The Famine and Gas
November 27, 2008 – 11:11 amWhat struck me about the 75th anniversary was that even among well informed Ukrainian-Americans there was a similar view to that heard commonly in Ukraine that the president had over-focused on the issue to the detriment of contemporary political and economic concerns. I have to agree.
The president and Party of Regions leader Viktor Yanukovych are two polar opposites on the famine: the former has over-focused on it greater than on Ukrainians living today while the latter totally ignored the famine commemoration because he is an ignoramus who has no place leading an influential political party. Surely, the best position of a Ukrainian leader would be to combine a ‘romantic’ respect for historical memory and its role in nurturing national identity with a ‘pragmatic’ stance on the need to deal with Russia on energy and other issues (Russia’s stance towards Ukraine is worse than at any time in Ukraine’s 17 years of independence).
Yanukovych has twice shot himself in the foot in recent months: the question is can any Ukrainian politician turn these mistakes to their advantage? The first mistake was to support separatism in Georgia and the second to ignore the famine commemoration. Polls and surveys have long shown that eastern Ukrainians are neither separatists (the only separatism ever to mobilise in Ukraine was in the Crimea) or historical nihilists (a high proportion of Party of Regions voters support the commemoration of the famine). The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarch), which supported Yanukovych in the 2004 elections, attended the famine commemoration.
A disintegrated Our Ukraine-Peoples Self Defence and unpopular president could not hope to gain votes from Yanukovychs mistakes. This will be left up to Tymoshenko and her eponymous bloc (BYuT) to build on her 2007 advances into eastern and southern Ukraine to take voters away from the morally decrepit Party of Regions.
By the end of 2005 President Viktor Yushchenko was being described in the West as ‘Ukraine’s Gorbachev’: popular abroad but unpopular at home. A better analogy, made by some Ukrainian writers, is actually of a president repeating the danger of becoming a second Leonid Kravchuk by focusing too much on the national at the expense of the socio-economic.
There are indeed strong similarities between Kravchuk and Yushchenko except for in the one area of popularity: even Kravchuk did not go into the 1994 elections with such a disastrous low popularity rating as Yushchenko would next year. A new poll placed him in fifth place at 3.3% in a second round contest, below even Arseniy Yatseniuk, Volodymyr Lytvyn and Piotr Symonenko.
Ukraine has had three presidents, two of whom have either been too ‘romantically’ oriented towards the national question (Kravchuk and Yushchenko) or too ‘pragmatically’ oriented o the socio-economic (Kuchma). Ukraine’s next president should be one that is able to balance between being a leader in tune with Ukraine’s glorious and tragic periods of history as well as in tune with what is known in international affairs as a ‘realist’, able to deal with contemporary unpleasant partners, neighbours and difficult issues.
Only then will Ukraine be able to commemorate tragic historical events (usually associated with Russia) at the same time as negotiating normal commercial relations. Meanwhile it is duplicitous to blame the Tymoshenko government for a new gas war when it is so clearly a Russian answer to President Yushchenko’s over-emphasis on the famine commemoration at the expense of current realities and concerns. Its time for a balanced approach.
6 Responses to “The Famine and Gas”
With all due respect, you are wrong on this one. For years, and even today, Ukrainians were literally afraid to talk about the Famine. Ukraine needed, and now has, a monument, where people can see and talk about what happened. As far as too little focus on contemporary problems – I submit to you that NOONE has focused on society. Rather, the “political elite” has focused on itself – period. So the commemmoration of Holodomor takes away nothing. Each set of politicians has its own set of oligarchs, and Ukrainian government continues to be simply a shark fight feeding on the assets of Ukraine. The Holodomor monument, at least, goes a long way towards remembering and/or establishing a Ukrainian sense of identity, which even today some in Ukraine, like Yanukovych (he made a trip to the Kremlin recently – for what?)or Medvedchuk (with Putin and Medvedev godparents to his child)or Akhmetov (bringing in Russian oligarch thug Novitsky and who knows who else into the Vanco Prykerchenska corruption) still ignore for the sake of money.
By elmer on Nov 27, 2008
Very well said Elmer. Can not have the best of two worlds. But the Holdomor issue has finally reached a phase in Ukraine, where people are no longer afraid to speak about it. This is thanks to President Yushchenko and his brave stance he took in having this tradgedy become one of his big challanges. He rose to the occassion and made it a point for Ukrainian’s as a post genocidal society come to realization that this truely did happen and should be exposed to everyone in their own country as well as to the world. Still a lot of work left to get greater recognition….
By Roman on Nov 27, 2008
The famine issue was not just raised by Yushchenko but by all 3 presidents. No doubts Yushchenko’s commitment to Ukraine’s historical memory and the importance of this to national identity. My PhD (turned into a book) was on recent nation building in Ukraine and I have written on Kyiv Rus in schoo textbooks. But, you are both missing an important point. Yushchenko is not an academic, he is a politician and president who made promises in 2004. He will be judged not on whether he has revived Ukraine’s historical memory but on other areas. As of today Ukrainians have withdrawn their support from him (take a look at any opinion polls). I would recommend reading comments in the Ukrainian media like this: onehttp://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/berezovets/492ae7faade13/
??? ??? ????? ??????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ???? ????????? ? ?? ?? ???? ????????? 75-?????? ?????????! ???? ? ?????? ???????? ??????????? ????? ?? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????????, ??? ??????? ??? ????? ?????????? ????? ? ????????.
Medvedev’s Refusal To Attend Famine Commemorations Worsens Already Poor Relations
Ukraine’s relations with Russia have deteriorated to their lowest level in two decades, with Zerkalo Nedeli (November 22) stating that the Russian authorities and society have never been as negatively disposed toward Ukraine as now, even during the Orange Revolution. The deterioration has taken place not only in the traditional areas of energy (with another gas war looming), the Black Sea Fleet, NATO membership, and the status of the Russian language, but also in attitudes toward the past.
The latest deterioration in relations came during the week in which Ukraine held official commemorations for the 75th anniversary of the artificial famine in 1933. Russian President Vladimir Medvedev refused to attend the commemoration, which was attended by 44 delegations, including four EU leaders.
Eurasia Daily Monitor — Volume 5, Issue 227
November 26, 2008 — Volume 5, Issue 227
Medvedev’s refusal was condemned by President Viktor Yushchenko and the Ukrainian intelligentsia in a protest statement (www.korrespondent.com.ua, November 20). Ukraine’s Ambassador to Russia and Foreign Minister of the Party of Regions Kostyantyn Hryshchenko expressed widespread disappointment over Russia’s refusal to denounce even the Stalinist crimes and famine that took place on Russia’s own territory. “Until this topic was raised by Ukraine, nobody in Russia or other post-Soviet republics raised it,” Hryshchenko said (www.pravda.com.ua, November 19).
On October 26 Russia’s RTR television network broadcast a report that distorted the famine and Yushchenko’s publicizing of it. The program alleged that the famine issue was dreamed up in the 1980s by Cold war Warriors, such as U.S. President Ronald Reagan, and implemented by their supporters, such as Katia Chumachenko (now the Ukrainian First Lady). The purpose, RTR alleged, was to sow enmity between Ukrainians and Russians. Ukraine’s campaign to call attention to the famine has “become deeply politicized” and the genocide concept “is based on narrow nationalism,” Russian political technologist Sergei Markov claimed. The SBU was giving a falsified interpretation and making a subjective analysis of real documents,” Markov said (www.pravda.com.ua, November 17, 22).
Ukrainian authorities have faced two difficulties in raising the issue of the famine.
First, although 13 countries—including six post-communist states, Canada, and Australia—have supported Yushchenko’s call for the famine to be defined as “genocide,” most countries still remain reluctant to use this definition. The 17th session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament voted in July and October, respectively, to recognize the Ukrainian famine; but both refrained from describing it as “genocide.”
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on September 23 to commemorate the famine but used the word “genocide” carefully, citing the U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, formed on December 13, 1985. The U.S. resolution pointed to the October 13, 2006, Public Law 109-340 that authorized Ukraine, “to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the Ukrainian famine-genocide of 1932-1933.”
Russian officials gloated over the lack of support from the UN General Assembly in September, when Yushchenko outlined Ukraine’s case for the body to acknowledge the famine as genocide. Yushchenko described the famine as a genocide accompanied by the “total elimination of the national elite, public leadership, and priesthood” (www.president.gov.ua, September 23).
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs argued that the UN was “not the venue for pushing through biased and distorted views of historical events” (www.mid.ru, September 24). Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaliy Churkin said that the October 23 statement on the famine by Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) did not contain a grain of truth. It was a “unique diplomatic document” that “contradicts the real state of affairs.”
Ukraine’s MFA had condemned Russia’s UN delegation for using “pressure and blackmail” to stop the famine from being discussed at the UN (www.pravda.com.ua, October 29). Ukraine’s (MFA) had earlier condemned Russia’s unwillingness to support Ukraine’s condemnation of the famine, pointing to November 2003 when Russia had supported a UN resolution on the “70th anniversary of the Ukrainian tragedy” and two years later when Russia backed a UNESCO resolution “commemorating victims of the great famine [Holodomor] in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933” (www.mfa.gov.ua, September 29).
Second, the number of victims continues to be debated. Yushchenko always uses the figure of 10 million deaths, making it “one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes in the world” (www.pravda.com.ua, November 20). Yushchenko included the famine with Russification and deportations to Siberia as part of a package of repressions aimed at destroying “our culture, our identity, and our strivings to be an independent country” (www.pravda.com.ua, November 20).
Ukrainian and Western academic studies give lower estimates of 2.6 to 5.2 million deaths with most citing between 3 and 3.5 million. Added to this should be the one million Ukrainians who died in the Kuban region of the northern Caucasus, which destroyed Ukrainian identity in the area.
The “10 million” figure is, in fact, the demographic loss rather than the death toll and ignores the calculations of Ukraine’s foremost scholar in the field, Stanislav Kulchytsky, who arrived at an estimate of 3,238,000 deaths (see John Paul Himka in The Kyiv Post, May 15). The overwhelming majority of the famine victims were Ukrainians (despite Chernomyrdin’s protestations), as the famine devastated the countryside. Russians and other non-Ukrainian ethnic groups populated the urban centers.
The famine has become another of the many issues contributing to poor Ukrainian-Russian relations. On May 15, 2003, the Ukrainian Parliament issued a strong condemnation of the famine as being directed against Ukrainians and called for international recognition of the Holodomor. Although the issue has been raised by all three Ukrainian presidents, Yushchenko alone has been accused by the Russians of nationalism for raising the issue of the famine. The fact that Russia is fiercely antagonistic to the famine issue today, in contrast to five years ago, says more about the speed of Stalin’s rehabilitation in Russia than it does about Ukraine. Yushchenko’s call to Medvedev jointly to “condemn Stalinist crimes and the totalitarian Soviet Union” will never happen while Putinism continues to rejuvenate Stalinism.
—Taras Kuzio
By Taras Kuzio on Nov 27, 2008
Once again, with all due respect:
1) Yushchenko is not a politician. Saying that Yushchenko is a politician is like saying that Franklin Roosevelt was a football player or that Tony Blair was a soccer player. He is a banker/academic type pretending to be a politician. He did a great and courageous service to Ukraine in the Orange Revolution – and then blew it. Big Time! As is reflected in the polls which you note.
Regardless of his poor performance by throwing the Orange Revolution down the toilet, he nevertheless has provided a valuable resource to Ukraine and Ukrainians in the context of the Holodomor monument and commemmoration.
2) “Poor Ukrainian-Russian relations”? You are kidding, right? Since when has roosha had good relations with anyone? Russia is, and always has been, in a perpetual foul mood – even towards its own people.
And, to put it bluntly, I get sick and tired and infuriated by any suggestion that Ukraine ought to apologize early and often for getting its nose in the way of Russia’s fist.
I don’t think Ukraine ought to perpetually have to say: “gee, roosha, I’m sorry that I forced you to beat me up.”
And I further get infuriated by any suggestion that Ukraine ought to constantly and perpetually walk on eggshells around a roosha that is perpetually in a temper tantrum.
And I think the days of Pavlovian conditioned reflexes of horror to the word “nationalism” are over. The sovoks conditioned everyone to react in horror at the mere mention of the word “nationalism,” because they were trying to build homo sovieticus – based on the maskva rooshan identity and rooshan language.
Roosha and the KGB-ers need to finally get over it and realize that this is the 21st century. As Yushchenko said – they need to be good neighbors.
By elmer on Nov 28, 2008
One more thing, with all due respect, about Ukraine-Russia relations.
To me, that breakup of the sovok union was just like the breakup of AT&T in 1984, at that time, one of the world’s largest corporations – people who had been part of one system thought they were still part of one system.
And so, one saw rooshan thug mafia oligarchs joined at the hip with Ukrainian thug mafia oligarchs, all feasting on the abuse of government in both countries, and joined at the hip in making obscene amounts of money – and spending it obscenely.
However, when one tries to cut RosUkrEnergo, 50% rooshan thugs, 50% Ukrainian, out of the Gazprom deal – it tends to “sour” those “relations.”
I think that’s really what’s at stake here. They could care less about the Holodomor – it’s just a pretext.
By elmer on Nov 28, 2008
Having carefully digested the foregoing, IMHO Elmer has the right of it all the way down the line.
“Poor Ukrainian-Russian Relations?” Please.
* Siberia, Kolyma, the Solovetsky Islands, and the hundreds of other death camps in the Soviet GULAG, where the most brilliant Ukrainian intellectuals of the twentieth century—poets, including blind ones, writers, scholars, academicians, scientists, and clergymen, bishops, and archbishops) met their untimely end. This is now . . . silly fantasy?
* 21 January 1978, the day that Oleksa Hirnyk from the city of Kalush went to the gravesite of Ukraine’s national poet Taras Shevchenko in Kaniv, where he scattered a thousand handwritten leaflets protesting the Russification of the Ukrainian people. Then he doused himself with gas and raised a lighter to his chest. Remembrance of this is now . . . mere chimera?
* Vladimir Putin’s notorious pledge to eradicate the Chechens’ age-old struggle for independence: “We’ll get them anywhere—if we find them sitting in the outhouse, we will rub them out there” (1999); the continuing threats made by the Putins, Zhirinovskys, Zatulins, and Luzhkovs of Russia to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes at Ukraine. Such nice folks, eh: let’s sit down and raise a glass of cheer together!
* the executions of Ukrainian patriots who stood up for their right to speak and write in Ukrainian. As regards those unpleasant events, according to you: forget it; pragmatism is now the order of the day?
* the political assassinations by Russia of the finest sons of our nation not only in Ukraine but outside her borders: according to you – that memory is to be buried, forgotten — because it makes the Russians splutter?
* the Stalinian pledge “to kill, slaughter, hang, drown, and exile those ‘khokhols,’” the derogatory term with which our “fraternal” neighbors, the Russians, refer to Ukrainians: er . . . how do you have a lovey-dovey relationship with such people?
* the Stalin-ordered deaths of tens of thousands of our innocent countrymen in the first days of the Second World War in the park named after the Soviet Russian writer Maxim Gorky in my native city of Vinnytsia: this is all “water under the bridge”, would you say, and better dropped down the memory hole?
* what would you say, what should Yushchenko say, about the other two of the three monstrous famines that took place in Ukraine during the Bolshevik era (1921 and 1932-33)?
* What about the summary executions of Ukrainian civilians in Kyiv by the cutthroats led by Soviet commander Mikhail Muravev simply because they spoke Ukrainian and some were wearing Ukrainian embroidered shirts (1918).
* Russia’s centuries-long policy of eradication of Ukrainian and coercive russification of Ukraine: eminently forgettable, is it?
I could ask a lot more but I will stop before I have a heart attack.
For all of this – Yushchenko should fall to his knees and apologize?
Yushchenko’s enshrining of the memory of the Holodomor was merely an isolated symbol, albeit an important one, for the centuries of countless barbarities perpetrated by the Russians upon Ukraine. None of this will be forgotten anytime soon.
By Roman Korol on Jan 7, 2009