the imaginative conservative logo

revolutionary Ukrainian governmentThe former German Commissioner to the European Union, Gunter Verheugen, has courageously gone on public record on German radio with the claim that “The source of the problem is not Moscow, nor us. The source of the problem is in Kiev, where for the first time in the XXI century, a European government is made up of Fascists.” This is not a theoretical point. It is the reality on the ground. The longer the West as a whole refuses to face this reality, the more probable war becomes. The West would like to believe that the revolutionaries in Kiev are like Poland’s Solidarity heroes. This is a lie. It is a lie propagated by cynical Polish politicians and supported by naïve youngsters who were not alive under Communism and who did not witness the day-to-day events of Poland’s transition from Communism to democratic republicanism. It is a lie which, if not quickly unmasked, will lead to another world war or a cold war that could have devastating economic consequences for the world.

The two Polish politicians principally responsible for Poland’s current policy in Ukraine and for fomenting the lie that the Ukranian revolutionaries are akin to Solidarity are former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski and current Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski. President Kwasniewski was a member of the Polish Communist party and its government all the way through the 1980s. He had nothing to do with the ideals of Solidarity. He became a proponent of EU integration and NATO alignment because this path offered the most lucrative means of self-aggrandizement to him and his colleagues. While I do acknowledge his minor role in bringing about a peaceful transition from Communism to freedom in Poland and the fact that he was later democratically elected for two terms, he can hardly be called a hero of the Solidarity movement. Mr. Kwasniewski is not a moral authority on Solidarity, though he is a useful tool for neoconservatives to propagate the lie that there is a direct moral and philosophical line from the struggle of Solidarity to the war against Iraq to the revolution in Ukraine. When President Bush famously asked “what about Poland?” in the 2004 Presidential debates and referenced President Kwasniewski as a supporter of the war on Iraq, Americans might have thought to themselves that Mr. Kwasniewski was in some way a product of the Solidarity movement. He was, in fact, a Communist up until the very end, and it is little wonder that he is useful to neoconservatives in making the case for foreign military interventions abroad in places like Iraq and Ukraine.

President Kwasniewski was a member of a Communist government that was murdering Priests like the Blessed Martyr Jerzy Popieluszko and which has, to this day, never answered for its crimes despite President Ronald Reagan promising that “the world’s conscience will not be at rest until the perpetrators of this heinous crime have been brought to justice.” Those perpetrators are now free men, protected by Mr. Kwasniewski’s political allies. Yet we are supposed to forget about the Blessed Father Jerzy Popieluszko’s example in the Solidarity movement and believe that President Kwasniewski represents the spirit of Solidarity? It is the height of moral hypocrisy that a man who worked for the government that murdered Father Jerzy Popieluszko has now been transformed by America’s neoconservatives into an international hero of Solidarity and Democracy who should be considered an authority on Ukraine. So much for President Reagan’s promise that the world’s conscience will not rest. Conscience dies when memory is distorted by profit driven war propaganda.

The other key Polish supporter of the Kiev revolution, Radoslaw Sikorski was not in Poland at all during most the 1980s and 1990s, and therefore had the luxury of being a Chicken-Hawk on the subject of Communism. The men and women who actually had to live in Poland during the 1980s and then in the 1990s during the difficult transition from a centralized economy to a free economy, were animated by a totally different principle: the Christian ideal of Love as professed by the Blessed Pope John Paul II and as practiced by the Blessed Martyr Father Jerzy Popiełuszko. Today, the only man in Poland who truly speaks in the spirit of Solidarity and the spirit of John Paul II and Father Popiełuszko is Father Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zalewski. Father Zalewski calmly explains, when given the opportunity, that the idealism of Solidarity is not what animates the current Polish government; he argues that the current Polish government is animated by crass political and economic interests.

The men who truly represent the spirit of Solidarity are Pope John Paul II and the Blessed Martyr Father Jerzy Popieluszko. Pope John Paul II condemned the idea of a war against Iraq and was summarily ignored by Poland’s political class, left and right, as well as being ignored by the neoconservatives who like to portray themselves as heirs to Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II. Father Popieluszko spoke and worked for peace and justice and his death was a vivid reminder of the fate of true Christianity in the nominally better world of Pierestroika. If Europe truly wants to find a way out of its present woes, it must once again take the ideas of these men seriously, it must celebrate and emulate these men and their political teachings. They, like Solzhenitsyn, are Europe’s true guiding lights, and their path—because it points to Christ—is the only true path for peace and freedom in Europe. All else is dust. All else is government propaganda.

Every American, every citizen of a Western democracy with long democratic traditions, understands the Jeffersonian maxim “Love your country, fear your government.” We understand that liberty requires eternal vigilance, and that just because a government is democratically elected does not guarantee that it will be a good and just government. Poles are only now learning this lesson. For centuries, they have struggled and dreamed of having their own country with their own government. They still cannot fathom that a Polish government, which is democratically elected by Poles and composed of Poles, might not actually serve the interests of Poles, and might actually act in a manner contrary to the highest moral traditions of the Polish nation. This is one of the most bitter lessons of democratic government—but it is a lesson that the Polish people must learn before it is too late. It is a lesson which Poles can ill afford not to learn. America, because of its power and location, can weather many terrible governments and foolish wars. Poland, due to its weakness and location, cannot. It must have a government that is realistic and morally humble or face war and partition. War and partition, after all, are the fate of a people incapable of self-government. Ukrainians are learning this lesson the hard way now. Having naively believed in Western propaganda and fomented revolution since 2004, they now witness their country coming apart as Russian Ukrainians, disenfranchised by the recent coup d’état, now bid for independence and reunification with Russia. Meanwhile, as Commissioner Verheugen noted, the result of the Kiev Revolution is a fascist government in Europe.

I have already written of the fascist language laws put into effect by the revolutionary Ukrainian government. Here, I will only give two other examples. First, it is critical to recall the words and deeds of Pope John Paul II and the Blessed Martyr Jerzy Popiełuszko. These were above all men of love and peace. They would never favor violent revolution, and they worked very hard to make sure that Solidarity was a movement for peaceful change even in the face of a Soviet military occupation. Compare that to the barbarian weapons used by the revolutionaries in Kiev against the police force of a democratically elected government. These barbarian tools of war are clearly the product of psychopathic fascists, not of Christians who are determined to fight for justice. These weapons tell us a lot about just who the revolutionaries in Kiev were. To make such weapons and then bring them with you into a crowd of men, women, and children—one must have absolutely no moral conscience. To lend political support to people who build and use such weapons in order to beat police officers, occupy government buildings, and intimidate those who think differently is the height of ignorance. Such barbaric weapons were not present amongst the men and women who composed the Solidarity movement. Solidarity used American fax machines, underground newspapers, the Eucharist, and smuggled books to topple Communism. The Kiev revolutionaries use weapons that look like something out of the very worst torture chamber of the Dark Ages.

Secondly, there is the matter of the revolutionary Ukrainian government directly copying one of Adolf Hitler’s most brutal policies. When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the Weimar Republic, one of his first acts was to incorporate the paramilitary NAZI stormtroopers into the formal German army. It is a well-documented historical fact that Germany’s regular army officers hated the NAZI stormtroopers and considered them illegal hooligans. In order to solidify his power over Germany, Hitler had to assure the regular army of their primacy over and above Ernst Rhom’s Stormtroopers who, earlier, had propelled Hitler to political prominence during the Beer Hall Putsch. The politics of the matter were delicate. Many of Rhom’s Stormtroopers were, like Hitler, bitter veterans of the First World War who had saved Germany from a Communist take-over following the abrupt collapse of the German military effort. In the disorderly and hectic days following the German capitulation during World War I, the Soviet Union invaded Poland, bound for Berlin to reinforce German Communists who had already incited Communist revolutions in cities like Munich. With the formal German army in disarray and political crisis rampant, Rhom’s Stormtroopers filled the vacuum, taking it upon themselves to defend their nation against impending Soviet invasion (an invasion that never came, thanks to the Polish victory over the Soviet army in the battle of Warsaw in 1920). The actions of the Stormtroopers in defending Germany from Bolshevism earned them a modicum of respect in German society. However, by the time of the Beer Hall Putsch, when the Stormtroopers turned their guns on the legitimate German authorities and the German army, that respect had begun to wither away. Germans, while largely empathizing with political rhetoric blaming the Versailles treaty for German woes, had no tolerance for a paramilitary revolutionary nationalist movement acting independent of the law. Hitler, whose political fortunes were on the rise by the early 1930s, knew this and acted accordingly upon becoming Chancellor. Arresting and executing Rhom, who refused to stem his nationalist-revolutionary fervor, Hitler made sure to pacify the Stormtroopers while at the same time placating them: he made them all regular soldiers in the German army. These are historical facts.

Fast forward to Ukraine. The revolutionary government of Ukraine was brought to power largely thanks to Fascist paramilitary organizations under the rule of the fascist “Svoboda” party, much like Hitler was brought to power thanks to the paramilitary organization of Ernst Rhom. A Svoboda party member is now the Ukrainian Minister of Defense. One of the first acts of the new government was to legalize the paramilitary arm of the Svoboda party and make them a legitimate extension of the State’s security forces. This policy is identical to the policy of Adolf Hitler. Svoboda, like the Nazi Stormtroopers, does not limit itself to using violence against Russians; it also uses violence against Ukranian liberals and progressives. In fact, the only difference between what the Ukranian government has done and what Adolf Hitler did is that Svoboda did not have to, at any point since the fall of the Soviet Union, defend Ukraine against armed Communist revolution. Instead, Svoboda fomented the very sort of nationalist revolution that Ernst Rohm dreamed of fomenting in Germany. It is of course true that the Prime Minister of Ukraine routinely condemns Svoboda’s use of violence, like when Ukrainian members of Parliament from Svoboda beat and terrorized the head of a television station and forced him to sign a resignation, but the Prime Minister of Ukraine does nothing to eject Svoboda from government because it is the Svoboda paramilitary which made his government possible.

Let us take a good look at these men from Svoboda, these “Democratic Freedom fighters”—and let us look at what they do on live television, how they physically beat and intimidate a man, with no charges, no trial, no presumption of innocence before guilt—just brutal disgusting force—and let us ask ourselves: why is America supporting these people? Aren’t they exactly like the people who eat Syrian soldiers’ hearts? How can President Obama support a government which behaves like this? How can anyone seriously consider letting Ukraine into the European Union and pretend that Ukraine meets the requirements of the EU in terms of rule of law, democratic process, freedom of the press, and protection of individual rights?

I imagine to myself that some calm and calculating men in the Department of Defense have decided that temporarily supporting Svoboda is a small price to pay for the ultimate goal of isolating Russia, expanding NATO, and achieving a broader range of strategic NATO hegemony. I actually am also inclined to hope that the only reason that President Obama has not formally acknowledged Crimea as Russian is because he wishes to use the status of Crimea as a negotiating card in future diplomacy. I also imagine that the EU members who now support the Ukrainian revolutionary government may be relying on a similar calculus. However, all of their calculus is, in my estimation, worthless. It is worthless because in the end, good government and good political action can only result from one source: human goodness. This is why Solidarity succeeded; because it was guided by Pope John Paul II and the Blessed Martyr Father Jerzy Popieluszko. Only Solidarity, guided by true Christian virtue, could do what all of the wars and calculations and power politics of Europe failed to do in the twentieth century: bring peace and freedom to the Continent. Men like Pope John Paul II and the Blessed Martyr Father Jerzy Popieluszko made sure that there were no weapons, no barbaric methods, no hatred, no hysteria, no Jacobin revolutions, no need for American bombs. These men and the people who followed them showed the world a high, principled example of Christian courage. In contrast, the psychopathic democratic revolutionaries in Kiev who construct barbaric, dark ages weapons, who threaten crippling terrorist attacks that would destroy the West, who beat and choke people on camera, and the cynical Western politicians who swoop in from luxurious and safe abodes in the West to rile up angry mobs while micro-managing multiple wars in foreign lands—they have nothing to do with Solidarity, nothing to do with freedom and nothing to offer the world except blood. They have only succeeded in destroying Western credibility and making a man like Vladimir Putin look like a model of Statesmanship, charity, and restraint.

Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore.

Print Friendly
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
11 replies to this post
  1. Sikorski was a friend in the late 80s when he regularly risked his life reporting on communist atrocities in wartime Afghanistan. ‘Chickenhawk’? you owe him an apology on these pages.

  2. So, instead of providing a thoroughgoing analysis of a very complex situation involving a number of different actors and ideological moving parts in Ukraine, you offer a few anecdotes, innuendos, and pontifications about things you personally like/dislike and expect…what? A nod of assent from anyone other than fellow-traveling ideologues? You have to be kidding me.

    Let’s leave aside for the moment your childish reductio ad Hitlerum and focus on this money paragraph:

    “Let us take a good look at these men from Svoboda, these “Democratic Freedom fighters”—and let us look at what they do on live television, how they physically beat and intimidate a man, with no charges, no trial, no presumption of innocence before guilt—just brutal disgusting force—and let us ask ourselves: why is America supporting these people? Aren’t they exactly like the people who eat Syrian soldiers’ hearts?”

    As troubling as the actions of these “men from Svoboda” no doubt are, there is a pretty wide yawn between what they are doing in this incident you point to and “people who eat Syrian soliders’ hearts.” This is just tarring n’ feathering through association. But more critically, you have not made the case that the actions of these “men from Svoboda” are representative of a larger trend or “novus ordo” in Ukraine which in any way aligns with the systematic and horrific violence carried out by Syrian opposition forces. You are talking apples and oranges here, or at least you are until, again, you actually do the heavy lifting of trying to get into these messy realities with some degree of analytical precision. Until then you are advancing a case built on anecdotes and innuendo (not to mention political posturing).

  3. Peter – excellent piece here. Couldn’t be more pleased with your perspectives on this issue. Piece after piece, I agree with you as you develop your points on the Ukrainian situation. I am looking at all this through a rather unique lens, by in large, having been raised in the West (the US) and a convert to the Orthodox Church. I approach my faith very conservatively – through the lens of the Church Fathers and the apostolic Tradition of the Orthodox Church. This naturally leads me to approach political issues conservatively as well. Given the secular progressivism of the EU, and my conservative bent, I naturally wanted Ukraine to lean into Moscow upon learning the nature of the dispute between the government and rioters. Now that everything has unfolded as it has, our (the US’s) moral bankruptcy has been on display, to me personally, like it never has before. And this has allowed me to look into the past and see the same thing in many other situations. Please keep writing!

    • Mr. David; My scepticism is also fueled by my mistrust of the EU, and not only on religious grounds, but more broadly on political grounds. When the unellected Mr. Barroso, the unellected Mr. Rompuy and the unellected Mr. Yatsenyuk signed the EU-Ukraine trade deal, I could not help but wonder how these people could criticize Russia as undemocratic. The European Union is not a good political body and when the Polish Prime Minister makes the dramatic claim that people in Ukraine were the first in history to die for the EU, I must say I do not find any solace in this. The last thing I can imagine wanting Europeans to do is die for an unelected super-state that thwarts self-government and imposes burdonsome taxes and regulations far in excess of what Russia imposes on its citizens. This is not 1950. It is not Eisenhower’s America and Stalin’s Russia. If Conservatism aims for limited government, then we need to look in the mirror and see that for all of the East’s faults, it is the West which has now strayed farthest from free government. I might be wrong, but that’s how I see it. Believe me, I would much rather it was not this way.

      • When the twice democratically elected Ukrainian government was toppled by rioters (violently toppled) and the US took the side of the rioters, I couldn’t believe it. Right then and there a worldview I had always held was shattered. I was under the impression that we stood unwaveringly on the side of democracy, and that it was a principle we would affirm everywhere we saw it. When we did not do this but took the side of those who violated democracy, unseated democracy, over an issue where half the country saw otherwise, something in me died, and I knew we had a different agenda altogether. The instances you just pointed out I did not even know, but highlight this reality even more so, in my mind. I am with you: I would much rather it was not this way.

  4. Well, it is no surprise that an emotional issue generates emotions on all sides –

    Modestinus: You are right, this is not a “thorough going analysis”. By definition, it is impossible to analyze revolutions thoroughly because under conditions of chaos, everything is fluid. My only point in this article was to highlight the difference between Solidarity as a nonviolent movement animated by the Catholic teaching and contrast it with the violent methods and lack of even a modicum of Christian humility on the part of the Maidan revolutionaries.

    The comparisson to Syria was meant to highlight the direction in which violent revolutions tend to go. Given that the leader of the Ukranian Right Sector Party was recently murdered, it is not a stretch. The Syrian civil war had similar beginings. There is too much bloodthirstiness in the public proclamations and actions of the Maidan revolutionaries to warrant giving them serious consideration as anything but trouble. Miss Tymoshenko’s recent statement that Russians in Ukraine should be ethnically cleansed, the MPs suggesting Ukraine restore itself as a nuclear power, the Svoboda leaders speeches in which he called for “revenge” – no where amongst these people do I percieve anyone who is actually a proponent of peaceful change and certainly there is no one of the stature of the Blessed John Paul and Father Popieluszko.

    In effect, I think that the illegal overthrow of an elected government is enough of a case to be very cautious of these people.

    Mr. Matsy: If I offended Mr. Sikorski, or anyone with that characterization, then naturally I do apologize. This may be a case where a better choice of words would have been in order on my part. I know full well what Mr. Sikorski did in the 80s.He was not the only person to risk his life, so that in itself does not make one above criticism. Likewise, not everyone who risked their lives has the same political opinions. Mr. Sikorski went to Afghanistan of his own volition. With all due respect to Journalists, if you enter a war-zone, you risk your life. That is quite different from the risks undergone by people living under Communism in Poland during the 80s. They were not journalists, risking their lives was not a job. My point was merely to highlight that Mr. Sikorski had an easier time of being anti-Communist due to his distance from Poland, whereas those members of Solidarity who had to actually live in Poland and work to overthrow Communism peacefully had a momentously complex task.

    The key is this: what lesson do we take from Solidarity? Mr. Sikorski took the lesson that Communism can be overthrown and that democracy won the Cold War. Others, myself included, in light of the various imperfections of democracy, have taken the lesson that no political ideology will ever substitute for the teaching of Pope John Paul II, which calls for the hard, slow task of peaceful action. In this sense, to my mind,Mr. Sikorski made a Chicken-Hawk of himself because he learned the wrong lesson (in my opinion) from Solidarity. Just as neoconservatives learned the wrong lesson from the Reagan Presidency, which was not about bombing tyrannies but about changing the world with the power of ideas.

    As an aside, Mr. Sikorski did a great disservice to the people who supported him by betraying them, then later indirectly leading to the death of President Kaczynski by refusing to provide the President with the necessary tools to carry out his business safely and then spent the last five years participating in a campaign of defimation against Poland’s Catholic right because he apparently feels that it is more important to be loved in Brussels than to stay true to your political allies. That is, of course, a wholly partisan statement on my part – but sadly, in politics, this happens. People take sides.

    If I am wrong about Ukraine, I will gladly eat my words. That said, I would much prefer it if we stopped finding reasond to prolong the National Security State and got back to being a Republic, while Poland and Russia stopped being antagonists and finally made peace. I do not see how the US or Mr. Sikorski have helped advance either goal.

  5. On other matters, I have found Mister Rieth to be levelheaded and fair, and see no reason to doubt him in this instance. (Couple this with my instinctive mistrust of the tub-thumping hysterics of the Neocon battalions, and…)

  6. Peter,

    Excellent analysis of the Ukrainian situation again.

    Please keep thinking and analyzing.

    Between the neo-conservatives screaming for war–any time, anywhere–and the Politically Correct Progressives itching for war to hush up their domestic scandals, it seems that there is a nexus of Mars in the United States now.

    But if we keep pointing out the ludicrous thugishness of the Euro-Maidans, their support from Soros, the EU, and Obama’s handlers, there may be hope for an awakening.

    Doubtful, but at least you’ll be on the record as having “opposed.”

    Keep up the good work.

    Thanks.

    Kent Clizbe

  7. The best piece in this wonderful article is not in the article but, in the comment section: “I would much prefer it if we stopped finding reason[s] to prolong the National Security State and got back to being a Republic, while Poland and Russia stopped being antagonists and finally made peace.” — Peter

    Hear, hear!

    Not every piece needs to be “down in the weeds analysis” nor should/can it be expected.

    Thank you, fine article, my limited working knowledge in some events and subjects of this area preclude me from adding insightful perspective. For me, the article was at the very minimum informational and thought-provoking.

  8. Thank you Mr. Naas and Mr. Clizbe for your kind words. I should like to address a few more points, just to be crystal clear:

    1. Fairness/Level-Headedness:

    If I am seen as un-even because I constantly identify the deficiencies of the Ukrainian revolutionaries while ignoring those of Mr. Putin, it is only because I feel it necessary to compensate for the mainstream media propaganda which paints Russia as on the verge of rebuilding the Soviet Union, which is hard to fathom when you look at the level of capitalist commerce it engages in with Poland, Germany and Italy. It is also because, as an American and Polish citizen, I am foremost interested in America and Poland being free and peaceful countries. I do not think America should sacrifice its already whithering Constitutional Republic for a bunch of revolutionaries in Ukraine or in Egypt or in Tunisia who, if you sat them down and asked them about their guiding principles, would not give you an intelligent, moving Jeffersonian monologue. I also think that there are more important things for the good of humankind than the situation in Ukraine, which is largely the result of Ukrainian failure at self-government. Case in point: NASA, this week, put Americans in space using a Russian rocket (again) because America (still) does not have a working space craft. The cooperation between America, Russia and Europe on such things which – in the extreme long run – will benefit all of humanity, like space exploration – is a far more important endeavor than spending time and money micro-managing Ukranian nationalists. I would not want to sacrifice this American-Russian cooperation in space. Thankfully, there were no sanctions blocking NASA from paying Russia the 71 million USD that this space flight cost. To me, human space flight for the good of humankind is worth pursuing, and it would be ridiculous to stop this cooperation and instead go to war in order to force a historically Russian penninsula to fly a Ukranian flag after its people were disenfranchized when the President they elected was toppled in a street revolution.

    2. Anti-Communism

    Dr. Birzer brought up the question of what exactly it means to have been (and to be) anti-Communist in an earlier column, when he noted the absurdity of the FBI investigating science fiction writers like Asimov for suspected Communist subversion. This question is now again important because we obviously seem to have a tendency to mistrust Mr. Putin and anyone else who had been associated or active in the Communist aparatus during the Cold War. We might even like to think that the political stage is neatly divided between the Anti-Communists and the Post-Communists.

    First, as I have tried to demonstrate, this is not so. Often times, those who were opponents of Communism end up being opponents of the EU, while those who were Communists are now “Western Democrats”. Personally, I have found that labels and histories have litle meaning. I have often found more in common with people in Poland who were members of the Communist party or whose personal histories were “on the other side” in the 1980s than with people who were in Solidarity or who, like Mr. Sikorski, made a big deal of being “Anti-Communist”. This is because the 1980s are over. It is the year 2014 and what is at issue is Iraq, Iran, Syria, Ukraine and whether or not America and the West should be an Empire or whether the breaking point has been reached and it is time to finally restore republicanism, local self-government and stop pretending that bankrupt Western economices can go on spending indefinitely. Mr. Sikorski is on the wrong side of the most important issues of the present day as are many who were nominally on the right side during the Cold War. We can respect what people did in the past if they served a good cause, but let us not give them carte blanche if, now, they support a bad cause. Let us not assume that because Mr. Sikorski was anti-Communist in the 1980s, then he is right to support a European super-state and the Maidan.

    Second, in my view, we need some perspective. Did we go through the Cold War in order to end a military stand-off in Europe, or to create a new one? Did we go through the Cold War because we believed that limited government, personal and economic fredom and local rule were good, or because we wanted the Central Planners to live in Brussels rather than Moscow? Did Margaret Thatcher advocate for or against the European Union? Did Ronald Reagan advocate for or against military intervention as an acceptable method of “regime change”? Did John Paul II advocate for or against his native Poland to participate in the invasion and occupation of a foreign country?

    3. The Aesthetic of Democracy

    Finally, I invite everyone interested to watch this youtube video (with english subtitles) called “Who are the Occupiers”. The people who made this video are Pro-Maidan revolutionaries. They are Polish pro-EU left wing activists (as opposed to the anti-EU left) who, as President Putin said, were involved in training the Ukraine Revolutionaries (it’s funny how everyone accusses Putin of lying on this point, but then the Poles involved throw their video up on YouTube to commemorate their “achievements” in Ukraine). To them, this video demonstrates the heroism of the Maidan revolutionaries and of people “fighting for democracy.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IFifIYSeKs

    Every viewer can make their own mind up and can have their own impression. I must say, however, that I grew up in small-town New England, went to College in small town Michigan, lived in a little town in Switzerland and enjoy a happy family life in Warsaw – and in none of these places, all of which are by and large democratic, free and self-governing, would we accept people who put on combat fatigues, occupy government buildings and then make political statements, accusations of murder, and the like. This is the methodology used by terrorists, not by men and women who wish to build a civil society. It may look romantic to Che Guevara dreamers and neoconservatives who fantasize about world revolution, but to me – it is scary. It is NOT the face of civil society. Last year in Warsaw, masked nationalists took to the streets, torched part of the Russian embassy and fought police – I opposed that too (even though I am not an enthusiast of the current government here, I still on principle do not support masked rioters and street mobs). I did not support masked nationalists rioting in Warsaw, I’m appaled that the Polish government would support them in Kiev. To me, this is NOT what democracy looks like. Everyone who lives in a democracy should instinctively understand that. Martin Luther Kind didn’t put on a mask and wear combat fatigues, though his life was clearly threatened all the time. Neither did the people who led Solidarity. The people who fought peacefully for democratic change showed their faces to the world, spoke with intelligence and humility and loved their enemy; as John Paul II said “fight evil with good”. That is not what the masked people in this Youtube video are doing. People may have a different impression, but in my view – cooperating with people who look like this, use these kind of methods and have nothing of substance to say about politics, but instead are in the midst of a romantic, personal involvement in revolutionary violence will do nothing to help build stable civil society and self-government.

  9. On another note, it would also be worthwhile to listen to this conversation between the woman we just freed from jail, former Ukranian Prime Minister Tymoshenko, about her vision of the future for the region:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vDgdcXnY9M

    All I can say is; these people are insane. This is the former Prime Minister of Ukraine, now free, speaking about exterminating 8 million Russians living in Ukraine in a new Holocaust, and claiming that she would personally like to “take a machine gun” and kill the Russian President.

    Can anyone seriously claim these people are akin to Pope John Paul II and Solidarity? Does this woman speak for liberty and democracy?

    Of course, Miss Tymoshenko now claims that the Russian FSB “rigged” this phone conversation, but given the earlier tapes of Nuland-Pyatt and Ahston’s conversation with the Estonian FM about who was really behind the Kiev sniper attacks – I highly doubt that Miss Tymoshenko’s words were manipulated.

    After all – the Russians don’t have to do anything but tape these people to make them look inanse.

Please leave a thoughtful, civil, and constructive comment: