Помня Прошлое, Созидая Будущее, Жить Настоящим!

Помня Прошлое, Созидая Будущее, Жить Настоящим!

Традиция - Революция - Интеграция

Вы, Старшие, позвавшие меня на путь труда, примите мое умение и желание, примите мой труд и учите меня среди дня и среди ночи. Дайте мне руку помощи, ибо труден путь. Я пойду за вами!

Наши корни
: Белое Дело (РОВС / РОА - НТС / ВСХСОН), Интегральный национализм (УВО / УПА - ОУН / УНСО), Фалангизм (FET y de las JONS / FN), Консервативная революция (AF / MSI / AN / ELP / PyL)
Наше сегодня: Солидаризм - Традиционализм - Национальная Революция
Наше будущее: Археократия - Энархизм - Интеграция

18 июн. 2013 г.

Sergiy Chaplygin: Ukraine: Phantom of Independence

Sergiy Chaplygin, Comandante en Jefe de Gabinete de Falange Nacional (Ukraina)  

On August 24th, 1991, Ukraine was proclaimed an independent state. Independence, however, was received not by the Ukrainian nation, but by the colonial government. Announcing independence was an act of victory by the colonial administration over the national-liberation movement. The colonial government didn't want to make Ukraine the successor of the liberation campaign of the Ukrainian people. The legal system in Ukraine was created by copying whatever was in Russia and by taking separate norms from western countries. Absolutely no account of the traditions and customs of the Ukrainian people was taken into account. The moral laws of the Ukrainian people were completely ignored. A state completely separate from the people was created.

Despite internal contradictions, the proclamation of independence on August 24th was undoubtedly a positive step towards independence. The December 1st referendum official gave state independence and a president was chosen, whose job it was to defend the sovereignty of the state.

The colonial administration, upon announcing independence, had no intent to listen to the will of the Ukrainian people. The people were only a way of legitimizing its power.

As the state later proved by getting rid of nuclear arms and stopping nuclear energy, as well as destroying a lot of military equipment - as demanded by the USA and NATO; interference in internal affairs by the American, EU, and Russian governments; Russian oil and gas control; financial control of the IMF; as well as many other facts, there is no doubt that the national liberation revolution has not yet finished.

But lets return to the events leading up to August 24th 1991.

During the final stage of existence of the USSR, it was being brought down by nationalist and national-democratic movements in occupied nations, the Yeltsin administration, anti-imperialistic elements of Russian democracy, as well as the party bureaucrats of the republics.

The most powerful of the occupied nations was Ukraine. In the case of Ukraine, there were two separate views on independence - revolutionary and evolutionary.

Nationalists supported the revolutionary view, and national-democrats supported the evolutionary view.

The revolutionary view supported by the nationalists claimed the following: - The desire of the Ukrainian people for independence is proven by their long fight for their own state;

- In the past, independence in Ukraine was proclaimed by way of acts, for example, the fourth Universal of the Ukrainian Peoples Republic or the Act of June 30th 1941;

- Legitimacy of the desire for a state of the Ukrainian people is confirmed by the fact that both in the case of the Ukrainian Peoples Republic, as well as in the case of the independence act of 1941, no one surrendered and no one who had a role in proclamation renounced independence even in exile.

As such, the task of the nationalist revolutionaries was, peacefully or forcibly (depending on the situation):

- Announce the re-gaining of Ukrainian statehood;

- Create a temporary government;

- Get rid of the colonial-bureaucratic administration;

- Pass an act regarding crimes against the Ukrainian people and bring those accountable to justice.

The evolutionary view, supported by the democrats, right from the beginning made many suspicious because of the fact that in the Peoples Movement program (the movement the democrats centered around) they announced the leading role of the Communist Party in creating democratic mechanisms, as if it was was their job to help society develop. The capacity of the Communist Party to develop society is well known.

The first convention of the Movement didn't help much either - nothing regarding state independence of Ukraine was proclaimed, and in fact, all they wanted was constitutional reform inside the USSR and the signing of a new unification agreement.

As such, right from the beginning, the democrats worked with the colonial administration. Naturally, this is because, amongst other things, of the fact that the Movement was controlled by people who were once members of the Communist Party, including the so-called "ideological workshop" of the party - poets and writers.

The colonial administration, obtaining a democratic flavour from the democrats who worked with it, began acting more bold - which helped it remove nationalist-revolutionaries from having an influence on the people. In a long fight for independence by the Nation, when it was clear the USSR was degrading, the colonial administration of the USSR usurped the successes of the nationalists and went out the winner.

As such, independence by the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic - partially from Moscow and completely from the Ukrainian nation - democrats viewed as their own victory. The fact that Ukraine became independent because of the collapse of the USSR by peaceful means without and blood or repression contributed to their illusions.

The government, of course, supported these illusions of the democrats, endlessly awarding them with ordens and medals. The colonial administration even gives "Hero of Ukraine" award to a select few.

Colonial administration

The nature of the colonial administration stemmed from its desire to keep power using whatever means possible despite a growing national-liberation movement. It say no problem in sacrificing the USSR and the Communist party to stay in power - which, if course, it did.

This can be noticed by examining the decisions made by the parliament of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1990-91:

- July 1990 - Declaration of state sovereignty;

- March 1991 - Referendum regarding preserving the USSR;

- August 1991 - An announcement of another independence;

- December 1991 - Referendum on the Act of Independence;

- December 1991 - Membership in the Commonwealth of Independent States

Lets examine separate parts of the Independence Act and their colonial nature.

"Keeping in mind the deathly danger that came upon Ukraine because of the state coup in the USSR on August 19th 1991"

Here the motive of announcing independence was the desire to become independence from the area a coup occurred and preserve themselves from possible results of the coup, after all, independence was announced when the empire was practically dead.

However, neither announcing independence, nor the destruction of the empire were enough to make the new state legitimate, because:

- Ukraine didn't inherit previous forms of Ukrainian statehood, that is, Ukraine didn't base anything on the historic rights of the Ukrainian people.

Independence was announced out of fear before a great danger, not out of desire to become independence.

The members of parliament gave out the Act without even citing their own people.

Five months before proclaiming independence that same parliament conducted a referendum (March 17 1991) regarding the preservation of the USSR, which shows how unpure its intentions were.

The reasons for proclaiming independence are said in the Act from August 24th 1991 to be:

- The millennial tradition of statehood in Ukraine;

- The right to self-determination, as mentioned in the UN;

- The declaration of state sovereignty of Ukraine.

Why did the parliament not mention the millennial statehood traditions of the Ukrainian people, instead writing the "millennial traditions of statehood in Ukraine"?

Why didn't it say whose tradition it was - Russian, Polish, Tatar?

Why didn't it mention the rights of the Ukrainian people, instead talking only about acts in the UN?

Why didn't it, while citing the declaration of state sovereignty, the reason for which was the desire of "the Ukrainian people", mention that same Ukrainian people?

These facts had no meaning for the colonial administration, because the parliamentarians didn't legitimize themselves through the trust of the Ukrainian people - something they didn't have - but through speculation on the geopolitical interests of other countries.

The Act of Independence doesn't mention the Ukrainian people. The parliamentarians with this act announced:

"From now on, only the Constitution of Ukraine and the laws of Ukraine have legal bearing on the territory of Ukraine".

The words "from now on" mean that laws were already in existence. Whose laws? Obviously, the laws of the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic. Thus, if the colonial constitution remains in force, so does the colonial administration. In this sense, independence simply means that the colonial administration is now internal.

The Act of Independence has no mention of succession of the state.

In any sense, nothing similar could exist in principle. The parliament couldn't inherit previous forms of statehood of the Ukrainian people because, if one is to believe the results of the March referendum, the Ukrainian people gave up it's historical right.

The parliament with its law regarding state succession from September 12th 1991 stated (first article of the law):

"From the moment of proclamation of independence the most important institution of state governance is the Ukrainian parliament with the same members of parliament from the parliament of the Ukrainian SSR".

"Until a new constitution is passed, the main law on Ukrainian territory is the constitution of the Ukrainian SSR".

The parliament talks about a "new constitution of Ukraine", in other words, this independent state, that came into existence on August 24th 1991, is in reality just the old Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic. As such, the status of the Ukrainian nation as secondary remained preserved.

Who did the Ukrainian people give the right to create a political regime until a constitution was passed? The parliament of the Ukrainian SSR wasn't chosen by anybody, even because of the fact that the members of it were chosen by citizens of the USSR, who didn't exist in independent Ukraine.

The other object - the Ukrainian people - was also fiction, because in the way it is written in the declaration of state sovereignty, the Ukrainian SSR didn't have its own citizens.

"The laws of the Ukrainian SSR and other acts, passed by the parliament of the Ukrainian SSR, remain in force on the territory of Ukraine, due to the fact that they don't violate the laws of Ukraine, passed after proclaiming independence".

Two questions that arise from this part of the law:

1) If the laws of the Ukrainian SSR didn't violate the laws of Ukraine, why bother proclaiming independence?

2) If independence was proclaimed, and the laws of the new state don't contradict the laws of the colonial state, what is this "Ukrainian state" we have?

Keeping this in mind, one is forced to making the following conclusions from this law: the colonial administration maneuvered, taking advantage of the mass disorientation of Ukrainians, which were facilitated by the democratic structures - most of all, the Peoples Movement. As such, despite the USSR falling, the colonial administration remains in power in Ukraine.

The referendum of December 1st 1991 only partially completed its mission - it legitimized the new independent state.

However, it didn't fix the successor status of the Ukrainian state and didn't end the colonial regime.


The colonial administration didn't change its nature. Like earlier, it has complete control over society. The need to form the structures of the independent state were used by the bureaucrats for self-preservation. European institutes like the multi-party system, parliamentarian and power-sharing were used by the bureaucrats for prestigious and profitable allocation of work for their family members and for neutralization of political movements, buying out their leaders and as such their chances for a career. Through this, it obtained political apathy of the population.

The essence of this government doesn't give it any hope of changing, because the root of it's problems lie in its very formation. Its moral doesn't feel any honour. It has no feeling it is supposed to carry a national idea.

The Ukrainian people do not have the potential to peacefully contain their appetite.

The only thing that can save it is escaping from the government or toppling the government.


Комментариев нет:

Отправить комментарий

Восточная Фаланга - независимая исследовательская и консалтинговая группа, целью которой является изучение философии, геополитики, политологии, этнологии, религиоведения, искусства и литературы на принципах философии традиционализма. Исследования осуществляются в границах закона, базируясь на принципах свободы слова, плюрализма мнений, права на свободный доступ к информации и на научной методологии. Сайт не размещает материалы пропаганды национальной или социальной вражды, экстремизма, радикализма, тоталитаризма, призывов к нарушению действующего законодательства. Все материалы представляются на дискуссионной основе.

Східна Фаланга
- незалежна дослідницька та консалтингова група, що ставить на меті студії філософії, геополітики, політології, етнології, релігієзнавства, мистецтва й літератури на базі філософії традиціоналізму. Дослідження здійснюються в рамках закону, базуючись на принципах свободи слова, плюралізму, права на вільний доступ до інформації та на науковій методології. Сайт не містить пропаганди національної чи суспільної ворожнечі, екстремізму, радикалізму, тоталітаризму, порушення діючого законодавства. Всі матеріали публікуються на дискусійній основі.


Если не указано иного, материалы журнала публикуются по лицензии Creative Commons BY NC SA 3.0

Эта лицензия позволяет другим перерабатывать, исправлять и развивать произведение на некоммерческой основе, до тех пор пока они упоминают оригинальное авторство и лицензируют производные работы на аналогичных лицензионных условиях. Пользователи могут не только получать и распространять произведение на условиях, идентичных данной лицензии («by-nc-sa»), но и переводить, создавать иные производные работы, основанные на этом произведении. Все новые произведения, основанные на этом, будут иметь одни и те же лицензии, поэтому все производные работы также будут носить некоммерческий характер.


MESOEURASIA: портал этноантропологии, геокультуры и политософии www.mesoeurasia.org

How do you like our website?