I don’t follow the conflict very closely nowadays. I have no special “inside,” there is no progress, and what little does happen is depressing more often than not. The events of the past few days in the Lugansk People’s Republic hew to this same pattern.
The best account to date is probably that of Alexander Zhuchkovsky at Sputnik i Pogrom: Very Strange Happenings [in Russian].
It actually isn’t all that strange at all.
Igor Plotnitsky was a highly unpopular figure with a reputation for raiding and credible allegations of murdering separatist commanders who wouldn’t kowtow to him (Bednov, Mozgovoy, Ischenko, Dremov). Later, a year ago, he conducted an internal purge against chief of the People’s Council Karjakin and the head of the Council of Ministers Tsypkalov; the former fled to Russia, while the latter committed “suicide” (widely viewed as a murder even back then, and all but confirmed now). However, there was not much that anybody could do about it, since Plotnitsky’s was supported by elements of the Russian military establishment.
However, he ended up overstepping his authority when he dismissed the Interior Minister, Igor Kornet. As it so happened, the people at the Interior Ministry and the Ministry of State Security, who were directly “curated” by Russian intelligence services, had more “pull” than the hapless volunteer batallion commanders whom Plotnitsky offed in 2015. More pull than the people behind Plotnitsky, at any rate. Soon enough a coup was in the works, with support from Kornet’s colleagues in the DNR and even “little green men” from Russia streaming across the LNR border to seize control of the republic’s administrative centers.
As of the time of writing, Plotnitsky has resigned, his cronies are getting cleared out, and the new head of the LNR is Leonid Pasechnik, who at least appears to be a more upstanding fellow (he is known for refusing a large bribe as chief of anti-contraband operations in the Lugansk oblast back when it was in the Ukraine).
Not to mention a much more telegnic one.
Initially, there were some hopes that this could lead to the union of the LNR and DNR in the form of a resurrected Novorossiya project, whose separate existence – up to and including tariff borders – is quite absurd. This inevitably ended in a zrada. After all, it was Plotnitsky and Zakharchenko who had signed onto the Minsk Accords as leaders of the LNR and the DNR, respectively – nowhere was Novorossiya mentioned there – and those Accords remain at the center of the Kremlin’s Ukraine policy to this day and for the foreseeable future. Consequently, Plotnitsky new, entirely formal role, announced yesterday at the same time as his resignation for “health reasons,” will be as the “authorized representative of the LNR for the implementation of the Minsk Accords.”
Still, I think this is a positive development, in net terms, if only because Lugansk will no longer have to suffer Plotnitsky at the helm.
More data re the suspicion Anatoly Karlin has expressed (in recent comments on another site), that a major Donbass commentator, Andrei ‘The Saker’ Raevsky may be a CIA asset … tho AK then added he wished to avoid ‘conspiracy’ thinking
In fact, Raevsky-Saker has admitted he was ‘formerly’ an intel agent … if you believe the ‘former’ part Ha! … Saker spins a tale he was fired from the spy biz for being a whistle-blower of some kind, but doesn’t want to give details, if you care to believe that
Raevsky the Saker the Faker lives in Florida near a bunch of military bases and also near to ZOG deception master of the world, ex-p-rnographer & ‘I party with Israeli Presidents!’ Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia … Saker has the same mysterious Wiki-type translation teams somehow eager to render Saker’s rubbish into 5 languages … Saker’s promotion & marketing memes quite duplicate the CIA-Wikimedia ones, down to similar phrasing, as has been noticed
Saker is doing one half of the classic hasbara game, which looks like this – Don’t like Zios? Support the Muslims killing gays, Kurds & dissidents with slow-torture hangings! Don’t like extremist Muslims? Support the Israelis mauling, killing & ethnic-cleansing Palestinians!
The urge to ‘avoid conspiracy thinking’ and thus to feel one is more ‘rational’, can miss how much these ‘intel ops in media’ people love to collude with each other, how much they love the Big Lie, the Big Con, how much they love to throw big, half-obvious hoaxes and shills into our faces
Is this somehow a surprise? There hasn’t been a Novorosija administrative ‘gubernia’ since the end of the 18th century. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the realities of the new 21st century, and put behind us the unsuccessful revisionism of starry eyed Russian nationalism?
Search and replace “FSB” with “CIA”, “Western journalist” with “Russia follower”:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/11139#.WhnKHcdRWfA
The article (and my comment) in question. Just to be clear, it was in response to his insinuation that the Alt Right and Russian nationalists are “manipulated by various secret services.”
I am not particularly interested in maintaining “beef” with him, nor do I deny that he sometimes produces genuinely good, accurate analysis (e.g. his recent piece on Russian domestic information policy). That said, I am still compelled to politically disassociate myself from him (also from Dugin, Shamir, etc) because (1) he doesn’t represent my position; at best, we have some coincidental goals wrt Ukraine, though rather different perceptions of reality there (it is not a failed Ukronazi junta that will collapse tomorrow); (2) he doesn’t promote positions that are good for Russia’s long-term competitiveness, in my opinion; (3) even more critically, he speaks neither for ~90% of Russians nor for that matter even for the Kremlin/Putin (neither do I – but I don’t pretend otherwise).
Reasonably interesting was RIA’s (a relatively official Russian news service) complete ignoring of the coup, which it most certainly was, complete with troops showing up at government buildings and so forth. Instead one was treated to news of Ukrainian spies and saboteurs being caught and then the resignation of the head of the LNR based on the fact that he was not feeling so well. Indeed it appears that both sides were accusing each other of being Ukrainian agents/wreckers and so forth which indicates pretty clearly the weaknesses of both sides positions and therefore their reluctance to publicly air their true reasons for their actions.
So,what exactly are your goals ‘wrt Ukraine’? I’ve been following your blog (with less and less enthusiasm) for about a year now, and can’t seem to pinpoint any of your own personal coherent or VISIBLE guideposts? Lots of little snippets, but nothing cogent or complete? ‘Where’s the beef’ Anatoly, why beat around the bush?…
Look at the map featured at the top of my classic article on Russian nationalism. Then recall my political affiliations. Is it so hard to put two and two together?
However, this blog is not about my political positions or preferences, which are as boring as they are pointless. Nor is it even (for the most part) about trying to push through one policy programme or another. For the most part, it is about trying to understand reality. Readers can take away whatever they wish from it.
: Somewhat off-topic, but out of curiosity–how far into Ukraine do you think that Russia would advance if some war hawk comes to power in Ukraine and tries militarily reconquering the Donbass (as in, similar to what Saakashvilli tried to do in relation to South Ossetia back in 2008)?
My guesstimate:
Probably up to around Slavyansk/Mariupol; the borders of the old Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts at the utmost; as-is with minor border adjustments at the least.
It is also very likely that the two republics would finally be merged in this scenario, and fifty/fifty on a formal Russian recognition.
@Anatoly Karlin: Do you think that making a move on Kharkiv would be a step too far for Russia in such a scenario?
Well, you yourself have pointed out (after taking some sort of a test) that your own political leanings are towards 19th century blackshirtism (Black Hundreds). What an incongruous position for one to take, while simultaneously being a proponent of transhumanism?
I reread your ‘classic’ article regarding Russian nationalism, and it only served to highlight my frustrations. Outside of a rather cryptic reference to Solzhenitsyn and Ilyin, this is all that I could locate regarding Russian nationalist aspirations within Ukraine:
That’s it! Not much meat here either, I think that you’ll agree. I’ve long suspected that your position regarding Ukraine’s incorporation into some sort of phantom triune nation is just to incredible and ridiculous to put to print. I’m challenging you to prove me wrong.
Fat people with guns, warlordism and bullshit.
What a dank catastrophe.
Has any of this been covered in Western Meedja? I have been mainly into developments of the Trump-Saudi-Bibi Triangle of Evil and the European Immigro-Meltdown now complete with protests about slave auctions in Lybia held in Brussels with undocumented shopping on the side.
Not to be glib but is the guy on the right supposed to be the photogenic one?
Not that attractiveness is measure of worth, but it might explain why Russians punch so far below their weight in global influence.
It’s early evening in Moscow and at least 12 hours since I posted this challenge? Is it indeed possible that triunism is just too ‘incredible and ridiculous’ to offer up some sort of defense? Is triunism, when closely examined, just another form of Great Russian svidomism?
I’ll try and help you out of your dilemma here Anatoly. Consider a response not to be one of your own that you you’ve formulated, but one of a general nature. Since you have a propensity to bandy around the term ‘triunism’ frequently enough here at your blog, don’t you have a responsibility to your loyal reader base to explain what exactly you mean by this? After all, all I’m really after is some help in understanding the Russian nationalist form of:
I will keep your request in mind. You may expedite its fullfillment here.
Sorry, I’m not in the habit of purchasing items that are sight unseen. As they say in the old Ukrainian aphorism:
*Buying a cat in a bag – to purchase anything not being aware of its quality. 🙂
Things have been known to change back like Leningrad to St. Petersburg.
The DNR leader Zakharchenko proposed the NovoRossiya name. I’m sure he’s not alone. His place of birth and surname suggests a Ukrainian background, as understood in the modern day sense. I respect Zakharchenko’s right to identify differently. He wears a St. George’s Cross, which was used by the pre-Soviet Russian military.
A likely counter would question Zakharchenko’s legitimacy and the overall popularity of his views in the former Ukrainian SSR. A counter to that point notes that he’s quite likely more popular in the Donbass than the pro-Bandera and/or pro-Petliura supporters, who (whether nominally or otherwise) back the Kiev regime.
The DNR, LNR, NovoRosija, Zakharchenko and triunism is all a big waste of time. That part of the world is destined to be destitute, and a backwater swamp – things were much better there until Putin decided he needed a war.
Mixed impressions. Plotnitsky gone – good. He won’t be investigated – bad. I guess immunity was his price for going “voluntarily”. Too bad.
It is hardly surprising that you are so grossly misinformed. The great majority of the people in Donbass hated Bandera followers and all other Hitler’s lackeys regardless of Putin. In fact, there was a memorial to the victims of Ukrainian nationalists in Donbass before all of this. Hitler liked to send his “untermensch” minions to do his dirty work for him, so Ukrainian nationalists were used to mass murder civilians not only in Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, but also in Donbass. As to the future, considering where Ukraine is, Donbass prospects cannot possibly be bleaker that those of the remainder of Ukraine. Things were (or at least seemed to be) much better before the US and its vassals organized a coup in Kiev in 2014.
Donbass has been extensively bombed by the Kiev regime. Germany and Vietnam rebounded from extensive bombing.
Donbass has potential with an extended period of peace.
On the subject of things being “much better until…”, the same can be said of Kiev regime controlled Ukraine.
Donbas was one of two areas (the rural Northeast being the other one) that were a demographic black hole even prior to this war TFR in Donetsk oblast was 1.32, Luhansk oblast 1.30, lowest in Ukraine.
Also, while the war has cratered the region’s economy it was declining even before the war:
Gross Regional Product in 2008-2013:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/UkraineGrossRegionalProduct2008-2014Index.PNG
Data:
http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2008/vvp/vrp/vrp2008_u.htm
The 2009 crisis hit these areas particularly hard and they never fully recovered.
Still doesn’t take away from its potential.
Your highlighted stats pertain to a region abused by the post-Soviet oligarchic element, in conjunction with those Western based svidos, who’ve exhibited a clear disdain for the people in that region.
I think Putin just lost interest on the Donbas. I’m sad about these people deeply hatred by Western Ukrainians and ignored by the Russians. They are just alone.
This was the most pro-Soviet region in Ukraine (and probably the most culturally Soviet region in the USSR), and the abusers were local elites/native products of this local Soviet culture. Ukrainian nationalists had little influence there.
It was still wealthier than other regions, because steel and coal provided high export income, but collapsing demographics and stagnant economy don’t speak to much potential. By 2013 Lviv had just surpassed Luhansk in per capita GRP; Donetsk oblast had fallen from the wealthiest region outside Kiev City in 2005, to #4 (behind Dnipropetrovsk oblast, Kiev oblast, and Poltava oblast) by 2013. Donetsk’s GRP declined 2.9% in 2012 and 5.3% in 2013. It was sinking. The war rapidly and extremely accelerated a process that preceded it.
Mass murder in Donbas by Ukrainian nationalists? You must be misreading the Kremlin script on this one tovarishch?…As AP correctly points out:
and very little presence there too, I may add.
Dude, I’m an American. Who’s more morbidly obese, Americans or Russians? Is that attractive?
Admittedly, it is Africans and Mexicans who are inflating the obesity stats disproportionately in the USA. But white Americans are plenty fat, too, I’ll wager worse than Russians.
Great theory, huh huh, Russians are uglier than our fatter stupider people, so people don’t listen to them, huh huh.
Congratulations on reaching fifteen years of federal employment. Which agency is it? Anyway, your annual leave time,now increases from four weeks to more than five weeks. Job well done!
Yes, I don’t see that happening, short of a successful Antimaidan there (if it failed in 2014 it isn’t going to be successful now or in the foreseeable future) or an overtly nationalist government in Russia.
As you suggest, the Kiev regime bombing greatly accelerated Donbass’ socioeconomic decline, with Donetsk being (before the armed conflict) noticeably wealthier than Lugansk and many key areas in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine. Between Donetsk and Lugansk, the former had the much larger pre-war population.
Also suggested in your last set of comments, is Donbass’ economic potential.
The sovok influence has limits in Donbass, with examples like a version of the two headed eagle as a DPR emblem and Zakharchenko wearing the pre-Soviet Russian St. George’s Cross.
The pro-Bandera Ukrainians from outside that region have been among the most (if not the most) gung ho of armed action enthusiasts against the Donbass rebels. The kind of military action that has caused a great deal of collateral damage. That element and the pro-Bandera anti-Russian slant, makes these individuals unpopular and many in rebel held Donbass. The Kiev regime is comparatively soft on that violent pro-Bandera group, when compared to how it deals with pro-Russian advocacy – a good deal of which is moderate.
What’s the mood in areas like western Donbas (Mariupol, Slaviasnk), Kharkov and Odessa? What the people there want and what are the feeling toward Poroshenko, the ultra-nationatists and Russia?
Saker claimed, people there are in “survival mode” but I think you information is more accurate.
Some question asked to Anatoly. Please read above.
Sorry to disappoint, but I am not a “tovarisch”. Never was and never will be.
FYI, Ukrainian nationalists were sent to mass murder civilians in many places, including Donbass, during Hitler’s occupation (1941-1943). There never was an atrocity they were reluctant to commit. Later they were defeated by the Red Army along with their German overlords.
These areas should not be lumped together.
Well, Avakov, Poroshenko’s interior minister who has links to the Azov battalion (Ukrainian ultranationalists, neo-Nazis based in Kharkiv) got about 48% of the vote when he ran for mayor of Kharkiv in 2012 – before Maidan. Kharkiv is no Donetsk.
Ukrainian wikipedia has a nice summary of performance of pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian parties by region in the 2014 post-Maidan election.
Within so-called New Russia, in Dnipropetrovsk the pro-Ukrainian parties beat the pro-Russian parties 60.1% to 33%, in Odessa oblast the pro-Ukrainian parties beat the pro-Russian parties 52 % to 48%, in Kharkiv oblast the pro-Ukrainian parties beat the pro-Russian parties 47% to 45%.
However, in Kiev-controlled Donetsk oblast the pro-Russian parties won 57% to 38%, and in Kiev-controlled Luhansk oblast the pro-Russian parties won 57% to 37%.
Turnout was lower in these regions than in previous elections, and it is reasonable to assume that this lower turnout skewed in favor of pro-Russians refusing to vote. So one could assume that in reality the pro-Russian vote would have been a few % higher than in the election.
But in general, Odessa and Kharkiv are evenly divided, while in Kiev-controlled Donbas it’s about 1/3 pro-Ukrainian and 2/3 pro-Russian.
Perhaps the half of Kharkiv who are pro-Russian feel themselves to be in lockdown mode, but the other half are not, and thus the region itself cannot be generalized as being in lockdown mode. This genrralziation may be moire true of Mariupol.
The Kiev-controlled parts of Donbas are more ethnically Ukrainian and rural. Non-Kiev controlled Donbas had been, after Crimea, the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine. These areas were probably 1/5 pro-Ukrainian and 4/5 pro-Rusisan, if not more in favor of Russia.
Can you provide some more background on the ‘mass murder of civilians’ in the Donbas during ‘1941 – 1943 (or even earlier or later)? I wasn’t aware of this situation and would profit from hearing more…
Yup, here in Donetsk is the St. George’s ribbon and two headed eagle flag. Whoops, what’s that behind them?
https://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1425460/defender-fatherland-day.jpg
Very accurate information. Thanks
You remind me of a WaPo presented photo of a Pussy Riot street “concert” (more like a free exhibition), where the size of the crowd isn’t shown – very likely because of its low turnout. (BTW, there’re more talented street performers in Manhattan daily.)
Strongly suspect that the Stalin admiration in Donbass is less the level of pro-Bandera sentiment in Galicia and Vohylnia.
I don’t see Stalin honored in proposed stamps and statues in Donbass.
The good thing about AP and Anatoly is that you get quite objective assessments from them, much unlike the huge nationalist bias of some other Russians/Ukrainians on this website.
By the way, thanks to AP’s Wikipedia link, I’ve just learned that Lugansk (Russian) – Luhansk (Ukrainian) is actually written the same way in both languages: Луганск. So it’s just a pronunciation matter and the difference in spelling only happens in English. Who would have thought.
Thanks!
Maybe, though it would be a difference of single digit %. Stalin was worse than Bandera, objectively, so I don’t think this is much to brag about.
Here are the 2012 election results for the Communist Party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Ukr_elections_2012_multimandate_oblasts_kpu.png
Highest in Luhansk. The Party of Regions (main Donbas party) was their partner.
Anatole Lieven once mentioned a poll of Donbas residents, asking about nationality. Some high % responded, neither Russian nor Ukrainian, but “Soviet.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/19/stalin-portraits-ukraine-rebel-territory
Note that the name hasn’t been changed back to Stalino, indicating a limit on pro-Stalin sentiment.
Pound for pound Bandera wasn’t less vile than Stalin. The latter had greater numbers. The modern day pro-Bandera variant is understandably not attractive – especially to many Poles, Jews, Russians, Hungarians, Romanians, as well as a good number of Ukrainians, with roots outside of Galicia and Volhynia.
Upon further review, I sense that Zakharchenko hasn’t simultaneously supported breaking up large portions of the USSR into independent entities (from each other), while not looking to maintain the USSR in its Marxist-Leninist dogma. Hence, the DPR tricolor (closely resembling Russia’s) and two headed eagle, in addition to Zakharchenko wearing the pre-Soviet Russian military St. George’s Cross.
I’m regrettably aware of rebel Lugansk’s Soviet like symbols. Lugansk is the noticeably smaller and poorer of the two rebel held areas in the former Ukrainian SSR. Perhaps it’ll change the aforementioned usage at some point.
BTW, in the US there’re several parks formally known as “People’s Park”.
Of course Bandera was less vile than Stalin. Bandera wanted an independent Ukraine and his followers were willing to have all the non-Ukrainians within Ukraine killed to achieve this, if they stood in the way (it is unknown to what extent Bandera himself approved of this, as he wasn’t the one who gave the orders and was imprisoned at the time, but I doubt he was opposed). Accordingly, his followers slaughtered 60,000-100,000 Poles and about 30,000 Jews, often in very brutal ways. Bandera made no claims on non-Ukrainian lands, and indeed although his organization had had cells in Krakow and Warsaw they didn’t kill Polish civilians there (unlike Chechens in Moscow). An analogue to Bandera might be the Algerian nationalists, who murdered a few thousand ethnic French civilians in Algeria and around 100,000s pro-French Algerians in their anti-French struggle. Or hypothetically the IRA, if the IRA had the means and will to slaughter 100,000 Protestants and drive them completely off the Irish island.
Bolsheviks on the other hand were spreading their sick ideology everywhere they could, and wanted to eliminate large classes of people who stood in their way, wherever they could get their hands on them. They killed several millions of people peasants starved to death, nobility and clergy executed, etc. Incidentally, because Stalin was afraid of a Polish plot against him, he had a a couple 100,000s of ethnic Poles in the USSR killed in the 1930s. So when it came to Bandera’s blackest mark – killing all those Poles – Stalin had him beat.
To be sure, Bandera was nasty in various ways (murdering 90,000-130,000 of civilians is an evil crime; his ideology was authoritarian-fascist) and Ukraine’s modern glorification of him is rather stupid. But in terms of malevolence he was no Stalin, not even close. He wasn’t even a Lenin.
You left out my pound for pound, point which has validity, relative to Bandera. So there’s no misunderstanding, I consider Stalin a monster.
Stalin’s p0licy in western Ukraine turned the population there more anti-Soviet than they otherwise would’ve been. Too bad many of them developed an anti-Russian mindset – a decrease away from the prior pro-Russian sentiment in that area. At one point, the anti-Russian sentiment in that region wasn’t as great.
Bandera sought his version of Ukraine on former Russian Empire territory – probably inclusive of some RSFR land, which some Ukrainian nationalists claim is stolen Ukrainian territory.
Stalin was willing to work with different ethnic groups in a way that Bandera and his forces weren’t – save for the murdering Croat Nazi like Ustasha. The Crimean Tatar experience was akin to Japanese North Americans. The former experiencing much more suffering on account of the dire situation in the USSR at the time (concerning food and many other supplies) and the USSR being more brutal without that factor.
Yes, Communism was a global threat. Notwithstanding, the post-WWII Soviet takeover of some European countries was greatly motivated in part as a defensive measure. Stalin didn’t support the Greek Communists because of an agreement he had with the Allies. Likewise, his forces left Austria when nothing was keeping them from staying out of there. Stalin was also content with a non-Communist neutral Finland.
No, I kept it in. Pound-for-pound Stalin was worse.
We can go by raw numbers:
Western Ukraine, where the Banderists operated, had about 5 million people in 1940. In this territory they killed an estimated 90,000-130,000 people.
The USSR census of 1937 indicated a population of 162 million. Stalin’s death toll from famines plus executions plus deportations is credibly about 9 million civilians:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/03/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/
The USSR had 32.4 times as many people as Western Ukraine. Multiply Bandera’s figures by this amount and you get 2.9 million to 4.2 million dead people if Western Ukraine had the same population as the USSR under Stalin. So “pound for pound” Bandera was less than half as murderous as Stalin. He might have been in the same ballpark as Lenin, though.
If Banderists had access to all of Ukrainian territory their kill % would have been lower, because the % of non-Ukrainians in other regions of Ukraine was lower than in Western Ukraine. Moreover, he would have been happy if the non-Ukrainians left – he didn’t have a problem with Poles in Poland, or Russians in Russia. He wanted a pure Ukraine, he didn’t want Poles or Russians or Jews to be killed simply because of who they were, as Stalin wanted to do to certain classes, or Hitler to Jews.
30% or whatever of the interred Japanese didn’t die, so no the situations were not comparable.
Pro-Russian sentiment in Western Ukraine was perhaps 20% in 1910, 10% after World War I and between the wars. Stalinism finished it off but it was already weak. I know these people well. Half my family were Russian activists in Galicia; Bruslilov (or was in governor Bobrinsky?) had been a guest at my great-grandfather’s – who was then sent to Talerhof, as was another great-grandfather. Great-grandmother’s cousin organized a detachment of western Ukrainian ex-POWS who fought for Kolchak in the Urals and Siberia. After the war the family estate served as a refuge for Whites fleeing west. Nobody – not a single one – in this family who was born after 1900 and stayed in Galicia was pro-Russian. Some became Poles, most Ukrainians. Only the ones who had moved to St. Petersburg or Moscow, and their descendants, have been Russian. This was typical.
Don’t you think that he at least deserves a Patreon subscription?
AP:
No, because Bandera didn’t have the kind of full control that Stalin had. With that in mind, Bandera didn’t reach as full a capability as Stalin. This point applies to the hypothetical you give on Bandera getting control of all Ukrainian territory.
Another thing to consider is the crusading hate Russia (White, Red whatever) that Bandera and his clique advocated after WW II. With power, the bigoted mindset of the pro-Bandera led so called “Captive Nations Committee” (CNC) had the potential for considerable deadly violence. Richard Sakwa touches on this aspect in his book “Frontline Ukraine”.
You leave out the full context of my statement regarding the Crimean Tatar Japanese-North American experiences. So yes, I’m 100% right on that. Feel free to look back and excerpt what was said in full.
Understandably second guess your claims on the popularity of pro-Russian sentiment in what became known as western Ukraine. There was no accurate polling or a referendum done at the time on this particular.
Talerhof was setup by the Habsburgites out of fear of a pro-Russian sentiment in that part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The friendly meeting between Galician Ukrainian Army and Russian White forces in Kiev during the Russian Civil War is well chronicled enough. Ditto the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse coming under the willing command of the Whites.
If you’re going to fairly compare “murderousness”, then you also have to equalize the time span (you wouldn’t say a war that killed X number of people in 10 years, was equally bloody as one which killed the same number in one year).
Stalin was in power for a quarter century. So that’s an average death toll of around 350,000 per year. Or around a million per year during the 1930s, when the vast majority of his victims were killed.
Correct. However, Bandera was only interested in the Poles being gone. Once they were gone (and them running away to Poland was as good as them being dead – he didn’t have an ideological preference for killing them) the bloodshed would have been done. Later in the war Banderists were giving warnings to Polish communities – “you have 24 hours to clear out or we kill everyone” and the rate of killings declined. The deadliest period was in the beginning of the killings, in summer and fall 1943.
Pardon my not hitting the reply button in my detailed reply to you in comment #47. I’ll add a few more points.
Your stated family experience from pro-Russian to something different is anecdotal. There’re others with roots to that part of the world with a different take.
One of them recalls his father (circa early 1900s) on the Austro-Hungarian/Russian Empire border talking to Cossack and Circassian border guards on the other end of a reunified Russia.
Post-Soviet Russia hasn’t instituted Stalin stamps like post-Soviet Ukraine for Bandera. The rebel Donbass area’s fondness for Stalin is relatively limited. The rebels there certainly have reservations about the Communist created boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Bandera’s despicable WW II behavior is noticeably worse than Andrey Vlasov. Yet, Vlasov and his forces don’t get the same honors in post-Soviet Russia as Bandera and the rest of the OUN/UPA in post-Soviet Ukraine.
When the Soviets entered what had been eastern Poland (in 1939), they were met with little opposition, much unlike what the Germans faced, when they attacked the comparatively more ethnic Polish territory from the West. I recall Subtelny in his book acknowledging this point, adding that the harsh Soviet treatment greatly turned the ethnic west Ukrainian population away from them.
This is a hypothetical. It is just as possible that if Bandera had full control of Ukraine he would have organized cattle-cars to remove the Polish population (as was done by Stalin to Crimean Tatars and Chechens, or the Polish state to Ukrainians) and wouldn’t resort to the desperate act of reducing this population by killing them.
Setting aside “what-ifs” – in reality, Bandera was pound-for-pound half as bad as Stalin in terms of pure bloodiness.
They wanted the Russians out of Ukraine. Stalin wanted Communists in Russia (where they slaughtered millions), in Ukraine (where they slaughtered millions), etc.
No, but one can look at stuff like number of schools organized by each group, number of credit unions and similar organizations, and election results. Before you say that the Austrians repressed Russophiles prior to 1914 – the Poles not Austrians had more power locally, and the Poles were allied to the Russophiles (they wanted to split the Ukrainian community, and supported the weaker party). All in all, the evidence points towards the Russophiles having about 20% support in western Ukraine prior to World War I.
To a certain extent, but it was also revenge for collaboration with the Russians in 1915 while they controlled Galicia.
Grandfather’s older brother was there (his father had been sent to Talerhof – the next generation were Ukrainian nationalists – that’s how it worked).
This friendly meeting didn’t indicate Russophilia. Rather it reflected the fact that the Whites had no position on Galicia and were open to the idea of an independent Galician state (while claiming Kiev). Accordingly, the Whites had no a priori conflict with the Galician forces. The UGA was hesitant about starting an armed conflict with a force that was not attacking them.
This occurred because the Galicians has proven themselves on the battlefield and were seen as useful by Denikin; they, on the other hand, had no more loyalty for Petliura who had signed Galicia over to Poland (Denikin was open to a Galician Ukrainian State though he made no commitments because he was also extending overtures to the Poles), and were desperate for Allied medical supplies due to Typhus epidemic. It wasn’t an act of Russophilia.
In their vision of a full Ukraine, the Bandera led OUN/UPA had other non-Ukrainian targets, including Hungarians, Romanians, Jews, Rusyns, Russians, as well as those Ukrainians not sharing their views. To a noticeable enough degree, this is enough of a matter of fact.
The pro-Bandera elements weren’t seeking multiethnic harmony. On the surface, the USSR hyped such, albeit with mixed results.
In your initial answer to me, what you suggest is hypothetical in the “what ifs” category.
Your other point suggests that Stalin appeared less of a bigot than Bandera.
Pilsudski was to become the prominent Polish leader. Going back to the Russo-Japanese War (if not before), he was clearly anti-Russian. Like Pilsudski, the Habsburgites hypocritically promoted Ukrainian nationalism exclusively to Russian Empire territory.
If the Galician Ukrainian Army was so anti-Russian, there wouldn’t have been the kind of alliance that was formed between them and the Whites. Upon further review, a good number of the Galician Ukrainian Army ended up living on the Soviet side. I suspect it wasn’t out of sudden love for Bolshevism, as much as being war weary, while detesting the Pilsudski-Petliura agreement, that relates to Galicia coming under Polish control between two world wars.
Between the two world wars, Bandera himself was more concerned about opposing Poland than the Soviet Union.
BTW, it appears that the Whites were less overbearing with the Galician Ukrainians when compared to how Pilsudski dealt with Petliura. This observation runs counter to the common theme (in some circles) that Pilsudski was some kind of moderate European federalist as peddled in some circles.