If you are having trouble reading ePOSHTA, click here.
Якщо Ви маєте труднощі читати еПОШТУ, натисніть тут.

Коли ви вмирали, вам дзвони не грали...

See below: Rewriting history: An evidentiary perspective
Hero of Ukraine linked to Jewish killings. Yushchenko erred in honouring Bandera + responses
Ukrainian American Bar Association challenges Russian disinformation campaign re UPA

February 18 лютий 2009
Vol.10 No. 4

Know someone who'd like a trial copy of ePOSHTA? Send their e-mail address to:

with "Subscription" in the subject line.

Ukrainian heroines

A decades-long tradition which began in 1925 on the first anniversary of the death of 34-year-old Ukrainian social worker, political activist and revolutionary Olha Basarab, as a result of interrogations and tortures in the city of Lviv prison.
On Feb. 22, 1942, 35-year-old beautiful and talented poet, editor and publicist Olena Teliha was executed in Babyn Yar near Kyiv, Ukraine, by the German Nazi executioners, together with her husband Mykhailo and several other Ukrainian intellectuals, members of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Since then, both Olena Teliha and Olha Basarab symbolize hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian women who died in battles, prisons and gulags in pursuit of the independence of Ukraine, many of them simply for being Ukrainian.

In this issue:
   Opinion Editorial
   Незалежний Погляд
  Заклик до дії
Send information on social events, conferences, and employment to: events@eposhta.com at least two weeks before the event date. See the guidelines for submitting EVENT announcements.
  Ділова Крамниця
  Programs & Conferences
  Програми і Конференції
  Employment, Grants & Scholarships
  Current Affairs
  Сучасні Пoдії
  Arts & Letters
  Ukraine & the World
  Украіна і Світ
  Business Report
  Тиждень в Україні
  Ukrainians in the News
  From Our Mailbox / Blogbox
  In Memoriam
   Вічная Пам'ять

Rewriting history: An evidentiary perspective TOP

February 16, 2010

Askold S. Lozynskyj

     One of the greatest tragedies of the Ukrainian people is that because of their long time status as stateless and oppressed, their history has been written in most instances by the oppressor and/or his agents. Ukraine has been independent for almost a score. Still certain states, i.e. the Russian Federation which has proven to be a legitimate successor in interest to both Czarist Russia and the USSR have not been able to come to grips. Still others who have since befriended Ukraine, i.e. Poland refuse to edit its prejudicially written original account. And even those agents who themselves for many years were stateless and often oppressed, continue to seek out new demons to escape blame for a not so blameless past and to keep the fire of remembrance burning for their own tragedies, i.e. the Jews.

     On October 28, 2008 the Russian Federation’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vitalij Churkin held a press conference at the UN in New York to boast about Russia’s success in thwarting Ukraine’s attempts to place the Great Famine of 1932-33 on the agenda of the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly. He proceeded to denounce attempts by Ukraine to politicize the Great Famine of 1932-33” In the course of his denunciations he gratuitously proffered evidence of Ukraine’s contemporary political mindset pointing out that Ukraine is today rehabilitating notorious Nazi collaborators like the General of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army Roman Shukhevych.

     On May 5, 2009 the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations held a briefing entitled “The Outcome and Lessons of World War II and the Present” at the UN headquarters in New York. The event was opened and presided over by Ilya Rogachev, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN. In his opening remarks Mr. Rogachev said:

     Despite the tragic lessons of World War II, we oftentimes witness the revival of practices conducive to the escalation of modern forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. Unfortunately, a number of countries have recently been pursuing and undisguised policy of presenting as heroes those who participated in Nazi crimes;

… Quite recently, we have witnessed the profane action or inaction by the Ukrainian authorities… Open glorification of… the Ukrainian Insurgent Army fighters, who tainted themselves with the crimes against those who fought in the ranks of the anti-Hitler coalition, declaring notorious Nazi Roman Shukhevych as a hero of Ukraine, demolition and desecration of monuments to Soviet soldiers are all links of the same chain of practices aimed at re-writing the history of World War II and inculcating blatantly pro-fascist ideology in the minds of the current and future generations.  

     On January 25, 2010 the International Council of Russian Compatriots met at the UN to conference their achievements and address their problems. The proceedings deteriorated into mudslinging against Russia’s neighbors in particular Latvia, which had the audacity to insist on a working knowledge of Latvian as a prerequisite for citizenship and Ukraine where Russians have experienced a diminishing of Ukrainian government funding of their cultural and linguistic resources. Gratuitously the compatriots from Ukraine smeared Bandera, Shukhevych and the OUN-UPA as fascist Nazi collaborators whom the Ukrainian government is attempting to rehabilitate with honors. 

     In November 2009, John Himka. an historian from the University of Alberta submitted a paper to the forty first national convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies in Boston on The Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the Holocaust. Mr. Himka organized his paper with a discussion of his sources and material about the Ukrainian Insurgent Army’s (UPA) involvement in the murder of Jews. To his credit Prof. Himka did acknowledge that his paper was paid for with a fellowship from the Holocaust Memorial Museum. This goes to motive.  Simply put, Mr. Himka for his remuneration had to produce one or more demons.

     On February 7, 2010 Mr. Himka’s colleague from the University of Alberta David Marples published an article in “The Edmonton Journal” on Ukraine’s honoring of Stepan Bandera in which quite suddenly and with no substantiation or reference he asserted: Members of the OUN-B spearheaded pogroms in L’viv in the summer of 1941 when about 4,000 Jews were killed.

     And most recently the notorious journalist Mark Ames, known equally well for his work in the United States and in Moscow wrote an article in “The Nation.” His purpose was to criticize the outgoing orange President of Ukraine Victor Yuschenko and included amongst the President’s sins the honoring of Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera. Mr Ames wrote, Bandera's forces participated in the mass killings of Jews in L'viv and other parts of Western Ukraine where Jews once thrived.

For those unfamiliar with Mr. Ames his loyalties are brought to light in previous writings among them an analysis of the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia. Mr. Ames sided with Russia.

     Do you discern a pattern here? Still, inasmuch as of all the aforesaid only Mr. Himka has attempted to substantiate his assertions, let’s deal with some of his work in the area of Bandera, Shukhevych and the OUN-UPA. In passing I should mention that in private communications, Mr. .Marples relies on the scholarship of Mr. Himka for his assertions.

     John Himka was a notorious Soviet apologist and remains a Ukraine detractor. One of his favorite targets is the Great Famine of 1932-33 wherein he attempts to minimize its significance by reducing the number of victims. In his current assault on the OUN-UPA and its leaders Mr. Himka has chosen to rely on eyewitness testimony. That is a significant factor in itself because in juridical evidentiary proceedings, eyewitness accounts, while still afforded some evidentiary weight, are considered the most unreliable, often tainted by memory lapses, embellishments, etc.  However that serves Mr. Himka best and even there the evidence he produces fails to impugn.

     In one of his publications written for the purpose of showing that on July 1, 1941, the OUN spearheaded a pogrom in Lviv, Mr. Himka offers the testimony of one Rosa Wagner who gave her account in 1945 in Cracow at the request of the Jewish Historical Institute. Ms. Wagner provides a narrative of what transpired involving herself and other Jews in July 1941 in Lviv when the Germans invaded and the Soviets were forced to flee. Mr. Himka himself dates the events on July 1, 1941.

     Ms. Wagner describes her own and her family’s personal fears and the persecution suffered at the hands of the Nazis and the local residents of Lviv. She describes her oppressors as young Ukrainian street thugs, mob and bandits. Not a single reference by the witness to the OUN. This clearly does not satisfy Mr. Himka so he distorts, suggesting that Rosa had no way of knowing that her oppressors were led by the recently formed Ukrainian militia consisting of men directed by the OUN. Himka offers as corroborating evidence a Ukrainian Militia identification card belonging to one Iwan Kowalyschyn. The card is neither authenticated nor signed or dated by an issuing officer. Other eyewitness accounts label the persecutors of the Jews in Lviv at that time as being Polish. Mr. Himka simply dismisses that label as erroneous. 

     While there is divergence in various accounts of the Lviv incident as to the identity of the perpetrators, the indisputable facts are that the Soviets left a gory landscape, prisons replete with corpses of their Ukrainian prisoners accumulated over almost two years from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact until the Nazi invasion of Western Ukraine. What is also indisputable is that many Jews served in the Soviet secret police during that period of Soviet rule in Western Ukraine. Naturally, Mr. Himka fails to mention the Jewish complicity which may have pointed to the motive of any number of oppressors.

      Such is Mr. Himka’s scholarship throughout his writings on the OUN-UPA and the Holocaust, at least that which I have reviewed. His aforementioned November 2009 paper on the UPA and the Holocaust relies strictly on eyewitness testimony. No documentation is offered.  The reliability factor is even more questionable in the UPA paper since in the Rosa Wagner testimony at least Rosa described events she herself witnessed.  Without exception the “eyewitness accounts” impugning the UPA are not eyewitness at all, rather hearsay, i.e. my friend told me that in the village the UPA murdered Jews etc. In instances of direct account the narrative consists of battles between the UPA and Soviet partisans or the Polish Armija Krajova which includes people who happened to be Jewish. While being Jewish in and of itself, certainly, was not reason to be killed, being Jewish was not immunity from being attacked when you sided and fought with the enemy.

     This article is not a scholarly attempt to refute all allegations of complicity by the OUN, UPA, Shukhevych or Bandera in the Holocaust. It is, however, an impeachment of the impugning alleged scholarship that really is not scholarly at all. Allegations of complicity by the OUN, UPA, Shukhevych or Bandera in the Holocaust at this point in time are moot since none of the above was afforded as much as mention as  in the Nuremburg proceedings. Soviet Prosecutor Rudenko certainly had access to Soviet archives, eyewitness accounts and other evidence. Case closed! 

Askold S. Lozynskyj is a New York attorney and  former President of the Ukrainian World Congress

ГУНТІ - НІ! Вибори 2010: хто винний і що робити TOP
... ви, панове «противсіхи»? Ну що, пишаєтесь собою? Не соромно дивитись тепер в очі своїм дітям? Чи ви не маєте дітей?

Адже це саме ви всадовили на трон «прєзідєнта в законє». Саме ви, а не ті нещасні, що проголосували за нього хто з примусу, хто з дурості, а хто тому, що такий самий.


Джерело: Народні Новини Криму

Це важливо для всіх нас, якщо ми любимо Україну, і не хочемо її втратити. Якщо ми не бажаємо, щоб наших дітей гнобили бандити, що приходять до влади. Тому ми повинні підтримати одне одного.


Вибори позаду. Позаду день, якого очікували всі – одні з надією на реванш, інші – зі сподіваннями, що принаймні гірше не стане.

До останньої хвилини ще жевріла невеличка надія на чудо, але чуда не сталося. Перегорнуто чи не найганебнішу сторінку в історії України. І наразі невідомо, чи не є це взагалі остання сторінка і кінець історії, чого так хотілося б тим, хто прийшов до влади за спиною свого «двічі не судимого» вождя. Боже, бережи Україну!

Думки про те, як могло таке статися, не дають спати. Ятрить душу неспокій за долю моїх дітей та онуків. Перспективи життя в державі «для людей», де купується все і вся, відверто лякають. Безліч запитань, які є кому поставити, але навряд чи я отримаю відповідь. Та може все ж наважитеся і відповісте мені, звичайній жінці, матері, яких в Україні мільйони?

Наприклад ви, панове «противсіхи»? Ну що, пишаєтесь собою? Не соромно дивитись тепер в очі своїм дітям? Чи ви не маєте дітей?

Адже це саме ви всадовили на трон «прєзідєнта в законє». Саме ви, а не ті нещасні, що проголосували за нього хто з примусу, хто з дурості, а хто тому, що такий самий.

Незважаючи на шалений тиск, підкупи і махінації, він тільки завдяки вам спромігся отримати незначну перевагу лише в декілька відсотків.

А чого ви, пане Тигипко, чекали? Що люди забули про вашу діяльність на чолі виборчого штабу Януковича в 2004, і те, що коли запахло смаленим, ви втікли і залягли на дно?

А ви на що сподівалися, пане Яценюк? Думали, якщо вистрибнете, наче заєць з кущів в бойовій розмальовці, то народ з несподіванки за вас і проголосує?

Саме поведінка кандидатів після поразки показує наскільки чесними були вони під час передвиборчої кампанії, і за що вони вболівають насправді: за свою країну і свій народ, чи за свої кишені та власні амбіції.

Чесніше було б просто відійти в бік, але ви зайняли іншу позицію «Якщо не я, то ніхто».

ас вже розпирає від гордощів за власну громадянську позицію? Не обманюйте себе. Громадянською позицією це було лише в першому турі (як і ігнорування виборів взагалі). І до речі, я її розумію, бо теж не підтримала жодного кандидата. Якби тоді це зробила більшість з нас, то не довелося б постати перед вибором без вибору у турі другому. Але невже результат у 2,2%, що ніяким чином не відповідав настроям у країні, не примусив вас замислитися і зрозуміти, що голосувати так само і в другому турі не просто безвідповідально, це злочинно. Не менш злочинно, ніж закликати до цього інших. Адже постало питання вже не про те, хто з політиків переможе, а бути чи не бути нашій державі.

Тому наступні мої запитання до вас, дорогі наші «закликальники», панове Яценюк та Тигипко. Кажу дорогі, бо ви надто дорого нам обійшлися. Вірогідність вашої перемоги існувала лише в ваших мріях. То ж результат не мав вас здивувати. Але ви чомусь стали в позу ображених хлопчиків.

А чого ви, пане Тигипко, чекали? Що люди забули про вашу діяльність на чолі виборчого штабу Януковича в 2004, і те, що коли запахло смаленим, ви втікли і залягли на дно?

А ви на що сподівалися, пане Яценюк? Думали, якщо вистрибнете, наче заєць з кущів в бойовій розмальовці, то народ з несподіванки за вас і проголосує?

Саме поведінка кандидатів після поразки показує наскільки чесними були вони під час передвиборчої кампанії, і за що вони вболівають насправді: за свою країну і свій народ, чи за свої кишені та власні амбіції.

Чесніше було б просто відійти в бік, але ви зайняли іншу позицію «Якщо не я, то ніхто». І саме ця ваша позиція призвела до появи нових «противсіхів». Бо «ніхто» - то вибір нереальний, бо не може бути в штучно роз’єднаному суспільстві ніяких «ніхто». Тільки «або – або». Отже і ви обидва несете моральну відповідальність за подальшу долю країни.

То що ви зараз робите, панове? Потираєте від задоволення руки? Сподіваєтесь відігратись через 5 років? Не сподівайтеся! Вони прийшли не для того, аби ви змогли повторити свої жалюгідні спроби, вони прийшли назавжди. Так що не роззявляйте рота.

Дуже хотілося, щоб пояснили своє «мовчання ягнят» ви, шановний пане Гриценко. Кажуть, мовчання – золото, але не в вашому випадку. Ви багатьом видавалися чесним і порядним офіцером. Куди поділося ваше почуття власної гідності? Чому ви не виступили зі зверненням до інших офіцерів не підтримувати таку одіозну людину як Янукович на шляху до президентства? Адже такий президент ганьба не тільки для офіцера, це ганьба для всієї країни. Хіба це суперечить принципам вашої «Громадянської позиції», з допомогою якої ви збиралися повести Україну до кращого майбутнього? А тепер ви спокійно дивитесь, як в неї відбирають навіть надію на таке майбутнє. Це був ваш громадський обов’язок – зробити все можливе, щоб такого не сталося.

Заразом хочу спитати в усіх офіцерів армії та міліції: вам не буде соромно виконувати накази такого головнокомандувача? Вам не огидно, не принизливо підкорятися колишньому кримінальному злодієві, бути на побігеньках в тих, від кого ви маєте нас захищати?

А вам панове генерали, для яких власна дупа в теплі дорожча за свою країну? Як ви будете дивитись в очі нам, матерям, забираючи наших синів для захисту, ні не нашої Батьківщини, а інтересів кримінальної зграї, що незабаром посяде владу в нашій країні. Бо саме ці інтереси ви й будете обслуговувати.

А вам панове генерали, для яких власна дупа в теплі дорожча за свою країну? Як ви будете дивитись в очі нам, матерям, забираючи наших синів для захисту, ні не нашої Батьківщини, а інтересів кримінальної зграї, що незабаром посяде владу в нашій країні. Бо саме ці інтереси ви й будете обслуговувати.

Якби у вас була хоч крапля гідності і мужності, щоб відмовитись від підтримки такого президента, тоді в України з’явився б шанс. Хоча, про що я кажу! Поняття честь, порядність, гідність вже давно не сумісні з нашими силовими структурами. Та якщо серед вас ще є люди, для яких ці слова не порожній звук, яким ще хоч трохи щемить у серці за свою поругану Батьківщину – не будьте байдужі, не мовчіть!

Багато чого могла б сказати і вам, «господа» піховшики і кісєльови, чиїми руками закладалася міна сповільненої дії під українську державність, творився розбрат, роздмухувалась ненависть до всього українського. Це ви, і такі як ви отруювали суспільство брехнею і безпринципністю, та сіяли невігластво.

І хоч немає сенсу про щось вас запитувати, бо це все рівно , що питати хворого про здоров’я, одне питання все ж таки поставлю. Чи здригнеться хоч щось в вашому прогнилому, підкупному нутрі, коли почнуть затикати роти вашим непокірливим колегам, подібно до того, як це зробили з Гонгадзе? Чи з’явиться в душі хоч щось, схоже на розкаяння, коли ви осягнете своїм куцим розумом, що накоїли? Щось мені підказує, що ні.

Змагатися з вами в тому, хто найбільше нашкодить Україні можуть хіба що наші великі, величезні політичні повії на кшталт морозів, симоненок, богословських, кінахів, головатих та іже з ними (список можна подовжувати і подовжувати). Та в цих «VIP-відходів» навіть питати нічого не хочеться, бо честь, совість і розум для них просто не існують.

Але є в мене дуже, дуже багато запитань до вас пане Ющенко, до нашого поки що президента.

Я вже давно не вірю обіцянкам політиків і я не є палкою прихильницею Юлії Тимошенко. Я ставлюся до неї дуже критично, як і до всіх інших представників влади. Але тим не менше, я віддала свій голос у другому турі за неї. Я проголосувала не за політичного лідера, а за право України на існування. Так само, як я зробила це в 2004 році, голосуючи за вас. Бо я люблю свою країну і я мати, якій не байдуже, в якій країні будуть жити мої діти.

Але є в мене дуже, дуже багато запитань до вас пане Ющенко ...

Це поразка України як держави і українців як нації. Всього того, за що ви нібито так щиро вболівали, а значить і ваша поразка – як президента, як політика, як людини. Хай вас Бог простить!

Ні, мені не соромно за той свій вибір. Бо це був не вибір «за Ющенка», а вибір «проти Януковича», проти знахабнілої банди. Як і вибір багатьох, чиї права було так брутально зневажено. Я не будувала собі ілюзій стосовно вас. Що ви «ні риба, ні м’ясо» було зрозуміло ще тоді, коли Кучма викинув вас з посади прем’єр-міністра. Але сподівалася, що працюючи в одній упряжці з Тимошенко, компенсуючи недоліки один одного, ви зможете вивести Україну на новий шлях розвитку. Але не так сталося, як гадалося. Постійні міжусобні війни та чвари – ось що ми спостерігали на протязі всього вашого правління.

Хто ж знав, що ви виявитесь банальним жінконенависником. І саме це є тією правдою, яку ви намагалися приховати, стверджуючи, що боретесь з популізмом. А «любі друзі» тільки підливали масла у вогонь. Так популізм був, але вам було на нього начхати, як і на інтереси всієї країни. Бо єдине, що вас цікавило, і чого ви боялися – це аби вас не перемогла жінка. Це саме ваша ненависть до Юлії Тимошенко як до жінки затьмарила ваш розум настільки, що ви втратили здатність тверезо мислити і реально оцінювати ситуацію.

І тепер, коли саме ви знову повернули країну до тієї прірви, над якою вона стояла 2004, скажіть…

Чим тепер будете пишатися ви? Своїми здобутками по ствердженню в Україні демократії та свободи слова? Але ж ви розтоптали їх власними ногами, второвуючи бандитам, яким обіцяли тюрми, шлях до президентського крісла. То може наданням Героя України Степану Бандері? Та він бідолашний вже не раз перевернувся в труні, і як би міг, то плюнув би вам в обличчя, бо в останні дні свого правління ви власноруч знищили те, за що він боровся.

Все те добре, що ви зробили для України, хоч його було і не так багато, ви перекреслили своїми останніми діями.

Чим же так завинив перед вами український народ? Не нагородив вас знову президентським стільцем за невиконані обіцянки та бездіяльність, і ви вирішили помститися таким чином власній країні? А заразом і цій ненависній Юльці: «хто завгодно, аби не вона». Та даремно ви так зловтішаєтесь. Це не поразка Юлії Тимошенко. Вона то якраз і не пропаде. Це поразка України як держави і українців як нації. Всього того, за що ви нібито так щиро вболівали, а значить і ваша поразка – як президента, як політика, як людини. Хай вас Бог простить!

Згадайте, що нас підтримало і дало змогу перемогти в 2004? Пам’ятаєте ті помаранчеві стрічки на одязі, автомобілях, робочих місцях? Вони давали нам зрозуміти – ти не один. Так і сьогодні, кожен, хто відчуває себе українцем – не один. Якщо ви патріот і любите Україну, покажіть це ...

Але що зроблено, те зроблено. Перший шок минув, і треба думати як жити далі. Не треба здаватися, навіть якщо видається, ніби все втрачено. Бо справжньої поваги заслуговує не той, хто ніколи не падав, а той, хто впав, але зумів піднятися. Борітеся і поборете! Не будьте байдужими! Вони хочуть, аби ми почувалися розгубленими і наляканими. Можливо, так воно перші дні і було, але вже не сьогодні, не зараз. І ми зможемо піднятися і вистояти, якщо кожен з нас зрозуміє: ніхто нас не захистить , крім нас самих. Не будуть заради нас жертвувати своїми статками та благополуччям ні Тимошенко, ні Симоненко, ні Литвин, ні Тигипко з Яценюком, ні тим паче Янукович.

Згадайте, що нас підтримало і дало змогу перемогти в 2004? Пам’ятаєте ті помаранчеві стрічки на одязі, автомобілях, робочих місцях? Вони давали нам зрозуміти – ти не один. Так і сьогодні, кожен, хто відчуває себе українцем – не один. Якщо ви патріот і любите Україну, покажіть це наперекір бажанню януковської свити перетворити нашу рідну землю в вотчину бандитсько-олігархічної верхівки. Зробіть щось, аби кожен, хто поділяє наші погляди, міг відчути себе одним з нас. І ви здивуєтесь, як насправді нас багато.

Країну розділяли і розколювали, бо тільки так «Раздєляй і властвуй» можна безкарно грабувати народ. Щоб покласти цьому край, ми всі повинні бути єдині. Згадайте гасла Майдану «Схід і захід разом». Там, на сході, теж є люди, які не хочуть, щоб «Всьо било Донбас». Підтримайте їх, покажіть – вони не одні. І вони теж побачать – їх багато. Тільки від нас, звичайних людей, що працюють і тягнуть на собі «елітне бидло» залежить, чи станемо ми єдиною нацією, чи зможемо поставити на місце зарозумілих «слуг народу». Робімо кожен, що можемо, для блага і порятунку країни. Єднаймося, бо поодинці ми ніхто. Рятуймо своїх дітей!

Помаранчевий – це не колір Ющенка, це колір сонця і життєвої сили. Затяті регіонали перетворили його на лайку. Синій – колір холоду і смерті. Але це також колір води і неба. Ті, хто голосував за Януковича, згадайте, що ви теж українці, і що вода без сонця не дає життя, так само, як і сонце без води. Від вас залежить, чи стане синій кольором життя. У вас ще є час замислитися над цим, до наступних парламентських виборів. Не бійтеся!

Журналісти, які ще не перетворились на «піховшиків» - вас багато. Не дайте зробити з себе стадо мовчазних баранів! Ви – совість нації. Знайдіть в собі мужність казати правду, бо це той ковток повітря, без якого суспільство задихнеться.

Розплющіть очі, «противсіхи» і «пофігісти»! Не залишайтесь осторонь, приєднуйтесь! Не до Партії Регіонів чи БЮТ. А тих, хто не хоче, щоб можновладці, які називають нас «козлами» і «дебілами», паразитували на нашій праці і вичищали наші кишені, лишали без майбутнього наших дітей. Бо Україна – для нас, а не для їхніх людей.

Журналісти, які ще не перетворились на «піховшиків» - вас багато. Не дайте зробити з себе стадо мовчазних баранів! Ви – совість нації. Знайдіть в собі мужність казати правду, бо це той ковток повітря, без якого суспільство задихнеться.

Я народилася за часів «совка», коли в українських великих містах панувала тільки російська мова. Нею розмовляли, нею навчали, нею привчали думати. Тому і зараз мені легше формулювати думки російською. Але моя рідна мова – була і залишається – українська. І єдиний, доступний мені, вид спротиву системі «януковичів» - почати скрізь і всюди розмовляти тільки українською. Нехай кожен з нас зробить те саме, і ви побачите – нас багато.

Вирішальна битва ще попереду, не програймо її! Слава Україні!

Хотіла підписатися, як звичайно, ім’ям. Та це б виглядало, що все сказане, то є тільки мої слова, тільки моя думка. Але ж насправді, то є думка дуже багатьох, таких самих, як і я, українських матерів і бабусь, що бажають щастя своїм дітям та онукам. І вірю, що також батьків і дідусів. Я не одна.

Тому я впевнена, що під підписом Українка, мати, бабуся можу додати Українець, батько, дідусь

Всеукраїнська фотомобілізація TOP

У рамках громадської кампанії Новий Громадянин триває суспільно-мистецька акція

"Президент повинен знати в обличчя свого роботодавця" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG0gpXWZ1Ig.

Що це таке? Із паспортних фотографій тисяч українців буде зроблено символічний портрет «роботодавця» майбутнього Глави держави завбільшки 6 квадратних метрів. Символічний силует – це спроба творчого вираження українців своєї громадянської позиції.

Навіщо? Нагадати виборцю, що Президент – це найманий менеджер, підзвітний суспільству, а Президентові – що джерелом влади є народ, який делегував йому завдання керувати Україною у найближчі 5 років.

Аби повністю заповнити силует фотографіями, потрібно приблизно 3 тисячі фото розміром 2Х3. Тому ми оголошуємо ФОТОМОБІЛІЗАЦІЮ - збір фото паспортного формату 2х3 від громадян з усієї України для заповнення силуету!

Запрошуємо вас взяти участь у творенні символічного портрету -

Просто подайте до нього своє ФОТО!

Як саме? Обирайте свій варіант:

  • Прийдіть до кінотеатру «Київ» (вул. Червоноармійська, 19, хол, другий поверх) і власноруч наклейте своє фото на панно (там є для цього ножиці і клей)
  • Надішліть фото в електронному вигляді на e-mail natella.shavadze@gmail.com
  • Надішліть листа поштою на адресу 04071, м. Київ, вул. Костянтинівська, 2а, 5 поверх, «Центр UA».

Це не обов’язково мусить бути фото з паспорта, а таке, де обличчя крупним планом. І ще. Ми шукаємо фото людей різного віку. Надішліть фото батьків, дідусів, родичів.

Панно перебуватиме у кінотеатрі до початку березня, і будь-хто зможе долучитися до створення портрету. Після інавгурації Президента портрет буде презентований майбутньому главі держави.

Ця акція для всіх! Якщо вас зацікавила ініціатива, чекаємо від вас фото! А також просимо переслати цю інформацію своїм родичам, друзям, знайомим, по усіх соціальних мережах, де ви зареєстровані.

Відео з події: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG0gpXWZ1Ig

Про кампанію Новий Громадянин: http://newcitizen.org.ua/

Links to event postings TOP

Do you maintain a web-based list of events for your city or region? Let us know and we'll add a link to your site from the ePOSHTA newsmagazine.


 United States

Yalta Book Talk on C-SPAN2 -- Feb. 20 TOP
Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN) will air the book talk for the publication of Yalta: The Price of Peace (The Viking Press, 2010) by Serhii Plokhy, Mykhailo S. Hrushevsky Professor of Ukrainian History at Harvard University

Saturday, February 20th at 8 p.m. (ET)

The program is approximately one hour and forty minutes and can be seen on BookTV on C-SPAN2.

Speaker and Author: Serhii Plokhy, Mykhailo Hrushevsky Professor of Ukrainian History, Harvard University

Chair: Kelly O'Neill, Assistant Professor of History, Harvard University

Discussants: Mark Kramer, Program Director, Cold War Studies Project, Davis Center, Harvard University and Terry Martin, Acting Director, Davis Center; Professor of Russian Studies, Harvard University

Professor Plokhy is author of Ukraine and Russia: Representations of the Past (University of Toronto Press, 2008), The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (Cambridge University Press, 2006), Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History (University of Toronto Press, 2005), Religion and Nation in Modern Ukraine (with Frank E. Sysyn) (Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2003), Tsars and Cossacks: A Study in Iconography (Harvard University Press/HURI, 2002), and The Cossacks and Religion in Early Modern Ukraine (Oxford University Press, 2001, 2004).

Winnipeg: Ron Kostyniuk: Some Works -- Feb. 21 to May 8 TOP
Toronto: Bohdan Soroka art exhibit: Feb. 21 - Mar. 7 TOP
New York: Kinofest NYC 2010 film festival at The Ukrainian Museum -- Feb. 25 -28 TOP
Toronto: The 3rd Kobzar Literary Award ceremony and dinner -- Mar. 4 TOP

Winnipeg: Family pysanka workshops -- Mar. 20 & 27 TOP
Toronto: Ukrainian Canadian Social Services Humanitarian Award gala - Mar. 20 TOP
Торонто: Св'ято Героїнъ -- 21 лютого TOP
Торонто: Концерт Великопосних Наспівів -- 6 березня TOP
Послуги англійською мовою TOP

Шановні студенти та професіонали!

Якщо ви плануєте вступити до престижного міжнародному вузу, мрієте отримати гідну ваших здібностей роботу та побудувати успішну кар'єру, хочете розширити коло академічних і професійних контактів та збираєтесь опанувати англійську, запрошую вас отримати кваліфіковану підтримку фахівця.
Плануйте заздалегіть!
Обравши послугу, зателефонуйте  за номером 095 09 20 135 або надішліть листа на адресу tetyana.tutor@gmail.com чи psychology.counselling@yahoo.com
Починайте втілювати  власні мрії сьогодні!
З найкращими побажаннями, Тетяна

  • The Admission/Job/Other purpose Documents Writer
  • College, graduate, postgraduate, school students Reference letters
  • Recommendation letters
  • Scholarship letters
  • Job Seekers
  • Resume
  • Networking Letters
  • GRE, GMAT Tutor
  • English Tutor
  • Business Psychologist
  • Life and Business Coach, Counselor
  • Education, Career Adviser

My mobile number is  095 09 20 135 and e-mail: tetyana.tutor@gmail.com; psychology.counselling@yahoo.com

Best of luck and a pleasure being of service to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require assistance.

Cordially yours,


Opportunity for Young Adults: "My Faith, My Church, My Generation!" TOP
Have you ever wanted to let people know what it is like to be a young adult attempting to live their faith in the 21st Century? The Consistory Offices of Young Adult Ministry and Public Relations are hoping to give you a chance to do just that. Beginning in February we will be featuring a new section on the website for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA entitled "My Faith, My Church, My Generation". We are looking for articles, reflections, poems, short stories, video, etc... written/produced by young adults concerning their faith, their struggles, their joys, and their perspectives on all topics.

If you are interested in participating in this new endeavor, submissions may be sent to uocyouth@aol.com at any time. You will be notified if your submission will be utilized. We will strive to publish as many submissions as possible. In addition to web publication, six submissions will be chosen to be printed in the Ukrainian Orthodox Word.

We pray that you take this unique opportunity to bring your fellow young adults and all who may read your material closer to Christ.


We look forward to receiving your submissions.

In Him
His Grace Bishop Daniel
Western Eparchy Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA

Editor - Ukrainian Orthodox Word

Natalie Kapeluck Nixon

Office of Youth & Young Adult Ministry
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
PO Box 869
Carnegie, PA 15106

Львів: Міжнародна науково-практична конференція - Управіління інноваційним процесом в Україні: Проблемy, перспективи, ризики -- 20-21 травня TOP
Пропонуємо Вашій увазі інформаційне повідомлення про конференцію, яка буде проходити 20-21 травня 2010 у Національному університеті “Львівська політехніка”. Заявки приймаються до 1 квітня 2010 року.

Прочитати повну статтю можна на сторінці: http://cstei.lviv.ua/ua/item/400

Employment Toronto: Coordinator, Administration and Development TOP
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America scholarship -- deadline Apr 20 TOP

Applications for scholarships administered by the Chancellor's Office of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America that are open to students from SCOBA member churches are now available for the 2010-2011 academic year. The scholarships are the Malta Scholarship, awarded for undergraduate studies, and the Paleologos Graduate Scholarship which is for graduate work of a non-theological nature.

Further details, including complete instructions and applications, can be accessed on-line on the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (www.goarch.org). Applications may also be requested from the Office of the Chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese by calling (212) 774-0513, by e-mail at scholarships@goarch.org, or by written request to the Scholarship Committee, Office of the Chancellor, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, 8-10 East 79th Street, New York, NY, 10075. The deadline for applying for these scholarships is April 20, 2010.

Hero of Ukraine linked to Jewish killings. Yushchenko erred in honouring Bandera + responses TOP
The move in Ukraine to honour members of the underground and provide them with benefits accorded to war veterans was written up in the Washington Post: In Ukraine, movement to honor members of WWII underground sets off debate (Jan.6, 2010). In response, the Ukrainian American Bar Association felt compelled to address the issue of: "The labeling of the UPA as "fascist" has repeatedly been shown to be a Soviet-era fabrication, but that accusation is still frequently revived today by those who are not aware of the fabrication, or those intent on compromising a democratic Ukraine independent of Russian rule."

The letter of the Ukrainian American Bar Association can be read here.

The title above refers to an article by David Marples (University of Alberta, CUIS, Director of The Stasiuk Program for the study of contemporary Ukraine) was originally titled Hero of Ukraine linked to Jewish killings; Honorary title sure to provoke divisions among Ukrainians today. After letters were sent to the Edmonton Journal the article was retitled Yushchenko erred in honouring Bandera.

Below the article are posted responses which it elicited and subsequent further exchanges:

1. Marco Levytsky, editor, Ukrainian News, Edmonton, Ukrainian nationalists played no part in massacre of 4,000 Jews

2. Stephen Bandera, one of Stepan Bandera's five grandchildren, Toronto family name cleared

3. Zenon E. Kohut, Director, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Ukrainian nationalism

4. The above-listed letters disputing David Marples position, in turn, elicited the following response from John Paul Himka, Department of History and Classics, University of Alberta:
Should Ukrainian studies defend the heritage of OUN-UPA?

John-Paul Himka's historical perspective on "Topics in Ukrainian History" is revealed in the class he teaches under that rubric. Canadian author Myrna Kostash, who audited that course, wrote essay Genocide or "A Vast Tragedy"? published in Literary Review of Canada (Dec. 2009). She concluded her essay with: "So a vote was held among the nine of us: who believes the famine was not a genocide? Five, including me. Who believes it was? No one. Who abstains: Four, including Himka."

Crimean parliament appeals to Constitutional Court against Hero of Ukraine award to Bandera

The Crimean parliament also sent a request to President-elect Viktor Yanukovych asking him to repeal the president's decree on awarding Bandera Hero of Ukraine, and a decree dated January 29 2010 honoring participants of Ukraine's struggle for independence in the 20th century.


February 16, 2010


Myrna Kostash's essay Genocide or "A Vast Tragedy"? and a response by Jars Balan (CUIS, UofA) A Reply to Myrna Kostash and Her "Tragic" Take on the Holodomor can be read here.

5. Response by Zenon Kohut re Should Ukrainian studies defend the heritage of OUN-UPA?

6. Lubomyr Markevych, Canadian expats who has been living and working in Kyiv since Ukraine's independence, Coming to grips with the past

7. Response by by John-Paul Himka to Zenon Kohut's response of Feb. 12

8. UPA detractors fan the flames of ethnic discord - Marco Levytsky's response to Himka, Rudlng

Hero of Ukraine linked to Jewish killings. Yushchenko erred in honouring Bandera

February 9 & 10, 2010
David Marples

Honorary title may provoke divisions among Ukrainians today

On Jan. 22, Ukraine's Unity Day, outgoing president Viktor Yushchenko formally designated Stepan Bandera a Hero of Ukraine. The award has aroused polarized reactions. The Winnipeg-based Ukrainian Canadian Congress has welcomed it. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in United States, conversely, expressed its "deep revulsion" at the award to a man linked to the deaths of "thousands of Jews."


Both groups collaborated with the Germans. Bandera saw a German invasion as the best hope for an independent Ukraine. The OUN-B also helped train two Ukrainian Wehrmacht battalions to advance eastward with the main German army. In late June 1941, the Nachtigall battalion followed the Germans into Lviv and the OUN-B declared the independence of Ukraine on the local radio.

Members of the OUN-B spearheaded pogroms in Lviv in the summer of 1941 when about 4,000 Jews were killed.

Hitler did not accept Ukrainian independence, and upon Bandera's refusal to withdraw the proclamation, confined him in Sachsenhausen camp near Berlin for the next three years. The Germans began mass arrests of OUN-B members by September 1941.

The OUN-B also had the key role in the formation of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) under Roman Shukhevych, former commander of the Nachtigall battalion. UPA emerged in Volhynia, where in the spring and summer of 1943 it massacred 30,000 to 60,000 Poles, mainly elderly and children, in a fanatical bid to reclaim Ukrainian lands.


His single overriding goal remained the attainment of an independent Ukraine. On the orders of the KGB, Bohdan Stashynsky assassinated Bandera on Oct. 15, 1959, at the entrance to his apartment building.

In the 21st century, his views seem archaic and dangerous. He embraced violence, terror and intolerance toward other ethnicities living on Ukrainian lands. But he lived through perhaps the bleakest times in Ukrainian history, when independence seemed a remote dream.

Yushchenko surely erred when he conferred on Bandera the title -- paradoxically it sounds typically Soviet -- Hero of Ukraine. Bandera was a Ukrainian patriot, but his elevation only provokes divisions in a society that has very disparate views of the recent past.

Complete article:

1. Ukrainian nationalists played no part in massacre of 4,000 Jews

February 9, 2010

Re: "Hero of Ukraine linked to Jewish killings; Honorary title sure to provoke divisions among Ukrainians today," by David Marples, Opinion, Feb. 7."

This headline is a Vladimir Putinstyle ex-KGB falsification, topping an article by David Marples which is misleading.

The statement that stands out in particular is the following: "Members of the OUN-B spearheaded pogroms in Lviv in the summer of 1941, when about 4,000 Jews were killed."

In February 2008, Ukrainian Security Services (SBU) archive representative Oleksander Ishchuk showed declassified documents which provide an objective basis to state that OUN (the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) is not connected with any violent actions against the civilian population of Lviv on or after July 4, 1941.

The declassified documents of SBU indicate that from July 4-7, 1941, representatives of Gestapo who arrived in Lviv turned to the Ukrainian population, inciting them to carry out an anti-Jewish pogrom.

"The OUN leadership, having got to know about that, informed its members that it was a German provocation in order to compromise Ukrainians with massacres," the document reads.

Prior to the German invasion, the Soviet NKVD, in which Jews had disproportionate membership, was involved in the killing of 4,000 to 8,000 civilian prisoners -- a fact the Nazis hoped would provoke Ukrainian retaliation.

Furthermore, while the Israeli Holocaust Museum Yad Vashem has also attempted to pin the Lviv Massacres on Ukrainians, especially Roman Shukhevych, leader of the Nachtigall battalion and later the anti-Nazi, anti-Soviet Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the head of the Association of Jewish Communities and Organizations of Ukraine, Vaad Yosyp Zisels, asked Yad Vashem for documentary evidence to prove that claim and was unable to obtain it.

In a Jan. 27 story posted on the website of the Religious Information Service of Ukraine, which is run by the Ukrainian Catholic University, with which the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta -- where Marples serves as a research associate -- cooperates, noted that this proves the accusations against Shukhevych are "groundless."

He also called upon Ukrainians and Jews to give up the accusations and focus on developing new, harmonious relations. "If we, the Jews, continue to count how many Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis and the Ukrainians continue to count how many Jews served in Cheka, GPU, NKVD, and KGB, we will forever stay in historical impasse where conflicts could easily erupt," noted Zisels.

Marco Levytsky, editor, Ukrainian News, Edmonton

2. Toronto family name cleared

February 9, 2010

David Marples' column is a rehash of misinformation he's been passing off as academic research for more than a decade.

The statement, "Members of the OUN-B spearheaded pogroms in Lviv in the summer of 1941 when about 4,000 Jews were killed" is part of that misinformation.

The Soviet investigation into the killing of Lviv's Jews identified the "42 butchers of Lviv" responsible for the slaughter of the Jewish innocents in July of 1941. That list, compiled immediately after the Second World War and submitted to the Nuremberg military tribunals for prosecution, does not contain a single member of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.

Furthermore, Marples neglects to mention that Stepan Bandera's two brothers -- Oleksa and Vasyl -- were killed by the Nazis in Auschwitz. Their tattoo numbers were 51020 and 49271 respectively.

Our family cleared the Bandera name before the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in Canada in 1985.

It's a shame The Journal is providing a forum for people to smear our family name. If Stepan Bandera was even guilty of half the crimes of which Marples and his ilk accuse him, then he would have been swinging from the gallows at Nuremberg 65 years ago.

Stephen Bandera, one of Stepan Bandera's five grandchildren, Toronto

3. Ukrainian nationalism

February 10, 2010

Re: "Hero of Ukraine linked to Jewish killings; Honorary title sure to provoke divisions among Ukrainians today," by David Marples, Opinion, Feb. 7.

The pogrom of Jews in the summer of 1941 occurred under Nazi German occupation and was encouraged and initiated by German authorities.

Ukrainians were involved in the pogrom, but ultimate responsibility lies with German authorities. One might conclude otherwise from Marples's opinion piece.

Furthermore, the article implies that Stepan Bandera, the recipient of the Hero of Ukraine award, was somehow connected to this event. Bandera was not in Ukraine at the time the pogrom took place -- or at any time during the German-Soviet war -- and there is no document of which I am aware that links him to this tragic event.

Moreover, Marples's characterization of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) as a typically fascist movement is also not correct. It was a national liberation movement whose ideology may have been influenced by fascism, but it was characterized as "integral nationalist" by John A. Armstrong, whose study, Ukrainian Nationalism, remains the best on the subject.

The history of the Ukrainian nationalist movement in the Second World War is not without its dark pages, but we have to be careful about our allegations or inferences, especially as they may encourage the stereotyping of entire ethnic groups.

Zenon E. Kohut, PhD
Professor, Department of History and Classics
Director, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies

4. Should Ukrainian studies defend the heritage of OUN-UPA?

February 10, 2010

I am moved to write this because of disputes that have erupted in Edmonton, where I live, over the heritage of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its armed forces (UPA). A colleague, David Marples, wrote an op-ed piece in The Edmonton Journal responding to Viktor Yushchenko’s heroization of Stepan Bandera and OUN-UPA as he left office in crushing defeat. Dr. Marples explained why this was controversial and why the Canadian government should not endorse it, as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has called upon the government to do.

Marples’s article provoked letters to the Journal from pro-OUN elements in and outside of our community. One letter also came from Zenon Kohut, who signed himself as Director of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta.

There are a number of problems with Zenon’s letter, but here I will focus only on two that speak to the responsibility of intellectuals and scholars to their communities and to the public at large.

The first is the issue of the OUN’s fascism. Dr. Kohut wrote that Dr. Marples’s characterization of OUN as “a typically fascist movement” is “not correct.” “It was,” he writes, “a national liberation movement whose ideology may have been influenced by fascism, but it was characterized as ‘integral nationalist’ by John A. Armstrong, whose study, Ukrainian Nationalism remains the best on the subject.”

This deliberate minimization of the fascism in OUN’s legacy is misleading, especially when advanced in a context of whether this is a legacy we should be embracing or not.

OUN was indeed a typical fascist organization as shown by many of its features: its leader principle (Führerprinzip), its aspiration to ban all other political parties and movements, its fascist-style slogan (Slava Ukraini! Heroiam slava!), its red and black flag, its raised-arm salute, its xenophobia and antisemitism, its cult of violence, and its admiration of Hitler, Mussolini, and other leaders of fascist Europe. What’s not fascist here?

A graduate student in my department, Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe, has found in the archives in Kyiv letters that Yaroslav Stetsko wrote on 3 July 1941 to Mussolini, Paveli?, Franco, and Hitler, introducing himself as part of the New Europe. Numerous documents in unimpeachable collections link OUN with the hitlerites in June and July 1941.

Does the fact that OUN was also a national liberation movement make it not fascist? The Ustashe was also a national liberation movement – was it too not fascist? The Viet Cong was a national liberation movement – was it therefore not communist? What kind of logic is being used here? More peculiar logic: Dr. Kohut attempts to exculpate Bandera for responsibility for the 1941 pogroms by pointing out he was not even in Western Ukraine when they happened. Amazing. That kind of logic would also get Stalin off the hook for the Ukrainian famine.

Dr. Kohut defers to the authority of John A. Armstrong, who called OUN an integral nationalist movement. Armstrong wrote his book long before the archives were open and before the information revolution. He also based his study primarily on interviews with the leaders of OUN themselves. Is it too much to suspect that their interviews might have been self-serving? Armstrong admired the OUN leaders, as he admitted in his reminiscences of them published later. Armstrong was also very much a product of his time, which was the Cold War. The mood then was to downplay the crimes of all anti-Soviet forces. He never interviewed the victims of OUN-UPA, nor did he examine Polish-language sources.

In the mid-1980s the Solidarity underground in Poland wanted to publish texts about Ukrainian nationalism and requested through an intermediary, the late Janusz Radziejowski, that I convey to them copies of Armstrong’s book as well as Alex Motyl’s Turn to the Right. After reading them in Polish translation, Janusz wrote to me in 1988 that for all the scholarly value of these books, he was very disappointed that they took no cognizance of the tremendous tragedy of the Jews. I was incensed and wrote back to Janusz that UPA had nothing to do with the Holocaust. His responses got me thinking, however, and I slowly embarked on the path of research that has led me now to attempt to settle the question of OUN-UPA involvement in the Holocaust. I have only been horrified by what I have discovered.

So that is the first thing: OUN was fascist. True, after Stalingrad and after Kursk, OUN began to distance itself from fascism, particularly at its Third Extraordinary Grand Assembly in August 1943. (Bandera himself, however, remained true to the old ideology to the end.) OUN-UPA’s words changed, but its practice remained fascist. July and August 1943 were the months of UPA’s most intense murder of Poles in Volhynia, and in the following winter UPA and OUN security units systematically murdered Jewish survivors.

The second point in Dr. Kohut’s letter that deserves discussion is his conclusion: “The history of the Ukrainian nationalist movement in the Second World War is not without its dark pages, but we have to be careful about our allegations or inferences, especially as they may encourage the stereotyping of entire ethnic groups.”

My basic issue is this: Which creates more of a stereotype – isolating and identifying the Ukrainian political movement which is responsible for the image of Ukrainians as fascist murderers or, in the name of Ukrainian studies, attempting to defend that movement with totally threadbare arguments? Or put another way: who discredits Ukraine – mass murderers of Poles, Jews, and others or those who condemn them and their deeds? I would think this is what is commonly called a no-brainer, but obviously it is not, so I will elaborate.

In late June and July 1941 OUN militias and “Sich” organizations went on a rampage in Galicia, Northern Bukovina, and Volhynia, killing Jews primarily, but also some Poles and communists. Sometimes these militias did not do the killing themselves, but rounded up the victims for Germans and Romanians to execute by firing squad. These murders only occurred in territories that had two things in common: they were invaded in June-July 1941 and OUN was active there. That OUN militias were the culprits are proven by all manner of evidence – German reports, Jewish survivors’ testimonies, photographs and films, and postwar trials of former policemen in German service. To disprove the weight of this evidence, one would have to explain how all this evidence came into being and who actually did organize the pogroms and executions if not OUN.

In any case, many of the Jewish survivor testimonies, especially in cities and bigger towns where the perpetrators could enjoy some anonymity, just blame “the Ukrainians,” without being able to identify precisely which Ukrainians were persecuting them. Naturally, the victims were not privy to the inner workings of Ukrainian nationalist politics. They knew that they were being attacked by Ukrainian-speakers in the name of something Ukrainian. For them their attackers were “the Ukrainians.” I happen to know that these actions were put in motion by a certain group of Ukrainians, OUN. Why not make that differentiation? Why let the blame fall on the nation as a whole?

Why would anyone want to embrace the heritage of that group? Why would I, a person of Ukrainian ancestry and someone devoted to Ukrainian studies for forty years, not want to distance myself and my vision of Ukraine and Ukrainians from that of OUN? Why do I have to be shamed by the thoughtless statements of an official representative of Ukrainian studies? Dr. Kohut here certainly does not speak as my representative.

I understand that OUN has been a dominant force in the Ukrainian overseas diaspora. I know that many of us, I too, have family members in the older generation who were members or symapthizers of OUN. But shouldn’t we put paid to their legacy? Shouldn’t we understand that that generation made a bad choice? Shouldn’t we stop defending the indefensible? Shouldn’t we at least leave it aside and not treat it as some kind of sacred trust?

It is not as if the crimes and nature of OUN-UPA will remain hidden. The archives are not completely open, but many, many new documents are now available to researchers. In them you can find UPA internal reports on its murders of Poles and Jews, OUN leaflets from 1941 calling upon the population to murder Jews and other non-Ukrainians, films of boievyky beating Jews on the streets of Lviv at the end of June 1941, and much more.

Also, documentary evidence is accessible in a way it never was before. Seventy-two hundred Jewish survivor testimonies fit nicely on four disks. Holocaust researchers are beginning to learn the languages and history necessary to find out what happened in Western Ukraine. Some historians of Ukraine are also looking objectively at the Holocaust. Soon there will be no secrets, and flippant, superficial answers on the order of “Armstrong says” will not suffice. Instead, statements like Dr. Kohut’s will make Ukrainian studies look foolish at best, complicit in war crime and Holocaust denial at worst.

Scholars in Ukrainian studies should not pander to the keepers of OUN’s flame within Ukraine and the Ukrainian community in North America. They should not mislead the public at large. Instead, they should have the civil courage and leadership necessary to educate those communities.

John-Paul Himka
Department of History and Classics
University of Alberta

5. Response by Zenon Kohut re Should Ukrainian studies Ddefend the heritage of OUN-UPA?

Professor Himka asks whether Ukrainian studies should defend the heritage of the “OUN-UPA.” There is, of course, no such monolithic entity as “Ukrainian studies.” There are individual scholars in the field who are bound to have divergent views and emphasize different issues. In my view, the only role for “Ukrainian studies” with regard to this subject is to study it. I reject any advocacy role either for wholesale endorsement or, as in Professor Himka’s case, condemnation of the “heritage of OUN-UPA.”

My letter to the Edmonton Journal was a response to particular assertions in Professor Marples’s article. It was not a general statement on what Professor Himka calls the “OUN-UPA.” No such entity existed: there were two OUNs during World War II (a third was formed after the war), and the UPA included many people who did not belong to either OUN. This indicates the need to be careful about allegations and inferences, as noted in my letter.

Professor Himka’s statement is a blanket condemnation of the “OUN-UPA” that reduces
the activity of the Ukrainian wartime resistance to the wanton murder of Jews, Poles, and others. But any unbiased assessment would have to recognize some obvious achievements. The UPA waged an armed struggle for Ukrainian independence­a task that required extraordinary courage and dedication, since assistance was not available from any state, and all weapons had to be captured from enemy forces. That struggle could not have continued for years after the end of World War II without substantial popular support.

My questioning of the designation “fascist” and suggesting that “integral nationalism” is more appropriate has aroused Professor Himka’s particular ire. I am not a specialist on nationalism or World War II but do rely on the experts in the field. “Integral nationalism” is employed not only by the “cold warrior” John Armstrong but also by contemporary scholars such as Timothy Snyder and Peter Alter. The term itself was coined well before the Cold War by Carlton J. H. Hayes in his classic work on modern nationalism.

Moreover, Professor Himka’s definition of fascism seems to include anyone who acted in a brutish or “fascistic” manner. By that definition, virtually every political movement in East Central Europe between 1921 and 1945, ­including Stalinism­, could be deemed “fascist,” since there were no democratic options (save, briefly, Masaryk’s Czechoslovakia).

Moreover, the nationalist movement undertook a revision of its ideology in the course of the war, and its writers produced the texts collected in The Political Thought of the Ukrainian Underground, 1943-1951, edited by Peter J. Potichnyj and Yevhen Shtendera. These writings attest to an evolution toward social democracy and pluralism, most clearly manifested in the postwar activity of the OUN (abroad), whose publications contributed greatly to the political thinking and literary expression of the Ukrainian diaspora.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, political constraints on research and discussion
of this period have largely disappeared, and much new evidence has become available.
Some of it is evidence of crimes committed by participants in the nationalist movement,
and it is bound to arouse strong feelings and provoke controversy. Like any other evidence, it needs to be weighed as objectively as possible. The proper forum for this is
academic discourse through publications, conferences, and discussions, without partisan moralizing.

Zenon E. Kohut, PhD
Professor, Department of History and Classics
Director, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies

6. Coming to grips with the past

February 14, 2010

Re: "Hero of Ukraine linked to Jewish killings; Honorary title sure to provoke divisions among Ukrainians today," by David Marples, Opinion, Feb. 7.

David Marples' article once again underscores the dilemma faced by many presidents when posed the often "loaded" question of whether to honour the leaders and liberation groups that directly or indirectly led to the freedom and independence of their respective nations -- no easy task, as such insurgencies invariably took place in times of war, complete with strategies and tactics beset with Faustian challenges that often competed with the larger ideals of each liberation movement.

However, it bears recalling the words of America's pre-eminent social radical Saul Alinsky, who wrote: "The judgment of the ethics of means must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point."

In what now appears to be established practice, Ukraine's President Viktor Yushchenko followed the example of countries such as Israel, Vietnam, France and Algeria (to name a few) with their respective underground insurgencies; the Irgun, the Viet Cong, the Resistance, the FLN, and answered his "loaded" question in the affirmative.

Such a course of action will not please everyone, but it will be sure to spark further interest and research into a part of Ukraine's history that has been politicized from the outset.

Evidence that this is already happening are the many history conferences on the Second World War and joint research projects involving Polish and Ukrainian scholars from both countries. Hopefully more will follow as this part of Ukraine's history deserves much more objective commentary than the superficial remarks and innuendo that comprise Marples' otherwise timely article.

I have more than a passing interest in this subject since I'm one of many Canadian expats who has been living and working in Kyiv since Ukraine's independence.

While here, I have followed with great interest the many, often tentative, steps Ukraine has taken to shed its Soviet baggage of history and rediscover its historical past. I have also seen how Ukraine, cautiously and deliberately, has begun serving notice that the interpretation of its 20th-century history will no longer be the exclusive preserve of its Cold War neighbours and their fellow academic travellers around the world.

Whether it be Stepan Bandera or a whole panoply of other 20th-century Ukrainian military formations, honouring its heroes will now be a decision for Ukraine, and Ukraine alone to make.

Many Ukrainians here would even argue that such recognition is long overdue and should have been granted in the first year of Ukraine's independence and not in the last weeks of Yushchenko's presidency.

Lubomyr Markevych, Kyiv, Ukraine

7. Response by by John-Paul Himka to Zenon Kohut's response of Feb. 12

15 February 2010

Important issues of principle deserve thorough discussion, so I return here to the exchange among David Marples, Zenon Kohut, and myself by answering Zenon’s letter of 12 February 2010 to this mailing group.

To begin with, Zenon denies that he is trying to speak in the name of Ukrainian studies more generally and states instead that he is just voicing his opinion as an individual scholar. If this is indeed the case, then I will explain what has misled me about his contributions to the current debates over twentieth-century Ukrainian history. Zenon’s letter to the Edmonton Journal follows close on the heels of his letter to the Literary Review of Canada (http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/letters/2009/12/ in which he takes it upon himself to “correct” Myrna Kostash about the Holodomor. I had the distinct impression that Zenon is setting himself up as a kind of ideological watchdog, nipping at those who stray from the flock. This impression is reinforced by the circumstance that Zenon’s sole claim to authority in these issues is his position as director of CIUS, since he has not, to my knowledge, independently researched either the famine or the Holocaust.

He also takes me to task for using the term “OUN-UPA.” In fact, this was the term that was introduced by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) at the very beginning of this public discussion. In its press release of 1 February 2010 the UCC called upon “the Government of Canada to make changes to Canada's War Veterans Allowance Act by expanding eligibility to include designated resistance groups such as OUN-UPA.” This usage goes back to pronationalist circles in Ukraine itself. I actually do know that there were two OUNs. Both were antidemocratic, antisemitic, xenophobic, and admirers of the Italian fascists and German national socialists. Both were involved in atrocities, though the Bandera wing was much more deeply involved. Prof. Peter Potichnyj has been arguing for years that we should not use the term “OUN-UPA” because he would like to divorce the heritage of UPA from that of OUN. In fact, however, UPA remained under OUN command until it was dissolved.

Zenon would like me to see the positive sides of the OUNs and UPA, not just their mass murder of Poles and Jews.

One, he says, is that they fought for Ukrainian independence. This they did. But in their thinking, the Ukrainian state they fought for was not simply “independent,” it was a “Ukraine for Ukrainians,” an ethnically homogeneous state. That kind of independence, I submit, is problematic. The Red Army also posed as liberator of Ukraine from German occupation and restorer of the statehood of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. In fact, the Stalinist regime had some of the same ideals as OUN-UPA: it was for Ukrainian sobornist’ and also for ethnically cleansing Ukrainian territory. The Soviets did indeed forge a large Ukraine and removed almost the entire Polish, German, and Tatar populations. I certainly cannot think, and I doubt that Zenon thinks, that the Soviets’ contribution toward Ukrainian state-making means we can now downplay Stalinist crimes in Ukraine. Perhaps whenever someone brings up the repression of the Ukrainian cultural renaissance of the 1920s, we should add: Well, we got Crimea out of it. Or if they talk about the Holodomor, we should say: Transcarpathia was united to Ukraine by Stalin just twelve years later.

Second, I should recognize that OUN-UPA had exceptional courage and dedication. I do not deny it. But I also remember what the historian Janusz Radziejowski wrote to me in 1988 when I raised exactly the same point to him: “For the evaluation of an ideological or national movement it is not military virtues that are decisive, but programmatic and political aspects. They say that the best soldiers were the Germans. They fought against a world that surpassed them many times in the number of soldiers and in equipment.” Brave Hans fighting street by street in the bitter cold of Stalingrad cannot improve the ideological visage of German national socialism.

Third, OUN-UPA had substantial popular support. So did Hitler in Germany in 1941, so did Stalin in Eastern Ukraine in 1944, so did the Confederacy in the American South in 1861, and so on – this particular argument does not speak at all to the evaluation of a movement. OUN-UPA had substantial popular support among ethnic Ukrainians in Western Ukraine, but it was not popular among non-Ukrainians in Western Ukraine nor in the rest of Ukraine. The differential of its popularity is a direct result of the ideology it espoused and practiced.

As to integral nationalism versus fascism. I normally do not myself write about OUN-UPA as fascists or integral nationalists because in my historical writings I tend to make linguistically conservative choices. In almost all my writings I use the same term for OUN-UPA as they used for themselves, that is, “nationalists.” But David Marples in his article classified them as fascists. When in response Zenon argued that it would be better to call them “integral nationalists,” then this was an attempt to downplay their fascism. That was my objection. Armstrong’s classification of OUN-UPA as integral nationalist is not a problem for me, especially since he also classified the Nazis as integral nationalists. My objection, I repeat, is to resorting to semantic tricks in an effort to downplay the negative heritage of OUN-UPA.

Zenon feels I do not take into account the evolution of OUN into a more pluralist organization. I explained in my original letter to him that this change was simply on paper in 1943-44. Much of that “evolution” was aimed at gaining Allied, especially American, support. Even the most liberal wing of OUN, that grouped around Mykola Lebed in emigration, regularly falsified documents to whitewash the OUN and UPA past, and every once in a while Zenon’s and my mutual friend, the late Ivan L. Rudnytsky, had to take them to task for totalitarian slippage. I think Suchasnist’ and many Prolog publications made excellent contributions to Ukrainian intellectual and political life. If Zenon wanted to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of Suchasnist’ next year, I would not object in the least. But when he takes the part of the UCC’s endorsement of OUN-UPA as a wider heritage and when he tries to downplay OUN-UPA’s responsibility for war crimes, then I have to object.

I am puzzled furthermore by Zenon’s insistence near the end of his response that the proper forum for this discussion is in academic venues, particularly publications and conferences. I must be missing something. I thought that outgoing President Yushchenko in Ukraine and the UCC in Canada were bringing the legacy of OUN-UPA into the public arena. I also thought that the current discussion began in a newspaper opinion piece by David Marples and in a letter to the editor by Zenon Kohut. So why should it not be continued as a public discussion?

As to scholarly conferences, not only I have been raising these issues at conferences in North America and Europe, but so have Omer Bartov, Marco Carynnyk, Sofia Grachova, Per Anders Rudling, Kai Struve, and others. I myself have a number of scholarly publications referring to the issue of the OUN-UPA heritage in relation to the Holocaust, including most recently Ukrainians, Jews and the Holocaust: Divergent Memories published by Heritage Press in Saskatoon at the end of last year. Many other scholars have pointed out the role of OUN-UPA in atrocities against Poles and Jews, including Karel C. Berkhoff, Franziska Bruder, Jeffrey Burds, Aleksandr Diukov, Gabriel Finder, Frank Golczewski, Ihor Iliushyn, Dieter Pohl, Alexander Prusin, Ewa Siemaszko, and WÅ?adysÅ?aw Siemaszko. It is not as if this issue is terra incognita.

Finally, I have to respond to Zenon’s parting shot, that I have engaged in “partisan moralizing.” In my original response to Zenon’s letter, I included no moral arguments whatsoever. Instead, I emphasized a pragmatic or strategic matter: It is not good for the Ukrainian community or for the Ukrainian studies community to encumber itself with the legacy of the Ukrainian nationalists of the 1940s because this legacy has such negative aspects permeating it.

But as they say, if you’ve got the name, you may as well have the game. There are compelling moral arguments for critically distancing oneself from the legacy of OUN-UPA. It is wrong to take part in the cover up or minimization of crimes of this nature. The murders themselves were horrible. I have nightmares from my research. These crimes can never be undone. The most that can be offered in compensation is to recognize them and regret them. Instead, we frequently encounter as justifications the very same way of thinking that set off the murders in the first place. Thus in his letter to the Edmonton Journal of 9 February 2010, also in response to David Marples’s article, the editor of The Ukrainian News, Marco Levytsky, wrote that “prior to the German invasion, the Soviet NKVD, in which Jews had disproportionate membership, was involved in the killing of 4,000 to 8,000 civilian prisoners.” Peter Potichnyj told a correspondent of the Washington Post that Jews who managed to survive until 1943 in Ukraine had a choice of working for UPA or for the Soviet partisans. Viacheslav Viatrovych told an interviewer that UPA should not be condemned for killing civilians because it is hard to tell civilians apart from partisans. Such argumentation only continues the crimes. Then, too, there is the issue of making heroes out of people who have such crimes on their hands – certainly one should draw the line here. And what about the hypocrisy of demanding that the world recognize the famine of 1932-33 as a genocide at the same time as one refuses to give adequate recognition to what OUN and UPA did to Poles and Jews?

John-Paul Himka
Department of History and Classics
University of Alberta

8. UPA detractors fan the flames of ethnic discord - Marco Levytsky's response to Himka, Rudlng

February 16, 2010

Re: “Strong evidence” by Per Anders Rudling (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Strong+evidence/2563235/story.html) and “Dubious documents” by John Paul Himka, Edmonton Journal, Letters, Feb. 14.
Since Rudling has attempted to vilify me as a “fascist apologist” who “doesn’t even hesitate to invoke the spectre of Judeo-communism”, while Himka stretched the limits of credibility with his attempt to discredit the documentation both Stephen Bandera and I presented, I feel compelled to reply.

First, let me correct a statement I made in my Feb. 9 letter in which I stated the headline “Hero of Ukraine linked to Jewish Killings” “is a Vladimir Putin-style ex-KGB falsification”. I should have said “serves as a Vladimir Putin style ex-KGB falsification” as it was never my intention to suggest the Edmonton Journal knowingly committed a falsification, but that it unwittingly served that purpose. To its credit, the Edmonton Journal has since changed that headline on its online version of David Marple’s original article.

Precisely how and why Putin’s Russia attempts to discredit both the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) is very well documented in “The Jewish Card in Russian Special Operations Against Ukraine”, a paper delivered at the 26th Conference on Ukrainian Subjects at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, June 24-27, 2009, by Moses Fishbein, a leading member of Ukraine’s Jewish community as well as a distinguished Ukrainian poet and translator, winner of the Vasyl Stus Prize, and a member of the Ukrainian Center of the International PEN Club and the National Union of Writers of Ukraine.

“The claim that ‘the UPA engaged in anti-Jewish actions’ is a provocation engineered by Moscow,” said Fishbein. “It is a provocation. It is a lie that the UPA destroyed Jews. Tell me: how could the UPA have destroyed Jews when Jews were serving members of the UPA?”The full text of Fishbein’s paper has been posted on the web site of the Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities of Ukraine www.vaadua.org/VaadENG/News%20eng-2009/fishbeyn2.htm .

In his letter, Himka dismissed the document I cited that clears the OUN of participation in the 1941 Lviv massacres as one “that was already exposed as a deception in Kyiv Post and other venues”. Since I was unable to find a link to such a Kyiv Post article, I asked Prof. Himka whether he could provide me with one. He did better than that, he provided me with the original — a March 27, 2008 Op-Ed piece that he himself wrote. Hardly an independent corroboration. Similarly his dismissal of the document cited by Stephen Bandera on the grounds that the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission “was deeply embarrassed by local collaboration” really stretches the limits of credibility. Considering the amount of effort they put into discrediting OUN with forged documents, why would the Soviets miss such a golden opportunity to put OUN members, who were then living in Germany, on trial before an international tribunal by covering up their supposed crimes? Far more logical is the obvious conclusion they had no evidence to begin with.

Considering the amount of falsification that the USSR conducted in its attempts to discredit OUN, one can only speculate about the authenticity of the documents Rudling cites in his letter. If Yaroslav Stetsko indeed wrote to Stepan Bandera that “we are setting up a militia that will help remove the Jews”, why wasn’t he arrested during any of his two visits to Israel? Rudling accuses me of invoking “the spectre of Judeo-Communism” by stating the NKVD had a disproportionate number of Jews. To disprove this he notes that Jews were targeted during the purges (which is correct), adding that they “by 1939 constituted only 3.92 percent of the leading cadres of the NKVD.” What Rudling fails to mention is that in the 1939 census, Jews constituted only 1.78 percent of the Soviet population.

A far more serious omission however, is his decision to totally ignore the last paragraph of my letter in which I cited Josyp Zisels, the head of the Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities of Ukraine as calling both Jews and Ukrainians to give up mutual accusations and concentrate on developing new harmonious relations. “If we, the Jews, continue to count how many Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis and the Ukrainians continue to count how many Jews served in Cheka, GPU, NKVD, and KGB, we will forever stay in historical impasse where conflicts could easily erupt,” noted Zisels.

And that was the real reason I made the reference to the number of Jews in the NKVD — to bring attention to the point made by Zisels.

While rivers of ink have been spilled attempting to link OUN-UPA to crimes they didn’t commit, little is known about such facts as Yad Vashem has recognized 2,246 Ukrainians among the Righteous of Nations, making that country number four (after Poland, The Netherlands and France) among those who helped save Jews during the Holocaust. And that number doesn’t even include Ukrainian Greek Catholic Primate, Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky, who risked his life to arrange false baptismal certificates for no less than 200 Jewish children, who were then smuggled to monasteries, orphanages, and convent schools in and around Lviv. Or take the case of Natalia Shukhevych, the wife of UPA Commander in Chief and Nachtigal Commander Roman Shukhevych, who hid a young Jewish girl named Ira Reichenberg in her home. General Shukhevych prepared a fake passport for the girl in the name of Iryna Ryzhko. When the Gestapo arrested Mrs. Shukhevych, the little girl was brought to an orphanage based at a convent located in the village of Kulykiv in the Lviv region. There the little girl survived the German occupation and the war, according to Fishbein.

It’s these stories that need to be told. Expending energy on trying to blame OUN-UPA for crimes they never committed serves only to fan the flames of ethnic discord.

Marco Levytsky,
Editor, Ukrainian News, Edmonton

A reply to Myrna Kostash and her "Tragic" take on the Holodomor + Debate TOP
Jars Balan
It is unfortunate but perhaps not fortuitous that Kostash's article appeared hard on the heels of the annual Ukrainian commemorations of the Holodomor. It is similarly regrettable that she published her musings in a prestigious Canadian periodical read by intellectuals and opinion-makers -- many of whom will now probably regard the Ukrainian famine as having been caused by a "tragic" combination of Soviet bungling and brutality, rather than as the attack on the Ukrainian nation that it was.


In the December 2009 issue of the Literary Review of Canada, well-known Canadian author Myrna Kostash provides an account of an undergraduate course that she audited at the University of Alberta which examined the Great Famine of 1932-33 in Soviet Ukraine. In her article titled "Genocide or 'Vast Tragedy'" (http://reviewcanada.ca/essays/2009/12/01/genocide-or-a-vast-tragedy) Kostash relates how at the end of the course, the instructor, Professor John-Paul Himka, invited his students to participate in a poll as to whether they thought the famine was an act of genocide. The piece concludes with Kostash's report on how the participants decided the question, a result she no doubt realized would be highly contentious with most of her fellow Ukrainian-Canadian community members. "So a vote was held among the nine of us: who believes the famine was not a genocide? Five, including me. Who believes it was? No one. Who abstains? Four, including Himka?"

How Kostash arrived at her decision is explained in her description of the ground that was covered in the course, highlighting some of the issues that the students grappled with and mentioning a number of sources that Professor Himka used to frame the discussion. But does the argument that the famine was not genocidal bear up against the findings of the latest scholarly research on the subject? And in relating details of the discussions that took place in the class, does Kostash not raise questions about how the sources were selected and presented?

Recently, the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies sponsored several lectures by a distinguished Italian academic, Professor Andrea Graziosi of the University of Naples. He is widely recognized as a leading authority both on the Ukrainian famine and on the history of the Stalinist era. Professor Graziosi has worked extensively on documents from long-sealed Russian archives of the period, is not a nationalist of any kind and does not have a Ukrainian background that it could be argued might cloud his judgement. He has also thoroughly researched Joseph Stalin's understanding of the nationalities question and determined on the basis of compelling evidence that the Soviet dictator was neither a Ukrainophobe nor a narrow Russian chauvinist. (However, the same does not necessarily apply to some of Stalin's key lieutenants and many of the apparatchiks who implemented the Kremlin's murderous policies in Ukraine.) Be that as it may, Professor Graziosi has concluded that on the basis of the already substantial and constantly expanding body of evidence available to scholars, the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 was a genocide. Furthermore, according to Professor Graziosi, there is a growing consensus among serious scholars in the field about the genocidal character of the famine, even if some historians, like himself, are uncomfortable about applying what is essentially a legally defined term in the analysis of historical events.

Russia is the successor state to the USSR, and therefore could be sued by survivors or their descendants--it is unlikely that today's Kremlin or most Russians will admit to the Holodomor being a genocide, now or in the foreseeable future.


In relating how she formed her contrary opinion, Kostash makes a number of statements that suggest she has muddled notions about how awareness and understanding of the Holodomor has changed over time. Take, for instance, the following remarks: "the Great Famine of 1932-33 in Soviet Ukraine ... [was] virtually ignored by western historians until 1986..."; "That a catastrophe befell Soviet Ukraine ... has long been acknowledged internationally"; and "Compared to the reports of the Armenian and Jewish genocides, there was a decades-long delay in accounts of famine in the USSR reaching the west, and when they were received, they were often disbelieved." Given that scholarly and public attitudes toward the Holodomor are still evolving in both Ukraine and internationally, it is a shame that Kostash didn't devote her article to a discussion of how positions and perceptions have developed from flat denials and deliberate obfuscations to belated if often grudging admissions that mass starvations occurred in Ukraine as a direct result of Stalinist policy. Indeed, her own take on the Holodomor is derived from that formulated during glasnost in the Gorbachev era, an interpretation that has since been adopted by most contemporary mainstream Russian scholars along with a shrinking number of Ukrainians who are still heavily influenced by the political culture of the late Soviet Union. It would have been appropriate for her to have frankly acknowledged this and useful to let LRC readers know that for a host of political and legal reasons -- Russia is the successor state to the USSR, and therefore could be sued by survivors or their descendants -- it is unlikely that today's Kremlin or most Russians will admit to the Holodomor being a genocide, now or in the foreseeable future.

Kostash goes on to make the dubious assertion that the Ukrainian famine has become "politicized," a problem she attributes to "Ukrainian nationalists" (a term of opprobrium) and their sympathizers, while characterizing as "serious scholars" those who do not accept that the Holodomor was a genocide. Her contention is patently ridiculous besides being consistent with the position taken by the Russian government in its international campaign to thwart Ukraine's efforts to have the Holodomor recognized as a genocide. This is, of course, the same government that routinely "tolerates" the murders of journalists and human rights activists while threatening with arrest any scholars inside or outside of Russia who dispute the Kremlin's official Soviet version of World War II history.

It should be unnecessary to point out that politics were responsible for the man-made famine in Ukraine, for the attendant massive purge of the Ukrainian Communist Party, and for the wide-ranging pogroms that concomitantly decimated the ranks of the cultural figures and intellectuals who championed the Ukrainian national renaissance of the 1920s. It was a political decision of the Kremlin to order the complete liquidation of an independent Orthodox Church in Ukraine, but to only cripple and bring to heel the Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union. Politics were also behind decades of Soviet denials and disinformation about the famine, just as it was naive and cynical politics that influenced Communist sympathizers in the West to join in a chorus to cover up the truth about the Holodomor. And it was political calculations that likewise led to the concessions made about the Holodomor shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union, not to mention the stubborn refusal to allow that Ukrainians were singled out for special punishment and aggressive Russification for resisting the dictates of Moscow.

The unique punitive measures applied in Ukraine and in territories heavily inhabited by Ukrainians, such as the Kuban region, all point to the chilling conclusion that he [Stalin] knew exactly what he was doing when he used famine as another weapon in the arsenal that he unleashed in a multi-pronged and genocidal campaign. To argue otherwise is to ignore overwhelming facts about the known history of the USSR, and to play into the hands of the neo-Soviet apologists who are flourishing in Putin's Russia and have obviously found allies among gullible leftists in the West.


Finally, politics still play a major role in the Kremlin's current insistence that the Russian people were equal victims of the famine and Stalinist tyranny (they weren't), at the same that official Moscow rehabilitates Stalin as an "effective manager" and a "great wartime leader." In short, the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 has always been a politically charged event and it remains a potent and politically loaded issue, especially for Russians and as they try to come to terms with Russia's often bloody imperial legacy.

One of the books used on the course was a classic piece of Soviet propaganda by the late trade union activist, Douglas Tottle, titled Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard, published by the Communist Party's Progress Books in 1987. In it, Tottle exposes some of the questionable evidence brought forward over the years when details about the famine were being suppressed, distorted with lies, and deflected with red herrings. The book itself, like all skilful works of propaganda, is a mixture of fact, conjecture and misinformation. Its obvious goal was to risibly portray the claim that the famine was a genocide as a fabrication by "Ukrainian nationalists" who wanted to divert attention from their own alleged complicity in Nazi war crimes during the Second World War. Nowhere does Kostash ask how a Quebec-born Winnipeg trade unionist ended up producing a tract that among other things sought to challenge and dismiss someone like Robert Conquest, the highly-respected author of more than twenty books including The Great Terror, Russia after Khrushchev, Inside Stalin's Secret Police, Stalin and the Kirov Murder and other major works devoted to Soviet history and literature. One wonders how Tottle, in the only book he ever wrote, was able to identify and cite carefully selected and obscure Ukrainian-language sources without extensive help from KGB "experts" whose job it was to discredit the "Ukrainian nationalists" in the West that were such unrelenting critics of the Soviet Union. The lurid cover of the book alone, featuring a tube of ink with a swastika on it, should have been enough warning that its ultimate intent was to refine and update the denial of the Holodomor while smearing the Ukrainians in the West who were responsible for drawing world attention to it. That even the pro-Soviet Association of United Ukrainian Canadians refused to go along with a request from the Communist Party to publish the book under an AUUC imprint (as the late Peter Krawchuk revealed in his memoirs), should have been an indication of its tainted contents and reason enough to give it short shrift on the course.

It is unfortunate but perhaps not fortuitous that Kostash's article appeared hard on the heels of the annual Ukrainian commemorations of the Holodomor. It is similarly regrettable that she published her musings in a prestigious Canadian periodical read by intellectuals and opinion-makers -- many of whom will now probably regard the Ukrainian famine as having been caused by a "ragic" combination of Soviet bungling and brutality, rather than as the attack on the Ukrainian nation that it was. Then again, maybe her intent was both personal and political. Was she trying to distance herself from Ukraine's efforts to construct an independent narrative of Ukrainian history that rejects, on solid grounds, decades of disavowals concerning the famine -- that it was caused by drought, "sabotage" by rich peasants, or regrettable "mistakes" made in implementing forced collectivization -- including the latest fall-back argument that the Holodomor was not consciously used by Stalin to gut the Ukrainian nation and leave it an empty shell? Or was she merely seeking to demonstrate her ostensible journalistic objectivity by dismissing as over-wrought and suspect "Ukrainian nationalist" propaganda all of the evidence that the famine had a genocidal bent. At the very least, as a responsible journalist, Kostash should have taken the time to ask some of the many Ukrainian scholars in her circle of friends why they regard the famine to have been deliberately employed by Moscow to kill two birds with one stone: namely, to break the especially fierce resistance of the Ukrainian peasantry to collectivization and at the same time to cut the legs out from under the national movement in Soviet Ukraine.

In the early 1930s the Soviet Union was on the verge of bankruptcy and experiencing a deepening domestic crisis as Stalin resorted to evermore repressive methods to maintain his hold on power while forging ahead in industrializing and radically transforming Soviet society with a reckless disregard for the human cost. He obviously viewed developments in Ukraine, the second largest republic after Russia, as a serious threat to the continuation of the revolutionary Bolshevik experiment in the former Russian Empire in its Soviet reincarnation. Stalin didn't need to be a Russian nationalist to decide that it was necessary to strike a calculated blow against what he perceived, justifiably or not, to be the dangerous rise of separatist and anti-Soviet sentiment among Ukrainians. The unique punitive measures applied in Ukraine and in territories heavily inhabited by Ukrainians, such as the Kuban region, all point to the chilling conclusion that he knew exactly what he was doing when he used famine as another weapon in the arsenal that he unleashed in a multi-pronged and genocidal campaign. To argue otherwise is to ignore overwhelming facts about the known history of the USSR, and to play into the hands of the neo-Soviet apologists who are flourishing in Putin's Russia and have obviously found allies among gullible leftists in the West.

Jars Balan
Kule Ukrainian Canadian Studies Centre
Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta

Letters published in The Literary Review of Canada, January 2010

1. Zenon E. Kohut Director, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies University of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta

Myrna Kostash poses the question of whether to interpret the Great Famine of 1932–33 as “Genocide or ‘A Vast Tragedy’?” In examining this important question, it is fruitful to consider the views of the person who developed the concept and coined the term “genocide.” As such, Raphael Lemkin is considered the intellectual father of the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide. In the 1950s he had written but not published a “History of Genocide.” In this work he devotes a chapter to “Soviet Genocide in the Ukraine.” He argues that the decimation of the Ukrainian national elites, the destruction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the starvation of the Ukrainian farming population and its replacement with non-Ukrainians from Russia are integral components of the same genocidal process.

A similar line of argument has been adopted by Andrea Graziosi of the University of Naples, widely recognized as a leading international expert on the Stalin era. In a lecture last November at the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Graziosi placed the Ukrainian famine within the larger context of general Soviet policies and famines. However, he also identified some particular measures taken against the peasantry in Ukraine and the Kuban region (inhabited largely by Ukrainians) that led to an exceptionally large number of deaths there. These included the confiscation of private food stocks and a decree forbidding and preventing peasants from Ukraine and the Kuban from leaving for other areas of the USSR in search of food.

Graziosi also pointed to the following measures taken against Ukrainians in this period or immediately afterward: the persecution and physical destruction of the republic’s nationally conscious intelligentsia and middle-level national cadres, the reversal of a policy that favoured Ukrainian language and culture in Ukraine and the total abolition of that policy in Russia, and the mass purge of the Bolshevik Party in Soviet Ukraine. All these factors, as well as other special measures taken against Ukraine’s peasantry and its political and cultural elites, have prompted Graziosi to conclude that the 1932–33 Ukrainian-Kuban famine fits the definition of genocide specified in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, especially article 2, section C, which states that among genocidal acts are those “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

2. Paul Grod President, Ukrainian Canadian CongressWinnipeg, Manitoba

What is troubling about Myrna Kostash’s essay on the Holodomor is that it gives credence to the scribblings of a pro-Soviet apologist such as Doug Tottle, akin to offering up Ernst Zundel’s screeds as fair commentary on the Holocaust. Simultaneously her piece and the course she describes both fail to take into account the perspective of Dr. Raphael Lemkin, the father of the United Nations genocide convention. In 1953 Lemkin wrote: “the Ukrainian is not and never has been a Russian. His culture, his temperament, his language, his religion, are all different … to eliminate [Ukrainian] nationalism … the Ukrainian peasantry was sacrificed … a famine was necessary for the Soviet and so they got one to order … if the Soviet program succeeds completely, if the intelligentsia, the priest, and the peasant can be elim- inated [then] Ukraine will be as dead as if every Ukrainian were killed, for it will have lost that part of it which has kept and developed its culture, its beliefs, its common ideas, which have guided it and given it a soul, which, in short, made it a nation … This is not simply a case of mass murder. It is a case of genocide, of the destruction, not of individuals only, but of a culture and a nation.”

While it is important for undergraduate students to consider controversial issues without fear of reprisal, having them “vote” on whether the Holodomor was genocidal is sophomoric and morally repugnant. As for the contemporary Holodomor deniers and their enablers cited by Kostash and approvingly introduced by John-Paul Himka, their philistine musings pale in significance when compared to the far more insightful perspective of the man who actually gave the world the term “genocide.”

We’ll stick with Lemkin’s finding that the Great Famine—the Holodomor—was an act of genocide.

3. J.M. Szul, Toronto, Ontario

I found Ms. Kostash’s essay interesting and thought provoking. It certainly challenges common diaspora thinking of the Famine in Ukraine.

Discussion of the Famine in Ukraine raises interesting issues. Some who present the case to view the Famine as a genocide use language that blames Communists, Russians, and other groups for the tragedy. At times, the language of blame drowns out the sympathy for those that died tragically. There are calls for justice to be meted out to still-living perpetrators or supporters of the ancien régime. For them, framing the events of the famine as genocide is important.

Discussion of the famine even entered the politics of the Toronto school board’s planning of the curriculum on genocide. Those of Ukrainian descent were asked to lobby the Toronto District School Board to include the Ukrainian Famine as one of the examples of genocide in its genocide curriculum. The latter focussed on the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide. Some Ukrainians felt that the 1932-33 famine should have been included. Ukrainians felt left out. It is self-evident that it is not possible to study all “genocides” in detail. If the model of study includes analysis of examples in detail, then some will be studied more than others.

This of course presumes that those that consider which “genocides” to study accept the famine as genocide.

At the end of the day, a tragedy took place. Many people died. It is important to honour the memory of all those that died so tragically. If it is possible to prevent such tragedies, it is important to try. As to the question of whether the events reflected a “genocide or vast tragedy,” more knowledgable people than I are debating this question. Ms. Kostash was brave in posing the question.

Thinking about the Holodomor

John-Paul Himka
Ukrainian News/Ukrainski Visti (Edmonton), 20 January 2010

Last winter I taught an undergraduate seminar on the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 at the University of Alberta. Auditing that class was Myrna Kostash, the well known writer, who over ten years previously had done a CBC Ideas program about one of my seminars on the Jewish Holocaust. She thought she could create something out of this rich topic as well. This past December she published a beautifully written and thoughtful piece on my class in the Literary Review of Canada.

The article – and my class as well – came under criticism from a number of my colleagues in Ukrainian studies as well as from some members of the community. I am very grateful to the editor of Ukrainian News, Marco Levytsky, for allowing me to say some things in reply.

One of the critical responses, by Jars Balan, appeared in the 28 December – 19 January issue of Ukrainian News under the title “Gullible Leftists Play into the Hands of Putin’s Neo-Soviet Apologists.” I don’t know whether Mr. Balan picked this title himself, or whether the editor chose it, but I do know that it perfectly captures the spirit of the piece, with its name-calling and guilt by association.

A few words about the actual course I taught. I announced in the departmental course guide that I would be offering an undergraduate seminar on the famine and the debates surrounding it. Given the immense efforts of the Ukrainian community in 2008 to raise awareness of the famine, I expected the class to fill up immediately. Instead, when January rolled around, I was surprised to see that only six undergraduates had enrolled. I was very grateful for the presence of Ms. Kostash as an auditor and of one of my PhD students who did extra work and took the course for graduate credit.

By contrast, in this year’s departmental course guide I announced for January an advanced undergraduate class on the Holocaust. It had already filled to capacity (55) by last October. To me this contrast in interest constitutes a danger signal. Either the Ukrainian community has lost the student-age generation or it has communicated to them that the famine is something we light candles about and demonstrate about, but not something we think about.

Luckily, I’ve been around the University of Alberta a long time, and they let my class on the famine proceed in spite of the low enrollment. In that class I tried to present the students with a wide spectrum of viewpoints. One of my reasons for offering the class in the first place was to show students how complicated and controversial history can get.

Mr. Balan and some other commentators are very upset that I assigned Doug Tottle’s pro-Soviet diatribe. I make no apologies for that. It was part of the debate in the 1980s. It was written to undermine the tremendous efforts of the diaspora at that time to promote knowledge of the famine (at this time not yet enshrined as a genocide). I also assigned two of the major achievements of the 1980s campaign: Robert Conquest’s book Harvest of Sorrow and Slavko Nowytski’s film Harvest of Despair. In fact, I showed Harvest of Despair on the first day of class.

What did the students think of Tottle? Without prompting, because I like to let the students speak first, they expressed almost the exact same view as Mr. Balan did in his “Gullible Leftists” article. They distrusted the rhetoric and logic and found it incredibly one-sided. Several students had googled Doug Tottle and also discovered that he was a very murky personality, but certainly not someone who had personally demonstrated any qualifications or abilities to write such a detailed analysis of the famine.

One can do as Mr. Balan would like, that is, suppress certain books so that students are not exposed to them, or one can do what I like to do, that is, have students read critically and collectively, then guide them in discussion to see different perspectives. I have several times assigned students Mein Kampf to expose them to national socialist thinking. A lot of them resented me for assigning such a convoluted book, but none of them became Nazis.

I also assigned to the class what I considered to be the very best formulations of the case that the famine was a genocide, among them Andrea Graziosi’s. Mr. Balan and a number of other critics have been citing Prof. Graziosi as the academic authority for their point of view and imply that I or the class or Ms. Kostash was unaware of his arguments.

I, on the other hand, have the strong impression that these critics only recently learned of Prof. Graziosi’s views, namely when he lectured in Edmonton in November 2009. (Incidentally, although I was abroad last semester, I helped facilitate his lecture in the Department of History and Classics.) Graziosi’s arguments have been available to scholars since at least 2005, when I first encountered them. Already in 2007 I published a piece in a leading Soviet studies journal which stated: “Andrea Graziosi has made a subtle and compelling case that the famine, properly understood, did constitute a genocide.”

Yet the class also read studies based on the same evidence adduced by Graziosi which did not come to the conclusion that the famine was a genocide. The most important of these was R.W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft’s Years of Hunger. I didn’t want to burden the students with the entire text of Terry Martin’s Affirmative Action Empire so I only assigned them an article where Martin summarizes his interpretation (which is the closest to my own).

I cannot summarize all the points of this complex debate here, but I will mention two that seem to count for more in forming opinions against the genocidal interpretation.

The first is that the famine was to a large extent caused by the catastrophic effect of collectivization on agricultural production. Mr. Balan, and others I have had exchanges with, like to parody this position, saying that this is to ascribe the murder of millions to mere bungling and bureaucratic errors, in other words, it trivializes the famine.

I look at it differently. A massive, reckless social experiment attempted within the span of a few years to transform tens of millions of subsistence farmers into workers in a state-run agribusiness of immense proportions. In the course of this mad scheme, productivity plunged.

A few examples: the regime never succeeded in mechanizing the sowing process during collectivization; the tractors originally distributed deteriorated quickly because of lack of spare parts and of repair shops; the harvests declined every year, putting mounting pressure on the seed grain and grain to feed the collective farm animals and workers; many peasants had slaughtered their animals rather than give them to the collective farm, and now the remaining animals were losing weight and the draught animals losing strength; in an effort to increase the wheat crop, the authorities at times abandoned crop rotation and fallowing practices and instead planted more wheat in the same place the following year; the crop came up with many weeds, and this slowed down the threshing and demanded more labor, while the laborers were getting fewer and fewer calories into their bodies.

Although the Soviets exported grain, they exported much much less than they had planned, and they also had to reduce their target for grain requisitions from Ukraine several times. These facts are fully documented in the archives.

I am far from saying that this accounts entirely for the way that the famine affected Ukraine and Kuban, which were singled out for particularly ruthless treatment because of Stalin’s campaign against what he perceived as Ukrainian nationalism. Yet for scholars familiar with the history of Soviet agricultural transformation in the 1930s, the idea that this famine was deliberately unleashed to suppress a particular nation flies in the face of what they can see was a spiralling descent into agricultural crisis.

The second point that seems to weigh in the balance for those unconvinced of the genocide interpretation is the extent to which the famine affected also non-Ukrainian areas. Mr. Balan is, of course, correct when he writes that the Russian people were not equal victims of the famine. But they too experienced excess mortality in 1932-33, especially the Don Cossacks. This is borne out by the same kind of eyewitness testimony that diaspora Ukrainians relied upon before the opening of the archives as well as by what those archives reveal.

I have a lot more I would like to say about the famine and how it is represented by the Ukrainian and Ukrainian studies communities, but I do not want to abuse the space that Mr. Levytsky has allotted me for a response.

Let me just close with an alternative way to call attention to the famine without tying it to what I think is a self-defeating and self-deluding campaign for recognition as genocide. Last February I held a lecture during International Week at the university and spoke to a crowd of hundreds on the topic “How Do States Cause Famines.” The lecture was very well received.

In it, I talked first about collectivization and how it brought the Soviet agricultural economy to collapse. Then I explained that most of the consequences were borne by the Ukrainians, a politically restive nationality. I started with these issues because I knew them in depth. But then I tied them to issues in the modern world, pointing to radical agricultural experiments in Tanzania and Zimbabwe and how they brought their societies to the verge of starvation, and then how resulting famines and food shortages were displaced onto secessionist minorities in Ethiopia and political opponents in Zimbabwe.

A very similar approach is being pursued by the new Kule Institute for Advanced Study at the University of Alberta. The visionary philanthropists Peter and Doris Kule have donated $4 million to found an institute to deal with big questions in the humanities, social sciences, and fine arts, but based on the Ukrainian historical experience. As university president Indira Samarasekera said: “Kule Institute scholars will undertake wide-ranging and diverse research on topics echoed by the Ukrainian experience, topics such as political oppression, multiculturalism, minorities, cultural identity, religious persecution, and the politics of famine and food distribution.” I think this is the way forward.

Jean Paul Himka is at the Department of History and Classics, and Research Program on Religion and Culture, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta

Re: Thinking about the Holodomor

by Roman Serbyn
16 February 2010

I did not intend to stray into this discussion until I read John-Paul’s flippant moralizing at the end of his letter:

“And what about the hypocrisy of demanding that the world recognize the famine of 1932-33 as a genocide at the same time as one refuses to give adequate recognition to what OUN and UPA did to Poles and Jews?”

This is a non sequitur. The recognition of one crime is not contingent on the recognition of another. Each crime is judged on its own attributes. Furthermore, these crimes are not related. And then what exactly does “adequate recognition” mean? I have been active for some time in promoting the recognition of the Ukrainian genocide of the 1930s in academic and political circles. Must I preface every communication with an “adequate recognition” of “what OUN and UPA did to Poles and Jews”? And what would be “adequate” so as not to be accused of hypocrisy? This type of fyzzy reasoning does not help the discussion.

John-Paul has turned his arbitrary linking of the Ukrainian genocide with the atrocities committed during WWII against Poles and Jews into a sort of an ideological postulate, which he raises every time he speaks about the famine. Accusing Zenon of being an ideological watchdog seems to be a mirror-image of John-Paul’s own crusade.

John-Paul does not recognize the Ukrainian famine as genocide. That is his right. With the academic freedom that Canadian professors enjoy he can pass on his opinions to his students. If the result of the curiously phrased vote (“Who believes that the famine was NOT a genocide?”) at the end of his seminar on the Ukrainian famine is any indication of how he steered the discussions, he was quite successful in putting doubts in the students’ minds about the Ukrainian genocide (5 positive answers to his negative question, no negative answers, and four abstentions – including John-Paul’s). From Myrna Kostash’s description of the students’ participation in the discussions, the result of the vote appear surprising, to say the least.

Jean-Paul accuses Zenon of taking upon himself to “correct” Myrna. My reading of Myrna’s account suggests that the criticism concerns more the lecturer than the reporter. It is not Student Kostash but Professor Himka who put Douglas Tottle’s slick piece of propaganda, “Fraud, Famine and Fascism. The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard” (reminiscent of Arthur R. Butz’s “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century”) on the reading list and devoted a whole session to it.

It is also curious that John-Paul devoted two whole sessions to Davies’ and Wheatcroft’s excellent study, which gave a valuable and detailed account of the economic history of the famine, but did not provide the necessary tools for the analysis of the question of genocide, but at the same time so little time was assigned to the discussion of the question of genocide. At least there is no mention in the online course outline of any separate discussion of the UN Convention on Genocide, which after all provides the basic notions and gives the definition of genocide on which international law is based today.

Nor is there any reference to Raphael Lemkin, the intellectual father of the Genocide convention, who coined the term and conceived the notion (Axis Rule in Occupied Europe) and then applied both the terms of the convention and his own conceptualization to the Ukrainian case (Soviet Genocide in Ukraine) to come up with an innovative analysis of the Ukrainian genocide consisting of a four-pronged attack against the Ukrainian NATION (not just Ukrainian peasants!):

1) destruction of the Ukrainian intelligentsia,
2) destruction of the autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church,
3) destruction of the “large ass of independent peasants who are the repository of the tradition, folklore and music, the national language and literature, the national spirit of Ukraine”
4) the addition to Ukraine of foreign peoples to destroy the ethnic unity and mix nationalities.

As Lemkin realized 56 years ago, the Ukrainian genocide was NOT JUST the a partial destruction of Ukrainian peasants (Lemkin makes an interesting and apt comparison of the Jewish and Ukrainian genocides, which John-Paul could have developed in his seminar!), nor were Ukrainian farmers targeted just for their socio-economic function. Had John-Paul provided his students with sufficient tools for the discussion of the issue of genocide and not just the famine, and had he posed the final question less tendentiously, then perhaps the students would have gotten a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of what the Ukrainian tragedy had been, and the result of the vote would have been different.

Roman Serbyn is an historian. He was a professor emeritus of Russian and East European history at the University of Quebec in Montreal, and an expert on Ukraine.

Ukrainian American Bar Association challenges Russian disinformation campaign re UPA TOP


January 22, 2010

The Washington Post Via Mail and to foreign@washpost.com
1150 15th St. NW
Washington, DC 20071

RE: John Pancake's UPA Article of January 6, 2010

Dear Sir / Madam,

As an organization of practicing attorneys and jurists, we have over many years encountered the unchallenged acceptance of Soviet (and now Russian) disinformation campaigns concerning Ukraine. John Pancake's article about the Ukrainian underground during World War II (January 6, 2010) unwittingly, but no less unfortunately, lends credibility to those efforts.

Russia's special services are seeking to destabilize the situation in Ukraine, undermine its sovereignty and independence, create a negative image of this country, block its integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures, and turn Ukraine into a dependent and manipulated satellite. In their special operations against Ukraine they attribute exceptional importance to the "Jewish card."
-- Moses Fishbein



The issue is not merely one of historical accuracy. Russia re-catalyzed the disinformation campaigns after Ukraine declared independence and, even more, after Ukraine struck firmly on a democratic path and integration with the rest of Europe in the wake of the Orange Revolution five years ago. The trajectory of that path may be reversing, in which case the implications for the security of the rest of Europe and the United States will be profound. As stated by Sherman Garnett of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "Whether Russian led integration on the territory of the former USSR will pose a serious, long-term military challenge to the West, depends in large part on the role that Ukraine plays or is compelled to play."

Although the article begins by recognizing Ukrainian opposition to both Hitler and Stalin, it references the Ukrainian Insurgent (Povstans'ka) Army ("UPA") and concludes by quoting Rabbi Bleich's allegation that "[t]he Ukrainian insurgents fought alongside the fascists. And maybe their intentions were good, but I will say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions." By ending on such a note, The Post necessarily accedes to the consequent imagery of the UPA as a Hitler ally, seemingly roaming the countryside with no purpose other than to indiscriminately kill Poles and Jews.

The labeling of the UPA as "fascist" has repeatedly been shown to be a Soviet-era fabrication, but that accusation is still frequently revived today by those who are not aware of the fabrication, or those intent on compromising a democratic Ukraine independent of Russian rule. The falsification was documented, yet again, with the declassification of KGB archives in Ukraine by President Yushchenko. A recent study, The Jewish Card In Russian Special Operations Against Ukraine, was presented by Moses Fishbein, at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 24-27 June 2009 (available on the website http://www.vaadua.org/VaadENG/News%20eng2009/fishbeyn2.htm), which concluded as follows:

The whole titanic struggle, which some are so apt to dismiss as "the Russian glory," was first of all a Ukrainian war. No fewer than 10,000,000 people had been lost to Ukraine since 1941.

Edgar Snow, The Saturday Evening Post (Jan. 27, 1945)


Russia's special services are seeking to destabilize the situation in Ukraine, undermine its sovereignty and independence, create a negative image of this country, block its integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures, and turn Ukraine into a dependent and manipulated satellite. In their special operations against Ukraine they attribute exceptional importance to the "Jewish card."

A voluminous historical record establishes that the UPA uncompromisingly battled Nazi Germany. Simultaneously and against impossible odds, the UPA battled Hitler's erstwhile coconspirator, Stalin, well into the 1950's. The declared position of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists ("OUN"), whose military arm was the UPA, was clear: "The OUN is resolutely fighting against both internationalist and fascist national-socialist programs and political concepts, for they are the tools of imperialist policies of conquest. Thus, we are opposed both to Russian-Bolshevik communism and to German National Socialism."

The image created by many of the statements in Mr. Pancake's article should be assessed against the following: Writing in the January 27, 1945 issue of The Saturday Evening Post, Edgar Snow wrote about World War II: "The whole titanic struggle, which some are so apt to dismiss as 'the Russian glory,' was first of all a Ukrainian war. No fewer than 10,000,000 people had been lost to Ukraine since 1941. ***No single European country suffered deeper wounds to its cities, its industry and its humanity." Decades later, with all the evidence in, the University of London's Norman Davies, the world's pre-eminent historian of Europe, confirmed that the country most savaged by Nazi Germany was Ukraine. More Ukrainian civilians were killed than the total military deaths of the United States, Canada, the British Commonwealth, France, Germany and Italy, combined. An additional more than 2 million Ukrainians were deported as slave laborers to Germany.

More Ukrainian civilians were killed than the total military deaths of the United States, Canada, the British Commonwealth, France, Germany and Italy, combined. An additional more than 2 million Ukrainians were deported as slave laborers to Germany.


Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was history's largest military operation, with more than 3,200,000 German Hungarian, Rumanian, Italian, Finnish, Spanish and Slovakian forces (compare D Day with a total of 132,000 Allied troops). Ukraine was both the prize and the crucible. Hitler told Carl Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner, "I need the [sic] Ukraine, so that nobody can ever starve us out again, as they did in the last war." Following Moscow's 1932-33 man-made famine in Ukraine that scythed millions of innocents out of existence, Hitler planned a repeat, as set forth in a report of the German Economic Armament Staff, dated December 2, 1941. In the same month, Walther Funk, the German Minister of the Economy and president of the Reichsbank, declared in Prague that Ukraine, "this promised colonial land," had become accessible to "European" exploitation.

As a result, Ukraine was one of the few countries in all of Nazi occupied Europe to be ruled directly from Berlin. It had no Nazi or fascist party like the Iron Guard in Romania, the Arrow Cross Party in Hungary, or the smaller but no less fanatic fascist parties in Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Holland. Ukraine had no puppet government as did Quisling's Norway or Petain's Vichy France. To the very contrary, upon Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Ukrainians promptly (June 30) declared an independent government, refusing to ally with Hitler. The Germans considered this to be a coup d'état and reacted instantly, arresting the Ukrainian leadership, which was sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. An Einsatzkommando C/5 Order stated: "It has been established with certainty that the Bandera Movement [OUN] is preparing an uprising in the Reichscommissariat, whose ultimate objective is to create an independent Ukraine. All functionaries of the Bandera Movement are to be immediately arrested and, after a thorough interrogation, secretly liquidated as pillagers." In the ensuing period of Nazi occupation, Ukrainians, whether or not members of the insurgency, were tortured, massacred, and condemned to Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belsen and Dachau. There, the Nazis refused to identify them as Ukrainians, but only as Russians or Poles.

That in the midst of this carnage there were instances of collaboration and anti-Semitism (meaning invidious actions based on one's identification as a Jew (or a Pole) and not because one was an enemy combatant) is tragic, but it was not unique to Ukraine. Such instances, however, did not reflect the UPA's purpose or conduct. Indeed, Jews became members of the UPA, some as officers.

The dissolution of the USSR is bemoaned as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century, Stalin is being rehabilitated as an "efficient manager," and a wholesale rewriting of Soviet era history in Russian schools is well underway. Ukraine remains the linchpin to the process, just as it was both in the formation of the USSR and also in its fall.


To attribute the kind of behavior that the article does to the UPA, whether sourced as "eyewitness" reports or otherwise, is a matter that should be examined with more than the usual diligence, and not only because of the demonstrable disinformation. One particularly effective tactic of Stalin's NKVD units was masquerading as the UPA and committing the very atrocities against Jews and Poles that the article lays at the feet of the UPA. Such NKVD tactics were even more extensively implemented against the local Ukrainian population to alienate the sole source of UPA support. This was a repeat of tactics employed by Leon Trotsky as head of the Red Army in Russia's conquest of Ukraine in 1918-1920.

One may ask: "Doesn't Moscow have anything better to do?" No, it does not. The dissolution of the USSR is bemoaned as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century, Stalin is being rehabilitated as an "efficient manager," and a wholesale rewriting of Soviet era history in Russian schools is well underway. Ukraine remains the linchpin to the process, just as it was both in the formation of the USSR and also in its fall. Zbigniew Brzezinski noted that "It cannot be stressed strongly enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceased to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire." This has been a constant. "If we lose Ukraine," said Lenin, "we lose our head." On August 11, 1932, Stalin wrote to his executioner in Ukraine, Lazar Kaganovich: "Things in Ukraine are terrible... If we don't make an effort to improve the situation in Ukraine, we may lose Ukraine. . . Give yourself the task of transforming Ukraine into truly a fortress of the USSR. . .Without these and similar measures. . . I repeat "we can lose Ukraine." In the ensuing months of 1932-33, millions of Ukrainians were murdered in history's first man-made famine.

Regrettably, given The Post's stature and apparent credibility, Mr. Pancake's article -- despite good intentions -- will be cited in predictable quarters with satisfaction. We urge that both Mr. Pancake and The Washington Post revisit this issue.

Sincerely yours,

Victor Rud, Chairman
Foreign Affairs & Human Rights Committee
vrud@post.harvard.edu / 1-201-906-3254

CC: John Pancake

Joy Amidst Tears TOP
February 17th, 2010

Photo: Myron Kapushchak

Borys Wrzesnewskyj visits Iryna Ivaniv and her twins at the hospital

Iryna Ivaniv, a Canadian citizen, gave birth to twins on February 8th, 2010. Iryna and her husband, Volodymyr Kokhanovskyy, who resides in and is a citizen of Ukraine, now have four children aged 5 years, 2 years, and the two little boys who were born less than a week ago.

Unfortunately, Volodymyr was not able to be present for the birth of his sons, and is also unable to assist Irena in raising their children for the foreseeable future. The reason is Volodymyr's visitor visa application, which he applied for the day following the birth of his twin sons at the Canadian embassy in Kyiv, was rejected. The belief that Mr. Kokhanovskyy will not return home to Ukraine was the reason the immigration officer provided for the denial of the visitor visa request.  Furthermore, the fact that Volodymyr is presently undergoing an immigration process in Ukraine, which should come to completion shortly, was not taken into consideration. Further complicating the matter was an unjust and inaccurate accusation by immigration officials that Volodymyr and Iryna entered into a marriage of convenience. On January 26, 2010, a Canadian court recognized the validity of their marriage. The baseless charges put forth by an immigration officer have only served to draw out the immigration process further.

 Iryna Ivaniv commented on her situation by stating:

As a result of the discriminatory policies of the Canadian Embassy in Kyiv, my family has suffered great moral and physical losses. I am not sure how much strength is required of one person to endure all of this. My husband received a refusal due to the oversights of an immigration officer. Is the Embassy in Kyiv creating its own unwritten rules? For two years I was forced to wait for our case to be heard by appellate court in Canada; a case we ended up winning. I want to thank Member of Parliament Borys Wrzesnewskyj and his office staff for their sensitivity and support. He understood our plight and responded immediately.

 While Iryna has been released from hospital, her infant twins, who were born prematurely, are under medical care in hospital. Each day, Iryna must take a taxi to and from the hospital several times in order to feed her babies. Her five year old son, a Canadian citizen, resides with his father in Lviv, Ukraine so as to ease Iryna`s burden. Currently, Iryna must take her two year old son, who lives with her in Canada, to the hospital with her as it is difficult for her to find someone to babysit him at home. Iryna's parents are immigrants, who work tirelessly to support and provide for their family. It is clear that Iryna needs the assistance of her husband. Instead, the couple has been baselessly accused of being in a marriage of convenience and received denials of Volodymyr's visa applications.

Is this representative of the humanitarian principles of which Canada is so proud?

Commenting on this case, Member of Parliament Borys Wrzesnewskyj stated:

Why do immigration-consulate matters in Kyiv take so much longer to process than those in any other Canadian consular offices in the world? Why do we constantly receive complaints about the lack of humanity and sensitivity of this immigration section? Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney is aware of the situation in Kyiv, yet he hides the fact that the Conservative government has made further cuts to the number of staff at the Immigration branch of the Kyiv Embassy. How have we reached the situation where Canadian immigration officials separate husbands and wives, divide their children, and force a young mother to live in poverty, without any support from her husband? I am calling upon Minister Kenney to facilitate the reunification of Mr. Kokhanovskyy with his wife and children. I also call upon Minister Kenney to restore the staff at the Immigration branch of the Canadian Embassy in Kyiv to previous levels.

Canada congratulates Ukraine on successful election TOP
February 10, 2010

On February 9, 2010 the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, issued the statement congratulating the people of Ukraine on the presidential election.

“We commend the people of Ukraine, who exercised their fundamental democratic right to vote in a peaceful and orderly manner. This election demonstrates that Ukraine is on its path toward a sustainable democracy, a path set during the Orange Revolution five years ago.

“Canada welcomes the fact that these elections were deemed free and fair by independent election observer missions. These included one from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and one from CANADEM, which was funded by the Government of Canada through the Canadian International Development Agency.

“However, it is important to note that the Central Election Commission of Ukraine has still to confirm the final result, and the preliminary tallies are very close. Canada urges all political participants to exercise restraint and to allow the post-election process to proceed in a peaceful, transparent and orderly manner.

“Canada has a long and proud history of providing election observers to ensure that elections are consistent with international democratic standards, and our government is particularly pleased to have contributed more than 270 Canadian observers to Ukraine’s presidential elections.

“Canada has a special and close relationship with Ukraine, a key European partner that plays an important role in the democratic development and regional security of Eastern Europe. Canada is committed to supporting Ukraine’s democratic development.

“Canada looks forward to the official announcement of the election’s final result.”

Nash Holos international shortwave broadcast debut TOP
Taipei, Taiwan (February 10, 2010) -- PCJ Media is pleased to announce the addition of a new program to its roster.

Nash Holos ("Our Voice" in Ukrainian) is a bilingual Ukrainian-themed radio program broadcasting from Vancouver, BC Canada. Delivered primarily in English, this unique variety show features Ukrainian culture with a distinctly global focus. It showcases contemporary and traditional Ukrainian music, along with a talk component covering an array of topics that appeal to listeners around the world interested in the Ukrainian cultural scene.

The program is produced and hosted by Paulette ("Pawlina") Demchuk MacQuarrie. A second-generation Canadian of Ukrainian extraction, she considers herself a "born-again Ukrainian." All of her adult life has been spent pursing her passion to learn about, and share, her heritage culture. She made her radio debut in 1990, when Nash Holos first went on the air. In 1996 she and her team disbanded, but not before breaking the record for hosting and producing the longest-running Ukrainian radio program in the history of British Columbia. Nash Holos returned to the airwaves in 2000 and continues to broadcast on AM1320 CHMB Radio in Vancouver.

Nash Holos airs Sundays at 6 pm PST (0200 UTC Monday) on AM1320 CHMB Vancouver (97.5 Cable FM) and streaming live at www.am1320.com More information at www.nashholos.com . The Vancouver broadcast is also available as a podcast on iTunes, and for download at the program's website.

PCJ Media was founded in Taipei in 2009 by Taiwan-based Canadian broadcaster Keith Perron, when he revived The Happy Station Show, the world's longest-running shortwave radio programme (1928-1995). The name PCJ also dates back nearly a century. A few years after Philips Radio began broadcasting in 1928 under the call sign PCJJ, the creator and first host of the Happy Station, Edward Startz, shortened it to PCJ (standing for Peace, Cheer & Joy). Continuing a long and proud tradition, today the Happy Station Show is again the flagship show of a progressive media company bearing the name PCJ. Happy Station can be heard via a growing number of affiliates worldwide.

The first international edition of Nash Holos will air February 12th, 2009 at 0200UTC (6 pm PST Thursday February 11) on 9955khz and will be made available for download online at www.pcjmedia.com with a weekly edition to be produced for PCJ Radio.

Радість крізь сльози TOP
16 лютого 2010

Фотограф: Мирон Капущак

Борис Вжесневський відвідує Ірину Іваніву і дітей в лікарні.

Ірина Іванів, громадянка Канади, народила двійнят 8 лютого 2010 року. Тепер родина Ірини складається з чотирьох дітей яким  - п'ять років, два роки, та два хлопчика яким лише тиждень, і чоловік Ірини - Володимир Кохановський, який проживає на території України і є ії громадянином.

Володимир нажаль не зміг бути присутний при народженню дітей, і також не зможе в найближчому майбутньому  допомогти Ірині з дітьми. Причиною цього є відмова у “visitor visa”  Володимирові, в м. Києві, посольством Канади на яку він подався день після народження хлопчиків двійні. Іміграційний офіцер пояснив це тим, що він не вірить у те, що Володимир повернеться назад на Україну. І це не зважаючи на той факт, що Володимир проходить іміграційний процес в Україні, який незабаром має дійти до кінця. Не вплинуло і те, що раніше Володимир і Ірина були необгрунтовано звинувачені в недійсному подружжю. Канадійський суд признав дійсність їхнього шлюбу 26 січня 2010 року. Вже маючи двох дітей, Ірина і Володимир подали справу в суд. Це пусте звинуваченння  іміграційним офіцером лише додатково забрало час від іміграційного процесу.

Ірина Іванів прокоментувала цю ситуацію так:

«В наслідок дискримінаційної політики Канадського посольства в Києві моя родина зазнала великих моральних, а також фізичних втрат. Не знаю скільки здоровя треба мати щоб це витримати одній людині. Мій чоловік отримав відмову у спонсорстві внаслідок грубої помилки іміграційного офіцера. Чи посольство в Київі творить свої неписані закони? Два роки я чекала на апеляційний суд в Канаді, котрий ми виграли. Дякую за чуйність і підтримку Бориса Вжесневського і його офісу. Він зрозумів нашу біду і відразу відгукнувся.»

Ірина вже виписалась з пологового будинку, але два немовля лишилися на медичному дослідженню у лікарні. Двійнята були народжені завчасно до строку. Кожен день Ірині приходиться кілька разів їхати на таксі годувати в лікарні двійнят. Її 5 річний хлопчик, канадієць, перебуває з батьком у Львові. Її 2 річний син в Канаді і Ірині прийдеться брати його до лікарні з собою бо незавжди є з ким лишити вдома. Батькі Ірини імігранти, які працюють щоб забезпечити родину. Ірині потрібна допомога Її чоловіка. Натомість, вони отримали необгрунтоване звинувачення в недійсному шлюбі, судові процеси, і постійні відмови віз Володимирові відвідати своїх дітей і дружину.   

Чи це відповідає тим гуманним принципам якими так пишається Канада?

Реагуючи на цю ситуацію член парламенту Борис Вжесневський сказав:

« Чому іміграційні консулські справи у Києві тривають довше ніж у будь  якому іншому консульському відділі в світі? Чому ми постійно одержуємо нарікання про брак гуманности і чутливости у цьому штабі. Міністр Іміграції Jason Kenney свідомий цієї ситуації у Києві, але не зважаючи на це він прикриває що його уряд ще більше скоротив штаб у Києві.

Як ми дійшли до ситуації де Канадські іміграційні службовці розділяють жінку і чоловіка, ділять їхніх дітей і приречують молоду маму жити у бідноті без чоловіка? Закликую містра Kenney дозволити панові Кохановському приїхати до жінки і своїх дітей. Також закликаю містра Kenney збільшити консульський штаб у Києві, принайменше до його попереднього стану.»

"American vacations" for students from Ukraine TOP

Olexandr Aleksandrovych - Counselor of Embassy of Ukraine with American parents and students meeting Ukrainian participants of "SDI-American winter" program in Washington Ukrainian Saturday school.

Five students from the Central and Eastern Ukraine spent the first two weeks of the New Year in the Ukrainian-American families thanks to a new program «SDI -- American Winter»

While Western Ukrainians are closely acquainted with the European and American styles of living and thinking, many citizens in the central, eastern, and especially southern regions continue to think of the United States through stereotypes promoted by various mass media. At the same time, in the most russified territories of the east and south, western Ukrainians are often considered to be "hostile" towards the Slavic East. Fortunately, this year the representatives of the Ukrainian diaspora in the USA suggested a new program for Ukrainian youth, which was designed to help bridge the gap, correct these stereotypes and build dialog.

This program, called the «SDI -- American Winter», was conceived and promoted by the Social Development Institute Inc. of New York, and its president, Michael Kazarenko, a native of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine. Five students from Ukrainian schools of Kramatorsk and Kyiv were invited to spend the first two weeks of January with Ukrainian-American host families. The students, Sofiya Luk'yanchuk, Nadiya Rokytyanska and Oleksandr Vasiliev from Kramatorsk participated in this program as the winners of Petro Jacyk International Ukrainian Language Competition in Kramatorsk; while Uliana and Natalia Sydoruk came as outstandingly talented children in singing and painting. They spent their time in the U.S. in the states of New York, New Jersey and in the Washington DC area cities of Falls Church, Vienna and Laurel, residing with host families Reuter, Olson, Graves and Brandafi.

New programs help Ukrainian youth identify as Ukrainians, no matter where they live in the world.

It all began with the Ukrainian Youth Association (SUMA) community's Ridna Shkola (Ukrainian Saturday School). Five years ago this community initiated a program for youth of Ukrainian descent to study the Ukrainian language, history and culture at the Kyiv Mohyla Academy (KMA) in Ukraine (http://summerschool.ukma.kiev.ua/). This was an intense immersion and study program, with 4 weeks of classroom work and multiple cultural excursions. It was also an inclusive program, open to any American, Canadian, Australian or European student of Ukrainian heritage that sought a learning-by-immersion experience. For 5 years, the "Social Development Institute" has been collecting money so that American students could participate in this program at reduced cost. Last summer Michael Kazarenko became acquainted with Marta Kowalczyk-Reuter, who along with her daughter, Melanie, were students in the "KMA Summer Program". Later that year after the "SDI -- American Winter" program was established, it was necessary to locate host families that were willing to provide a memorable experience for the guest students. Mrs. Reuter was particularly successful in identifying host families from the Washington DC area.

This winter Mrs. Reuter's guest was a girl from Kramatorsk -- Sofiya Luk'yanchuk. "Although my father always speaks only in Ukrainian, I began to follow his example only two months before coming to the US," confessed Sofiyka. "It seemed to me, that I spoke Russian before, because I loved that language. However, when I was in the States, all the Ukrainian friends of the Reuters were surprised, that in the Donbas people spoke Ukrainian so well. I understood then, that during all those years, despite having the mother tongue, I was using a foreign one. Now I do not want to be considered a russified Ukrainian!"

"American students neither cheat, nor use cell phones in the school!"

Each host family planned an ambitious excursion program according to the preferences of the young guests. Sofiyka also had a unique opportunity to study for a week at an American high school together with Melanie Reuter. The two girls were similar in age and both attended 9th grade. The Ukrainian schoolgirl was surprised most of all by the fact that the American students never cheat and never use cell phones in school.

Is the East together with the West?

Money for the airline tickets and medical insurance for the Ukrainian students was donated by Ukrainian emigrants, who left for the US not so long ago. Realistically, almost all donors were born in the Western areas of Ukraine, and have no connections with the Donbas. What induced them to support this project? One of the sponsors answered: «My understanding is that a degree of Ukrainian proficiency is required of the student participants in the program. This probably puts them in a very uncomfortable position where they live. Some reward and encouragement to such students is appropriate».

"Most children from the Eastern Ukraine have never been in its Western regions, and vice versa, and that is why they are afraid of each other," admits Natalya Olson, whose guest was Sashko Vasiliev. "If only more Ukrainians saw how American people of different nationalities and religions live alongside each other, how they learned to respect each other, to live together, to work together!" - says Mrs. Olson. And they are generous to each other too. Mrs. Olson offered Alexander the opportunity to visit her parents in summer. They live in Ivano-Frankivsk and will gladly show him the Carpathians. According to Mrs. Olson, "As these students share their personal experiences, they will find that this is the best way to move beyond stereotypes."

Right to be yourself!

«Both in geographical and symbolic understanding, the Donbas is a separate entity with an independent status similar to a nation, city or village. It is a borderland, where internal aspiration of freedom, wild exploitation and daily violence, competed with each other for supremacy». Hiroaki Kuromiya, Japanese historian and the researcher of Eastern borderlands of Ukraine stated these words in the late 1990's and they can be reiterated today with a new realization. Donbas is the «Industrial heart of Ukraine», the country of Vasil Stus and Vasil Simonenko and the new home for the descendants of the Lemko people, who were forcibly resettled by Stalin during the «Vistula» program. Donbas remains Ukrainian in its own special way. And other eastern and southern regions are similarly Ukrainian in spirit.

The organizers of the "SDI-American Winter" program plan to continue to provide this unique opportunity for eastern Ukrainian teenagers between the ages of 14 and 18. They will work with the local schools to identify students who study in Ukrainian schools or in Ukrainian classes at Russian schools and who show outstanding promise by becoming winners of a city or regional level of Petro Jacyk International Ukrainian Language Competition. In order to be considered, these students will need to apply to the Social Development Institute through their local organization "Prosvita".

The next stage of program's development is a creation of Ukrainian-American youth club in the town, where former participants live. In Kramatorsk such club already exists due to the efforts of the Head of the "Prosvita" organization in Kramatorsk, Mykola Konobrytsky. He is a former director of the Ukrainian Lyceum, and currently a teacher of history. He created a local «Plast» youth organization, educated young people in his lyceum as Ukrainian patriots, and initiated a tradition for high school students to start classes with the raising of the Ukrainian flag and the singing of the national anthem each morning.

We hope that "SDI-American Winter Program" will help to break "the soviet views" of Ukrainian people and to destroy the "psychology of fear and separation." And our hopes are supported by the words said by Nadiya and Sofiya after coming back to Ukraine: «Ukrainian families in the United States helped us to feel that we are Ukrainians. And to be Ukrainians means not just "to be selected". It means "to be yourself!"


IEU features the Revolution of 1848-9 in Habsburg monarchy TOP
February 2010


The Revolution of 1848-9 in the Habsburg monarchy played a decisive role in the process of the emergence of Ukrainian political organizations and the shaping of the modern Ukrainian identity in Western Ukraine. Prior to the revolution there had been a Ukrainian national revival in Galicia and Transcarpathia, but the movement had been entirely cultural. With the outbreak of the revolution, however, the Ukrainian question became a political question. The first representative Ukrainian political organization was founded in Lviv on 2 May 1848, the Supreme Ruthenian Council. The major political goal advocated by Ukrainians during the revolution was the creation of a predominantly Ukrainian crown land within the Habsburg monarchy. Although the relatively underdeveloped Ukrainian movements in Transcarpathia and Bukovyna were as yet unclear on the point, the Ukrainians of Galicia repeatedly emphasized in their publications that the Ukrainians of the Habsburg monarchy were part of the same distinct Ukrainian nation that could be found in Ukraine in the Russian Empire. In June 1848 the Ukrainians of Galicia and Bukovyna participated in the first parliamentary elections ever held on Ukrainian territory and 30 Ukrainians were elected to the constituent Austrian Reichstag. The first Ukrainian-language newspaper, Zoria halytska, began to appear in Lviv on 15 May 1848, and the Halytsko-Ruska Matytsia, a Ukrainian literary and educational society, was established later that year. When the revolution was defeated in the fall of 1849, many of the achievements of the revolutionary years were undone. The Ukrainian leadership assumed a conservative 'Old Ruthenian' or Russophile orientations, but the legacy of revolutionary achievements shaped the Ukrainiphile populist movement which became dominant in Galicia at the end of the 19th century...

Learn more about the Revolution of 1848-9 in the Habsburg monarchy by visiting:


and searching for such entries as:

REVOLUTION OF 1848-9 IN THE HABSBURG MONARCHY. The unsuccessful democratic revolution that encompassed much of Europe in 1848-9, which broke out also in the Habsburg monarchy, including the Ukrainian territories. Inspired by a republican revolution in Paris in February 1848, demonstrations broke out in Vienna in March. By mid-month, under pressure from the people, Emperor Ferdinand I had dismissed his reactionary adviser Klemens von Metternich, authorized the formation of a national guard, and promised to establish a parliament. The news of those revolutionary events reached the Ukrainian territories of Galicia, Bukovyna, and Transcarpathia on the weekend of 18-19 March. Immediately crowds gathered in the squares of Lviv, where Polish democrats circulated a petition calling for civil rights and the abolition of serfdom. In Chernivtsi mobs attacked the unpopular mayor and police commissioner. In the small, largely Magyarized towns of Transcarpathia the population gathered to discuss the 12 demands put forward by radical Hungarian activists in Pest...

SUPREME RUTHENIAN COUNCIL. The first legal Ukrainian political organization in modern times, founded in May 1848 in Lviv. The Supreme Ruthenian Council was established in direct response to the Revolution of 1848–9 in the Habsburg monarchy, in particular to the formation in Galicia of the Polish People's Council (Rada Narodowa), which declared itself the representative political body for the province. The emergence of the Supreme Ruthenian Council in turn prompted the creation of yet another council, the pro-Polish Ruthenian Congress. Encouraged by the Austrian governor of Galicia, Count Franz Stadion, over 300 Ukrainians representing various social groups (except the peasantry) met on 2 May at the chancery of Saint George's Cathedral. They organized a council of 30 members (eventually increased to 66). The purpose of the Supreme Ruthenian Council was to strengthen the Ukrainian people in Austria by encouraging publications in Ukrainian, introducing the Ukrainian language in schools and the local administration, and defending the constitutional rights of Ukrainians...

ZORIA HALYTSKA (Galician Star). The first Ukrainian-language newspaper, published in Lviv weekly from May 1848, semiweekly in 1849–52, and then weekly again to 1857 (a total of 717 issues). As the organ of the Supreme Ruthenian Council until 1850, the newspaper stressed the separateness of the Ukrainian nation and the ethnic unity of Ukrainians in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire. In 1850-4 Zoria halytska was funded by the Stauropegion Institute and controlled by Russophiles. Throughout most of this period it was called Zoria halytskaia and was published in the artificial Ukrainian-Russian yazychiie. It was a journal from 1853. In late 1854 it was taken over by Ukrainophiles, but financial difficulties forced it to fold. Zoria halytska published news and articles on political, economic, religious, and community affairs. From 1850 it devoted much attention to literature. It was actively supported by the Greek Catholic clergy, and in 1853-4 it published a religious supplement...

HALYTSKO-RUSKA MATYTSIA. A literary and educational society established in June 1848 in Lviv by the Supreme Ruthenian Council. Modeled on Serbian (1826), Czech (1831), and other similar predecessors, the Halytsko-Ruska Matytsia fostered schooling and general cultural enlightenment by publishing popular-science literature, grammars, and textbooks. Rev Mykhailo Kuzemsky was its first head. In 1850 it had 193 dues-paying members, 69 of whom were priests. In 1861 its statute was ratified. In the 1860s it was taken over by the Russophiles (Yakiv Holovatsky, Antin Petrushevych, B. Didytsky, and others), who promoted the use of the artificial, bookish yazychie language and later even Russian. Consequently, the Galician populists founded the Prosvita society in 1868. The activity and influence of the Halytsko-Ruska Matytsia declined in the 1880s, but it continued to exist (with periods of inactivity, 1895-1900, 1909-22) until 1939. The Halytsko-Ruska Matytsia published about 60 books and some scholarly serials...

PEOPLE'S HOME IN LVIV. The oldest and wealthiest Ukrainian cultural-educational institution in Galicia. The People's Home was established in 1849 by the Supreme Ruthenian Council with the express purpose of developing Ukrainian national and cultural life throughout Galicia. The institution was based on a Czech model. The Austrian government granted it land near Lviv University, on which a building was erected in 1851-64. Over time it amassed a substantial number of assets, including several buildings and a church in Lviv, two villages in the Peremyshl region, a museum, a library, and a publishing house. The People's Home provided a spiritual haven and organizational center for various organizations and causes, most notably the Halytsko-Ruska Matytsia society (which undertook cultural-educational work and published school textbooks). Until the 1860s its work was conducted in the conservative and clerical-minded spirit of the Old Ruthenians. The leadership of the People's Home then fell into the hands of Russophiles, who took it over completely in 1872...

Bridges tell Kyiv's stories of triumph, tragedy TOP
February 04, 2010

According to one legend, New York's famous Brooklyn Bridge is reputedly a copy of this legendary Ukrainian architectural masterpiece, which was destroyed by Polish troops in 1920. (Courtesy)

By Oksana Faryna

Seven bridges span wide Dnipro River

In the early 20th century, French poet Guillaume Apollinaire wrote probably the most famous poem about a bridge. Called "The Mirabeau Bridge," he wrote:

The days the weeks pass by beyond our ken;
Neither time past
Nor love comes back again
Under the Mirabeau Bridge there flows the Seine.

Bridges, like all witnesses to history, can tell lots of stories.

Apart from Mirabeau Bridge, there are about 40 bridges over the Seine River in Paris. About 300 bridges were built in the historic part of Saint Petersburg, the northern former capital of Russia. In Kyiv, there are only seven bridges over the Dnipro River. But it's not at all surprising, according to Mykhaylo Kalnytsky, a Kyiv historian who has been studying city bridges for the last 25 years.

"How can you compare the Seine, Neva and Dnipro?" he mused. "The Dnipro is much wider! Before it was dammed at the beginning of the 20th century, the river stream was even wider and much stronger. For centuries it was impossible to build a stationary bridge over this powerful river."

Throughout Kyiv's history, building a bridge has always been a complicated endeavor. A bridge project had to be a real engineering masterpiece to be realized. Temporary floating bridges existed in Kyiv since 1115, according to historical evidence. Almost every spring such temporary wooden bridges would float away once the ice drift began.

According to Mykola Nikiforovsky (1845-1910), Kyivans used to call this time of year "floater drift" and tried to catch the bridges in order to use them for construction materials. When the river froze in winter, it was also common to cross the Dnipro on ice. Stationary bridges appeared in Kyiv only in the middle of the 19th century. The first two were the Nicholas Chain Bridge and the Struve Railroad Bridge. Neither survived, however.


The article highlights the following bridges: Nicholas Chain Bridge, Metro Bridge, Struve Railroad Bridge, Darnytsky Railroad Bridge, Petrivsky Bridge, Paton Bridge, Park Pedestrian Bridge, Moskovsky Bridge, and Pivdenny Bridge. To read about them, click here:

Exploring the life story and physical world of writer Mykola Khvylovy TOP

Pathway to Khvylovy
By Volodymyr PANCHENKO, special to The Day, photos by the author

The life story of Mykola Khvylovy, the writer who was the number one figure in Ukrainian literature in the period of the Executed Renaissance, is still full of mystery. The writer's early biography (1893-1921) is especially enigmatic. If it were not for Khvylovy's biography written by him in 1924 for a "three-man party purge panel," if it were not for the efforts of Prof. Hryhorii Kostiuk from the USA, who collected the reminiscences of those who remembered Mykola Fitilev (this was the writer's real name) in the time of his adolescence, we would know very little about the classic's childhood, adolescence, and youth.

Meanwhile, the autobiographical information for the "three-man party purge panel" and memoir records, which were published at one point by the diaspora, contain a lot of precious leads for a literary historian. Actually, they urged me to make a trip to the writer's homeland, namely: the present-day Sumy, Poltava, and Kharkiv regions.

Before that there was a suggestion from the historian Yurii Shapoval to join the preparation of Mykola Khvylovy's dossier-form he had found in the SBU (the Security Service of Ukraine) archives. The book has recently been published in the Tempora Publishing House entitled Poliuvannia na Valdshnepa (Hunting for Woodcocks) and supplemented by the documentary Tsar i rab khytroshchiv (The Tsar and a Slave to Slyness) filmed by the director Iryna Shatokhina; the script and narration were done by Yurii Shapoval.

The publication's literary criticism that accompanied the publication involved immersion into the epoch, the dramatic story of a person without whose works, ideas, and deeds it is impossible to imagine the cultural and sociopolitical "landscape" of Ukraine in the 1920s and the 1930s. Experience prompted that working with books and archival materials was not enough; it is necessary, according to Goethe's advice, to go to the writer's homeland.


To read about the geographical meanderings of the author as he explores the life of Mykola Khvylovy, click here: http://www.day.kiev.ua/291800/

Images of 20th-century Ukraine in Vasyl Pylypiuk's works TOP
#7, Tuesday, 9 February 2010

Poet of photography
Images of 20th-century Ukraine in Vasyl Pylypiuk's works and in his gallery

Photo by Vasyl Pylypiuk

"He is a poet of photography; he sees the beauty of life and people everywhere. He can find that very angle from which he will tell what we simply do not notice," emphasizes Roman Lubkivsky, the Taras Shevchenko National Prize winner. "He stops the moment and transforms it into eternity...These things make him a unique master in Ukraine and far beyond its borders. He can combine unsurpassed skill with business qualities."

For Pylypiuk the syncretism of Ukrainian culture includes indivisibility of the Truth, Beauty, and Good, i.e. the categories, which are furiously attacked by a surrogate of a foreign mass culture -- commercials, thrillers, action movies, pop music, pulp fiction, porn, gory films, and so on. Distrust in one's own national culture is a sign of alienation from the Ukrainian nation and the issues of its development. Pylypiuk is working selflessly, providing for the moral and psychological recovery of Ukrainians, who are duped and crippled by foreign ideology and politics. He opens a window into the great world of knowledge, Ukraine's recognition, and love for it.

"Vasyl Pylypiuk is one of the greatest historians of Ukraine. His images of 20th-century Ukraine will survive centuries," says Dmytro Pavlychko in reference to his art works. "I am pleased to know that my native land gave to the world a world-scale artist, a master of light and shadow."

At each of his numerous exhibits in such countries as Russia, Poland, Canada, Germany, the USA, Turkey, France, Austria, Morocco, Moldova, Great Britain, Azerbaijan, Latvia, and others, the Honored Artist of Ukraine Vasyl Pylypiuk opens before the world community the most interesting, inspiring, and important Ukrainian diversity, love for freedom, invincibility of the national spirit, pride, tolerance, and the generosity of Ukrainians. Having established Ukraine's first and world's best photo gallery, Vasyl Pylypiuk is now organizing powerful photo exhibits, noted Willy Suys, head of the Patronage Service of the International Federation of Photographic Art (FIAP). In June 2009 he opened the first international photo salon, where 250 photo masterpieces from 39 countries were presented.

By reviving the photo magazine Light and Shadow, which was issued in Lviv in 1933-39, Vasyl Pylypiuk, associate professor and honored doctor of the Ukrainian Academy of Typography, made a great contribution into the treasury of Ukrainian and the world culture. Teaching at Demianchuk Rivne International Economic and Humanitarian University, he generously shares with the students his impressive experience in photography -- over 60 photo albums. At present, his "My Ukraine" albums are most powerful in terms of their national spirit and artistic talent.

Pylypiuk, winner of the National Taras Shevchenko Prize, is a native of the Pokuttia region. He always longs for his native village of Novoselytsia in Ivano-Frankivsk oblast. "I often go home from Lviv by the same way as Vasyl Pylypiuk. My native village of Triitsia is about 10 kilometers away from Pylypiuk's Novoselytsia," wrote Ruslana Orenchuk when she was a student at the Department of Journalism at Franko Lviv National University. "On both sides of the road there is beautiful Carpathian nature. But I, unfortunately, do not see those views that Vasyl does, and he immortalizes them on film. Maybe, you need to look, feel, love, and see this world in some special way to discover the splendor of Ukrainian beauty. His native land constantly inspires and invigorates him -- he is unique, and both the Pokuttia region and entire Ukraine take pride in him. The whole world is proud of him."

Everyone who knows Pylypiuk and his family well is convinced that there is inspiration of his loyal and patient wife Hanna (he tenderly called her Nusia) in the maestro's creative pursuit. In love they brought to the world three beautiful kids -- Khrystyna, Yaryna, and Volodymyr, who continues his father's profession.

Pylypiuk's photography and social and political activity are aimed at the protection and development of Ukrainian nature, Ukrainian identity in all its regions, and understanding Ukraine as a unified state that longs for harmony, mutual respect, and friendship between people of different nationalities, large and small countries, and the strong and the weak of the earth's civilization. He is aware of his duty, responsibility, and the fact that people and Ukraine need him.

Pylypiuk is a member of Ukraine's National Union of Journalists, board member of Ukraine's National Union of Photographic Artists, and president of the Light and Shadow Publishing Enterprise. He is deeply convinced that the most important and urgent task for Ukrainian artists, journalists, politicians now is to instill in people's minds state-oriented thinking as a kind of thinking that is national, humane, democratic, and civic. It involves responsibility for the fate of oneself, one's family, and Ukraine.

Проект Culture for Community знайомить киян з творчістю видатних українських музикантів TOP
4 лютого 2010

Музичний проект Culture for Community (Культура для спільноти)

В Україні діє музичний проект Culture for Community (Культура для спільноти), який ставить перед собою виключно культурно-просвітницьку задачу – знайомить киян з творчістю видатних українських музикантів, які мешкають як в Україні, так і за її межами. Також, однією з важливих задач проекта є популяризація найкращих взірців класичної музики, знайомство та просування музики українських композиторів.

Culture for Community – це також культурологічний проект, в основу якого покладена ідея – фундувати знання через класичну музику. Ми впевнені, що тільки класична музика несе в собі ту чистоту відчуттів, які так потрібні сучасній людині. Наш проект працює ще й для тих, хто може не зовсім розуміє класичну музику, але прагне її пізнати та отримати від неї те, чим вона наповнена.

Проект покликаний підготувати зібрання високоосвічених людей які мають, або накопичують внутрішній слухацький досвід та творчій потенціал, який дає можливість розвинути в собі меценатські думки та ідеї, якими було багате Київське суспільство 19 стор

Сайт проекту:

Герої політично-сатиричного ситкому Недоторканим TOP

Недоторканим не дають прорватися на ТБ
Олександр Бондаренко
Бі-Бі-Сі, Київ

Всі троє керівників...

Вони сваряться, б’ються, розважаються, потроху обманюють своїх виборців і, звичайно ж, піклуються про життя країни.

Вони – недоторкані. Герої політично-сатиричного ситкому з такою ж назвою. Поки що 16 серій серіалу, які планувалися до показу в ефірі одного з загальноукраїнських телеканалів відкладені. Але досить давно доступні до скачування в мережі інтернет. Їх там оцінили дуже схвально.

Але чому жанр політичної сатири в Україні не надто популярний?

Джулія Владіміровна, Федір Вікторович, Андрій Вікторович – це три головні герої серіалу. Окрім них є другорядні: мер Космовецький, Нестор Муфрич, Богуславська, Тягнишкіль, Комуненко.... В усіх персонажах досить легко впізнати справжніх політиків. Принаймні тим глядачам, які бачили хоча б кілька випусків новин з України.

Джулія Володимирівна слухає!

В одній із серій Джулія Владимирівна провокує боксерський поєдинок між Андрієм Вікторовичем та Федором Вікторовичем за крісло гаранта. Вона сама його судить і сама у ньому перемагає. В іншій серії – недоторкані знімають з себе недоторканість, але з’ясовується, що то був страшний сон.

Ще один епізод – герої намагаються врятувати українську економіку за рецептами гардеробниці Світлани. Нічого не виходить...

„Гардеробниця Світлана: Ну, при чому тут я?!!

Джулія Владіміровна: Так, Свєта, не мороч нам голову! Це була твоя стратегія виходу країни з кризи. І ти маєш нести за це відповідальність!!”

Показ серіалу планувався на осінь минулого року. До сьогодні епізоди „Недоторканих” доступні лише користувачам мережі інтернет.

Ось так виглядає парламент у світі ситкому

Валентин Опалев, один з авторів шоу Довгоносиків, популярного гумористичного серіалу середини дев’яностих, був продюсером „Недоторканих”.

Він розповів, що досить філософські поставився до того, що серіал не побачили глядачі.

„Ну, звичайно, трошки є... Але це ж моя робота... Я її роблю. Мені замовили – я зробив.

Звичайно, ж... приміром, я свого часу робив „Довгоносиків”, реакція на них є до сьогодні. І на цей серіал , я переконаний теж була б хороша реакція. Але це така справа...”

Андрій Вікторович - один з героїв серіалу

Серіал виготовлений на замовлення каналу „Україна”. ПР-менеджер Ганна Остапчук повідомила БіБіСі, що його показ відклали через початок президентської кампанії, щоб „Недоторканих” не розцінили як агітацію за чи проти якогось кандидата. За повідомленням, канал „Україна” „сподівається продовжити співпрацю з творчою групою.”

Але чому інші українські телеканали навіть не спробували зробити чогось подібного?

Сергій Рахманін, оглядач тижневика „Дзеркало тижня” і автор цілої книжки сатиричних віршів про політичне життя часів Президента Кучми. Він вважає, що суспільного запиту в Україні на політичну сатиру немає. Водночас, пан Рахманін критикує політиків за спроби вдаватися до замовної сатири:

„Політики, я думаю, хочуть, щоб політична сатира з’являлася, але ця сатира не чіпала їх самих. Саме тому, вони, з одного боку, спричинили появу великої кількості псевдосатиричних творів. З іншого боку, заважають з’явитися сатирі. Справжній, змістовній, громадсько-спрямованій... Тому що сатира замовною, на моє глибоке переконання, не може бути за визначенням.”

"Політики хочуть, щоб політична сатира з’являлася, але ця сатира не чіпала їх самих. Саме тому вони, з одного боку, спричинили появу великої кількості псевдосатиричних творів. З іншого боку, заважають з’явитися сатирі."

Сергій Рахманін, "Дзеркало тижня"

Режисер серіалу Максим Паперник називає „Недоторканих новим етапом своєї творчої кар’єри. Згадує, що жив вдень і вночі цією роботою. Він каже, що жодних побажань, замовники серіалу не висловлювали:

„Нам дали можливість реалізувати себе. І це такий погляд нашої творчої групи на ті процеси, які на той час відбувалися в українській політиці. Тобто, ви маєте розуміння, яке це щастя для митця, що навіть коли він стикається з таким складним і інколи брудним матеріалом як політика. Але ця незаангажовваність дає простір для творчості. Чим ми ретельно й займалися.”

Наприкінці кожної серії автори зазначають: „Усі особи та події вигадані, будь-яка схожість з реальним життям цілком випадкова.” Але поки що пересвідчитися в цьому можна не на телебаченні, а лише через мережу інтернет.

Історики підтвердили 1011 рік датою заснування Софії Київської TOP

Українські історики впевнені, що Софія Київська була закладена князем Володимиром, хрестителем Русі у 1011 році, а завершена його сином Ярославом Мудрим у 1018 році.

Таку думку вони висловили на круглому столі в Києві, присвяченому питанням датування будівництва Святої Софії у Києві.

Як відомо, в історії існує дві дати заснування Софії Київської: «Повість минулих літ» називає 1037, тоді як Новгородський літопис вказує на 1017 рік.

На думку заввідділу науково-історичних досліджень Національного заповідника «Софія Київська», доктора історичних наук Надії Нікітенко літописні дати заснування Софії Київської штучно прив’язані до головних літ княжіння Ярослава Мудрого.

«Ярослав посів київський стіл не за заповітом батька, а в результаті гострої міжусобної боротьби з іншими нащадками Володимира, йому важливо було заявити про себе як про легітимного правителя, найбільш гідного спадкоємця Володимира хрестителя. Тому найважливішим діянням Ярослава його літописцями представлено будівництво ним Софії – головної святині Русі», – сказала Надія Нікітенко.

Натомість, на її думку, такі нелітописні джерела, як «Слово про Закон і Благодать» Іларіона 1022 року і хроніка Тітмара Мерзебурзького 1018 року засвідчують виникнення Софії за часів Володимира. «Їх свідчення щодо виникнення Софії в другому десятиріччі 11 ст. підтверджується результатами і сучасних наукових досліджень», – запевнила доктор історичних наук.

За її словами, Софія містить у собі найбільш достовірні автентичні дані щодо часу свого виникнення. Так, найважливіше значення у цьому відношенні мають датовані написи графіті на її стінах.

«Виявлені на фресках у різних місцях собору графіті 1018, 1021, 1022, 1028, 1033, 1036 років спростовують 1037 рік як час заснування чи завершення Софії. Перекреслюють вони і 1017 рік, адже переконливо свідчать, що вже до 1018-1021 року собор стояв і був прикрашений розписами, значить Софія виникла в другому десятиріччі 11 століття», - сказала Надія Нікітенко.

Також вона зазначила, що, зіставивши з цим часом дні освячення Софії, можна датувати її закладення або посвячення неділею 4 листопада 1011 року, а завершення посвячення, інавгурацію, неділею 11 травня 1018 року.

Крім того, дні освячення Софії Київської неділя 4 листопада і 11 травня фактично збігаються з днями закладин і освячення Константинополя – нового Єрусалиму християнського світу.

«Закладини Константинополя сталися у неділю 8 листопада 324 року, а у неділю 11 травня 330 року відбулося освячення міста, який у 1011 році випав на 4 листопада. Орієнтований на сакральний взірець, час створення Софії київської був підпорядкований концепції Києва як нового Єрусалиму, що підтверджується ключовим посвятним написом», – сказала Надія Нікітенко.

У Львові створять Сад світового українства TOP
11 лютого 2010 року

У червні 2010 року Львів втретє прийматиме українців зі всіх континентів світу під час Міжнародного конгресу «Діаспора як чинник утвердження держави Україна у міжнародній спільноті», ініціатором та організатором яких є Міжнародний інститут освіти, культури та зв’язків з діаспорою Національного університету «Львівська політехніка».

З цієї нагоди Інститут, підтримуючи ідею головного редактора газети «День» Лариси Івшиної, виступив з ініціативою закласти «Сад світового українства».

Цей задум одразу був підтриманий Андрієм Садовим, львівським міським головою. Організаційні питання покладені на працівників управління екології та благоустрою департаменту містобудування Львівської міської ради. Ці молоді небайдужі люди перейнялися проблемою. І дуже швидко було знайдено місце – на території, яку люблять львів’яни і гості, місці велелюдному, самобутньому – «Музеї народної архітектури і побуту». Питання Саду було погоджено з директором музею та членами Наукової ради, на засіданні якої виступила з концепцією директор Інституту Ірина Ключковська.

Українці кожної країни будуть мати своє дерево. І всі разом вони творитимуть Сад, де ростимуть дерева України. Вони будуть цвісти, плодоносити, сягаючи глибоко корінням у рідну землю. Сад як символ краси, сили, збірний образ українських традицій, символ збереження і примноження нашого українства, нашої єдності, що передаватиметься з покоління у покоління.


Музей Народної архітектури та побуту (Шевченківський гай)

Скансен (музей просто неба або село-музей) на Кайзервальді був відкритий у 1971 році. Ідея створення цього музею належить відомому українському вченому Іларіону Свєнціцькому, який ще у 30-х роках ХХ сторіччя започаткував роботу зі створення музею просто неба. Тоді вдалося перевезти до Львова лише один експонат — Миколаївську церкву з с. Кривка. У 1966 році за ініціативою працівників Музею етнографії та художнього промислу розпочалися конкретні роботи, було створено відділ народного будівництва, який у 1971 році й був реорганізований у Музей народної архітектури і побуту.

Експозиція музею налічує близько 120 пам’яток народної архітектури із західних регіонів України. Окрім того у постійній експозиції та сховищах музею знаходиться близько 20 тисяч предметів щоденного побуту і ужиткового мистецтва.

Територія музею площею 60 га умовно розділена на шість етнографічних зон. Кожна зона — це міні-село, що складається з 15 — 20 пам’яток народної архітектури. У житлових та господарчих приміщеннях розміщено предмети домашнього повсякденного вжитку, сільськогосподарський реманент, транспортні засоби та ремісничий інструмент. Шість таких міні-сіл мають назви: «Бойківщина», «Лемківщина», «Гуцульщина», «Буковина», «Поділля» і «Львівщина».


Observers find flaws with Ukraine elections, recommend electoral TOP

Feb. 9, 2010

Ukrainians went to the polls on Sunday, Feb. 7 to elect the person who will lead their country into the second decade of the 21st century. The Election Observation Mission (EOM) of the Canada Ukraine Foundation (CUF), in association with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC), deployed 65 experienced and trained Canadian election observers in 6 oblasts (regionals) for the First Round of the Presidential Elections. On February 1st, CUF deployed a further 50 observers, in 6 oblasts which were chosen in cooperation with the CANADEM Observer Group, so that 24 of the 25 oblasts, plus Kyiv and Sevastopol, were covered by Canadian international observers. In addition, a substantial number of experienced CUF observers were part of the 200 person CANADEM observer delegation.

On balance, in the oblasts under observation, there was an adequate attempt to meet internationally accepted standards for free and fair elections. However there remains an overriding concern that the institutionalization of free and fair elections requires a greater exercise of political will at the highest levels.

The EOM noted drawbacks and made several recommendations, contained in the Preliminary Observation Report presented in Kyiv on Feb. 9. The highlights include:

  • It is disappointing to find that the Central Election Commission did not register or accredit a single observer from Georgia for the Second Round, despite various attempts by the Georgian EOM to register their observers
  • If one wished to build a strong civil society, and strong and durable democratic institutions that have the respect of the citizenry, it would have been very important to maintain the right of civil society organizations to monitor presidential elections as an important safeguard for the transparency of the election process
  • CUF recommends the creation of a permanent election civil service at the district and local election committee level. It is our recommendation that Ukraine reform its election laws and process and address the partisan nature of the election commissions at the national, district and local levels.
  • An additional item of electoral reform must be the financing of elections. It is commonly known that the current Presidential elections cost each side over $500 million. As recommended by some members of the European Parliament, Ukraine should bring forward a set of legislative amendments to limit the amount of spending by any candidates to a predetermined, more modest maximum level.

The Canada-Ukraine Foundation (CUF) is a Canadian charitable foundation established by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress to coordinate, develop, organize and deliver assistance projects generated by Canadians and directed to Ukraine. CUF has organized and lead several internationally-acclaimed election observation missions to Ukraine, earning the highest award available to a Canadian civic organization -- the Certificate of Commendation -- bestowed by the Governor General of Canada in 2005.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC) brings together under one umbrella all the national, provincial and local Ukrainian Canadian organization throughout Canada. Together with its member organizations, the UCC has been leading, coordinating and representing the interests of one of Canada's largest ethnic communities (1.2 million) for almost 70 years. CUF, in association with UCC, established its 2010 Election Observation Mission (EOM) in August 2009 and reviewed and commented on the Law on the Election of the President of Ukraine ("the Election Law") to the Speaker of Parliament, the President's Administration and the Cabinet of Ministers. The Verkhovna Rada chose not to make any changes based on the 22 Recommendations made by the CUF/UCC expert panel on the Election Law.

Preliminary Observation Report, Second Round

Gerard Kennedy, MP: A revolution lives underground TOP
Feb 09 2010

By Gerard Kennedy

Imagine an election process run by the political parties themselves with no independent referee.

Add in a razor's edge margin between shifting coalitions within a few points of one another over the last several elections, which makes every single vote consequential.

That was Sunday's presidential election runoff in Ukraine.

That was also the challenge for an estimated 3,700 international observers, including at least 280 Canadians, trying to cover 35,000 polls in 26 oblasts (provinces) in this country of 46 million.

It was an election where the leading candidate didn't show up for the only debate and parliament was convened a few days ago by one side to make a new set of laws on voting in time for election day.

The years-long see-saw of one group tilting east to Russia and the other west to Europe was overshadowed by a heavily hit economy and a comprehensive distrust of the integrity of institutions. (Ninety per cent in a recent poll said hospitals are corrupt -- this before going on to a discussion of corruption in courts, police, banks and politics.)

Yet the grim context was belied by the mobilization of half a million dutiful citizens to stage the election themselves through national, regional and poll level committees and by a voter turnout higher than during Canada's last federal election.

The worn schools, factories and volleyball stadiums that housed some of the polling sites often were freezing cold, yet polling station teams of 16 women and men sat for 15-hour shifts, and then sat again in the hallways of municipal buildings waiting for hours more through the night to turn in their bulging bags of ballots and meticulous count protocols to the regional committee.

The enthusiasm of 2004's Orange Revolution is not much evident in today's Ukraine in the face of the failure of expectations of its standard bearers and a paralyzed parliament.

Even a short-term visitor learns that just two of 20 local implement factories in the breadbasket farming zone of Kirovograd oblast are open. You discover this is a society where mothers have to stay overnight with their children in the local hospital to ensure they have care (30 voted on site Sunday), particularly if they haven't paid or can't afford the informal "dues" that too many health-care professionals collect in an ostensibly, but not in reality, free system. Where decrepit schools are regularly shut because of their inability to withstand cold temperatures, and where teachers earn just 700 hryvni (less than $100 U.S.) a month.

And yet there is a certain kind of optimism here. Everywhere one encounters the unflappable determination of the fur-hatted, over-40 crowd and the buoyant outlook of a newly globally oriented youth who refuse to feel trapped in the societal gear-grinding all around them.

Where does the Ukrainian belief in a better tomorrow come from? The thought emerges slowly through a variety of conversations: Citizens feel they really are in charge of reinventing their own society, regardless of the shenanigans and failures of those above them.

The Orange Revolution lives, it seems, underground.

Their humble ambition has already infected hundreds of individual Canadians, many of Ukrainian heritage, who have grown from previous short-term election observers into admirable long-term investors of their personal time, trouble and hope through repeated impressive weeks-long deployments to help regulate the country's do-it-yourself election efforts.

Helpful as the election mission is, the Ukrainian challenge is really an opportunity that cries out for constant, not intermittent, involvement.

Canadian governments, institutions, private companies and NGOs (not only Ukrainian Canadian ones) need to be linked in a strategy to make us a helpful presence that will assist a turnaround for a country that is connected to 1 million Canadians, on the way to forging a mutually beneficial, special social and economic relationship.

My smart 23-year-old translator Yulia tells me the inside joke here is that the only thing to answer foreigners when they ask what's new in Ukraine: "Well, we have another election."

A new Canadian commitment founded on respect for the potential in Ukrainian society can help change that punchline -- before Yulia loses hope.

Gerard Kennedy, Liberal Member of Parliament for Parkdale-High Park was also an election observer for the parliamentary elections of 2007, when his group was intimidated and threatened with charges when approximately13,000 duplicate voters were discovered on the voter lists in the south eastern town of Mariupol, Donetsk.

Tymoshenko to fight Ukraine election loss in court TOP
Armed with a million vote fraud proof Tymoshenko is heading to court.

Not going to court would mean giving up Ukraine to criminals without a fight.

Tymoshenko Demanding Second Runoff

February 13, 2010

Richard Balmforth

KYIV (Reuters) - Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko declared on Saturday that she had proof of cheating in a February 7 presidential election by her rival Viktor Yanukovich which she would take to court to contest his victory.

In her first real public appearance since Sunday's poll, the charismatic 49-year-old Tymoshenko said: "I want to clearly state: Yanukovich is not our president. Whatever happens in future, he will never become the legitimately elected president of Ukraine."

But, in a televised broadcast to the nation, she promised not to call people out in mass street protests like those of the 2004 Orange Revolution, when she helped lead a successful challenge to his election and had it overturned as fraudulent.

"I will not call another 'Maidan' (Independence Square demonstration) and will not allow public protests," she said.


According to preliminary official figures, Yanukovich beat her by 3.5 percentage points with about 880,000 more votes.

"Today I can firmly tell you that Ukraine's elections were falsified and this is not a political declaration but a clear legal assessment by lawyers," said Tymoshenko.

"With all this proof, I have taken the only possible decision: to challenge the results of the election in court. I will defend our state and the choice we made on the basis of legal documents," she said.

"Not going to court would mean giving up Ukraine to criminals without a fight."


Yanukovich, in an interview aired earlier on Saturday by Russian television, said Ukraine may allow Russia to station its Black Sea Fleet in the port of Sevastopol beyond a scheduled withdrawal in 2017.

He also said he was keen to improve gas relations with Russia and would revive the idea of a gas consortium that would allow Moscow to co-manage Ukrainian pipelines.

The Tymoshenko camp says Western leaders have backed him because they are fearful of unrest breaking out in the ex-Soviet state of 46 million.

Tymoshenko did not refer specifically to Western support for Yanukovich nor to the endorsement of the election by international monitors, led by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

But she said some OSCE observers had proof, including video material, of "systematic falsification" in the voting and were ready to speak out on this in court.

Complete article:

Election Fraud in Ukraine’s 2010 Elections TOP
Yanukovych argued throughout the 2010 election campaign that there had been no election fraud in 2004 and he claimed that ‘proof’ of this assertion could be found in the fact that there had been no criminal charges against him or his campaign team. ... It is therefore the height of hypocrisy to argue that Yulia Tymoshenko should quickly recognise the election results in the interests of Ukraine’s democracy.


February 17, 2010

Taras Kuzio

Ukraine’s January-February 2010 presidential elections did not experience the same degree of mass falsification as in October-November 2004. Were that to have been the case international observers from the OSCE and Council of Europe would have undoubtedly found evidence of election fraud.

To conclude that there was no election fraud would be at the same time also mistaken.  In an election which was extremely close, such as this years presidential election, where every vote counted, even minimum election fraud would be important in swinging the vote in one way or another.

Those who undertook election fraud five years ago were never punished. In September 2005 after President dismissed the Yulia Tymoshenko government he signed a treasonous memorandum with Yanukovych that betrayed the Maidan.  In return for Party of Regions votes to confirm Yuriy Yekhanurov as Prime Minister, Yushchenko gave an amnesty to the organisers and facilitators of election fraud.

This was particularly the case with the organisers – then President Leonid Kuchma (who had a constitutional obligation to ensure free and fair elections), then Prime Minister and candidate Viktor Yanukovych, Serhiy Tihipko (who ran Yanukovych’s election campaign), the head of the shadow campaign Andriy Kluyev, and the head of the presidential administration Viktor Medvedchuk. Foreign citizens from Russia, working with Kluyev and in the Russian Club, were also heavily involved in election fraud and two assassination attempts against Viktor Yushchenko.

Yanukovych argued throughout the 2010  election campaign that there had been no election fraud in 2004 and he claimed that ‘proof’ of this assertion could be found in the fact that there had been no criminal charges against him or his campaign team. Yanukovych has continued to argue that he was legally elected and that the 3 December 2004 Supreme Court decision to annul the second round results and hold a re-run of them was ‘illegal’.

It is therefore the height of hypocrisy to argue that Yulia Tymoshenko should quickly recognise the election results in the interests of Ukraine’s democracy. Five years on, Yanukovych  has still not recognised the 2004 election results! Should not the 2004 election results be recognised by Yanukovych first before those just held?

As Vadym Karasyov said, ‘Yanukovych did the same thing after 2004, by never acknowledging accusations that he took part in widespread fraud’ (Kyiv Post, 11 February).

After Yushchenko was elected in what the OSCE and Council of Europe described as a free and fair election on 26 December 2004, Yanukovych continued to issue legal challenges in the courts. Only after these challenges were exhausted and rejected could Yushchenko be inaugurated on 23 January 2005.

So, again Yanukovych. Be patient. You had your turn to legally challenge Yushchenko’s election in 2004. Why cannot Tymoshenko also legally challenge your election. As Tymoshenko argued, ‘Not going to the courts today would mean leaving Ukraine to criminals without a fight’.

As Committee of Voters head Oleksandr Cherneko said, compared to 2004 there was less election fraud but it was nevertheless higher than in the 2006 and 2007 parliamentary elections


This is especially the case in the light of the fact that those involved in election fraud in the 2004 Yanukovych campaign  were again involved in reduced amounts of fraud this year. Yushchenko’s lack of political will and his unwillingness  to prosecute the organisers of election fraud in 2004  led directly to their ability to undertake more refined election fraud this year.

As Committee of Voters head Oleksandr Cherneko said,  compared to 2004 there was less election fraud but it was nevertheless higher than in the 2006 and 2007 parliamentary elections (Kyiv Post, 11 February).

In the 2004 elections  the Yanukovych campaign massively abused state administrative resources to pressure those who receive a salary from the authorities to vote for the authorities candidate. This year, such brazen tactics of fraud were not used; instead, in Western and Central Ukraine state and local employees of the state were pressured to stay at home.

In the 2010 elections there is evidence of the continued practice from 2004 of the Party of Regions transporting voters to polling stations. This constitutes a form of pressure on voters to vote in the ‘right’ way for the ‘correct’ candidate – Yanukovych.

The transportation led to an artificial increase in the turnout in Eastern Ukraine. Furthermore, intensive campaigning on the day of elections is in violation of the law.

The aim was to reduce the turnout in areas of Ukraine where Tymoshenko is popular. The most dramatic example of such refined election fraud tactics took place in Zakarpattia, a region controlled by Viktor Baloga who worked for the Yanukovych election campaign. In both rounds of the elections turnout was suspiciously the same – 56% - one of the lowest in Ukraine (see my blog from Uzhorod at http://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/kuzyo/4b6bb5f197f28/).

In the first round Yanukovych came first in Zakarpattia, the only region in Western Ukraine. This in of itself should have led election observers to question the election results in that region.

Further low turnout in Western Ukraine was facilitated by Yushchenko who did not honour his constitutional duty to remain objective between candidates. Not only did he sign election law changes only 3 days before the second round. He more importantly called upon voters to vote against both candidates and indirectly therefore  assisted the Yanukovych campaign by encouraging ‘orange’ voters to stay at home.

As The Economist (8 February) wrote: ‘Mr Yanukovich gained mightily from Mr Yushchenko who failed to deliver on any of his election promises and developed an almost irrational hatred of Ms Tymoshenko. Mr Yushchenko won just over 5% in the first round of presidential elections on January 17th and called on his supporters in western Ukraine to vote against both candidates. It is this 4% of Ukrainian votes that probably deprived Ms Tymoshenko of victory’.

A second factor to take into account is that free and fair elections are impossible to hold in areas of Ukraine where the Party of Regions has total control of the local administration. This refers to Donetsk, Luhansk and the Crimea – three Party of Regions strongholds.

A third factor is the inadequacy of Ukraine’s voter lists. The difference between the number of voters on the Derzhavnyi Reestr vybortsiv is 35, 997, 686 while the number of voting slips sent out for the second round was 36, 291.369.  This represents a discrepancy of nearly 300,000 voter slips.  Voters added illegally to the list of voters eligible to vote on 7 February were particularly high in the Crimean autonomous republic, Kharkiv, Donetsk and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts.

Six further examples of election fraud included:

·      A high number of ballots cast for Tymoshenko that were damaged and therefore invalidated.

·      Damaged ballots were added in favour of Viktor Yanukovych in Southern and Eastern Ukraine.

·      Local government authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk drew up parallel lists of voters enabling voters to vote twice.

·      Voting by election commissioners or other voters for other persons not present at the polling station.

·      Numerous violations in the PEC protocols submitted to the DECs and violations of requirements on the corrections in the PEC protocols.

·      As in 2004, a suspiciously high number of voters who voted from home (more then 1 million), many of whom did not have permission to do so. There was a high incidence of home voting based on applications written in the same handwriting.

Election Watchdog Group Supports Call for Independent Investigation Into Ukraine Election Results: Yanukovich Campaign Team Tied to Election Rigging Allegations in United States TOP

Washington, Feb. 16, 2010

Ukrainian presidential candidate and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko last week alleged that over one million votes were stolen by opposition candidate Viktor Yanukovich in the February 7th presidential run-off election. http://japantoday.com/category/world/view/tymoshenko-calls-ukraine-vote-rigged She has filed over 60 complaints with the Central Election Commission and has called the irregularities "shocking."

In 2004, Mr. Yanukovich's campaign was caught rigging the election after members of his election team were recorded discussing how to destroy evidence that showed tampering with the tabulation results. That revelation led to massive protests in the street, the Orange Revolution and a new vote which resulted in the election of Viktor Yushchenko.

The back story regarding the 2004 election theft was provided in public testimony last year by CIA Agent Steven Stigall, who confirmed that Victor Yanukovich stole that October 2004 election by secretly placing a (man in the middle) computer in the central tabulation facility and flipping the results (by 14% according to other sources). This rigging was suspected because the exit polls favored Victor Yushchenko by 11%. However, it was only proven by taped phone calls between Yanukovich's campaign managers discussing the rigging and the attempted cover-up. http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/StandardsBrd_Verbatimfinal.add.doc

Yanukovich's campaign team in 2004 and 2010 included Rick Davis and Paul Manafort, the owners of a Washington, D.C. lobbying/PR firm called 3eDC. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/20/new-questions-over-mccain_n_108204.html 3eDC has bragged on its website that it had five "strategic partners." http://web.archive.org/web/20070304101901/www.3edc.net/partners/

* New Media Communications, run by CEO Mike Connell, who has been accused of rigging GOP elections
* Integrated Web Strategy, another Connell affiliated company that works with Chamber of Commerce Institute of Legal Reform, which has been found by courts to have engaged in illegal election manipulations
* Campaign Solutions, run by Mike Connell's partner, Becki Donatelli
* Airnet Group, parent company of Smartech Corporation, owned by Jeff Averbeck, which was employed by Mike Connell in the controversial diversion of the state of Ohio's official vote prior to certification of a contested majority favoring George Bush over Democratic opponent John Kerry.
* Dynology Corp, which has a heavily military client list: "a majority of our staff hold security clearances that allow access to Secret and Top Secret classified government information."

Rick Davis/Paul Manafort/3eDC were managers of Yanukovich's 2004 election campaign and were key advisors in Yanukovich's 2010 election. They maintained a strategic partnership with both Mike Connell and Jeff Averbeck, both of whom have been accused of rigging Bush's elections. Mr. Connell was killed in a very suspicious December 2008 airplane crash after he was called to testify about the vote rigging allegations. According to an article in the February 2010 issue of Maxim magazine, Mr. Connell rigged the 2004 election for George Bush by creating a man in the middle attack to change the results of the Ohio election results. http://www.maxim.com/humor/stupid-fun/86265/mysterious-death-bushs-cyber-guru.html That attack was done through the GOP computers run by Smartech.
For all these reasons, VelvetRevolution, a non partisan election watchdog group, calls for an independent investigation and audit of the Ukrainian election, especially the tabulation of votes.

SOURCE VelvetRevolution.us

Yushchenko facilitates Yanukovych's election and buries the Orange Revolution TOP
Yushchenko, brought to power by the 2004 Orange Revolution, effectively destroyed the Orange Revolution himself. The Revolution, long the personal object of hate of former President Vladimir Putin who saw it as one of his personal policy failures, was buried by the very person (Yushchenko) whom Putin so despised.

Taras Kuzio

The two major myths promoted by President Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine's 2010 presidential elections were that there was no difference in policies between the two main candidates, Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko, and that both were "pro-Russian" candidates. These myths helped defeat Tymoshenko by 3% in an election where every vote counted.

Eight pieces of evidence point to the Yushchenko-Yanukovych alliance that facilitated Yanukovych's election.

Firstly, a total lack of criticism of Yanukovych by Yushchenko preceding the elections (Ukrayinska Pravda, February 10). Yushchenko never criticized Yanukovych's pro-Russian policies in energy (i.e. gas consortium, return to non-market, subsidized prices, revival of corrupt RosUkrEnergo), Russian as a state language, extension of the Black Sea Fleet base beyond 2017, opposition to a NATO Membership Action Plan, and the Party of Regions alliance with Russian extremist nationalists in Odesa and the Crimea. Yushchenko and the presidential secretariat threw daily abuse at Tymoshenko, accused her of "treason" and vetoed a record number of government policies.

Secondly, a draft agreement was leaked in December by a staff member of the presidential secretariat that revealed plans for a Yushchenko-Yanukovych alliance (UNIAN, December 25, 2009) (See EDM, January 5, 6). The Ukrainian discussed the issue of Yushchenko becoming prime minister under President Yanukovych (www.comments.com.ua, December 4, 2009).

In the event of a NUNS-Regions grand coalition being formed Yushchenko loyalist Yuriy Yekhanurov could be instead offered the position of Prime Minister (Ukrayinska Pravda, 8-10). Prime Minister and Our Ukraine leader Yekhanurov led negotiations with the Party of Regions after the March 2006 elections for a grand coalition that fell through. Yekhanurov was the head of the State Property Fund in the 1990s and the oligarchs are his "children".

Thirdly, the Party of Regions and the Our Ukraine-Peoples Self Defence (NUNS) faction, together with the Communists and Volodymyr Lytvyn bloc, sought to remove pro-Tymoshenko Interior Minister Yuriy Lutsenko. The vote was supported by NUNS deputy Petro Yushchenko.

Fourthly, between rounds one and two Yushchenko vetoed the cabinet's December 16, 2009 decree appointing General Hennady Moskal as Crimea's police chief (UNIAN, February 2). Moskal, who is a deputy in the pro-Lutsenko Peoples Self Defence group in NUNS, was praised for halting election fraud in favour of Yanukovych in round one.

"The Party of Regions, who are thick as thieves with Yushchenko, control administrative resources on the peninsular", Moskal said (www.zik.com.ua, February 11). The Tymoshenko campaign found evidence of fraud in the Crimea in round two (www.vybory.tymoshenko.ua, February 10).

Fifthly, between rounds one and two Yushchenko removed Kharkiv and Dniproptrovsk governors who had expressed support for Tymoshenko and had refused to provide administrative resources for Yanukovych's campaign. Yushchenko also removed six Ambassadors where there had been few votes for Yushchenko in round one (Ukrayinska Pravda, February 10). The Tymoshenko campaign called for the cancellation of the elections in Dnipropetrovsk where they had found evidence of fraud (www.vybory.tymoshenko.ua, February 10).

Sixthly, only five days before the second round the Party of Regions, the pro-Yanukovych wing of NUNS and the Communists voted through changes to the election law. President Yushchenko quickly signed the law into effect, ignoring a plea to veto it by the Committee of Voters (www.cvu.org.ua, February 4), independent experts, and Tymoshenko (Ukrayinska Pravda, 3-4).

The changes were widely condemned because they changed electoral rules in the middle of the elections. If the changes were deemed so important they should have been demanded by Yushchenko prior to round one. Yushchenko's actions proved that he had forged alliance with Yanukovych, Kyiv expert Volodymyr Fesenko said (www.politdumka.kiev.ua, February 4).

What was left of Yushchenko's reputation, in Ukraine and abroad, was effectively destroyed by his support for the electoral law changes because they undermined his role as the constitutional guarantor of free elections and his election campaign slogan of having brought democracy to Ukraine, Kyiv expert Ihor Zhdanov said (www.politdumka.kiev.ua, February 4). Oleksandr Tretiakov, a long timer ally, resigned from the Our Ukraine party that Yushchenko is honorary chairman of.

Seventh, and most controversially, between rounds one and two Yushchenko signed two decrees giving hero status to Organization of Ukrainian Nationalist leader Stepan Bandera and to honor members of different Ukrainian national liberation movements in the twentieth century (www.president.gov.ua, January 28). The decrees, immediately condemned by Russia, helped to additionally mobilize pro-Yanukovych voters in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. Professor Myroslav Popovych claimed the decrees "disorientated" Eastern-Southern Ukrainian voters and mobilized them against the "orange" candidate, Tymoshenko (Ukrayinsky Tyzhden, January 29-February 4).

The timing of the two decrees was suspicious as they were not issued prior to round one, when they could have given Yushchenko additional nationalist votes taking them away from Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok. The decrees could have been issued at any time in his presidency, as he had undertaken with an October 2007 decree giving hero status to Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) leader Roman Shukhevych (see EDM, October 23, 2007)? A decree in honor of Sich Sharpshooters, a Ukrainian unit in the Austrian army in World War I, was issued on January 6 before round one.

Eighth, Yuriy Shukhevych, son of the UPA commander, led a campaign in Lviv with other nationalist leaders in support of Yushchenko's call to vote against both candidates in round two. Evidence was provided by Tymoshenko in an appearance on Inter television (February 5) that these appeals were published in Lviv newspapers with financial assistance from the Yanukovych campaign.

Anti-semitic leaflets appeared in Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk (witnessed by this author) calling on voters to "Don't vote for that Jew", a reference to Tymoshenko's alleged father's ethnicity (the leaflet is reproduced by www.rferl, February 3).

The supreme irony of Ukraine's 2010 election campaign is that the nationalist candidate, Yushchenko, long vilified by Russia, facilitated the election of the pro-Russian candidate, Yanukovych, Moscow's favorite in the Ukrainian elections (see EDM, January 22, 27, 29).

Yushchenko, brought to power by the 2004 Orange Revolution, effectively destroyed the Orange Revolution himself. The Revolution, long the personal object of hate of former President Vladimir Putin who saw it as one of his personal policy failures, was buried by the very person (Yushchenko) whom Putin so despised.

No better final epitaph could have been better written for Yushchenko.

Interview on Ukraine's future with Alexander Motyl - audio TOP
February 10, 2010

Alexander Motyl, an Atlantic Council contributing editor and professor of political science at Rutgers University, appeared on Chicago Public Radio to discuss Yulia Tymoshenko's legal challenge to Viktor Yanukovych's victory in Ukraine's presidential runoff election on February 7.


Viktor Yanukovych: Ukraine Will Be a Bridge Between East and West TOP
February 17, 2010

By Viktor Yanukovych

We are a nation with a European identity, but we have historic cultural and economic ties to Russia as well. We can benefit from both.

Over the past month, Ukraine has demonstrated twice that it cherishes the values of democracy and the belief that it is important for people to vote. Ukraine's presidential election was validated by all of the major international observer groups as free, fair and transparent, which attested to the Ukrainian people's resolve for a democratic election. The people of Ukraine desired change and their voices were heard. Now we have the great responsibility to help our fellow countrymen, who have cast votes for me hoping for a better life.

This election was defined by a financial and economic crisis that has devastated our country. Before the global economic crisis, Ukraine was one of Europe's top emerging markets, and economic prosperity did not seem beyond our reach in the near term. Now all that has changed, and the people demanded change in the way our Government works in Ukraine.
We must still put an end to the political turmoil that has crippled Ukraine and held our country hostage for so long. I will work ardently to do this as president. The only way that this can be accomplished is for the top political forces and their leaders, immediately after the presidential election results have been declared and certified, to avoid confrontation and unite for the sake of saving our country. We are a nation capable of great things but we will accomplish none of them if we continue to bicker among ourselves and ignore the enormous challenges that we must confront.

Let me say here, a Yanukovych presidency is committed to the integration of European values in Ukraine. Ukraine should make use of its geopolitical advantages and become a bridge between Russia and the West. Developing a good relationship with the West and bridging the gap to Russia will help Ukraine. We should not be forced to make the false choice between the benefits of the East and those of the West. As president I will endeavor to build a bridge between both, not a one-way street in either direction. We are a nation with a European identity, but we have historic cultural and economic ties to Russia as well. The re-establishment of relations with the Russian Federation is consistent with our European ambitions. We will rebuild relations with Moscow as a strategic economic partner. There is no reason that good relations with all of our neighbors cannot be achieved.

If we hope to become a bridge between two important spheres we cannot merely talk and make promises; we must deliver concrete policies and achieve real progress. If we hope to join the European Union we must secure political stability and establish ourselves as an economically viable nation. We must be pragmatic and focused to achieve EU membership. We must create transparent policies that allow our economy to thrive and demonstrate that Ukraine will add value to the EU as a new member state.

I am committed to conducting a policy that would strengthen our links with respected international financial institutions, and increase our standing in the world economic community. My election program, "Ukraine for the People," is a deep and comprehensive plan that clearly specifies how to achieve social and economic progress. It is not an easy task. We will be confronted with the same conflicts as Europe and Washington have faced—how to stimulate our economy to create jobs while not decreasing the social protections needed by our citizens. We must defeat corruption, which has become rampant over the last several years and has damaged our ability to attract foreign investment.

If we hope to join the EU and raise the standard of living of Ukrainians to that of other European nations, we must restore our economy from within. There are three fundamental objectives the Ukrainian economy must achieve in order to thrive: First, we must create jobs; second, we must stabilize prices so people can afford the necessities that they need to live; and third, we must ensure our citizens receive adequate wages and pensions. Giving our citizens a basic economic foundation is a critical first step to restoring the broken bond between the people and the government of Ukraine.

And so that is my agenda—to restore economic vitality and calm the political turbulence that has plagued our nation; to enable Ukraine to take advantage of its natural positioning as a thriving bridge between Russia and the West; and finally, to prepare a free and open Ukraine, economically and politically, to join the European Union when the time comes.
Ukraine is a beautiful country with hard-working and virtuous people who ask only for a chance at a better life. I know that if we can come together, we will achieve great things. As president, I plan to give Ukrainians the nation they deserve—a Ukraine for the people.
Mr. Yanukovych is president-elect of Ukraine.

Curing 'Ukraine Fatigue' TOP

February 9, 2010

By Steven Pifer

Steven Pifer is a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution in Washington.

If Viktor Yanukovich, the winner of the presidential race in Ukraine, acts quickly to address his country's pressing problems, he could move it out of the doldrums and cure the "Ukraine fatigue" afflicting Washington and most European capitals.

As Viktor Yushchenko exits the presidency, Ukraine faces a host of problems. It suffered a crushing 14 percent fall in gross domestic product in 2009. Unwise pricing policies and widespread corruption have put the critical gas sector in virtual bankruptcy. The nasty in-fighting between Mr. Yushchenko and his prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, kept Kyiv from implementing needed responses to these challenges.


Ukraine fatigue returned with a vengeance. The country has ceased to be a priority for the European Union and, given everything now on the Obama foreign policy plate, barely registers on Washington's radar.

A serious attack on corruption would create better conditions for both Ukrainian and foreign businesses. Reforming the gas sector would strengthen Ukraine's energy security and benefit Europe: Gas spats between Kyiv and Moscow have twice in the past four years halted gas flows to Europe. Coherent policymaking in Kyiv would give Western capitals something with which to work.

Tackling this reform agenda will require tough decisions by Ukraine's new leadership. The United States and European Union should jointly send a message to Kyiv containing three key points: ...

Complete article:

Ukraine's voters speak, in two voices TOP
February 8, 2010

Robert Mackey


To get a sense of just how deep the divide between the predominantly Ukrainian-speaking west and the predominantly Russian-speaking east of Ukraine, consider a table on the Web site of Ukraine's electoral commission breaking the results of Sunday's election down by region, or a more user-friendly version of the data in this interactive map of the regional vote on the Web site of the respected Ukrainian newspaper Pravda.


The president's attacks on her ...Yulia Tymoshenko may have been a factor in Mr. Yanukovich's apparent success. According to the results, "against all" received 4.4 percent, more than Mr. Yanukovich's margin of victory.

While American readers may feel that an electoral map divided into red and blue regions is familiar, there is one thing that makes the result of Ukraine's presidential election this year different from the most recent one in the United States. The victor, Mr. Yanukovich, was advised by Paul J. Manafort, an American political consultant who has worked for Republicans and is a business partner of John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis. The loser, Ms. Tymoshenko, was advised by Larry Grisolano, who has consulted Democratic candidates and is a partner in a firm run by President Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, and his senior adviser, David Axelrod.

Sunday's election in Ukraine also had one feature missing from the 2008 contest in the U.S.: a protest by topless feminists -- shouting "Don't sell your vote! Don't be a slut!" and "The politicians are raping us!" -- at the polling station where the winning candidate cast his vote.

Weak public support for new Ukrainian leader - VOA video TOP

Reform priorities for Ukraine in 2010 by International Commission of Independent Experts TOP
In September 2009, the Independent International Expert Commission for a Reform Program for the New President of Ukraine was set up. It includes leading Ukrainian and foreign analysts. The aim of the Commission was to identify the reform priorities and to put forward concrete policy proposals for the first 300 days of the new Administration.

Reform Priorities for Ukraine in 2010
By International Commission of Independent Experts

This is an action program for the first year of a new presidency. After the presidential elections, Ukraine will have a unique opportunity to implement reforms that will lay foundation for sustainable economic growth. The new presidential mandate, the shock of a recent severe economic crisis, and popular dissatisfaction with the status-quo create ideal conditions for successful reforms. Our three main conclusions are: Ukraine needs (1) new organizational capacity for reforms, and (2) prioritization of reforms, and (3) utilization of international organizations as lighthouses to guide its reforms.

Our Commission's first conclusion is that Ukraine needs to establish new capacity to carry out reforms that is independent of the agencies to be reformed. We recommend creation of a Reform Commission at the Cabinet of Ministers, headed by a Deputy Prime Minister with overarching authority. The Reform Commission should have its own budget and a single goal: to design and implement reforms.

Together with the European Integration Secretariat, it should lead Ukraine's reforms from the Cabinet of Ministers.

Our second conclusion is that Ukraine needs to formulate clear priorities for reforms. Such priorities (listed below) have to be are either qualitatively or quantitatively measurable. First things need to be done first. Measurability is key for accountability. Ukraine must: (a) improve the effectiveness of the state, (b) achieve financial stability, (c) allow private enterprise freedom on the market, and (d) make social policy more effective. Our selection is based on experts' views of priorities that are also politically feasible within one year.

Our third conclusion is that it is necessary for Ukraine to use its international leverage or external guidance to break through the domestic logjam on reforms. The Commission has identified three anchors that can guide Ukraine to realize its commitment to its reforms: The IMF, the European Union andthe World Bank.

Ukraine's ten top priorities for 2010 are:

  • Carry out gas reform!
  • Make the National Bank of Ukraine independent!
  • Move toward inflation targeting!
  • Cut public expenditures!
  • Undertake comprehensive deregulation of enterprise!
  • Conclude a European Association Agreement!
  • Get privatization going again!
  • Legalize private sales of agricultural land!
  • Adopt a Law on Public Information!
  • Complete the modern commercial legislation!

Complete report: Proposals for Ukraine

The sight of Ukraine's lumpen victor should stir the EU's own into action TOP
10 February 2010

Timothy Garton Ash

Yanukovych's election is a startling historical turn, but the country can still have a more prosperous, free and European future

Ukraine is not yet lost. Yes, it's a gobsmacking reversal that Viktor Yanukovych, whose election fraud in Ukraine's 2004 presidential contest sparked the orange revolution, has now been elected president; but this is not the triumph of a blue counter-revolution. If anything, it confirms that Ukraine is becoming a serious democracy, rather than the Russian-type virtual democracy it was before the orange revolution. Unlike many so-called elections in authoritarian regimes, we did not know the result of this one in advance. Experienced international election monitors found it to be free and fair. Defeated princess Yulia Tymoshenko should not be disputing the result; she should be starting her campaign to win in 2015.


Real threats to effective sovereignty remain, including Russia's use of the gas weapon and the possibility of a blow-up over the Crimean peninsular, where the majority of the population is Russian and Russia's Black Sea fleet commands Sevastopol. But if these potential storms are weathered, and Yanukovych is voted out in 2015, then future historians may yet see this as a zig-zag step on the path to the consolidation of an independent Ukraine. That will, however, require courage in Kyiv, restraint in Moscow and strategic thinking in Brussels -- qualities currently in short supply in the respective capitals.

As someone who witnessed the orange revolution in Kyiv, and welcomed it enthusiastically, I must frankly acknowledge the disappointment that followed. Viktor Yushchenko turned out to be a pretty hopeless president, even before his hands were tied in power-sharing knots by the constitutional compromise that ended that revolution. Read the epilogue to the latest edition of Andrew Wilson's excellent history of the Ukrainians, and you find yourself in a world closer to The Sopranos than to The West Wing.


It's also true that over the last five years Ukraine has received less support from the EU than it should have. European leaders have been disgracefully mealy-mouthed about the prospect of Ukraine joining the union. Yet even the country's strongest advocates, such as Aleksander Kwasniewski, the former Polish president, have to acknowledge that the Ukrainians have often been their own worst enemies. Europe can't do for Ukraine what it won't do for itself.

In this respect, and for all her faults, the narrowly defeated Tymoshenko would have been better. Even by the low standards of post-communist politics, Yanukovych is a lumpen figure. A joke I heard in Kyiv at the time of his candidacy in the 2004 presidential election asked: "Did you know that Yanukovych is seeking a third term?" His first two terms were in prison, as a very young man, for robbery, grievous bodily harm and sexual assault.


The only silver lining is that, like so many other leaden and inarticulate leaders in the post-­communist world, he will surely mobilise young Ukrainians in embarrassment, disgust and ridicule.


The EU should move beyond its current weaselly language ("acknowledging the European aspirations of Ukraine and welcoming its European choice") to say, in terms, "we want you to be a member of the EU, when you satisfy all the conditions for membership. This is in our interest as well as yours." It will be hard work to get all the EU's national leaders to commit to that, but Ashton should start chipping away at it now. Five years in European politics is a long time.

Complete article:

Turn east, Lady Ashton TOP
Feb 11, 2010

PIGEONHOLING and false analogies are not part of formal international relations studies. But from the way that diplomats, policymakers and analysts talk about Ukraine, you would think they were compulsory courses.


But there is no sign of, or appetite for, a Ukrainian version of Vladimir Putin, not least because the West has not (yet) incinerated its credibility in Ukraine the way it did in Russia in the 1990s. Ukrainian politicians of all stripes, and the public, continue to want European values and European integration.

Brussels has yet to respond to that desire. European leaders missed the chance presented by the orange revolution (though to be fair, Mr Yushchenko and other Ukrainian politicians botched their opportunities even more badly). The European Union's leaders also failed to make much of the recent election. Ukraine is a long way from Spain, which holds the rotating EU presidency. Catherine Ashton, the EU's nominal foreign-policy chief, seems distracted, to put it mildly. The EU is treating Ukraine like Turkey-too big, too poor, and destined to wait indefinitely for membership. (That's a false comparison too, but never mind).

Yet Ukraine is perhaps the one place where Lady Ashton and her new External Action Service could make a real difference. Ukraine badly needs attention, and unlike America or China it is not a place over which other EU leaders will be jostling for influence. Done properly, the gains from renewed EU involvement could be huge.

The European policy so far has been engagement with Ukraine's political class. This has proved expensive, and mostly fruitless. Attention should now move to the citizenry. Imagine the effect if the EU opened 50 "Europe Houses" in the main towns and cities of Ukraine. The excellent new House of Europe in Tbilisi should be the model.


In the tense Ukrainian region of Crimea, a big EU presence would make it harder for Russia to hide its mischief-making (that should be a lesson from Georgia, where the EU's absence was a lethal element in the run up to the 2008 war). More generally, the new policy will focus the EU's biggest asset: its soft power. The EU's military capability is meagre; its ability to stand up to Russian divide-and-rule tactics in energy security is feeble. But the EU does have something that the Kremlin doesn't: attractiveness. Projecting that into Ukraine will give Lady Ashton and her staff something worthwhile to do. It could even work.

Complete article:

Спостерігачі побачили недоліки підчас виборів, рекомендують реформи виборчої системи TOP
Київ, 9-го лютого 2010 р.

Київ, Україна – В неділю, 7-го лютого 2010р., українці обирали Президента своєї країни. Місія спостерігачів від Канадсько-Української Фундаціі (КУФ) та Конгресу Українців Канади (КУК) надіслала 65 досвідчених та навчених короткострокових спостерігачів, які слідкували за ходом виборчого процесу в 6 областях країни під час  виборів Президента України 17 січня 2010 року. 01 лютого цього року  КУФ залучила ще 50 спостерігачів у шести областях  України, які були обрані у співпраці з групою спостерігачів від КАНАДЕМ таким чином, щоб  24 області з 25 плюс Київ та Севастопіль  були охоплені спостерігачами з Канади. Варта зазначити, що значна кількість спостерігачів КУФ брали участь у місії спостереження  під егідою КАНАДЕМ.

Як свідчать наші попередні висновки, загалом, в областях, де велося спостереження, були прийняті адекватні зусилля, щоб вибори відповідали міжнародним стандартам вільних та справедливих виборів. Однак, для здійснення вільних та справедливих виборів як постійно діючого демократичного процесу бракує політичної волі у найвищих ешелонах влади.

Водночас  Місія спостереження побачила декотрі недоліки виборчого процесу та внесла конкретні рекомендації, які детально описані в Попереднім Звіті. Основні недоліки та рекомендації:

•    Ми з прикрість відмічаємо, що ЦВК не зареєструвала та не акредитувала жодного спостерігача від Грузії під час повторного голосування на виборах Президента України незважаючи на численні спроби грузинської місії спостереження зареєструвати своїх спостерігачів
•    Якщо Україна хоче побудувати громадянське суспільство, сильні та надійні демократичні інституції, які отримають підтримку  громадян, дуже важливо надати право українським громадянським організаціям спостерігати за президентськими виборами. Це буде запорука прозорості виборчого процесу.

•    Ми рекомендуємо створити спеціальні громадянські служби на рівні окружних та дільничних виборчих комісій, щоб Україна реформувала своє виборче законодавство та процедуру голосування,  виправила партійний характер  діяльності  дільничних, територіальних та окружних комісій.  Вибір членів комісії, який базується лише на їхніх партійних уподобаннях,  недопустимий  і викликає напругу  та занепокоєння, які ми могли спостерігати під час виборів та які призводили до виключення членів комісії.

•    Загальновідомо, що поточні Президентські вибори  коштували кожній стороні більш ніж по 500 мільйонів доларів. Деякими членами  Європейського Парламенту було  рекомендовано,  щоб Україна повинна змінити своїє виборче законодавство в напрямку обмеження видатків  кожного кандидата  до більш прийнятного рівня.

Канадсько-Українська Фундація (КУФ) – канадська благодійна організація заснована Конгресом Українців Канади (КУК) для координації, розвитку, організації та надання допомоги допомоги Україні з боку канадців. КУФ в минулому організувала та здійснила провела декілька успішних місій спостереження за виборами в Україні, за що отримала від Генерального губернатора Канади у 2005 році найпрестижніше визнання для громадських організації в Канаді - Свідоцтво Подяки.

Конгрес Українців Канади (КУК) об'єднує усі національні, провінційні  та місцеві громадські організацій українців в Канаді. Вже протягом майже 70-ти років Конґрес очолює, координує та представляє інтереси однієї з найбільших етнічних громад Канади -української, яка налічує 1.2 мільйони канадців українського походження.

КУФ разом із КУК почали організовувати Місію Спостереження  за Виборами  у серпні  2009 року, проаналізували та надали свої коментарі щодо Закону «Про вибори Президента України» Голові Верховної Ради, Секретаріату Президента та Кабінету Міністрів України. Верховна рада вирішила не використовувати жодних із запропонованих 22 рекомендацій від експертів КУФ/КУК разом з ОБСЕ та Венеціанською комісією.


Тимошенко не визнала поразку: "Янукович – не наш президент" - відео TOP
13 лютого 2010

Доброго вечора, дорогі мої!

Завершився другий тур президентських виборів, і я хочу низько вклонитися всім, хто підтримав мене у цей складний час своєю довірою, любов'ю, своїм голосом, роботою у штабах та на дільницях, своєю боротьбою за достойне життя. Я також низько вклоняюся усім, хто у цей важкий час молився за Україну та за нашу перемогу. І хай у вас не буде жодного сумніву, що ми з вами перемогли!

Але наші опоненти, як і у 2004 році, продемонстрували свою неготовність обиратися за чесними демократичними правилами. Вони чудово усвідомлювали, що не мають шансів завоювати прихильність більшості людей законним шляхом.

Ми не втратили жодної миті. Усі ці дні та ночі, які минули від дня голосування, ми займалися важкою юридичною роботою. Ми збирали дані свідків, опрацьовували документи, працювали з юристами. І сьогодні я можу твердо сказати вам, що вибори в Україні було сфальсифіковано. І це вже не політична декларація, а чітка правова оцінка юристів.

Наведу тільки один приклад, і вам все стане зрозуміло. Нам вдалося відкрити за рішенням суду дільниці в Криму для того, щоб перерахувати голоси. Ми були шоковані тим, що на всіх без виключення дільницях юридично встановлено фальсифікації від 3% до 8% на користь Януковича.

В цілому ж по Україні можливі обсяги фальсифікації складають більше одного мільйона голосів за різними технологіями. Цих голосів цілком достатньо для нашої спільної перемоги. Моє переконання в тому, що треба боротися, підтверджують також і останні свідчення окремих спостерігачів від ОБСЄ. Вони висловили бажання виступити в судах на нашому боці з відеоматеріалами, із своїми оцінками, що на виборах в Україні були системні фальсифікації.

Я розумію, що ви стомилися від жорстоких політичних боїв, і я разом з вами також хочу стабільності і спокою у нашій державі. Але якщо сьогодні ми не захистимо демократію, право вашого чесного вибору, завтра ми прокинемося в іншій країні, де правлять диктатура і беззаконня. Заради майбутнього нашої країни я прошу вас мене зрозуміти і підтримати. Це не тільки моя справа, це справа усіх чесних людей - захистити нашу свободу.

Маючи всі докази, я прийняла єдине можливе рішення - оскаржити результати виборів в суді. Я буду на підставі юридичних аргументів захищати нашу державу, ваш вибір.

Я дуже добре знаю, так як і ви, якість роботи наших судів. Але в той же час моя відповідальність перед вами, перед країною зобов'язує мене боротися за відновлення справедливості. Не піти сьогодні до суду означає здати Україну криміналітету без бою.

Я не буду збирати майдани і не допущу публічних громадянських протистоянь. Україні як ніколи потрібні стабільність та спокій.

І саме тому ми будемо діяти тільки в правовий спосіб і тільки у суді.

Але я хочу чітко заявити: Янукович - не наш Президент. І як би не розгорталися далі обставини, він ніколи не стане легітимно обраним Президентом України.

Я залишаюся оптимістом і хочу вірити в те, що для суддів, які будуть розглядати цю справу, це буде справа честі і справа захисту законів і ваших прав.

І ще одне, що спонукає мене йти до суду. Навіть ще до оголошення остаточних результатів виборів, Янукович зробив низку різких антиукраїнських заяв, які прямо суперечать українським національним інтересам. І це тільки початок.

Кричущим фактом нечесності стало нещодавнє голосування Партії регіонів проти власного законопроекту про підвищення соціальних стандартів, того самого, на чому будувалися усі передвиборчі піар-технології Януковича.

Саме тому, я готова і здатна боротися. Я хочу сказати вам, що буду робити усе можливе, щоб захистити вас, ваших дітей і нашу рідну державу. І тому я прошу вашого розуміння і підтримки на цьому складному шляху. Я була і залишаюся з вами.

Суд зупинив рішення про визнання Януковича переможцем виборів TOP

Вищий адміністративний суд України призупинив дію рішення Центральної виборчої комісії про встановлення результатів виборів та обрання Віктора ЯНУКОВИЧА Президентом України.


У клопотанні про вжиття заходів забезпечення адміністративного позову порушується питання про зупинення дії рішення ЦВК про встановлення результатів повторного голосування та обрання В.ЯНУКОВИЧА Президентом України, яке оформлено протоколом ЦВК від 14 лютого 2010 року, та заборону В.ЯНУКОВИЧУ складати присягу Президента України на урочистому засіданні Верховної Ради України.

Клопотання мотивовано тим, що у разі невжиття заходів забезпечення адміністративного позову можуть бути проведені дії щодо вступу В.ЯНУКОВИЧА на пост Президента України ще до завершення розгляду справи у суді.

Ціла стаття: http://unian.net/ukr/news/news-363249.html

Cудове оскарження виборів і ОБСЄ TOP
14 лютого 2010

Аскольд Лозинський

У суботу, 13 лютого кандидат у президенти України, Юля Тимошенко оголосила, що оскаржуватиме результати виборів у суді. До того впродовж цілого тижня політологи, політики і ЗМІ в Україні і поза, вказували, що оскарження в суді буде наражувати Юлю Тимошенко в Україні і поза на критику, зокрема тому, що на перший вигляд здавалося б, що міжнародні спостерігачі, а зокрема найбільш здається авторитетні визнали вибори демократичними. Ясно, що не всі міжнародні спостерігачі видали такий вирок, напр. міжнародні організації іноземного реєстрування іноземних громадян українського походження такі як Світовий Конгрес Українців, Український Конгресовий Комітет Америки і Канадська Українська Фундація висловили застереження.

Ясно далеко легше висловити поодинокі застереження в тих випадках де дані спостерігачі були очевидцями або одержали джерельну інформацію. Далеко важче подати засадничу оцінку, що все, тобто за малими виїмками було нормальне. Це зокрема складне коли різниці голосів між двома суперниками менше 1 мільйона за участю 30 мільйонів виборців. Одначе проголошений Центральною Виборчою Комісією переможець Віктор Янукович охоче і мабуть вперше в своємі життя покликатиметься на авторитетність таких установ як Організації Безпеки і Співпобітництва в Європі/Бюра Демократичних Інституцій і Прав Людини, Парламентарної Асамлеї ОБСЄ, Європеського Парламенту, Парламентської Асамблеї Ради Європи та Парламентської Асамблеї НАТО. Тому треба для кращого зрозуміння глянути на висновки цих міжнародних організацій.

Всі повищі установи видали одну спільну Заяву, 8 лютого, тобто день після виборів. Заключення у першому розділі було таке: "Другий тур виборів Президента України підтвердив оцінку першого туру - більшість зобовязань в рамках ОБСЄ та Ради Європи було дотримано. Дані вибори узагальнили прогрес, доягнутий з 2004 р. Причиною більшості проблем, що мали місце під час цих виборів, стали брак довіря та недоліки законодавчої бази, що становлять пряму загрозу для нового керівництва. Професійне прозоре та чесне голосування та підрахунок голосів повинні стати міцною основою мирної передачі влади."

На перший вигляд це надзвичайно засаднича оцінка. Тому треба глянути в основи такого заключення. У Заяві подається "Інформація про місію та подяки" де знаходимо таке: "У день голосування було розміщено близько 600 короткотермінових спостерігачів Міжнародної місії зі спостереження за виборами (ММСВ), у тому числі 413 короткотермінових спостерігачів від ОБСЄ-БДІПЛ, делегацію з 69 представників ПА ОБСЄ, делегацію з 37 представників Парламентської Асамблеї Ради Європи, делегацію з 16 представників Парламентської Асамблеї НАТО та делегацію з 13 представників Європейського Парламенту. Загалом участь у спостереженні взяли представники 45 держав-членів ОБСЄ. ММСВ здійснювала спостереження за виборами на приблизно 2000 виборчих дільниць з 33667 їх загальної кількості, спостерігала за підрахунком голосів на 194 дільницях та підбиттям підсумків голосування на 150 ОВК."

Немає й мови про користування інформаціями других місій спостерігачів чи довірених осіб.

Запізнавшись з цією "Інформацію" висновок можна зробити тільки один. Заява ОБСЄ стверджує, що у день виборів "більшість зобовязань в рамках ОБСЄ та Ради Європи було дотримано" на максімум заледве 6 відсотках виборчих дільниць. А решта? Слід також устійнити в яких дільницях ОБСЄ брали активну участь. Якщо судове оскарження Юлі Тимошенко відноситься до цих дільниць де були представники ОБСЄ, то суд повинен частинно взяти до уваги оцінку ОБСЄ у прийнятті рішення. Одначе у 94 відсотках виборчих дільниць оцінка ОБСЄ недоречна. Тому трактувати Заяву ОБСЄ однозначно є невідповідним і рано робити заключення хто сьогодні легітимним Президентом України.

Залишилося до вирішення цього питання судом, а не ОБСЄ, політологам, політикам чи ЗМІ. Чи є надія на незалежність судівництва в Україні? Це досі найважчий іспит молодої демократії.

Без коментарів: Фальсифікації на виборах 2004 року повторилися на виборах 2010 року? TOP
Група спостерігачів за виборами закликає до незалежного розслідування результатів виборів в Україні: виборчий штаб Януковича пов'язаний зі звинуваченнями у фальсифікації виборів у США



Тарас Кузьо

ВАШИНГТОН – Кандидат у президенти України та Прем'єр-міністр Юлія Тимошенко минулого тижня заявила про те, що в другому турі президентських виборів, який відбувся 7 лютого, на користь опозиційного кандидата Віктора Януковича було сфальсифіковано понад один мільйон голосів. Вона подала до Центральної виборчої комісії понад 60 скарг та назвала ці порушення "шокуючими".

В 2004 році штаб Януковчиа було схоплено на фальсифікації голосування після того, як було записано на плівку розмову членів його виборчої команди про знищення доказів підробки результатів підрахунку голосів. Це викриття призвело до масових вуличних протестів, Помаранчевої революції, та повторного голосування, в результаті якого президентом було обрано Віктора Ющенка.

Передісторію виборів 2004 було розкрито минулого року у публічних свідченнях агента ЦРУ Стівена Стігалла, який підтвердив, що Віктор Янукович сфальсифікував вибори у жовтні 2004, таємно розмістивши комп'ютер (незаконного посередника) у місці обробки даних протоколів та змінивши результати (на 14%, за деякими даними). Підозри у фальсифікації виникли через результати екзит-полів, які вказували на перевагу Ющенка в 11%. Однак, їх вдалося довести лише завдяки запису телефонних розмов між керівниками штабу Януковича, які обговорювали фальсифікації та варіанти прикриття. До команди Януковича в 2004 та 2010 входили Рік Дейвіс та Пол Манафорт, власники вашингтонської лобістської та піар фірми під назвою "3eDC". "3eDC" хвалиться на своєму сайті, що вони вона має п'ять стратегічних партнерів:

• "Нью Мідеа Комьюнікейшнс" на чолі з Майком Коннелом, якого звинувачують у фальсифікації виборів для Республіканців

• "Інтеграл Веб Стретеджи", ще одна компанія Коннела, яка співпрацює з Торгівельною палатою Інституту правових реформ, участь якого у незаконних виборчих маніпуляціях була встановлена судом

• "Кампейн Солюшнз", яку очолює партнерка Майка Коннела, Бекі Донателлі

• "Еірнет Груп", батьківська компанія "Смартек Корпорейшнз", власником якої є Джефф Авербек, який працював на Майка Коннела під час суперечливої зміни результатів офіційного голосування в Штаті Огайо на користь Джорджа Буша, а не його опонента-Демократа Джона Керрі.

• "Дайнолоджи Корп", яка має великий список клієнтів з військової сфери: "більшість нашого персоналу має допуски до таємної та цілком таємної державної інформації."

Рік Дейвіс, Пол Манафорт та "3eDC" були керівниками виборчої кампанії Януковича у 2004 році, а також ключовими радниками Януковича на виборах 2010. Вони підтримували стратегічне партнерство і з Майком Коннелом, і з Джефформ Авербеком, обидва з яких звинувачувались у фальсифікації виборів на користь Буша. Коннел загинув у дуже підозрілій авіакатастрофі у грудні 2008 після того, як його викликали на допит у справі фальсифікації виборів. Згідно з однією зі статей в лютневому випуску 2010 журналу "Максим", Коннел фальсифікував вибори 2004 року на користь Буша за допомогою технології атаки "незаконного посередника", який змінив результати виборів в Огайо. Ця атака здійснювалась через комп'ютери Республіканської партії, якими керує "Смартек".

Беручи все вищезазначене до уваги, "ВелветРеволюшинз", незаангажована група спостерігачів за виборами, закликає до незалежного розслідування та перевірки виборів в Україні, особливо підрахунку голосів.


Виграв той, хто менше втратив TOP
порівняння результатів, отриманих на повторному голосуванні 26.12.2004 (по-народному – третій тур) та 07.02.2010.

Поверховий аналіз цих мап показує, що всі втратили частину своїх прихильників у базових регіонах. Але В.Януковичу вдалося більш вдало їх компенсувати ростом підтримки на інших територіях, і в цілому він втратив 2,68% виборців. Набагато гірша ситуація в Ю.Тимошенко, вона отримала на 23,17% голосів менше, ніж В. Ющенко. Найбільші втрати були на лінії «політичного фронту» - там, де у 2004 р. вдалося відібрати у лівих голоси. Потужного удару по Ю.Тимошенко завдала безпрецедентно масована (порівняно з минулими виборами) кампанія голосування «проти всіх», унаслідок чого велика кількість потенційних її виборців не прийшла на вибори або не підтримала жодного.

Янукович і Росія TOP
12 лютого 2010

Богдан Червак

Як в Україні так і Росії мало хто сумнівається у "проросійській" орієнтації Віктора Януковича. Лідер Партії регіонів ніколи й не приховував своїх симпатій до російського вектора у зовнішній політиці.

А щоб у нікого не виникало сумнівів у твердості його позиції, одразу ж після виборів заявив, що пріоритетними для нього будуть відносини із Росією та СНД.


Загалом треба відзначити, що Росія більш ніж стримано коментує перемогу на виборах президента України Віктора Януковича.

І не тому, що не вірить у лояльність Януковича, а тому, що більше не вірить у лояльність українського народу, який вона поставила перед вибором: погодитися на геополітичний аншлюс із Кремлем, або ж і надалі перебувати у стані жорсткого політичного, економічного і культурного протистояння.

Характерною у цьому плані є риторика Жиріновського, до якої той вдався одразу ж після виборів. Віце-спікер Держдуми РФ вважав за необхідне в інтерв`ю "Ехо Москви" заявити, що через 5 років східна частина України приєднається до Росії.

Відповідаючи на запитання: "Ви, як і раніше, вважаєте, що після того як переміг Віктор Янукович, потрібно дійсно приєднати Україну до Росії, або, принаймні, її значну частину?", - цей політик ствердно відповів: "Я вважаю, що це було б кращим вирішенням питання.

Тому що видно, це дві різні України - західна, це те, що входило до Австро-Угорщини, Польщі, - тобто це Прибалтика, а східна Україна - це Ташкент. Тому схід - це Росія. Донбас Сталін подарував, Крим - Хрущов, - це все входило до складу Росії, там, в основному російське населення.

І одна з причин перемоги Януковича - він знає українську мову, але в основі він російська людина". Ось так, не більше, і не менше.

Думаю, що на багатьох українців, особливо тих, які проживають на Сході й Півдні України чекають великі розчарування через крах ілюзій щодо швидкої і безболісної гармонізації взаємин між Україною і Росією.

Можна допусти, що після президентських виборів багато чого змінилося в Україні. Але при цьому не треба забувати, що нічого не змінилося у Росії, яка й надалі трактуватиме Україну як тимчасовий бар'єр на шляху розширення "руского міра".

Для сучасної Росії, яка врешті визначилася із своїми геополітичними амбіціями та прагне тотального панування на пострадянському просторі, Україна залишатиметься "небезпечною" до тих пір, поки український народ сам обиратиме собі владу.

Так було у минулому. Нічого не змінилося й сьогодні.

Ціла стаття:

Пропозиція для України: 2010 - Час для реформ TOP

Міжнародна комісія незалежних експертів була заснована у вересні 2009 року для підготовки програми дій України після президентських виборів. Ініціаторами утворення були Андерс Ослунд та Олександр Пасхавер, які стали співголовами Комісії. Членами Комісії є провідні міжнародні та українські вчені, політики та юристи. Роботу Комісії було профінансовано Міністерствами закордонних справ Швеції та Нідерландів. Підтримку надала також Програма розвитку ООН. Міжнародний центр перспективних досліджень виконав функцію секретаріату Комісії.

Пріоритети реформ в Україні у 2010 році

Пропозиції Міжнародної комісії незалежних експертів

Цей документ – програма дій на перший рік після вступу на пост нового Президента України. Після президентських виборів Україна матиме унікальну можливість провести реформи, які закладуть підґрунтя для сталого економічного зростання. Політичний мандат нового Президента, шок після нещодавньої глибокої економічної кризи та невдоволення суспільства поточним станом речей утворюють ідеальні умови для проведення успішних реформ. Ми дійшли трьох головних висновків. Україні необхідно (1) утворити нову організаційну структуру, здатну провести реформи; (2) визначити пріоритети реформування; (3) використати співробітництво з міжнародними організаціями як “якір” для проведення реформ.

Перший висновок нашої Комісії полягає в тому, що Україні необхідно утворити нову структуру, здатну провести реформи, яка б не залежала від інститутів, що підлягають реформуванню. Ми рекомендуємо утворити Комісію з питань реформ при Кабінеті Міністрів України під головуванням Віце-прем‘єр-міністра з відповідними повноваженнями. Комісія з питань реформ повинна мати власний бюджет і єдину мету: розробити та упровадити реформи. Спільно з Координаційним бюро європейської та євроатлантичної інтеграції Секретаріату Кабінету Міністрів України Комісія має стати провідником реформ від імені Кабінету Міністрів України.

Другий висновок – Україні необхідно чітко сформулювати пріоритети реформ. Ці пріоритети (наведені нижче) повинні бути якісно або кількісно вимірювані. Пріоритетні завдання мають вирішуватися в першу чергу, а можливість об‘єктивно оцінити результати їх виконання є ключовою передумовою підзвітності тих, хто відповідає за провадження реформ. Отже, Україна має: (а) покращити ефективність держави; (б) досягти фінансової стабільності; (в) надати підприємцям свободу на ринку; (г) покращити ефективність соціальної політики. Наш вибір пріоритетів ґрунтується на поглядах експертів, а також на тому, чого можливо досягти протягом одного року.

Третій висновок – Україні слід скористатися своїм міжнародним потенціалом або зовнішньою допомогою для подолання внутрішніх перешкод реформам. Комісія визначила три “якорі”, які можуть сприяти Україні у реалізації її прагнення до реформ: Міжнародний валютний фонд, Європейський Союз та Світовий банк.

Головні десять пріоритетів для України у 2010 році такі:

  • Реформувати газовий сектор!
  • Зробити Національний банк України незалежним!
  • Перейти до режиму інфляційного таргетування!
  • Зменшити витрати державного бюджету!
  • Здійснити комплексне дерегулювання підприємницької діяльності!
  • Укласти Угоду про асоціацію з Європейським Союзом!
  • Відновити приватизацію!
  • Узаконити купівлю-продаж земель сільськогосподарського призначення!
  • Ухвалити Закон України “Про доступ до публічної інформації!
  • Завершити ухвалення сучасного комерційного законодавства!

Цілий рапорт: Chas-dlia_reform_Ukr.pdf

Український мазохізм: віддати трубу TOP
Росія, каже експерт, не зацікавлена розвивати українську ГТС, вона хоче отримати над нею контроль.


Справжнім сюрпризом для України буде перелік зобов'язань перед Кремлем, які буде озвучено Януковичу під час його візиту до Москви цієї весни. Можливо, у консорціумі треба буде віддати росіянам не третину, як каже Янукович, а 50%+1 акцію.


В українському політикумі обговорюється кілька варіантів створення консорціуму. І найменш вигідний для України варіант, який відстоює Росія, - це продаж "Газпромові" певного пакета акцій компанії "Укртрансгаз" паралельно із скасуванням нинішніх невигідних для України контрактів на постачання газу.

"Продаж частини ГТС в обмін на низьку ціну газу - це білоруський варіант. Три роки насолоди низькими цінами, і ГТС віддається "Газпрому", - прокоментував позицію лідера передвиборчої гонки провідний енергетичний експерт Центру Разумкова Володимир Омельченко.

За його словами, три роки тому Лукашенко страшенно тішився низькими цінами, але потім зрозумів, що це була помилка, і нині намагається виправити ситуацію.

Окрім того, зараз, в умовах кризи, вартість української давно не ремонтованої газотранспортної системи мінімальна, і тому продавати її не час.


Наївність Кучми відроджується

Ще більшу вигоду Києву міг би принести продаж частини ГТС не за гроші, а за газодобувні активи у РФ, кажуть прихильники консорціуму. Тоді, мовляв, Україна отримає дешевий російський газ, який видобуватиме українська компанія.

Однак щось подібне уже було. У 1994 році колишній президент Леонід Кучма створив "Укртатнафту" - підприємство на основі Кременчуцького НПЗ.

Частина акцій НПЗ була віддана татарським акціонерам в обмін на акції тамтешньої видобувної компанії "Татнєфтєпром". Вважалося, що завод зможе купувати всю видобуту нею нафту.

Однак спільне підприємство упродовж ледь чи не усієї своєї історії знаходилося під контролем російської "Татнєфті", і його менеджмент ні на хвилину не допустили до контролю над видобувною компанією. Як наслідок - жодна крапля добутої "Татнєфтєпромом" сировини до Кременчука не потрапила.

Експерти пояснюють, що співпраці заважали специфічне законодавство Росії і внутрішня українська боротьба бізнесменів за цей завод. А тепер питання: хто гарантуватиме, що така ж історія не трапиться і з газовим консорціумом?

Ціла стаття:

Найбільшою загрозою для України є розбалансована влада, а не дії Росії, - відеоконференція з генералом Скипальським TOP
Ветеран українських спецслужб Олександр Скипальський розповів, чому вибори були нелегітимними, чи варто боятися російської агресії та чому іноземні спецслужби вільно почуваються в Україні


Corporate Raiders in Trans-Carpathia TOP
Mr.Chepa is shocked that, ‘Private armed security guards proved to be more powerful than the law and the government officials attempting to enforce it’.


Trans-Carpathia is where Canadian businessman Steven Chepa decided to launch a foreign investment project in 2006-2007, an area of Ukraine where his family had originated prior to World War I and before emigrating to Canada. Mr. Chepa has a successful career in business development, investment and management spanning five decades. He is also a philanthropist who supports cultural and educational initiatives such as the Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto.

What went wrong with Mr. Chepa’s investment is an example of what contributes to Ukraine’s poor international image, which is commonly associated with corruption and weak rule of law.  Although foreign investment has grown since 2005, overseas investors continue to remain cautious about Ukraine and the country continues to under-perform in attracting foreign investment compared to its Eastern European neighbours.

Ukraine scores poorly in the World Bank annual ranking of Ease of Doing Business index (142nd compared to 11th for Georgia in 2010). Ukraine scores even worse in the Transparency International annual Corruption Perceptions Index (146th compared to Georgia’s 66th place in 2009).  Both Ukraine and Georgia had democratic revolutions within one year of each other in 2003-2004 but of the two elected presidents only President Mikheil Saakashvili possessed the political will to battle corruption.

Little progress has been made in Ukraine to attract foreign investors, prevent corporate raiders and make the business climate more conducive to small and medium-sized businesses, one of the expected outcomes of the 2004 elections and Orange Revolution that for the first time saw middle class businessmen showing their support for democratic politics. In the first round of the 2010 presidential elections Ukraine’s emerging middle class was again evident in the combined twenty percent vote for Serhiy Tihipko and Arseniy Yatseniuk who reached third and fourth place respectively.

With a new president elected on February 7, his priorities should be to revive the economy after two years of recession brought on by the global financial crisis. Ukraine alongside Latvia, Hungary and Iceland suffered the most in Europe from the crisis. Making Ukraine business friendly and open to foreign investors should be one of the priorities of the new President and sitting Prime Minister.

The bribing of judges and corruption of the judicial system has become epidemic in the last five years, as seen by a March 2009 ruling by Judge Bondarenko of the Kyiv Sviatoshyn court that endorsed the raiders claim to ownership of Mr. Chepa’s investment, the Starwood Zakarpattia wood manufacturing plant. Nevertheless, Ukraine’s judicial system is not all doom and gloom.

Ten months later Mr. Chepa won an appeal in the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal which issued an official reprimand to Judge Bondarenko for his earlier decision in favour of the raiders. This allowed Mr.Chepa to set the process in motion to re-register Starwood Zakarpattia under the original statute. The decision stated that the Sviatoshyn court had no right to rule on the case.

The plan to revive a sawmill in the Trans-Carpathian town of Vylok that would have created 100 jobs was appealing to Mr. Chepa as it was close to where his ancestors came from and it would have created employment in a depressed area. The proposal made by two Ukrainian-Canadians, Peter Prytula and Aivor Khourkine, eventually led to a corporate raider takeover and battles in court to prove Mr.Chepa’s ownership.

Messrs. Prytula and Khourkine had been managing a hardwood flooring company near Toronto, Canada, in which the main investor had been a Bulgarian lawyer, Todor Batkov. In 2008 they, together with Mr.Chepa, purchased the sawmill Starwood Zakarpattia.

After Mr. Batkov liquidated his assets in July 2008 Mr.Chepa purchased all of the business. Messers. Prytula and Khourkine were retained to manage the business. The ensuing investment by Mr. Chepa with the intention of modernizing the plant and purchasing new machinery was misappropriated with the intention of ultimately launching a corporate takeover of Starwood.

In November 2009 an Interdepartmental Commission on Counteracting Illegal Takeovers and Raids, headed by First Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Turchynov, established a regional working group. It concluded that Mr. Chepa had been the victim of a corporate raider takeover and recommended that the police investigate the matter. Mr.Chepa has lost more than $12 million in the corporate raid.

The government commission has only the power to issue a ‘moral’ (not legal) verdict and no power to order the eviction of the raiders. The police, Prosecutor’s office, rule of law and Security Service in Trans-Carpathia work in cahoots with one another and whoever is politically dominant at any one time in the region. The government commission did not have the power to instruct Minister of Interior Yuriy Lutsenko to evict the raiders and, if it had, the raiders could have returned at a later stage and in turn evicted Mr. Chepa’s security guards.

This is a strong argument why Mr. Chepa has desisted from countering force with force; another reason being his wish to resolve the issue peacefully. The raiders employ professional private security guards from Vynnytsia.

Mr.Chepa’s lawyers, based in Uzhhorod, have additionally successfully overturned seven court cases launched by the raiders. Nevertheless, the doubly successful ruling by the government committee coupled with court appeals have still not led to Mr.Chepa’s re-possession of the factory which continues to stand idle.

Ukrainian government officials have attempted on six occasions to serve court notices to the raiders to freeze the assets of Starwood Zakarpattia and to halt their sale without court approval, but these have been blocked by security guards. Mr.Chepa is shocked that, ‘Private armed security guards proved to be more powerful than the law and the government officials attempting to enforce it’.

The raiders, the lawyers explained, wish to sell Starwood rather than re-establish production. Luckily, there are unlikely to be any buyers who will be forthcoming because Mr.Chepa has won every Ukrainian court case and has a positive ruling from the government’s Interdepartmental Commission on Counteracting Illegal Takeovers and Raids. Starwood’s status continues to remain in limbo as Mr.Chepa’s success in the courts has not yet translated into possession of the factory.

The case of the corporate raid of Starwood brings into focus four conclusions faced by Ukraine’s new President.

First, need to make Ukraine more attractive to foreign investment. Second, increase legal and law enforcement powers enshrined in the government’s Interdepartmental Commission on Counteracting Illegal Takeovers and Raids so that corporate raids can be quickly reversed.

Third, weakness of the state - its representatives, government and President - as seen in their inability to remove private security guards, only serves to give sustenance to corrupt businessmen, raiders and organized crime. Fourth, democracy is not only free elections and media pluralism, as outgoing President Yushchenko seemed to believe. Democracy is also commensurate with the rule of law and public trust in state institutions.

Ukraine has a long way to go in these four areas. But, one quick step Ukraine can take is to immediately return ownership of Starwood Zakarpattia to Mr.Chepa.

Проект у Швеції "Зроби свій фільм" TOP
Проблеми збереження рідної мови в іншомовному середовищі - чи не одна з найбільш хвилюючих для представників українського зарубіжжя. У Швеції ситуація ускладнюється ще й розпорошенням українців на території великої країни.

10 років у Швеції існує дитячо-юнацька організація «Джерело», на базі якої працює суботня школа, яка стала першим учасником пілотного проекту «Зроби свій фільм», організованого Міжнародною бібліотекою міста Стокгольм для дітей іммігрантського походження.


Святкування 60-річчя пластової станиці в Чикаго TOP

автор:Ірена Савка-Артюшенко, Чикаго

Життя Пластової станиці в Чикаго впродовж 60 років проходило різними шляхами, але дух і цілі не мінялись - прагнути до Великої Мети, виховати повноцінних, чеcних, національно свідомих людей.

Цю шістдесятирічну діяльність відзначили чикагські пластуни урочистою зустріччю і бенкетом 28 листопада 2009 р., завершуючи приємною забавою.

Ювілейне свято пройшло в атмосфері дружби і приязні. Присутні зустрілися з друзями, яких давно не бачили, з якими колись пластували. З захопленням оглядали прозірки, які були висвітлені на кількох екранах (заслуга п. Гані Гановської), пізнавали себе й інших на численних фотографіях, а також з особливим зацікавленням оглядали ювілейний альбом, в якому пластові гуртки, курені чи поодинокі родини приготували свої фотомонтажі, нагадуючи спільні переживання в таборах, в домівці, в колі родини. Цей альбом віддзеркалює не тільки станичні заняття, але й пластову атмосферу в родинах, і буде дорогоцінною пам'яткою минулого.

Ювілейний комітет святкувань запланував програму під гаслом "Куди б тебе життя не занесло..." (ти завжди пластун!) Цю тематику підкреслило юнацтво (під проводом пл. сен. Діяни Григорчук Іваник) у своєму виступі біля символічної ватри та тлі двох шатер, у скечах і піснях. Був висвітлений дуже вміло і професійно зредагований відеофільм, зміст якого складався зі споминів поодиноких пластунів віком від 8 до 104 років, котрі розказували про свої пластові переживання. Продюсером фільму був пл. розв. Юліян Гайда, член 7-го Куреня УПЮ ім. Івана Чмоли. Після перегляду зала нагородила цього здібного юнака оваціями.

Офіційну частину відкрила голова комітету пл. сен. Юля Кашуба, передаючи провід свята пл. сен. Ліді Ткачук та пл. сен. Андрієві Коломийцеві. З привітом виступив теперішній станичний, пл. сен. кер. Роман Завадович, який також прочитав лист від Крайової Пластової Старшини. Молитву перед вечерею почав ректор катедри св. о. Миколая о. Богдан Налисник, а всі присутні заспівали пластове "Отче наш."

Головним промовцем на бенкеті був пл. сен. Борис Люшняк, кол. член станиці Чикаго і член куреня "Орден Хрестоносців". Він з перспективи часу і свого життєвого досвіду поділився з присутніми думками про вплив Пласту на його життя.

Др. Люшняк народився в Чикаго. Закінчив народну школу св. о. Миколая i був активним членом чикагської Пластової Станиці. Свою медичну освіту завершив y Northwestern University, а опicля здобув маґістeрку в галузі громадської охорони здоров'я в Гарвардському університетi. B 2006 р. др Люшняк прийняв присягу контрадміралa тa помічника Генерального хірургa у СШA при департаменті громадської охорони здоров'я. Він є найбільш високопоставленим американським офіцером українського походження в активній службі США.

Україна у фокусі 8 -- 14 лютого 2010 TOP

Огляд політичних подій за тиждень

8 лютого

За ніч і перший день після виборів ЦВК опрацювала 99,5% електронних протоколів. За даними Центрвиборчкому,  кандидат від Партії регіоналів Віктор Янукович  набрав майже 49% голосів виборців. Його опонент – чинний прем’єр-міністр Юлія Тимошенко – понад 45%. Жодного з них не підтримало майже 4,5% виборців. Член ЦВК Михайло Охендовський прогнозує, що 100% електронних протоколів будує опрацьовано вже завтра,  у вівторок.

БЮТ готовий перейти в опозицію,  однак після оприлюднення остаточних результатів виборів. Про це заявив віце-спікер Микола Томенко. Він також звернув увагу на те, що вперше за історію президентських перегонів новообраний глава держави був підтриманий меншістю голосів і меншою кількістю регіонів. Нагадаємо,  Віктора  Януковича підтримали 9 областей та Севастополь, а Юлію Тимошенко – 16 областей та Київ.

Спостерігачі Європарламенту не зафіксували масових порушень у другому турі виборів Президента України.  Про це повідомив голова місії спостерігачів Європейського парламенту Павел Ковал.

Кандидати в президенти України мають визнати результати виборiв,  оскiльки їх проведення   вiдповiдало мiжнародним стандартам. Такий висновок зробили представники мiсiї спостерiгачiв Парламентської Асамблеї Ради Європи (ПАРЄ) i Парламентської Асамблеї НАТО. Про це заявив глава мiсiї ПАРЄ Матiаш Йорши.

Другий тур президентських виборiв в Українi загалом пройшов вiдповiдно до стандартiв демократичних виборiв. Про це заявив глава мiсiї ОБСЄ Жоао Соареш. Водночас, за його словами, недосконале виборче законодавство призвело до деяких  проблем пiд час виборчого процесу, i це має стати, на думку голови місії, полем дiяльностi для наступної української влади. Зокрема, Жоао Соареш наголосив, що змiнювати виборче законодавство мiж раундами, як це було зроблено напередодні 2-го туру – неправильно.

Комітет виборців України не зафіксувава критичну масу порушень і системних фактів фальсифікацій, які могли б спотворити результати волевиявлення на виборах Президента України. Про це заявив голова правління  КВУ Олександр Черненко. Він повідомив, що  за другим  туром виборів спостерігало 2 тис. активістів КВУ  у  20 регіонах України. За спостереженнями  КВУповторне голосування відбувалося за більш  напруженої ситуації порівняно з  першим туром. Зокрема у КВУ фіксували  високий рівень конфліктності в роботі комісій, свідомі провокації з боку штабів кандидатів задля зриву виборів, технології, спрямовані на мобілізацію виборців, як то масовий підвіз виборців до дільниць,  затягування підбиття результатів виборів.

9 лютого

У БЮТ вирішили оскаржувати  результати виборів глави держави. Таке рішення  було ухвалене  на засіданні фракції БЮТ. За словами  заступника голови фракції  БЮТ Олени Шустік,  БЮТ  вимагатиме перерахунку по окремих  округах і, якщо буде позитивний результат в судах, ставитиме  під сумнів загальний результат виборів.

Екс-президент Леонід Кучма задоволений, що до влади в Україні повертається його команда.
Про це він заявив в інтерв'ю Corrіere della Sera. За його словам, минулі п'ять років пройшли для України марно, а лідер держави Віктор Ющенко, який  прийшов до влади в результаті Помаранчевої революції, протягом  цього періоду підштовхував країну до катастрофи. Оцінюючи майбутні відносини між новим Президентом і Верховною Радою, Леонід Кучма сказав, що жоден із депутатів не захоче розпуску парламенту, тому треба працювати, щоб сформувати коаліцію, яка могла б повернути країні хоча б мінімум стабільності.

Голова Європарламенту Єжи Бузек привітав українців з проведенням вільних та чесних виборів. За його словами, попри незначні порушення воборчого процесу, загалом волевиялвення відбулось демократично. Єжи Бузек закликав усі політичні сили країни співпрацювати та  реформувати соціально-економічну систему.

З успіхом на виборах президента України привітав лідера Партії регіонів Віктора Януковича президент Росії Дмитро Медведєв. Як повідомила прес-служба президента Росії, привітання відбулося у  телефонній розмові Медведєва з Януковичем. Глава РФ також поздоровив Януковича із завершенням виборчої кампанії, що одержала високу оцінку міжнародних спостерігачів.

Блок Литвина готовий вступити в коаліцію з Партією регіонів. Про це заявив голова фракції Блоку Литвина Ігор Шаров. За його словам,  його сила, як і все українське суспільство,  категорично проти дострокових парламентських виборів. Водночас Ігор Шаров наголосив, що пропозицій про створення нової коаліції на рівні Партії регіонів, НУ-НС і Блоку Литвина до них ще не надходило

БЮТ ніколи не піде в коаліцію з Партією регіонів і перейде в опозицію у разі створення нової коаліції  у складі Партії регіонів, НУ-НС і Блоку Литвина.
Про це журналістам заявив заступник голови фракції БЮТ Андрій Кожем'якін.

10 лютого

ЦВК опрацювала 100 відсотків електронних протоколів. 
За кандидата на посаду Президента України Віктора Януковича проголосувало 48,95% виборців, за Юлію Тимошенко – 45,47%. Не підтримали жодного кандидата 4,36% виборців (1 млн. 113 тис. 51).
Віктор Янукович переміг в 11 регіонах, а Юлія Тимошенко – у 17.

Верховна Рада  ухвалила Закон
 «Про регламент Верховної Ради» і не підтримала Закону «Про підвищення соціальної допомоги малозабезпеченим сім'ям», який пропонувала Партія регіонів. За соціальний закон не голосувала саме Партія регіонів. У БЮТ заявили, що Партія регіонів, щойно її лідера оголосили переможцем, одразу  відмовилась  від своїх соціальних обіцянок.
Представник Партії регіонів Михайло Папієв, який є автором цього закону, пояснив,  що Партія регіонів не проголосувала за нього в другому читанні, бо були заперечення заступника міністра фінансів, який представляє уряд Тимошенко.

Лідер Партії регіонів Віктор Янукович закликав прем'єр-міністра України Юлію Тимошенко піти у відставку і перейти в опозицію. Водночас  лідер Партії регіонів  звернувся  і до членів коаліції із закликом  оголосити про призупинення діяльності коаліції, з тим  щоб він  міг розпочати переговори з різними фракціями щодо формування нового уряду. 

11 лютого

Наступного тижня фракція Партії регіонів проголосує за законопроект щодо підвищення соціальних стандартів малозабезпеченим верствам населення, який не було ухвалено цього тижня. Про це заявила заступник голови Партії регіонів Ганна Герман. Як пояснила регіоналка , цього тижня він не міг бути проголосований, тому що надійшло  дуже багато поправок від профспілок. Після роботи над цими поправками   закон буде ухвалений, запевнила Ганна Герман.

Вперше після другого туру виборів президента на публіці з'явилася Юлія Тимошенко. Відкривши засідання уряду, вона оминула тему виборів, зате розкритикувала дії Партії регіонів у Верховній Раді стосовно підвищення соціальних стандартів, яких вимагала опозиція на чолі з ПР.  А ще  Юлія  Тимошенко говорила про підготовку до весняних польових робіт і проблеми гірничого комплексу.

У міжнародних спостерігачів не було можливості зафіксувати порушення, які носили масовий характер. Про це  заявив керівник Дніпропетровського міського виборчого штабу кандидата у Президенти Юлії Тимошенко Сергій Пасхалов. Він зауважив,  що, зокрема,  у Дніпропетровську на 6 виборчих округах (469 дільниці) працювало всього 6 іноземних спостерігачів, тому навіть при великому бажанні у спостерігачів фізично не було можливості зафіксувати порушення, які носили масовий характер.

Партія регіонів  підготувала закон про надання права обласним радам, за заявою батьків,  давати дозвіл навчати дитину всім предметам російською мовою в будь-якій загальноосвітній школі з обов’зковим вивченням державної мови.
Про це повідомив  заступник голови ПР Борис Колесніков.  У Партії регіонів заявляють, що, не маючи поки що 300 голосів у Верховні й Раді на підтримку надання російській мові статусу другої державної, вони діятимуть в інший спосіб – зокрема, через школи, вузи і суди.

Народні  депутати  закликали  світове співтовариство зміцнити гарантії Україні як країни, що проголосила про свій без'ядерний статус у 1994 році. Відповідний проект звернення ухвалено на засіданні Верховної Ради переважною більшістю (338)  голосів з різних партій. Парламент звернувся до законотворчих органів Англії, США, Росії, Франції, Китаю із закликом підтримати цю ініціативу.

Світові лідери почали надсилати свої вітання  Віктору Януковичу з перемогою на президентських виборах в Україні. Привітання надійшло від президента Європейского Союзу Германа Ван Ромпая. У телефонній розмові своє привітання  висловив президент США Барак Обама, який, як передає прес-служба ПР, дав високу оцінку рівню розвитку демократії в Україні. Поздоровили Віктора Януковича президент Франції Ніколя Саркозі і президенти Німеччини Херст Келлер та Польщі Лех Качинський.  Прес-служба грузинського президента повідомила, що Міхаїл Саакашвілі переказав вітання у телефонній розмові з Віктором Януковичем.

12 лютого

Хоч до ЦВК надійшли усі 225 первинних протоколів, поте там ще не можуть назвати дату проведення засідання зі встановлення офіційних результатів президентських виборів.
Про це повідомив заступник голови ЦВК Андрій Магера. За його словами, ЦВК до цього має отримати усі судові рішення щодо скарг на місцях. Андрій Магера також зауважив,  що визнання недійсними результатів голосування на окремих дільницях не вплине на загальний результат виборів

Штаб Тимошенко вимагає перерахунку голосів на 1200 виборчих дільницях. Про це
голова штабу  Олександр Турчинов заявив у відеозверненні. За його словами,  БЮТ уже юридично довів факти фальсифікації з боку штабів Віктора Януковича. І це дає підстави говорити про системний та масштабний характер подібних порушень. За словами Турчинова,  перерахунок голосів  насамперед потрібний самому Януковичу для того, щоб переконати Україну у своїй легітимності..

На адресу лідера Партії регіонів Віктора Януковича находять офіційні привітання керівників європейських держав
. Віктор Янукович отримав привітання з перемогою на виборах глави держави від Президента Білорусі Олександра Лукашенка, Президента Словаччини Івана Гашпаровіча, Президента Болгарії Георгія Пирванова, Федерального президента Австрії Хайнца Фішера, Президента Фінляндії Тар’ї Халонен.

Вiктора Януковича привітав  з обранням президентом України Генеральний секретар НАТО Андерс Фог Расмуссен. Він наголосив, що вибори в Українi були вiльними, справедливими i демократичними, а також прикладом для регiону. Генсек НАТО запевнив, щ Альянс зобов'язується поглиблювати стратегiчне партнерство з Україною, включаючи допомогу, де це можливо, у проведеннi реформ.

Підстав для відставки уряду немає. У цьому впевнений перший віце-прем'єр України Олександр Турчинов.  Він наголосив, що уряд працює в межах Конституції  і має подавати у відставку за власною ініціативою лише у разі зміни Верховної Ради України. За його словами, зараз немає підстав для відставки уряду за власною ініціативою. Як відомо, напередодні Віктор Янукович закликав Юлію Тимошенко піти у відставку.

За остаточними даними Національного екзит-полу-2010, розрив між кандидатами в президенти Віктором Януковичем і Юлією Тимошенко становить 2,7%: В. Янукович набрав 48,4% голосів, а Ю. Тимошенко - 45,7%. Про це повідомили організатори екзит-полу  на підсумковій прес-конференції. Не підтримали жодного кандидата 5,7% виборців. Більшість із них, за словами соціологів, є молодими людьми або людьми з вищою освітою.

Сергій Тігіпко погодиться стати прем'єром, якщо Віктор Янукович на посту президента запропонує йому цю посаду. Про це він сказав в інтерв'ю «Сегодня».  Як він зауважив, жодних особливих вимог з його  боку не буде – тільки умова надати можливість проводити реформи.

13 лютого

Парламентських виборів не буде, якщо у Верховній Раді створять конструктивну коаліцію. Таку думку висловив лідер перегонів Віктор Янукович. За його словами, переговорний процес про створення такої більшості почнеться вже наступного тижня. Він також повідомив, що нинішнього прем’єр-міністра   буде обов’язково замінено. Кандидатура на цю посаду у Віктора Януковича  вже є, утім, він не сказав, хто  саме.

Віктор Янукович пообіцяв росіянам повернути російсько-українські відносини в дружній історичний формат. Таку радісну звістку він повідомив  в інтерв’ю програмі "Вести недели" каналу "Росія".Лідер перегонів запевнив офіційну Москву, що Російський Чорноморський флот може залишитися в Криму і після 2017 року. Формат відносин з НАТО   за Президента Януковича також не  буде розширено. Якщо ж виникне питання вступу до Альянсу, то його вирішуватиме народ на референдумі, запевнив Віктор Янукович. Він також пообіцяв взятися  за статус російської мови, яку нова влада має намір  впровадити  у діловодстві, освіті, медицині та судах, що буде прописано у відповідному законі. Щодо  указів  Віктора Ющенка про героя Бандеру та воїнів ОУН-УПА,  Янукович пообіцяв не допустити переписування історії і присвоєння сучасних нагород людям, які давно померли.

14 лютого

Центральна виборча комісія офіційно оголосила лідера Партії регіонів Віктора Януковича новообраним Президентом України.
Згідно з результатами ЦВК, за Януковича проголосувало 48,95 %  (12  481 266)  виборців,  за Тимошенко – 45,47 %  (11 593 357) виборців. Не підтримали жодного кандидата 4,36 % (1 113 051) виборців.

Штаб  Юлії Тимошенко має намір оскаржити результати виборів Президента у Вищому адміністративному суді України. Про це повідомив  довірена особа Тимошенко в ЦВК Володимир Пилипенко. За його словами,  оголошення ЦВК офіційних результатів виборів є незаконним, оскільки на момент його оголошення в судах не був завершений розгляд судових справ щодо голосування і підбиття результатів в окремих округах.

Проведення процедури інаугурації в Президенти лідера Партії регіонів Віктора Януковича може відбутися в останній тиждень лютого, 22-26 лютого. Про це сказав перший заступник голови Верховної Ради Олександр Лавринович. За словами Лавриновича, цей термін включає і термін на оскарження результатів виборів у Вищому адміністративному суді.

Ukrainian designer Kateryna Karmachova debuts in Paris TOP
One of the most prestigious salons in Paris "1ere CLASSE" was held in January 2010, where young Ukrainian Kateryna Karmachova introduced her bags collection A/W 2010-2011. The designer presented her first collection, which received very good reviews and entered the top 20 new brands of the season.
91 year-old Ukrainian Canadian, Olga Kotelko, appointed for Olympics 2010 Torch Relay TOP

February 9, 2010

Olga Kotelko, known as the oldest long jump competitor in the world, was nominated as one of the 12,000 XXI Winter Olympic Games Torch Bearers. She held history in her hands, carrying the Olympic flame in the Vancouver 2010 Torch Relay.

Olga carried the torch on Wednesday, February 10 at 7:45 p.m., on Marine Drive in West Vancouver between 15th and 17th Street.

"I am so very happy and so overwhelmed to have this once-in-a-lifetime experience," said an emotional Kotelko. "Carrying the Torch represents inspiration, dedication, hope, perseverance and community spirit. To me, this Flame is a shining symbol saluting good health and well being."

This diminutive and personable former teacher from Burnaby, B.C., Olga is a role model for youngsters, masters and seniors. Since 1997, at the age of 77, Olga Kotelko has been running, jumping and throwing -- and breaking Canadian and World records in the W80, W85 and W90 age categories.

Starting with the World championships in Gateshead in 1999, she has competed internationally, indoors as well as out, winning several gold medals.

Her W85 record for the high jump, set in the 2004 B.C. Masters athletics championships in Penticton, earned her an age-graded ranking of 92.64%. In May at the 2009 B.C. Masters athletics championships in Nanaimo, she set 8 World Records, plus two national marks for a total of 10 Canadian records. She competed in the women shot put 90-94 years and broke the world record during the 2009 Sydney World Masters Games at Sydney Olympic Park on October 11, 2009 in Sydney, Australia.

"Through sport and exercise, I try to promote the importance of maintaining a healthy body, mind and spirit," Olga explained.

In total, Olga Kotelko has 5 bronze, 12 silver and 600 gold medals scored in hammer throw, shot put, javelin, discus and weight throw, as well as long jump, discus, shot put, high jump, triple jump and 100m, 200m and 400m.

Olga Kotelko's achievements have not gone unnoticed.

Besides having been named BC's Masters Athlete of the Year, she has also won the Vancouver YWCA's Women of Distinction in Sports award. In her West Vancouver community, she is sought after as a motivational speaker for seniors, and is well known in her local elementary school where she coaches the shot put. Olga Kotelko is also included in the Canadian Masters Athletics Hall of Fame.

"I am enjoying the benefits of doing what I started at the age of 77 -- track and field." she stated. "As the Chinese expression says: 'It is not how old we are, it is how we get old!' "

About Ukraine House

Official home of Ukraine's Olympic team for the 2010 Winter Olympics is being run jointly by the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine, Embassy of Ukraine in Canada and Ukrainian Canadian Congress. Ukraine House will be officially opened on February 11th, 2010 and will be open to the public from February 12th through to the 28th. Located at the Ukrainian Catholic Centre at 3150 Ash Street in Vancouver, BC.

Buduchnist to sponsor Ukraine's National Paralympic Team TOP
February 9, 2010

Toronto - Canada's largest Ukrainian Credit Union, Buduchnist Credit Union, announced this week that BCU together with its member-supported charitable foundation, BCU Foundation, will be the primary sponsors of the Ukrainian National Paralympic Team during the Paralympic Games in Vancouver.

The Paralympic Games, modelled on the Olympic Games, is an international sport event for world-class athletes living with a disability. Having overcome great physical challenges, these young athletes from Ukraine will be competing in the Paralympic Winter Games, which include such sports as alpine skiing, biathlon, cross-country skiing, ice sledge hockey, wheelchair curling.

Ukraine made a name for itself when it first took part in the VII Paralympic Games in Nagano, Japan in 1998, gaining international recognition having won 3 gold, 2 silver, and 4 bronze medals in the cross-country skiing and biathlon competitions.

In 2002, the Ukrainian Paralympic Team had another stellar performance in Salt Lake City, winning a total of 12 medals. At the IX Parlaympic Games in Torino, Italy, while competing against 38 other countries, the Ukrainian Team made history when it became one of the top-ranked teams in the world in cross-country skiing and biathlon, having won 7 gold, 9 silver, and 9 bronze medals.

During the 2009 IPC World Cup held in Sjusjoen, Norway, Ukraine's team took first place in the biathlon, second in cross-country skiing, and was ranked second in the world over-all.

This year's Paralympic Winter Games Opening Ceremony will take place at Vancouver's BC Place on March 12th. The Closing Ceremony will be held on March 21, 2010 in Whistler at Whistler Medals Plaza.

In the words of Buduchnist CEO, Oksana Prociuk, "the Ukrainian-Canadian community, Buduchnist Credit Union and BCU Foundation are proud to be associated with this outstanding group of athletes." We welcome these spirited competitors from Ukraine and wish them great success in their pursuit of gold. Together -- we all win!

Junior middleweight titleholder Sergei Dzinziruk signs with American promoters TOP
February 3, 2010

Dzinziruk signs with Pelullo, Shaw

By Dan Rafael

Junior middleweight titleholder Sergei Dzinziruk, whose split with German promoter Universum after a protracted legal battle over his contract became official on Wednesday, signed a co-promotional agreement with American promoters Artie Pelullo and Gary Shaw.

Because of the dispute with Universum, Dzinziruk (36-0, 22 KOs), a native of Ukraine living in Germany, has not fought since outpointing Joel "Love Child" Julio in November 2008 in Germany.

He said he had no hard feelings against Universum, which helped guide him to a world title in December 2005, when he scored an eighth-round knockdown against Daniel Santos en route to a unanimous decision victory.

"We have had constructive conversations and have found a way to dissolve my contract," Dzinziruk said. "I am grateful to Universum for my success in recent years and for the ability to become a professional boxer. Under [Universum chief] Klaus-Peter Kohl, I became the WBO world champion and I am extremely grateful to him for that."

Stefan Braune, Universum's managing director, said in a statement, "After the courts affirmed the validity of our contract, Sergei asked that it be canceled by mutual agreement. We were able to reach an agreement about this in recent weeks. We do not want to be an obstacle to Sergei and now wish him all the best and especially good health. We are grateful to Sergei for the many great matches that he fought under our banner."

Dzinziruk, a southpaw who turns 34 on March 1, talked to several promoters in recent months before accepting a co-promotional deal with Pelullo's Banner Promotions and Shaw. Dzinziruk decided on American promoters because he wants to fight in the United States.

"I think he's the top junior middleweight in the world," Pelullo said. "Sergei wants to come to America. He wants to fight the best opponents possible and unify the world titles. I'm also looking forward to working again with Gary. We've been friends for many years and have always worked well together in the past."

Shaw, who has previously co-promoted fighters with Pelullo, including the late Diego "Chico" Corrales, added, "No one is safe once they step into the ring with Sergei. There's a reason he's called 'The Razor.' He cuts his opponents up to ribbons. He is one of the brightest lights in boxing's most exciting division. Artie and I have big plans for him which will include his U.S. debut this spring and setting up his base of operations in Los Angeles, where he'll be taking screen tests."

Dzinziruk, a 1996 Olympian for Ukraine and 1997 world amateur champion, has defended his belt five times and is the longest-reigning titleholder in a 154-pound division in which Sergio Martinez, Cory Spinks and Yuri Foreman hold the other alphabet belts.

Euro 2012 qualifying groups in full TOP

Feb 2010

Photo: AFP

Glitz and glamour: the Euro 2012 qualifying draw

There are 16 places at the finals -14 qualifiers plus co-hosts Poland and Ukraine, who automatically qualify.

The qualfying competition runs from Sept 3-4, 2010 to Oct 11, 2011.

The nine group winners and the runner-up with the best record against the teams first, third, fourth and fifth in their group qualify directly for the finals.

The remaining eight runners-up will contest two-legged play-offs on Nov 11-12 and Nov 15, 2011 to complete the 16 finalists.

The Finals take place from June 8 to July 1, 2012.

Group A: Germany, Turkey, Austria, Belgium, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan

A rerun of the thrilling Euro 2008 semi-final awaits. Germany overcame Turkey that time and will be favourites to progress again. The Turks are currently without a manager after a faltering World Cup qualification campaign, and will be pushed hard by Austria and Belgium, two youthful teams who are in the ascendant.

Group B: Russia, Slovakia, Republic of Ireland, FYR Macedonia, Armenia, Andorra

Luck has come to the Irish. Russia are the weakest seeds and will be an even more appetising prospect if Guus Hiddink moves on. World Cup qualifiers Slovakia are solid, but Ireland should back themselves. Armenia were moved into this group after refusing to play Azerbaijan in Group A.

Group C: Italy, Serbia, Northern Ireland, Slovenia, Estonia, Faroe Islands

A nightmare draw for Nigel Worthington's team, who will face three of the qualifiers for the World Cup. World champions Italy pose the biggest threat, while Serbia trumped France in their qualifying group. But Northern Ireland will take heart from the fact that they beat Slovenia 1-0 in April.

Group D: France, Romania, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Belarus, Albania, Luxembourg

Romania are not the threat they were, finishing fifth in their World Cup qualifying group. But neither are France, who will surely have shed Raymond Domenech by September. Bosnia, who were unlucky to draw Portugal in their World Cup play-off, could be the surprise package.

Group E: Holland, Sweden, Finland, Hungary, Moldova, San Marino

Holland will be favourites to progress, but Sweden will also be a force, as long as they can persuade Zlatan Ibrahimovic to end his international exile, Expect San Marino to be used as target practice again: in World Cup qualifying, their record read: played 10, lost 10, scored 1, conceded 47.

Group F: Croatia, Greece, Israel, Latvia, Georgia, Malta

The weakest of the groups, with a whiff of faded glories about it. Croatia and Greece are a far cry from the sides who conquered England and Europe respectively, although the Greeks muddled their way through to South Africa. Instead Israel, led by Yossi Benayoun, could make waves.

Group G: England, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Wales, Montenegro

England will have to contend with Alex Frei, Dimitar Berbatov and Craig Bellamy to reach Poland and Ukraine, but overall a good draw for Fabio Capello. Switzerland are tough but workmanlike, while Bulgaria are as mercurial as their best-known player. John Toshack, meanwhile, might not get a better chance to break Wales's major tournament duck.

Group H: Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Cyprus, Iceland

An inspired Denmark pipped Portugal to the top of their group last year. It's been a decade since Norway qualified for a major tournament, but with the likes of Brede Hangeland and John Carew, they can still be dangerous. Iceland and Cyprus are genuine banana skins in a group without a genuine minnow.

Group I: Spain, Czech Republic, Scotland, Lithuania, Liechtenstein

One of the worst possible draws for Craig Levein. Spain's pedigree requires no introduction, while the Czechs are a wounded animal after failing to qualify for the World Cup. That said, Michal Bilek's outfit are a team in transition, and if the Scots catch them on an off day, they could spring a surprise.

Ukraine vote goes to the highest bidder TOP

The Guardian, Wednesday 10 February 2010

Ukraine's presidential election should be worrying for everybody interested in democracy (International observers hail Ukraine election as fair, 9 February). Essentially, it points to the commodification of politics. What happened was that one candidate (Yanukovych), convicted of manslaughter and robbery, was languishing in the polls with minimal support. He was backed by murky oligarchs, for commercial reasons. With their financial backing, the candidate hired a US firm that had packaged several Republican presidential candidates. Charging millions of dollars, they moved in, repackaged his soundbites, made sure he did not appear on a pre-arranged TV debate with his opponent, and turned his campaign around. He was sold well. Meanwhile, the other candidate (Tymoshenko) hired the firm that had advised Obama, led by David Axelrod. This was to no avail, given the tactics of the other US firm.

To complete the depressing pro­cess, many Ukrainians advertised their votes on the internet. Where is satire when we need it? Characteristically, the BBC World Service reported the election purely in personal terms, without recognition of what had transpired. One commentator said there was no interest in the US. In reality, the election was run by two US firms. This happened in a European country of nearly 50 million people. The market society is marching on, and we citizens should be alarmed.

Dr Guy Standing
Professor of economic security,
University of Bath

OMNI = Oh, no, Multiethnic coverage Never really Interested us TOP
Re: Broadcast Veterans Team Up with Relative Newcomers to Form 63-Person Multilingual Broadcast Team for Canada's Olympic Broadcast Media Consortium at Vancouver 2010 (see excerpt below), the Consortium may be carrying the Games in 22 different languages, including Ukrainian, but not where I live.

A quick look at the OMNI Alberta site reveals that they have all day coverage every day of the Olympics -- every single broadcast in either Cantonese or Mandarin.


I think back to their licence application process, when they wined and dined all the ethnic leaders that coudl be found in Edmonton, declaring how letters of support from the Ukrainian, German, Italian, Polish and many other communities will ensure a happy, bright future for ethnic television in our region.

Fast forward to today. As Kuchma often said (one of the few quotes by him that I often find useful, at least ironically) "Maiemo te, shcho maiemo -- we have what we have."

Now I understand the acronym:

Oh, no,
Multiethnic coverage
Never really
Interested us.

Just saying.

As part of its ongoing commitment to deliver inclusive coverage of Vancouver 2010 that embraces the country's multicultural heritage, Canada's Olympic Broadcast Media Consortium today unveils its 63-member multilingual broadcast team that will deliver the Games in a total of 22 languages. Consortium broadcast partners OMNI Television, Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN) and Asian Television Network (ATN) will air a combined total of 421 hours of multilingual programming.

"We have recruited and trained a dynamic group of broadcasters who will deliver the Games in their native languages. Hosting the Games on home soil gives us the perfect opportunity to celebrate the country's diversity and share in the magic of the Games like never before," said Keith Pelley, President, Canada's Olympic Broadcast Media Consortium.

Name withheld

Re: Should Ukrainian studies defend the heritage of OUN-UPA? TOP
February 10, 2010

1) In reference to the question that J. Himka asks in the subject line of his message, here is the simple answer. "Ukrainian Studies" as a whole is not defending the heritage of OUN-UPA. Members of "Ukrainian Studies" are free to approach any historical topic as they see fit. It just so happens that Zenon Kohut and a great many others are approaching this topic in a way that their research and experiences see fit, and that is to defend the heritage of OUN-UPA.

2) Maybe "defense" is not the correct connotation here. I would suggest that J. Himka recognize the need - in the very least - to explain, and - at the other extreme - to justify the actions of OUN-UPA in the necessary historical context. In the 20th century, all major political movements -such as OUN - and military formations - such as UPA - were established primarily to do their part in the attempt to reaffirm Ukraine as a free and independent state. A nation's struggle for survival can sometimes be ugly, but nowhere is it documented that nationalist Ukrainians had as part of their mandate to be imperialist, totalitarian or exterminatory, like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

3) Germany, Russia, Japan, Cambodia and many other countries had their hands soaked in oceans of blood last century and they deserve to be put in a class all their own when one considers the crimes against humanity that they perpetrated. Ukraine was - and continues to be - an oppressed nation-state that is doing anything it can within the circumstances that frame the day. Perspective is the key thing that needs to be addressed first and foremost in any attempt by anyone to speak of history and the place that ideologies and events hold within it.

John-Paul Himka is free to call OUN-UPA anything he wants, but he should not be forming a point of view that will bind others to his way of thinking - just as Zenon Kohut, Orest Subtelny, Roman Serbyn and many other fine academicians do not.

Ukrainians are constantly having to go on the defensive in front of foreign oppressors and accusers. Now it seems we may have to face the same problem more and more within our own community.

Andrij Holowaty
Toronto, Canada

Re: A revolution lives underground TOP

Dear Editor,

As one of Canada's 200 election monitors just back from Ukraine, I wholeheartedly agree with Minister Gerard Kennedy's article in the Toronto Star, A revolution lives underground (Feb. 9) http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/762426--a-revolution-lives-underground. 

Canada's post election efforts in Ukraine call for a surge in democracy strengthening.  Ukrainian politicians have become too smart to allow election shenanigans to upset victories: most international missions agreed that that election was, overall, fair. Yet repercussions -- threats to employment, personal harassment, curtailment of free media -- are real.

There is much fear that a "political boss' mentality may set in after the foreigners have left.  Additional efforts on Canada's part to strengthen democracy will ensure that Ukraine's political victors will move closer to serving their people rather than using them.

Oksana Bashuk Hepburn
Gatineau QC, Canada

Заслужив. Ющенка беруть в ''Шахтар''. Банщиком або масажистом? TOP

Олег Медведєв

"На сьогодні модно кидати в нього (Ющенка) каміння, – сказав в ніч на понеділок Ренат Ахметов. – Я дивлюся, що багато гравців з його команди, коли в нього був хороший рейтинг, бігли на гарній швидкості, щоб пройтися з ним. А, коли він пішов вниз, то бігли – щоб кинути в нього камінням. Зі свого боку, можу сказати, що я відчуваю велику повагу до президента Ющенка", – заявив бізнесмен.

Не буду кидати в Ющенка каміння, бо вважаю, ще не час підбивати підсумки його правління. Принаймні, така аналітика не може робитися не емоційній хвилі через два дні після виборів. Врешті-решт, треба було прожити п'ять років без Кучми, аби закралася підозра, що трапляються куди гірші варіанти і куди менш ефективні президенти.

Зате саме час оцінити роль Ющенка у виборчій кампанії. Очевидно, глибокий реверанс, в якому Ренат Леонідович просів перед Віктором Андрійовичем, дає вичерпну відповідь на це питання. Я міг би обмежитися лише цитатами пана Ахметова щодо його глибокої поваги до Ющенка та готовності прийняти його в "Шахтар". Така характеристика з боку футбольного магната тотожна зізнанню вояка в готовності сходити разом у розвідку.

Той результат, який сьогодні вранці висвітився на табло ЦВК – вагомий внесок Віктора Андрійовича в майбутнє Віктора Федоровича. Тішачись наперед тим шквалом критичних моментів, який зараз обрушиться на мою голову, мушу зазначити, що робота Ющенка виявилася в другому турі вирішальною. Він зіграв колосальну роль в демобілізації західноукраїнського виборця. Там ледве чи не в кожну хату занесли (часто-густо, ніжками та ручками регіоналів) звернення Ющенка голосувати проти обох. Переважна більшість розкусила сутність спільної технологічної операції Ющенка та Януковича, однак для Тимошенко забракло саме тієї меншості, яка клюнула на вудку двох Вікторів і голоснула-таки проти обох чи просто на прийшла.

З іншого ж, східного, боку Ющенко посприяв мобілізації виборців Януковича, холоднокровно використавши для цього образ Бандери та тему УПА. Янукович прийняв цей ідеологічний пас, і на Донбасі голосували не лише проти Тимошенко, а й проти Бандери.

Політика – це світ хижаків, і Ющенко в ньому не був і не є травоїдним. Наївно було би розраховувати, щоб його в 2010 році охопило почуття вдячності до Тимошенко за те, що вона в 2004 році не завадила йому стати президентом. У відповідь Ющенко зробив все, аби передати булаву Януковичу.

Очевидно, як громадянин він мав право робити власний вибір, а можливостей у нього дещо більше ніж у нас...

Але інші громадяни мають знати, що ворота нашої фортеці Януковичу відкрив Ющенко. І сподіватися, що на старті виборчої кампанії він з Януковичем домовився не лише про власну шкуру й радісне життя життя в Безрадичах, але й про те, що не буде другої державної, нас не запишуть в ЄЕП, трубу не здадуть росіянам, Київський Патріархат не заженуть в катакомби, а галичан, згідно теорії Табачника, не викреслять із складу українців, а заодно і з реєстру виборців...

PS -- Днями десь прочитав інтерв'ю В'ячеслава Піховшека, в якому той зізнався, що Янукович особисто... заборонив критикувати Ющенка.

Холодний душ для росіян, що розвісили вуха, слухаючи Януковича TOP

Сергій Лещенко

У суботу в ефірі каналу "Росія" Януковича запитали, чи може Чорноморський флот РФ залишиться на території України після 2017 року.

Янукович відповів: "Я цього не виключаю, але питання буде розглядатися в пакеті".

На жаль, Янукович не уточнив, у якому саме пакеті – целофановому чи якомусь іншому.

У суботу в ефірі каналу "Росія" Януковича запитали, чи може Чорноморський флот РФ залишиться на території України після 2017 року.

Але на місці росіян я би не сприймав цю заяву за чисту монету.

Слова Януковича – це або блеф, або не розуміння повноважень, з якими він вступає на посаду, та незнання Конституції, за якою йому жити.

По-перше, термін каденції Януковича спливає в 2015 році. І цілком імовірно, що в 2017 в країні буде інший президент.

А, по-друге, президент не має компетенції для вирішення питання базування флоту.

Читайте Конституцію України.

В статті 17 розділу I вказано: "На території України не допускається розташування іноземних військових баз".


Тобто для того, щоб викреслити пункт про заборону базування іноземних військ, потрібен референдум.

Думаю, навіть якщо Янукович почне робити перші кроки по внесенню змін до Конституції, то це викличе небачену мобілізацію в суспільстві.

Можливо, він піде якимсь іншим, позаконституційним шляхом.

Ціла стаття: http://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/leschenko/4b7942a5c4e03/

In memory of Roman Kupchinsky TOP
February 3, 2010
Yarko Koshiw

Born on November 1, 1944 in Vienna, you were a child of World War II. Your father died from a bomb blast while holding you in his arms. You arrived in New York City in 1949 with your mother and step father as a displaced person. Your pursuit of the American dream was interrupted by the hell of the Vietnam War. You survived your wounds and returned as a 2nd Lieutenant with a Purple Heart.

Your first job was an office boy with Prolog, the publisher of Suchasnist and books. You learned with time that Prolog was not just any publisher. Your boss Mykola Lebed gave you the impossible task of liberating Ukraine. As a good soldier you tried to carry out his impossible order. Your assignments ranged from meeting Soviet tourists to agents. You learned that Prolog was financially backed by the U.S. government. Your grant provider was the CIA and not the UPA. In 1980 you became the new head of Prolog, and took it in new directions - China, where you lectured about the USSR, and Afghanistan, where you met Soviet soldiers held by Bin Laden's Islamic fighters.

In 1989, as the Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe began to unravel, your President, Bush Sr., closed Prolog as a goodwill gesture to Gorbachev. In 1990 your fiercest ideological enemy, the KGB in Ukraine, invited you to their headquarters for a meeting. You toasted with the KGB leadership to the end of the Cold War and Ukraine's independence. At their request, you organized a meeting with the CIA so that Ukraine would have an independent channel to the White House.

Later in 1990, your new employer Radio Liberty made you the director of its Ukrainian Radio Service. After independence in 1991 you set up Radio Liberty broadcasts across Ukraine, which made the Prolog efforts seem miniscule. In 2002, you left Ukrainian section, after the management called upon you to stop broadcasting criticism of President Kuchma over the murdered journalist Gongadze. In 2003, your interview with the president's former guard Melnychenko proved to be most revealing up to this day. You stayed in Radio Liberty as editor of the weekly Internet publication "Crime, Corruption & Terrorism Watch", where your articles raised the public's awareness on the seamless connection between criminals and politics in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

You retired from Radio Liberty in 2008 to pursue the life of an investigator specializing on oil and gas in Russia and Ukraine. Your reputation as an analyst was cemented with articles published on the web site of the think tank The Jamestown Foundation, the American newspaper Ukrainian Weekly, and the consultancy group AZEast.

You passed away on January 19, 2010 leaving behind a life time achievement as a soldier, Cold War warrior, journalist and analyst. Your endeavors helped people around the world to better understand the nature of the new Russian and Ukrainian elites. You will be missed for your unrelenting jolliness.

Роман Купчинський – батіг для комуністів та подібних пост-комуністичних клептократів TOP
Роман Купчинський - батіг для комуністів та подібних пост-комуністичних клептократів

Пeреклад з www.Economist.com by Edward Lukac

28 січня 2010 року

У СВОЇЙ свободі вони не мають батьківщини. А на своїй батьківщині вони не мали свободи. Роман Купчинський, воїн в уніформі та без неї, який помер 19 січня у віці 65 років - був однією із найвизначніших особистостей серед тих, хто воював у, здавалося б, безнадійній, але врешті-решт - у тріумфальній боротьбі проти окупації радянською владою східної частини Європи.

Багато з того, що він робив під час "холодної війни" - все ще залишається секретним. Син українського емігранта, який перебрався у США, він служив моряком у В'єтнамі. Далі він працював "на уряд". Він проводив кампанії на підтримку політичних в'язнів і був потужним борцем у інформаційній війні проти радянської влади на Україні.

Але на відміну від багатьох своїх побратимів - воїнів "холодної війни", він не оголосив про перемогу у 1991 році, і не пішов у відставку. Він повернув свій вогонь проти нового, більш підступного ворога: проти "злиття" між організованою злочинністю та пострадянськими спецслужбами, зокрема поетапного корумпування нафтової та газової галузей промисловості. Він редагував захоплюючий двотижневий дайджест про злочинність та корупцію у пострадянському регіонів для Радіо "Вільна Європа"/ Радіо "Свобода" (Для поінформованих читачів - саме видання було лише слабким відображенням дійсності, і тому рекомендується "подорож" по архівах).

Ті, хто читав його звіти у цьому виданні, а пізніше - для аналітичного центру Фонду Джеймстауна, - відзначали їх неймовірність, добру інформаційну наповненість та змістовність. Однак, вони були лише "розбавленою" версією того, що він знав насправді. Західні енергокомпанії та уряди довіряли йому, використовуючи його в якості консультанта, щоб роз'яснити жахливий звіринець кумівства, шпигунства та жадібності, які зустрічаються на дикому Сході. І він зберігав їх секрети.

Багатьом людям приємно, коли їх називають "ходячою енциклопедією". Купчинський ж це заслужив. Але це - лише одна з його частинок. Його товариство було шумним та гучним, його рішучість перехитрити "поганих хлопців" - надихала. Ваш автор одного разу потребував термінової допомоги проти, здавалося б, найнепереможнішого ворога у цьому світі. "Ромків" солоний гумор заспокоїв мої нерви, а його глибокі знання допомогли виграти битву.

Купчинський був символом покоління, яке тікало від тоталітаризму та шукало нову домівку на Заході. Таких як він можна знайти у всіх інших регіонах: Валдас Адамкус та Вайра Віке-Фрейберг - колишні президенти Литви та Латвії відповідно, або Томас Хендрік Ілвес, чинний естонський голова держави. За останні двадцять років можна знайти ще багато кого, серед усіх вікових груп та повсюдно в суспільному житті колишніх поневолених націй.

Їх великою перевагою був "бінокулярне бачення". Живучи на заході, вони могли набагато краще розуміти, яким є життя у багатому, вільному світі, чи воно добре, чи хворе, аніж більшість їх співвітчизників, які були вдома - і це дійсно спрацьовувало. Адже вони також використовували глибокі знання історії та традицій своїх країн - набагато більше в окремих випадках ніж ті, хто жив під радянською владою. Хоча це працювало не у свій часи: після 1991 року окремі емігранти, які повернулися, виявилися зверхніми, бундючними та відверто дивакуватими. Окремі з них померли дуже рано: Стасис Лозораітіс, провідний дипломат Литви на Заході, швидко згорів у 70-річному віці від раку печінки у 1994 році, і його країна втратила його цілісність, шарм та далекоглядність. Але найкращі та найуспішніші з них відіграли величезну роль у забезпечення майбутнього своїх країн після краху комунізму.

Купчинський був одним із найбільш серйозних: як у себе в країні у боротьбі з неспокійними бюрократіями, такими як ФБР чи ЦРУ, так і в Україні з бюрократичними проблемами у зовнішній розвідці, і в приватному секторі, ЗМІ чи аналітичних центрах. Він продовжував читати, писати та говорити - споживаючи багато нікотину та алкоголю - аж до його смерті.

Що ж ми будемо робити без нього?

У пам’ять двох українських патріотів: Михайла Яєчника і Лева Бабія TOP

Михайло Яєчник і Лев Бабій належали до одного покоління та народилися, відповідно, у 1926 і 1927 роках у місті Бережани Тернопільської області. Вони народилися з різницею лише в рік і померли з різницею лише у два роки – у 2008 і 2010 роках, відповідно. Незважаючи на те, що вони провели більшість свого життя окремо – у Великобританії та Канаді – їхні життєві шляхи були завжди тісно взаємопов’язані.

Вони обидва виросли в Галичині, що в міжвоєнний період входила до складу Польщі, в часи потужної політизації української молоді. Обидва приєдналися до підпільної Організації українських націоналістів, де вони відігравали важливу роль протягом усього часу проживання на території України, а згодом – і після прибуття до Великобританії та Канади в якості політичних біженців.

Михайло Яєчник і Лев Бабій вступили до дивізії «Галичина» у 1944 році та брали участь у тих самих воєнних операціях проти радянських окупаційних військ у Словаччині, Югославії та Австрії. Завершення Другої світової війни застало їх у місті Ріміні в Італії, де дивізія «Галичина» була інтернована британцями.

У 1948 році членів дивізії «Галичина» перевезли до Великобританії. Як Михайло Яєчник, так і Лев Бабій з того часу були постійно задіяні в житті української общини, беручи активну участь у діяльності Союзу українців Великої Британії (СУБ), Об’єднання бувших вояків-українців (ОБВУ) та Спілки української молоді (СУМ).

Лев Бабій емігрував до Канади у 1952 році, у той час як Михайло Яєчник продовжив будувати своє життя у Великобританії. Їхня активна участь у житті української общини була типовою для галицької міжвоєнної діаспори. Михайло Яєчник продовжував лишатися активним учасником СУБу та Української школи у Великобританії. Лев Бабій протягом понад трьох десятиліть був організатором та лідером станиці Братства колишніх вояків Першої української дивізії УНА та Всесвітньої ради українських комбатантських організацій при Світовому конгресі вільних українців у Канаді.

Михайло Яєчник і Лев Бабій обоє брали активну участь у зборі та публікації матеріалів про їхній рідний Бережанський край Тернопільської області. Плодами їхньої праці стала публікація двох томів «Бережанської землі» у Нью-Йорку в 1970 і 1998 роках.

У 1958 році Михайло Яєчник і Лев Бабій одружилися на двох Маріях з України та Канади, відповідно. Михайло Яєчник одружився з Марією з його села Гайворонка Тернопільської області. У них народилися три дочки – Оксана, Ярослава і Олена. Того ж 1958 року Лев Бабій одружився з іншою Марією, що народила йому трьох дітей – Марка, Романа і Надію.

Михайло Яєчник поділився зі мною іншим поглядом на Другу світову війну, що був типово українським. Частина представників міжвоєнного галицького покоління, такі як Лев Бабій, приєдналися до військових формувань добровільно (дивізії «Галичина», УПА) або примусово (польських або радянських збройних сил), у той час як інші, такі як мій батько, були вислані до Німеччини на примусові роботи.

Після одруження з Оксаною Яєчник Михайло та Марія Яєчники прийняли мене у свою сім’ю як свого «сина». Ми мали багато приємних розмов про українську історію та поточну політичну ситуацію в Україні. У 2000 році мені випала удача супроводжувати Михайла Яєчника і Оксану до України, де вони відвідали своє рідне село Гайворонка, Львів і Київ.

Із Левом Бабієм я познайомився через друзів у Торонто, які були членами Української професійної і бізнесової асоціації та СУМу, Богдана і Надію Гогусів. Так само як і Богдан і Надія, Лев Бабій був дуже гостинним та доброзичливим до прибулих до Торонто та членів української общини, таких як ми. Лев і Марія Бабії запросили нас до свого дому на Святвечір.

Лев Бабій мав теплі спогади про Великобританію, де ми народилися. Він жив у цій країні протягом 1948-1952 років після того, як бійці дивізії «Галичина» були перевезені з Італії до Великобританії, і був активним учасником СУБу і СУМу. СУБ, зокрема, був заснований українсько-канадським офіцером, який служив у канадських збройних силах.

Лев Бабій запропонував мені зробити два виступи перед ветеранами дивізії «Галичина», які жили в Канаді. Він зробив це не лише тому, що знав, що я був політичним аналітиком, а й тому, що саме у Великобританії лишилася жити більшість із 100 тис. бійців дивізії «Галичина» після того, як їх було перевезено з Італії.

Мені випала честь виступати на 60-й і 65-й річницях створення дивізії «Галичина» у 2003 і 2008 роках, відповідно, у клубі «Золотий лев» у Торонто. Обидва виступи були згодом опубліковані у квартальному журналі «Вісті комбатанта».

Ми знали, і, можливо, Лев Бабій як організатор та ініціатор обох заходів також знав, що це будуть останні дві річниці. Молоде українське покоління, народжене у 1920-х роках у Галичині, повільно відходить, і на 70-у річницю у 2013 році залишиться дуже мало ветеранів.

Михайло Яєчник і Лев Бабій як представники міжвоєнної генерації молодих українців були унікальним поколінням в історії України. Вони присвятили усе своє життя Україні, її культурі, мові та державній незалежності.

Без них українська діаспора не змогла б досягти того, чого вона досягла.

Без них Україна сьогодні не була б незалежною державою.

Вічна їм усім пам’ять! Вічна пам’ять Михайлу Яєчнику! Вічна пам’ять Леву Бабію!

Тарас Кузьо

ADMINISTRATION, subscribing, unsubscribing, etc. TOP

Myroslava Oleksiuk
-- editor-in-chief

Anya Maziak
-- editor, culture/society/religion

Oxana Bukanova
-- editor, politics/business

Марта Онуфрів
-- кореспондент
Marta Onufriv
-- correspondent

Діана Мережко
-- кореспондент (Здоров'я)
Diana Merezhko
-- correspondent (Health)

Zenon Chytra
-- story layout

John Heron
-- story layout

Ihor Prociuk
-- story layout and design


We hope you found ePOSHTA informative and will share it with others. Your submissions and suggestions are always welcome.


Use the following e-mail addresses to:

SEND us e-mail:

JOIN the list:
To join the list, please send a blank email to:

QUIT the list:
YahooGroups will send you an e-mail -- to which you must reply -- in order to confirm that you want to quit the list.

Having difficulty joining (or quitting) the list? Or maybe you want us to add your friends to ePOSHTA? Contact:
Make sure you have "Subscription" in the subject line.

Events, Conferences, Employment:
Send announcements at least two weeks before the event date to: events@eposhta.com
See the guidelines for submitting EVENT announcements.

If you maintain a web-based list of events for your city or region, let us know. We will add a link to your site from ePOSHTA.

Myroslava Oleksiuk myroslava@rogers.com

Editor, Culture/Society/Religion:
Anya Maziak amaziak@yahoo.com

Editor, Politics/Business:
Oxana Bukanova o.bukanova@gmail.com

Zenon Chytra
John Heron
Ihor Prociuk