March 15, 2014 --
Ukraine, going back to last summer (with the exception of February) has been the second-highest country on LPR's visitor list. (In February it ranked as LPR's third-highest country. The top-ranking LPR country is the USA.) LPR does not know what prompts these visits from Ukraine, but has the hope that the people of Ukraine might find the following statement of some interest.
Apparently in the west, there are political figures and media people who are enamored by the sight of revolution for revolution's sake, only, thereafter, to contend with questions raised by others concerning the nature of the pending revolution. And so, originally there was considerable support for the government upheaval in Egypt until months of Morsi rule left the general impression that Morsi intended to establish a government in Egypt based on religious zealotry. Some months later, it appeared that the United States was about to get directly involved in the overthrow of Syria;s Bashir Assad, until it became apparent that groups seeking to remove Assad were no better, perhaps worse, than he.
Presently, the nation du jour is Ukraine and the focus of demonization is Soviet President Vladimir Putin, with the narrative in the west following this theme: Putin wants to re-establish the borders of the former Soviet Union, is bringing about Cold War II, and is willing to risk hurtling the globe into World War III. LPR wonders -- has Putin, in fact, by moving into the Crimea, acted to tamp down the possibility of military conflict between a NATO-backed Ukraine and Russia? There is no question that, following the apparent overthrow of the democratically-elected Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukraine insurgency took on a clearly anti-Russian cast. Is it unlikely that this anti-Russian mindset would have led to nationalist assertions that the presence of a Russian naval base in the Crimea was unacceptable as an insult to the national sovereignty of Ukraine? Is it unlikely that the west would have responded to Ukraine moves against the Russian naval base on the Black Sea with warnings that Russia to take no military action to reverse a Ukraine takeover of that naval base? LPR doubts that, in such event, the western media would have been filled with columns wondering why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was seeking, via Ukraine, a Black Sea presence at Sevastopol. Putin, arguably, by moving into Crimea has pre-empted a move by Ukraine that would be taken by Russia as casus belli.
The western media is filled with cautions that Ukraine must not be divided in two -- with the western half leaning westward and the eastern half leaning eastward. LPR recalls no demands that the unity of Czechoslovakia must be honored. Yes, the Czechoslovakian situation of 1938 has been cited by Hillary Clinton, among others, in an anti-Russian context, but we have heard nothing about the cutting in two of Czechoslovakia, effective January 1, 1993. One of the Ukraine cities regularly mentioned in the current Ukraine situation is Lviv.
How long has Lviv been a part of Ukraine? Apparently since the Red Army occupied the area at the end of 1944. Five years earlier, Lviv came under Soviet control and was made part of Ukraine consequent to the Hitler-Stalin pact that, among other things cut Poland in two. Prior to September 1939, Lviv was a part of Poland for some five hundred years and was known as Lwow. After Hitler moved against the Soviet Union, June 1941, Lwow came under Nazi rule in a Polish context.
There is, so far as LPR is aware, no demands, today, that Lviv be renamed Lwow and returned to Poland. The victorious allies approved the deportation of the Polish population from Lwow, renamed Lviv, to Poland after World War II, with the city recognized as part of Ukraine. It would seem to LPR that if the Lviv circumstance has any present relevance, it is in the Israel-Palestinian context, to make the point that border changes consequent to war are not unknown as a factor in international affairs.
Henry A. Kissinger, writing in The Washington Post, March 5, suggested that Washington should stop treating Russia like a misbehaving child. (LPR, on its part, wonders if there are administration advisers eager for the change to issue "No-Fly Zones" against Russia.) Dr. Kissinger also suggested that there is a shortage of U.S. policy-makers who understand Russian history and psychology. He further indicated that the west should oppose a Ukraine policy of "institutional hostility towards Russia" and that Ukraine accept the continued presence of the Russian Naval Base at Sevastapol.
LPR would add the suggestion that the government and people of Ukraine should not conclude that what might appear as saber-rattling against Russia, generally, and Putin, in particular, on the part of U.S. newspapers and public officials reflects the general views of Americans. Unfortunately, demonizing has become a regular practice in the United States among leftists who would following the teachings and strategy of the sophomoric, patronizing Saul Alinsky. History, LPR believes, more accurately reveals demonizing to be the hallmark of the religious or political bigot.
David R. Zukerman. prop.
Lonely Pamphleteer Review