Fwd: [a-list] Russian Communist Party on the roots of Ukraine Crisis
閲覧: 3 回
最初の未読メッセージにスキップ
Charles Brown
2014/09/08 11:13:152014/09/08
To: marxist-debate、pen-l、lbo-talk、john rummel
CP of the Russian Federation, The Crisis in Ukraine and its deep roots
[En, Ru, Es]
Monday, 08 September 2014 09:05 Communist Party of the Russian Federation
The Crisis in Ukraine and its deep roots [En, Ru, Es]
Gennady Zyuganov, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of the Russian Federation (CPRF)
Today, war is raging in the vast territories of the Lugansk and Donetsk
people's republics. For the first time since Ukraine's liberation from the
Nazis 70 years ago, civilian towns and villages are shelled and bombed.
The dead and wounded number thousands and the refugees tens of thousands.
Entire residential neighbourhoods, orphanages and schools, outpatient
clinics and hospitals, power generation and water supply facilities have
been destroyed. A number of cities, where hundreds of thousands of people
live, are being strangled by the blockade.
The Banderaists at power, their patrons in the West and yes-men in the
Russian liberal camp openly hush up the war crimes that are being
committed in Novorossiya / New Russia. This is because the ongoing
destruction of towns and villages is in direct violation of international
norms and customs of war. The 1949 Geneva Conventions specifically
prohibit the use of artillery and combat aircraft against undefended
populated areas. Meanwhile, the junta that seized power in a coup in Kiev
is pursuing a most vile and cowardly strategy for its death squads are
invariable losers in direct combat with the Self-Defence Forces of
Novorossiya/New Russia.
Forces and private armies of the oligarchs are deliberately destroying the
civilian population. This is ethnic cleansing. The Russian-speaking
population is being squeezed out of their historic homeland. That is a
grave crime against humanity.
The historical roots of recent developments
Russia's attention to the Ukrainian developments and the anguish that we
feel in connection with the war blazing there are natural. Ukraine is not
just a part of the Slavic world. The Ukrainian land and its people are
integral part of the Russian consciousness, of Russian history. The thing
at point is the deepest spiritual and cultural bond between our peoples,
their historical inalienability from each other. When attempts are made to
set us at loggerheads for the sake of the interests of the West, it is
like cutting us to the quick, causing a deep wound both to Russian society
and to all the citizens of Ukraine, including those who are befuddled by
anti-Russian propaganda. For it is only in alliance with Russia that
Ukraine can reach the heights of prosperity which many people in Ukraine
have considered possible only in alliance with Europe. An alliance that
has eternally brought about trouble.
It has always been so. Both in the 12th through the 14th centuries when
the Chermnaya (Red) Rus’ nestled around Lvov was severed from the historic
core of Russia and was torn to pieces by her western neighbours and in
the16th and the 17th centuries, when the Polish gentry sought to wipe out
by fire and sword from the Ukrainian soil the very spirit of freedom and
Orthodox Christianity along with the memory of the great all-Russia unity.
It also happened in the 18th century, when a handful of traitors gathered
around Mazepa (to whom Peter the Great seriously intended to award a
two-stone “Medal of Judah” to wear on his neck as a sort of reward for
betrayal). At the beginning of the 20th century, during the Civil War, the
local samostiitsy (Ukrainian separatists) relied on German bayonets. All
this turned the Ukrainian land into a scene of gory battles. The rescue
came solely with Russia’s help.
The current terrific developments have borne out V.I. Lenin's statement
that a free Ukraine was only possible if Great Russia’s and Ukraine’s
proletarians joined in action and it was out of the question without such
unity. It is appropriate to recall here that all of the major high-tech
industries in Ukraine, not only in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, but
also in the Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhe, and other regions, were
built in the Soviet era at the expense of the Union budget, of which 70%
came from Russia, i.e. from Russian people.
So a fraternal alliance with the Ukrainian people at the time of terrible
trials is our common cause and our common duty.
It might seem that a civil war broke out in Ukraine overnight. Six months
ago, the country was one of the many states experiencing difficult
economic and social problems but preserving its political stability. The
people’s discontent was accumulating. However, there were no signs of
heavy shocks coming. It would, however, be ill-advised to assume that a
social explosion occurred all of a sudden, like a bolt from the blue.
The Russian leadership, admittedly, responded to this threat quite
adequately by bringing the Crimea back into Russia in time for the 70th
anniversary of the liberation of the peninsula from the Nazis and
preventing, in fact, an outbreak of a major war.
To better understand the origins of the tragedy of Ukraine, it is
necessary to see the historical roots in their development, to understand
the mechanisms of the severe crisis originating in the brotherly country.
It is necessary to see the recent external symptoms of a bloody
fratricidal war surfacing in Ukraine, as well as the deeper historical,
economic, class, ethnic, cultural, religious and other prerequisites of
these developments. Only an integrated analysis will enable correct
identification of the driving forces in the crisis in Ukraine, prediction
of the further course of events and elaboration of strategies and tactics
for the resolution of this dire conflict.
For us Communists, what is happening in the sister republic is not of a
mere theoretical interest. We are not political scientists, who
impassively watch any developments. We have an obligation to draw lessons
from the most severe social confrontation into which the neighbouring
country has plunged. It is therefore necessary to analyze the events in
Ukraine, bearing in mind that similar events could also be repeated in one
form or another in Russia.
Of course, our attention and sympathy focus primarily on Novorossiya that
is emerging in the struggle. However, it is equally important to
understand the sources and driving forces of the opposing side - the
resurgent Neo-Nazism. For this purpose it is necessary to analyze the
historical origins and formation of the Bandera movement as a form of
Ukrainian ethnic nationalism in its most extreme forms. It is necessary to
understand on what ideological foundation the movement rested and in what
way nationalism coupled with Russophobia is being fuelled in Ukraine
today.
The origins of radical nationalism
It is crucial to understand that Ukraine, with the exception of the Soviet
period, never had its own statehood and no other periods in history that
were identical for the entire Ukrainian people. Over the centuries, when
European powers were emerging, Ukraine was never once an independent
state, nor a unified whole entity in the structure of other states. What
is modern-day Ukrainian territory was always divided between different
European powers. In the middle of the 17th century, as a result of a
voluntary union with Russia, its eastern half found itself under Russia's
wing, wherein a history of Malorossiya or Rus' Minor (Lesser Russia) began
to take form, while the western Ukrainian territories were under the rule
of Poland and then Austro-Hungary.
Poland's policy towards the Ukrainian population was extremely cruel,
often sadistic. Western Ukrainians, as a part of the Polish state
population, were second-class citizens. That was the key reason why a
radical Ukrainian nationalism began to emerge in western Ukraine; it was
in part similar to the ideas of racial exclusiveness, enshrined in the
"Third Reich."
The then Bandera followers did not just enter into a strategic coalition
with the German occupiers, but participated most actively in their
punitive actions, including against the native Ukrainian population. They
carried on the same practice in western Ukraine after the war upon going
underground. Not only more than 25 thousand Soviet soldiers and security
officers but also more than 30 thousand innocent Ukrainians were killed in
the battles with Bandera followers lasting until the mid-1950s. Those
clashes came at a high cost to the Banderovites, too: they lost more than
60 thousand men dead over the years.
The Bandera-style nationalism did not evolve into a national liberation
idea but into a totalitarian sect of crazed fanatics who killed primarily
native Ukrainians. Characteristics of an analogous totalitarian sect are
inherent in West Ukrainian Uniate church, which is formally in communion
with Rome. Sticking with it were the Bandera followers who did not want to
take into account the fact that the vast majority of Ukrainians embraced
Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The ideology of the Uniates (Eastern Rite
Roman Catholics) has in fact very little to do with Catholicism. It is
rather an extreme, sectarian form of Protestantism mixed with Baptism. Not
accidental are the relations to the sectarians of the key top figures in
Kiev - Baptist Turchinov and Yatseniuk who is friends with scientologists.
Every victory scored by extremist, low zoological-scale nationalists has
resulted from a deep crisis of the government, whose hostility society is
increasingly aware of and reacting radically to its ugly manifestations.
The only way for the forces at power to keep afloat is through an alliance
with the radical nationalist ideology, thanks to which the former top
heads are reportedly retaining their posts, already under new banners.
The new "elite", wholly emerging from the previous series, enjoys the use
of Banderaite instruments and of Bandera followers as "cannon fodder" in
order to once again fool the millions of people after performing a clan
castling within the power circles. As a result, the oligarchs have not
only maintained but also strengthened their positions. They will now carry
out the same or even more brutal economic policies under the Banderaite
banners with a harsh tutelage from the West and in the same "alliance with
the devil” against Moscow, that will bring no relief from Ukraine’s
troubles and problems but certainly their aggravation.
An unbiased, scientific approach guides one to a conclusion that both the
Western policy-makers and the current Kiev rulers, who are seeking to cut
the age-old ties with Russia, have shunned in every way. This conclusion
is that the people of Central and Eastern Ukraine are, in fact, connected
with Russia in a much stronger way than with West Ukraine. Any attempts to
steer Ukraine into a pro-Western, anti-Russia channel are directed not
only against Russia, but against most of the Ukrainian people. They are
inherently anti-Ukrainian, anti-national actions cloaked in nationalist
demagogy.
Objectively, everything is just so, even though not all the residents of
the central and western regions of Ukraine are yet aware of it. History of
the Bandera movement has already revealed the tragic paradox, which is now
being played out again through the fault of the new Banderovites who
seized power. While allegedly upholding the interests of the Ukrainian
people, these figures are infringing on the interests of the greater part
of Ukrainians, the interests which cannot be implemented outside of close
ties with Russia. It is what Bandera and his associates did not want to
understand and what Ukraine’s current "elite", which is under the auspices
of Washington, does not want to hear about.
The Bandera-style nationalism as an extreme manifestation of Russophobia
The Ukrainian radical nationalists’ choice in favour of the fight against
"Soviet occupation" was neither their fault, nor forced, nor a temporary
tactical move. It was natural and inevitable, and for Ukrainian
nationalists it still remains as such today. For them, the only possible
choice is in favor of an anti-Russia alliance with any, even the worst
enemy of Ukraine. Without such an unnatural union no "independent" Ukraine
is possible in isolation from Russia.
Of course, in the past there occurred political and cultural imbalances in
the actions of Russia’s central authorities in the Ukrainian territories
as parts of the Russian Empire. But the original language and cultural
closeness of our peoples, the similarity of their thinking, traditions and
customs mitigated that problem. It is impossible to describe that period
of history as occupation of Ukraine. Descriptions of that sort are rooted
in ignorance and vile speculation. It is right to speak about a
centuries-long common history of Russia, Eastern and Central Ukraine and
say that, as a result of our union, a uniform political nation was formed.
But Bandera and his followers transferred their hatred of the former
oppressors on to the Soviet regime after it began to assert itself in West
Ukraine. They did not want to see that the principles of Soviet government
had nothing to do with the colonial order imposed by Polish pans/lords.
They did not want to see that within the structure of the Soviet state
East and Central Ukraine were already receiving more de facto independence
than in the Russian Empire and the advent of the Soviet regime in the
western part of Ukraine was not a sort of new colonization but liberation
from colonization.
But why do the ideologues of Russophobia manage, even nowadays, to fool a
large part of society? The explanation lies in the fact that many
Ukrainians repeatedly see radical nationalism as a panacea for their ills,
an alternative to what oppressed and humiliated them in the past. But
their troubles and humiliation are now associated with a new reality. It
is not tantamount to the violent Polish outrage of the past centuries. Now
it is the tyranny of the oligarchs and highhandedness of gangster
capitalists.
Arising upon the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a permanent
economic and moral crisis arose in Ukraine bringing along with it cases of
deepening social injustice and inequality that became a catalyst for
radical nationalist sentiments which splashed out first in 2004 and then
at the turn from 2013 to 2014. Without these factors, no sentiments of the
kind would have found fertile soil in Ukraine, just as they lacked it
during the heyday of the Soviet country, within whose structure the
interests of the Ukrainians were being implemented to the maximum extent.
Suffice it to say that for most of the second half of the twentieth
century, the Soviet Union was led by figures that were closely linked with
Ukraine: Nikita S. Khrushchev and Leonid I. Brezhnev.
However, the Russophobes in the West, the anti-Soviet liberals in Russia
and the new Ukrainian nationalism ideologists put forth a false thesis
insisting that even though the Soviet government gave more freedom to the
Ukrainian people, it still was, in fact, an occupational force, as Ukraine
remained under the control of an empire – this time the Soviet empire.
Consequently, the struggle of Bandera and his associates against the
Soviet authorities was to them still the same struggle for liberation.
Nowadays, in trying to finally break free from the Russian influence, the
new Ukrainian nationalists allegedly follow the same principles of the
struggle for independence and are driven by a desire to consolidate
independence within the framework of a Ukraine that has achieved
statehood.
The fundamental falsity of this thesis is made clear by history and
today's developments in which history is largely repeated. The fact is
that radical nationalists have never acted as an independent national
political force. Liberation of Western Ukraine from Polish oppression was
not an achievement of theirs, but that of the Soviet government. The
struggle against it guided the Ukrainian nationalists straight to a direct
alliance with the Nazi occupiers.
But as soon as the idea of Ukrainian statehood was paired with an
orientation to the West and estrangement from Russia, that sort of
statehood turned out to be a fiction and the shaky unity begot unrest. The
reason for this is that Ukraine has had little experience of independent
statehood. Nowadays, it is simply unable to exist outside the area of
influence from more powerful states.
Meanwhile, in an anti-Russia alliance with Ukraine’s outright enemies, who
are capable of concealing their true hostile intentions only for a short
while, the Ukrainian people have no chance of true independence. "The
National Movement" in Ukraine is a path leading to no liberation but in
the opposite direction. It is an anti-nation way.
This is felt today by millions of Ukrainians, many of whom have risen up
in arms against the new Bandera-style nationalism. Their struggle is a
genuine national resistance movement because they said a resounding "no"
to the intent to break the age-old ties with Russia, with the Russian
people. In response they got aerial bombings and artillery shelling of
residential neighbourhoods. The Banderovites acted similarly in the
1930-1950 period against the Ukrainians who had become aware of the
destructive nature of their "nationalism". They who are moved by a truly
national idea and really care for their people cannot do that with their
compatriots.
The immediate causes of the coup in Ukraine
The watershed that split Ukraine’s contemporary history came with
President Yanukovich’s decision last autumn to give up associate
membership in the European Union and move in the direction of the Customs
Union with Russia and other countries. The decision was quite justified
from an economic point of view. The Russian negotiators with the Ukrainian
side argued for many months but failed to convince their partners in Kiev
that the drive toward the West is fraught with a complete breakdown of the
Ukrainian economy that is still closely linked with the Russian economy.
However, the ruling circles in Kiev kept sticking to a purely pro-Western
ideological course. It was only at the last moment, when the final
decision was to be determined, that the Ukrainian leadership recognized
the economic realities and announced their intention to join the Customs
Union. By that moment public opinion had, through the efforts of numerous
"social organizations" and the media outlets created by the West and under
its control, already been steered to a pro-European direction. The people
did not have reliable information about the inevitable hardest
consequences of a second-class membership in the European Union. But the
dream of "reunification with Europe" had long been befuddling the brains
of intellectuals and ordinary people who passionately and fondly hoped
that the associated membership in the E.U. would automatically take the
Ukrainians to the European level of well-being.
The decision to join the Customs Union with Russia, semi-despicable in the
eyes of "zapadenskoi"/West Ukrainian/intelligentsia, was seen by many in
Ukraine as shattering their crystal dreams. Mass irritation spilled out on
the streets of the capital, which had long fallen under the influence of
vociferous activists from West Ukraine.
However, the Maidan that flared up last November wilted gradually. By
January of this year, two or three hundred fanatics and homeless tramps
were still there in scattered groups, having found a way of self
expression and a source of free mess of pottage in the centre of the
capital. Meanwhile, any reduction in the level of opposition heat was
clearly not in the plans of those who actually ran the developments in
Ukraine. Western politicians and agents of intelligence services began to
hurl sizable amounts of combustible material into the fading fire of
public discontent and create an incendiary mix for flares of radicalism,
skilfully directed against Russia.
But it would be wrong to see the situation at a narrow angle as resulting
only from the machinations of Western politicians and intelligence
agencies. Mr. Yanukovich and his team are to take a considerable part of
the blame for the fire breaking out. Upon rising to power that "team", or
rather the family of the former president began aggressively to convert
political power into money. Greed of the "Donetskites", as they were
nicknamed by many people, had no limits. A huge number of small and large
businesses were squeezed for tributes. Business take-overs became
commonplace. So the popular discontent over the steadily worsening
economic situation merged with sharp resentment on the part of a very
active population segment - small and medium-sized businesses - in
connection with the "grabilovka” (plundering) by Yanukovich’s friends and
relatives.
Meanwhile, Mr. Yanukovich for tactical purposes diligently portrayed
himself as a supporter of rapprochement with Russia, although his real
stance was openly pro-Western. In public opinion Yanukovich was therefore,
associated with Russia. Hence the Maidan anti-Russian overtones. But do we
have the moral right to condemn the Ukrainian people for its majority
lacking the awareness of the need to revive a fraternal union with Russia?
We might have such a right, if the RF were setting an example of a welfare
state, if it had eradicated oligarchy, total corruption and the gangster
capitalism principles. That's when the Ukrainian people would have stood
up without hesitation under the same banners with Russia – the banners
that had led to salvation in the past.
The explosive mix, which led to a social explosion in Ukraine, included
several basic elements: the legitimate grievances of the bulk of the
people due to the steady deterioration of their financial positions;
resentment of small and medium-sized businesses over the raids by
Yanukovich's team; the desire of "zapadenskiye" (Western Ukrainian)
intellectuals to ride public opinion still harder, along with the
intrigues of pro-American politicians and secret services aiming to
enhance the split between Ukraine and Russia
Meanwhile, Russia’s ruling group saw and still sees Ukraine primarily as a
territory in which a gas pipeline is laid. Therefore, the policy of the
upper RF authorities focused almost exclusively on ensuring a smooth flow
of gas to Europe. Public sentiments in Ukraine were not only a mere
subject of interest and influence for the Russian "elite", but were
completely ignored as a factor fully irrelevant against the background of
intrigues around the gas pipeline at the "top" of the authorities of the
two countries, for which the peoples of the fraternal republics
subsequently had to pay a heavy price.
The coup and its aftermath
The attempts of the Ukrainian leadership to restore basic order in the
streets of the capital, including through negotiations, met with fierce
resistance from the well-trained fighters who had been recruited in the
western regions. In mid-February, the American technology of
pseudo-popular revolutions began to be used in Kiev, including, the
seizure of power by street crowds with massive external support, tested
during the coups in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine (2004), and in Libya, as
well as during the "Arab Spring" events in a number of countries in the
Middle East and North Africa.
Simultaneously, the Ukrainian leadership became an object of outright
pressure from the West. The European Union threatened the creation of a
"black list" of officials, against whom a variety of sanctions would be
imposed. The Yanukovich clan members were thinking primarily about their
own accounts in Western banks and offshore funds. That made the Ukrainian
leadership particularly vulnerable to the West’s blackmail. The head of
state’s faintness resulted in a paralysis of the law enforcement agencies
and the betrayal of the political elite, who failed to fulfil their
constitutional obligations.
Meanwhile, representatives of the opposition, supposedly fighting for
democracy against an authoritarian regime and for a bright future for
Ukraine under the auspices of the European Union, demonstrated, in fact,
habits of their Banderaite, fascist predecessors. "Peaceful" protesters
seized government buildings and attacked police forces, pelting them with
Molotov cocktails. President Yanukovich kept shying away from decisive
action and was handing power, step by step, to the neo-Nazi elements. The
process culminated in a coup d’état. Genuine battles with the use of
firearms began on the streets of Kiev February 18. In three days the death
toll had reached 100 casualties and more than 600 were hospitalized. On
February 23, Yanukovich fled from Kiev.
The heirs of the Nazi henchman Bandera seized power and immediately
launched a campaign of suppression against their political opponents and
the Russian-speaking population. The intimidated deputies of the Verkhovna
Rada passed a decision repealing the law allowing the use of Russian as
the second state language in a number of regions of Ukraine. Pogroms
started against the premises of the Communist Party of Ukraine, and the
Communist Party was banned in some regions. Members of Parliament from the
Communist Party and the Party of Regions were physically abused along with
the policemen who remained faithful to the oath.
The Banderovites started attacks on historical memory with widespread
destruction of monuments to Lenin and Soviet soldiers who fell during the
liberation of Ukraine from Nazi occupation. By toppling monuments to
Lenin, the rioters were destroying not only the historical heritage, but
also the symbols of Ukrainian statehood, because the Decree on the
establishment of the Ukrainian Republic was signed by Lenin. That orgy of
destruction resulted in the rise of the resistance movement in the
south-east of the country and, ultimately, in the Civil War.
The Class-related nature of the conflict in Ukraine
The inherent nature of the events in Ukraine is difficult to understand
without an analysis of the alignment of its class forces. It must first of
all be noted that as a result of the 1990 - 2000 wild, destructive
privatization of the economy of Ukraine in the interests of the oligarchs
and the newly-minted deindustrialization in the interests of Western
competitors, the industrial proletariat numbers declined sharply.
Accordingly, the level of its organization was reduced. With the
destruction of collective and state farms the rural proletariat was
virtually eradicated. This changed the balance of class forces.
However, the pro-western top authorities of Ukraine failed to completely
destroy the working class, especially in the most industrialized
south-east regions. It is therefore no accident that the Bandera-style
junta received the most powerful rebuff in those regions. The industrial
proletarians of Novorossiya are well aware of the fact that the cut of
historical ties with Russia, to which products of their enterprises were
oriented, must inevitably lead to mass unemployment and poverty. Not only
the national feelings, but also the class consciousness of millions of
people in Novorossiya, though not expressed in relief, formed the basis
for resistance to oligarchic usurpation of power.
An important feature of the popular revolutionary actions in south-east
Ukraine, and earlier in Crimea, is that they were directed against the
neo-fascist usurpers of power in Kiev, who were closely related to the
global transnational capital, and against the "Donetsk" oligarchic clan,
which established their political and economic dictatorship in these
regions. Incidentally, the "early" independence Maidan (November -
December 2013) was, in this sense, not so much anti-Russia as
anti-oligarchy in character.
However, as the protest sentiments of the masses had not got the class
character, they were used in the battle of the two clans of the big-time
bourgeoisie. That clash was won by the group which had brought together
the pro-Western, nationalist and extreme right-wing forces, who benefited
from the people's discontent in the coup.
Usually the big-time capital controls countries through their hired
servants - state officials. In Russia in the 1990s, oligarchs initially
dominated the bureaucrats. Then the top government officials took
precedence, but later the higher bureaucracy and oligarchy merged.
In Ukraine, too, there was a struggle between two related class groups -
the state bureaucracy and oligarchy. And there, as in Russia, there
emerged a symbiosis of these two class groups. But after the February 2014
revolution, the oligarchs effected the subjugation of the bureaucrats.
Faced with tough resistance of the people in Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk,
Kharkov, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk and other cities, the ruling elite in Kiev
went straight to the introduction of the big-time capital dictatorship.
Oligarchs, previously hiding in the shadow of hired politicians from
various "bat’kivshchinas", "udars" and "regions" were appointed governors
of several regions. Then the direct roguish dictatorship of the oligarchy
not cloaked with any "democratic" trinkets came to reign supreme in
Ukraine.
The billionaires Poroshenko, Kolomoysky and their ilk did not only
immediately take over the governing functions, but also created their own
private armies and secret police forces engaged in kidnapping and
torturing people. Ukraine was becoming an "in war as in war" banana
republic, ruled not by law but by complete arbitrariness of a politically
temporary "president" relying on "death squads", as well as on the
political and military support from the United States. The peoples of
Latin America shed their banana republic labels as a result of persistent
struggle. Unfortunately, that kind of "state governance" came to reign in
Ukraine.
The class character of the new government in Ukraine was attested to, in
particular, by I. Kolomoysky providing funds, according to the press, to
the pro-fascist, anti-Semitic "Svoboda" party. That fact confirms the
global oligarchy’s readiness, as it has happened many times in European
history, to rely on the most diehard Nazis to suppress the people's desire
for social justice.
A very active role was played at Maidan by the petty bourgeoisie,
particularly affected by the excesses of the Yanukovych clan outrages and
the lumpen elements which appeared in Ukraine in large quantities as a
result of impoverishment caused by the economic policies of the bourgeois
regime.
Let us remember that, historically, the petty bourgeoisie and the
"lumpen-proletariat" represent the most mobile part of society. History
shows that, under certain circumstances, namely like those that recently
developed in Ukraine, the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen elements can
become a key mass support of fascism. So it was in Germany in the 30s of
the last century, and could happen in Ukraine at the beginning of this
century. The lumpen elements recently formed the basis of a variety of
private armies of Bandera-style oligarchs.
The attack on the Communists as a sign of revival of Nazism
The class-related content of the present-day government is confirmed by
the fact that the Communist Party of Ukraine was selected as the first
target for persecution. The Communists were blamed for the participation
of CPU members in protest actions in the south-eastern regions. It was
also alleged that the leadership of the Communist Party was engaged in
discrediting Ukraine within the country’s borders and abroad through the
Russian media outlets. On that basis, the demand was put forward to ban
the Communist Party as allegedly posing a national security threat. It was
particularly striking that the charges of violating the Constitution
appeared from the mouths of those who had seized power in a coup d'état.
By the same token, the government accusing the Communist Party of
violation of the current legislation is, by all measures, illegitimate.
There is no reason whatever to ban one of the oldest political parties in
Ukraine. The programme of the Communist Party contains no provisions aimed
at violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. The
Communist Party is not involved in any attempts to seize power. No one has
provided data on financing it by foreign countries. The CPU is a
parliamentary party voted in by about three million voters. Party
representatives were part of the government. Its members are involved in
the work of international parliamentary associations. So that attempts to
represent the Communist Party as an extremist organization are unlikely to
be understood by the world community.
In fact, the purpose of the efforts to ban the Communist Party is to
ensure the suppression of dissent in Ukraine, for the CPU is the only
political force which openly declared its opposition to the rigid policy
drive of the current ruling group. The preparations for ousting the
Communist Party is nothing else but an attempt to deprive Ukrainian
citizens of their constitutional right to enjoy freedom of speech,
demonstrations and meetings. Behind these moves is the intention to
silence any political and social forces that do not agree with the
political course of the ruling group. It dramatically complicates the
possibility of an all-Ukraine dialogue, which is the only way to pull out
of the crisis and restore peace and harmony.
The ban on one of the oldest and most influential political organizations
in Ukraine can only mark a step towards the strengthening of
totalitarianism. Any ban on a Communist Party in Europe's history has
always witnessed the coming of fascism.
Western politics
There is no doubt that the crisis that caused the civil war in Ukraine had
been largely provoked by the United States and its allies. Western policy
towards Ukraine had the character of blatant interference in the internal
affairs of a sovereign state ever since “Maidan-1"(2004). That policy has
since changed, not much at all, only in the direction of more arrogance. A
few months ago, the United States Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland said in a burst of candour or rather desiring to show off the real
strength of American influence, that the United States spent no less than
five billion dollars on creating Ukrainian domestic support for U.S.
political moves in Ukraine.
Those enormous (by any measure) amounts of money went to set up a powerful
system of "social organizations" and "independent" media outlets.
According to some estimates, the system created by the American
authorities for public opinion manipulations involves about 150 thousand
people, who - in one way or another –receive Western grants and
allowances.
There is no doubt that the aggressive policy of the Bandera-style
authorities not only enjoys the full support of the United States. The
current junta has become a direct tool of America, seeking to break the
centuries-old ties between our peoples and to draw Ukraine into its
military-political orbit.
The main objective of the foreign puppeteers is not to make Ukraine
democratic and prosperous, but to capture its natural resources: coal,
iron ore, newly discovered shale gas deposits, as well as getting control
of its markets. A revolution in Ukraine was vital for the United States.
America's colossal debt of $17 trillion is pressing its leaders ever
harder to search for a way out of the disastrous economic situation. The
leadership of the United States sees a way out through either conquering
the European markets or fuelling a war, for which the conflict in Ukraine
can serve as a sort of fuse wire. It is clear that this kind of policy
will result in the eventual collapse of the Ukrainian economy. It has
already triggered an outflow of nearly one million refugees. Ukraine will
cease to be a friendly state of Russia’s and get squeezed into the NATO
gun clip strip, bringing its missile defence installations and
first-strike weapons much closer to Russia's borders.
The hypocrisy of the West is made clear in that, on the one hand, it
forcibly detached the Serbian districts-of Kosovo and Metohija through
direct aggression and ethnic cleansing from Serbia as a whole. On the
other hand, it is cynical in not recognizing the expression of the will of
the citizens of Crimea and Novorossiya to reunite with Russia. Indeed, the
West has stubbornly turned a blind eye to the atrocious war crimes
committed by the Kiev junta’s gangs who destroyed cities and towns by
artillery fire. According to the United Nations, they killed over 2,200
civilians in Novorossiya. In actual fact, the number of victims is much
higher. But Western "humanists" and the media controlled by them
stubbornly try to conceal the humanitarian disaster in the once prospering
areas.
It is significant that the outburst of indignation in the West upon the
crash of the Malaysian "Boeing" with hundreds of passengers on board faded
away very quickly, when news began to break that the plane had been
obviously shot down by Ukraine’s air defences. The crash investigation was
curtailed under the pretext of danger for the life of experts. Everything
was done in order to leave unscathed the true culprits, who are likely to
be found in Washington and Kiev.
America’s foreign policy is still dominated by the so-called
neo-conservatives, who, while completely ignoring the new realities in the
world, seek the achievement of global domination for the United States.
They have not been stopped by either American foreign policy’s heavy
failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the failure of US policy in Syria.
Meanwhile, it would be wrong not to notice some obvious differences in the
Western camp on the "Ukrainian issue". Europe, already in the grip of an
ever-deepening political and economic crisis, takes a much less active
stand on Ukraine than the United States.
Moreover, Western politicians and businessmen opposed the imposition of
sanctions against Russia, knowing that they were a double edged sword and
that sanctions, particularly economic, could have a very negative impact
on the state of Europe, which has already been suffering from chronic
diseases.
There are people in Europe who also understand that the Americans are not
averse to driving their European partners and rivals into another crisis,
as was the case in the Balkans in the 1990s, in order to weaken the
European Union and to preserve the EU's dependence on America. Hence, a
more realistic policy of the European Union with regard to Ukraine. On the
other hand, we must not delude ourselves and think that the conflict of
interests between the United States and the EU will result in a weakening
of the anti-Russia policies of the West. Ultimately, the world oligarchs
made European politicians comply with America’s most aggressive ambitions.
The CPRF and the Russian policy
The coup d’état in Ukraine and the subsequent punitive operations against
the population of Novorossiya are serious signals for Russia's foreign
policy-makers, for our government. The CPRF has long been pointing out
that the priority relations with the West at the expense of the
development of relations with the fraternal peoples of the USSR
contradicted Russia’s long-term interests. The Russian Federation’s
policies with regard to Ukraine have for many years been aimed solely at
ensuring the transit of natural gas to Europe. The Communist Party has
repeatedly warned the government about the dangers of having Ukraine on
the periphery of our foreign policy concerns and about appointing Mr.
Zurabov, who previously failed in the Russian ministerial post, Russia’s
ambassador there.
The developments in Crimea and Novorossiya are a specific example of how a
liberal course is disastrous for Russia. With the public sector reduced to
a mere 10 percent of the whole in the wake of the total privatization
drive, our country has found it extremely difficult to counter the
challenges of the time. Its economic potential, for example, is hardly
sufficient for integrating the Crimea. Dominance of private capital in the
financial sector leaves the country without the necessary funds at the
very moment when it is necessary to mobilize resources. It has to take
money from private pension funds and it takes great efforts to form an
armed fist required under the current circumstances, because the army has
been reduced almost to paralysis by the liberal gentlemen. When one hears
about the problems that arose with the ferry crossings to the Crimea
during the 2014 holiday season, it is sad to recall, for example, the
mighty Soviet- era army construction units which were almost fully written
off “as unnecessary" by the government liberals. But we, the communists,
were for years not just warning about the costs that the liberal breaking
of everything would entail but also put forward our concrete and
multilateral programme of urgent measures to strengthen the might of the
state. The authorities’ Indifference and even hostility towards our
proposals largely predetermined the range of today's troubles.
Recently, the Russian federal leadership has taken a position that is much
more consistent with the country’s strategic national interests. The
foundation was laid by a much firmer stand in relation to the events in
Syria, where Russia did not let the NATO member-countries to intervene and
overthrow the friendly Bashar al-Assad government. The next step was
Moscow’s decisive action on the issue of reintegration of Crimea into
Russia. The Communist Party supported all these actions.
We believe that the hard repulse to the Western economic sanctions is an
important sign that the Russian leadership continues to follow the course
of realism, the course of protecting the country’s national interests. Of
course, we know that it is counteracted by the liberals who control the
economic bloc in the government. But the threats emanating from the West
are so strong and obvious that the country’s top leaders simply have to
follow the course which the Communist Party has been strongly suggesting
for many years. For example, the authorities have finally realized how
dangerous is the situation in which 60% of the Russian food market is
taken by imported products. And they have started saying that
discontinuing agricultural produce supplies from the European Union will
benefit domestic producers, as they alone are capable of feeding the
country under the external sanctions.
We proceed from the fact that the developments in Ukraine pose an
objective threat to the security of the Russian Federation. One cannot
passively watch the way a neo-Nazi regime with a Russophobic and
anti-Semitic ideology is being formed with the support of the West close
to our borders. Even in the United States, the analysts who know, for
example, Steve Cohen and Katrina vanden Heuvel, both well-known in our
country, are today warning right from the pages of the famous American
magazine "The Nation" that things unthinkable can now happen quickly in
Ukraine: not just a new "cold war ", which has already begun, but a real
war between the NATO forces led by the United States and Russia."
What is needed is a drastic revision of Russia's Ukraine policy. Required
is giving a much more complex character to our relations with the
brotherly people, so as to strengthen cooperation in the fields of
economy, science, culture and education.
The situation requires a stronger support of the political forces and
non-governmental associations advocating historical friendship between our
peoples. We must give the green light to all endeavours to support our
compatriots in Ukraine. Communists from the outset have helped and will
continue to help Novorossiya in its struggle. To date, we have sent there
more than 1,200 tons of humanitarian aid goods alone. And it is just the
beginning. The Communist party of the Russian Federation is actively
involved in what can be called political and diplomatic work. We are doing
our best to draw the attention of the European governments to the threat
of a new world war. I warned about the threat, in particular, in a letter
to the leaders of France, Germany and Italy - the nations most affected by
the horrors of fascism and World War II.
The CPRF is actively supporting the idea of holding a meeting of the heads
of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in Minsk. This step is very
significant on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the Great Victory that
seemingly buried fascism forever.
***
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation expresses solidarity with
all participants in popular resistance - Russians, Ukrainians and people
of all nationalities who are bravely and vigorously opposing the neo-Nazi
Banderovites. We express solidarity with the Communists of Ukraine who are
subjected to violence by extremists.
One of the most important features of the Ukrainian citizens is their
unwillingness to put up with the thieving authorities, their constant
internal focus on the protest, their willingness to throw off the pedestal
the leaders who have lost trust. These features of the Ukrainian people
made it much easier for the puppeteers to organize “maidans" and "orange
revolutions", i.e. fictitious protest actions pursuing other objectives
than those inscribed on the slogans and declared at the meetings.
But these features of Ukrainians also suggest that the current regime
upheld by Kiev will not be long-living and that the fierce resistance to
it from the Donbas area and Lugansk will spread to most of Ukraine and
lead to its downfall. But there is a danger that as a result of the
"parliamentary elections" in October of this year the present-day
Ukrainian "elite" will be displaced by even tougher radical guys
professing Nazism and overt Russophobia. Then a Bandera-style nationalism
will be established in Ukraine as a ruling ideology. And Ukrainian
society, eventually split into irreconcilable camps, will plunge into an
even more violent civil conflict than at present.
A complete change of the socio-economic system in Ukraine and return to
the principles of the welfare state, in which Ukraine achieved prosperity
in the Soviet times, can be the sole salvation-bringing alternative to the
current situation. We are convinced that the healthy forces of the
Ukrainian society will prevail and drive the Bandera successors back into
the cave from which they have crawled
Кризис на
Украине и
его
глубинные
корни
Геннадий
ЗЮГАНОВ,
Председатель
ЦК КПРФ
[En, Ru, Es]
Monday, 08 September 2014 09:05 Communist Party of the Russian Federation
The Crisis in Ukraine and its deep roots [En, Ru, Es]
Gennady Zyuganov, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
of the Russian Federation (CPRF)
Today, war is raging in the vast territories of the Lugansk and Donetsk
people's republics. For the first time since Ukraine's liberation from the
Nazis 70 years ago, civilian towns and villages are shelled and bombed.
The dead and wounded number thousands and the refugees tens of thousands.
Entire residential neighbourhoods, orphanages and schools, outpatient
clinics and hospitals, power generation and water supply facilities have
been destroyed. A number of cities, where hundreds of thousands of people
live, are being strangled by the blockade.
The Banderaists at power, their patrons in the West and yes-men in the
Russian liberal camp openly hush up the war crimes that are being
committed in Novorossiya / New Russia. This is because the ongoing
destruction of towns and villages is in direct violation of international
norms and customs of war. The 1949 Geneva Conventions specifically
prohibit the use of artillery and combat aircraft against undefended
populated areas. Meanwhile, the junta that seized power in a coup in Kiev
is pursuing a most vile and cowardly strategy for its death squads are
invariable losers in direct combat with the Self-Defence Forces of
Novorossiya/New Russia.
Forces and private armies of the oligarchs are deliberately destroying the
civilian population. This is ethnic cleansing. The Russian-speaking
population is being squeezed out of their historic homeland. That is a
grave crime against humanity.
The historical roots of recent developments
Russia's attention to the Ukrainian developments and the anguish that we
feel in connection with the war blazing there are natural. Ukraine is not
just a part of the Slavic world. The Ukrainian land and its people are
integral part of the Russian consciousness, of Russian history. The thing
at point is the deepest spiritual and cultural bond between our peoples,
their historical inalienability from each other. When attempts are made to
set us at loggerheads for the sake of the interests of the West, it is
like cutting us to the quick, causing a deep wound both to Russian society
and to all the citizens of Ukraine, including those who are befuddled by
anti-Russian propaganda. For it is only in alliance with Russia that
Ukraine can reach the heights of prosperity which many people in Ukraine
have considered possible only in alliance with Europe. An alliance that
has eternally brought about trouble.
It has always been so. Both in the 12th through the 14th centuries when
the Chermnaya (Red) Rus’ nestled around Lvov was severed from the historic
core of Russia and was torn to pieces by her western neighbours and in
the16th and the 17th centuries, when the Polish gentry sought to wipe out
by fire and sword from the Ukrainian soil the very spirit of freedom and
Orthodox Christianity along with the memory of the great all-Russia unity.
It also happened in the 18th century, when a handful of traitors gathered
around Mazepa (to whom Peter the Great seriously intended to award a
two-stone “Medal of Judah” to wear on his neck as a sort of reward for
betrayal). At the beginning of the 20th century, during the Civil War, the
local samostiitsy (Ukrainian separatists) relied on German bayonets. All
this turned the Ukrainian land into a scene of gory battles. The rescue
came solely with Russia’s help.
The current terrific developments have borne out V.I. Lenin's statement
that a free Ukraine was only possible if Great Russia’s and Ukraine’s
proletarians joined in action and it was out of the question without such
unity. It is appropriate to recall here that all of the major high-tech
industries in Ukraine, not only in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, but
also in the Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhe, and other regions, were
built in the Soviet era at the expense of the Union budget, of which 70%
came from Russia, i.e. from Russian people.
So a fraternal alliance with the Ukrainian people at the time of terrible
trials is our common cause and our common duty.
It might seem that a civil war broke out in Ukraine overnight. Six months
ago, the country was one of the many states experiencing difficult
economic and social problems but preserving its political stability. The
people’s discontent was accumulating. However, there were no signs of
heavy shocks coming. It would, however, be ill-advised to assume that a
social explosion occurred all of a sudden, like a bolt from the blue.
The Russian leadership, admittedly, responded to this threat quite
adequately by bringing the Crimea back into Russia in time for the 70th
anniversary of the liberation of the peninsula from the Nazis and
preventing, in fact, an outbreak of a major war.
To better understand the origins of the tragedy of Ukraine, it is
necessary to see the historical roots in their development, to understand
the mechanisms of the severe crisis originating in the brotherly country.
It is necessary to see the recent external symptoms of a bloody
fratricidal war surfacing in Ukraine, as well as the deeper historical,
economic, class, ethnic, cultural, religious and other prerequisites of
these developments. Only an integrated analysis will enable correct
identification of the driving forces in the crisis in Ukraine, prediction
of the further course of events and elaboration of strategies and tactics
for the resolution of this dire conflict.
For us Communists, what is happening in the sister republic is not of a
mere theoretical interest. We are not political scientists, who
impassively watch any developments. We have an obligation to draw lessons
from the most severe social confrontation into which the neighbouring
country has plunged. It is therefore necessary to analyze the events in
Ukraine, bearing in mind that similar events could also be repeated in one
form or another in Russia.
Of course, our attention and sympathy focus primarily on Novorossiya that
is emerging in the struggle. However, it is equally important to
understand the sources and driving forces of the opposing side - the
resurgent Neo-Nazism. For this purpose it is necessary to analyze the
historical origins and formation of the Bandera movement as a form of
Ukrainian ethnic nationalism in its most extreme forms. It is necessary to
understand on what ideological foundation the movement rested and in what
way nationalism coupled with Russophobia is being fuelled in Ukraine
today.
The origins of radical nationalism
It is crucial to understand that Ukraine, with the exception of the Soviet
period, never had its own statehood and no other periods in history that
were identical for the entire Ukrainian people. Over the centuries, when
European powers were emerging, Ukraine was never once an independent
state, nor a unified whole entity in the structure of other states. What
is modern-day Ukrainian territory was always divided between different
European powers. In the middle of the 17th century, as a result of a
voluntary union with Russia, its eastern half found itself under Russia's
wing, wherein a history of Malorossiya or Rus' Minor (Lesser Russia) began
to take form, while the western Ukrainian territories were under the rule
of Poland and then Austro-Hungary.
Poland's policy towards the Ukrainian population was extremely cruel,
often sadistic. Western Ukrainians, as a part of the Polish state
population, were second-class citizens. That was the key reason why a
radical Ukrainian nationalism began to emerge in western Ukraine; it was
in part similar to the ideas of racial exclusiveness, enshrined in the
"Third Reich."
The then Bandera followers did not just enter into a strategic coalition
with the German occupiers, but participated most actively in their
punitive actions, including against the native Ukrainian population. They
carried on the same practice in western Ukraine after the war upon going
underground. Not only more than 25 thousand Soviet soldiers and security
officers but also more than 30 thousand innocent Ukrainians were killed in
the battles with Bandera followers lasting until the mid-1950s. Those
clashes came at a high cost to the Banderovites, too: they lost more than
60 thousand men dead over the years.
The Bandera-style nationalism did not evolve into a national liberation
idea but into a totalitarian sect of crazed fanatics who killed primarily
native Ukrainians. Characteristics of an analogous totalitarian sect are
inherent in West Ukrainian Uniate church, which is formally in communion
with Rome. Sticking with it were the Bandera followers who did not want to
take into account the fact that the vast majority of Ukrainians embraced
Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The ideology of the Uniates (Eastern Rite
Roman Catholics) has in fact very little to do with Catholicism. It is
rather an extreme, sectarian form of Protestantism mixed with Baptism. Not
accidental are the relations to the sectarians of the key top figures in
Kiev - Baptist Turchinov and Yatseniuk who is friends with scientologists.
Every victory scored by extremist, low zoological-scale nationalists has
resulted from a deep crisis of the government, whose hostility society is
increasingly aware of and reacting radically to its ugly manifestations.
The only way for the forces at power to keep afloat is through an alliance
with the radical nationalist ideology, thanks to which the former top
heads are reportedly retaining their posts, already under new banners.
The new "elite", wholly emerging from the previous series, enjoys the use
of Banderaite instruments and of Bandera followers as "cannon fodder" in
order to once again fool the millions of people after performing a clan
castling within the power circles. As a result, the oligarchs have not
only maintained but also strengthened their positions. They will now carry
out the same or even more brutal economic policies under the Banderaite
banners with a harsh tutelage from the West and in the same "alliance with
the devil” against Moscow, that will bring no relief from Ukraine’s
troubles and problems but certainly their aggravation.
An unbiased, scientific approach guides one to a conclusion that both the
Western policy-makers and the current Kiev rulers, who are seeking to cut
the age-old ties with Russia, have shunned in every way. This conclusion
is that the people of Central and Eastern Ukraine are, in fact, connected
with Russia in a much stronger way than with West Ukraine. Any attempts to
steer Ukraine into a pro-Western, anti-Russia channel are directed not
only against Russia, but against most of the Ukrainian people. They are
inherently anti-Ukrainian, anti-national actions cloaked in nationalist
demagogy.
Objectively, everything is just so, even though not all the residents of
the central and western regions of Ukraine are yet aware of it. History of
the Bandera movement has already revealed the tragic paradox, which is now
being played out again through the fault of the new Banderovites who
seized power. While allegedly upholding the interests of the Ukrainian
people, these figures are infringing on the interests of the greater part
of Ukrainians, the interests which cannot be implemented outside of close
ties with Russia. It is what Bandera and his associates did not want to
understand and what Ukraine’s current "elite", which is under the auspices
of Washington, does not want to hear about.
The Bandera-style nationalism as an extreme manifestation of Russophobia
The Ukrainian radical nationalists’ choice in favour of the fight against
"Soviet occupation" was neither their fault, nor forced, nor a temporary
tactical move. It was natural and inevitable, and for Ukrainian
nationalists it still remains as such today. For them, the only possible
choice is in favor of an anti-Russia alliance with any, even the worst
enemy of Ukraine. Without such an unnatural union no "independent" Ukraine
is possible in isolation from Russia.
Of course, in the past there occurred political and cultural imbalances in
the actions of Russia’s central authorities in the Ukrainian territories
as parts of the Russian Empire. But the original language and cultural
closeness of our peoples, the similarity of their thinking, traditions and
customs mitigated that problem. It is impossible to describe that period
of history as occupation of Ukraine. Descriptions of that sort are rooted
in ignorance and vile speculation. It is right to speak about a
centuries-long common history of Russia, Eastern and Central Ukraine and
say that, as a result of our union, a uniform political nation was formed.
But Bandera and his followers transferred their hatred of the former
oppressors on to the Soviet regime after it began to assert itself in West
Ukraine. They did not want to see that the principles of Soviet government
had nothing to do with the colonial order imposed by Polish pans/lords.
They did not want to see that within the structure of the Soviet state
East and Central Ukraine were already receiving more de facto independence
than in the Russian Empire and the advent of the Soviet regime in the
western part of Ukraine was not a sort of new colonization but liberation
from colonization.
But why do the ideologues of Russophobia manage, even nowadays, to fool a
large part of society? The explanation lies in the fact that many
Ukrainians repeatedly see radical nationalism as a panacea for their ills,
an alternative to what oppressed and humiliated them in the past. But
their troubles and humiliation are now associated with a new reality. It
is not tantamount to the violent Polish outrage of the past centuries. Now
it is the tyranny of the oligarchs and highhandedness of gangster
capitalists.
Arising upon the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a permanent
economic and moral crisis arose in Ukraine bringing along with it cases of
deepening social injustice and inequality that became a catalyst for
radical nationalist sentiments which splashed out first in 2004 and then
at the turn from 2013 to 2014. Without these factors, no sentiments of the
kind would have found fertile soil in Ukraine, just as they lacked it
during the heyday of the Soviet country, within whose structure the
interests of the Ukrainians were being implemented to the maximum extent.
Suffice it to say that for most of the second half of the twentieth
century, the Soviet Union was led by figures that were closely linked with
Ukraine: Nikita S. Khrushchev and Leonid I. Brezhnev.
However, the Russophobes in the West, the anti-Soviet liberals in Russia
and the new Ukrainian nationalism ideologists put forth a false thesis
insisting that even though the Soviet government gave more freedom to the
Ukrainian people, it still was, in fact, an occupational force, as Ukraine
remained under the control of an empire – this time the Soviet empire.
Consequently, the struggle of Bandera and his associates against the
Soviet authorities was to them still the same struggle for liberation.
Nowadays, in trying to finally break free from the Russian influence, the
new Ukrainian nationalists allegedly follow the same principles of the
struggle for independence and are driven by a desire to consolidate
independence within the framework of a Ukraine that has achieved
statehood.
The fundamental falsity of this thesis is made clear by history and
today's developments in which history is largely repeated. The fact is
that radical nationalists have never acted as an independent national
political force. Liberation of Western Ukraine from Polish oppression was
not an achievement of theirs, but that of the Soviet government. The
struggle against it guided the Ukrainian nationalists straight to a direct
alliance with the Nazi occupiers.
But as soon as the idea of Ukrainian statehood was paired with an
orientation to the West and estrangement from Russia, that sort of
statehood turned out to be a fiction and the shaky unity begot unrest. The
reason for this is that Ukraine has had little experience of independent
statehood. Nowadays, it is simply unable to exist outside the area of
influence from more powerful states.
Meanwhile, in an anti-Russia alliance with Ukraine’s outright enemies, who
are capable of concealing their true hostile intentions only for a short
while, the Ukrainian people have no chance of true independence. "The
National Movement" in Ukraine is a path leading to no liberation but in
the opposite direction. It is an anti-nation way.
This is felt today by millions of Ukrainians, many of whom have risen up
in arms against the new Bandera-style nationalism. Their struggle is a
genuine national resistance movement because they said a resounding "no"
to the intent to break the age-old ties with Russia, with the Russian
people. In response they got aerial bombings and artillery shelling of
residential neighbourhoods. The Banderovites acted similarly in the
1930-1950 period against the Ukrainians who had become aware of the
destructive nature of their "nationalism". They who are moved by a truly
national idea and really care for their people cannot do that with their
compatriots.
The immediate causes of the coup in Ukraine
The watershed that split Ukraine’s contemporary history came with
President Yanukovich’s decision last autumn to give up associate
membership in the European Union and move in the direction of the Customs
Union with Russia and other countries. The decision was quite justified
from an economic point of view. The Russian negotiators with the Ukrainian
side argued for many months but failed to convince their partners in Kiev
that the drive toward the West is fraught with a complete breakdown of the
Ukrainian economy that is still closely linked with the Russian economy.
However, the ruling circles in Kiev kept sticking to a purely pro-Western
ideological course. It was only at the last moment, when the final
decision was to be determined, that the Ukrainian leadership recognized
the economic realities and announced their intention to join the Customs
Union. By that moment public opinion had, through the efforts of numerous
"social organizations" and the media outlets created by the West and under
its control, already been steered to a pro-European direction. The people
did not have reliable information about the inevitable hardest
consequences of a second-class membership in the European Union. But the
dream of "reunification with Europe" had long been befuddling the brains
of intellectuals and ordinary people who passionately and fondly hoped
that the associated membership in the E.U. would automatically take the
Ukrainians to the European level of well-being.
The decision to join the Customs Union with Russia, semi-despicable in the
eyes of "zapadenskoi"/West Ukrainian/intelligentsia, was seen by many in
Ukraine as shattering their crystal dreams. Mass irritation spilled out on
the streets of the capital, which had long fallen under the influence of
vociferous activists from West Ukraine.
However, the Maidan that flared up last November wilted gradually. By
January of this year, two or three hundred fanatics and homeless tramps
were still there in scattered groups, having found a way of self
expression and a source of free mess of pottage in the centre of the
capital. Meanwhile, any reduction in the level of opposition heat was
clearly not in the plans of those who actually ran the developments in
Ukraine. Western politicians and agents of intelligence services began to
hurl sizable amounts of combustible material into the fading fire of
public discontent and create an incendiary mix for flares of radicalism,
skilfully directed against Russia.
But it would be wrong to see the situation at a narrow angle as resulting
only from the machinations of Western politicians and intelligence
agencies. Mr. Yanukovich and his team are to take a considerable part of
the blame for the fire breaking out. Upon rising to power that "team", or
rather the family of the former president began aggressively to convert
political power into money. Greed of the "Donetskites", as they were
nicknamed by many people, had no limits. A huge number of small and large
businesses were squeezed for tributes. Business take-overs became
commonplace. So the popular discontent over the steadily worsening
economic situation merged with sharp resentment on the part of a very
active population segment - small and medium-sized businesses - in
connection with the "grabilovka” (plundering) by Yanukovich’s friends and
relatives.
Meanwhile, Mr. Yanukovich for tactical purposes diligently portrayed
himself as a supporter of rapprochement with Russia, although his real
stance was openly pro-Western. In public opinion Yanukovich was therefore,
associated with Russia. Hence the Maidan anti-Russian overtones. But do we
have the moral right to condemn the Ukrainian people for its majority
lacking the awareness of the need to revive a fraternal union with Russia?
We might have such a right, if the RF were setting an example of a welfare
state, if it had eradicated oligarchy, total corruption and the gangster
capitalism principles. That's when the Ukrainian people would have stood
up without hesitation under the same banners with Russia – the banners
that had led to salvation in the past.
The explosive mix, which led to a social explosion in Ukraine, included
several basic elements: the legitimate grievances of the bulk of the
people due to the steady deterioration of their financial positions;
resentment of small and medium-sized businesses over the raids by
Yanukovich's team; the desire of "zapadenskiye" (Western Ukrainian)
intellectuals to ride public opinion still harder, along with the
intrigues of pro-American politicians and secret services aiming to
enhance the split between Ukraine and Russia
Meanwhile, Russia’s ruling group saw and still sees Ukraine primarily as a
territory in which a gas pipeline is laid. Therefore, the policy of the
upper RF authorities focused almost exclusively on ensuring a smooth flow
of gas to Europe. Public sentiments in Ukraine were not only a mere
subject of interest and influence for the Russian "elite", but were
completely ignored as a factor fully irrelevant against the background of
intrigues around the gas pipeline at the "top" of the authorities of the
two countries, for which the peoples of the fraternal republics
subsequently had to pay a heavy price.
The coup and its aftermath
The attempts of the Ukrainian leadership to restore basic order in the
streets of the capital, including through negotiations, met with fierce
resistance from the well-trained fighters who had been recruited in the
western regions. In mid-February, the American technology of
pseudo-popular revolutions began to be used in Kiev, including, the
seizure of power by street crowds with massive external support, tested
during the coups in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine (2004), and in Libya, as
well as during the "Arab Spring" events in a number of countries in the
Middle East and North Africa.
Simultaneously, the Ukrainian leadership became an object of outright
pressure from the West. The European Union threatened the creation of a
"black list" of officials, against whom a variety of sanctions would be
imposed. The Yanukovich clan members were thinking primarily about their
own accounts in Western banks and offshore funds. That made the Ukrainian
leadership particularly vulnerable to the West’s blackmail. The head of
state’s faintness resulted in a paralysis of the law enforcement agencies
and the betrayal of the political elite, who failed to fulfil their
constitutional obligations.
Meanwhile, representatives of the opposition, supposedly fighting for
democracy against an authoritarian regime and for a bright future for
Ukraine under the auspices of the European Union, demonstrated, in fact,
habits of their Banderaite, fascist predecessors. "Peaceful" protesters
seized government buildings and attacked police forces, pelting them with
Molotov cocktails. President Yanukovich kept shying away from decisive
action and was handing power, step by step, to the neo-Nazi elements. The
process culminated in a coup d’état. Genuine battles with the use of
firearms began on the streets of Kiev February 18. In three days the death
toll had reached 100 casualties and more than 600 were hospitalized. On
February 23, Yanukovich fled from Kiev.
The heirs of the Nazi henchman Bandera seized power and immediately
launched a campaign of suppression against their political opponents and
the Russian-speaking population. The intimidated deputies of the Verkhovna
Rada passed a decision repealing the law allowing the use of Russian as
the second state language in a number of regions of Ukraine. Pogroms
started against the premises of the Communist Party of Ukraine, and the
Communist Party was banned in some regions. Members of Parliament from the
Communist Party and the Party of Regions were physically abused along with
the policemen who remained faithful to the oath.
The Banderovites started attacks on historical memory with widespread
destruction of monuments to Lenin and Soviet soldiers who fell during the
liberation of Ukraine from Nazi occupation. By toppling monuments to
Lenin, the rioters were destroying not only the historical heritage, but
also the symbols of Ukrainian statehood, because the Decree on the
establishment of the Ukrainian Republic was signed by Lenin. That orgy of
destruction resulted in the rise of the resistance movement in the
south-east of the country and, ultimately, in the Civil War.
The Class-related nature of the conflict in Ukraine
The inherent nature of the events in Ukraine is difficult to understand
without an analysis of the alignment of its class forces. It must first of
all be noted that as a result of the 1990 - 2000 wild, destructive
privatization of the economy of Ukraine in the interests of the oligarchs
and the newly-minted deindustrialization in the interests of Western
competitors, the industrial proletariat numbers declined sharply.
Accordingly, the level of its organization was reduced. With the
destruction of collective and state farms the rural proletariat was
virtually eradicated. This changed the balance of class forces.
However, the pro-western top authorities of Ukraine failed to completely
destroy the working class, especially in the most industrialized
south-east regions. It is therefore no accident that the Bandera-style
junta received the most powerful rebuff in those regions. The industrial
proletarians of Novorossiya are well aware of the fact that the cut of
historical ties with Russia, to which products of their enterprises were
oriented, must inevitably lead to mass unemployment and poverty. Not only
the national feelings, but also the class consciousness of millions of
people in Novorossiya, though not expressed in relief, formed the basis
for resistance to oligarchic usurpation of power.
An important feature of the popular revolutionary actions in south-east
Ukraine, and earlier in Crimea, is that they were directed against the
neo-fascist usurpers of power in Kiev, who were closely related to the
global transnational capital, and against the "Donetsk" oligarchic clan,
which established their political and economic dictatorship in these
regions. Incidentally, the "early" independence Maidan (November -
December 2013) was, in this sense, not so much anti-Russia as
anti-oligarchy in character.
However, as the protest sentiments of the masses had not got the class
character, they were used in the battle of the two clans of the big-time
bourgeoisie. That clash was won by the group which had brought together
the pro-Western, nationalist and extreme right-wing forces, who benefited
from the people's discontent in the coup.
Usually the big-time capital controls countries through their hired
servants - state officials. In Russia in the 1990s, oligarchs initially
dominated the bureaucrats. Then the top government officials took
precedence, but later the higher bureaucracy and oligarchy merged.
In Ukraine, too, there was a struggle between two related class groups -
the state bureaucracy and oligarchy. And there, as in Russia, there
emerged a symbiosis of these two class groups. But after the February 2014
revolution, the oligarchs effected the subjugation of the bureaucrats.
Faced with tough resistance of the people in Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk,
Kharkov, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk and other cities, the ruling elite in Kiev
went straight to the introduction of the big-time capital dictatorship.
Oligarchs, previously hiding in the shadow of hired politicians from
various "bat’kivshchinas", "udars" and "regions" were appointed governors
of several regions. Then the direct roguish dictatorship of the oligarchy
not cloaked with any "democratic" trinkets came to reign supreme in
Ukraine.
The billionaires Poroshenko, Kolomoysky and their ilk did not only
immediately take over the governing functions, but also created their own
private armies and secret police forces engaged in kidnapping and
torturing people. Ukraine was becoming an "in war as in war" banana
republic, ruled not by law but by complete arbitrariness of a politically
temporary "president" relying on "death squads", as well as on the
political and military support from the United States. The peoples of
Latin America shed their banana republic labels as a result of persistent
struggle. Unfortunately, that kind of "state governance" came to reign in
Ukraine.
The class character of the new government in Ukraine was attested to, in
particular, by I. Kolomoysky providing funds, according to the press, to
the pro-fascist, anti-Semitic "Svoboda" party. That fact confirms the
global oligarchy’s readiness, as it has happened many times in European
history, to rely on the most diehard Nazis to suppress the people's desire
for social justice.
A very active role was played at Maidan by the petty bourgeoisie,
particularly affected by the excesses of the Yanukovych clan outrages and
the lumpen elements which appeared in Ukraine in large quantities as a
result of impoverishment caused by the economic policies of the bourgeois
regime.
Let us remember that, historically, the petty bourgeoisie and the
"lumpen-proletariat" represent the most mobile part of society. History
shows that, under certain circumstances, namely like those that recently
developed in Ukraine, the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen elements can
become a key mass support of fascism. So it was in Germany in the 30s of
the last century, and could happen in Ukraine at the beginning of this
century. The lumpen elements recently formed the basis of a variety of
private armies of Bandera-style oligarchs.
The attack on the Communists as a sign of revival of Nazism
The class-related content of the present-day government is confirmed by
the fact that the Communist Party of Ukraine was selected as the first
target for persecution. The Communists were blamed for the participation
of CPU members in protest actions in the south-eastern regions. It was
also alleged that the leadership of the Communist Party was engaged in
discrediting Ukraine within the country’s borders and abroad through the
Russian media outlets. On that basis, the demand was put forward to ban
the Communist Party as allegedly posing a national security threat. It was
particularly striking that the charges of violating the Constitution
appeared from the mouths of those who had seized power in a coup d'état.
By the same token, the government accusing the Communist Party of
violation of the current legislation is, by all measures, illegitimate.
There is no reason whatever to ban one of the oldest political parties in
Ukraine. The programme of the Communist Party contains no provisions aimed
at violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. The
Communist Party is not involved in any attempts to seize power. No one has
provided data on financing it by foreign countries. The CPU is a
parliamentary party voted in by about three million voters. Party
representatives were part of the government. Its members are involved in
the work of international parliamentary associations. So that attempts to
represent the Communist Party as an extremist organization are unlikely to
be understood by the world community.
In fact, the purpose of the efforts to ban the Communist Party is to
ensure the suppression of dissent in Ukraine, for the CPU is the only
political force which openly declared its opposition to the rigid policy
drive of the current ruling group. The preparations for ousting the
Communist Party is nothing else but an attempt to deprive Ukrainian
citizens of their constitutional right to enjoy freedom of speech,
demonstrations and meetings. Behind these moves is the intention to
silence any political and social forces that do not agree with the
political course of the ruling group. It dramatically complicates the
possibility of an all-Ukraine dialogue, which is the only way to pull out
of the crisis and restore peace and harmony.
The ban on one of the oldest and most influential political organizations
in Ukraine can only mark a step towards the strengthening of
totalitarianism. Any ban on a Communist Party in Europe's history has
always witnessed the coming of fascism.
Western politics
There is no doubt that the crisis that caused the civil war in Ukraine had
been largely provoked by the United States and its allies. Western policy
towards Ukraine had the character of blatant interference in the internal
affairs of a sovereign state ever since “Maidan-1"(2004). That policy has
since changed, not much at all, only in the direction of more arrogance. A
few months ago, the United States Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland said in a burst of candour or rather desiring to show off the real
strength of American influence, that the United States spent no less than
five billion dollars on creating Ukrainian domestic support for U.S.
political moves in Ukraine.
Those enormous (by any measure) amounts of money went to set up a powerful
system of "social organizations" and "independent" media outlets.
According to some estimates, the system created by the American
authorities for public opinion manipulations involves about 150 thousand
people, who - in one way or another –receive Western grants and
allowances.
There is no doubt that the aggressive policy of the Bandera-style
authorities not only enjoys the full support of the United States. The
current junta has become a direct tool of America, seeking to break the
centuries-old ties between our peoples and to draw Ukraine into its
military-political orbit.
The main objective of the foreign puppeteers is not to make Ukraine
democratic and prosperous, but to capture its natural resources: coal,
iron ore, newly discovered shale gas deposits, as well as getting control
of its markets. A revolution in Ukraine was vital for the United States.
America's colossal debt of $17 trillion is pressing its leaders ever
harder to search for a way out of the disastrous economic situation. The
leadership of the United States sees a way out through either conquering
the European markets or fuelling a war, for which the conflict in Ukraine
can serve as a sort of fuse wire. It is clear that this kind of policy
will result in the eventual collapse of the Ukrainian economy. It has
already triggered an outflow of nearly one million refugees. Ukraine will
cease to be a friendly state of Russia’s and get squeezed into the NATO
gun clip strip, bringing its missile defence installations and
first-strike weapons much closer to Russia's borders.
The hypocrisy of the West is made clear in that, on the one hand, it
forcibly detached the Serbian districts-of Kosovo and Metohija through
direct aggression and ethnic cleansing from Serbia as a whole. On the
other hand, it is cynical in not recognizing the expression of the will of
the citizens of Crimea and Novorossiya to reunite with Russia. Indeed, the
West has stubbornly turned a blind eye to the atrocious war crimes
committed by the Kiev junta’s gangs who destroyed cities and towns by
artillery fire. According to the United Nations, they killed over 2,200
civilians in Novorossiya. In actual fact, the number of victims is much
higher. But Western "humanists" and the media controlled by them
stubbornly try to conceal the humanitarian disaster in the once prospering
areas.
It is significant that the outburst of indignation in the West upon the
crash of the Malaysian "Boeing" with hundreds of passengers on board faded
away very quickly, when news began to break that the plane had been
obviously shot down by Ukraine’s air defences. The crash investigation was
curtailed under the pretext of danger for the life of experts. Everything
was done in order to leave unscathed the true culprits, who are likely to
be found in Washington and Kiev.
America’s foreign policy is still dominated by the so-called
neo-conservatives, who, while completely ignoring the new realities in the
world, seek the achievement of global domination for the United States.
They have not been stopped by either American foreign policy’s heavy
failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the failure of US policy in Syria.
Meanwhile, it would be wrong not to notice some obvious differences in the
Western camp on the "Ukrainian issue". Europe, already in the grip of an
ever-deepening political and economic crisis, takes a much less active
stand on Ukraine than the United States.
Moreover, Western politicians and businessmen opposed the imposition of
sanctions against Russia, knowing that they were a double edged sword and
that sanctions, particularly economic, could have a very negative impact
on the state of Europe, which has already been suffering from chronic
diseases.
There are people in Europe who also understand that the Americans are not
averse to driving their European partners and rivals into another crisis,
as was the case in the Balkans in the 1990s, in order to weaken the
European Union and to preserve the EU's dependence on America. Hence, a
more realistic policy of the European Union with regard to Ukraine. On the
other hand, we must not delude ourselves and think that the conflict of
interests between the United States and the EU will result in a weakening
of the anti-Russia policies of the West. Ultimately, the world oligarchs
made European politicians comply with America’s most aggressive ambitions.
The CPRF and the Russian policy
The coup d’état in Ukraine and the subsequent punitive operations against
the population of Novorossiya are serious signals for Russia's foreign
policy-makers, for our government. The CPRF has long been pointing out
that the priority relations with the West at the expense of the
development of relations with the fraternal peoples of the USSR
contradicted Russia’s long-term interests. The Russian Federation’s
policies with regard to Ukraine have for many years been aimed solely at
ensuring the transit of natural gas to Europe. The Communist Party has
repeatedly warned the government about the dangers of having Ukraine on
the periphery of our foreign policy concerns and about appointing Mr.
Zurabov, who previously failed in the Russian ministerial post, Russia’s
ambassador there.
The developments in Crimea and Novorossiya are a specific example of how a
liberal course is disastrous for Russia. With the public sector reduced to
a mere 10 percent of the whole in the wake of the total privatization
drive, our country has found it extremely difficult to counter the
challenges of the time. Its economic potential, for example, is hardly
sufficient for integrating the Crimea. Dominance of private capital in the
financial sector leaves the country without the necessary funds at the
very moment when it is necessary to mobilize resources. It has to take
money from private pension funds and it takes great efforts to form an
armed fist required under the current circumstances, because the army has
been reduced almost to paralysis by the liberal gentlemen. When one hears
about the problems that arose with the ferry crossings to the Crimea
during the 2014 holiday season, it is sad to recall, for example, the
mighty Soviet- era army construction units which were almost fully written
off “as unnecessary" by the government liberals. But we, the communists,
were for years not just warning about the costs that the liberal breaking
of everything would entail but also put forward our concrete and
multilateral programme of urgent measures to strengthen the might of the
state. The authorities’ Indifference and even hostility towards our
proposals largely predetermined the range of today's troubles.
Recently, the Russian federal leadership has taken a position that is much
more consistent with the country’s strategic national interests. The
foundation was laid by a much firmer stand in relation to the events in
Syria, where Russia did not let the NATO member-countries to intervene and
overthrow the friendly Bashar al-Assad government. The next step was
Moscow’s decisive action on the issue of reintegration of Crimea into
Russia. The Communist Party supported all these actions.
We believe that the hard repulse to the Western economic sanctions is an
important sign that the Russian leadership continues to follow the course
of realism, the course of protecting the country’s national interests. Of
course, we know that it is counteracted by the liberals who control the
economic bloc in the government. But the threats emanating from the West
are so strong and obvious that the country’s top leaders simply have to
follow the course which the Communist Party has been strongly suggesting
for many years. For example, the authorities have finally realized how
dangerous is the situation in which 60% of the Russian food market is
taken by imported products. And they have started saying that
discontinuing agricultural produce supplies from the European Union will
benefit domestic producers, as they alone are capable of feeding the
country under the external sanctions.
We proceed from the fact that the developments in Ukraine pose an
objective threat to the security of the Russian Federation. One cannot
passively watch the way a neo-Nazi regime with a Russophobic and
anti-Semitic ideology is being formed with the support of the West close
to our borders. Even in the United States, the analysts who know, for
example, Steve Cohen and Katrina vanden Heuvel, both well-known in our
country, are today warning right from the pages of the famous American
magazine "The Nation" that things unthinkable can now happen quickly in
Ukraine: not just a new "cold war ", which has already begun, but a real
war between the NATO forces led by the United States and Russia."
What is needed is a drastic revision of Russia's Ukraine policy. Required
is giving a much more complex character to our relations with the
brotherly people, so as to strengthen cooperation in the fields of
economy, science, culture and education.
The situation requires a stronger support of the political forces and
non-governmental associations advocating historical friendship between our
peoples. We must give the green light to all endeavours to support our
compatriots in Ukraine. Communists from the outset have helped and will
continue to help Novorossiya in its struggle. To date, we have sent there
more than 1,200 tons of humanitarian aid goods alone. And it is just the
beginning. The Communist party of the Russian Federation is actively
involved in what can be called political and diplomatic work. We are doing
our best to draw the attention of the European governments to the threat
of a new world war. I warned about the threat, in particular, in a letter
to the leaders of France, Germany and Italy - the nations most affected by
the horrors of fascism and World War II.
The CPRF is actively supporting the idea of holding a meeting of the heads
of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in Minsk. This step is very
significant on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the Great Victory that
seemingly buried fascism forever.
***
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation expresses solidarity with
all participants in popular resistance - Russians, Ukrainians and people
of all nationalities who are bravely and vigorously opposing the neo-Nazi
Banderovites. We express solidarity with the Communists of Ukraine who are
subjected to violence by extremists.
One of the most important features of the Ukrainian citizens is their
unwillingness to put up with the thieving authorities, their constant
internal focus on the protest, their willingness to throw off the pedestal
the leaders who have lost trust. These features of the Ukrainian people
made it much easier for the puppeteers to organize “maidans" and "orange
revolutions", i.e. fictitious protest actions pursuing other objectives
than those inscribed on the slogans and declared at the meetings.
But these features of Ukrainians also suggest that the current regime
upheld by Kiev will not be long-living and that the fierce resistance to
it from the Donbas area and Lugansk will spread to most of Ukraine and
lead to its downfall. But there is a danger that as a result of the
"parliamentary elections" in October of this year the present-day
Ukrainian "elite" will be displaced by even tougher radical guys
professing Nazism and overt Russophobia. Then a Bandera-style nationalism
will be established in Ukraine as a ruling ideology. And Ukrainian
society, eventually split into irreconcilable camps, will plunge into an
even more violent civil conflict than at present.
A complete change of the socio-economic system in Ukraine and return to
the principles of the welfare state, in which Ukraine achieved prosperity
in the Soviet times, can be the sole salvation-bringing alternative to the
current situation. We are convinced that the healthy forces of the
Ukrainian society will prevail and drive the Bandera successors back into
the cave from which they have crawled
Кризис на
Украине и
его
глубинные
корни
Геннадий
ЗЮГАНОВ,
Председатель
ЦК КПРФ
全員に返信
投稿者に返信
転送
新着メール 0 件