Επίσημη σελίδα ΟΑΚΚΕ

 Χαλκοκονδύλη 35, τηλ-φαξ: 2105232553 email: Αυτή η διεύθυνση ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου προστατεύεται από τους αυτοματισμούς αποστολέων ανεπιθύμητων μηνυμάτων. Χρειάζεται να ενεργοποιήσετε τη JavaScript για να μπορέσετε να τη δείτε.

NO TO THE PARTITION OF UKRAINE – SECESSION OF CRIMEA BY THE RUSSIAN NEO-HITLERS

  CRIMEA IS THE FIRST GIFT OF THE NEONAZI UKRAINIAN PSEUDO-NATIONALISTS TO THEIR FRIEND PUTIN  (Article translated from the Greek language published in the Greek website of OAKKE in March 3, 2014)   After the partition of Georgia through the breaking away of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008, the Russian social-imperialists have now proceeded to an even bigger step of neo-hitler’s expansionism by the actual partition of a European country, Ukraine, through the de facto secession of Crimea.  
This second step, which is a bigger warning against what’s awaiting Europe in the years to come, was realized in a much more easy and painless way than the first, in political terms. 
In the case of Georgia, Russia needed to launch a brute military invasion not only against the two autonomous republics that she had coveted, but also against the Georgian main territory. In Ukraine, she transferred some few military units from the Russian territory, but the main task for her was to drive the large Russian army which has been stationed for years in Russia-dependent Crimea out of the barracks. It was by this army that she occupied the active Parliament which deposed the active PM and appointed a new one, with the help of which she finally occupied the whole Autonomous Republic of Crimea, by disarming the units of the Ukrainian army stationed there. But first of all, this second step was easier because not only the Crimean people, the majority of which is ethnic Russians, but also the people of eastern Ukraine, which is Russophone in majority, became recently prone to looking on a Russian intervention in the internal affairs of Ukraine neutrally or in some regions even favorably. 
This happened when in Kiev it turned out that those who had the upper hand were the far right nationalists, who in their most narrow and active core in the Maidan square were hitlerian, supporters of the Nazi invasion in Ukraine of 1941 by which the most pro-Soviet and industrialized eastern Ukraine had specially suffered. The Russian propaganda has speculated a lot on this fear recently, while the national-fascist provocateurs of Kiev – whose leadership has been consciously working for the benefit of the Kremlin – did all they could to back this propaganda by enacting a law against the equivalence of the Russian to the Ukrainian language right after they came to power. However, these same scoundrels that came to power by raising the patriotic anti-Russian banner, with PM A. Yatsenyuk in the first place, are doing their best now that Russia has proceeded to the de facto partition of Ukraine to make the Ukrainian people reconcile themselves to this partitioning and secessionist intervention of Russia in Crimea. According to the Financial Times of March 2, A. Yatsenyuk stated that “he had been in telephone contact with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev and was “convinced” that "Russia will not go forward with military intervention on the territory of Ukraine …”. So, he thinks that the so far secessionist activities of Russia in Crimea have nothing to do with the Ukrainian territory. By this statement in the given time, A. Yatsenyuk is actually giving Crimea to Russia. That’s the reason why, apart from being anticommunists, did the insensitive Westerners turn a blind eye to the occupation of the Kiev’s square and the Parliament by the pro-Nazi Ukrainian pseudo-nationalists. 
In fact, this time there was an external, international reason why the Russian military intervention-secession in Ukraine was easier than the one in Georgia: The global position of Russian social-imperialism has been inconceivably enhanced since 2008, especially due to Obama’s pro-Russian policy, but also due to the piggish economist subjugation of the European monopolists to the international doings of the Russo-Chinese aggressive axis. This subjugation, which manifested itself basically in the speedy diplomatic and economic abandonment of partitioned Georgia by the West, resulted in stabilizing Putin’s power in Russia and at the same time cramming the diplomatic apparatus of the EU and the EZ with Russian agents and adherents of détente towards Russia. 
The speedy developments have confirmed our analysis concerning the elaborate Russian interventionist tactics in Ukraine. In the article entitled “Big tortures are being prepared for Ukraine”, that was published in our party’s website on 1/26 (see New East, n. 494), we wrote that: “A prediction that we could possibly risk today is that we head for a long-standing division in Ukraine, in which the tough and overt Russophile fascists will be in the one end, the fascist-Nazis of Svoboda type, also imposed by the Kremlin, will be in the other as the alleged representatives of Ukrainian nationalism, while in the center the more official Russia will be playing as a European-reconciliatory factor, with guys such as Klitschko and Yanukovych with the help of the European insensitive monopolists, easily being corroded by the Russian agents-infiltrators”. We had then explained the reasons why “Putin didn’t place Ukraine among his Eurasian commonwealth, unlike what most Wersterners had predicted, because what he wanted the most was to control the terms of a special relationship or even a special incorporation of Ukraine into the EU, so that he could directly intervene in the European issues. Putin wants a co-adoption of Ukraine with the EU, so that he could make the first one dependent and both more deeply divided, especially the latter”. The Russian intervention in Ukraine has been raised, today, to the level of an overt military intervention and an undeclared territorial partition, without its chief interventionist policy of arbitration in Ukraine, which according to our opinion has been still carried out from inside, be shifted.  
 
DIVISION AND INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION 
 
It was the armed culmination of the conflict between the fascist-Nazi supposed Ukraine nationalists and the overt pro-Russian fascists with a death toll of 70 that led to the external mediation of the EU, which is corroded by the Russian diplomacy, to “solve” the crisis. This may have passed off as a pure European intervention in Ukraine’s internal affairs, but in fact the correlations overwhelmingly favored the Russians at the level of political leadership, which is something that the insensitive Western monopolists will soon discover. Of the four European foreign ministers that have been participating in the mediations so far – actually the German minister F. Steinmeier, the French L. Fabius, the Polish R. Sikorski, and in another level the official EU foreign minister C. Ashton – only the French one was not a Russophile. The 3 Foreign Ministers’ agreement with the Ukrainian government and the opposition has led to the limitation of presidential powers and to the liberation of the double-face leader of the “Fatherland” party, the pro-Russian, as new evidence reveals, Yulia Tymoshenko, while it has paved the way for the May parliamentary and the December presidential elections. This agreement was immediately violated by the alleged nationalists of the new government through the ousting of the equally pro-Russian V. Yanukovych and the abolition of the Russian as a formal language in the regions it was spoken. This violation of the agreement with the EU has offered the true leader of the global neo-Nazism, Putin, the chance to appear as both an anti-Nazi and a European and invade Ukraine for the supposed salvation of Crimea “by invitation of the latter’s parliament”. This invitation has stepped right upon the constitutional abnormality that the ousting of V. Yanukovych constituted, but also upon the ethnic conflicts that were undoubtedly organized the previous days in Crimea and in the eastern Ukraine by the greater provocateur of all times.  
So, the whole Ukraine remains politically and partly institutionally divided in two, with mutual hatred rising aloft. On the one hand, the Kiev pro-Nazi pseudo-nationalists in power provoke the people of eastern Ukraine, but their strength is confined to the western part of the country. On the other hand, V. Yanukovych refuses to recognize the new government, and thus he actually calls upon the eastern part to riot for partition and upon Russia to launch an invasion. Official Russia makes herself out to react on all those plans. However, what she really wants is a permanent international mediation (EU-US-Russia), ultimately favorable only to herself. As the “moderate” Moscow’s envoy in Ukraine, Vl. Lukin, has openly put it, if the western and eastern sides fail to sort it out, then “there is the possibility of international cooperation” (New York Times, 2/20). 
But why do we say that the mediation would be favorable to Moscow? Because the great, insurmountable diplomatic asset of the Kremlin in relation to the Western chancelleries is its ability to intervene from inside and, in the long run, to win over the leaderships and partly the peoples on both poles of a contradiction that it has created or aggravated. A lot of people in our country ignore the fact that the strategic platforms of the “Right Sector” Nazis and the other pseudo-nationalist Ukrainian groupuscules, as well as the pro-Nazi “Svoboda”, are in fact strategically pro-Russian. They of course represent themselves as hard-line anti-Russians, but they are enemies to the voluntary unity of the peoples and nations, as they openly and passionately persist in a platform that views liberalism, bourgeois globalization, the Jews, human rights and the Western enlightenment as the chief enemy. Such a platform serves above all the strategic plans of the Russian social-imperialism for the invasion and occupation of Western Europe, objectives that have been theorized by Putin’s strategic political consul, Al. Dugin, in the super-reactionary doctrine of Eurasianism. (Dugin’s “theory” is thoroughly depicted in his book: “The forth political theory” which, according to our opinion, represents for the third world war what “Mein Kampf” represented for the second one).   
Of course, one may here wander: since the Ukrainian neo-Nazis are Russophiles then why does Europe (and the West in general) back them? 
 
THE DIRTY STANCE OF THE WEST
 
The support of those scoundrels by the European and American monopolists is indicative of their ideological-political decay. Blinded by extreme and more and more hysterical anti-Third world anticommunism, which proves the vitality of the latter in spite of its temporary defeat, they have no hesitation in betraying the antifascist fronts they had once formed with the socialist USSR and supporting the collaborators of Hitler’s occupation of Ukraine only because the latter clashed with the socialist USSR and with Stalin. It was the Russian revisionists that fabricated him as a fascist monster in 1956, then the Western liberal anticommunists that consolidated and published him as such, especially the Americans, and finally the French renegades of Maoism and Marxism led by Stephane Courtois (The black book of communism) and the crypto-Nazi anticommunist “new historians” that depicted him worse than Hitler. All the above-mentioned insinuate that the Soviet power under Stalin was worse than Hitler’s, so the stance of the Ukrainian nationalists that fought for the Nazi army should be vindicated, in spite of the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian people didn’t feel that way, since they sacrificed their lives to fight with unachievable heroism against the Nazis through the ranks of the red army under Stalin’s leadership. 
The Western bourgeoisie today, which is often liberal anticommunist, under leadership of pro-Russian Obama, says nothing about the fact that the nazi “Svoboda” is occupying four offices in the new government (an office of deputy PM for economic issues, and offices in the ministries of education, ecology, agriculture) along with the office of the government’s general procurator. The most terrible thing, however, that they omit is that one of the two founders of “Svoboda” and leader of all Nazis in the square (as representative of Tymoshenko’s party), Parubiy, has been positioned at the head of the national defense and security commission that supervises the defense ministry and the armed forces. Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of the openly Nazi “Right Sector” was became his deputy. Other pro-Nazi-fascists, such as former members of the “Ukrainian National Assembly – National Self-Defense” (T. Chernovol) were rewarded with the control of the government commission against corruption – which will be used as an instrument for political purges – and the head of the youth and sports ministry.  
All the more so, those who appear in the center of the set-up conflict with V. Yanukovych as pro-Western Ukrainian democrats (see Tymoshenko and Klitschko) have not only refused to ever denounce the Nazis of the square as Nazis, but as it is proven today, they have also consciously stepped on them so as to set up their provocative attacks and the fait accompli in Maidan square. These are double-face pro-Russians of the worse type. The claimant of the presidential office Tymoshenko has a sinful background that places her closer to Putin than to pro-Russian Yanukovych himself. It was her that betrayed bourgeois democrat President V. Yushchenko in 2004 and overthrew him with irreconcilable supra-revolutionary slogans, but after she came to power she signed the 2009 repulsive agreement with Putin on the 10-year-long provision of Russian gas (for which she was put to jail), by prohibiting Ukraine from changing its price conditions, being liable for misconduct. That’s why V. Yushchenko himself testified against her in the trial (BBC, 10/11/11). Nobody can deny that as PMs, Putin and Tymoshenko had a very good cooperation, and that this has triggered off rumors saying that Putin has backed Tymoshenko against Yanukovych (see Financial Times, 2/23). Tymoshenko, who passes for a pro-Western politician, uses the hard-line pro-Russian politician of Ukraine, Victor Medvedchuk (a Putin’s close friend), as her Sherpa! 
The Western credit monopolists like to believe, not only through their anticommunism but also through their well-known economism, that the Nazi-fascists of Euromaidan were forced to bring the pro-Westerners in power, as the people is generally pro-Western. However, the new governors of Kiev will make such moves that in the long run will be exposing Europe before the eyes of the majority of the Ukrainian people and will help Russia regain contact with them. Such a move is the promotion of an agreement with the IMF and the EU providing for an austerity memorandum that will give the pro-Russian oligarchs of Ukraine and the Russian providers of gas the economic control of the country, but the EU and the IMF will receive the whole booing as they will be signing for the poverty of the people, while Russia will be denouncing it by posing her own pre-Yanukovych’s-downfall alleged “unconditioned” assistance. That is, we’ll have a second Greek case in which the EU will be constantly paying for a dying country, which will also be used as bait by Russia for the economic bleeding and the political division of Europe. Statements of the type “We don’t have other recipe than adopting exceptionally anti-popular measures” (El Pais, 2/28), such as the well-known statement by PM A. Yatsenyuk (of Tymoshenko’s “Fatherland” party) only come to provoke the whatever positive existing European-Ukrainian cooperation so as to make the whole people support Russia, which had just annulled her own “unconditioned” financing of the Ukrainian economy. 
 
 *SOME MORE FACTS ON THE RUSSIAN INVASION IN CRIMEA 
 
The law passed by the Ukrainian parliament on the prohibition of the Russian language has provoked the national integrity of the country. The direct consequence of it was the secession attempt of Crimea, an autonomous republic where the Russian minority lives and where Russia disposes of a military basis. Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1954 by Khrushchev, possibly with the purpose of rallying the Ukrainian nationalists within the CPSU against the true Stalin’s ideological-political heirs (Molotov, Kaganovich, Malenkov, Voroshilov) but also with the purpose of being able to permanently blackmail Ukraine with partition if the latter really wished to become independent from Russia. 
So, the situation was rife when, on 2/27, armed pro-Russians occupied the seat of the government and the parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Under the threat of guns, they forced the body to pronounce a referendum on the political status of the region, while they illegally appointed a leader of the “Russian Unity” party named Aksyonov as PM. The latter declared that he didn’t recognize the central government of Kiev but the authority of Yanukovych. Within hours, Russian soldiers without signs occupied two airports of the autonomous republic. Not long after, they culminated their intervention by dispatching 6,000 soldiers, according to Kiev’s denouncements, and occupying more military targets. The airspace of Crimea was completely blocked. At the same time, the new pro-Russian local authorities, in accordance with the Russian navy, agreed on the safeguard of important buildings. Barricades were set up at the central roads, the most important television station was occupied, attempt to occupy the anti-aircraft rockets’ base, and the seat of the coastguard in Sevastopol, was made by order of the Russian defense minister. Simultaneously, a Russian vessel blocked the Balaklava bay where the vessels of the Ukrainian guard stationed. Right afterwards, the Russian parliament and the Duma approved Putin’s petition that authorized the Russian army to intervene in Crimea so as to “protect” the lives of the Russian citizens, their co-nationals, and the security of the Russian military installations (El Pais, 3/1). This is a real invasion of the Russian army in Ukraine, an invasion for now limited and informal but threatening to the whole country’s integrity, unless Russia played a formal mediatory role on the issue of unity of the Ukrainian state and mostly on that of the Ukraine-EU relationships. This invasion in Crimea was the first gain for Russia, offered by her special lackeys, the provocateurs pseudo-nationalist neo-Nazis of the square that have now been exposed as being led by the “formal” Tymoshenko-Yatsenyuk-Tyahnybok and possibly by Klitschko political leaders. Those lackeys have been playing the part of the provocateur to the Westerners’ disadvantage, and they are destined to be set aside when the pro-Russians with European face will have deeply penetrated the fabrics of the state mechanism. 
Besides, what is the stance of the hard-line “anti-Russian nationalists” of Maidan square on this blatant violation of the Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty? We indicatively mention the stance of the “Right Sector”, the leader of which, Yarosh, asked for a political solution of the conflict by holding that all parties should forget strife and unite when it comes to the preservation of the country’s integrity (Interfax-Ukraine, 2/28)! This was the first sign on how much Russophile and national-traitors are the Nazi skunks that have come to power in Kiev. 
These are signs strengthening the prediction that the initial partition of Ukraine by the half-secession of Crimea was made with the purpose of realizing the so much yearned for by Russia international negotiation process that would enable her to have the upper hand in both administration of Ukraine and the Ukraine-EU issues.