Passions In The Rada: The Linguistic Edition

So, they had a fight in the Rada (Ukrainian parliament), this is nothing new. Aggressive Russophobes seated there usually get activated when laws related to such things as improving relations with Russia, or giving some form of rights to the Russian element within the country are debated...

The current brawl has to do with the latter category. A vote on a new language law giving regional rights to languages with 10% or more native speakers of that language in that particular region, was shut down by Russophobic hooligans. The Party of Regions disingenuously waited almost to the parliamentary elections which will take place in Autumn with this law. Why they waited so long might be due to incompetence of the Party of Regions, or cowardice in the face of Svidomite bullies, or a combination of both of these factors. Now they of course have to do it in order to activate their disillusioned and apathetic electorate.  

The above linked report at RIAN says that the law was to give Russian language regional rights. While this is true, this is only part of the story. While Russian will be the biggest beneficiary of the proposed law, since ethnic Russians are the largest minority group in Ukraine, Hungarian, Romanian, and Crimean Tatar would also benefit. (see my post here) The latter named objectively needs such a law more than Russian (which even outside of the ethnic Russian community is more used than Ukrainian).

However, this part of the story is important, and the needs of the Tatars are somehow irrelevant in the current standoff. The opposition views the law as de facto institutionalising bilingualism. This is of course a lie. For an example of bilingualism one has to look no further than to Belarus, institutionalised bilingualism means Russian as the second language of the state. Such a law would most likely obliterate Ukrainian and relegate that language to bantustans as Alexander Motyl put it. But the Party of Regions was careful not to go that way.      

Speaking about the opinions of the opposition, below is a translation of Tymoshenko's comment she made from hospital:

Today [24 May] the governing party headed by Yanukovych is planning to pass for assessment a completely adventurous and irresponsible law project on institutionalising bilingualism in Ukraine. This is exactly that case, when, as they say, nobody was dragging them by their tongues, they have dragged themselves out on their own.

... 

I have long said that we do not have a problem with languages, if you have a problem with bilingualism, learn Ukrainian.

Instituting a second state language is not just a pre-election initiative of Yanukovych (note: true, the law was in the works for some time). We know that on the eve of each elections they raise this issue and attempt to manipulate the people. They do not need a language, neither Russian nor Ukrainian. They do not need neither Ukraine, nor Russia. They live according to different understanding [of reality]. They need personal enrichment, they need a full control over the country.

I want, with all my responsibility, to say, that these are not just pre-election games, this is a crime against Ukraine, a crime against the nation. It is a crime against history and against the people. And I with all my responsibility declare that I will not let that happen! Hear, I here behind bars will not allow you to mock Ukraine!

I am telling you, so that you know, that to mock the language, to mock the basic principles of creating a nation is more dangerous than to mock Tymoshenko. And wherever you may be, I will definitely get at you and make you answer before the law and before the country for what you are doing now.    

Source (hat tip varjag-2007)

I have specifically highlighted the lies of Tymoshenko. The proposed law does not institutionalise bilingualism, nor a second state language, it simply gives minority languages more rights on a regional level. It is not a crime against the people, that is if you consider the giving rights to use native language a crime. It is not a crime against history because Ukraine is an ahistorical entity, and some parts of Ukraine were in fact always Russian speaking. Nobody mocks the Ukrainian language, the law does not do away with its privileged status. And finally, the Party of Regions will not be harmed by the new law. The people protesting it never voted for Yanukovych in the first place, his voters on the other hand are asking why is getting this law passed taking so long.

Tymoshenko recently bragged to Zerkalo Nedeli ("Mirror of the Week" - Ukrainian magazine; see a translation of her rants on Motyl's blog) that Yanukovych wants to deprive poor Ukrainians of European future. The Party of Regions is corrupt and incompetent to the detriment of its electorate and itself, but the present law is probably the best thing they came up with in a long time. It is in the spirit of current practice in developed European countries. Tymoshenko's nationalist demagoguery on the other hand is stuck way back in European past, and belongs to nineteenth century.  

Kuzio Confirms What I Have Been Saying Here Recently

Below is a video of an interview Taras Kuzio made recently to the Ukrainian section of Voice of America. After six minutes of Orange talking points comes something interesting...

I translate:

...Germany was always against the expansion of EU and NATO, not just to Ukraine, but to all other countries, to Turkey, to Belarus, to Ukraine, to Georgia and so on...

This is not an anti-Ukrainian campaign. And they have seized the moment, seized the ammunition that Mr. Yanukovych and his comrades give them. They take this opportunity to destroy the possibility of signing an Association Agreement with Ukraine. And it is Kiev that gives them this possibility.  

I take an even more pessimistic view (see here and here). I think that if it wasn't for Yanukovych, the EU would simply come up with a new excuse. By the way, it is not just Germany that acts this way, Czech Republic, as far as I have observed, pretty much sides with the German position. 

Nestor Makhno And Svidomite Russophobia

Below is a translation from the memoirs of an Ukrainian Anarchist revolutionary, and an organiser of a very successful (for a time, until he was finally driven out by the Bolsheviks) peasant rebellion in South-Central Ukraine during the Russian revolution, Nestor Makhno. My personal views are of course to the extreme right of Makhno's, and he would most likely chop my reactionary head off my neck if we met, but nevertheless what you will read below is relevant to what I post here.

It describes local reaction towards Russophobic policies of the Central Rada, an Ukrainian nationalist government which has formed in Kiev in the wake of Russian revolution, and whose main problems were legitimacy, and maintaining control over the territory it claimed. One of the reasons for its lack of legitimacy was a lack of grip on reality and aggressive Svidomite Russophobia. 

It is rather interesting that throughout his Memoirs, Makhno never held any high opinion of the Central Rada, the Hetmanate of Skoropadsky, or Petlyura's Direktoriya. He did not view these clowns as worthy enemies, his anxieties were more about the Austro-Hungarian and German backers of these clowns, White counter-revolutionaries, and of course Bolsheviks...

The translation of a bit of this text is below, even further below are my notes that shall help you make sense of what is being said. 

***

Day after day rumours were arriving at our district about the fact that the Central Rada has not made peace (because [it wanted to maintain grip on the] government) with the Bolshevik- and leftwing Social Revolutionary (eser) (1) bloc, and having drawn the working masses into their [inter-]partisan conflict, has decided to [create] on the scene of revolutionary actions, a bloody massacre. In Hulyaypole (2) and in the district [around it; of Hulaypole], agents of Central Rada started to appear more and more, by the dozens, preaching 'eternal war against the katsaps.' (3)

The population of the district became even more alert. From all settlements and villages, representatives of the peasants began to appear everyday in the bureau of Anarcho-Communists in Hulyaypole. In the Council (Soviet) of workers and peasants, those that were closely interested in the fate of the revolution, have sought the advice of the Anarchists and the Council on what measures to take in near future to maintain their right to [their] land, to bread and freedom in life unhindered by this or that government.

Having presided over the Hulyaypole district Council and having had authority from the latter to enact full investigation of the difficult situation that has arisen for the revolution, I have sent to Kiev and Odessa (the areas of conflict between forces of Ukrainian Central Rada and Bolshevik- leftwing Social Revolutionary forces). When the dispatchers returned and explained what is going on in that area, we have immediately summoned the Council.

On this session of the Council we have analysed all the data about the activities of the Central Rada, and the Bolshevik- leftwing Social Revolutionary bloc, from which it became apparent that, even though the Central Rada was headed by Social Revolutionaries and Social Democrats (esdeks), the goal of their fight against the Bolsheviks and leftwing Social Revolutionaries was not only to expel 'the katsaps from ridna nen'ka Ukraina',(4) but also the total suppression of all signs of any Social revolution.

The session has declared its resolution: death to the Central Rada.

On 31 December 1917 I was at the village of Pologi doing organisational matters and have received from Aleksandrovsk, detailed testimonies that a battle is being waged between the Red Army group of Bogdanov and Haydamakite (5) factions of the Central Rada in very Aleksandrovsk itself.

The moment was such that just standing on the side and listening to what is being done was not possible. To remain neutral to either of them was even more impossible, because the population of the district had a particular enmity towards the politics of Central Rada, agents of which having travelled around the district and were oppressing all types of of revolutionaries, calling them 'traitors to nen'ka Ukrayina' and defenders of the 'katsaps'. The latter needed, in the ideology of the Central Rada, (according to the pronouncements of its agents) to be killed... (6)

Such an idea has insulted the peasants. They have dragged the agitators from stage and have beaten them as enemies of brotherly unity of Ukrainian and Russian people.

This rancorous agitation of Ukrainian chauvinists has forced the working masses of Hulyaypole district on a path of armed struggle against all forms of ... Ukrainism, (7) because the people viewed this chauvinism, which has in fact been the ruling ideology of Ukrainism, as deadly to the Ukrainian revolution.

***    

1) I think this refers to the split between the radicals and moderates in the Party of Social Revolutionaries, but I personally would have to read up on how that looked in Ukraine.  

2) Hulyaypole seems to had been Makhno's central, he talks about it very often in his Memoirs.

3) «вiчну борьбу с кацапами» - Katsap is an Ukrainian slur meaning 'Russian'

4) «кацапiв из рiдной земли неньки Украины» - 'ridna ne'ka Ukraina' could be translated vaguely as 'motherland Ukraine'.

5) Some Ukrainian revolutionaries in the South West took the name of eighteenth century rebels called the Haydamaks.

6) This is followed by this passage «як гобытилi в мови», I did not know how to translate it.

7) на путь вооруженной борьбы со всякой формой обособленного украинства - Makes sense to me as a Slavic person but rendering it into English is pain.

PS: I am pretty sure there is an English or French translation of the above, made by Anarchist circles, somewhere on the market. I personally did not bother finding it anywhere because I have no need for it. However, the material is highly readable, and if you can find Makhno's memoirs, Russian Revolution In Ukraine I think they are called, you will not do wrong. 

Moderation Of Comments

It seems that open commenting here has not shown the desired results...

In January I said that there is a problem with comments here. Due to a spam prevention this website uses, some comments simply were passed on for moderation. Unfortunately this created a situation as I have realised, where most of the decent contributors have not been able to post their comments due to the presence of links in them. On the other hand, certain individuals who mostly, or exclusively, engage in nothing but trolling have been able to get through without hindrance.

It has reached a point where the comments sections here were inundated with nonsense, and I did not notice several substantial comments, and failed to approve them on time to my embarrassment. Unfortunately, I cannot turn off the spam prevention, I would much rather deal with commercial spam without hindering people from posting otherwise valid comments. But that unfortunately is the situation as of right now.

In order to do justice to all, I decided to set moderation to comments for all. You can still post comments telling me that I suck, and you will be approved when I get to a device and open my site.  

Russophobe Motyl Can't Get Putin Out Of His Head

I seem to be reading too much of Motyl, maybe I can't get him out of my head. But then again, there are not that many active blogs dealing with Ukraine and the things I write about here apart from his. This post is a rant...

In his recent post Motyl predicts that Yanukovych will falsify elections come October because his ratings are at an all time low, and he cannot possibly win. I am not going to argue with his assessment of Yanukovych's ratings, but I will refrain from predicting anything. However, what I am going to have fun with is this passage:

Worse, the world will be watching these elections very carefully. The Europeans will want to know whether Yanukovych’s supposed desire to join Europe will be reflected in actual procedures. Russian democrats will want to know whether Yanukovych will try to emulate Vladimir Putin. The Americans will expect fair and free elections as a sign of the Yanukovych regime’s willingness to atone for its imprisonment of democratic politicians.

As I said recently, it is Europeans who are not concerned about Ukrainian desires to join Europe. As Romano Prodi once said, (thanks Moscow Exile) Ukraine has about as much chance of joining the EU as New Zeland. That was under Yushchenko, now Ukraine's chances look more like those of Papua New Guinea. Yanukovych has been been a blessing to Brussels, otherwise they would have to come up with a new excuse to brush off Ukraine. The EU is not willing to accept a huge, underdeveloped and politically unstable country such as Ukraine.  

By the way, we are not quite talking about any kind of joining Europe here but about an Association Agreement, the kind Egypt has. I guess Egypt is more developed and politically stable than Ukraine, or maybe EU is simply not even willing to associate with Ukraine, Egypt is more dear to Brussels than Ukraine. It is the astounding stupidity and dilettantism of Ukrainian elite, whether past or present, which still makes it travel to Brussels and promise its people an European future.

Russian democrats should also be concerned about their own grip on reality, because if Yanukovych decides to falsify elections, he will not be emulating Putin. Does anybody remember how much the polling agency Levada reported Putin will get back in January? Oh yes, that's right, 63 %. How much did he get in March? 64%? Did I mention I like Levada? Yes I do, ironically because they are anti-Putin. They in fact like to play dirty number games too (as I reported back in January) as a service to their unelectable liberal friends. You see, you cannot argue with numbers and remain credible, and they know it in Levada. The fact that it has not penetrated the thick skulls of some liberal cretins is a matter of religious zeal on their part I guess.

It might be surprising that an intelligent man such as Motyl would consider the opinion of the so called 'Russian democrats' as relevant but it is not surprising at all. Svidomites and liberals have been long time bedfellows. Both of these groups are equally delusional and anti-Russian, they make a perfect match for each other. At least Motyl likes to quote numbers to support his claims, for that I should give him credit. Seems like we both love quoting numbers when they are favourable. I also see that Motyl also likes Rating, it is unfortunate that they have not published any new electoral forecasts lately.   

Is EU Giving Ukraine False Hopes?

Some of my own my random thoughts on EU-Ukraine relations. Mind you, my knowledge might be limited, you can always add to it...

I have registered that a number of EU politicians, including those in my home country, have said recently that Ukraine has to first become democratic to sign an Association Agreement with the EU. Yanukovych has certainly played into the hands of EU by jailing Tymoshenko. I should point out that the EU demand to let Tymoshenko out is utterly unrealistic but it serves a purpose in my opinion, and that purpose is a rebuke of Ukraine and its wishes.

It is unrealistic because Yanukovych simply cannot let Tymoshenko out. First of all, as the common wisdom spread by the media tells us, Yanukovych removed his principal political rival. Second of all, letting Tymoshenko out would discredit the legal system in Ukraine. If there was any justice in Ukraine, half of the Rada (the Parliament) would be in jail, and the president would probably be in a familiar place too. There is no reason to believe that Tymoshenko is innocent, even if her process was (allegedly I should point out) politically motivated.

As I said, the issue of Tymoshenko is being used to tell Ukraine politely to bugger off. We are not even talking about an EU membership here, we are talking about an Association Agreement, and Yanukovych was not the first president of Ukraine to want that kind of agreement. Yushchenko also wanted it but was told to wait. He was left out in the cold no matter how much he proclaimed Ukraine's European character, and no matter that he did not jail his political opponents.

Second thing that I would like to bring your attention to is the fact that Ukraine wants to join a club whose members are countries like Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, and Turkey. The first three are no examples of democracies, and do not show much desire to join the EU in the future, the latter is relatively democratic, and has some EU ambitions. Did the EU ever break Association Agreement with say Morocco for its lack of democracy, did it ever break Association Agreement with Turkey for its anti-democratic transgressions? So it turns out that the EU is saying that Ukraine is not good enough to have the same agreement these countries enjoy.   

The Language Of Kotlyarevskiy

One of those posts that are not important, and which nobody reads, but which always receive at least a dozen or so of passionate comments underneath...

Kotlyarevskiy was a late eighteenth century writer, one of the first (if not the first) to write in the vernacular of Russia Minor (long before Shevchenko, I do not know why the latter receives so much credit). And it seems that Kotlyarevsky was a complete Ukrainophobe. Below is a photo of a 1809 edition of his Eneida (full title: Virgilieva Eneida na Malorossiyskiy Yazyk Perelozhennaya - Or in English: Virgil's Aeneid Translated into Little Russian).

Wait a minute, 'Little Russian language?' I was told here on this blog that 'Little Russian' sounds degrading, I read elsewhere that this is considered an insult. Svidomites certainly seem to have a problem with that term, but I'm quite certain that Kotlyarevskiy did not share in their anxieties. Here is the same thing, only from 1798:

The 1798 edition has a bit different title (Eneida na Malorossiyskiy Yazyk Perelitsiovannaya - Meaning is the same as the one cited above) Oh dear, this is a decade of Kotlyarevsky's Ukraine denial and Russian chauvinism! Or maybe Kotlyarevskiy did not know a language called Ukrainian? Maybe he never even thought of his country as Ukraine?

We have to understand what makes Svidomites so angry about the term 'Little Russia.' The term defines the people as having a connection to the 'Russian world' (the Svidomites hate that latter term too by the way). Ukrainian nationalism is a separatist endeavor which wants to severe this connection. Of course doing so requires a rather violent incursion on reality, and thus the Svidomites get offended by things that are not at all offensive.

PS: Since this is an English language blog, I did not bother discussing the language of Kotlyarevskiy itself. Suffice to say that it is easily readable to anyone who knows Russian well. There is a Soviet 1980 edition of the poem which attempted to make it more Ukrainian, but the resulting product still is a bit more Surzhyk like than pure Ukrainian. (see more here and here if you speak Russian)  

Svidomite Irredentism

What you see above are ethnographic maps compiled by nineteenth and early twentieth century Svidomites showing the range of the Ukrainian peoples. Look at them carefully so you understand what this post is about. The Svidomites have included in them areas they thought are settled by ethnic Ukrainians, even areas where people don't quite know that they happen to be ethnically Ukrainian or don't quite want to be. But they have not to worry, once their lands would be redeemed in the Greater Ukraine, they will have no choice but to accept their new identity...

The below is a translation from a blog post which is now several months old. It came out around the the Day of Consolidation, 21. January. (День соборності - Den' sobornosti is hard to do justice in translation but is also translated as Day of Unity), a state holiday which refers back to the signing of union treaty (the so called Akt Zluky) between the West Ukrainian People's Republic (ZUNR i.e Galicia) and Ukrainian People's Republic (UNR - i.e. lands beyond the Zbruch river) in 1919. I like calling it the 'paper union,' because it literally existed only on paper. And I always wondered what exactly they were uniting there, as West Ukrainians had by then lost most of their territory, including their capital Lvov to the Poles; and UNR's hold over its own territory was tenuous at best. But I shall leave these little details aside for some future post, they are history. The present is more interesting.

Here is what happened at a certain event held in Lvov on the Day of Consolidation/Unity/Whatever. Speaking at that event Rostislav Novozhenets from BYUT (Tymoshenko's party) uttered the following:

Speaking today about consolidation, we are mostly speaking about the unification of East and West, but that is not at all so, because the founders of the Akt (Zluky) have put into the meaning of consolidation: unification of all ethnically Ukrainian lands in a single Ukrainian state.  

Mr. Novozhenets underscored that the territory of Ukraine was 60% larger in 1919 than it is today. I'm not sure which Ukraine Novozhenets is talking about. It should be pointed out that it is rather difficult to make a cartographic representation of the chaos of the revolutionary years, and not to mention that territorial pretensions do not mean actual control of a territory.

Novozhenets continued:

We have lost, (note: I transliterate most of the name of these lands as they appear in the text, they have various names in different languages so I will try to provide a link to an English language wikipedia entry most approximating them, so you can have a rough idea what is being talked about) Lemkovshchina, Nadsyan'e, Kholmshchina, Podlyash'e, which went to Poland, Beresteishchina, Gomel'shchina, which went to Belarus, Starodubshchina, Eastern Slobozhanshchina, and finally Kuban' which has on 28 May 1918 joined Ukraine... (note: I really wonder what followed these three dots, suffice to say that all of these regions belong to Russia now, as for unification of Kuban' with Ukraine, attempts to that effect were made, but I have yet to hear about some definitive unification) We have lost Transnistria, Maramoroshchina, Southern Bukovina, which are today in Romania. (note: the territorial history of Transnistria is a bit more complicated, and it certainly isn't in Romania today, as for the other areas, local Eastern Slavic populations are very small, and that is why Stalin never made the effort to reunite them with Ukraine) This why today we do not have consolidation, we should make this our goal.        

Novozhenets' views were supported by the, also present at the event, leader of the paramilitary UNA-UNSO, Yuriy Shukhevych. Personally I knew about this guy Novozhenets and his irredentist ideas before, but given their extreme nature, I never assumed that he would be in Tymoshenko's party. I have placed him among the followers of the likes of Shukhevych. The author of the blog-post in question takes notice of this interesting phenomenon:

We should notice also... the constant desire of the locked-up Yulia and her party colleagues to take the place of Ukrainian Nazis and a long term alliance with real Nazis. Not to mention that demonstrating side by side with 'Svoboda' of Tyahnybok and the descendants of killers from OUN-UPA that call themselves UNA-UNSO has completely become a norm.     

PS: In connection with the last quote from the blog-post in question, I am reminded of Motyl's recent article that he published in KyivPost (and which I have touched on here). I quote the relevant bits:

By the same token, some Ukrainian democrats are willing to include Svoboda in an anti-regime electoral coalition, while others are not. Their dilemma is identical to that faced by Russian democrats, who have to decide whether an anti-Putin coalition should or should not have room for nationalists and communists. If you think collaborating with Regionnaire extremism is permissible, you have no choice but to permit collaboration with Communist or Svoboda extremism.

If you think all extremists are equally odious, you have no choice but to view cooperation with the Regionnaires as wrong as cooperation with the Communists or Svoboda. Unless, of course, you believe that extremists with power are less odious than extremists without power, in which case you won’t collaborate with Svoboda until they make it into office.

Fortunately, democrats may be able to sidestep these moral dilemmas—but only at this point in time—precisely because the Regionnaire regime is crumbling, while the Stalinists and Svoboda are likely to remain minority parties (or so I hope). The democrats don’t need any of them to regain power.

Certainly, these 'bona fide orange parties' (a term coined by Taras Kuzio) do not need VO 'Svoboda' to take office. But as I point out, these parties are not all that bona fide. The analogy with Russian liberals is not fitting because the Russian liberals need the nationalists and the reds to create formidable protest crowd, without them they are no more than a rabble. As we can see, the cooperation of BYUT with Svoboda is due to the fact that BYUT has some extremist membership. And furthermore, BYUT does not appear concerned by having people like Novozhenets in its ranks.   

Russians Are Rape Apologists...

...according to a Russophobic Feminist Miriam Elder...

Miriam Elder has a problem, a problem with a column somebody published on Russia Today, and it seems that aside from that little piece of writing, what Miriam Elder also has a problem with is: Russia the country, men in general, particular man named Julian Assange (I heard they have are collectively angry at this guy in The Guardian), another man named Vladimir Putin (that's obligatory), and maybe some other things.

The column, (read it before reading the rest of this post) that so enraged Miriam Elder, is about a certain pro-footballer named Ched Evans who appears to had been a victim of a new way of 'progressive' thinking brought to us by our philosophising Feminists. Feminists have thought very long about rape and came to the conclusion that women are unable to give consent to sex when they are drunk, and thus if a man has sex with a drunk woman, that woman can bring that man to court and call him a rapist. The Feminists in the media will do the rest of the job of destroying that man's character.

As for the column itself, it does not appear to be anything particularly radical from pro-male/anti-Feminist advocacy. The author (and it is hard to tell whether it is a man or a woman) does not appear to be from these circles. The author still believes in myths such as the pay gap, and thinks that Feminism is about equal rights. But Feminists have had a monopoly on discourse for several decades now, any critique of Feminism or pro-male advocacy is therefore instantly met with hostility.

I quote Miriam Elder:

When Sheffield United footballer Ched Evans was sentenced to five years in jail last month for raping a 19-year-old woman, the backlash was immediate. Fellow footballers called the victim a "slag". Online commenters spewed vile hatespeak, accusing her of asking for it.

Who can we now add to that list? The Kremlin's English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.#

"Life sucks in a bad way if you happen to live in Britain," begins a column published on the channel's website in the wake of the Evans verdict. "Disclaimer: Only if you are a man of virile age. Being rich and hot-looking makes it worse." What follows is the worst of rape apologia, a litany of excuses, justifications and jokes that women have spent decades fighting against – 1,000 words devoted to proving why Evans, and, indeed, all mankind, is the true victim.

"No allegations of physical force," writes the anonymous author, venting his rage at the verdict. "No coercion … Yet Evans is found guilty." Let readers remember that the court convicted Evans after hearing that his victim was too drunk to consent to sex, that she believed her drink may have been spiked, that she has no memory of the incident.

Because mankind cannot be a victim of injustice, that contradicts the patriarchy theory where men are the oppressors and women are the innocent perennial victims of male injustices. I am also sure that the girl's drinks were spiked, spiked with high levels of alcohol. It is actually normal for heavy drinkers to have blackouts, read any alcoholism prevention publication in your local NHS clinic. It is said in some reports that she downed half a bottle of wine, and some shots. Excuse me, but after this, do not expect to have any recollection of your last night, that cannot be guaranteed.

I could not find any information on how inebriated Mr. Evans was. Nobody is interested in that of course, we should all assume that Evans was completely sober and in complete control of his actions. Miriam Elder appears to suggest that:

But, according to Russia Today, who hasn't? "You can think whatever you like about the moral standing of the three people involved," the Russia Today author writes. "But the last time we checked there was no statute against getting pissed drunk and having a drunken romp. Not in Britain at least. Because if there were, too many lads to count could be accused of statutory rape after many a pint on a Saturday night." 

And that's exactly the point; which the author promptly misses. For it is the God-given right of every man to have his way with whichever woman he chooses: "We live in 2012 when men increasingly have no rights," says the author. "Too many a woman thinks that somehow men are a source of unfairness and trouble in the world."

The author of the Russia Today column never uttered that it is 'the God-given right of every man to have his way with whichever woman he chooses.' Nor has this been uttered on this blog, or any other place that publishes material of pro-male/anti-Feminist nature that I visit. And having read a number of religious texts, I do not know of any such God given right.

But this inference Elder makes speaks more about herself than it does about the anonymous author of that Russia Today column. Because in her Feminist thinking, we live in a rape culture, where predatory men rape one in four women (I do not have to explain that the latter is complete nonsense but Feminists believe in it and promote it). Thus she is completely impervious to the reality that it is, more often than not, the women who do the selection.

Women of course never make a way on an inebriated man in Feminist fantasy thinking. No, that never happens! The reality is that it does happen, and as I say, more often than not. The only difference here is that a man is expected to suck it up the next morning, and women have the privilege of destroying the man they sleep with through courts. But don't you dare speak about that, or you might provoke the wrath of women like Miriam Elder:

Were these but the ravings of a lone internet commenter or the private ramblings of a chauvinist, that would be bad enough. That they are made by someone who presumably considers himself a journalist, behind a cloak of anonymity provided by a channel that likes to frame itself as an "international news organisation" on par with the BBC and al-Jazeera, is another matter entirely.

Chauvinist is a term out of the dictionary of Feminist shaming language. It means any man (women are said to have false consciousness) who dares to speak-up on behalf of men. How dare he?! What she is even more angry about is that Russia Today provided a space for an article advocating on the behalf of men. It is not a blog like this one or some lone comment somewhere, it is an 'international news organisation' that happens to be even more popular than The Guardian. I personally find it commendable that Russia Today ran an article like that, it is about time the mainstream media began to speak about male issues. But Miriam Elder views things differently, she is angered by the fact that the author of the column in question chose to remain anonymous:

I called Russia Today's spokeswoman, Ksenia Bregadze, to see if the channel stood by the author's words. "It's the position of the columnist – it's not a fact that we support it," she said, which doesn't exactly sound like a denial. Why the anonymity of the author? "It's a situation where the author doesn't want his name to be known to all," she said. Is he in Russia? The UK? The US? "I don't even know who he is."

And at the very end of her article:

But that doesn't mean that anonymous authors, promoted by the state, should be allowed to broadcast their hate-filled views to the world without recourse.

It is precisely irrational women like Miriam Elder why people writing pro-male/anti-Feminist advocacy pieces choose to remain anonymous. Notice how she drops the word 'hate-filled', there is nothing hateful in the article Miriam Elder was reacting to. Typical leftist tactics, these idiots attempt to provoke a moral outrage instead of reacting to any arguments made. This can be seen throughout Miriam Elder's piece with her constant usage of Feminist shaming language. Would you like Miriam Elder, and women like her to have their recourse?

Miriam Elder also managed to insert into her rant the obligatory picture of Russians as barbarians who need to be civilised by progressive British Feminists like herself. And she also did not forget The Guardian's in house grudge against Julian Assange. Throughout her post she refers to Russia Today as state owned:

It remains unclear to me whether that was an example of Russia Today's sloppy unprofessionalism or disregard of questions. The channel's latest star is Julian Assange, who has yet to face accusations of sexual coercion in Sweden. 

The state-run channel says it aims to bring viewers "another story", one not told by the so-called mainstream media. In practice, this means bringing viewers the Russian state's point of view. Let's not forget how several years ago, Vladimir Putin, who is due to be inaugurated next week for a third presidential term, once "jokingly" praised former Israeli president Moshe Katsav for being a "strong man" because he "raped 10 women" (Katsav is now serving seven years in prison after being convicted of two counts of rape). "I never would have expected it of him," Putin was reportedly caught saying off-mic during a meeting with then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert when the allegations first came to light in 2006. "He has surprised us all," Putin said. "We envy him!" 

Russia has a woeful record on women's rights in general, and acknowledgement of rape, marital violence and sexual harassment in particular. Once a leader in the feminist struggle, it is now a haven of reactionary thought on gender roles. There are particular historical reasons for that, and a discussion on the trend is just beginning. 

Does anybody remember how it was with Assange's rape allegation? Assange had consensual sex with two women in Sweden who turned out to be mutual friends, and they decided to settle their differences by accusing Assange of rape. I wonder, should Russia Today not have a person on air who had dodgy rape allegation made agaist him by two easy Swedish women?

As for Putin's remarks on Katzav's rape case, my personal opinion is that Putin was mocking the kind of justice that was visited upon unfortunate Moshe Katsav. Here we have a case of a powerful man (and alleged womaniser) getting accused after the actual events when there was no way to find any proof of the allegations. It is a case of a man going to jail on a mere accusations of women. Wonderful isn't it? Although I personally, unlike Putin, think that this here is no laughing matter.

In Russia as anywhere else, rapists are not treated with ignorance. And when I say rapists, I mean genuine rapists, not some normal guys who had one night stand with a slut they met in a bar. I wouldn't say that Russia is a country where there women falsely accusing men don't exist, Russia is far from perfect, and I have heard of such cases, but I guess the Russians have a long way to go to reach the kind of Feminist tyranny that is the West.

The Bolsheviks might had been leaders in female emancipation in their time, but this was First Wave Feminism with some Marxist additions. Nothing compared to the radical Second and Third Wave in the West which has nothing to do with emancipating women but more to do with winning power and privileges over men. Because if in the opinion of Miriam Elder, the Russians are ignorant, then the Westerners are certainly irrationally over-attentive to issues like rape. Is it making the West any more moral or just? I care to differ.

Karevin: "Russians Are No Brothers To Us!"

The following is a translation of an interview with a Ukrainian historian Alexandr Karevin, I found it here, and originally it was posted here...

Alexandr Karevin is one of those authors in contemporary Ukraine, alongside Oles' Buzina and some others, who represent what I like to call the 'Russian element'. And quite frankly these people, although almost completely unknown to the English speaking public, have some popularity in Ukraine. They also happen to have a sizeable hate-club, which is a sign they are doing something right, touching the hearts of the easily offended.

Here is the translation, my notes and commentary are below:

***

-As is apparent from your publications, you are a follower of today unfashionable point of view about the national unity of White Russians  (i.e. Belorussians), Greater Russians (or Velikorossy whom we call simply Russians), and Little Russians (or Malorossy whom we also call Ukrainians).

-This point of view did not become unfashionable today, but 95 years ago. I have also been brought up in the Soviet times under the influence of the myth about three brotherly nations. And when in early 1990's, already after finishing university, I first heard that Ukrainians are part of the Russian nation, I thought despite all my anti-Rukh (1) sentiments, 'This here has to be an excess! This has to be Greater Russian chauvinism!' (2)

This is how I thought until approximately 1992, when I read a book by the notable Russian historian Nikolay Ul'yanov: Origins Of Ukrainian Separatism. (3) Not even the whole book but its shortened version: Where Did The Pro-Independence Movement Come From? (4), which came out as an addition to the magazine Moskva. There it is rather convincingly proven that Ukrainians and Greater Russians are one nation.      

I am historian, until then I thought that I know history well, but what I have read was a novelty to me. I do not change my views with yet another book that I have read, any new information I try to take critically. And I began to think: What can one provide in opposition to Nikolay Ul'yanov? I could not debunk his assertions at the time, I had to take a time-out. I have thought a lot about this question, I have been digging through scholarly literature, but after all I did not find any counterarguments. And I was simply forced to accept that he was right. In turn I have been researching this topic, and [my research] only confirmed the conclusion about Russian (Belorussian, Little Russian, and Greater Russian) national unity.

It should be understood that between Russians of Russia Minor (Ukrainians, Little Russians) and Russians of Greater Russia (Greater Russians) there exist particular ethnographic differences. As among representatives of any other large nation, such as between Germans of Upper and Lower Germany, or Poles of Greater and Lesser Poland, or between the French of Northern and Southern France, or Italians of Northern and Southern Italy. According to data (from ethnography, history, philology, ethnic psychology), the difference between Greater Russians and Little Russians in the beginning of twentieth century was lower than between those aforementioned, Northern and Southern French, Italians, Germans. (5)

Russians were declared after 1917 to be three different ('botherly') nations. They had been declared as such without appeal. Any debate on this issue was banned. Little Russians were renamed Ukrainians, and a total Ukrainisation was conducted. So now we have what we have. (6) But the truth remains truth! Our professional 'patriots', the 'nationally conscious' (7) love to quote Shevchenko: 'Who are we? Whose fathers' children are we? (8) and so on. So decide, whose fathers' children you are! Maybe then will you understand that the Russophobia which is so studiously cultivated in certain circles, is not only harmful, but also goes against the truth.

-If your change of views occured after independence, then how did you vote in the referendum of 1991, (9) if it is no secret?

-No, it is no secret. I voted against independence. Not because I have foreseen into what economic abyss Ukraine will fall (this in particular I have not foreseen), but because I was certain that Ukraine would be better off with Russia than without her. 

***

1) This refers to the People's Movement of Ukraine (Narodnyy Rukh Ukrayiny - Народний Рух України). A major anti-Communist and pro-independence force during glasnost' and early independent Ukraine. The party still exists, although its significance has now be diluted by the rise of other parties.

2) Ну, это уже перебор! Это и есть великорусский шовинизм! 

3) I happen to have this book in my library and it is perhaps the best and likewise most unique and strange book I happen to possess. (you can have it too from here) Ul'yanov was a professor at Yale, but unfortunately this one of his publications exists only in the Russian language. I can think of only one similar publication to this book in the English language, namely Ivan l. Rudnytsky's essay: "The Intellectual Origins of Modern Ukraine." (can be read here) But Rudnytsky's essay is way too brief compared to Ul'yanov's book.

The strangest thing about the book is the fact that it is written using typography and with grammar more typical of late Tsarist era than 1960's when it first appeared. The latest books of this kind I can think of are Russian books written by the White diaspora, and Subcarpathian Rusyns in 1930's Czechoslovakia. 

4) Откуда пошло самостийничество?

5) In fact the difference between a Venetian and Sicilian is greater than that between Russians and Ukrainians even today.

6) маємо те, що маємо - Karevin used Ukrainian here which I unfortunately cannot express in translation.

7) Who I like to call Svidomites.

8) Хто ми? Чиїх батьків діти?

9) The independence referendum

Motyl's So Called Argument

Mike Averko brought to my attention an article Alexander Motyl had published in Kiev Post...

In that article, Motyl calls the Party of Regions extremist and xenophobic. Fair enough, the Party of Regions deserves hate for many things, but what is the essence of Party of Regions extremism? Here is Motyl in his own words:

As for the Regionnaires, two years of their rule have relegated Ukrainian language, culture, and identity to Bantustans, exacerbated tensions between Ukrainian speakers and Russian speakers, intentionally promoted Russian chauvinism...

This is followed by the more believable accusation of erosion of democracy and rule of law under Yanukovych, but the above is mentioned first, thus one can assume that it is given more importance in the mind of Motyl. Motyl throws in the above claim without any discussion, he expects his readers to take it wholesale and not ask questions, and given what we read from the comments left by neo-banderovite trash underneath his article, his readers are not concerned by the above words at all.

But here I put such words to the critical test. In my opinion you cannot just utter accusations like the one above without substantially justifying them. And I have to ask: What has Yanukovych done to put Ukrainian language, culture, and identity to Bantustans? Does this extreme South African analogy have any basis in actual reality? It is interesting that in Ukraine, the only official language (and Yanukovych did not make any changes to its privileged status by the way), which happens to be Ukrainian, is suddenly relegated to reservations. The president of the country regularly speaks Xhosa, ...I mean Ukrainian.

Whatever Ukrainian culture and identity is supposed to mean, I do not see any credible example of Yanukovych putting anything like that to Bantustans. One should also explain how the Party of Regions promoted Russian chauvinism. Really, give me examples of that happening! Do you remember what was alleged to be Tabachnyk's Ukrainophobia? Some comments made against Galicians. But Galicia is not the entire Ukraine, but a small and very distinct part of it. One could say that Tabachnyk's comments were an inter-Ukrainian affair rather than Russian chauvinism. So what else is there in the way of promoting Russian chauvinism?

And finally, did tensions between Russian and Ukrainian speakers not exist in Ukraine long before Yanukovych? How were they exacerbated under his rule?

I am simply not satisfied by empty accusations towards the Party of Regions, not because I feel I need to defend the party, far from it, but because I believe that these accusations are not supported by actual evidence, and as I pointed out in my recent post these accusations might in fact benefit its image. 

Denisenko Denied Access To Orthodox Churches In Canada

There is little one can add to the document below, perhaps one should notice that 'Patriarch Filaret' is included in quotation marks. His title and monastic name seem to be worthy of being included in quotation marks....

Source (hat tip disgustedwithlies)

You might also read my biographical post about Denisenko here...

Kuzio's Phantom Nationalism

Taras Kuzio wrote yet another of his articles (hat tip to Michael Averko) in his recent series of recycled arguments. I will discuss the essence of these article below:

The most recent of Kuzio's articles was published in the OpenDemocracy as a reaction to an article by Ivan Katchanovski which spoke about the rise of the nationalist All Ukrainian Union 'Svoboda' (VO 'Svoboda'). The point of Kuzio's article (or rather articles) is clear: researchers, writers, pundits and hacks should not care about VO 'Svoboda', instead they should care about the 'real' nationalist threat, Yanukovych. Kuzio's efforts are rather lame, and one has to wonder what exactly his motivation for publishing these articles is?

Kuzio has described the issue of why Yanukovych is the biggest nationalist threat as follows in a similar article of his from January. I quote:

The prevalence of bi-ethnic identities and high levels of Russian language use in eastern and southern Ukraine translates into high levels of identification with Soviet and Russian culture and deep levels of hostility towards Ukrainian nationalism. This, in turn, provides a bedrock of support for Sovietophile and Russophile parties, such as the Communist Party and the ruling pro-presidential Party of Regions because public support for social authoritarian political forces is far higher in eastern than western Ukraine. The Communist Party and Party of Regions have eight times as much support in eastern and southern Ukraine and the Crimea, at 40 percent nationwide, compared to 4-5 percent nationwide for the Svoboda nationalist party. Western Ukrainian ethnic nationalism has been weak in Ukraine and support for Svoboda, even in the face of Yanukovych’s Russophile nationality policies and democratic regression...

And in his most recent article:

First, Svoboda’s popularity has not grown – and indeed in some recent polls has declined – since the neo-Soviet and pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych was elected president in 2010. Contrary to Katchanovski's analysis, Svoboda is unlikely to cross the 5 percent threshold in October’s parliamentary elections, and even if Svoboda members are elected, it will only be in single mandate districts [rather than via nationwide proportional representation]. Western Ukrainian ethnic nationalism is weak...

...

Second, neo-Soviet and Russian nationalism is a far bigger threat to Ukraine’s democratic system and European integration than ethnic Ukrainian nationalism. Victor Yanukovych’s Party of Regions is a much more violent, anti-democratic and corrupt political machine than Svoboda could ever be.

It should be pointed out that neo-Soviet, pro-Russian, Russophile, Sovietophile, even Eurasian seem to be terms that Kuzio uses to describe the phantom he chases, and which he has apparently found embodied in the Party of Regions. It also seems that he decided to bring under the rubric of 'nationalism', all political proclivities of Russophone (or rather East) Ukrainians. One is left wondering how Russian language use translates into high levels of identification with Russian, not to mention Soviet culture, whatever the latter is? It all appears that Kuzio has a problem with the very presence of the Russian element in Ukraine.

But is there a Russian element which is in opposition to Ukrainian nationalism in Ukraine? Certainly there is, an opposition to Ukrainian nationalism, and its accompanying excesses' such as Ukraininisation has existed there for a very long time. It does not necessarily have to draw on the Soviet experience though as it has a history pre-dating the Soviet Union, but contrary to Ukrainian nationalists, and Svidomite diaspora pundits such as Kuzio (who seem to be no strangers to Ukrainian nationalism), the Russophiles generally do not appear to be that hostile towards the whole of Soviet experience.

Politically, the principal demands of these people are: rights for the Russian language (which has a much wider currency in Ukraine than Ukrainian despite the efforts of nationalist and red Ukrainisators); federalisation of the country with regards to the fact that Ukraine is an amalgam of historically barely related (or completely unrelated) territories; and a pro-Russian foreign policy vector.

Yanukovych ran on a ticket promising at least two of the above points, although as far as I can recall, he always declared his pro-EU ambitions. The question is whether the Party of Regions lives up to at least being a defender of the rights of Russian speakers, and of federalisation? The reality is that it does not live up to the latter at all, the issue of federalisation has been conveniently forgotten in the Party of Regions a long time ago. As for Russian language rights, the Party of Regions is certainly not willing to make Russian the second official, and the law on languages, which has promised more rights for Russian (and other languages by the way) at least on regional level, is still not yet ratified as far as I know (my information might be little dated here). Simply put, the so called Russophile Yanukovych does not hurry with the language issue.

We should also take a look at the following chart:

Source

The chart shows a rise in the number of pupils taking classes in Ukrainian under Yanukovych's so called (by Kuzio and by VO 'Svoboda') Ukrainophobe Minister of Education, Tabachnyk. I wonder where are those Russophile nationality policies of Yanukovych? In December last year Dr. Kuzio complained: 

In 2003, the Yanukovych government celebrated Volodymyr Shcherbytsky’s 85th anniversary and the 75th anniversary of the Holodomor Soviet-induced famine from the 1930s. Deputy Minister Dmytro Tabachnyk was responsible for ensuring the Shcherbytsky celebrations went to plan while also campaigning for international support for the Holodomor to be classified as “genocide.” Today, Yanukovych and Tabachnyk deny the Holodomor, which claimed the lives of millions of Ukrainians, was either specifically designed to target Ukraine or an attempted “genocide.”

Perhaps the attitude of Yanukovych to the issue of Holodomor is the only thing that Kuzio can find. However, Yanukovych does not deny the Holodomor, or shy away from its commemoration. One should note that Holodomor, interpreted as a genocide of Ukrainian people, is a nationalist myth which was developed into an absurd narrative in the diaspora. It does not correspond to reality, and has highly Russophobic, and at times Antisemitic undertones. It should also be pointed out that Kuzio is known to have been an ardent promoter of that myth. One does not become a Russophile or Sovietophile by not accepting diaspora nationalist fairytales, but one can certainly raise the ire of someone with nationalist proclivities like Kuzio by not accepting them. It might be Kuzio's own sympathies towards Ukrainian nationalists which make him write articles attempting to diminish the issue of VO 'Svoboda', and bring our attention to something that does not exist, namely Yanukovych's Russophilia.

Now that I have, I think convincingly, established that Yanukovych does not work in the interests of the Russian element in Ukraine, it is worth noting that Kuzio appears to inflate support the Party of Regions and the Communists have. The polling agency Rating in its electoral forecast for last month, reported that the Party of Regions has 21.3% (out of people who are determined to come to the elections; out of all asked only 16.5%) and the Communists have 9.9% ('...' out of all people asked only 7.7), this adds up to around 30% support for both parties.

Kuzio likewise talks about a decline of support for VO 'Svoboda', but according to Rating, ratings of VO 'Svoboda' have been stable for at least four months with support of more than 4%. There is chance that it might reach the 5% result needed to enter the Rada (the parliament) during elections because of its disciplined and loyal base. But even if it is unsuccessful in this way, it might still gain seats in the Rada in single mandate districts as Kuzio, among others, reminds us. He also tells us that West Ukrainian ethnic nationalism is weak nation-wide, that is because it is West Ukrainian. But in Western Ukraine, more specifically in Galicia, VO 'Svoboda' is far from what one can call weak.

In the three Galician regions, VO 'Svoboda' has a rather large representation on the regional councils. It holds 34.69% of Ternopol', 25.98% of Lvov, and 16.60% of Ivano-Frankovsk. In Galicia's neighbour to the North, in Volhynia, it has 7.44% in Volyn' and 6.34% in Rovno, in Bukovina it has 3.90%, and beyond the Zbruch river in Khmel'nytsky it has 4.06%, and in Kiev region 3.48%. Svoboda has branches in all corners of Ukraine, including rather surprisingly, Donetsk and Crimea, although it has little support in those regions, and it does not even pretend that it wants to win support in these areas. On the other hand, Rodina, a party that could be considered a representative of the Russian element (I have been inspired by its manifesto when compiling the usual demands of Russophiles), does not show much of an activity beyond its home city, Odessa.

And this brings us to who pays for all this circus, In his most recent article Kuzio writes:

Third, Svoboda’s main raison d’etre is as an artificial scarecrow designed to direct votes away from bona fide ‘orange’ democratic parties, and to mobilise eastern Ukrainian, Russophone voters against the virtual ‘nationalist bogeyman’. There are grounds to suggest that the Party of Regions has had a direct role funding Svoboda (though as financing of all parties is not transparent in Ukraine, there is no ‘smoking gun’ here).

He has repeated a line akin to the above in almost every article dedicated VO 'Svoboda', although the above is more nuanced from the usual. Compare it with this line from his January article:

There would be no Svoboda without the Party of Regions. Last year, two reports by the pro-Yanukovych American Institute in Ukraine condemned the Party of Regions financial support for Svoboda.

It is clear that Kuzio wants to present VO 'Svoboda' as a creature of the Party of Regions, and imply that if only the Party of Regions would stop feeding that creature, the creature would die. This kind of analysis, if we can even call it an analysis, suggests that the success of VO 'Svoboda' is entirely based on the support it gets from the Party of Regions or affiliated oligarchs. This I believe is a patently false view, and all it is based on are rumours and speculation. The following is a quote from an article by Tadeusz A. Olszanski:

However, the fact that the activity of Svoboda is convenient for the Party of Regions in the short term does not mean that Svoboda is controlled by the Party of Regions. Svoboda is undoubtedly an independent political force with clearly defined objectives, determined to seek their implementation. It is ready to accept help from its enemies (e.g. by accepting invitations to major political TV programmes, with probable consent from the government), including financial assistance (the common belief is that Svoboda's campaign before Ternopil district council elections in 2009 was financed by an oligarch, Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who was in conflict with Yulia Tymoshenko at the time, although the party itself denies this). 

Most people made the observation that the Party of Regions benefits from the activities of VO 'Svoboda', among them are actually Ukrainian Russophiles. Most sensible Russophiles have realised a long time ago that the Party of Regions does not work in their interests. The thinking goes that in this situation the nationalists will provoke the East Ukrainian electorate, and Yanukovych will ride in like a saviour. I think this is also far fetched given the ratings of VO 'Svoboda', and that such a strategy can work in the short run on the weak-minded. But the fact that Yanukovych does not do anything about the nationalists, and on top of that does not seem to bother with delivering on Russophile demands cannot be kept under the lid. In my opinion, this kind of technology can only hurt the Party of Regions. 

Perhaps the best gift VO 'Svoboda' offers to the Party of Regions is accusing it of being pro-Moscow, much like Kuzio does. Since the Party of Regions has next to nothing to present in terms of results of its Russophile work, I guess the word of VO 'Svoboda' and Dr. Kuzio will have to suffice. Meanwhile, the Party of Regions has voted to commemorate the 120 Anniversary of the Uniate Metropolitan and Nazi collaborator, Yosif Slipyy, further alienating its Russophile electorate.

Kuzio claims that the VO 'Svoboda' is designed to direct votes away from 'bona fide orange democratic parties.' If this is happening, it would mean that the electorate of these bona fide orange parties is not all that bona fide. And this would mean that the values of VO 'Svoboda' are shared by a lot of people. Katchanovski writes:

‘Freedom’ tries to present itself as an ideological nationalist opposition to the Yanukovych government and to occupy the political space vacated by the previous President Viktor Yushchenko, whose personal popularity, together with the popularity of his party, is in tatters.

Ironically, it was Yushchenko, hailed at the time in the West as leader of the democratic ‘Orange Revolution,’ who helped to pave the way for the illiberal ‘Freedom’ party. A  cornerstone of his policy was his promotion as national heroes of the OUN, Svoboda’s ideological predecessor, and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army(UPA), established by the OUN during World War II.  

I do not find it ironic at all, given Yushchenko's record, the man would make a great member of VO 'Svoboda'. The only thing that separates Yushchenko from membership in that party is his former membership of the Communist party. Svoboda does not allow former Commies to join. It is not just the UPA members which Yushchenko elevated to the pantheon of heroes, we should recall that Yushchenko's period was marked by other numerous instances of pandering to nationalist narratives, and Russophobia in the best traditions of Ukrainian nationalism.

Did VO 'Svoboda' feed on 'Our Ukraine's' (Yushchenko's party) carcass? I think other parties, those bona fide orange parties included, were feeding on it far more than VO 'Svoboda'. Outside of Galicia, VO 'Svoboda' does not appear to be biting away on any party. Although, on the other hand, the party membership has increased threefold in the period between 2004-2010. Because VO 'Svoboda' does not allow former Commies into its ranks, it has mostly young members. Kids who come out of school where they are taught that Bandera was a hero, that Ukrainians were always (for centuries) in conflict with the Russians (courtesy of Hrushevsky), and other nonsense, fill the ranks of VO 'Svoboda'. And kids are more likely to hear this kind of nonsense in Western Ukraine, in Galicia in particular. But Kuzio wants us to look for nationalists outside Galicia.

Many western scholars and journalists view nationalism in Ukraine as a sentiment held only by ethnic Ukrainians and a dominant political force only in the west of the country. The truth is different. The outward manifestations associated with nationalism – anti-democratic culture, racial intolerance, anti-Semitism and xenophobia – are more of a problem in eastern and southern Ukraine and Crimea than in western Ukraine. Leaked US embassy cables reported ^↑ that neo-nazis are most active in the regions of Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kherson, Sumy, Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Odesa, and Zhytomyr, most of which are in the east of the country.

If you follow the link to that cable, you will find out that it does not state cities where nationalists are most active. It is a list of organisations, and for some organisations listed there, there is an information on where their branches are located. Small research reveals that the majority of these organisations draw their ideology from radical Ukrainian nationalism, Dmytro Dontsov and his descendants basically. One cannot blame any Russophile tendencies on this phenomenon. Only one of these organisations named, the Eurasian Youth Movement stands out of this bunch, and Ukrainian Movement Against Illegal Immigration is said to have Russian and Ukrainian wings, the two are said to have disagreements. Yes you have Nazis, a particularly Ukrainian brand of Nazis, in Eastern Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine also has famous football clubs with some of the rowdiest fans. But unlike in Galicia, this mess stays at the stadium, for the time being at least. Nowhere, not in Donetsk, not in Khar'kov, or in Odessa, does a local football fan club translate into a notable presence on city or regional councils.

Speaking of Odessa and Nazis, Kuzio keeps on mentioning in his articles a certain notorious Odessite Nazi (see my previous post) who died several years ago after provoking a fight with Antifa (although according to other versions these were just regular guys visiting a club), as a victim of a deadly phantom that Kuzio calls Russophile, Sovietophile, Eurasian, whatever... nationalism. I quote:

...Odesa State University student and member of the patriotic youth movement Sich Maksym Chaika ^↑ in Odesa on 17 April 2009.

And back in January:

...on April 17, 2009, Maksym Chaika, a 20-year-old student of Odesa National University and member of the patriotic youth movement Sich, was murdered in Odesa.

I wrote about this little line of Kuzio's before, and perhaps I should repeat that little quotation from OpenDemocracy I made the last time:

I am only listing the anti-fascist victims of neo-nazi terror, not the victims of retaliation attacks. This is for a good reason. Despite the established stereotype that "neo-nazis and anti-fascists are one and the same thing", Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian anti-fascists, young men and women of direct action, do not engage in murder.  They may rough their enemies up, but they don't kill. In this sense the murder of the Ukrainian neo-nazi Maxim Chaika in Odessa was the tragic result of neo-nazi actions.  15 neo-nazis attacked 5 anti-fascists, who naturally got out their knives. There were no international conspiracies, no intrigues by Russia or any external forces acting against Ukraine, as President Yushchenko unworthily tried to prove during his election campaign. The war between neo-nazis and their enemies goes on all over the world. Now it has affected Ukraine as well.

Yushchenko wanted to find links between Antifa and Rodina, and ultimately to some Russian involvement. It was nothing but Russophobic harassment so typical of Ukraine under his rule. Links between Chayka's killers and Russophile forces in the city were never established, we do not even know for sure whether they were Antifa. It is really strange that nobody has informed Kuzio yet about the nature of the man he is defending. It should be pointed out that aside of Kuzio mentioning Chayka in each of his articles, the only other people who publically commemorate Chayka's memory regularly are VO 'Svoboda'. It is VO 'Svoboda' which organised marches through Odessa in Chayka's memory shouting: 'We will not forget, nor forgive!' They have turned Chayka into an Ukrainian version of Horst Wessel.  

Below I make a small summary of the main points of this rather long post:

1) It is rather hard to know what Kuzio means when he talks about neo-Soviet/pro-Russian/Russophile/Sovietophile/Eurasian nationalism. There is a phenomenon of that kind but all of Kuzio's examples do not fit the profile.

2) The Party of Regions does not fit the profile. Accusing it of being pro-Russian only improves its image.

4) VO 'Svoboda' is no puppet of the Party of Regions and can exist without its support. The allegations of VO 'Svoboda' receiving support from the Party of Regions are nothing but rumours which may or may not be true.

3) VO 'Svoboda' is a major force in Western Ukraine, whether it is likely to grow or not is an opened question about which nobody is sure. As such, people should be writing about it, who is Kuzio to tell anyone they should not care?

5) Kuzio keeps on spreading the same myths that VO 'Svoboda' spreads. Namely that the Party of Regions is an Ukrainophobic/Russophile force, and that Maxym Chayka was killed by pro-Moscow forces for being an Ukrainian patriot. Kuzio's motivations regarding his recent articles are therefore suspicious. 

Life Of Ukrainian Patriot Maksym Chayka In Pictures

This post is dedicated to Taras Kuzio...

Above: Taras Kuzio. ;-) Below: Taras Kuzio about Maxym Chayka:

More recent:

...Odesa State University student and member of the patriotic youth movement Sich MaksymChaika ^↑ in Odesa on 17 April 2009.

 And back in January:

...on April 17, 2009, Maksym Chaika, a 20-year-old student of Odesa National University and member of the patriotic youth movement Sich, was murdered in Odesa.

Chayka and friends say Heil to Kuzio:

Maxym Chayka, leader of a patriotic group 'Sich', wearing a t-shirt with an eagle (I think I have seen that eagle somewhere) holding the Ukrainian national symbol, the tryzub, standing next to girls with a rather unpatriotic message. The writing on the carton reads:

10 kakly (a tendacious corruption of 'khokhly' -a slur meaning 'Ukrainians') are not worth one bastard.

Maksym wrote his name and drew an interesting symbol on his friend's forehead:

Summers can get hot in Odessa, so Maxym and his friend took off their clothes...

Ehm...

Oooops, wrong picture....

  Tryzub on all occasions...

The end! Thanks goes out here, here and here...