It had started nobly for
Ukraine. Despite the immediate defection
to Russia’s side of the newly appointed commander of Ukraine’s navy, Denis Berezovsky
was, at first, alone. When he appeared
in the Ukrainian headquarters–already blockaded by Russian forces– to
convince some 200 officers to join him, they broke into Ukraine’s
national anthem and sent him packing.
Where was the command from
the top brass in Kyiv to arrest the traitor?
And what was the government’s strategy in Crimea? If to hold: why were the weapons locked up? If to capitulate, than why no evacuation plan
to save human resources and materiel?
Why no explanation to the troops or to the public?
For months Russia’s
military—despite their camouflage and lies– had been amassing in Crimea. Yet, when there still was parity in numbers
–some twenty five hundred on either side—there was no command given to block
roads or set up border checks to keep more from coming. They were invading “to protect
Russian-speakers”. Where was Kyiv’s
command to protect Crimeans; all citizens of Ukraine?
Instead of directions from
Ukraine’s commander in chief, Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov or Minister
of Defense Ihor Tenyukh, there were heroic moments of non-armed resistance from
Ukraine’s marines.
n one unforgettable case a
group of officers under Yuliy Mamchur, the Belbek air force commander , marched directly into a
blockade of Russian with readied automatic guns. Mamchur reasoned with them: We are unarmed, what are you doing?
It was useless. Russia’s commander in chief, Vladimir Putin
demanded an invasion, blockade, denial of food and medical supplies, abduction,
torture and, when needed, death. Crimea
was needed to control the Black Sea and Ukraine’s military, shipbuilding, and
space industrial complexes, critical to his vision of Russia becoming a dominant
global power.
In turn, Kyiv’s strategy to
do nothing despite pleas from both the military and civilians in Crimea,
astounds. After the over-arching command– loyalty to the oath in face of
Russia’s occupation– was given, Ukraine’s top military brass went
underground. Why was there no
communication on this matter?
Was Tanyukh crying in an internet photograph? He resigned; but
why? The boarder guards’
lieutenant-general has replaced him. A
border patrol man to head defense?
The Crimean episode recalls
Shakespeare’s description of treachery: something is rotten in the state of
Denmark. Equally troubling is the order
that all Ukrainian civilians must disarm including the heart of Maidan’s
security, the Right Sector. People are
asking: is there a plot to leave Ukrainians defenseless, again; just like in
Crimea?
Kyiv needs to make a solid
explanation soon or conspiracy theories will abound. Mistrust will grow and undermine the
much-needed popular support for the coalition government. Above all, the military as well as the newly
formed National Defense Guard need to understand what happened to the chain of
command in Crimea.
Among the key questions the
government need answers are these: Who
advised on Crimea and why was this particular approach taken ? Why the urgency to disarm civilians in light
of the Russian military might on the boarders while the military is said not to
be in full readiness and the National Guard in its infancy? What is being done to bolter the spirit of
the military and population demoralized by events in Crimea?
Ukraine did not lose Crimea. It was taken by Russia while all watched and
did nothing. With Crimea went the
principle of a nation’s territorial integrity, military vessels, munitions,
materiel, the compounds, the cities, towns and villages, the rich energy shelf
the miles of surrounding waters, the
Tartars’ homeland, and the daily lives of the entire population which had
chosen, at the time of independence in 1991, to be part of Ukraine and
reiterated that sentiment in a survey merely months ago.
Instead of what Crimeans wanted,
Russia unleashed the four horsemen of the Apocalypse to plague the abandoned
little peninsula with dislocation, desperation, fear and humiliation; the
world’s newest refugees or prisoners of heinous occupiers.
Perhaps the saddest part of
the Crimea is that most of Ukraine’s navy personnel are now under Russia’s
command.
Those who stood firm deserve
great admiration—parades, apartments in reconfigures oligarchs’ “castles” and
proper compensation befitting all Ukrainian armed forces.
The responsibility for
Ukraine’s loss lies with its political leaders.
They did not live up to Maidan’s call for dignity and will be tagged
with the seemingly easy way in which they gave up Crimea. Regrettably, it reminds how their
predecessors gave up Ukraine’s nuclear power and when the time came to collect
what was owing, got nothing in return.
If there is another
explanation for Crimea the provisional government must do that, and fast. It needs to build trust among the people
especially among the military. Or, for
that matter, win the elections on May 25.
Oksana Bashuk Hepburn,
an opinion writer, regrets not having made Russia’s black list of Canadians.
