The thrust of the writing is criticism of proposed laws banning Communist and Nazi symbols in Ukraine, and make it illegal to question the legitimacy of the World War II-era Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, known as UPA, that fought against the Nazis and theSoviets in WW II and some years after
Legal recognition of UPA fighters as veterans of WWII in the struggle for the independence of Ukraine deserves every support, and should have been affirmed years ago, as I mentioned in my op-ed “How steel was hardened” (Kyiv Post, April 19). This action is now sandwiched within proposed laws. But other parts contained in the same package probably should be sorted out and rewired.
Much of what the Moscow Times article says is quite right. For instance, a law making it illegal to question the legitimacy of a specified political entity is clearly outlandish in a democratic society.
Likewise, mandating a restrictive view of some events in history and punishing those who disagree is hardly an ideal approach. It borders on the ridiculous, and will not fly.
The tag “de-communization” probably fits best the proposed law on the tearing down of monuments to Soviet heroes and other symbols of Communist regime. The above-mentioned article does not recommend it, because “it detracts from the more pressing issues facing Ukraine,” and also because of the expense of removal, and some probable violent reactions inside the country.
It would also infuriate Moscow. It would, because removal of imperial symbolism is almost as important for Ukraine’s freedom and clear air as keeping out Moscow’s invaders and their proxies.
No one is more aware of this than are the hypocrites in the European Union. Lawmakers in Kyiv, acting on “EU concern”, have already softened the legislation banning Soviet and Nazi symbols, wrote the Financial Times (“Ukraine urged to implement ceasefire in full”, April 27).
“Berlin is worried that Kyiv is delaying parts of the (Minsk) deal, in trying to postpone political decentralization until after local elections in separatist-held territory”. In practice, this worry translates into insistence from the EU that Kyiv must yield to demands of the separatist leaders concerning the status of Donetsk and Luhansk regions under their control in a “unified Ukraine”, that would also make easier for Russia to destabilize the country. This presumably would take the EU off the hook and not lose face.
It also means that the EU has lost its own moorings and does not know what it needs to do. Remarkably, separatist leaders in Donbas are among themselves not quite in agreement about their priorities, and are not always in synch with Putin’s line. Sometimes they want an independent republic, but have also voted to become part of Russia. But Moscow needs them mainly as a Trojan horse in Ukraine.
The EU has no fig leaf to conceal the fact that it has no military force to speak of in its behind the scene ongoing negotiations with Russia. Worse, it is hardly a secret that EU’s reliance on NATO and the United States has become more and more nebulous.
News reports have it that American paratroopers now training a unit of the Ukrainian National Guard in Yavoriv in Ukraine come from a regiment of the 173rd Airborne Brigade stationed in Italy, one of the last U.S. combat units in Europe. Inadequate American presence is bad news. No wonder Russia’s Vladimir Putin is swaggering and massing troops on Ukraine’s border, and defiantly flying his bombers on the edges of Scandinavia and Britain
It gets even more freaky. America’s ability to effectively counter a possible Moscow push into Europe under present leadership in Washington is not taken for granted.
That’s not all. The US Air Force, with its presumed virtual monopoly on military air space, may not be in top shape, as a result of engrained price gouging and high-tech bungling by the military-industrial complex. Writes David Lerman in Bloomberg Business (“Almost nobody believes the US Air Force can build an affordable bomber”, April 22): “The last time the US Air Force developed a B-2 stealth bomber, the plane cost $2.2 billion each……The next generation bomber being developed is advertised with a sticker price of $550 million per plane, which nobody believes outside the Pentagon.”
Earlier in Bloomberg News, February 13, 2013 (“Flawed F-35 fighter too big to kill as Lockheed Hooks 45 states”): “The Pentagon envisioned the F-35 Joint Striker Fighter as an affordable state-of-the-art stealth jet serving three military branches and US allies.
Instead it is plagued by costly redesigns, bulkhead cracks and delayed essential software that have helped put it 7 years behind schedule and 70 percent cost overrun over its initial cost estimate of almost $400 billion”. It cannot do the air-to-ground mission now performed by the aged A-10 fighter-bomber built in the 1970s.
From a technical point of view, complex real-time software development requires meticulous attention to detail, and cannot tolerate shortcuts and inadequate mental discipline. Extensive validation process of real- timesoftware with simulated sensor stimuli is of utmost importance. And, finally, immaculate documentation is a must –which is often the first victim of “time-saving” race.
Military-industrial lobbies in Washington habitually get more funding for pet projects than requested by the Pentagon. Bill Moyers Conversations on Public Broadcasting in New York (23 November 2014) had these comments: “Government has become a clearing house for corporations and plutocrats with deep pockets to buy the politicians who grease the wheels for lucrative contracts and easy regulations”.
And: “According to watchdog Sunlight Foundation, from 2007 to 2012, 200 corporations spent almost $6 billion in Washington on lobbying and campaign contributions. And then received more than $6 trillion in government contracts and other forms of assistance”.
Maybe some of such accumulated overload, as well as the withered resolve and missing national purpose in America’s elites, have a role in making Putin more self-assured in challenging the West in his plans to establish Russia’s power over Europe.
