During his first visit, Harper focused attention on the growing
authoritarianism by the Yanukovych regime and the need for the world to support
human rights and democracy in Ukraine. During that visit Harper brought
attention to the alarming erosion of basic human rights and civil liberties including
freedom of the press and assembly. He
also brought attention to the intimidation and repressions directed against
civic efforts to overcome Ukraine’s totalitarian past and to restore historical
memories. It is precisely these legacy
issues that persist and are at the core of Putin’s justification for invading
Ukraine – dredging up Soviet-style propaganda about saving Russian language
speakers from an alleged resurgence of fascism and anti-Semitism, even at the
helm of the new Ukrainian government.
Prior to meeting up with Harper at the Canadian Embassy in
Kyiv on March 22, we spent over a week in the country. We met with the new government
officials in Kyiv: Minister of Education, Deputy Prime Minister for
Humanitarian Affairs, Minister of Interior, Head of the Security Service of
Ukraine, Secretary of the National Defence and Security Council, members of parliament,
as well as the Canadian and U.S. ambassadors. We also met with civic representatives
of the EuroMaidan movement and many national and local civil society NGOs. We
then went to several cities in eastern provinces, including Sumy, Konotop,
Kharkiv and Poltava. Traveling by car, we stopped often to speak with locals
and with recently deployed military units at bridges and other strategic
defence positions.
What was striking was that on the surface all appearances
were of a normal, peaceful and stable situation. It seemed that no one was
preparing for a disruption of their daily routines. No one was packing to leave
the area, hording supplies, or making preparations for an emergency situation. Also,
as quickly as they appeared, pro-Russia rallies had virtually stopped.
Similarly, there were few signs of pro-Kyiv rallies. Local media was focused on
the situation in Crimea, reaction of the West and speculation on what Putin may
try next.
There was a palpable sense of disconnect between the
situation on the ground and the constant propaganda by broadcast media from
Russia. Other than this, the only other sign out of the norm was the outpouring
of civilian support for the few small military units we encountered in the
countryside, with locals bringing food, clothing and other supplies for the
cash strapped army. Neither city and provincial officials nor NGOs and average
citizens, young and old, expressed fear of right wing radicals, or a fascist
government. Only when asked, did they address
the topic and then with irony and indignation. It was evident that the local population was
used to the continuous Russian disinformation campaigns and was highly cynical
of it.
This is not to say that real threats don’t exist. While we
did not witness any, provocations are taking place almost on a daily basis.
Invariably they involve “titushky”, Russian agent provocateurs engaging in
shootings and beating of protesters and provoking violent responses from
normally peaceful protesters. However, these infrequent incidents involving
small numbers of participants on both sides do include deaths and serious injuries
and are treated with utmost attention and concern by the authorities in Kyiv. Special police units of the Interior Ministry
and the Alfa Force of the SBU are actively engaged in disrupting acts of
sedition and other subversive violent actions, including arrests of Russian
titushky and their homegrown supporters.
There is serious concern is that these incidents of
provocations will be used as an excuse by Russia to invade mainland Ukraine
with its military forces. Others felt that Russia’s sudden seizure of Crimea and even
more abrupt referendum and annexation was a sign of weakness and indicated that
Putin wanted to grab what he could before the
Ukrainian government entered into new binding relations with the West. Whatever
the case, if Russia were to intervene, many said that the people
in the area will resist and fight. While some spoke of patriotism and defending
the nation’s sovereignty and independence, most expressed alarm that Russia is
sowing discord and destabilizing the situation.
Their patriotism is motivated by a desire to safeguard their way of life
and homeland, not unlike that of the late 1920s when eastern Ukraine was aflame
with local uprisings resisting collectivization: Stalin’s seizure of farmers’
land and the imposition of a Soviet style serf system over the rural population.
That resistance was ultimately put down
by Stalin’s resort to the artificially imposed Great Famine of 1932-33. And, the
West not only shamefully stood by, but even expanded friendly relations with
Stalin’s genocidal regime.
In trying to explain their feelings to us, we often heard
from locals a rhetorical question: What
would you do if a neighbor broke into your house and violated your family and
property? Ukrainian citizens in the east
of the country, whether they are ethnic Ukrainians or Russians, Christians, Muslims
or Jews, do not look upon Putin as their sovereign master or protector of their
rights and freedoms. On the contrary, they are alarmed and insulted that the
leader of a neighboring country, fraternal or otherwise, would countenance
imposing his will by force. For them this is an intolerable and unwelcome
affront to their dignity, personal freedom, and threat to their land and
property.
Four years ago in Kyiv, Prime Minister Harper called on Canada’s
allies to rouse themselves and recognize what a roll-back of basic rights and
freedoms would mean for Ukrainians and for peace and stability in Europe and
beyond. This time, his call to Canada’s allies for a unified response has
gained wide support, because this time the West has been awakened, shaken
to the core and beginning to unite to help Ukrainians resist Putin’s seizure of
their homeland.
Ihor
Kozak is Chair of the Committee
on International Relations at the National Executive of the League of Ukrainian
Canadians (LUC), a member of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress (UCC). He is a retired officer of the Canadian Armed
Forces, and a recipient of the Top 25 Canadian Immigrants 2011 award by the
Canada Immigrant Magazine.
Borys
Potapenko is vice President of
the International Council in Support of Ukraine (ICSU) and Executive Director
of the LUC.
Mr. Kozak and Mr. Potapenko were in Ukraine
on behalf of the ICSU, LUC and Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA),
and in consultation with the Parliament of Canada (Canada Ukraine Parliamentary
Friendship Group) and the US Congress (Congressional Ukrainian Caucus).
