The American Revolution, which was simultaneously the War of Independence, was not very successful in its first year.
Washington’s rag-tag
army was somewhat like Ukraine volunteer battalions last summer, and it had a
difficult time against the English king’s Hessian professional mercenaries. It
was only when the French expeditionary force under General Jean Rochambeau
(“Rush them boys”} became decisively engaged, and the French fleet blocked the
Brits from lifting the siege of Yorktown, did the Americans prevail.
Isn’t it ironic that today’s American media made an “Octoberfest”
out of English Queen’s visit to New York in 2014, while some Manhattan dames
were cheerfully curtsying? The French didn’t come close.
While speaking of failures, it is probably NATO that takes
the cake, although U.S. President Barack Obama hails his own “strategic patience” in
curbing Putin. Ukrainians at least are
showing some class (besides dying at front lines), by being politely appreciative
for the trickle-down of assistance from the West, while projecting at least 5
percent of GDP for defense spending.
The lesson is not to judge quickly, after only one year, what
may actually be a momentous event (possibly the harbinger of the end of Russia’s
empire). Ukraine’s ongoing war of independence sparked at Maidan looks like a pivotal
remaking of eastern Europe.
Among criticism of Ukraine’s revolution is the no- strings-
attached bashing of some of its volunteer battalions — as
in Adrian Karatnytsky’s piece (“Warlords and armed groups threaten Ukraine’s
rebuilding,” Kyiv Post, Dec. 31). While some concern may be understandable,
it sounds farcical when terminology is used such as “the neo-Nazi Azov
brigade.” What makes it neo-Nazi besides the 24-7 propaganda with internet
trolling from Moscow? Is “right wing” or
“far-right” description insufficient (if and when true)? The universe is full of right-wing spectrum
(including Russia) — and it is no
crime. Even someone as liberal as I am understands that part.
Also, pointing to “the role of Ukraine’s interior minister
Arsen Avakov” as lax towards volunteer units begs the question: Why not mention the much bigger problem of
infiltration of Moscow’s spies in Ukraine’s security services (“Ukraine’s top
intelligence agency deeply infiltrated by Russian spies”, Kyiv Post, Dec. 30).
Remarkably unrestrained is criticism of Avakov for providing
some heavy weapons for volunteer battalions, which they did not have last
August and took major losses during the Russian offensive in the Ilovaisk area
near Donetsk. It may be recalled that incompetent high-level leadership was
blamed at that time for not providing needed weapons.
The unusually harsh language used by Karatnytsky compels
some reflection about the causes of friction between Poroshenko’s government and
right-wing groups like the Right Sector. The languishing corruption in high
circles in the government is the main cause of widespread resentment which also
fuels the militants by far more than any ideology. It should also be recalled
that the Right Sector (yes, mostly Russian speakers) gets high marks for its
most active role at Maidan in overthrowing Viktor Yanukovych’s regime. As the
protests were in a standoff in the most critical moment, credible e-mails from
Maidan I am aware of read: Our chances are 50-50. Our last hope is Yarosh (Right
Sector leader).
There may be more motivation than the ideological cloud to
bash the right- wing militants. Such as: Is Karatnytsky reflecting the views of
the Atlantic Council of which he is a Senior Fellow, and which is a microcosm
of America’s commercial republic?
North American oligarchs always have warm feelings for
Ukraine’s oligarchs. They themselves breed corruption in lobby-based American politics
through economic power by legally financing Congressional campaigns and thus having a strong say in
legislation (but no bribing of judges as in Ukraine).
At the time Viktor Yanukovych was elected president in 2010
and for a while longer, western big business world was impressed by his “free
market ideas”. Yulia Tymoshenko was slighted for her populism and “lack
of experience in economy.”
Karatnytsky apparently was then similarly impressed by what seemed to be the
free market glow in the Regions Party, at least as pointed in his American
Interest article “Orange peels: Ukraine after revolution” (August 2010). He was
also inclined to give Yanukovych “a benefit of doubt” about his authoritarian
twist, six months into Yanukovych presidency, when the slide of democracy in
Ukraine was already very clear.
And so did the Atlantic Council, inviting President Viktor Yanukovych to a luncheon with business elites in New York. He attended it on
Sept. 24, 2010 with a prepared speech.
Alexander Motyl had presented a detailed argument
disagreeing with Karatnytsky’s ambivalence for the Yanukovych regime at the
time {“Would you buy a used car from Yanukovych?”, Kyiv Post, August 26,
2010).
Karatnytsky had shown poor judgment then and is doing it
now.
Almost amusing is his exasperation at the Azov Battalion’s
taking control of order in Mariupol in December without approval of local or
national officials. What “local officials”? Most of them in Donetsk oblast
either disappeared or quickly sided with the separatists last spring. In
Mariupol area, only an early presence and initiatives of Ukrainian volunteer
forces prevented it from falling under separatist control. As for the national
officials outreach in Donbas, the less said the better.
Also, as I recall from World War II days, military commanders
usually take responsibility for law and order in the war zone, as civilians
take cover. It is martial law in practice. Some folks don’t get it.
The vehemence of Karatnytsky’s words condemning the
right-wing militants as “a threat to Ukraine’s rebuilding” remains puzzling. First,
a country needs to exist to be rebuilt. First there has to be unity and force
to defend Ukraine against Russia’s aggression. Yes, Ukraine still needs those
battalions.
Boris Danik is a retired Ukrainian-American living in North Caldwell, New Jersey.
