were deliberately not given food and watched as they died. …

 

          "[Interviewer] That was in essence the prototype for the Nazi concentration camps?

 

          "Yes, yes. Poles don’t want to remember that, yet they constantly demand apologies from us. Well, apologize for the invasion of Moscow in 1612….

And what did you get up to on Ukrainian and Byelorussian territory after the First World War?

 

          "There, incidentally, the ancestors of present-day Ukrainian radical nationalists excelled. During the years of the Great Patriotic War SS men were

stunned by the atrocities of the Uniates – those same Bandera-people whom Yushchenko now glorifies. “

 

If the reader is not familiar with any of the “historical information” provided here, I would earnestly recommend that they look it up. There is, after all, plenty of material freely available. If, on the other hand, it all seems so crass and primitive as to be laughable, then I would respectfully suggest that this is anything but the case.

 

Children and teenagers will be growing up hearing nothing else, with school textbooks, the media and, of course, politicians bellowing about historical distortions while feeding an unknowing audience on an extremely specific diet of information and interpretation. . They will simply not know to ask questions. 

 

LINK: http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1251712730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================

===========================================================
 TO BE ON OR OFF THE FREE AUR DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read the ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR, several times a month, please send your name, country of residence, and e-mail contact information to [email protected]. Information about your occupation and your interest in Ukraine is also appreciated.

 

========================================================
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR - AUR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer, The Bleyzer Foundation

Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group;

President, U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC)

1701 K Street, NW, Suite 903, Washington, D.C. 20006

Tel: 202 437 4707; Fax 202 223 1224

[email protected]; www.SigmaBleyzer.com

[email protected]; www.usubc.org

 

Power Corrupts & Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.