Marian Zhytaryuk,
Doctor of Science in Social Communications, Full Professor, Head of Department of Foreign Press and Information Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Ukraine, https://orcid.org/0000-000 2-5690-5701
Victoria Zhytaryuk,
Master of Journalism, translation from Ukrainian, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3570-452
Abstract. This article is an attempt to show the pernicious nature of imperialism, Bolshevism and totalitarianism and neo-imperialism for the enslaved nations of the former Russian Empire, the former Soviet Union and the present-day Russian Federation, which are different by the form, are but identical by content and essence.
The publication was prepared on the basis of studied bundles of Lviv ”Dilo” newspaper in the 1930’s, also on the basis of rethinking the author’s own scientific publications [1].
The author believes that documentary evidences of crimes against humanity that are arising not only on open archives files, but also are obvious on the basis of working out newspaper sources cannot be forgotten or passed over in silence. It’s impossible to forgive all those designers and architects of genocide against the Ukrainian people that has been developed and implemented by all kinds of commissars of the Communist Bolshevik Party from Muscovy, NKVD, MGB, etc., with the help of the local national traitors, local communists, members of the Komsomol and atheists…
Key words:
Bolshevism, Russian national chauvinist, Russian empire, neo-imperialism,
enslavement of peoples, genocide of Ukraine, newspaper “Dilo”.
Criminal bolshevism and stalinism
Each nation is ready for
the greatest sacrifices and efforts for it’s own power, but not shared with
another nation. There are more than sufficient examples to support this thesis,
but we mention only one – the hostile relationship between Austria and Hungary,
which, as part of the Austro-Hungarian (empire), could not come to a mutual
understanding because of the desire to rule over other peoples. Therefore, it
is only because of this the idea of Ukrainian and Moscow federalism, actively
propagated by communist ideologues in the interwar period, is unrealistic and
harmful by all means for both nations as subjects of political activity.
That’s how the Lviv
daily “Dilo” understood the situation (it was published in Ukrainian language
in 1880-1939, that is, in the times of Austria-Hungary, and then Poland,
because of its high authority was metaphorically called the Ukrainian “Times”).
At that time, most of the Ukrainian territory as is generally known, have been
occupied by the Russian Empire: without the right to study, to publish books
and the press, to pray in churches in Ukrainian! After 1917 Bolsheviks began to
make advances to questions; in order to draw confidence they, started the
so-called Ukrainization, which, as it turned out, was in fact a means of
detecting all nationally conscious Ukrainians for the purpose of their further
imprisonment-deportation-murder...
Even in the distant
1932, “Dilo” was writing: “Muscovy does not only intend to share the power over
other colonies with Ukraine (after all, Ukrainians did not want it at all – M.
Zh.), but also vice versa: it tries to use all means to exhaust Ukrainian
colony”. Otherwise, more than 9
millions of Ukrainians would not have been out of the Soviet Ukraine, mainly in
Siberia and Solovki, and the natural terrain for the setting of the Ukrainian
population, ethnic Ukrainian lands (including Crimea and Donbass – M. Zh.),
meanwhile, would not have been artificially colonized by national minorities of
the USSR.
It is clear that under
these circumstances, when “of the entire Bolshevik’s planetary economy the real
plan is noticeable only in the destruction of the Ukrainian people”. It would be naive to
speak about the Russian and Ukrainian federation or the autonomy within the Soviet
Union, because the question was much more cardinal – to be or not to be a
Ukrainian nation in general! Therefore, a healthy national instinct prompted
the Ukrainians with resistance to the Moscow policy of collectivization and
other similar experiments on their land, that is why consciously or
unconsciously ensured choice in the struggle between East and West, that is,
between the lower and higher forms of capitalism for the benefit of the latest.
“Out of this if the whole world went after Muscovy even then Ukrainians would
have no other choice than to defend their independence”, because sooner or
later, “it will come the time of final atonement with the Soviet Union”.
The archness and
artificiality of the great geopolitical novelty, entitled “USSR”, were also
shown far beyond the borders of Ukraine. Thus, the social experiments of
Bolshevism and the complete ruin of Ukrainian organizational and cultural life,
which were imposed after the retreat of the Japanese from the Amur-Seaside
Territory without mercy of a true conqueror, left only hatred in the people’s
hearts. It is true, that Bolshevism, though it’s vulgar (and, perhaps,
precisely because it’s vulgar) demonstrates flexibility and vitality over
again. When it was necessary to take into account the real chance of Japanese
invasion, Bolsheviks engaged in agitation again, promising Ukrainization.
Moreover, in the Far East, they cut off Ukrainian regions, founded Ukrainian
schools, and began publishing the newspaper in Ukrainian in Khabarovsk. Although it could not
have been said about it in the past ten years. Instead, despite the axiom that
anyone sowing discord – reaping a storm, the demoralization of those Ukrainian
figures and the burning with hostility and extreme defethicism among them continued
to be a priority. It’s true, Ukrainians were understanding that a sudden policy
of so-called “Ukrainization” – is just a “strategic maneuver, calculated at the
time of the threat”,
designed for the naivety of a compromise.
Therefore, Ivan
Kedryn-Rudnytsky was fully right, arguing that “in the struggle against
communism only nationalism can play a decisive role as an idea”. Because the so-called
Internationalism sham from Moscow and skillfully played in front of the world
community, rather resembled Russian Bolshevism in essence. More precisely, a
new phase in the development of Moscow nationalism, which, according to some
researchers of this question, would not become what it became, and would not
even exist at all without Ukraine. Chauvinism, as it is
known, feeds on the exploiting foreign nation, and Ukraine was the first “great
field for Moscow nationalism”, which, though it gained Ukraine, led a new
expansion of its lands. In the end, there were objective reasons for this. For
the first, “Bolshevik experiments were too expensive to pursue them at the
expense of their own nation only” and secondly, Bolshevism,
focused on one nation, is losing all its meaning and doomed to political
bankruptcy like ideology.
In this situation, the
growth of the army and the preparation for a war in which new territories would
be conquered and there, accordingly, the Bolshevik’s idea would spread would
became a sort of “salvation”. The part of stronghold and provider of means was
assigned primarily to Ukraine, that was endured not only mass casualties and
other horrors of war, but also suffered great territorial losses.
The first decade of
Moscow occupational power’s in domination Ukraine, showed that Bolsheviks are
not able to coexist in one state with other nations peacefully. As for the
Ukrainian population, a mixture of two methods of so-called solution of the
(more precisely, liquidation!) national question – the old Roman and the newest
English was used. One of the “Dilo’s” leading publicists, sovietologist M. Trotsky,
wrote about it to strength the argumentative base of the issue “Moscow Policy
by Ukrainian Means” (pseudo M. Danko).
The first method
(old-Roman) is known for destroying the homes of the people, and setting their
hideouts over the foreign land. The second (the newest English) – has already
been used in Canada, South Africa, Ireland, Egypt.
“Dilo”, long before the
Holodomor and the Genocide in 1932-1933-th, foresaw forth-coming shocks, since
Bolsheviks borrowed external forms from the British and introduced the
old-Roman methods under their cover.
Consequently the Bolshevik movement in Ukraine developed
spontaneously, revolutionary, the intellectual leadership, guided by the
temporal conditions. Sometimes becoming devastating, not able to solve national
questions, but only – to eliminate it. Even the Western Ukrainian lands, which
were outside the USSR at that time, the apologists of Moscow called... “Small
Poland”. The same analogy with
small Russia! Everything somewhere distant from Moscow, is defined with the
adverb “small”...
M. Danko expressed the
wishes of many contemporaries – “an Ukrainian irredent could be a factor of the
world peace, weakening the forces of Moscow’s expansion”. It would be but haven’t
been. There was not paid due attention abroad to it. But if even this question
has been raised then mostly in the press, and very rarely on political
platforms.
Although the
inevitability of the struggle between Bolsheviks and their adversaries was
raising from the very history of that time world crisis, and the contradictions
between the USSR and the rest of the world were in fact the contradictions
between the principles of slave and free labor, and as a result some states
banned the import of Soviet goods. It seems, that Bolshevism is the modern stage
of Moscow's chauvinism, and it could be curbed by the consolidation of the
anti-communist states (the marking out is ours. – M. Zh.). That all was
understood only by the enslaved nations in the Soviet Union. And first of all
it understood Ukraine, where in the year before the terrible Holodomor a
so-called politics of Tolerance (support) of national forms and, at the same
time, the destruction of national content led to the fact that more people than
in Europe have in generally the unemployed for the certain number of people
were “shot and destroyed by hunger, deseases, prisons and exiles”.
Lviv journal, in the
conditions of existence under the Polish political regime, analyzed the
situation on the territory of Great Ukraine, and in general in the USSR, from
the point of view of Ukraine’s statehood. Therefore, conclusion about that the
enslaved peoples are mistreated because “their culture will exceeds the
Muscovites”, is justified and consistent although, on the other hand, it is
obvious that “collectivization and requisition have greatly aggravated the
national potential among the Ukrainian peasantry”.
There were political
preconditions for this. Thus, on May 21-22, 1932, the Executive Committee of
the Socialist International resolved a resolution assurance to support the
Soviet Union in the event of armed intervention on its territory. More than 10 millions of
Germans, many Frenchmen, were more or less sympathetic to the communists and
Sovietophiles. A significant part of the European working masses in general,
including the Social Democrats, hoped to reform Bolshevism and to adapt it to
European traditions, without the knowledge that such an experiment had not
succeeded on the Ukrainian lands.
The indifference and cynicism of Europe between two world wars
The germs of the most
Bolshevik deseases, which destroyed the Ukrainian state (the superiority of the
party element over the national-state, the excessive aggravation of social
contradictions, bandit methods of party struggle, etc.), also got accustomed in
Germany. Soon, the course of history has proved - as in the case of Hitler’s
Germany, and with the USSR and other empires - that there is no future for
those societies that are built up on hatred, blood and tears. Their triumph is
always temporary, and Bolshevism (red, brown or some other) is a serious
illness from which mankind must and is able to get cured sooner or later,
because “the victory of one nation over all others is impossible”.
But this is in the end.
In certain periods of world development, things that cannot be explained by any
laws of justice are happening. It would seem that the understanding between
Germany and France in Lausanne should be developed and should have stimulated
the formation of a pan-European anti-Soviet front. The timely and decided
external economic and political isolation of Bolshevism with the proclamation
by the great powers the principles of national-state self-determination in the
East of Europe would lead, if it not for the final collapse of Soviet imperialism,
than at least would exclude Bolshevik manipulation of the enslaved nations. It
is hard to believe that the leaders of European states did not understand this
... However, the position of the representatives of party war of that could not
allow the political and nation-building process in Europe to lose military
intrigue, became a dominant one. These so-called politicians, cynics in power,
dreamed about business in the war, indifferently, that the blood of tens of
millions (if not hundreds!) of people had to be shed for this. The peaceful
settlement of the situation and the therapeutic removal of tensions, obviously,
did not fit into their scenarios ... Like the emergence state of Ukraine on a
political map of Europe, that was “possible only on the partition of the Soviet
Union”.
Thus, the strengthening
of the struggle of the Ukrainian people against the Moscow occupation and the
thickening of the clouds over the Bolsheviks nimbus caused by the actualization
of the Ukrainian problem abroad “made nervous not only Bolshevik powers”, but
also rallied the Moscow political emigration, that suddenly ceased to blame the
mortal enemy of Soviet power. “Dilo’ was observing rightly on this point: “These
factors, over the past few years, manifested themselves as European culture’s
defenders against the Bolshevik danger, declare unexpectedly the willingness to
defend Bolshevism before Europe!”. And therefore they should impel “to unite
and consolidate the Ukrainian national front”.
Genocide of J. Stalin’s regime against Ukrainians as an instrument of
struggle against Ukrainians and a way of constructing geopolitical
constructions on the principles of communist utopia
In the first half of the
twentieth century, the starvation became an inalienable attribute of the
Ukrainian lands. Thus, in the early 1930's chronic malnutrition existed in
mountainous regions, in Transcarpathia, and in 1935 in Southern Bessarabia.
Neither the Polish nor the Czechoslovak nor the Romanian governments did much
to help the hungers. But the hardest and most tragic fate has struck Ukrainians
in the Soviet “paradise” (as metaphorically christened the USSR, that is, the
Moscow occupation power, the means of Bolshevik propaganda). The crop-failure
in 1921 (as a result of drought, only 35 percent of the usual harvest was
harvested) at the background of the requisition of grain – that is the
implementation of the excessively high “food tax” – led to a starvation of 36%,
and in Zaporizhzhya province – 78% of the population and about to 500,000
deaths and to the spreading of such serious illnesses , like typhus and cholera.
A decade later – in
1932-1933 – the hunger was caused by political reasons, and according to
various sources, 2.5 to 15 millions people, mostly Ukrainian peasants had died.
The Encyclopedia of Ukrainian Studies states that D. Solovij, M. Prikhodko,
V.G. Chamberlain; say about the maximum figure of 4-5 million or 15% of the
total population of Ukraine K. Manning; believes that 10% of the total rural
population has died, while V. Kubiyovych calls for 2,500,000 deaths.
Foreign press published
thoughts that claimed significantly more victims. For example, the English “Daily Express” (August 6, 1934), in the
article “The Horrible Situation of Ukraine” was writing: “... over the past 18
months, 6 millions peasants have been died of the hunger in Ukraine because of
the fact that the Bolshevik government has taken away grain from them”. The Japanese 10-day “Journal of Humanity is Friends” (with a circulation of 1 million and 200
thousand copies), quoting the British “Daily
Telegraph”, reported that 10 millions people died of hunger during the last
six months in the southern part of Russia, that is, in Ukraine and in the
Northern Caucasus. On March 11, 1934, the
official Swiss German-speaking organ “Der
Bund”, in the article of its Warsaw correspondent “Russian reality” pointed
out even more terrible figures: “During the past hunger, at least 15 million
people died and not the Soviet government, said that 6 millions’.
Although the mortality
data presented in the Encyclopedia of Ukrainian Studies are very approximate
and quite low (this is primarily due to the fact that the article “Hunger” (p.
405-407), has been written in the 1950s, when it was forbidden to even mention
the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in the Soviet Union and its articles were based on
the obsolete figures). The Great Soviet Encyclopedia does not even mention the
Genocide against the Ukrainian nation at all, that firstly, falsifies the
historical, political and economic past, and , secondly, instils a myth about
the no-alternative of the communist system: “Scientific analysis and historical
experience show that hunger can be completely overcome as a result of the
socialist reconstruction of society”.
The artificially created
Holodomor in the Great Ukraine is currently being researched so much that it is
possible to name the approximate number of victims – 7-9 millions. The
International Commission for the Investigation of the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in
Ukraine, chaired by swedish and
belgian professors Jabob Sandler and Joe Vekkoven (it also included other
professors: englishman Generald Jenner, frenchman Georges Lebas Auxerre,
argentinean Ricardo Levin, american Kovay T. Oliver and canadian John Pittern)
published its conclusions and final report as far back as 1990, noting that “Soviet
Russia (Gorbachov) refused to send its representative to the commission to
assist in investigating the causes of Holodomor”. This Commission calls five
causes of the Holodomor: “1. Grain’s export from Ukraine of the 1932 harvest to
the last kilogram as a result of the robbery of the peasants by brigades of
activists from the so-called VKP(b) (the modern Communist Party), the Komsomol
members, and the komnezam (red broom). 2. Collectivization. 3. Dispossesion of
kulaks. 4. Denationalization. 5. Genocide”. Commission members concluded that
12 millions people died from the Holodomor, while another 3 millions were taken
from Ukraine to Siberia, the Urals and into the Far North. Qualifying all these
crimes as a crimes against humanity, the Commission calls the guilty. Thus, the
main ideologists of the Holodomor were Lenin, Stalin, the managers –
Kaganovych, Molotov, the executives – the head of the Ukrainian KGB Balitsky,
the chairman of the SNK Chubar, the first secretary of the Central Committee of
the Communist Party of Ukraine S. Kosior, the head of the VUCSKV G. Petrovsky.
Intelligent people
around the world have known about the fact of an artificial Holodomor and
genocide against Ukrainians for a long time. But it is still unknown to modern
Ukrainian communists headed by P. Symonenko (for him facts are only that was
written by the party’s Soviet press) to considerable, a significant part of the
“Regions’ led by Viktor Yanukovych and their followers who, because of their
own ignorance and fear of the Kremlin show plainly disrespect for Ukrainian
legislation, politicians and representatives of modern Russia that, under the
protection of Vladimir Putin, deny the crimes of Moscow authorities in the past
and actively revive the cult of Joseph Dzhugashvili (Stalin). It remains only
to add to this that before the organized tragedy all Ukrainians in the
Ukrainian SSR, according to various data, were from 28 to 32.5 millions. That
is, almost half of the nation was annihilated for only two years! And the “death
sword’ of the new Bolshevik-socialist system did not pass any single family,
even completely communist! It is not trange that all Ukrainians who lived in
the west Zbruch, representatives of other European and non-European states were
indignant at these horrors – only not the highest political figures of the USSR
or the Ukrainian SSR.
Commenting on the map of
Ukrainian lands between the four states, the Prague weekly “Economic Review” in
the article “The Bold Ukraine’ was giving quite interesting data (table 1):
|
Territories
|
Area (in square kilometers)
|
Population (in millions)
|
|
The administrative unit of Ukraine in the
USSR
|
451800
|
32,5
|
|
Ukrainian lands in the USSR outside the
Ukrainian SSR
|
575400
|
38,3
|
|
Northwest lands in Poland
|
66700
|
3,0
|
|
Galychyna
|
55700
|
5,4
|
|
Ukrainian lands in Romania
|
17600
|
1,2
|
|
Subcarpathian Rus’
|
11400
|
0,63
|
|
Ukrainian Slovak
|
3500
|
0,02
|
It does not take into
account the Ukrainian population, which by the will of destiny was far beyond
the borders of the Motherland. According to Soviet statistics from December
1926, more than 2 millions Ukrainians lived in Siberia and the in Far East.
Table 2 is based on the publication “Cities in Asia with Ukrainian Humanity”:
|
Territory name
|
Ukrainian population (in millions)
|
|
Siberian-Cossack region
|
1,5
|
|
Gray Klyn
|
0,15
|
|
Green Klyn
|
0,3
|
|
Other parts of Siberia and Turkmenistan
|
0,2
|
Not becoming absorbed in
the history, we must remember the transfer of the Orthodox metropolis from Kiev
to Moscow in 1596, the destruction of the Cossack capital Baturyn and the
massacre of its inhabitants in 1708, the destruction of the Zaporozhian Sich in
1709, the settlement of the South of Ukraine and the Crimea by the nations and
nationalities of the Moscow kingdom ( XVIII-XX centuries), stealing the name of
Russia and renaming Muscovy into Russia (XVIII century)...
Historical parallels between Russian Bolsheviks and modern national
chauvinists
As soon as Ukraine was
getting a chance to recover – in culturological, historical, geopolitical aspects
– it was immediately in the close “embrace” of its metropolis. If it resisted,
it received a real war in reply... Historians count more than two dozens
Russian-Ukrainian wars, to which the Western world was mostly indifferent. Even
though the Ukrainian land and the Carpathians stopped the eastern conquerors
repeatedly. In the 1930’s, after the Holodomor in the center of Europe with
millions of casualties, the Western political elite believed that nothing have
happened and admitted the USSR into the Leaque of Nations, thereby encouraged
official Moscow to continue implementing the policy of emancipation and
confinement . Why? Apparently, because economic and business interests were the
main thing. By the way, the same policy – irrational, cynical, of appeasement –
the same politicians implemented in regard to Nazi Germany. What was the end?
Was not it the Second World War?
The time is running out,
the Soviet Union felt into oblivion, it seemed the democratic Russia would
became the reliable ally to the European Union. However, the Kremlin’s top,
headed by Vladimir Putin, has a different view on the world order. Putting
himself into a model of J. Stalin, V. Putin decides to revive the Soviet past,
old symbols and meanings. In addition, he embodies himself as a decided
commander: first on the internal scene (both wars in Chechnya), and then – on
the outside (Georgia, 2008, Ukraine, 2014 – and still), Syria (from 2015)...
More and more the Kremlin makes statements about the latest weapons that can
destroy the half-world... That is, the process of the arms race has been
restored; therefore, it’s quite difficult to talk about political stability,
about the forecast construction of geopolitical processes.
The middle of the second
decade of the third millennium is marked by the aggravation of international
political contradictions against on the background of the Russian Federation’s
hybrid wars against the West. It is believed that the hybrid war as a fourth
generation war – is a creature of recent years or the last decades. But in
reality this is not quite the case. Hybrid wars are an ancient Moscow
instrument of peoples oppression and compulsion to peace. The Ukrainian
Institute of National Memory in the publication “100 Years Since the Armed
Resistance of the Ukrainian People’s Republic against Russian aggression” proves the fact of
conducting a hybrid war by Bolsheviks in 1917, that is 100 years ago! It is
said that both wars – the First Russian-Ukrainian War of 1917 and the modern
Russian war on the Donbass – have common, “hybrid” signs.
The same situation is
today, when the President of the Russian Federation, V. Putin, denies the
Russian Army’s participation in the war in Ukraine (in Georgia, Syria ...), as
then “Petrograd Sovnarcom officially denied the participation of the RSFSR in
the war, leading it on behalf of the Kharkiv People's Secretariat”. Nowadays, as we know,
some insurgents wage war with some flags of the terrorist L-DPR. Then, as now,
armed units were formed in Russia: “The first echelons commanded by Hovrin and
Sivers came to Kharkiv a week before the declaration of the ultimatum), because
of the “shackling”, weapons and military equipment were supplied. Military
actions against the UNR were accompanied by a powerful “information warfare”
aimed at sowing dissatisfaction and frustration with the Ukrainians, destroying
their ability to resist. Russian propaganda attempted to create an image of “alien
war” in Ukrainian society. So to say it doesn’t refer to ordinary citizens
there is no war between “brotherly” Russian and Ukrainian peoples, and there is
a confrontation for power between the Kharkiv People's Secretariat and the “bourgeois”
Kiev Central Rada. And this often worked, numerous units of the old Russian
army, which were “Ukrainianized”, were named after the prominent Ukrainian
activists, the Ukrainian hetmans; they declared their “neutrality” or even
passed on the side of Russians under the influence of Russian propaganda”.
The events of one
hundred years past also revealed that the UNR is not capable to wage war
because it does not have an army of full value (as an Ukrainian army at the
time of Crimea’s occupation in 2014!), therefore, volunteers began to defend
their native land as in Ukraine on the Donbass. Russian occupation forces-conquerors
– then Bolsheviks, and now the Putinists, were engaged in terrorist activities
against Ukrainians, because the pro-Ukrainian position could have been a death
penalty! Ukrainian book, Ukrainian newspapers, magazines, radio and television
are outlawed!
Why does Russia need
reanimation of the past? Probably, because “the leaders of Russian Bolsheviks
considered Ukraine to be a colony that could provide the metropolis with bread,
sugar, and coal. Accordingly, the Russians tried to establish their control
over regions rich in natural resources, in particular the Donetsk basin. In
early June 1917, at a general meeting of the Kiev Bolsheviks organization, one
of their leaders, George Pyatakov, emphasized: “We support Ukrainians in their
protest against any circular government’s bans, such as the prohibition of the
Ukrainian military congress. But, in general, it doesn’t occur to us to support
them, because the proletarian movement is not beneficial. Russia can not exist
without the Ukrainian sugar industry, the same can be said about coal, bread
(chernozem strip)”. “For God’s sake, use the most energetic and revolutionary
persons for sending bread, bread, bread!!! Otherwise, Peterburg will trim.
Special trains and detachments. Pouring and gathering. To accompane trains. To
inform every day. For the sake of God! “Was writing the leader of the party,
Vladimir Lenin, on January 15, 1918, in a letter to the Emergency Commissioner
of the RNK RSFSR
in Ukraine Sergio Ordzhonikidze and to the leader of the Southern Group of the
Bolshevik Army Volodymyr Antonov-Ovsienko”.
So, it turns out that
Lenin’s affair is alive, Lenin’s affair wins. At least in Russian
socio-cultural space, which official Moscow as the former metropolis tries to
extend to former colonies, first of all to former Soviet republics and regions
that have important raw materials (for example, Syria), and then – wherever
they can. So, there is the screen available on the Internet as if the RF
Government’s order (the authenticity of such documents is difficult to
guarantee) from 01.03.2014, No. 303/14-p, Moscow, where there are the following
words: “To approve the draft of state program of the Transbaikal, Kamchatsky,
as and Primorsky region “Assistance in resettlement in Transbaikal, Kamchatsky,
and also Primorsky region of compatriots living on the territory of new
subjects of the Russian Federation, in particular, from the Autonomous Republic
of Crimea, Odessa, Kherson, Mykolaiv, Donetsk, Lugansk, and Kharkiv regions in
2014 – 2016 y. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev”.
It is a shame that in
this resuscitation of totalitarian geopolitics there is still a lack of
adequate understanding and realization of the situation and resolve to
consolidate efforts against potential threats from the side of the West,
perhaps, except to the United States and Lithuania.
In the conditions of the
civilizational confrontation between Moscow and the West, which is occurring
now at the expense of Ukraine and the sons of Ukraine, we often see the same
treason that has already taken place for our country at the beginning of the
20th century. Instead of national unity against the enemy, trains, buses,
traffics travel between the Ukrainian cities and Russia.
Instead of concluding
Instead, the main
conclusions of this article are that, firstly, the lessons of history need to
be mastered, and secondly, Ukraine would have a chance to succeed when our
power was represented by self-sufficient – not pro-Western and not pro-Russian
(not the apologists of Warsaw and not “The dirt of Moscow”), and a national
elite that will be able to work out effective preventive mechanisms of national
break-in and progress.
Only then, an affair of “Lenin
– Stalin – Putin” will fall into oblivion.
Bibliography
TRANSLITERATION
1. (KVT) “Khai elektryku zaberut do
Moskvy, a khlib zalyshat na Ukraini” (Red. Otmar-Berson pro ukrainsku problemu
v SSSR) // Dilo. 1937. 22 trav. S.2-3.
2. 100 rokiv z pochatku zbroinoho oporu
Ukrainskoi Narodnoi Respubliky proty rosiiskoi ahresii. URL:
http://www.memory.gov.ua/methodicmaterial/100-rokiv-z-pochatku-zbroinogo-oporu-ukrainskoi-narodnoi-respubliki-proti-rosiiskoi
3. Anhliiska presa pro holod na Ukraini
// Dilo. 1933. 17 veres. S.3.
4. Bilshovytska “evoliutsiia” v
ukrainskii spravi. Moskovski komunisty vvodiat u svoii presi termin
“Malopolshcha” // Dilo. 1933. 23 lyst. S.1.
5. Boliucha Ukraina // Hospodarskyi
rozghliad: Prazkyi tyzhnevyk. 1935. Lyst.
6. Bolshaia Sovetskaia Эntsyklopedyia:
3-e yzd. M., 1972.
7. Danko M. Bolshevyzatsiia Evropy i
zavdannia ukraintsiv // Dilo. 1932. 20 lyp. S.1.
8. Danko M. Moskovska polityka
ukrainskym koshtom // Dilo. 1930. 19 serp. S.1-2.
9. Danko M. Svitova kriza y ukrainska
sprava // Dilo. 1931. 18 serp. S.1.
10. Danko M. Ukrainska samostiinist i
moskovskyi imperializm // Dilo. 1932. 27 serp. S.1.
11. Danko M. Ukrainska sprava i
moskovska emihratsiia // Dilo. 1933. 4 trav. S.1.
12. Derevlianka M. Mista v Azii z
ukrainskoiu liudnistiu // Dilo. 1932. 31 trav. S.1.
13. Entsyklopediia Ukrainoznavstva.
Lviv: NTSh, 1993-1995.
14. Zhakhlyve stanovyshche Ukrainy //
Daily Express. 1934. 6, 7, 8 serp.
15. Zhytariuk M. Moskovska rezhysura
Holokostu: slovianska liubov chy aziiska nenavyst? Traktuvannia problemy v ukrainskii
ta zakordonnii zhurnalistytsi dovoiennoho periodu: istoryko-publitsystychnyi
aspekt: Nauk. broshura. Lviv, 1997. 56 s.
16. Zhytariuk M. Chetvertovana, ale
zhyva. Zakordonna presa pro politychni protsesy v Ukraini naperedodni Druhoi
svitovoi viiny: Monohrafiia. Lviv: Za vilnu Ukrainu, 1997. 128 s.
17. Kedryn Ivan. Demokratiia, komunizm,
natsionalizm ta ukrainska problema // Dilo. 1938. 6 sich. S.5-6.
18. Mizhnarodna komisiia z
rozsliduvannia Holodu v Ukraini. https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/.
19. Povna beznadiinist buduchoho.
Shvaitsarskyi chasopys pro polozhennia na Ukraini // Dilo. 1934. 22 berez.
S.2-3.
20. Rozporiadzhennia Uriadu RF vid
01.03.2014 r., № 303/14-r. URL:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1655376024733856&set=gm.1005058196202301&type=3&theater
21. Rosiiska diisnist // Der Bund:
Ofitsiinyi nimetskomovnyi shveitsarskyi orhan. 1934. 11 berez.
22. Sever V. Natsionalnyi interes ponad
use (Deshcho pro polityku ukraintsiv na Dalekomu Skhodi) / Za publikatsiieiu
“Derzhava mandzhuriv” u hazeti “Mandzhurskyi visnyk” // Dilo. 1932. 3 hrud.
S.1-2.
23. Chasopys pryiateliv liudstva:
Yaponskyi desiatydennyk. 1934. 23 kvit.
24. Iapontsi pro holod na Ukraini… //
Dilo. 1934. 9 cherv. S.2.
