Nach der Bundestagswahlahl 2021 schaute die Welt verwundert – die Einen erschreckt, die Anderen komplizenhaft erleichtert – auf Berlin – und war verunsichert: ein unheilschwangeres Brodeln unter der Oberfläche, die Bayern dominierten den Plenarsaal des Bundestages, die befehlsgewohnten Rheinländer begannen sich in Demut (Angebot statt Anspruch) zu üben. Die europäische Supermacht lag wie ein Panther mit eingezogenen, aber geschärften Krallen in geballter Spannung zwischen Landwehrkanal, Spreebogen und Neuem Tor.
So oder ähnlich hatte ich einen Blog unmittelbar nach den Wahlen begonnen. Aber ich konnte mir nicht vorstellen, was sich seither ereigen sollte.
Auch wenn es heute schwer zu lesen ist, führen wir uns die Vorstellungen von damals vor Augen:
Während Zeitungs-Schreiber, Redakteure, Schwatzmeisterinnen und Schwatzmeister der TV-Shows das Stimmvolk mit Nichtigkeiten und Personalspekulationen beschwichtigen und belustigen, halten sich die Granden in der die Außenwelt interessierenden Frage bedeckt – was steckt in den Gewehrläufen der deutschen Soldaten von heute? Eichenlaub oder Ölzweig? Neue globale Ansprüche der europäischen Nr. 1 oder die Beibehaltung der durch Angela Merkel so meisterhaft umgesetzten Strategie der Balance.
Bundestag im Glanze der Lobbyisten
Die Verlockungen und Herausforderungen liegen auf der Straße: die Afghanistan-„Schmach“ der USA, der von Präsident Macron schon vor langem verkündete „Hirntod“ der NATO, der neue asiatisch-pazifische strategische Schauplatz des Wettbewerbs der Supermächte China, Russland und USA. Aljazeera: “A German economy that is the envy of the world but unprepared for the digital age”. Sind die Ideologen der Grünen, ist ihre bisher sich in Talkshows so bravourös geschlagene Personage (vor allem Özdemir, Baerbock, Nouripour ) in der Lage, diesen Anforderungen der globalen Wirtschaft gerecht zu werden? Lassen wir die jüngsten Fakten sprechen.
Ein sehr zeitgemäßes Beispiel ist der „Hamburg-Shanghai-Express“: Am 28. September eröffnete gleichzeitig die Fracht-Express-Linie Hamburg-Shanghai mit zwei – jeweils mit 50 Containern beladenen – Zügen eine neue erfolgversprechende eurasische Eisenbahnverbindung Europas mit China.
Die chinesische Seite geht in ihren Veröffentlichungen davon aus, dass die neue Expressverbindung die Frachtkosten schon in der Anfangsphase um etwa 30 % senken wird. Diese einmalig kurze Landverbindung ist nur möglich durch die Zusammenarbeit der Bahnverwaltungen Chinas, Kasachstans, Russlands, Belarus, Polens. Schon die Erwähnung dieser Staaten trifft unsere NGO-Finanziers am Berliner Neuen Tor ins Mark. Was werden sie tun auf dem möglichen Ministersessel oder als Ausschuss-Vorsitzende im Bundestag? Werden sie Kanzler Olaf Scholz in die Hamburger Suppe spucken? Werden sie den Präsidenten XI, Lukaschenko und Putin und den anderen direkt und indirekt mitwirkenden „Autokraten“ wie Orban oder Erdogan den Wirtschaftskrieg erklären? Können sie dem Druck der milliardenschweren Handelsketten der deutschen Großstädte, der angeschlagenen Autofirmen standhalten, die auf Ersatzteile, Solarzellen, Möbel, Maschinenteile, Bekleidung, Mikrochips schon seit Monaten warten und ihre Niederlassungen in China kurzfristig beliefern wollen?
(200412) — ALATAW PASS, April 12, 2020 (Xinhua) — Photo taken on April 11, 2020 shows cargos to be exported in Alataw Pass, northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Customs and border inspection officials at the Alataw Pass, a major land port in northwest China, are carrying out strict measures to prevent the COVID-19 epidemic from spreading through the port. (Xinhua/Sadat)
Jeder unaufgeregte sachliche Beobachter des Berliner politischen Theaters weiß: Die Grünen müssen ihre kriegerische NGO-Praxis und Rhetorik gegenüber China, Russland, Belarus überprüfen, sonst verliert Deutschland das zukunftsträchtige Geschäft. Innenpolitische Veränderungen in anderen Staaten – das müsste inzwischen bei der bürgerlichen Elite in Berlin und Stuttgart nach drei Jahrzehnten angekommen sein – erreicht man effektiver durch eine Politik des „Wandels durch Annäherung“ ( siehe Polen, Ungarn, DDR) als durch militärischen Druck oder völkerrechtswidrigen „Sanktionen“ unter Führung eines inzwischen zahnlosen atlantischen Partners USA.
Mit einem Wort – bei den Grünen ist DEMUT angesagt. Sie hatten sie abgelegt nach der Wahlniederlage der Schröder-Fischer-Koalition, ihr Wahlkampf in diesem Jahr war von phantastischen Zielstellungen, Arroganz und unübersehbarer Unkenntnis in wesentlichen Bereichen der Politik geprägt – auffällig insbesondere im Auftreten von Baerbock und Özdemir. Sie glaubten ihren eigenen Sprüchen, ihr Realitätsverlust ist trotz rauschendem Beifall ihres Anhangs offensichtlich ! Die verheerende Niederlage – dem deutschen Publikum bisher in den Details wohlweislich verschwiegen – der Online-Taktik des von den Experten am Neuen Tor präparierten russischen Hauptverbündeten Navalny bei den Wahlen zur Staatsduma Russlands belegt darüber hinaus, dass das Unternehmen Baerbock & Co. auch in ihrem ureigensten Feld, der aggressiven Einmischung in ausländische Wahlen, nicht mehr up-to-date st. Auch im „Grünen Haus am Neuen Tor“ sollten die neuesten digitalen Erfahrungen bald Einzug halten, damit man weiß, was man ausländischen Partnern auf die Reise in den Koffer packt.
Da sind die Gesprächspartner und möglichen Koalitionspartner SPD und FDP schon drei Schritte weiter! Sie mussten in der Opposition und in der Großen Koalition die Bescheidenheit angesichts der strategischen Überlegenheit einer Angela Merkel schmerzhaft lernen. – und haben die mehrfachen Lektionen verstanden. Man kann nur hoffen, dass das erfahrene Scholz-Team mit Unterstützung pragmatischer Führungskreise der FDP die historische Chance einer neuen globalen Politik Deutschlands nicht verspielt – den Ölzweig der strategischen friedlichen Zusammenarbeit im Konzert der Groß- und Supermächte nicht dem aggressiven, ruhmlosen, interventionistischen preußisch-deutschen Eichenlaub opfert.
Soweit meine „narratives“ von damals. Was damals als Fragen aufgeschrieben war, ist nun einesteils bittere Realität – die schießwütigen Grünen im Verein mit hyper-aggressiven FDP-Damen
übertrumpfen die Neonazis in ihrem Russenhass und ihren Grundgesetzverstößen (Zensur der Medien), anderenteils das Versinken einer realistischen Opposition im Sumpf der manipulierten Masse – tragische Symbolfigur Bodo Ramelow, den ich bisher so geschätzt hatte.
EICHENLAUB ist doppelt angesagt, das furchtbare Synonym für Preußens dunkelsten Jahre – von Ölzweig spricht heute niemand.
Soweit die Lage 2021/22. Da entdeckt man die mangelnde CORRECTNESS bei den letzten Landtags- und Kommunalwahlen in Berlin, wir werden wieder an die URNE gerufen – Grün und Rot/Rot fliegen die Fetzen um die Ohren.
VORHER:
NACHHER ?
Lederer und Ramelow können gemeinsam heulen, in Erwartung, dass auch Bodo in Erfurt bei den nächsten Wahlen wegen seines hartleibigen Anti-Russismus durch die Thüringer Wähler abgestraft wird. Annalena sollte sich schon mal um einen Platz in der Hütte am Neuen Tor bewerben. Kanzler Merz wird sich nicht mit Studienabbrechern umgeben, ein Mann wird ihn bei den Antrittsbesuchen in Beijing und Moskau als Außenminister begleiten, kein Feminist und kein Bismarck-Verächter –
vielleicht der junge Mann aus dem thüringischen APOLDA ! Oder doch eine Frau – weiß man, wie die Welt in zwei/drei Jahren aussieht? Friedrich Merz ist alles zuzutrauen – er könnte sich zu einem deutschen TRUMP mausern !!!
ist das Motto, der Kampfruf meiner von nun an in unregelmäßigen Abständen erscheinenden BLOGS: kein Krieg, kein woke !
Auf gut Deutsch: FRIEDEN, DIPLOMATIE, Respekt gegenüber historisch gewachsenen familiären Werten, Achtung vor der Lebenserfahrung der Älteren, politische und kulturelle Toleranz !
Aktuelles Symbol eines Anti-Wokisten:
Deutschland ist im Krieg mit Russland – vom letzten Königstiger aus der Kriegsbeute der Amerikaner in der Battle of the Bulge (Ardennenschlacht Weihnachten 1944) zum Leopard II !
Wer hätte es geglaubt noch vo wenigen Jahren – die WOKISTINNEN und WOKISTEN kämpfen um ein Bataillon Leopard-Panzer gegen die Russen.
Sie verdrängen mit psychologischer Leidenschaft die global Niederlage in der Fussball-WM in Qatar und das DAVOR und DANACH!
Erinnern wir uns aber an die letzten Wochen: 25. Februar !
Die aus dem medien-verordneten Schlaf Erwachten (also Anti-Woken) wollen keine Leopard-Export-Geschenke an die Banderisten in Kiew. Sie sind geschichtsbewusst:
Das ist der Schlachtruf der hier künftig erscheinenden BLOGS: kein Krieg, kein Woke !
Auf gut Deutsch: FRIEDEN, DIPLOMATIE, Respekt gegenüber historisch gewachsenen familiären Werten, Achtung vor der Lebenserfahrung der Älteren, politische und kulturelle Toleranz !
Aktuelles Symbol der friedliebenden Nicht-Woken:
Doch nun zu unseren Thüringern, geschrieben von einem Thüringer in der DIASPORA
Keine Sorge – es geht hier nicht um Dr. Martin Luther, den Mitteldeutschen, den Judenfresser und Bauernschlächter, den die US-Amerikaner so sehr lieben, dass sie zu Scharen bei schönem Wetter Wittenberg und Erfurt heimsuchen ! Es geht um Märchenfiguren in aktueller Verkleidung:
Es war einmal ein im schönen armen Niedersachsen ein Salzsieder, der hatte drei Söhne, Balduin, Bernhard und Bruno.
Balduin,der älteste und größte, erbte die Saline, den beiden anderen, die kleinwüchsig an Körper und Geist geblieben waren, befahl der Vater auf dem Sterbebette, in der Fremde, flußaufwärts von Weser und Werra ihr Glück zu suchen. So wanderten sie entlang der Weser, dann weiter die Werra bergauf,
schlugen sich durch das Unterholz, mieden die Städte und Dörfer aus Furcht vor den Räuberbanden und Wegelagerern, bis sie in der Ferne Salzsieder erblickten. „Hier lassen wir uns nieder“ flüsterte Bruno dem Bruder Bernhard, der etwa träge im Geiste war, ins rechte Ohr, „die Siedlung heißt Salzungen ! Sieh‘ mal, wie die Leute sich tummeln!“
Nach einem erfrischenden Bade machten sie sich auf den Weg, um sich bei einem Salinenmeister zu verdingen. Ach, wie groß war der Schreck! Der Meister und seine Altgesellen wiesen ihnen die Tür -„Euch Wichtel brauchen wir in Thüringen nicht, wir haben genügend einheimisches Gesindel, versuchts doch mal in den Klöstern, die Brüder suchen immer Rechts- und Linksgläubige! Drei Tagesmärsche immer der Sonne nach hat der Mainzer Erzbischof eine Niederlassung, ich wünsche Euch Glück“. Sprachs und knallte ihnen die Tür vor der Nase zu. Da weinten die Brüder bitterlich und trennten sich, Bruno wendete sich nach links, Bernhard nach rechts. Bruno fand Unterschlupf bei den hessischen Brüdern im Kloster zur heiligen Brüderlichkeit, die ihm bei guter Führung den immerwährenden Sonnenschein und die 20-Stunden-Woche versprachen und einen stolperfreien Aufstieg auf den schmalen Leitern zur Spitze der Gemeinschaft zusicherten, als sie seine Geisteskraft, seine Gerissenheit und Gewandtheit im Umgang mit den Oberen erkannten.
Bernhard jedoch, dem rechten Weg vertrauend, zu dem ihm der Vater im Stillen bei der Erinnerung an früherer Kreuzzüge gen Osten geraten hatte, wanderte stracks zur Mainzer Siedlung am Fluß Gera und fand sofort Gleichgesinnte – entwurzelte Raubritter, Glücksspieler, Tagediebe und Lohnschreiber auf der Krämerbrücke. In der Hinterstube der Bierkneipe „Zum Heiligen Kreuzritter“ erzählten die Alten von den siegreichen Schlachten „damals im Osten“, von den Aufmärschen hinter den Totenkopf-Bannern, vom schmählichen Ende ihrer Träume hier in der thüringischen Einöde. Sie begrüßten den Zuwanderer mit aufgereckten Armen, wählten ihn, der schnell die richtigen Sprüche fand, zum Anführer. Noch sei die Zeit nicht reif zum letzten Gefecht, aber wenn er die Posaune bläst, marschieren sie hinter ihm „wie die Kälber“ hinter dem Hirten – wohin auch immer! Bernhard schwelgte in Glückseligkeit, das war nun seine neue Heimat, wie stolz wäre der Vater, ihn so noch erleben zu dürfen.
Vollkommen war sein Stolz und Glücksgefühl, als er in der Menge bei einer seiner Umzüge im Andreasviertel seinen verloren geglaubten Bruder Bruno erkannte – nicht jubelnd, aber doch anwesend – und ein Banner gegen ihn schwenkend: „Nieder mit den Rechtgläubigen!“ Sie trafen sich in der Nacht und verabredeten für den nächsten Sonntag einen öffentlichen Kampf um die Führung in der Stadt und im Lande Thüringen.
Zur Wahlstatt wurde die an dieser Stlle sehr seichte Gera hinter der Krämerbrücke auserkoren. Die braven Bürger lachten über die gerüsteten, bannerumschlungenen Zwerge auf den Eseln – der rechtgläubige Totenkopf gegen den linkshändigen Sonnenschein! Sonnenschein gelang es, Bruder Bernhard in die stinkende Brühe zu werfen und sich damit den Ehrenplatz im Kreise der Thüringer Edlen zu sichern. Bernhard blieb der Platz hinter ihm in der Hohen Ratsversammlung – der Platz des in den Rücken stichelnden Führers des gegnerischen Lagers. So hatten sie es sich nun gemütlich gemacht, die zugewanderten armen Brüder von der Weser im goldenen Thüringen. Damit könnte das Märchen nun zu Ende sein – aber, aber !!!
Die Haß-Liebe der Brüder wurde plötzlich durch den Einfall der Riesen aus dem OSTLAND in das benachbartes Bandennest STEPANKA gestört. Man hatte sich so herrlich eingerichtet mit dem Räubernest STEPANKA – die Thüringer lieferten Speere und Salz, die STEPANKAER stichelten als Gegenleistung an der Grenze zum OSTLAND und verbrannten manchmal auch aufmüpfige OSTLÄNDER (Männer, Frauen und Kinder), die innerhalb ihrer Mauern siedelten, auf Scheiterhaufen und ersäuften sie in den Sümpfen und Flüssen hinten am Dunklen Meer. Nun aber griffen auch die OSTLÄNDER zum Speer und marschierten gegen STEPANKA. Was erfrecht sich dieser Fürst OSTLANDS ? Unsere beiden Zwergenbrüder – vereint im väterlich eingeflößten Haß gegen OSTLAND – begruben feierlich (natürlich im Geheimen!) ihren Zwist und setzten sich an die Spitze des Kreuzzuges gegen die Ungläubigen – der Rechtgläubige Bernd und der Linksgläubige Bruno. „Mehr Speere für STEPANKA ! Nieder mit dem Fürsten des OSTLANDES ! Verbot aller Lieder und Banner des OSTLANDES in unserem FREIEN REICH !“ tönte es nun auf dem Domplatz der Mainzer Kolonie:
vereint, Arm in Arm die nun endlich vereinten Brüder !!!
Potztausend – was kommt denn da ?
Von der anderen Straßenseite winkten ihnen zwei holde Frauen zu – sie riefen den Brüdern entgegen: „lasst uns doch gemeinsam im handwerklichen Wettkampf dem Osten entgegentreten ! Ohne gepanzerte Waffen, ohne fliegende Drachen!“
Zu Brunos Überraschung bat Bernhard die Frauen um einen Platz in ihren Reihen, diese holde Anhängerschar gefiel ihm – der friedliche Wettstreit kam ihm gelegen, so konnte er dem Bruder die Anhänger abspenstig machen!
Bruno, der nur seiner reinen Lehre folgte, für den seine Follower keinen Frieden mit dem bösen Ost-Tyrannen wollten, musste sich nun von seinem Bruder trennen! Er blieb bei den reich gedeckten Tischen der Herren, verband sich noch enger mit den Rittern unter ihren schwarz-weißen Bannern und führte seine Gläubigen Linksschaffenden ins WOKE Himmelreich – und wenn sie nicht wegen ihrer schweren Panzerhemden in den Sümpfen des Ostens erstickten, träumen sie heute noch von den Reichtümern unter der Schwarzerde der Steppen.
ENDE vom Lied: Aus der sehr enttäuschten BERLINER FERNE – Märchen nach den Brüdern Grimm – Ähnlichkeiten der Brüder mit aktuellen Persönlichkeiten sind nicht angedacht und auch ausdrücklich verboten durch die neueste Bundesgesetzgebung!!!!
Dreifaltigkeitskloster in Sergijew Possad (ehemals Sagorsk, nördlich von Moskau)
Die Laute und Tonverbindungen aus dem Reich der Vereinigten Staaten des Westens und Nordens klingen verstimmt – wenn man auf die Russen zu sprechen kommt! An deutschen Stammtischen lebt die alte Losung von 1914 auf – Jeder Schuß ein Ruß !!! Aber halt – es gibt ja drei Arten von Russen – lieb sind uns die Kleinrussen, die man auch Ukrainer nennt, böse sind die Großrussen und Weißrussen, die wollen unser Oma ihr klein Häusgen nehmen!
Im französischen Bistro (übrigens ein Lehnwort aus dem Russischen) geht es ruhiger zu, da erinnert man sich an die Waffenbrüderschaft mit den Russen zur Zeit der Schlacht um Stalingrad, an die Normandie-Njemen-Alliancen.
Wie ist es nun mit der Liebe der Franzosen zu den Groß – und Weißrussen?
Der in London erscheinende ECONOMIST vom 18. Februar 2023 titelte auf Seite 24 -also nicht ganz vorne – recht missverständlich: „Charlemagne – France’s fatal Russia fascination“. Untertitel: „A long history helps explain why Paris found it hard to break fully with Moscow“, gekoppelt mit einer bluttriefenden Karikatur:
Es soll also der Eindruck vermittelt werden, dass von der Zeit Karls des Großen bis in die Gegenwart der fränkisch-gallische Hahn und der russische Bär miteinander flirteten, dass zwei europäische Großmächte voneinander fasziniert waren, dass Kriege und Gewalt zwischen ihnen letztendlich überlagert wurden durch gegenseitige kulturelle Zuneigung. Als historische Zeugen treten u.a. Voltaire, Diderot, Präsident Chirac, Ministerpräsident Fillon auf.
Die Karte des Mittelalters demonstriert die französische Atlantikküste als westliche und das russische Uralgebirge als östliche Begrenzung des europäischen Kontinents, wobei der Ural Europa nicht nur von Asien trennt, sondern den Übergang zum russischen Sibirien, damit zum asiatischen Kontinent bildet.
Unter dem Dach der gegenseitigen Bestrebungen der französischen und russischen Herrscher nach Dominanz des europäischen Kontinent seit dem Mittelalter sind Kriege, unterschiedliche Militärkoalitionen, gewaltsame Interventionen auf dem Territorium des anderen Staates („regime change“ im WOKE-jargon), ebenso an der Tagesordnung wie wechselnde dynastische Verflechtungen und Bündnisse, Verschmelzungen oder aktive Störungen wirtschaftlicher und kultureller Kontakte.
Was die in London ansässige Redaktion des „ECONOMIST“ nicht kennt oder bewusst verschweigt, sind die differenzierten Beziehungen zwischen russischen und französischen Akteuren, gesellschaftlichen Gruppen, privaten Zirkeln, geschäftlichen Interessenvertretern, dynastischen Kreisen und natürlich familiären Cliquen seit der frühen Neuzeit.
Die einseitige, zum Teil haarsträubend polemische Darstellung des Lebens und des politischen Wirkens des ersten starken Zaren der Neuzeit, Iwan IV, („Iwan Grosny“) in Westeuropa ist ein Musterbeispiel für die sich ausbreitenden Russenfeindlichkeit.
Nehmen wir dieses 16. Jahrhundert – Westeuropa durchlebt grausame Bürgerkriege, in denen Tausende Menschen auf Befehl der herrschenden Dynastie abgeschlachtet werden, in Paris steht dafür exemplarisch die sogenannte Bartholomäusnacht.
Wurde der französische König der „Schreckliche“ genannt oder ging seine Mutter, die verwitwete Königin Katharina von Medici, mit dem Beinamen „die Schreckliche“ in die Geschichtsbücher ein ? Sie stammte aus Italien, nicht aus Russland, da verdient sie ein anderes zivilisiertes Attribut !
Aber Zar Iwan IV., der seine innenpolitischen Gegner zur gleichen Zeit, aus den gleichen politischen Motiven terrorisierte, wurde durch die Gegner und deren ausländische Verbündete zum „Schrecklichen“, obwohl das russische „Grosny“ durchaus auch andere Übersetzungen anbietet.
Englische Historiker der Gegenwart lassen seitenlange „Narratives“ drucken, auf denen sie die Handelswege zwischen Westeuropa und Russland über die Nutzung der Häfen Nordrusslands detailliert darstellen (16. Jahrhundert), betonen dabei die zivilisatorische Rolle der britischen Kaufleute, Entdecker und Seeleute, verschwenden aber kein Blatt ihrer Publikationen zur Beschreibung des historischen Platzes des russischen Reiches in den Jahrhunderten zuvor als Mittler zwischen Europa und den mongolischen, chinesischen und anderen ost- und zentralasiatischen Gesellschaften und deren hochentwickelten wirtschaftlichen und politischen Strukturen. Westeuropäische Historiker und Geschichten-„Erzähler“ verwenden das Attribut „Retter Europas“ zur Kennzeichnung eines russischen Zaren erstmals für das 19. Jahrhundert – für Alexander I., als habe es in den vorhergehenden historischen Perioden die durch Kiew, Moskau, Wladimir, Nowgorod dominierten Staatengebilde und ihre Abwehrkämpfe gegen die Nomadenheere des Ostens nicht gegeben.
Der Helden-suchende Blick des britischen Kaufmannes muss sich notwendigerweise auf jenen Zaren Alexander verengen, der gemeinsam mit dem österreichischen Kanzler Metternich und dem preußischen Friedrich Wilhelm nicht nur den ökonomischen Konkurrenten Frankreich niederhielt, sondern hauptsächlich alle demokratischen Bestrebungen, manche noch eine Erbschaft der französischen Revolution, durch brutale Repression über drei Jahrzehnte ausschaltete.
Was den britischen „Erzählern“ auch abgeht in ihrer Geschichten- Sammlung, ist die starke französische demokratische und revolutionäre Tradition, die die liberale und proletarisch-sozialistische Jugend Russlands in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts als Emigrationsort – fliehend vor dem Terror der Zarenherrschaft – Frankreich wählen ließ. Man lese wieder einmal die Memoiren Ilja Ehrenburgs ! Ob die Redakteure und Schreiberlinge des ECONOMIST diesen Namen überhaupt kennen ?
Alles kann man bei ihm finden: den Brand von Moskau 1812
an der Beresina – den Untergang der Grande Armée im gleichen Jahr:
die Intervention der Engländer und Franzosen im Krimkrieg (in Paris wird man beim Schlendern über die „PONT DE L’ALMA“ daran erinnert):
und schließlich die Intervention gegen Sowjetrussland: die Franzosen nutzen die Niederlage der Türkei und landen Ende 1918 in Odessa, erleiden aber nach Anfangserfolgen strategische Niederlagen.
Legende:
Bürgerlich-nationalistische Kräfte kollaborierten in der Ukraine eng mit den französischen Interventionstruppen zusammen, am 27. Februar 1919 stellte das sogenannte ukrainische „Direktorium“ in einer diplomatischen Note die Ukraine „unter den Schutz Frankreichs“. Schon im Januar/Februar 1919 schlugen die „roten Regimenter“ die vereinten weißgardistischen und französischen Truppen und befreiten Charkow und Kiew.
Lage 1919/1920:
Legende:
Alles sehr aktuell im Jahre 2023 !!!
Für akribische Nicht-WOKISTEN zum Nachlesen:
Genug für heute – vom Prenzlauer Berg – 3. März 2023
Als Stalin im März 1953, also vor 70 Jahren starb, war die Krim noch russisch, hatten sich die Einwohner von Lwow, Uschgorod, Iwano-Frankivsk an ihre staatsbürgerliche Zugehörigkeit zur Sowjetunion gewöhnt, wusste man wo Artjomowsk lag. In München träumten die geflüchteten ukrainischen Nationalisten und Judenmörder von einer Wiederkehr ihrer Herrschaft, die Volksrepubliken Polen, CSSR, Ungarn, Rumänien hatten sich mit dem Verlust von Gebieten, die nun zur Ukrainischen SSR gehören, abgefunden – unter Druck der Stalinschen Großmacht.
Soweit ein Blick in die Geschichte. Aber:
Die Bandera-Verherrlicher in Kiew, Berlin und Umgebung sollten eine Woche lang Gedenkfeiern zum Tode Stalins vor 70 Jahren abhalten, Glocken läuten lassen und wieder Straßen und Plätze nach dem „Generalissimus“ nennen: er hat durch kluge Diplomatie und georgisch-russische Standfestigkeit das Territorium der heutigen Ukraine im Südwesten um Gebiete erweitert, aus denen das antirussische Sentiment in der Gegenwart Kraft schöpft !
Stalins Begräbnis im März 1953:
Worauf beruht die Aktualität des Staatsmannes Stalin gerade in den gegenwärtigen politischen Krisen Osteuropas ? – Erstens aus seiner Abstammung als Georgier an der Spitze des multi-ethnischen Staates Sowjetunion;
zweitens aus seiner internationalen politischen Autorität gegenüber den anglo-amerikanischen Politikern der Kriegs- und Nachkriegszeit; drittens seiner Charakterfestigkeit als aktiver Vertreter der territorialen Einheit der Union – Anschluss von Gebieten, die heute von den Bandera-Neonazis als „ukrainisch“ beansprucht werden und aus denen sie verstärkt die antirussische Mobilisierung und Motivation beziehen, in denen sie aber auch die brutale Unterdrückung der Identität der ethnischen Miderheiten betreiben. (Galizien, Transkarpatien, Ruthenien, Bukowina)
Territorien der südwestlichen Ukraine um 1900
Die Niederlage Österreich-Ungarns im Ersten Weltkrieg und der Untergang des Zarenreiches 1917 führten zur Entstehung neuer Nationalstaaten in der region Südosteuropas auf der Grundlage von z.T. willkürlichen Grenzziehungen, die den sich ständig verändernden politischen und militärischen Kräfteverhältnissen bis 1939 angepasst wurden.
Das Jahr 1939 brachte mit dem Überfall des deutschen Faschismus auf Polen eine wesentliche Veränderung im Kräftverhältnis der Mächte: der Nichtangriffspakt der Sowjetunion mit Hitler-Deutschland erlaubte Stalin die Verschiebung der Westgrenzen der UdSSR mit dem Ergebnis der Einverleibung von ehemals zaristisch-russischen, 1919/20 durch Polen eroberten Territorien (Galizien mit Lwow) in das sowjetische Staatsgebiet (Ukrainische SSR).
Lwow/Lviv
1940 besetzte die UdSSR Teile des bisherigen „Bessarabiens“ (1918 durch Rumänien annektiert) und die nördliche Bukowina. Nach dem Sieg der Anti-Hitler-Koalition 1945 wurden diese Gebiete vertraglich feste Bestandteile der UdSSR.
Die Karte belegt (die grün eingefärbte Fläche im Südwesten) auch den 1945 erfolgten Anschluss des bis dahin tschechoslowakisch/ungarischen „Ruthenien“, des heutigen „Transkarpatien“ an die UdSSR (Ukrainische SSR).
(Der Anteil der ruthenisch sprechenden Bewohner an der Gesamtbevölkerung Transkarpathiens beträgt nach Schätzungen etwa 62 %.)
Die beiden folgenden Karten demonstrieren die auf sprachlich-ethnischer Identifizierung Unterschiedlichkeit der Bevölkerung der heutigen Ukraine.
Die folgende Karte zeigt den Zusammenhang der sprachlich-ethnischen Gruppierungen der Ukraine, die auf jahrhundertlange historische Entwicklungen zurückgehen, mit den jüngsten politischen Machtverhältnissen:
Während die „galizischen“ Bezirke (Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk, Wolhynien) ein überdurchschnittliches „antirussisches“ Wahlverhalten („vor-Maidan“) aufweisen, wurde der „pro-westliche“ Präsident Juschtschenko von nur 55 % der Bewohner des Bezirkes Transkarpatien gewählt, was auf den hohen Anteil der Ruthenen an der Gesamtbevölkerung des Bezirkes zurückzuführen ist.
Die Stalin zugeschriebene Annexion der westlichen und südwestlichen Gebiete der heutigen Ukraine (auf die Polen, Ungarn, die Slowakei Anspruch erheben) sind – bis auf die Ausnahme Transkarpatiens – politische Stützen der nationalistischen Eliten in Kiew. Also – es ist Zeit, dem georgisch-russischen Staatsmann STALIN in Kiew ein Denkmal neu zu setzen wie auch in Uschgorod, der Hauptstadt Transkarpatiens.
Vielleicht aber – wenn es noch nicht geschehen ist – im Geburtsort Banderas – neben jenem Haus in Stary Uhrynow im Bezirk Ivano-Frankovik, dem Pilger-Leuchtturm der ukrainischen und europäischen Neofaschisten –
oder auch am Europa-Platz in der Stadt Ivano-Frankivsk neben dem „Monument Stepan Bandera“.
Dennoch – Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg an alle Nicht-Wokisten, auch an Elon Musk !
Den treuen Lesern meiner Blogs zur Erklärung: Pandemie, Kriegsdrohungen und Kriegsrealität der letzten Monate verhinderten die „normale“ intellektuelle Tätigkeit, die Erarbeitung und Veröffentlichung von Beiträgen zu historischen, kulturellen, philosophischen Themen.
Aber das „hohe demokratische Gut“ der Meinungsfreiheit und der grundgesetzlich verbürgte freie Zugang zu politischen Informationen – auch aus dem Ausland, auch aus Staaten, mit denen Deutschland und die EU sich nicht im Kriegszustand befinden – lässt mich heute „zur Feder greifen“ und das Ergebnis den Lesern meiner Blogs zur Kenntnis geben.
Der Hintergrund: im Sommer des vergangenen Jahres veröffentlichte der russische Präsident Putin einen Beitrag unter dem Titel „On the Historical Unity of Russians und Ukrainians“, dessen Hauptthesen sich wiederfinden in der Rede Putins zur Begründung des Antrags auf völkerrechtliche Anerkennung der Unabhängigkeit der Republiken Donezk und Lugansk vor dem russischen Parlament im letzten Monat.
Da es aufgrund der Blockierung des Zugangs zu offiziellen Medien Russlands durch das demokratische politische System der Bundesrepublik nicht möglich ist, jenen Beitrag Putins vom 12. Juli 2021 abzurufen (man möge es versuchen: en.kremlin.ru/d/66181), erlaube ich mir, den Text hier zum Zwecke der Beförderung der wissenschaftlichen Debatte und zur objektiven politischen Meinungsbildung wiederzugeben, den ich glücklicherweise damals abgespeichert hatte.
”0n the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“
July 12, 2021 17:00
During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people — a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what l have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe. I therefore feel it necessary to explain my position in detail and share my assessments of today’s situation.
First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the consequences of our own mistakes made at different periods of time. But these are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply has been known from time immemorial — divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people, the overarching goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one another.
To have a better understanding of the present and look into the future, we need to turn to history. Certainly, it is impossible to cover in this article all the developments that have taken place over more than a thousand years. But l will focus on the key, pivotal moments that are important for us to remember, both in Russia and Ukraine.
Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and other tribes across the vast territory – from Ladoga, Novgorod, and Pskov to Kiev and Chernigov — were bound together by one language (which we now refer to as Old Russian), economic ties, the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, and — after the baptism of Rus — the Orthodox faith. The spiritual choice made by St. Vladimir, who was both Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev, still largely determines our affinity today.
The throne of Kiev held a dominant position in Ancient Rus. This had been the custom since the late 9th century. The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, „Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.“
Later, like other European states of that time, Ancient Rus faced a decline of central rule and fragmentation. At the same time, both the nobility and the common people perceived Rus as a common territory, as their homeland.
The fragmentation intensified after Batu Khan’s devastating invasion, which ravaged many cities, including Kiev. The northeastern part of Rus fell under the control of the Golden Horde but retained limited sovereignty. The southern and western Russian lands largely became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which — most significantly — was referred to in historical records as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia.
Members of the princely and ”boyar“ clans would change service from one prince to another, feuding with each other but also making friendships and alliances. Voivode Bobrok of Volyn and the sons of Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas — Andrey of Polotsk and Dmitry of Bryansk — fought next to Grand Duke Dmitry lvanovich of Moscow on the Kulikovo field. At the same time, Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila — son of the Princess of Tver — led his troops to join with Mamai. These are all pages of our shared history, reflecting its complex and multi-dimensional nature.
Most importantly, people both in the western and eastern Russian lands spoke the same language. Their faith was Orthodox. Up to the middle of the 15th century, the unified church government remained in place.
At a new stage of historical development, both Lithuanian Rus and Moscow Rus could have become the points of attraction and consolidation of the territories of Ancient Rus. lt so happened that Moscow became the center of reunification, continuing the tradition of ancient Russian statehood. Moscow princes — the descendants of Prince Alexander Nevsky — cast off the foreign yoke and began gathering the Russian lands.
In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, other processes were unfolding. ln the 14th century, Lithuania’s ruling elite converted to Catholicism. In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin with the Kingdom of Poland to form the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish Catholic nobility received considerable land holdings and privileges in the territory of Rus. In accordance with the 1596 Union of Brest, part of the western Russian Orthodox clergy submitted to the authority of the Pope. The process of Polonization and Latinization began, ousting Orthodoxy.
As a consequence, in the 16—17th centuries, the liberation movement of the Orthodox population was gaining strength in the Dnieper region. The events during the times of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky became a turning point. His supporters struggled for autonomy from the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth.
ln its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Zaporizhian Host demanded that the rights of the Russian Orthodox population be respected, that the voivode of Kiev be Russian and of Greek faith, and that the persecution of the churches of God be stopped. But the Cossacks were not heard.
Bohdan Khmelnytsky then made appeals to Moscow, which were considered by the Zemsky Sobor. On 1 October 1653, members of the supreme representative body of the Russian state decided to support their brothers in faith and take them under patronage. ln January 1654, the Pereyaslav Council confirmed that decision. Subsequently, the ambassadors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Moscow visited dozens of cities, including Kiev, whose populations swore allegiance to the Russian tsar. Incidentally, nothing of the kind happened at the conclusion of the Union of Lublin.
In a letter to Moscow in 1654, Bohdan Khmelnytsky thanked Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich for taking „the whole Zaporizhian Host and the whole Russian Orthodox world under the strong and high hand of the Tsar“. lt means that, in their appeals to both the Polish king and the Russian tsar, the Cossacks referred to and defined themselves as Russian Orthodox people.
Over the course of the protracted war between the Russian state and the Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth, some of the hetmans, successors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, would „detach themselves“ from Moscow or seek support from Sweden, Poland, or Turkey. But, again, for the people, that was a war of liberation. It ended with the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. The final outcome was sealed by the Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1686. The Russian state incorporated the city of Kiev and the lands on the left bank of the Dnieper River, including Poltava region, Chernigov region, and Zaporozhye. Their inhabitants were reunited with the main part of the Russian Orthodox people. These territories were referred to as ”Malorossia“ (Little Russia).
The name „Ukraine“ was used more often in the meaning of the Old Russian word ”okraina“ (periphery), which is found in written sources from the 12th century, referring to various border territories. And the word „Ukrainian“, judging by archival documents, originally referred to frontier guards who protected the external borders.
On the right bank, which remained under the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth, the old orders were restored, and social and religious oppression intensified. On the contrary, the lands on the left bank, taken under the protection of the unified state, saw rapid development. People from the other bank of the Dnieper moved here en masse. They sought support from people who spoke the same language and had the same faith.
During the Great Northern War with Sweden, the people in Malorossia were not faced with a choice of whom to side with. Only a small portion of the Cossacks supported Mazepa’s rebellion. People of all orders and degrees considered themselves Russian and Orthodox.
Cossack senior officers belonging to the nobility would reach the heights of political, diplomatic, and military careers in Russia. Graduates of Kiev-Mohyla Academy played a leading role in church life. This was also the case during the Hetmanate — an essentially autonomous state formation with a special internal structure — and later in the Russian Empire. Malorussians in many ways helped build a big common country — its statehood, culture, and science. They participated in the exploration and development of the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, and the Far East. Incidentally, during the Soviet period, natives of Ukraine held major, including the highest, posts in the leadership of the unified state. Suffice it to say that Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, whose party biography was most closely associated with Ukraine, led the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) for almost 30 years.
In the second half of the 18th century, following the wars with the Ottoman Empire, Russia incorporated Crimea and the lands of the Black Sea region, which became known as Novorossiya. They were populated by people from all of the Russian provinces. After the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire regained the western Old Russian lands, with the exception of Galicia and Transcarpathia, which became part of the Austrian — and later Austro-Hungarian — Empire.
The incorporation of the western Russian lands into the single state was not merely the result of political and diplomatic decisions. it was underlain by the common faith, shared cultural traditions, and — I would like to emphasize it once again — language similarity. Thus, as early as the beginning of the 17th century, one of the hierarchs of the Uniate Church, Joseph Rutsky, communicated to Rome that people in Moscovia called Russians from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth their brothers, that their written language was absolutely identical, and differences in the vernacular were insignificant. He drew an analogy with the residents of Rome and Bergamo. These are, as we know, the center and the north of modern Italy.
Many centuries of fragmentation and living within different states naturally brought about regional language peculiarities, resulting in the emergence of dialects. The vernacular enriched the literary language. Ivan Kotlyarevsky, Grigory Skovoroda, and Taras Shevchenko played a huge role here. Their works are our common literary and cultural heritage.
Taras Shevchenko wrote poetry in the Ukrainian language, and prose mainly in Russian. The books of Nikolay Gogol, a Russian patriot and native of Poltavshchyna, are written in Russian, bristling with Malorussian folk sayings and motifs. How can this heritage be divided between Russia and Ukraine? And why do it? The south-western lands of the Russian Empire, Malorussia and Novorossiya, and the Crimea developed as ethnically and religiously diverse entities. Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Karaites, Krymchaks, Bulgarians, Poles, Serbs, Germans, and other peoples lived here. They all preserved their faith, traditions, and customs.
I am not going to idealise anything. We do know there were the Valuev Circular of 1863 an then the Ems Ukaz of 1876, which restricted the publication and importation of religious and socio-political literature in the Ukrainian language. But it is important to be mindful of the historical context. These decisions were taken against the backdrop of dramatic events in Poland and the desire of the leaders of the Polish national movement to exploit the „Ukrainian issue“ to their own advantage. I should add that works of fiction, books of Ukrainian poetry and folk songs continued to be published. There is objective evidence that the Russian Empire was witnessing an active process of development of the Malorussian cultural identity within the greater Russian nation, which united the Velikorussians, the Malorussians and the Belorussians.
At the same time, the idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians started to form and gain ground among the Polish elite and a part of the Malorussian intelligentsia. Since there was no historical basis — and could not have been any, conclusions were substantiated by all sorts of concoctions, which went as far as to claim that the Ukrainians are the true Slavs and the Russians, the Muscovites, are not. Such „hypotheses“ became increasingly used for political purposes as a tool of rivalry between European states.
Since the late 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian authorities had latched onto this narrative, using it as a counterbalance to the Polish national movement and pro-Muscovite sentiments in Galicia. During World War l, Vienna played a role in the formation of the so-called Legion of Ukrainian Sich Riflemen. Galicians suspected of sympathies with Orthodox Christianity and Russia were subjected to brutal repression and thrown into the concentration camps of Thalerhof and Terezin.
Further developments had to do with the collapse of European empires, the fierce civil war that broke out across the vast territory of the former Russian Empire, and foreign intervention.
After the February Revolution, in March 1917, the Central Rada was established in Kiev, intended to become the organ of supreme power. ln November 1917, in its Third Universal, it declared the creation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) as part of Russia.
ln December 1917, UPR representatives arrived in Brest-Litovsk, where Soviet Russia was negotiating with Germany and its allies. At a meeting on 10 January 1918, the head of the Ukrainian delegation read out a note proclaiming the independence of Ukraine. Subsequently, the Central Rada proclaimed Ukraine independent in its Fourth Universal.
The declared sovereignty did not last long. Just a few weeks later, Rada delegates signed a separate treaty with the German bloc countries. Germany and Austria-Hungary were at the time in a dire situation and needed Ukrainian bread and raw materials. In order to secure large-scale supplies, they obtained consent for sending their troops and technical staff to the UPR. In fact, this was used as a pretext for occupation.
For those who have today given up the full control of Ukraine to external forces, it would be instructive to remember that, back in 1918, such a decision proved fatal for the ruling regime in Kiev. With the direct involvement of the occupying forces, the Central Rada was overthrown and Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi was brought to power, proclaiming instead of the UPR the Ukrainian State, which was essentially under German protectorate.
ln November 1918 — following the revolutionary events in Germany and Austria-Hungary — Pavlo Skoropadskyi, who had lost the support of German bayonets, took a different course, declaring that „Ukraine is to take the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation“. However, the regime was soon changed again. lt was now the time of the so-called Directorate.
ln autumn 1918, Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed the West Ukrainian People’s Republic (WUPR) and, in January 1919, announced its unification with the Ukrainian People’s Republic. In July 1919, Ukrainian forces were crushed by Polish troops, and the territory of the former WUPR came under the Polish rule.
In April 1920, Symon Petliura (portrayed as one of the „heroes“ in today’s Ukraine) concluded secret conventions on behalf of the UPR Directorate, giving up — in exchange for military support – Galicia and Western Volhynia lands to Poland. In May 1920, Petliurites entered Kiev in a convoy of Polish military units. But not for long. As early as November 1920, following a truce between Poland and Soviet Russia, the remnants of Petliura’s forces surrendered to those same Poles.
The example of the UPR shows that different kinds of quasi-state formations that emerged across the former Russian Empire at the time of the Civil War and turbulence were inherently unstable. Nationalists sought to create their own independent states, while leaders of the White movement advocated indivisible Russia. Many of the republics established by the Bolsheviks‘ supporters did not see themselves outside Russia either. Nevertheless, Bolshevik Party leaders sometimes basically drove them out of Soviet Russia for various reasons.
Thus, in early 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic was proclaimed and asked Moscow to incorporate it into Soviet Russia. This was met with a refusal. During a meeting with the republic’s leaders, Vladimir Lenin insisted that they act as part of Soviet Ukraine. On 15 March 1918, the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) directly ordered that delegates be sent to the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, including from the Donetsk Basin, and that „one government for all of Ukraine“ be created at the congress. The territories of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic later formed most of the regions of south-eastern Ukraine.
Under the 1921 Treaty of Riga, concluded between the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former Russian Empire were ceded to Poland. In the interwar period, the Polish government pursued an active resettlement policy, seeking to change the ethnic composition of the Eastern Borderlands — the Polish name for what is now Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and parts of Lithuania. The areas were subjected to harsh Polonisation, local culture and traditions suppressed. Later, during World War ll, radical groups of Ukrainian nationalists used this as a pretext for terror not only against Polish, but also against Jewish and Russian populations.
In 1922, when the USSR was created, with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic becoming one of its founders, a rather fierce debate among the Bolshevik leaders resulted in the implementation of Lenin’s plan to form a union state as a federation of equal republics. The right for the republics to freely secede from the Union was included in the text of the Declaration on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, subsequently, in the 1924 USSR Constitution. By doing so, the authors planted in the foundation of our statehood the most dangerous time bomb, which exploded the moment the safety mechanism provided by the leading role of the CPSU was gone, the party itself collapsing from within. A „parade of sovereignties“ followed. On 8 December 1991, the so-called Belovezh Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed, stating that „the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer existed.“ By the way, Ukraine never signed or ratified the ClS Charter adopted back in 1993.
In the 1920’s-1930’s, the Bolsheviks actively promoted the ”localization policy“, which took the form of Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR. Symbolically, as part of this policy and with consent of the Soviet authorities, Mikhail Grushevskiy, former chairman of Central Rada, one of the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism, who at a certain period of time had been supported by Austria-Hungary, was returned to the USSR and was elected member of the Academy of Sciences.
The localization policy undoubtedly played a major role in the development and consolidation of the Ukrainian culture, language and identity. At the same time, under the guise of combating the so-called Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians. This Soviet national policy secured at the state level the provision on three separate Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian, instead of the large Russian nation, a triune people comprising Velikorussians, Malorussians and Belorussians.
In 1939, the USSR regained the lands earlier seized by Poland. A major portion of these became part of the Soviet Ukraine. In 1940, the Ukrainian SSR incorporated part of Bessarabia, which had been occupied by Romania since 1918, as well as Northern Bukovina. In 1948, Zmeyiniy Island (Snake Island) in the Black Sea became part of Ukraine. In 1954, the Crimean Region of the RSFSR was given to the Ukrainian SSR, in gross violation of legal norms that were in force at the time.
I would like to dwell on the destiny of Carpathian Ruthenia, which became part of Czechoslovakia following the breakup of Austria-Hungary. Rusins made up a considerable share of local population. While this is hardly mentioned any longer, after the liberation of Transcarpathia by Soviet troops the congress of the Orthodox population of the region voted for the inclusion of Carpathian Ruthenia in the RSFSR or, as a separate Carpathian republic, in the USSR proper. Yet the choice of people was ignored. In summer 1945, the historical act of the reunification of Carpathian Ukraine „with its ancient motherland, Ukraine“ — as The Pravda newspaper put it – was announced.
Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped — for a significant part — on the lands of historical Russia. To make sure of that, it is enough to look at the boundaries of the lands reunited with the Russian state in the 17th century and the territory of the Ukrainian SSR when it left the Soviet Union.
The Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as inexhaustible material for their social experiments. They dreamt of a world revolution that would wipe out national states. That is why they were so generous in drawing borders and bestowing territorial gifts. lt is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the country into pieces was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.
When working on this article, l relied on open-source documents that contain well-known facts rather than on some secret records. The leaders of modern Ukraine and their external „patrons“ prefer to overlook these facts. They do not miss a chance, however, both inside the country and abroad, to condemn ”the crimes of the Soviet regime,“ listing among them events with which neither the CPSU, nor the USSR, let alone modern Russia, have anything to do. At the same time, the Bolsheviks‘ efforts to detach from Russia its historical territories are not considered a crime. And we know why: if they brought about the weakening of Russia, our ill-wishes are happy with that.
Of course, inside the USSR, borders between republics were never seen as state borders; they were nominal within a single country, which, while featuring all the attributes of a federation, was highly centralized – this, again, was secured by the CPSU’s leading role. But in 1991, all those territories, and, which is more important, people, found themselves abroad overnight, taken away, this time indeed, from their historical motherland.
What can be said to this? Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!
You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms? l will recall the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.
In other words, when you leave, take what you brought with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just say that the Bolsheviks had embarked on reshaping boundaries even before the Soviet Union, manipulating with territories to their liking, in disregard of people’s views.
The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country. Throughout the difficult 1990’s and in the new millennium, we have provided considerable support to Ukraine. Whatever „political arithmetic“ of its own Kiev may wish to apply, in 1991- 2013, Ukraine’s budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it holds on to the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to Europe. If economic ties between our countries had been retained, Ukraine would enjoy the benefit of tens of billions of dollars.
Ukraine and Russia have developed as a single economic system over decades and centuries. The profound cooperation we had 30 years ago is an example for the European Union to look up to. We are natural complementary economic partners. Such a close relationship can strengthen competitive advantages, increasing the potential of both countries.
Ukraine used to possess great potential, which included powerful infrastructure, gas transportation system, advanced shipbuilding, aviation, rocket and instrument engineering industries, as well as world-class scientific, design and engineering schools. Taking over this legacy and declaring independence, Ukrainian leaders promised that the Ukrainian economy would be one of the leading ones and the standard of living would be among the best in Europe.
Today, high-tech industrial giants that were once the pride of Ukraine and the entire Union, are sinking. Engineering output has dropped by 42 per cent over ten years. The scale of deindustrialization and overall economic degradation is visible in Ukraine’s electricity production, which has seen a nearly two-time decrease in 30 years. Finally, according to IMF reports, in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic broke out, Ukraine’s GDP per capita had been below USD 4 thousand. This is less than in the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Moldova, or unrecognized Kosovo. Nowadays, Ukraine is Europe’s poorest country.
Who is to blame for this? ls it the people of Ukraine’s fault? Certainly not. It was the Ukrainian authorities who waisted and frittered away the achievements of many generations. We know how hardworking and talented the people of Ukraine are. They can achieve success and outstanding results with perseverance and determination. And these qualities, as well as their openness, innate optimism and hospitality have not gone. The feelings of millions of people who treat Russia not just well but with great affection, just as we feel about Ukraine, remain the same.
Until 2014, hundreds of agreements and joint projects were aimed at developing our economies, business and cultural ties, strengthening security, and solving common social and environmental problems. They brought tangible benefits to people — both in Russia and Ukraine. This is what we believed to be most important. And that is why we had a fruitful interaction with all, l emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine.
Even after the events in Kiev of 2014, l charged the Russian government to elaborate options for preserving and maintaining our economic ties within relevant ministries and agencies. However, there was and is still no mutual will to do the same. Nevertheless, Russia is still one of Ukraine’s top three trading partners, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support. So that what the „aggressor state“ is.
When the USSR collapsed, many people in Russia and Ukraine sincerely believed and assumed that our close cultural, spiritual and economic ties would certainly last, as would the commonality of our people, who had always had a sense of unity at their core. However, events — at first gradually, and then more rapidly — started to move in a different direction.
In essence, Ukraine’s ruling circles decided to justify their country’s independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people.
Radicals and neo-Nazis were open and more and more insolent about their ambitions. They were indulged by both the official authorities and local oligarchs, who robbed the people of Ukraine and kept their stolen money in Western banks, ready to sell their motherland for the sake of preserving their capital. To this should be added the persistent weakness of state institutions and the position of a willing hostage to someone else’s geopolitical will.
I recall that long ago, well before 2014, the U.S. and EU countries systematically and consistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as the largest trade and economic partner of Ukraine, suggested discussing the emerging problems in the Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing to do with it and that the issue concerned only the EU and Ukraine. De facto Western countries rejected Russia’s repeated calls for dialogue.
Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. inevitably, there came a time when the concept of „Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ”anti-Russia“ concept which we will never accept.
The owners of this project took as a basis the old groundwork of the Polish-Austrian ideologists to create an ”anti-Moscow Russia“. And there is no need to deceive anyone that this is being done in the interests of the people of Ukraine. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never needed Ukrainian culture, much less Cossack autonomy. In Austria-Hungary, historical Russian lands were mercilessly exploited and remained the poorest. The Nazis, abetted by collaborators from the OUN-UPA, did not need Ukraine, but a living space and slaves for Aryan overlords.
Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine.
All the things that united us and bring us together so far came under attack. First and foremost, the Russian language. Let me remind you that the new „Maidan“ authorities first tried to repeal the law on state language policy. Then there was the law on the „purification of power“, the law on education that virtually cut the Russian language out of the educational process.
Lastly, as early as May of this year, the current president introduced a bill on „indigenous peoples“ to the Rada. Only those who constitute an ethnic minority and do not have their own state entity outside Ukraine are recognized as indigenous. The law has been passed. New seeds of discord have been sown. And this is happening in a country, as I have already noted, that is very complex in terms of its territorial, national and linguistic composition, and its history of formation.
There may be an argument: if you are talking about a single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who people consider themselves to be — Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians. I completely agree with this. Especially since the determination of nationality, particularly in mixed families, is the right of every individual, free to make his or her own choice.
But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us. As a result of such a harsh and artificial division of Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian people in all may decrease by hundreds of thousands or even millions.
Our spiritual unity has also been attacked. As in the days of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a new ecclesiastical has been initiated. The secular authorities, making no secret of their political aims, have blatantly interfered in church life and brought things to a split, to the seizure of churches, the beating of priests and monks. Even extensive autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while maintaining spiritual unity with the Moscow Patriarchate strongly displeases them. They have to destroy this prominent and centuries-old symbol of our kinship at all costs.
I think it is also natural that the representatives of Ukraine over and over again vote against the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism. Marches and torchlit processions in honor of remaining war criminals from the SS units take place under the protection of the official authorities. Mazepa, who betrayed everyone, Petliura, who paid for Polish patronage with Ukrainian lands, and Bandera, who collaborated with the Nazis, are ranked as national heroes. Everything is being done to erase from the memory of young generations the names of genuine patriots and victors, who have always been the pride of Ukraine.
For the Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army, in partisan units, the Great Patriotic War was indeed a patriotic war because they were defending their home, their great common Motherland. Over two thousand soldiers became Heroes of the Soviet Union. Among them are legendary pilot lvan Kozhedub, fearless sniper, defender of Odessa and Sevastopol Lyudmila Pavlichenko, valiant guerrilla commander Sidor Kovpak. This indomitable generation fought, those people gave their lives for our future, for us. To forget their feat is to betray our grandfathers, mothers and fathers.
The anti-Russia project has been rejected by millions of Ukrainians. The people of Crimea and residents of Sevastopol made their historic choice. And people in the southeast peacefully tried to defend their stance. Yet, all of them, including children, were labeled as separatists and terrorists. They were threatened with ethnic cleansing and the use of military force. And the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms to defend their home, their language and their lives. Were they left any other choice after the riots that swept through the cities of Ukraine, after the horror and tragedy of 2 May 2014 in Odessa where Ukrainian neo-Nazis burned people alive making a new Khatyn out of it? The same massacre was ready to be carried out by the followers of Bandera in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk. Even now they do not abandon such plans. They are biding their time. But their time will not come.
The coup d’état and the subsequent actions of the Kiev authorities inevitably provoked confrontation and civil war. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that the total number of victims in the conflict in Donbas has exceeded 13,000. Among them are the elderly and children. These are terrible, irreparable losses.
Russia has done everything to stop fratricide. The Minsk agreements aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas have been concluded. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any case, no one has withdrawn their signatures from the Minsk Package of Measures or from the relevant statements by the leaders of the Normandy format countries. No one has initiated a review of the United Nations Security Council resolution of 17 February 2015.
During official negotiations, especially after being reined in by Western partners, Ukraine’s representatives regularly declare their „full adherence“ to the Minsk agreements, but are in fact guided by a position of „unacceptability“. They do not intend to seriously discuss either the special status of Donbas or safeguards for the people living there. They prefer to exploit the image of the „victim of external aggression“ and peddle Russophobia. They arrange bloody provocations in Donbas. In short, they attract the attention of external patrons and masters by all means.
Apparently, and l am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kiev simply does not need Donbas. Why? Because, firstly, the inhabitants of these regions will never accept the order that they have tried and are trying to impose by force, blockade and threats. And secondly, the outcome of both Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 which give a real chance to peacefully restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by coming to an agreement directly with the DPR and LPR with Russia, Germany and France as mediators, contradicts the entire logic of the anti-Russia project. And it can only be sustained by the constant cultivation of the image of an internal and external enemy. And I would add — under the protection and control of the Western powers.
This is what is actually happening. First of all, we are facing the creation of a climate of fear in Ukrainian society, aggressive rhetoric, indulging neo-Nazis and militarising the country. Along with that we are witnessing not just complete dependence but direct external control, including the supervision of the Ukrainian authorities, security services and armed forces by foreign advisers, military „development“ of the territory of Ukraine and deployment of NATO infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the aforementioned flagrant law on „indigenous peoples“ was adopted under the cover of large-scale NATO exercises in Ukraine.
This is also a disguise for the takeover of the rest of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources. The sale of agricultural land is not far off, and it is obvious who will buy it up. From time to time, Ukraine is indeed given financial resources and loans, but under their own conditions and pursuing their own interests, with preferences and benefits for Western companies. By the way, who will pay these debts back? Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today’s generation of Ukrainians but also by their children, grandchildren and probably great-grandchildren.
The Western authors of the anti-Russia project set up the Ukrainian political system in such a way that presidents, members of parliament and ministers would change but the attitude of separation from and enmity with Russia would remain. Reaching peace was the main election slogan of the incumbent president. He came to power with this. The promises turned out to be lies. Nothing has changed. And in some ways the situation in Ukraine and around Donbas has even degenerated.
In the anti-Russia project, there is no place either for a sovereign Ukraine or for the political forces that are trying to defend its real independence. Those who talk about reconciliation in Ukrainian society, about dialogue, about finding a way out of the current impasse are labelled as „pro-Russian“ agents.
Again, for many people in Ukraine, the anti-Russia project is simply unacceptable. And there are millions of such people. But they are not allowed to raise their heads. They have had their legal opportunity to defend their point of view in fact taken away from them. They are intimidated, driven underground. Not only are they persecuted for their convictions, for the spoken word, for the open expression of their position, but they are also killed. Murderers, as a rule, go unpunished.
Today, the ”right“ patriot of Ukraine is only the one who hates Russia. Moreover, the entire Ukrainian statehood, as we understand it, is proposed to be further built exclusively on this idea. Hate and anger, as world history has repeatedly proved this, are a very shaky foundation for sovereignty, fraught with many serious risks and dire consequences.
All the subterfuges associated with the anti-Russia project are clear to us. And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.
The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.
Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else’s, and is not a tool in someone else’s hands to fight against us.
We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians‘ desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.
l am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.
Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be „anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be — it is up to its citizens to decide.
August/September – die Monate, bisher in der modernen Geschichte Europas und Asiens genutzt, größere militärische Aktionen zu beginnen. Nehmen wir uns deshalb etwas Zeit, in einem der meistgelesenen politischen Magazine, dem in London herausgegebenen ECONOMIST, zu blättern – Ausgabe vom 13. – 19. August 2022.
,,, und verfolgen wir gleichzeitig die englisch-sprachigen Sendungen des „staatsnahen“ globalen chinesischen (Beijing) Fernsehnetzes CGTN. (Übrigens – Die internationale Zensur von TWITTER versieht die Weitergabe von Beiträgen des Senders CGTN wie auch der Wochenzeitung CHINA DAILY – unabhängig vom Thema – mit der Warnung für Angsthasen: „Dieser Tweet enthält einen Link zu einer chinesischen staatsnahen website!) – was möglicherweise zur Sperrung des accounts führen könnte.
Liu Xin, präsentiert bei CGTV das tägliche Programm „THE POINT“ – Interviews, Meinungen, New
THE POINT, THE HUB ( mit Wang Guan), DIALOGUE sind die gängigen aktuellen Programme, die im aufregenden Fernsehzentrum von Beijing produziert und weltweit ausgestrahlt werden.
Das Gebäude des chinesischen Fernsehens in Beijing
Die Formel STRAIT TALK
Ein aktuelles Beispiel aus dem Programm THE POINT:
The Point Special Edition — Nancy Pelosi: the Sneaky Opportunist
On August 2, U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi sneaked into Taiwan, becoming the first U.S. Speaker to visit the island in 25 years. The trip has drawn concerted criticism around the world for her reckless, high-profile, and unnecessary provocation at a time when relations between China and the U.S. were already at an all-time low.
She touts the trip as a victory for democracy. But in the „great democratic country“ she came from, things don’t look too pretty. The economy is getting worse by the day, people are getting killed in the streets due to rampant gun violence, and women are denied their rights over their own bodies.
Things are bad even in her own home. California has had more than 90,000 COVID-19 deaths, and another emergency over the monkeypox virus was just announced.
Yet, the speaker left that mess for a foreign trip.
Why is that? What kind of politician has she been? Today we will take a look back into the political life of Nancy Pelosi, a vain opportunistic politician who is out there only for herself.
Kein Zufall ist es, dass Russlands Pendant, das „staatsnahe“ globale Netz RT, die provokative Reise der USA-Politikerin Nancy Pelosi in der gleichen Tonart kommentiert: „Pelosi in Taiwan – Narretei einer Greisin, aber auch das Ende des Liberalismus“, „China könnte sich für den Besuch von Pelosi rächen – nur nicht so, wie wir es vielleicht erwarten“, „China und Taiwan: Die Kunst des Bluffs oder doch die letzte Warnung?“.
Aufhorchen jedoch lässt die Wortwahl der RT-Redakteure des Beitrages vom 2. August:
„Könnte Pelosis Taiwan-Besuch einen Krieg zwischen des USA und China auslösen?“
Der internationale Kontext seit Februar 2022 zwingt uns, diese Zeilen sehr ernst zu nehmen ! Hatte noch die überwiegende Mehrheit der Beobachter die russischen militärischen Vorbereitungen eines Angriffs auf die Ukraine als Bluff oder diplomatisches Druckmittel gegenüber dem Westen abgetan (darunter auch ich), so scheint nun die Kriegsgefahr real.
Das neueste chinesische militärische Instrument, der Flugzeugträger-Eigenbau
CHINA DAILY verweist auf den
Hintergrund dieser neuen alarmierenden Lage:
US‘ one-China policy eroded by Pelosi visit
By YIFAN XU in Washington | China Daily | Updated: 2022-08-08 07:29
The Taipei 101 skyscraper commands the urban landscape in Taipei, Taiwan. [Photo/Xinhua]
Bilateral relations put at risk by action of the politician, analysts say
The visit last week by the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, to China’s Taiwan region was another incremental action that erodes the one-China policy of the US, putting the China-US relations in an „extremely dangerous“ state, political experts say.
Sourabh Gupta, a senior fellow at the Institute for China-America Studies in Washington, said the visit means some US officials will continue to use the Taiwan question as a wedge to polarize and worsen China-US relations.
„It also means that in the longer term, the strategy of strategic ambiguity will be hollowed out completely, with the latter perhaps even formally abandoned,“ he said.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry on Friday announced eight countermeasures, including canceling China-US defense policy coordination talks and suspending China-US talks on climate change, in response to Pelosi’s visit to China’s Taiwan region.
Dangerous move
„Pelosi has been both irresponsible and provocative in going to Taiwan,“ said Colin Mackerras, professor emeritus at Griffith University in Australia.
„What’s incendiary about her actions is that they more than imply that she favors independence for Taiwan,“ Mackerras said.
„It seems to me that China’s response, rather than being provocative, is quite measured and responsible,“ he added.
At a webinar hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, warned that bilateral relations are in „a dangerous, acrimonious state“.
„When you have (President Joe Biden) say things like, ‚We don’t support Taiwan independence, and we still adhere to our one-China policy,‘ if that rings hollow in Beijing, then we are at a very difficult point.
„I think the Chinese took these set of actions … to shore up their red line, to signal those future incremental actions by the United States, as they would say, to slice the salami will be extremely dangerous.“
John Culver, a senior fellow at the Global China Hub of the Atlantic Council and a former CIA senior intelligence officer, called China’s response unprecedented.
„I think that this is the new normal the Chinese want to show as they have in previous Taiwan Straits crises that a line has been crossed by the speaker’s visit.“
In an opinion piece in The Washington Post on Tuesday, Pelosi said her visit in no way contradicted the long-standing US one-China policy. However, that was an „unadulterated lie“, Gupta said.
„As part of its one-China policy, the United States pledged to limit its relationship with the island to unofficial ties. The visit of congressmen and women in their official capacity violates the one-China policy. And an official visit by the third-highest ranking member of the US government violates the one-China policy in spades.“
Before Pelosi’s visit, Biden said publicly that the US military believed the trip was „not a good idea right now“.
Xu Weiwei in Hong Kong contributed to this story
Washington needs to stay committed to one-China principle
By Shakeel Ahmad Ramay | China Daily Global | Updated: 2022-08-10 08:58
The Taipei 101 skyscraper commands the urban landscape in Taipei, Taiwan. [Photo/Xinhua]
The one-China principle explicitly explains why Taiwan is an inalienable and integral part of China. It is a red line drawn since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 and ratified by the United Nations in 1971 through UN Resolution 2758.
The core of the UN resolution is the one-China principle, which states that there is only one China, and the government of the PRC is the sole legitimate government representing the whole of China, and Taiwan is part of China.
Therefore, a wider community of 181 countries, by following the UN resolution, established and developed diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China.
These countries, including the United States, unambiguously endorsed the PRC as the sole representative of the people of China.
The three joint communiques that the US issued with China commit the US to adherence to the one-China principle.
Through the communiques, the US specifically committed to keeping only commercial and unofficial links with Taiwan, which means that officials like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should never have been in Taiwan in an official capacity.
Unfortunately, US deviations from its pledges are not unusual. Despite all provocations, China has tried to avert the interference and criticism but emphasized the red line as the core of bilateral relations.
However, the visit by Pelosi to Taiwan has changed all the dynamics. She went ahead, after China clarified its red line in bilateral relations, in blatant disregard of China’s continuous warnings and the advice of people from many other countries.
First of all, Pelosi should have realized that her visit marked a deliberate crossing by the US of China’s red line. Second, it was the ultimate denial of the one-China principle recognized by the UN and the US itself. Third, it was an official departure from and betrayal of the US‘ stated commitments to China.
Therefore, China feels that the US has broken the commitments. There is consensus among a wider community of countries, Pakistan included, that China’s concerns and countermeasures are justifiable.
China is taking this US violation of agreements and norms very seriously and is honoring its words with concrete countermeasures.
Maybe some US politicians and anti-China forces, in their wild bid to contain China, are deliberately pushing for the possibility of hot conflict, making the world worse amid multiple challenges at global level. However, they should never underestimate the strong will of resistance from the Chinese, who for centuries have taken pride in national unity and sovereignty.
Neither China nor other parts of the world want the US to provoke China further, because in the current context, a conflict between the world’s largest economy and the biggest trade partner of most countries would have an impact on the world beyond imagination.
China values peace over conflict and has kept its word on seeking maximum means of solving the Taiwan question with peaceful means.
But the US needs to understand that even Chinese patience has a limit. Therefore, the US must stop such provocative actions, which could lead to much more than disturbing the regional peace.
Thus, it is advisable for the US and allies to stay committed to the one-China principle and avoid further interfering in China’s internal affairs.
Large parts of the international community have opposed US violations of the UN resolution on Taiwan and international norms and consider the US responsible for the deteriorating situation in the region.
Any further US actions down this path of troublemaking and attempts to contain would result in a worsening of the trust deficit for the administration of US President Joe Biden.
The world needs peace and sustainable development, not conflicts, more than ever. Thus, the US, which is the biggest economy and has the strongest military in the world, must do its part for common peace and development and not provoke any more tension.
The author is CEO of the Asian Institute of Eco-civilization Research and Development in Pakistan.
Die täglichen Magazine des globalen chinesischen TV-Netzes lassen erkennen, wie ernst die chinesische Führung die internationale Lage nimmt – Interviews am laufenden Band zum Thema NEUE LAGE auf beiden Seiten der STRAIT !
Overseas Chinese confident about China’s complete reunification
Xinhua | Updated: 2022-08-13 15:40
The Taipei 101 skyscraper commands the urban landscape in Taipei, Taiwan. [Photo/Xinhua]
BEIJING — China has recently released a white paper on the Taiwan question and China’s reunification in the new era, which resonated strongly among overseas Chinese.
The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council and the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China published a white paper titled „The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era“ on Wednesday.
In separate interviews with Xinhua, overseas Chinese said the white paper reaffirmed the fact that Taiwan is a part of China, the wheel of history rolls on towards national reunification, and it will not be stopped by any individual or any force.
Relying on external forces will achieve nothing for Taiwan’s separatists, and using Taiwan to contain China is doomed to fail, they said.
„As is pointed out in the white paper, Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times. This statement has a sound basis in history and jurisprudence,“ said Wu Hao, executive vice president and secretary general of the China Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification in Russia.
Taiwan is part of China, which is an indisputable fact supported by history and the law, Wu said, noting that Taiwan has never been a state and its status as part of China is unalterable.
China’s complete reunification is a process that cannot be halted, Wu said, adding that they, as overseas Chinese, should jointly defend and promote the cause of peaceful reunification, and leave no room for the activities of „Taiwan independence“ separatists.
Overseas Chinese firmly oppose the evil external interventionist forces using Taiwan to contain China, said Yang Hanxin, chairman of a British overseas Chinese group.
„The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities ’seek independence by relying on external forces‘ out of their self-interest, which runs against the trend, severely endangers peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and undermines the prospect of peaceful reunification. We firmly oppose it,“ Yang said.
Yang stressed that achieving China’s complete reunification is the common aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation, and that it is an unstoppable trend of history.
„The white paper fully demonstrates the firm will and determination of the Communist Party of China (CPC) to pursue the reunification of the motherland,“ said Chen Kunfei, vice president of the China Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification in Peru.
Chen voiced confidence that under the strong leadership of the CPC, the Chinese people are fully confident and capable of resolving the Taiwan question and realizing the complete reunification of the motherland.
Xia Xiaolei, executive vice chairman of Latvia’s Federation of Chinese Emigrants and Ethnic Chinese, said that the publication of the white paper is very timely and necessary.
The white paper said that peaceful reunification and One Country, Two Systems are our basic principles for resolving the Taiwan question and the best approach to realizing national reunification. Xia voiced firm support to the principles.
Looking forward to the day when China realizes complete reunification, Xia said: „5,000 years of Chinese civilization nourishes the descendants of China. We overseas Chinese are willing to give full play to our unique advantages and make our own efforts to promote the complete reunification of China and strive for national rejuvenation.“
„The reunification of China is an irresistible historical trend. The realization of peaceful cross-Straits reunification is not only the blessing of the Chinese nation and the Chinese people, but also that of the international community and the people of the world,“ said Chen Guangping, president of the Dutch „United Times“ and chairman of the Foundation for Chinese Cultural Events in the Netherlands.
„We, overseas Chinese, firmly support all the principles and policies of the CPC and the Chinese government in promoting the complete reunification of China,“ he added.
Chen Wei, president of the China Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification in Türkiye, said that the DPP authorities „seek independence by relying on external forces,“ creating tensions in cross-Straits relations, endangering peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and undermining the prospect of peaceful reunification.
Overseas Chinese firmly oppose the DPP’s attempt to seek „independence,“ Chen said, noting that relying on external forces will achieve nothing for Taiwan’s separatists, using Taiwan to contain China is doomed to fail and national reunification is an irresistible historical trend.
The complete reunification of China is a shared aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation and the inevitable requirement for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, said Li Zuqing, vice chairman of the Myanmar-China Friendship Association in Mandalay, noting that it is believed that with the joint efforts of the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation, the complete reunification of the motherland will surely be achieved.
Zhang Weiqing, honorary chairman of the Overseas Chinese Committee of the Austria-China Friendly Association, said: „We firmly oppose the US scheme of using Taiwan to contain China and the DPP authorities‘ separatist activities that seek ‚Taiwan independence.‘ We firmly believe that the reunification of the motherland will be realized and overseas Chinese will make their own contribution.“
Bevor wir uns jedoch in die geopolitischen Risiken der aktuellen US-amerikanisch-chinesischen Beziehungen vertiefen, werfen wir ein Blick in die chinesischen Medien der Jahre 2014 – 2017, in denen der Optimismus und das Interesse am Ausbau der Wirtschaftsbeziehungen – auch in Richtung Europa – dominierten:
Welch ein Unterschied in der Stimmung zu heute, wo sich Gigant BLOOMBERG am 11. August 2022 existentielle Sorgen macht –
Pelosi Says US Can’t Let China Establish ‘New Normal’ on Taiwan
Speaker hits back at exercises held in response to her visit
China has announced regular military patrols around island
House Speaker Pelosi: We Will Not Allow China to Isolate TaiwanUnmuteWATCH: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi discussed her recent trip to Taipei, and said the US “will not allow China to isolate Taiwan.”Source: Bloomberg
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the US couldn’t let China establish a “new normal” around Taiwan, hours after Beijing announced plans for regular military patrols near the democratically governed island.
Pelosi told a news briefing Wednesday in Washington that Chinese leaders had been “trying to push their way” toward their goals on Taiwan before she led a congressional delegation there last week. The California Democrat was responding to a question about whether China would continue exercises near Taiwan, after conducting its most significant military drills near the island in decades, including likely firing ballistic missiles over Taipei.
“What we saw with China is they were trying to establish sort of a new normal,” Pelosi said. “And we just can’t let that happen.”
The drills held by China in response to Pelosi’s visit shrank a vaguely defined buffer zone that has long helped kept the peace around Taiwan, which Beijing views as part of its territory. On Wednesday, the People’s Liberation Army command responsible for the Taiwan Strait said it had “successfully completed all tasks” set out in the exercises and would “regularly organize patrols” in the area.
More than 180 Chinese warplanes operated east of the Taiwan Strait’s median line over an eight-day period ending Wednesday. Crossing the divider was once a rare event. The promise of more patrols will likely fuel concerns that Chinese President Xi Jinping will seek to make such incursions the new status quo.
Crossing Lines
Chinese warplanes are repeatedly breaching the Taiwan Strait’s median line.
NOTE: Data includes flights through median line of strait and Taiwan’s southwest air-defense zone
The trip has further strained relations between the US and China, with Beijing suspending of a series of working-level talks on issues including military ties and climate change. It has also complicated President Joe Biden decision on the future of Trump-era tariffs on more than $300 billion in Chinese goods, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said Wednesday.
“Certainly, it has made it a little more challenging,” Raimondo said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Balance of Power With David Westin.” “It’s harder, but I am hopeful that we will get beyond that and get back to a place where we can have more of those discussions.”
Pelosi again declined to comment on Biden’s remark prior to her trip that the Pentagon didn’t approve of such a visit, but credited her military escorts with taking “very good care” of the delegation. “I don’t remember them ever telling us not to go,” she said.
The House speaker shrugged off the threat of Chinese sanctions, which Beijing announced last week without detailing the penalties. “Who cares?” she said.
— With assistance by Eric Martin, and Cindy Wang
keine amerikanische, ondern eine chinesische „battle-group“
Was ist nun neu an der internationalen Lage um Taiwan, die die Kriegsgefahr real erscheinen lässt ?
Der für RT.de schreibende Analytiker Gert Ewen Ungar kommt zu folgender Einschätzung (5. August), der ich zustimme:
Die globalen Mächte China und Russland haben sich strategisch auf die geopolitische Ablösung des aus dem 19. Jahrhundert stammenden Konzept des Liberalismus ( = offener oder verhüllter Kolonialismus) durch ein neues System der internationalen Beziehungen eingestellt und betreiben aktiv diesen Ablösungsprozess. Sie sind bereit, im Rahmen dieses Prozesses auch militärische Mittel konsequent einzusetzen.:
Ich erlaube mir, aus dem RT.de-Beitrag zu zitieren: „Die aktuellen Entwicklungen … deuten auf eine beschleunigte Ablösung des Liberalismus. Der Liberalismus ist die letzte verbliebene politusche Ideologie des 19. Jahrhunderts. Er ist der in die Jahre gekommene Allmachtsanspruch des Westens,
TAIPEH an besseren Tagen
Die Welt organisiert sich neu
In diesen gegenwärtigen Tagen veröffentlichen die chinesischen Medien ein umfangreiches Weißbuch zur TAIWAN-Frage.
Eine zentralen Aussagen lautet: „Wir sind ein China und Taiwan ist ein Teil von China. Dies ist eine unbestreitbare Tatsache, die durch Geschichte und das Gesetz gestützt wird. Taiwan war nie ein Staat, sein Status als Teil Chinas ist unabänderlich“. Die Vorgängerdokumente stammen aus den Jahren 1993 und 2000. In der aktuellen Version heißt es, dass die Wiedervereinigung zu beschleunigen sei. Unter anderem ist die Rede davon, ähnlich wie bei der Befreiung Pekings im Jahre 1949, die Insel zu umzingeln und mit friedlichen Mitteln zu übernehmen.
Die Veröffentlichung dieses Papiers fällt mit der vorläufigen Einstellung der massiven Manöver zusammen. Die chinesischen Streitkräfte simulierten eine militärische Übernahme der Insel, die nach Souveränität strebt. In dem Weißbuch heißt es, dass der Einsatz militärischer Mittel nur das allerletzte Mittel sei.
Peking kann angesichts der angekündigten harten Reaktionen und der angeheizten Stimmung unter der wachsenden Gruppe von Nationalisten nicht einfach zur Tagesordnung übergehen. Es ist eine Erwartungshaltung entstanden, welche die Pewkinger Führung einlösen muss. Bislang wurden zahlreiche bilaterale Dossiers zwischen den USA und China abgebrochen, landwirtschaftliche Produkte aus Taiwan kamen wie anderes auf die Sanktionsliste. Doch würde ein handfester Wirtschaftskrieg Chinas die weltweite Halbleiterproduktion, die auf Taiwan gleichsam konzentriert ist, ins Wanken bringen. Das trifft alle – so, wie Sanktionen immer zum Bumerang werden. China befindet sich zweifellos in einem handfesten Dilemma, das mit einem Gesichtsverlust nach innen wie nach außen einhergeht.
Ist die militärische Lösung also die einzige Alternative – Ich glaube, JA ! Die Politik Bidens lässt Peking keinen anderen Ausweg – die Geschichte belegt es. Peking hat vor schwerwiegenden Konsequenzen gewarnt, sollte Pelosi die Androhung ihres Taiwan-Besuches wahr machen. Daher wird nun von vielen angenommen, Peking bluffe nur. Schließlich scheint das Risiko eines Krieges mit den USA anlässlich der Reise eines Amtsträgers aus Washington weder verhältnismäßig noch rational zu sein. Es liegt jedoch in der Natur der Salamitaktik, alle Reaktionen als unverhältnismäßig und irrational darzustellen. Die Taktik beinhaltet begrenzte, aber sich wiederholende Vorstöße, um neue Realitäten aufzubauen. Revisionismus in kleinen Schritten soll eine schnelle Eskalation vermeiden und den Widerstand von Gegnern und Verbündeten ausschalten, da jede Reaktion als unverhältnismäßig oder unprovoziert dargestellt werden kann. Mit einer derartigen politisch unehrlichen Salamitaktik fängt ein unbeabsichtigter Krieg an.
Was zeigt die Geschichte der letzten Jahrzehnte ??? Sie zeigt dem realistischen Beobachter die Ein-China-Politik und die Politik der strategischen Uneindeutigkeit.
Die USA und China nahmen in den 1970er Jahren volle diplomatische Beziehungen auf, als Washington seıne diplomatısche Anerkennung von Taipeh nach Peking verlegte. Washington verpflichtete sich zur Ein-China-Politik, wonach es nur ein China gibt und Taiwan ein Teil davon ist.
Gleichzeitig stärken die USA mit Waffenlieferungen Taiwans Fähigkeit, als unabhängiger Staat zu handeln.
In den letzten vier Jahrzehnten beruhte der Frieden zwischen den USA und China also auf einer strategischen Unklarheit über den Status Taiwans.
Während dieser Zeit haben sich die USA und China in einem „Abschreckungsdilemma“ befunden. Washington hat versucht, Peking durch Waffenlieferungen an die Insel von einer gewaltsamen Wiedervereinigung mit Taiwan abzuhalten. Derweil hält China Taiwan durch die Androhung einer militärischen Intervention davon ab, sich offiziell abzuspalten.
Nachdem Peking stärker geworden ist, provozieren die amerikanischen Bemühungen, China am Einsatz seiner Armee zu hindern, das Land stattdessen zum Eingreifen.
ln der Vergangenheit zeigten sich die USA bereits unbesonnen im Umgang mit der Ein-China-Politik, aber in den letzten Jahren begann Washington mit der absichtlichen Unterwanderung dieser Politik. Jetzt bedroht Pekings Aufstieg die auf globaler Vormachtstellung basierende Sicherheitsstrategie der USA. Doch in Washington will man sich nicht auf eine multipolare Ordnung einlassen. Die Zeit scheint auf Chinas Seite zu sein, da sein Einfluss in der Region nur zunehmen wird. lm Gegensatz dazu schwindet die Macht der USA, und das schafft Anreize für eine Änderung der Haltung gegenüber China und der Taiwan-Frage.
Vor einem Jahrzehnt verkündete die Obama- Regierung ihre Neuausrichtung nach Asien. Zur Eindämmung Chinas beinhaltete dies eine Verlagerung der militärischen Infrastruktur der USA nach Ostasien.
Obamas Nachfolger, Donald Trump, begann einen Wirtschaftskrieg gegen Peking und nutzte die Ein-China-Politik dabei als Druckmittel. Unter Präsident Joe Biden scheinen die USA ihre Verpflichtungen nun vollständig aufgeben zu wollen.
Peking sieht die anhaltende Unterwanderung der Ein-China-Politik im Zusammenhang mit der Weigerung der USA, sich an die multipolare Welt anzupassen und damit auch Beziehungen zu den anderen Großmächten :u entwickeln.
Die militärische Zusammenarbeit der USA mit Taiwan wurde im Laufe der Zeit intensiver und offener. Washington drängt auf eine stärkere Vertretung Taiwans im internationalen System, indem es zum Beispiel die Teilnahme Taiwans am UN-System unterstützt. Mit der Lockerung von Beschränkungen für den offiziellen Austausch mit Taipeh besuchten immer mehr US-Beamte die Insel. Das wiederum werteten einige US-Gesetzgeber als Unterstützung für die taiwanesische Souveränität.
Zusätzlich prangerten auch amerikanische Medien und Think Tanks die Ein-China-Politik an und forderten die Abspaltung Taiwans. Biden hat in den vergangenen Monaten mehrfach verkündet, dass die USA Taiwan im Falle eines Angriffs durch China verteidigen würden. Das legt die jahrzehntelange Politik der strategischen Unklarheit darüber offen, wie die USA in so einem Fall reagieren würden. Diese Ereignisse fallen in eine Zeit wachsender militärischer und wirtschaftlicher Rivalität, in der zudem auch intensiv versucht wird, China von innen heraus zu destabilisieren. Doch wie eh und je beteuert Washington keine Konfrontation mit Peking zu suchen, sondern lediglich für amerikanische Werte einzutreten. Dies entspricht mit dem allgemeinen Konzept amerikanischer Hegemonie, bei dem eine kriegerische Politik zur Förderung der globalen Vormachtstellung als wohlwollende Unterstützung für Demokratie und Menschenrechte, als Ringen um die Durchsetzung des Konzepts des Liberalismus dargestellt wird.
Full Text: The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era
CGTN
Share
The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council and the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China published a white paper titled „The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era“ on Wednesday.
The following is the full text of the white paper:
The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era
The People’s Republic of China
The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council and The State Council Information Office
August 2022
Contents
Preamble
I. Taiwan Is Part of China – This Is an Indisputable Fact
II. Resolute Efforts of the CPC to Realize China’s Complete Reunification
III. China’s Complete Reunification Is a Process That Cannot Be Halted
IV. National Reunification in the New Era
V. Bright Prospects for Peaceful Reunification
Conclusion
Preamble
Resolving the Taiwan question and realizing China’s complete reunification is a shared aspiration of all the sons and daughters of the Chinese nation. It is indispensable for the realization of China’s rejuvenation. It is also a historic mission of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The CPC, the Chinese government, and the Chinese people have striven for decades to achieve this goal.
The 18th National Congress of the CPC in 2012 heralded a new era in building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Under the strong leadership of the CPC Central Committee with Xi Jinping at the core, the CPC and the Chinese government have adopted new and innovative measures in relation to Taiwan. They have continued to chart the course of cross-Straits relations, safeguard peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits, and promote progress towards national reunification. However, in recent years the Taiwan authorities, led by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), have redoubled their efforts to divide the country, and some external forces have tried to exploit Taiwan to contain China, prevent the Chinese nation from achieving complete reunification, and halt the process of national rejuvenation.
The CPC has united the Chinese people and led them in fulfilling the First Centenary Goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects as scheduled, and in embarking on a new journey towards the Second Centenary Goal of building China into a modern socialist country.
The Chinese nation has achieved a historic transformation from standing upright to becoming prosperous and growing in strength, and national rejuvenation is driven by an unstoppable force. This marks a new starting point for reunification.
The Chinese government has published two previous white papers on Taiwan. One was The Taiwan Question and Reunification of China in August 1993, and the other was The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue in February 2000. These two white papers provided a comprehensive and systematic elaboration of the basic principles and policies regarding the resolution of the Taiwan question. This new white paper is being released to reiterate the fact that Taiwan is part of China, to demonstrate the resolve of the CPC and the Chinese people and their commitment to national reunification, and to emphasize the position and policies of the CPC and the Chinese government in the new era.
I. Taiwan Is Part of China – This Is an Indisputable Fact
Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times. This statement has a sound basis in history and jurisprudence. New archeological discoveries and research findings regularly attest to the profound historical and cultural ties between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. A large number of historical records and annals document the development of Taiwan by the Chinese people in earlier periods.
The earliest references to this effect are to be found, among others, in Seaboard Geographic Gazetteer compiled in the year 230 by Shen Ying of the State of Wu during the Three Kingdoms Period. The royal court of the Sui Dynasty had on three occasions sent troops to Taiwan, called Liuqiu at that time. Starting from the Song and Yuan dynasties, the imperial central governments of China all set up administrative bodies to exercise jurisdiction over Penghu and Taiwan.
In 1624, Dutch colonialists invaded and occupied the southern part of Taiwan. In 1662, General Zheng Chenggong, hailed as a national hero, led an expedition and expelled them from the island. Subsequently, the Qing court gradually set up more administrative bodies in Taiwan. In 1684, a Taiwan prefecture administration was set up under the jurisdiction of Fujian Province. In 1885, Taiwan’s status was upgraded and it became the 20th province of China.
In July 1894, Japan launched a war of aggression against China. In April 1895, the defeated Qing government was forced to cede Taiwan and the Penghu Islands to Japan. During the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression (1931-1945), China’s Communists called for the recovery of Taiwan. Talking with American journalist Nym Wales on May 15, 1937, Mao Zedong said that China’s goal was to achieve a final victory in the war – a victory that would recover the occupied Chinese territories in Northeast China and to the south of the Shanhai Pass, and secure the liberation of Taiwan.
On December 9, 1941, the Chinese government issued a declaration of war against Japan, and proclaimed that all treaties, conventions, agreements, and contracts regarding relations between China and Japan had been abrogated, and that China would recover Taiwan and the Penghu Islands.
The Cairo Declaration issued by China, the United States and the United Kingdom on December 1, 1943 stated that it was the purpose of the three allies that all the territories Japan had stolen from China, such as Northeast China, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, should be restored to China.
The Potsdam Proclamation was signed by China, the United States and the United Kingdom on July 26, 1945, and subsequently recognized by the Soviet Union. It reiterated: „The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out.“ In September of the same year, Japan signed the instrument of surrender, in which it promised that it would faithfully fulfill the obligations laid down in the Potsdam Proclamation. On October 25 the Chinese government announced that it was resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan, and the ceremony to accept Japan’s surrender in Taiwan Province of the China war theater of the Allied powers was held in Taibei (Taipei). From that point forward, China had recovered Taiwan de jure and de facto through a host of documents with international legal effect.
On October 1, 1949, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded, becoming the successor to the Republic of China (1912-1949), and the Central People’s Government became the only legitimate government of the whole of China. The new government replaced the previous KMT regime in a situation where China, as a subject under international law, did not change and China’s sovereignty and inherent territory did not change. As a natural result, the government of the PRC should enjoy and exercise China’s full sovereignty, which includes its sovereignty over Taiwan.
As a result of the civil war in China in the late 1940s and the interference of external forces, the two sides of the Taiwan Straits have fallen into a state of protracted political confrontation. But the sovereignty and territory of China have never been divided and will never be divided, and Taiwan’s status as part of China’s territory has never changed and will never be allowed to change.
At its 26th session in October 1971, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758, which undertook „to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it“. This resolution settled once and for all the political, legal and procedural issues of China’s representation in the UN, and it covered the whole country, including Taiwan. It also spelled out that China has one single seat in the UN, so there is no such thing as „two Chinas“ or „one China, one Taiwan“.
The specialized agencies of the UN later adopted further resolutions restoring to the PRC its lawful seat and expelling the representatives of the Taiwan authorities. One of these is Resolution 25.1 adopted at the 25th World Health Assembly in May 1972. It was clearly stated in the official legal opinions of the Office of Legal Affairs of the UN Secretariat that „the United Nations considers ‚Taiwan‘ as a province of China with no separate status“, and the „‚authorities‘ in ‚Taipei‘ are not considered to… enjoy any form of government status“. At the UN the island is referred to as „Taiwan, Province of China“[1].
Resolution 2758 is a political document encapsulating the one-China principle whose legal authority leaves no room for doubt and has been acknowledged worldwide. Taiwan does not have any ground, reason, or right to join the UN, or any other international organization whose membership is confined to sovereign states.
In recent years some elements in a small number of countries, the US foremost among them, have colluded with forces in Taiwan, to falsely claim that the resolution did not conclusively resolve the issue of Taiwan’s representation. Puffing up the illegal and invalid Treaty of San Francisco[2] and disregarding the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and other international legal documents, they profess that the status of Taiwan has yet to be determined, and declare their support for „Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the UN system“. What they are actually attempting to do is to alter Taiwan’s status as part of China and create „two Chinas“ or „one China, one Taiwan“ as part of a political ploy – using Taiwan to contain China. These actions in violation of Resolution 2758 and international law are a serious breach of political commitments made by these countries. They damage China’s sovereignty and dignity, and treat the basic principles of international law with contempt. The Chinese government has condemned and expressed its resolute opposition to them.
The one-China principle represents the universal consensus of the international community; it is consistent with the basic norms of international relations. To date, 181 countries including the United States have established diplomatic relations with the PRC on the basis of the one-China principle. The China-US Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, published in December 1978, states: „The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.“ It also states: „The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.“
The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, adopted at the Fifth Session of the Fifth National People’s Congress (NPC) in December 1982, stipulates: „Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People’s Republic of China. It is the inviolable duty of all Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, to accomplish the great task of reunifying the motherland.“
The Anti-Secession Law, adopted at the Third Session of the 10th NPC in March 2005, stipulates: „There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included. Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the ‚Taiwan independence‘ secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means.“
The National Security Law, adopted at the 15th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 12th NPC in July 2015, stipulates: „The sovereignty and territorial integrity of China brook no violation or separation. Safeguarding national sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity is the common duty of all Chinese citizens, including Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan compatriots.“
We are one China, and Taiwan is part of China. This is an indisputable fact supported by history and the law. Taiwan has never been a state; its status as part of China is unalterable. Any attempt to distort these facts and dispute or deny the one-China principle will end in failure.
II. Resolute Efforts of the CPC to Realize China’s Complete Reunification
The CPC has always been dedicated to working for the wellbeing of the Chinese people and the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Soon after its founding in 1921, the CPC set itself the goal of freeing Taiwan from colonial rule, reuniting it with the rest of the country and liberating the whole nation, including compatriots in Taiwan. It has made a tremendous effort to achieve this goal.
The CPC is committed to the historic mission of resolving the Taiwan question and realizing China’s complete reunification. Under its resolute leadership, people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits have worked together to de-escalate tension across the Straits. They have set out on a path of peaceful development and made many breakthroughs in improving cross-Straits relations.
After the founding of the PRC in 1949, China’s Communists, under the leadership of Mao Zedong, proposed the essential guideline, underlying principle, and basic policy for peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question. The CPC prepared and worked for the liberation of Taiwan, thwarted the Taiwan authorities‘ plans to attack the mainland, and foiled attempts to create „two Chinas“ and „one China, one Taiwan“. Through their efforts, the lawful seat and rights of the PRC in the United Nations were restored and the one-China principle was subscribed to by the majority of countries, laying important groundwork for peaceful reunification. The CPC central leadership established high-level contact with the Taiwan authorities through proper channels in pursuit of a peaceful solution to the Taiwan question.
Following the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee in 1978, with the establishment of diplomatic relations between the PRC and the United States, China’s Communists, led by Deng Xiaoping, defined the fundamental guideline for peaceful reunification in the vital interests of the country and the people and on the basis of the consensus for peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question. The CPC introduced the creative and well-conceived concept of One Country, Two Systems, and applied it first in resolving the questions of Hong Kong and Macao. It took action to ease military confrontation across the Taiwan Straits, restore contact, and open up people-to-people exchanges and cooperation, opening a new chapter in cross-Straits relations.
After the Fourth Plenary Session of the 13th CPC Central Committee in 1989, China’s Communists, led by Jiang Zemin, made eight proposals for the development of cross-Straits relations and the peaceful reunification of China[3]. The CPC facilitated agreement across the Straits on the 1992 Consensus, which embodies the one-China principle. It initiated cross-Straits consultations and negotiations, resulting in the first talks between heads of the non-governmental organizations authorized by the two sides of the Straits, and expanded cross-Straits exchanges and cooperation in various fields. The CPC took firm action against separatist activities led by Lee Teng-hui, and struck hard at the separatist forces seeking „Taiwan independence“. It ensured the smooth return of Hong Kong and Macao to China, and applied the policy of One Country, Two Systems, which had a constructive impact on the settlement of the Taiwan question.
After the 16th CPC National Congress in 2002, China’s Communists, led by Hu Jintao, highlighted the importance of peaceful development of cross-Straits relations. The CPC pushed for the enactment of the Anti-Secession Law to curb separatist activities in Taiwan, hosted the first talks between the leaders of the CPC and the Kuomintang in six decades since 1945, and defeated attempts by Chen Shui-bian to fabricate a legal basis for „independence“. The CPC effected profound changes in moving the peaceful development of cross-Straits relations forward by promoting institutionalized consultations and negotiations that produced fruitful results, establishing overall direct two-way links in mail, business and transport, and facilitating the signing and implementation of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement.
After the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, China’s Communists, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, took a holistic approach to cross-Straits relations in keeping with changing circumstances, added substance to the theory on national reunification and the principles and policies concerning Taiwan, and worked to keep cross-Straits relations on the right track. The CPC developed its overall policy for resolving the Taiwan question in the new era, and set out the overarching guideline and a program of action.
At its 19th National Congress in October 2017, the CPC affirmed the basic policy of upholding One Country, Two Systems and promoting national reunification, and emphasized its resolve never to allow any person, any organization, or any political party, at any time or in any form, to separate any part of Chinese territory from China.
In January 2019, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee and president of China, addressed a meeting marking the 40th anniversary of the release of the Message to Compatriots in Taiwan. In his speech, Xi Jinping proposed major policies to advance the peaceful development of cross-Straits relations and the peaceful reunification of China in the new era. These are: first, working together to promote China’s rejuvenation and its peaceful reunification; second, seeking a Two Systems solution to the Taiwan question and making innovative efforts towards peaceful reunification; third, abiding by the one-China principle and safeguarding the prospects for peaceful reunification; fourth, further integrating development across the Straits and consolidating the foundations for peaceful reunification; fifth, forging closer bonds of heart and mind between people on both sides of the Straits and strengthening joint commitment to peaceful reunification.
The CPC and the Chinese government have thereby adopted a series of major measures for charting the course of cross-Straits relations and realizing China’s peaceful reunification:
– The CPC and the Chinese government have facilitated the first meeting and direct dialogue between leaders of the two sides since 1949, raising exchanges and interactions to new heights, opening up a new chapter, and creating new space for cross-Straits relations. This is a new milestone. The departments in charge of cross-Straits affairs on both sides have established regular contact and communication mechanisms on a common political foundation, and the heads of the two departments have exchanged visits and set up hotlines.
– Upholding the one-China principle and the 1992 Consensus, the CPC and the Chinese government have facilitated exchanges between political parties across the Straits, and conducted dialogues, consultations, and in-depth exchanges of views on cross-Straits relations and the future of the Chinese nation with relevant political parties, organizations, and individuals in Taiwan. These efforts have resulted in consensus on multiple issues, and promoted a number of joint initiatives exploring the Two Systems solution to the Taiwan question with all sectors of Taiwan society.
– Guided by the conviction that people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits are of the same family, the CPC and the Chinese government have promoted peaceful development of cross-Straits relations and integrated development of the two sides for the benefit of both the mainland and Taiwan. We have also refined the institutional arrangements, policies and measures to promote cross-Straits exchanges and cooperation, designed to advance the wellbeing of the people of Taiwan. These include the delivery of water from the coastal province of Fujian to Kinmen Island, electronic travel passes for Taiwan residents to enter or leave the mainland, residence permits for Taiwan residents, progressively ensuring that Taiwan compatriots have equal access to public services so as to facilitate their studying, starting businesses, working and living on the mainland, and an ongoing effort to pave the way for Taiwan to benefit first from the mainland’s development opportunities.
– While countering interference and obstruction from separatist forces, the CPC and the Chinese government have called on the people of Taiwan to promote effective and in-depth cooperation and people-to-people exchanges in various fields across the Straits. Having overcome the impact of COVID-19, we have held a number of exchange events such as the Straits Forum, and maintained the momentum of cross-Straits exchanges and cooperation.
– Resolute in defending state sovereignty and territorial integrity and opposing separatist activities and external interference, the CPC and the Chinese government have safeguarded peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation. We have taken lawful action against and effectively deterred separatist forces. We have handled Taiwan’s external exchanges in a sound manner, and consolidated the international community’s commitment to the one-China principle.
Under the guidance of the CPC, great progress has been made in cross-Straits relations over the past seven decades, especially since the estrangement between the two sides was ended. Increased exchanges, broader cooperation and closer interactions have brought tangible benefits to people across the Straits, especially of Taiwan. This fully demonstrates that cross-Straits amity and cooperation are mutually beneficial.
The volume of cross-Straits trade was only US$46 million in 1978. It rose to US$328.34 billion in 2021, up by a factor of more than 7,000. The mainland has been Taiwan’s largest export market for the last 21 years, generating a large annual surplus for the island. The mainland is also the largest destination for Taiwan’s off-island investment. By the end of 2021 Taiwan businesses had invested in almost 124,000 projects on the mainland, to a total value of US$71.34 billion[4].
In 1987 less than 50,000 visits were made between the two sides; by 2019 this number had soared to about 9 million. In the past three years, affected by COVID-19, online communication has become the main form of people-to-people interactions across the Straits, and the numbers of people participating in and covered by online communication are reaching new highs.
The CPC has always been the spine of the Chinese nation, exercising strong leadership in realizing national rejuvenation and reunification. Its consistent efforts over the decades to resolve the Taiwan question and achieve complete national reunification are based on the following:
First, the one-China principle must be upheld, and no individual or force should be allowed to separate Taiwan from China.
Second, it is imperative to strive for the wellbeing of all Chinese people, including those in Taiwan, and to realize the aspirations of all Chinese people for a better life.
Third, we must follow the principles of freeing the mind, seeking truth from facts, maintaining the right political orientation, and breaking new ground, and defend the fundamental interests of the nation and the core interests of the state in formulating principles and policies on work related to Taiwan.
Fourth, it is necessary to have the courage and skill to fight against any force that attempts to undermine China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity or stands in the way of its reunification.
Fifth, extensive unity and solidarity must be upheld to mobilize all factors to fight against any force that would divide the country, and pool strengths to advance national reunification.
III. China’s Complete Reunification Is a Process That Cannot Be Halted
Against a backdrop of profound and complex changes in the domestic and international situation, our cause of complete national reunification is facing new challenges. The CPC and the Chinese government have the strength and the confidence to deal with complexities and overcome risks and threats, and the ability to take great strides forward on the path to national reunification.
1. Complete Reunification Is Critical to National Rejuvenation
Throughout China’s 5,000-year history, national reunification and opposition to division have remained a common ideal and a shared tradition of the whole nation. In the modern era from the mid-19th century, due to the aggression of Western powers and the decadence of feudal rule, China was gradually reduced to a semi-feudal, semi-colonial society, and went through a period of suffering worse than anything it had previously known. The country endured intense humiliation, the people were subjected to great pain, and the Chinese civilization was plunged into darkness. Japan’s 50-year occupation of Taiwan epitomized this humiliation and inflicted agony on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. Our two sides face each other just across a strip of water, yet we are still far apart. The fact that we have not yet been reunified is a scar left by history on the Chinese nation. We Chinese on both sides should work together to achieve reunification and heal this wound.
National rejuvenation has been the greatest dream of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation since the modern era began. Only by realizing complete national reunification can the Chinese people on both sides of the Straits cast aside the shadow of civil war and create and enjoy lasting peace. National reunification is the only way to avoid the risk of Taiwan being invaded and occupied again by foreign countries, to foil the attempts of external forces to contain China, and to safeguard the sovereignty, security, and development interests of our country. It is the most effective remedy to secessionist attempts to divide our country, and the best means to consolidate Taiwan’s status as part of China and advance national rejuvenation. It will enable us to pool the strengths of the people on both sides, build our common home, safeguard our interests and wellbeing, and create a brighter future for the Chinese people and the Chinese nation. As Dr Sun Yat-sen, the great pioneer of China’s revolution, once said, „Unification is the hope of all Chinese nationals. If China can be unified, all Chinese will enjoy a happy life; if it cannot, all will suffer.“
In exploring the path to rejuvenation and prosperity, China has endured vicissitudes and hardships. „Unification brings strength while division leads to chaos.“ This is a law of history. The realization of complete national reunification is driven by the history and culture of the Chinese nation and determined by the momentum towards and circumstances surrounding our national rejuvenation. Never before have we been so close to, confident in, and capable of achieving the goal of national rejuvenation. The same is true when it comes to our goal of complete national reunification. The Taiwan question arose as a result of weakness and chaos in our nation, and it will be resolved as national rejuvenation becomes a reality. When all the Chinese people stick together and work together, we will surely succeed in realizing national reunification on our way to national rejuvenation.
2. National Development and Progress Set the Direction of Cross-Straits Relations
China’s development and progress are a key factor determining the course of cross-Straits relations and the realization of complete national reunification. In particular, the great achievements over four decades of reform, opening up and modernization have had a profound impact on the historical process of resolving the Taiwan question and realizing complete national reunification. No matter which political party or group is in power in Taiwan, it cannot alter the course of progress in cross-Straits relations or the trend towards national reunification.
International Monetary Fund statistics show that in 1980 the GDP of the mainland was about US$303 billion, just over 7 times that of Taiwan, which was about US$42.3 billion; in 2021, the GDP of the mainland was about US$17.46 trillion, more than 22 times that of Taiwan, which was about US$790 billion.[5]
China’s development and progress, and in particular the steady increases in its economic power, technological strength, and national defense capabilities, are an effective curb against separatist activities and interference from external forces. They also provide broad space and great opportunities for cross-Straits exchanges and cooperation. As more and more compatriots from Taiwan, especially young people, pursue their studies, start businesses, seek jobs, or go to live on the mainland, cross-Straits exchanges, interaction and integration are intensified in all sectors, the economic ties and personal bonds between the people on both sides run deeper, and our common cultural and national identities grow stronger, leading cross-Straits relations towards reunification.
The CPC has united the Chinese people and led them in embarking on the new journey of building China into a modern socialist country in all respects. Following the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the mainland has improved its governance and maintained long-term economic growth; it enjoys a solid material foundation, a wealth of human resources, a huge market, strong resilience in development, and social stability. It therefore has many strengths and favorable conditions for further development, and these have become the driving force for reunification.
Grounding its effort in the new development stage, the mainland is committed to applying the new development philosophy, creating a new development dynamic, and promoting high-quality development. As a result, the overall strength and international influence of the mainland will continue to increase, and its influence over and appeal to Taiwan society will keep growing. We will have a more solid foundation for resolving the Taiwan question and greater ability to do so. This will give a significant boost to national reunification.
3. Any Attempt by Separatist Forces to Prevent Reunification Is Bound to Fail
Taiwan has been an integral part of China’s territory since ancient times. Moves to separate Taiwan from China represent the serious crime of secession, and undermine the common interests of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits and the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation. They will lead nowhere.
The DPP authorities have adopted a separatist stance, and colluded with external forces in successive provocative actions designed to divide the country. They refuse to recognize the one-China principle, and distort and deny the 1992 Consensus. They assert that Taiwan and the mainland should not be subordinate to each other, and proclaim a new „two states“ theory. On the island, they constantly press for „de-sinicization“ and promote „incremental independence“. They incite radical separatists in and outside the DPP to lobby for amendments to their „constitution“ and „laws“. They deceive the people of Taiwan, incite hostility against the mainland, and obstruct and undermine cross-Straits exchanges, cooperation and integrated development. They have steadily built up their military forces with the intention of pursuing „independence“ and preventing reunification by force. They join with external forces in trying to sow the seeds of „two Chinas“ or „one China, one Taiwan“. The actions of the DPP authorities have resulted in tension in cross-Straits relations, endangering peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits, and undermining the prospects and restricting the space for peaceful reunification. These are obstacles that must be removed in advancing the process of peaceful reunification.
Taiwan belongs to all the Chinese people, including the 23 million Taiwan compatriots. The Chinese people are firm in their resolve and have a deep commitment to safeguarding China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation, and this resolve and commitment will frustrate any attempt to divide the country. When Taiwan was invaded by a foreign power more than 100 years ago, China was a poor and weak country. More than 70 years ago, China defeated the invaders and recovered Taiwan. Today, China has grown into the world’s second largest economy. With significant growth in its political, economic, cultural, technological, and military strength, there is no likelihood that China will allow Taiwan to be separated again. Attempts to reject reunification and split the country are doomed, because they will founder against the history and culture of the Chinese nation as well as the resolve and commitment of more than 1.4 billion Chinese people.
4. External Forces Obstructing China’s Complete Reunification Will Surely Be Defeated
External interference is a prominent obstacle to China’s reunification. Still lost in delusions of hegemony and trapped in a Cold War mindset, some forces in the US insist on perceiving and portraying China as a major strategic adversary and a serious long-term threat. They do their utmost to undermine and pressurize China, exploiting Taiwan as a convenient tool. The US authorities have stated that they remain committed to the one-China policy and that they do not support „Taiwan independence“. But their actions contradict their words. They are clouding the one-China principle in uncertainty and compromising its integrity. They are contriving „official“ exchanges with Taiwan, increasing arms sales, and colluding in military provocation. To help Taiwan expand its „international space“, they are inducing other countries to interfere in Taiwan affairs, and concocting Taiwan-related bills that infringe upon the sovereignty of China. They are creating confusion around what is black and white, right and wrong. On the one hand, they incite separatist forces to create tension and turmoil in cross-Straits relations. On the other hand, they accuse the mainland of coercion, pressurizing Taiwan, and unilaterally changing the status quo, in order to embolden these forces and create obstacles to China’s peaceful reunification.
The important principles of respecting state sovereignty and territorial integrity as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations are the cornerstones of modern international law and basic norms of international relations. It is the sacred right of every sovereign state to safeguard national unity and territorial integrity. It goes without saying that the Chinese government is entitled to take all measures necessary to settle the Taiwan question and achieve national reunification, free of external interference.
Behind the smokescreens of „freedom, democracy, and human rights“ and „upholding the rules-based international order“, some anti-China forces in the US deliberately distort the nature of the Taiwan question – which is purely an internal matter for China – and try to deny the legitimacy and justification of the Chinese government in safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. This clearly reveals their intention of using Taiwan to contain China and obstruct China’s reunification, which should be thoroughly exposed and condemned.
These external forces are using Taiwan as a pawn to undermine China’s development and progress, and obstruct the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. They are doing so at the cost of the interests, wellbeing and future of the people of Taiwan rather than for their benefit. They have encouraged and instigated provocative actions by the separatist forces; these have intensified cross-Straits tension and confrontation, and undermined peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. This runs counter to the underlying global trends of peace, development and win-win cooperation, and goes against the wishes of the international community and the aspiration of all peoples.
Shortly after the PRC was founded, even though the country itself had to be rebuilt on the ruins of decades of war, China and its people won a resounding victory in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea (1950-1953). We defeated a powerful and well-armed enemy through gallantry and tenacity. In doing so, we safeguarded the security of the newly founded People’s Republic, reestablished the status of China as a major country in the world, and demonstrated our heroic spirit, our lack of fear, and our will to stand up against the abuse of the powerful.
China is firmly committed to peaceful development. At the same time, it will not flinch under any external interference, nor will it tolerate any infringement upon its sovereignty, security and development interests. Relying on external forces will achieve nothing for Taiwan’s separatists, and using Taiwan to contain China is doomed to fail.
Tranquility, development and a decent life are the expectations of our Taiwan compatriots, and the common aspiration of those on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. Under the strong leadership of the CPC, the Chinese people and the Chinese nation have stood upright, won prosperity, and grown in strength. A moderately prosperous society in all respects has been built on the mainland, where a large population once lived in dire poverty. We now have better conditions, more confidence, and greater capabilities. We can complete the historic mission of national reunification, so that both sides of the Straits can enjoy a better life. The wheel of history rolls on towards national reunification, and it will not be stopped by any individual or any force.
IV. National Reunification in the New Era
Taking into consideration the overall goal of national rejuvenation in the context of global change on a scale unseen in a century, the CPC and the Chinese government have continued to follow the CPC’s fundamental guidelines on the Taiwan question and implement its principles and policies towards Taiwan, and have made concrete efforts to promote peaceful cross-Straits relations, integrate the development of the two sides, and work towards national reunification.
1. Upholding the Basic Principles of Peaceful Reunification and One Country, Two Systems
National reunification by peaceful means is the first choice of the CPC and the Chinese government in resolving the Taiwan question, as it best serves the interests of the Chinese nation as a whole, including our compatriots in Taiwan, and it works best for the long-term stability and development of China. We have worked hard to overcome hardships and obstacles to peaceful reunification over the past decades, showing that we cherish and safeguard the greater good of the nation, the wellbeing of our compatriots in Taiwan, and peace on both sides.
The One Country, Two Systems principle is an important institutional instrument created by the CPC and the Chinese government to enable peaceful reunification. It represents a great achievement of Chinese socialism. Peaceful reunification and One Country, Two Systems are our basic principles for resolving the Taiwan question and the best approach to realizing national reunification. Embodying the Chinese wisdom – we thrive by embracing each other – they take full account of Taiwan’s realities and are conducive to long-term stability in Taiwan after reunification.
We maintain that after peaceful reunification, Taiwan may continue its current social system and enjoy a high degree of autonomy in accordance with the law. The two social systems will develop side by side for a long time to come. One Country is the precondition and foundation of Two Systems; Two Systems is subordinate to and derives from One Country; and the two are integrated under the one-China principle.
We will continue working with our compatriots in Taiwan to explore a Two Systems solution to the Taiwan question and increase our efforts towards peaceful reunification. In designing the specifics for implementing One Country, Two Systems, we will give full consideration to the realities in Taiwan and the views and proposals from all walks of life on both sides, and fully accommodate the interests and sentiments of our compatriots in Taiwan.
Ever since the One Country, Two Systems principle was proposed, certain political forces have been misrepresenting and distorting its objectives. The DPP and the authorities under its leadership have done everything possible to target the principle with baseless criticisms, and this has led to misunderstandings about its aims in some quarters of Taiwan. It is a fact that since Hong Kong and Macao returned to the motherland and were reincorporated into national governance, they have embarked on a broad path of shared development together with the mainland, and each complements the others‘ strengths. The practice of One Country, Two Systems has been a resounding success.
For a time, Hong Kong faced a period of damaging social unrest caused by anti-China agitators both inside and outside the region. Based on a clear understanding of the situation there, the CPC and the Chinese government upheld the One Country, Two Systems principle, made some appropriate improvements, and took a series of measures that addressed both the symptoms and root causes of the unrest. Order was restored and prosperity returned to Hong Kong. This has laid a solid foundation for the law-based governance of Hong Kong and Macao and the long-term continuation of One Country, Two Systems.
To realize peaceful reunification, we must acknowledge that the mainland and Taiwan have their own distinct social systems and ideologies. The One Country, Two Systems principle is the most inclusive solution to this problem. It is an approach that is grounded in democratic principles, demonstrates good will, seeks peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question, and delivers mutual benefit. The differences in social system are neither an obstacle to reunification nor a justification for secessionism. We firmly believe that our compatriots in Taiwan will develop a better understanding of the principle, and that the Two Systems solution to the Taiwan question will play its full role while compatriots on both sides work together towards peaceful reunification.
Peaceful reunification can only be achieved through consultation and discussion as equals. The long-standing political differences between the two sides are the fundamental obstacles to the steady improvement of cross-Straits relations, but we should not allow this problem to be passed down from one generation to the next. We can phase in flexible forms of consultation and discussion. We are ready to engage with all parties, groups, or individuals in Taiwan in a broad exchange of views aimed at resolving the political differences between the two sides based on the one-China principle and the 1992 Consensus. Representatives will be recommended by all political parties and all sectors of society on both sides, and they will engage in democratic consultations on peaceful development of cross-Straits relations, integrated development of the two sides, and the peaceful reunification of our country.
2. Promoting Peaceful Cross-Straits Relations and Integrated Development
Peaceful cross-Straits relations and integrated development pave the way for reunification and serve to benefit our people on both sides. Thus, both sides should work together towards this goal. We will extend integrated development, increase exchanges and cooperation, strengthen bonds, and expand common interests in the peaceful development of cross-Straits relations. In this way, we will all identify more closely with the Chinese culture and Chinese nation, and heighten the sense of our shared future. This lays solid foundations for peaceful reunification.
We will explore an innovative approach to integrated development and take the lead in setting up a pilot zone for integrated cross-Straits development in Fujian Province, advancing integration through better connectivity and more preferential policies, and based on mutual trust and understanding. Both sides should continue to promote connectivity in any area where it is beneficial, including trade and economic cooperation, infrastructure, energy and resources, and industrial standards. We should promote cooperation in culture, education, and health care, and the sharing of social security and public resources. We should support neighboring areas or areas with similar conditions on the two sides in providing equal, universal, and accessible public services. We should take active steps to institutionalize cross-Straits economic cooperation and create a common market for the two sides to strengthen the Chinese economy.
We will improve the systems and policies to guarantee the wellbeing of Taiwan compatriots and ensure that they are treated as equals on the mainland, and we will protect their legitimate rights and interests here in accordance with the law. We will support our fellow Chinese and enterprises from Taiwan in participating in the Belt and Road Initiative, major regional development strategies, and the strategy for coordinated regional development. We will help them integrate into the new development dynamic, participate in high-quality development, share in more development opportunities, and benefit from national socio-economic development.
We will expand cross-Straits exchanges and cooperation in various fields and overcome any obstacles and obstruction. We will encourage our people on both sides to pass on the best of traditional Chinese culture and ensure that it grows in new and creative ways. We will strengthen communication among the general public and the younger generations on both sides, and encourage more fellow Chinese in Taiwan – young people in particular – to pursue studies, start businesses, seek jobs, or live on the mainland. This will help people on both sides to expand mutual understanding, strengthen mutual trust, consolidate a shared sense of identity, and forge closer bonds of heart and mind.
3. Defeating Separatism and External Interference
Separatism will plunge Taiwan into the abyss and bring nothing but disaster to the island. To protect the interests of the Chinese nation as a whole, including our compatriots in Taiwan, we must resolutely oppose it and work for peaceful reunification. We are ready to create vast space for peaceful reunification; but we will leave no room for separatist activities in any form.
We Chinese will decide our own affairs. The Taiwan question is an internal affair that involves China’s core interests and the Chinese people’s national sentiments, and no external interference will be tolerated. Any attempt to use the Taiwan question as a pretext to interfere in China’s internal affairs or obstruct China’s reunification will meet with the resolute opposition of the Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan. No one should underestimate our resolve, will and ability to defend China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
We will work with the greatest sincerity and exert our utmost efforts to achieve peaceful reunification. But we will not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures. This is to guard against external interference and all separatist activities. In no way does it target our fellow Chinese in Taiwan. Use of force would be the last resort taken under compelling circumstances. We will only be forced to take drastic measures to respond to the provocation of separatist elements or external forces should they ever cross our red lines.
We will always be ready to respond with the use of force or other necessary means to interference by external forces or radical action by separatist elements. Our ultimate goal is to ensure the prospects of China’s peaceful reunification and advance this process.
Some forces in the US are making every effort to incite groups inside Taiwan to stir up trouble and use Taiwan as a pawn against China. This has jeopardized peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits, obstructed the Chinese government’s efforts towards peaceful reunification, and undermined the healthy and steady development of China-US relations. Left unchecked, it will continue to escalate tension across the Straits, further disrupt China-US relations, and severely damage the interests of the US itself. The US should abide by the one-China principle, deal with Taiwan-related issues in a prudent and proper manner, stand by its previous commitments, and stop supporting Taiwan separatists.
4. Working with Our Fellow Chinese in Taiwan Towards National Reunification and Rejuvenation
National reunification is an essential step towards national rejuvenation. The future of Taiwan lies in China’s reunification, and the wellbeing of the people in Taiwan hinges on the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, an endeavor that bears on the future and destiny of the people on both sides. A united and prosperous China will be a blessing for all Chinese, while a weak and divided China will be a disaster. Only China’s rejuvenation and prosperity can bring lives of plenty and happiness to both sides. But it requires the joint efforts of both sides, as does the complete reunification of the country.
Separatist propaganda and the unresolved political dispute between the two sides have created misconceptions over cross-Straits relations, problems with national identity, and misgivings over national reunification among some fellow Chinese in Taiwan. Blood is thicker than water, and people on both sides of the Straits share the bond of kinship. We have great patience and tolerance and we will create conditions for closer exchanges and communication between the two sides, and to increase our compatriots‘ knowledge of the mainland and reduce these misconceptions and misgivings, in order to help them resist the manipulation of separatists.
We will join hands with our fellow Chinese in Taiwan to strive for national reunification and rejuvenation. We hope they will stand on the right side of history, be proud of their Chinese identity, and fully consider the position and role of Taiwan in China’s rejuvenation. We hope they will pursue the greater good of the nation, resolutely oppose separatism and any form of external interference, and make a positive contribution to the just cause of China’s peaceful reunification.
V. Bright Prospects for Peaceful Reunification
Once peaceful reunification is achieved under One Country, Two Systems, it will lay new foundations for China to make further progress and achieve national rejuvenation. At the same time, it will create huge opportunities for social and economic development in Taiwan and bring tangible benefits to the people of Taiwan.
1. Taiwan Will Have a Vast Space for Development
Taiwan boasts a high level of economic growth, industries with distinctive local features, and robust foreign trade. Its economy is highly complementary with that of the mainland. After reunification, the systems and mechanisms for cross-Straits economic cooperation will be further improved. Backed up by the vast mainland market, Taiwan’s economy will enjoy broader prospects, become more competitive, develop steadier and smoother industrial and supply chains, and display greater vitality in innovation-driven growth. Many problems that have long afflicted Taiwan’s economy and its people can be resolved through integrated cross-Straits development with all possible connectivity between the two sides. Taiwan’s fiscal revenues can be better employed to improve living standards, bringing real benefits to the people and resolving their difficulties.
Taiwan’s cultural creativity will also enjoy a great boost. Both sides of the Taiwan Straits share the culture and ethos of the Chinese nation. Nourished by the Chinese civilization, Taiwan’s regional culture will flourish and prosper.
2. The Rights and Interests of the People in Taiwan Will Be Fully Protected
Provided that China’s sovereignty, security and development interests are guaranteed, after reunification Taiwan will enjoy a high degree of autonomy as a special administrative region. Taiwan’s social system and its way of life will be fully respected, and the private property, religious beliefs, and lawful rights and interests of the people in Taiwan will be fully protected. All Taiwan compatriots who support reunification of the country and rejuvenation of the nation will be the masters of the region, contributing to and benefitting from China’s development. With a powerful motherland in support, the people of Taiwan will enjoy greater security and dignity and stand upright and rock-solid in the international community.
3. Both Sides of the Taiwan Straits Will Share the Triumph of National Rejuvenation
The people of Taiwan are brave, diligent and patriotic, and have made unremitting efforts to improve themselves. They revere their ancestry and love their homeland. Working together and applying their talents, people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits will create a promising future. After reunification, we Chinese will bridge gaps and differences caused by long-term separation, share a stronger sense of national identity, and stand together as one. After reunification, we can leverage complementary strengths in pursuit of mutual benefit and common development. After reunification, we can join hands to make the Chinese nation stronger and more prosperous, and stand taller among all the nations of the world.
The people separated by the Taiwan Straits share the same blood and a common destiny. After reunification, China will have greater international influence and appeal, and a stronger ability to shape international public opinion, and the Chinese people will enjoy greater self-esteem, self-confidence and national pride. In Taiwan and on the mainland the people will share the dignity and triumph of a united China and be proud of being Chinese. We will work together to refine and implement the Two Systems solution to the Taiwan question, to improve the institutional arrangements for implementing the One Country, Two Systems policy, and to ensure lasting peace and stability in Taiwan.
4. Peaceful Reunification of China Is Conducive to Peace and Development in the Asia-Pacific and the Wider World
Peaceful cross-Straits reunification is of benefit not only to the Chinese nation, but to all peoples and the international community as a whole. The reunification of China will not harm the legitimate interests of any other country, including any economic interests they might have in Taiwan. On the contrary, it will bring more development opportunities to all countries; it will create more positive momentum for prosperity and stability in the Asia-Pacific and the rest of the world; it will contribute more to building a global community of shared future, promoting world peace and development, and propelling human progress.
After reunification, foreign countries can continue to develop economic and cultural relations with Taiwan. With the approval of the central government of China, they may set up consulates or other official and quasi-official institutions in Taiwan, international organizations and agencies may establish offices, relevant international conventions can be applied, and relevant international conferences can be held there.
Conclusion
Over its 5,000-year history, China has created a splendid culture that has shone throughout the world from past times to present, and has made an enormous contribution to human society. After a century of suffering and hardship, the nation has overcome humiliation, emerged from backwardness, and embraced boundless development opportunities. Now, it is striding towards the goal of national rejuvenation.
Embarking on a new journey in a new era, the CPC and the Chinese government will continue to rally compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits, and lead the efforts to answer the call of the times, shoulder historic responsibilities, grasp our fate and our future in our own hands, and work hard to achieve national reunification and rejuvenation.
The journey ahead cannot be all smooth sailing. However, as long as we Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Straits devote our ingenuity and energy to the same goal, let there be no doubt – we will tolerate no foreign interference in Taiwan, we will thwart any attempt to divide our country, and we will combine as a mighty force for national reunification and rejuvenation. The historic goal of reuniting our motherland must be realized and will be realized.
Notes
[1] United Nations Juridical Yearbook 2010, p. 516.
[2] Between September 4 and 8, 1951, the United States gathered a number of countries in San Francisco for what they described as the San Francisco Peace Conference. Neither the PRC nor the Soviet Union received an invitation. The treaty signed at this meeting, commonly known as the Treaty of San Francisco, included an article under which Japan renounced all rights, title and claim to Taiwan and the Penghu Islands. This treaty contravened the provisions of the Declaration by United Nations signed by 26 countries – including the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and China – in 1942, the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, and the basic norms of international law. The PRC was excluded from its preparation, drafting and signing, and its rulings on the territory and sovereign rights of China – including the sovereignty over Taiwan – are therefore illegal and invalid. The Chinese government has always refused to recognize the Treaty of San Francisco, and has never from the outset deviated from this stance. Other countries, including the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mongolia, and Vietnam, have also refused to recognize the document’s authority.
[3] In his speech titled „Continue to Promote the Reunification of the Motherland“ on January 30, 1995, Jiang Zemin, then general secretary of the CPC Central Committee and president of China, made eight proposals for the development of cross-Straits relations and peaceful national reunification. He emphasized, „Adhering to the one-China principle is the basis and prerequisite for peaceful reunification“, and „in not promising to renounce the use of force, we are in no way targeting our Taiwan compatriots, but rather foreign forces conspiring to interfere in China’s peaceful reunification and bring about Taiwan independence“. (See Selected Works of Jiang Zemin, Vol. I, Eng. ed., Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 2009, pp. 407-412.)
[4] This figure does not include reinvestment by Taiwan investors through a third place.
[5] From the statistics of the April 2022 edition of the World Economic Outlook databases of the International Monetary Fund.
The Economist 16th April 2022 mit Original-Bildunterschrift
Die Weltgeschichte bewegt sich in Wellen – abgetan vor Jahrzehnten als lächerliche These eines verstaubten Historikers – heute so aktuell wie nie zuvor! Auch der in London produzierte ECONOMIST kommt nicht umhin, unterschwellig dieses NARRATIV aus der Mottenkiste herauszukramen.
Das Selbstverständnis des Magazins:
Independent, rigorous and open
The Economist Group pursues progress for individuals, organisations and the world. A leader in analysis, intelligence and influence, we combine local insight with global expertise to advise and inform millions. Our reporting, products and services build the capability to navigate the present and prepare for the future, and reflect our commitment to excellence and independent thought.
Britische, italienische, asiatische Unternehmensgruppen steuern den Kurs des ECONOMIST. Was kann man erwarten? Eine gründliche Suche nach Untiefen, Sandbänken, Sturmzentren im Ozean von Weltwirtschaft und Weltpolitik von morgen und übermorgen?
Außen CHINA, innen die geopolitischen Ängste von Agnelli & Co
Man nähert sich der geopolitischen Wirklichkeit! Die Ausgabe des ECONOMIST vom 16. April verspricht mit dem Titelbild China, zieht den Leser des Magazins auf den inneren Seiten aber doch tiefer in die Gefühlswelt des unsicher schwankenden Börsianers von London, Mailand und Frankfurt.
Da ist sie – die neue Welle der Weltgeschichte – allmählich, aber doch seismisch spürbar die Abkehr bedeutender Gesellschaften und Staaten Asiens, Afrikas, Lateinamerikas vom bisher so dominanten Riesen USA. Politische Erdbebenforscher der Denkfabriken des Westens spürten mit dem erfolgreichen Eingeifen des russischen Militär im syrischen Bürgerkrieg auf der Seite der legitimen Regierung in Damaskus den Beginn einer geopoliischen Wende, sozusagen am Meeresboden das Entstehen einer neuen Welle – die nach 1990 so verlachte, verspottete „Regionalmacht“ Moskau zeigte ihre Zähne. Ein Jahrzehnt später ist hinter den Beschimpfungen und Schmähungen des russischen Präsidenten aus Washington, London etc. die Ohnmacht zu spüren: was haben die militärischen Einsätze in Afghanistan, im Irak, in Afrika, was haben die lauthals so gepriesenen Instrumente der Sanktionen, Geheimdienst-Operationen, Medien-Fakes gebracht außen milliardenschweren Kosten? Man berauscht sich publikumswirksam an UNO-Abstimmungen, sucht aber fieberhaft in den politologischen Zirkeln nach neuen Wegen und Auswegen. Daher die Empfehlun an alle Freunde und Kollegen – studiert die neueste Ausgabe des ECONOMIST !!! Lest zwischen den Zeilen, welche Sorgen sich Agnelli angesichts der neuen Welle der Weltgeschichte macht!
Man spürt,sie denken schon über die Ukraine,über den Verlust ihrer ASOW-Banden hinaus. Sie suchen nach Wegen, wie sie ohne Gesichtsverlust in der POST-Ukraine-Periode die Gipfeltreffen mit PUTIN organisieren können. Man möchte ihnen Erfolg wünschen – als Lektüre für Nostalgiker: Ostrowskis „Wie der Stahl gehärtet wurde“ aus den 30er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts.
Mit solidarischen Grüßen aus Berlin Prenzlauer Berg
ein aktuelles Bild des neofaschistischen Bataillons ASOW
Wer in Deutschland Symbole des Mitgefühls mit den Opfern der ukrainischen Ultra-„Nationalisten“, z.B. der neofaschistischen ASOW-Kämpfer, wird strafrechtlich verfolgt. Wer sich mehrseitig informieren will, hat große Mühe, in der Vielfalt der Print- und TV-Medien etwas Seriöses zu finden. Original-russische Quellen sind im Netz und in den Satelliten-Kanälen gesperrt. In den letzten Wochen konnte man aber doch Kritisches finden – Berichte über das sogenannte ASOW-Bataillon: in der seriösen „Zeit“ (15.März), in der weitgehend unbekannten regionalen „Kreiszeitung“ (31.März) und – überraschenderweise – im französischen Fernsehsender „TV5EUROPE“ (31.März). Die Zahl der Empfänger und der Suchenden dieser Medien in Deutschland kann man an den Fingern abzählende bzw. sind einschlägig bekannte wenige Intellektuelle. Die politischen Köpfe der gegenwärtigen „AMPEL“-Regierungsparteien, auch der „LINKEN“ gehören nicht dazu, sie unterstützen lauthals den ukrainischen Botschafter in Berlin, Andrij Melnyk, bei seinem Bemühen, die Kriegsverbrechen der ASOW-Banden unter den Tisch zu kehren: „Lassen Sie sie in Ruhe“! Auf gut Deutsch – lassen sie in Ruhe morden !!!!
Die ASOW- „War Criminels“
Ich erlaube mir deshalb, die Beiträge in der „Zeit“ und in der „Kreiszeitung“ (mit stillschweigender Erlaubnis der Herausgeber und Verfasser) hier wiederzugeben. Vielleicht trägt das dazu bei, mehr Scheinwerfer-Licht auf die Mordtaten der Neonazis in der Ukraine zu richten.
Der Beitrag in der „ZEIT“
Asow-Regiment Extreme Verteidiger
Das Asow-Regiment kämpft in Mariupol verbissen gegen Russland. Es besteht aus Nationalisten und Rechtsradikalen, in der Vergangenheit soll es Verbrechen begangen haben.
Eine Analyse von Hauke Friederichs 15. März 2022, 7:28 Uhr
Ein maskierter Mann im olivgrünen Kapuzenpullover drückt Patronen in sein Magazin. Vorher tunkt er sie in Schweinefett. Damit, so verkündet das Asow-Regiment, werde gegen die „Kadyrow-Orks“ gekämpft, also gegen paramilitärische Einheiten aus Tschetschenien, die aufseiten Russlands in der Ukraine ins Gefecht ziehen und viele muslimische Milizionäre in ihren Reihen haben. Das Asow-Regiment Will seine Feinde offenbar nicht nur vernichten, sondern sie auch noch demütigen, schließlich gilt das Schwein im Islam als unreines Tier. Das Propagandavideo mit dieser Szene wurde auf vielen ukrainischen Twitter-Accounts geteilt. Das Asow-Regiment unterstützt momentan die ukrainischen Streitkräfte dabei, die hart umkämpfte Hafenstadt Mariupol am Asowschen Meer zu verteidigen; die Einheiten sollen bereits zahlreiche russische Panzer zerstört und Soldaten getötet haben. Das Regiment umfasste vor den heftigen Gefechten um Mariupol gut 2.000 Mann, von denen eine große Zahl ultranationalistisch und rechtsextrem eingestellt ist.
Der russischen Propaganda dienen die uniformierten Rechtsradikalen im Dienst des ukrainischen Staates als vermeintlicher Beleg für die Gesinnung der Regierung in Kiew. Präsident Wladimir Putin hatte den Angriff auf die Ukraine unter anderem mit dem Ziel gerechtfertigt, das Nachbarland „entnazifizieren“ zu wollen. Bereits die Annexion der Krim und den Kampf im Donbass hatte die russische Regierung mit den Untaten der dortigen „faschistischen Junta“ gerechtfertigt.
Jüngst gab der russische Außenminister Sergej Lawrow dem Asow-Regiment die Schuld an einem Militärschlag gegen eine Geburtsklinik in Mariupol. Das Krankenhaus habe dessen Kämpfern als Rückzugsort gedient. Das Regiment kommt auch in den russischen Staatsmedien und in sozialen Netzwerken häufig vor. Die Machthaber im Kreml verbreiten so das Narrativ, die Ukraine sei von Neonazis beherrscht, die einen Vernichtungskampf gegen die russische Minderheit im Land führten. Sie blenden aus, dass bei der jüngsten Wahl in der Ukraine keine rechtsradikale Partei den Sprung ins Parlament geschafft hat. Der ukrainische Präsident Wolodymyr Selenskyj hat jüdische Wurzeln und Familienangehörige im Holocaust verloren. Für neonazistisches Gedankengut hat er nichts übrig. Das Regiment entstand vor acht Jahren als Asow-Bataillon. Der Name verweist auf das Asowsche Meer. Einer der Gründer war Andrej Biletzki, Anführer der neonazistischen Organisationen Sozial-Nationale Versammlung und Patriot der Ukraine. Als Russland 2014 die Krim annektierte und angebliche Separatisten, von denen viele aus dem russischen Geheimdienst FSB kamen, Teile des Donbass besetzten, gründeten sich in der Ukraine zahlreiche Freiwilligenverbände. „SIawa Ukrajini! Herojam slawa!“ Rechtsradikale, die bereits bei Protesten gegen den prorussischen Präsidenten Wiktor Janukowítsch auf dem Euromaidan eine Rolle gespielt hatten, zogen in die Schlacht gegen die „Kommunisten“ aus Moskau. Da sie politisch kaum Bedeutung erlangten, suchten Rechtsextreme durch den bewaffneten Kampf ihren Einfluss in der Ukraine auszuweiten. Das gelang vor allem der Asow-Bewegung, der enge Beziehungen zum früheren Innenminister der Ukraine, Arsen Awakow, nachgesagt werden. Deren Mitglieder inszenierten sich als Landesverteidiger und erlangten ab 2014 durchaus breite gesellschaftliche Anerkennung. So übernahmen viele Ukrainer, auch Politiker und Militärs, Parolen der Rechtsradikalen wie „Slawa Ukrajini! Herojam slawa!“ – „Ruhm der Ukraine! Ruhm den Helden!“. Der Slogan geht auf die Zwanzigerjahre zurück und wurde von Stepan Bandera und seinen Anhängern geprägt. Sie bildeten einen einflussreichen und gewaltbereiten Flügel der Organisation Ukrainischer Nationalisten (OUN), die in der Zwischenkriegszeit für einen unabhängigen ukrainischen Staat kämpften. Die Ultranationalisten verübten Anschläge und sympathisierten mit dem nationalsozialistischen Deutschland. Zwei Kompanien der OUN nahmen an der Seite der Wehrmacht 1941 am
Angriff auf die Sowjetunion teil. Sie waren zudem in Pogrome gegen Juden und Massenmorde involviert. Einen eigenen Staat bekamen die Ukrainer nicht. Das NS-Regime ging gegen die OUN vor und deportierte Bandera in das KZ Sachsenhausen.
Die Kämpfer des Asow-Bataillons wurden bald „schwarze Männchen“ genannt, eine ukrainische Antwort auf die russischen Sondereinheiten, die im Donbass unterwegs waren, zwar Militäruniformen trugen, aber keine Hoheitsabzeichen, und „grüne Männchen“ genannt wurden. Die Asow-Milizionäre kämpften vor allem in Charkiw und Mariupol sowie in der Umgebung der Großstädte gegen diese Gegner.
Der Beitrag in der „Kreiszeitung“:
Das Asow-Bataillon in den Medien – Das Kind beim Namen nennen
Erstellt: 31.03.2022, 11:52 Uhr
Von: Alexander Eser-Ruperti
Das Asow-Bataillon setzt sich vorwiegend aus Rechtsradikalen und Ultranationalisten zusammen. Auch in deutschen Medien findet das oft keine Erwähnung.
Berlin – Es war Andrij Melnyk der nach Berichten der Zeit über das Asow-Regiment zuletzt schrieb „Lassen Sie sie in Ruhe“. Die Botschaft war klar: Der ukrainische Botschafter in Deutschland will keine Kritik am Asow-Bataillon.
Während die Zeit zu Melnyks Unmut ausführlich über die Geisteshaltung der Einheit berichtet hatte, folgen einige deutsche Medien dem Aufruf offensichtlich. Immer wieder finden sich unkritische Berichte über die Struktur.
Unkritische Berichterstattung über das Asow-Bataillon in deutschen Medien: Das Beispiel Maksym Kagal
Besonders deutlich wird der bisweilen unkritische Umgang mit den Kämpfern des Asow-Regiments am Beispiel von Maksym Kagal. Maksym Kagal war Teil des Asow-Bataillons und kam bei der Verteidigung von Mariupol ums Leben.
Verschiedene Medien berichteten darüber, darunter die Welt. Bei ihr findet sich keinerlei Verweis auf den Hintergrund der Einheit. Die Wahrheit ist: Asow besteht überwiegend aus Rechtsradikalen und Nationalisten.
Dass dies keine bloße Behauptung ist, zeigt auch Maksym Kagal. Ein Artikel im Focus ist mit einem Foto Kagals bebildert, auf dem dieser vor einer Asow- Fahne mit schwarzer Sonne steht- einem rechtsradikalen Erkennungsmerkmal.
Die Welt, in deren Artikel es keinen einzigen Verweis auf die Geisteshaltung des Asow-Bataillons gibt, nutzt derweil ein Zitat des Trainers als Zwischenüberschrift – „Eine ehrliche und anständige Person“.
Eine Einordnung sucht sich vergeblich. Ihre Bebilderung hingegen änderte die Welt, ebenfalls ohne Erklärung: Zuvor hatte auch sie ein Bild Kagals mit Schwarzer Sonne genutzt.
Asow-Bataillon im Ukraine-Krieg: Überwiegend Ultranationalisten und Rechtsradikale
Besonders bei der Verteidigung von Mariupol im Ukraine-Krieg spielt das Asow-Bataillon eine Rolle, die Stadt, bei deren Verteidigung auch Maksym Kagal starb.
Die UN-Menschenrechtsorganisation OHCHR hatte dem Regiment in der Vergangenheit bereits die Verübung schwerer Verbrechen, darunter Vergewaltigung und Folter, im Donbass vorgeworfen. Gründungsmitglied der Struktur ist unter anderem Andrej Biletzki: Biletzki selbst ist laut Zeit Führungsfigur der Nazistrukturen „Sozial-Nationale Versammlung“ und „Patriot der Ukraine“.
Die Kontakte von Asow ins Ausland sind kein Geheimnis. Auch in Deutschland, wo Innenministerin Nancy Faeser (SPD) verstärkt gegen Rechtsextremismus vorgehen will, ist das bekannt. Auf eine Anfrage der Linken bestätigte die Bundesregierung Kontakte von Asow zu rechten Strukturen in Deutschland.
Rechte Ideologie ist bei Asow alles andere als eine Randerscheinung – das zeigt auch ein Video: In einem Propaganda-Clip tunken Asow-Mitglieder ihre Kugeln in Schweinefett. Dabei erklären sie, man wolle damit gegen
tschetschenische Einheiten aufseiten Russlands kämpfen – von ihnen sind viele Muslime.
Das Asow-Bataillon: Melnyks „mutige Kämpfer“ oder ein Rechtsradikaler als „ehrliche und anständige Person“
Man stelle sich vor, ähnliche Texte wie zu Maksym Kagal gäbe es in großen deutschen Medien über hiesige Rechtsradikale – zu denen das Asow-Bataillon ebenso blendende Kontakte unterhält. Texte, in denen nicht auf die Geisteshaltung einer ultranationalistischen und in großen Teilen rechtsradikalen Struktur aufmerksam gemacht wird, dafür aber nahestehende Personen eines Mitglieds mit Äußerungen über „eine ehrliche und anständige Person“ zitiert werden. All das unkommentiert. Die Verärgerung wäre zu Recht groß.
Die Tatsache, dass es sich um eine ausländische Organisation handelt, die bei der Verteidigung gegen den Angriffskrieg Russlands unter Wladimir Putin eine Rolle spielt, ändert nichts an ihrer Geisteshaltung. Es gibt zu denken, wenn sich der ukrainische Botschafter in Deutschland jeglicher Kritik an einer Einheit wie dem Asow-Regiment pauschal verwehrt und von „mutigen Kämpfern“ spricht. Mindestens genauso erschreckend ist es, wenn deutsche Medien der Aufforderung nach unkritischer Berichterstattung über eine ultranationalistische Struktur tatsächlich entsprechen.
(* kreiszeitung.de ist ein Angebot von IPPEN.MEDIA.)
Für dienigen unter den Lesern, die sich nicht abschrecken lassen, Originaltexte aus dem Moskauer Kreml aus dem Jahre 2021 zu lesen, hier eine Kostprobe – damals noch im Netz, heute GESPERRT !!!
”0n the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“
July 12, 2021 17:00
During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people — a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what l have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe. I therefore feel it necessary to explain my position in detail and share my assessments of today’s situation.
First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the consequences of our own mistakes made at different periods of time. But these are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply has been known from time immemorial — divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people, the overarching goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one another.
To have a better understanding of the present and look into the future, we need to turn to history. Certainly, it is impossible to cover in this article all the developments that have taken place over more than a thousand years. But l will focus on the key, pivotal moments that are important for us to remember, both in Russia and Ukraine.
Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and other tribes across the vast territory – from Ladoga, Novgorod, and Pskov to Kiev and Chernigov — were bound together by one language (which we now refer to as Old Russian), economic ties, the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, and — after the baptism of Rus — the Orthodox faith. The spiritual choice made by St. Vladimir, who was both Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev, still largely determines our affinity today.
The throne of Kiev held a dominant position in Ancient Rus. This had been the custom since the late 9th century. The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, „Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.“
Later, like other European states of that time, Ancient Rus faced a decline of central rule and fragmentation. At the same time, both the nobility and the common people perceived Rus as a common territory, as their homeland.
The fragmentation intensified after Batu Khan’s devastating invasion, which ravaged many cities, including Kiev. The northeastern part of Rus fell under the control of the Golden Horde but retained limited sovereignty. The southern and western Russian lands largely became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which — most significantly — was referred to in historical records as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia.
Members of the princely and ”boyar“ clans would change service from one prince to another, feuding with each other but also making friendships and alliances. Voivode Bobrok of Volyn and the sons of Grand Duke of Lithuania Algirdas — Andrey of Polotsk and Dmitry of Bryansk — fought next to Grand Duke Dmitry lvanovich of Moscow on the Kulikovo field. At the same time, Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila — son of the Princess of Tver — led his troops to join with Mamai. These are all pages of our shared history, reflecting its complex and multi-dimensional nature.
Most importantly, people both in the western and eastern Russian lands spoke the same language. Their faith was Orthodox. Up to the middle of the 15th century, the unified church government remained in place.
At a new stage of historical development, both Lithuanian Rus and Moscow Rus could have become the points of attraction and consolidation of the territories of Ancient Rus. lt so happened that Moscow became the center of reunification, continuing the tradition of ancient Russian statehood. Moscow princes — the descendants of Prince Alexander Nevsky — cast off the foreign yoke and began gathering the Russian lands.
In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, other processes were unfolding. ln the 14th century, Lithuania’s ruling elite converted to Catholicism. In the 16th century, it signed the Union of Lublin with the Kingdom of Poland to form the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Polish Catholic nobility received considerable land holdings and privileges in the territory of Rus. In accordance with the 1596 Union of Brest, part of the western Russian Orthodox clergy submitted to the authority of the Pope. The process of Polonization and Latinization began, ousting Orthodoxy.
As a consequence, in the 16—17th centuries, the liberation movement of the Orthodox population was gaining strength in the Dnieper region. The events during the times of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky became a turning point. His supporters struggled for autonomy from the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth.
ln its 1649 appeal to the king of the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Zaporizhian Host demanded that the rights of the Russian Orthodox population be respected, that the voivode of Kiev be Russian and of Greek faith, and that the persecution of the churches of God be stopped. But the Cossacks were not heard.
Bohdan Khmelnytsky then made appeals to Moscow, which were considered by the Zemsky Sobor. On 1 October 1653, members of the supreme representative body of the Russian state decided to support their brothers in faith and take them under patronage. ln January 1654, the Pereyaslav Council confirmed that decision. Subsequently, the ambassadors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Moscow visited dozens of cities, including Kiev, whose populations swore allegiance to the Russian tsar. Incidentally, nothing of the kind happened at the conclusion of the Union of Lublin.
In a letter to Moscow in 1654, Bohdan Khmelnytsky thanked Tsar Aleksey Mikhaylovich for taking „the whole Zaporizhian Host and the whole Russian Orthodox world under the strong and high hand of the Tsar“. lt means that, in their appeals to both the Polish king and the Russian tsar, the Cossacks referred to and defined themselves as Russian Orthodox people.
Over the course of the protracted war between the Russian state and the Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth, some of the hetmans, successors of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, would „detach themselves“ from Moscow or seek support from Sweden, Poland, or Turkey. But, again, for the people, that was a war of liberation. It ended with the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667. The final outcome was sealed by the Treaty of Perpetual Peace in 1686. The Russian state incorporated the city of Kiev and the lands on the left bank of the Dnieper River, including Poltava region, Chernigov region, and Zaporozhye. Their inhabitants were reunited with the main part of the Russian Orthodox people. These territories were referred to as ”Malorossia“ (Little Russia).
The name „Ukraine“ was used more often in the meaning of the Old Russian word ”okraina“ (periphery), which is found in written sources from the 12th century, referring to various border territories. And the word „Ukrainian“, judging by archival documents, originally referred to frontier guards who protected the external borders.
On the right bank, which remained under the Polish—Lithuanian Commonwealth, the old orders were restored, and social and religious oppression intensified. On the contrary, the lands on the left bank, taken under the protection of the unified state, saw rapid development. People from the other bank of the Dnieper moved here en masse. They sought support from people who spoke the same language and had the same faith.
During the Great Northern War with Sweden, the people in Malorossia were not faced with a choice of whom to side with. Only a small portion of the Cossacks supported Mazepa’s rebellion. People of all orders and degrees considered themselves Russian and Orthodox.
Cossack senior officers belonging to the nobility would reach the heights of political, diplomatic, and military careers in Russia. Graduates of Kiev-Mohyla Academy played a leading role in church life. This was also the case during the Hetmanate — an essentially autonomous state formation with a special internal structure — and later in the Russian Empire. Malorussians in many ways helped build a big common country — its statehood, culture, and science. They participated in the exploration and development of the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, and the Far East. Incidentally, during the Soviet period, natives of Ukraine held major, including the highest, posts in the leadership of the unified state. Suffice it to say that Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev, whose party biography was most closely associated with Ukraine, led the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) for almost 30 years.
In the second half of the 18th century, following the wars with the Ottoman Empire, Russia incorporated Crimea and the lands of the Black Sea region, which became known as Novorossiya. They were populated by people from all of the Russian provinces. After the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire regained the western Old Russian lands, with the exception of Galicia and Transcarpathia, which became part of the Austrian — and later Austro-Hungarian — Empire.
The incorporation of the western Russian lands into the single state was not merely the result of political and diplomatic decisions. it was underlain by the common faith, shared cultural traditions, and — I would like to emphasize it once again — language similarity. Thus, as early as the beginning of the 17th century, one of the hierarchs of the Uniate Church, Joseph Rutsky, communicated to Rome that people in Moscovia called Russians from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth their brothers, that their written language was absolutely identical, and differences in the vernacular were insignificant. He drew an analogy with the residents of Rome and Bergamo. These are, as we know, the center and the north of modern Italy.
Many centuries of fragmentation and living within different states naturally brought about regional language peculiarities, resulting in the emergence of dialects. The vernacular enriched the literary language. Ivan Kotlyarevsky, Grigory Skovoroda, and Taras Shevchenko played a huge role here. Their works are our common literary and cultural heritage.
Taras Shevchenko wrote poetry in the Ukrainian language, and prose mainly in Russian. The books of Nikolay Gogol, a Russian patriot and native of Poltavshchyna, are written in Russian, bristling with Malorussian folk sayings and motifs. How can this heritage be divided between Russia and Ukraine? And why do it? The south-western lands of the Russian Empire, Malorussia and Novorossiya, and the Crimea developed as ethnically and religiously diverse entities. Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Karaites, Krymchaks, Bulgarians, Poles, Serbs, Germans, and other peoples lived here. They all preserved their faith, traditions, and customs.
I am not going to idealise anything. We do know there were the Valuev Circular of 1863 an then the Ems Ukaz of 1876, which restricted the publication and importation of religious and socio-political literature in the Ukrainian language. But it is important to be mindful of the historical context. These decisions were taken against the backdrop of dramatic events in Poland and the desire of the leaders of the Polish national movement to exploit the „Ukrainian issue“ to their own advantage. I should add that works of fiction, books of Ukrainian poetry and folk songs continued to be published. There is objective evidence that the Russian Empire was witnessing an active process of development of the Malorussian cultural identity within the greater Russian nation, which united the Velikorussians, the Malorussians and the Belorussians.
At the same time, the idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians started to form and gain ground among the Polish elite and a part of the Malorussian intelligentsia. Since there was no historical basis — and could not have been any, conclusions were substantiated by all sorts of concoctions, which went as far as to claim that the Ukrainians are the true Slavs and the Russians, the Muscovites, are not. Such „hypotheses“ became increasingly used for political purposes as a tool of rivalry between European states.
Since the late 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian authorities had latched onto this narrative, using it as a counterbalance to the Polish national movement and pro-Muscovite sentiments in Galicia. During World War l, Vienna played a role in the formation of the so-called Legion of Ukrainian Sich Riflemen. Galicians suspected of sympathies with Orthodox Christianity and Russia were subjected to brutal repression and thrown into the concentration camps of Thalerhof and Terezin.
Further developments had to do with the collapse of European empires, the fierce civil war that broke out across the vast territory of the former Russian Empire, and foreign intervention.
After the February Revolution, in March 1917, the Central Rada was established in Kiev, intended to become the organ of supreme power. ln November 1917, in its Third Universal, it declared the creation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) as part of Russia.
ln December 1917, UPR representatives arrived in Brest-Litovsk, where Soviet Russia was negotiating with Germany and its allies. At a meeting on 10 January 1918, the head of the Ukrainian delegation read out a note proclaiming the independence of Ukraine. Subsequently, the Central Rada proclaimed Ukraine independent in its Fourth Universal.
The declared sovereignty did not last long. Just a few weeks later, Rada delegates signed a separate treaty with the German bloc countries. Germany and Austria-Hungary were at the time in a dire situation and needed Ukrainian bread and raw materials. In order to secure large-scale supplies, they obtained consent for sending their troops and technical staff to the UPR. In fact, this was used as a pretext for occupation.
For those who have today given up the full control of Ukraine to external forces, it would be instructive to remember that, back in 1918, such a decision proved fatal for the ruling regime in Kiev. With the direct involvement of the occupying forces, the Central Rada was overthrown and Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi was brought to power, proclaiming instead of the UPR the Ukrainian State, which was essentially under German protectorate.
ln November 1918 — following the revolutionary events in Germany and Austria-Hungary — Pavlo Skoropadskyi, who had lost the support of German bayonets, took a different course, declaring that „Ukraine is to take the lead in the formation of an All-Russian Federation“. However, the regime was soon changed again. lt was now the time of the so-called Directorate.
ln autumn 1918, Ukrainian nationalists proclaimed the West Ukrainian People’s Republic (WUPR) and, in January 1919, announced its unification with the Ukrainian People’s Republic. In July 1919, Ukrainian forces were crushed by Polish troops, and the territory of the former WUPR came under the Polish rule.
In April 1920, Symon Petliura (portrayed as one of the „heroes“ in today’s Ukraine) concluded secret conventions on behalf of the UPR Directorate, giving up — in exchange for military support – Galicia and Western Volhynia lands to Poland. In May 1920, Petliurites entered Kiev in a convoy of Polish military units. But not for long. As early as November 1920, following a truce between Poland and Soviet Russia, the remnants of Petliura’s forces surrendered to those same Poles.
The example of the UPR shows that different kinds of quasi-state formations that emerged across the former Russian Empire at the time of the Civil War and turbulence were inherently unstable. Nationalists sought to create their own independent states, while leaders of the White movement advocated indivisible Russia. Many of the republics established by the Bolsheviks‘ supporters did not see themselves outside Russia either. Nevertheless, Bolshevik Party leaders sometimes basically drove them out of Soviet Russia for various reasons.
Thus, in early 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic was proclaimed and asked Moscow to incorporate it into Soviet Russia. This was met with a refusal. During a meeting with the republic’s leaders, Vladimir Lenin insisted that they act as part of Soviet Ukraine. On 15 March 1918, the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) directly ordered that delegates be sent to the Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, including from the Donetsk Basin, and that „one government for all of Ukraine“ be created at the congress. The territories of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic later formed most of the regions of south-eastern Ukraine.
Under the 1921 Treaty of Riga, concluded between the Russian SFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and Poland, the western lands of the former Russian Empire were ceded to Poland. In the interwar period, the Polish government pursued an active resettlement policy, seeking to change the ethnic composition of the Eastern Borderlands — the Polish name for what is now Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and parts of Lithuania. The areas were subjected to harsh Polonisation, local culture and traditions suppressed. Later, during World War ll, radical groups of Ukrainian nationalists used this as a pretext for terror not only against Polish, but also against Jewish and Russian populations.
In 1922, when the USSR was created, with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic becoming one of its founders, a rather fierce debate among the Bolshevik leaders resulted in the implementation of Lenin’s plan to form a union state as a federation of equal republics. The right for the republics to freely secede from the Union was included in the text of the Declaration on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, subsequently, in the 1924 USSR Constitution. By doing so, the authors planted in the foundation of our statehood the most dangerous time bomb, which exploded the moment the safety mechanism provided by the leading role of the CPSU was gone, the party itself collapsing from within. A „parade of sovereignties“ followed. On 8 December 1991, the so-called Belovezh Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed, stating that „the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer existed.“ By the way, Ukraine never signed or ratified the ClS Charter adopted back in 1993.
In the 1920’s-1930’s, the Bolsheviks actively promoted the ”localization policy“, which took the form of Ukrainization in the Ukrainian SSR. Symbolically, as part of this policy and with consent of the Soviet authorities, Mikhail Grushevskiy, former chairman of Central Rada, one of the ideologists of Ukrainian nationalism, who at a certain period of time had been supported by Austria-Hungary, was returned to the USSR and was elected member of the Academy of Sciences.
The localization policy undoubtedly played a major role in the development and consolidation of the Ukrainian culture, language and identity. At the same time, under the guise of combating the so-called Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians. This Soviet national policy secured at the state level the provision on three separate Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian, instead of the large Russian nation, a triune people comprising Velikorussians, Malorussians and Belorussians.
In 1939, the USSR regained the lands earlier seized by Poland. A major portion of these became part of the Soviet Ukraine. In 1940, the Ukrainian SSR incorporated part of Bessarabia, which had been occupied by Romania since 1918, as well as Northern Bukovina. In 1948, Zmeyiniy Island (Snake Island) in the Black Sea became part of Ukraine. In 1954, the Crimean Region of the RSFSR was given to the Ukrainian SSR, in gross violation of legal norms that were in force at the time.
I would like to dwell on the destiny of Carpathian Ruthenia, which became part of Czechoslovakia following the breakup of Austria-Hungary. Rusins made up a considerable share of local population. While this is hardly mentioned any longer, after the liberation of Transcarpathia by Soviet troops the congress of the Orthodox population of the region voted for the inclusion of Carpathian Ruthenia in the RSFSR or, as a separate Carpathian republic, in the USSR proper. Yet the choice of people was ignored. In summer 1945, the historical act of the reunification of Carpathian Ukraine „with its ancient motherland, Ukraine“ — as The Pravda newspaper put it – was announced.
Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped — for a significant part — on the lands of historical Russia. To make sure of that, it is enough to look at the boundaries of the lands reunited with the Russian state in the 17th century and the territory of the Ukrainian SSR when it left the Soviet Union.
The Bolsheviks treated the Russian people as inexhaustible material for their social experiments. They dreamt of a world revolution that would wipe out national states. That is why they were so generous in drawing borders and bestowing territorial gifts. lt is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the country into pieces was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.
When working on this article, l relied on open-source documents that contain well-known facts rather than on some secret records. The leaders of modern Ukraine and their external „patrons“ prefer to overlook these facts. They do not miss a chance, however, both inside the country and abroad, to condemn ”the crimes of the Soviet regime,“ listing among them events with which neither the CPSU, nor the USSR, let alone modern Russia, have anything to do. At the same time, the Bolsheviks‘ efforts to detach from Russia its historical territories are not considered a crime. And we know why: if they brought about the weakening of Russia, our ill-wishes are happy with that.
Of course, inside the USSR, borders between republics were never seen as state borders; they were nominal within a single country, which, while featuring all the attributes of a federation, was highly centralized – this, again, was secured by the CPSU’s leading role. But in 1991, all those territories, and, which is more important, people, found themselves abroad overnight, taken away, this time indeed, from their historical motherland.
What can be said to this? Things change: countries and communities are no exception. Of course, some part of a people in the process of its development, influenced by a number of reasons and historical circumstances, can become aware of itself as a separate nation at a certain moment. How should we treat that? There is only one answer: with respect!
You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome! But what are the terms? l will recall the assessment given by one of the most prominent political figures of new Russia, first mayor of Saint Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak. As a legal expert who believed that every decision must be legitimate, in 1992, he shared the following opinion: the republics that were founders of the Union, having denounced the 1922 Union Treaty, must return to the boundaries they had had before joining the Soviet Union. All other territorial acquisitions are subject to discussion, negotiations, given that the ground has been revoked.
In other words, when you leave, take what you brought with you. This logic is hard to refute. I will just say that the Bolsheviks had embarked on reshaping boundaries even before the Soviet Union, manipulating with territories to their liking, in disregard of people’s views.
The Russian Federation recognized the new geopolitical realities: and not only recognized, but, indeed, did a lot for Ukraine to establish itself as an independent country. Throughout the difficult 1990’s and in the new millennium, we have provided considerable support to Ukraine. Whatever „political arithmetic“ of its own Kiev may wish to apply, in 1991- 2013, Ukraine’s budget savings amounted to more than USD 82 billion, while today, it holds on to the mere USD 1.5 billion of Russian payments for gas transit to Europe. If economic ties between our countries had been retained, Ukraine would enjoy the benefit of tens of billions of dollars.
Ukraine and Russia have developed as a single economic system over decades and centuries. The profound cooperation we had 30 years ago is an example for the European Union to look up to. We are natural complementary economic partners. Such a close relationship can strengthen competitive advantages, increasing the potential of both countries.
Ukraine used to possess great potential, which included powerful infrastructure, gas transportation system, advanced shipbuilding, aviation, rocket and instrument engineering industries, as well as world-class scientific, design and engineering schools. Taking over this legacy and declaring independence, Ukrainian leaders promised that the Ukrainian economy would be one of the leading ones and the standard of living would be among the best in Europe.
Today, high-tech industrial giants that were once the pride of Ukraine and the entire Union, are sinking. Engineering output has dropped by 42 per cent over ten years. The scale of deindustrialization and overall economic degradation is visible in Ukraine’s electricity production, which has seen a nearly two-time decrease in 30 years. Finally, according to IMF reports, in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic broke out, Ukraine’s GDP per capita had been below USD 4 thousand. This is less than in the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Moldova, or unrecognized Kosovo. Nowadays, Ukraine is Europe’s poorest country.
Who is to blame for this? ls it the people of Ukraine’s fault? Certainly not. It was the Ukrainian authorities who waisted and frittered away the achievements of many generations. We know how hardworking and talented the people of Ukraine are. They can achieve success and outstanding results with perseverance and determination. And these qualities, as well as their openness, innate optimism and hospitality have not gone. The feelings of millions of people who treat Russia not just well but with great affection, just as we feel about Ukraine, remain the same.
Until 2014, hundreds of agreements and joint projects were aimed at developing our economies, business and cultural ties, strengthening security, and solving common social and environmental problems. They brought tangible benefits to people — both in Russia and Ukraine. This is what we believed to be most important. And that is why we had a fruitful interaction with all, l emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine.
Even after the events in Kiev of 2014, l charged the Russian government to elaborate options for preserving and maintaining our economic ties within relevant ministries and agencies. However, there was and is still no mutual will to do the same. Nevertheless, Russia is still one of Ukraine’s top three trading partners, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support. So that what the „aggressor state“ is.
When the USSR collapsed, many people in Russia and Ukraine sincerely believed and assumed that our close cultural, spiritual and economic ties would certainly last, as would the commonality of our people, who had always had a sense of unity at their core. However, events — at first gradually, and then more rapidly — started to move in a different direction.
In essence, Ukraine’s ruling circles decided to justify their country’s independence through the denial of its past, however, except for border issues. They began to mythologize and rewrite history, edit out everything that united us, and refer to the period when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as an occupation. The common tragedy of collectivization and famine of the early 1930s was portrayed as the genocide of the Ukrainian people.
Radicals and neo-Nazis were open and more and more insolent about their ambitions. They were indulged by both the official authorities and local oligarchs, who robbed the people of Ukraine and kept their stolen money in Western banks, ready to sell their motherland for the sake of preserving their capital. To this should be added the persistent weakness of state institutions and the position of a willing hostage to someone else’s geopolitical will.
I recall that long ago, well before 2014, the U.S. and EU countries systematically and consistently pushed Ukraine to curtail and limit economic cooperation with Russia. We, as the largest trade and economic partner of Ukraine, suggested discussing the emerging problems in the Ukraine-Russia-EU format. But every time we were told that Russia had nothing to do with it and that the issue concerned only the EU and Ukraine. De facto Western countries rejected Russia’s repeated calls for dialogue.
Step by step, Ukraine was dragged into a dangerous geopolitical game aimed at turning Ukraine into a barrier between Europe and Russia, a springboard against Russia. inevitably, there came a time when the concept of „Ukraine is not Russia“ was no longer an option. There was a need for the ”anti-Russia“ concept which we will never accept.
The owners of this project took as a basis the old groundwork of the Polish-Austrian ideologists to create an ”anti-Moscow Russia“. And there is no need to deceive anyone that this is being done in the interests of the people of Ukraine. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth never needed Ukrainian culture, much less Cossack autonomy. In Austria-Hungary, historical Russian lands were mercilessly exploited and remained the poorest. The Nazis, abetted by collaborators from the OUN-UPA, did not need Ukraine, but a living space and slaves for Aryan overlords.
Nor were the interests of the Ukrainian people thought of in February 2014. The legitimate public discontent, caused by acute socio-economic problems, mistakes, and inconsistent actions of the authorities of the time, was simply cynically exploited. Western countries directly interfered in Ukraine’s internal affairs and supported the coup. Radical nationalist groups served as its battering ram. Their slogans, ideology, and blatant aggressive Russophobia have to a large extent become defining elements of state policy in Ukraine.
All the things that united us and bring us together so far came under attack. First and foremost, the Russian language. Let me remind you that the new „Maidan“ authorities first tried to repeal the law on state language policy. Then there was the law on the „purification of power“, the law on education that virtually cut the Russian language out of the educational process.
Lastly, as early as May of this year, the current president introduced a bill on „indigenous peoples“ to the Rada. Only those who constitute an ethnic minority and do not have their own state entity outside Ukraine are recognized as indigenous. The law has been passed. New seeds of discord have been sown. And this is happening in a country, as I have already noted, that is very complex in terms of its territorial, national and linguistic composition, and its history of formation.
There may be an argument: if you are talking about a single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who people consider themselves to be — Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians. I completely agree with this. Especially since the determination of nationality, particularly in mixed families, is the right of every individual, free to make his or her own choice.
But the fact is that the situation in Ukraine today is completely different because it involves a forced change of identity. And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors but also to believe that Russia is their enemy. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the path of forced assimilation, the formation of an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia, is comparable in its consequences to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us. As a result of such a harsh and artificial division of Russians and Ukrainians, the Russian people in all may decrease by hundreds of thousands or even millions.
Our spiritual unity has also been attacked. As in the days of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a new ecclesiastical has been initiated. The secular authorities, making no secret of their political aims, have blatantly interfered in church life and brought things to a split, to the seizure of churches, the beating of priests and monks. Even extensive autonomy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church while maintaining spiritual unity with the Moscow Patriarchate strongly displeases them. They have to destroy this prominent and centuries-old symbol of our kinship at all costs.
I think it is also natural that the representatives of Ukraine over and over again vote against the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism. Marches and torchlit processions in honor of remaining war criminals from the SS units take place under the protection of the official authorities. Mazepa, who betrayed everyone, Petliura, who paid for Polish patronage with Ukrainian lands, and Bandera, who collaborated with the Nazis, are ranked as national heroes. Everything is being done to erase from the memory of young generations the names of genuine patriots and victors, who have always been the pride of Ukraine.
For the Ukrainians who fought in the Red Army, in partisan units, the Great Patriotic War was indeed a patriotic war because they were defending their home, their great common Motherland. Over two thousand soldiers became Heroes of the Soviet Union. Among them are legendary pilot lvan Kozhedub, fearless sniper, defender of Odessa and Sevastopol Lyudmila Pavlichenko, valiant guerrilla commander Sidor Kovpak. This indomitable generation fought, those people gave their lives for our future, for us. To forget their feat is to betray our grandfathers, mothers and fathers.
The anti-Russia project has been rejected by millions of Ukrainians. The people of Crimea and residents of Sevastopol made their historic choice. And people in the southeast peacefully tried to defend their stance. Yet, all of them, including children, were labeled as separatists and terrorists. They were threatened with ethnic cleansing and the use of military force. And the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk took up arms to defend their home, their language and their lives. Were they left any other choice after the riots that swept through the cities of Ukraine, after the horror and tragedy of 2 May 2014 in Odessa where Ukrainian neo-Nazis burned people alive making a new Khatyn out of it? The same massacre was ready to be carried out by the followers of Bandera in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Lugansk. Even now they do not abandon such plans. They are biding their time. But their time will not come.
The coup d’état and the subsequent actions of the Kiev authorities inevitably provoked confrontation and civil war. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that the total number of victims in the conflict in Donbas has exceeded 13,000. Among them are the elderly and children. These are terrible, irreparable losses.
Russia has done everything to stop fratricide. The Minsk agreements aimed at a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donbas have been concluded. I am convinced that they still have no alternative. In any case, no one has withdrawn their signatures from the Minsk Package of Measures or from the relevant statements by the leaders of the Normandy format countries. No one has initiated a review of the United Nations Security Council resolution of 17 February 2015.
During official negotiations, especially after being reined in by Western partners, Ukraine’s representatives regularly declare their „full adherence“ to the Minsk agreements, but are in fact guided by a position of „unacceptability“. They do not intend to seriously discuss either the special status of Donbas or safeguards for the people living there. They prefer to exploit the image of the „victim of external aggression“ and peddle Russophobia. They arrange bloody provocations in Donbas. In short, they attract the attention of external patrons and masters by all means.
Apparently, and l am becoming more and more convinced of this: Kiev simply does not need Donbas. Why? Because, firstly, the inhabitants of these regions will never accept the order that they have tried and are trying to impose by force, blockade and threats. And secondly, the outcome of both Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 which give a real chance to peacefully restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by coming to an agreement directly with the DPR and LPR with Russia, Germany and France as mediators, contradicts the entire logic of the anti-Russia project. And it can only be sustained by the constant cultivation of the image of an internal and external enemy. And I would add — under the protection and control of the Western powers.
This is what is actually happening. First of all, we are facing the creation of a climate of fear in Ukrainian society, aggressive rhetoric, indulging neo-Nazis and militarising the country. Along with that we are witnessing not just complete dependence but direct external control, including the supervision of the Ukrainian authorities, security services and armed forces by foreign advisers, military „development“ of the territory of Ukraine and deployment of NATO infrastructure. It is no coincidence that the aforementioned flagrant law on „indigenous peoples“ was adopted under the cover of large-scale NATO exercises in Ukraine.
This is also a disguise for the takeover of the rest of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources. The sale of agricultural land is not far off, and it is obvious who will buy it up. From time to time, Ukraine is indeed given financial resources and loans, but under their own conditions and pursuing their own interests, with preferences and benefits for Western companies. By the way, who will pay these debts back? Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today’s generation of Ukrainians but also by their children, grandchildren and probably great-grandchildren.
The Western authors of the anti-Russia project set up the Ukrainian political system in such a way that presidents, members of parliament and ministers would change but the attitude of separation from and enmity with Russia would remain. Reaching peace was the main election slogan of the incumbent president. He came to power with this. The promises turned out to be lies. Nothing has changed. And in some ways the situation in Ukraine and around Donbas has even degenerated.
In the anti-Russia project, there is no place either for a sovereign Ukraine or for the political forces that are trying to defend its real independence. Those who talk about reconciliation in Ukrainian society, about dialogue, about finding a way out of the current impasse are labelled as „pro-Russian“ agents.
Again, for many people in Ukraine, the anti-Russia project is simply unacceptable. And there are millions of such people. But they are not allowed to raise their heads. They have had their legal opportunity to defend their point of view in fact taken away from them. They are intimidated, driven underground. Not only are they persecuted for their convictions, for the spoken word, for the open expression of their position, but they are also killed. Murderers, as a rule, go unpunished.
Today, the ”right“ patriot of Ukraine is only the one who hates Russia. Moreover, the entire Ukrainian statehood, as we understand it, is proposed to be further built exclusively on this idea. Hate and anger, as world history has repeatedly proved this, are a very shaky foundation for sovereignty, fraught with many serious risks and dire consequences.
All the subterfuges associated with the anti-Russia project are clear to us. And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.
The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.
Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else’s, and is not a tool in someone else’s hands to fight against us.
We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians‘ desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous.
l am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.
Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be „anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be — it is up to its citizens to decide.
Publication status
Published in sections: News, Transcripts
Publication date: July 12, 2021, 17:00
Direct link: en.kremlin.ru/d/66181
Mit solidarischen Grüßen vom Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin, Dr. Dieter Weigert,
1. April 2022 (Vorsicht, kein April-Scherz, dazu sind die Zeiten zu ernst)
618
FOBI Lilienstern 