Friday, April 24, 2020


Holocaust & Holodomor – Similar Conclusions
I came across an interesting article about the Holocaust in the April 20th edition of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. In it the reporter makes salient points that duplicate statements that Ukrainians make about the Holodomor – the murder by famine of at least 7 million Ukrainian men, women and children by the Russians in 1932-33.
For example:
“After reading hundreds of books and articles about the Holocaust, and even perusing many documents that have never been published as part of his work as the director of the Elie Wiesel Archive at Boston University, Rappel (Jewish archivist – ID) realized that despite the research controversy regarding the precise number of victims, ‘in our consciousness the number remains 6 million.’ …
“About 15 years later, during Eichmann’s trial, chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner said that ‘In the consciousness of the nation the number 6 million has become sanctified.’ But he added: ‘It’s not so simple to prove that. We did not use this number in any official document, but it became sanctified.’ Now, thanks to Rappel, historical research had added another layer for understanding the context for the number.”
Indeed the number of Holocaust victims became “sanctified” in Jewish and everyone’s minds. Regardless of what was, is or will be said, that’s the number of killed Jews. Question it and you become an evil denier. So why are we, Ukrainians, allowing a discussion about the number of Holodomor victims? Why are some Ukrainian and non-Ukrainians discounting the number of dead to a mere 4 million? My generation of baby boomers grew up with the figure of 7 million Ukrainian men, women and children starved to death by Russia in 1932-33 just because they were Ukrainian. That figure must be sanctified against all others in our and everyone’s minds.
Another dramatic point made in the story concerns the word “nation.” Many scholars, pundits, writers and readers identify nation as a country and vice versa, rarely stating or implying that a nation does not necessarily exist only within the boundaries of a country or state. Oftentimes a nation exists or has existed for hundreds and hundreds of years without the formal boundaries of a country.
The Haaretz story points out:  “‘Polish Jewry is extinct and no longer exists. Polish soil is a sacred grave of Polish and European Jewry. I could have brought you a sacred gift: a clod of earth from Polish soil suffused with the blood of a nation, which has died a martyr’s death,’ was how Unger began.”
The blood of a Jewish nation, which had lived in Europe not merely beyond the borders of a Jewish state, Israel, which didn’t yet exist during World War II.
The Haaretz reporter correctly used the word nation, meaning a group of people with a shared language, history, culture, religion, tradition and experience of persecution – just like the Ukrainian nation which lost 7 million people to forced famine created by Russia.

Sunday, April 19, 2020


Former Captive Nations Constitute Strong Bloc
A recent draft report by the European Parliament is finally admitting the importance of laying the foundation of an alliance or bloc made up exclusively of the former captive nations – the now-independent nations of Eastern Europe that have experienced Russian invasions and enslavement.
I have been promoting such a concept in my The Torn Curtain 1991 blog for years.
This is an historic first step in the evolution of post-Soviet imperial political relations even though it doesn’t touch on the creation of an official, comprehensive coalition of these countries. It also doesn’t matter that the draft report focuses on a partnership of limited scope.
RFE/RL reported on April 15 that it has seen the draft report that says the European Parliament will call for the creation of a “common economic space” between the European Union and the six nations of its Eastern Partnership program as part of a process of “gradual integration” into the bloc.
In a significant move, one that should be duplicated by the entire free world, the parliamentary draft report also denounces Russia’s “illegal” actions in Eastern Partnership countries – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – including what it calls destabilization, invasion and annexation.
The document is to be debated by the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee in the coming weeks and could potentially be endorsed by the full chamber in May, wrote RFE/RL’s Rikard Jozwiak.
A Brussels summit that was to bring together the leaders of the 27 EU member states with those of the six Eastern Partnership members was scheduled for June 18 but now might be postponed to the second half of the year due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Nonetheless, this development is significant in light of Russia’s ongoing verbal and military aggression not only in the region of the former captive nations but also in other regions as well as cyberspace. The parliamentary report publically admits that Russia continues to be a global threat and smaller or larger coalitions are wholly appropriate and even encouraged responses to its belligerence.
The RFE/RL story wrote that in a veiled reference to Russia, which has strongly opposed efforts by former captive nations to get closer to the EU and NATO, the European Parliament will “confirm the sovereign right of the Eastern partner countries to freely choose their individual level of cooperation or integration with the EU,” according to the draft report.
The document also “strongly condemns the continued violations of fundamental principles and norms of international law in the Eastern Partnership region,” citing “illegal use of force, invasion, destabilization, annexation, borderization, and occupation of territories of several Eastern Partnership countries by the Russian Federation.”
Proof of such a bloc’s necessity is Russia’s unbridled and unconcealed invasion of Ukraine six years ago and its subsequent occupation of Crimea and Donbas. Both Ukrainian regions have experienced typical Russian violations of human rights, arrests and killings. The war has resulted in death more than 13,000 Ukrainian civilians and soldiers and in excess of a million displaced Ukrainians.
The Eastern Partnership program was launched in 2009 and is meant to bring the six countries closer to the EU without clearly offering future membership. Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine have since signed association agreements with the EU, including free-trade deals, but several member states have been reluctant to discuss the issue of these countries’ eventual membership.
The European Parliament, which has in the past called for further enlargement to the east, noted in the draft report that “while accession is not foreseen under the framework of the Eastern Partnership, the Eastern Partnership policy can facilitate a process of gradual integration to the EU.”
Within this framework, there is a joint commitment to deliver tangible results for citizens across the regionIn support of a more results-oriented approach towards the Eastern Partnership, the European Commission and European External Action Service identified 20 key deliverables for 2020. This ambitious work plan was endorsed at the Eastern Partnership Summit which took place in Brussels in November 2017. These commitments by the EU, its member-states and the six partner countries cover the four main priority areas of the Eastern Partnership:
·                     Stronger Economy (economic development and market opportunities);
·                     Stronger Governance (strengthening institutions and good governance);
·                     Stronger Connectivity (connectivity, energy efficiency, environment and climate change);
·                     Stronger Society (mobility and people-to-people contacts).
A structured engagement with a wider range of civil society organizations, advances gender equality and non-discrimination, as well as clearer and tailor-made strategic communications are also being pursued as across all areas.
Indeed this is a great beginning. For it to be better, the six partner countries must be expanded with the participation of at least Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. Their cumulative gross domestic product is $936 billion, with Poland and Ukraine leading the list. A respectable sum. Aleksander Lukashenko, because of his subservience to the Kremlin, has seen to it that his Belarus cannot be considered a serious, fully-fledged participant at this time.
Furthermore, the four priority points must include defense, military and political elements that will add much needed teeth to the Eastern Partnership as well as a vital mission along the lines of the historical Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations.
Due to inconsistent support from the free world, its unstable policies and paranoid behavior, the former captive nations since the early 1990s have been left to their own devices to preserve their independence and freedom. This draft report of the European Parliament gives them justification to align their interests and strengths in defense of their nations. With Russia continuing to rattle its sabers, an economic, commercial, military, defense, political and ideological bloc among the 10 countries that I listed and hopefully others will be enough to send a thunderous signal to Moscow to contain its belligerence and expansion.
These countries could then move to modernize their armed forces and form a single front to ensure their independence, sovereignty and security in the face of the great void that exists today. It will certainly irk Moscow and it may displease Washington, but for the sake of their future, they have no other choice.
This must be the new Eastern Partnership playbook going forward.