This year`s two major celebrations of the WW2 victories, the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp and the capitulation of Nazi Germany, rested in shade. Calculative shade of politics.
In January of 1945, the Red Army came to the doors of the Auschwitz concentration camp and liberated the survivors of this horrendous sprout of Nazi politics. At the commemoration ceremony, held in Poland this year, the honorary guest was Ukrainian`s president Petro Poroshenko, not the Russian president Vladimir Putin. Why this chocolaty treat to Ukraine? According to the newest (dis)information, it was actually the 1st Ukrainian front of the Red Army that liberated the poor incarcerated people therefore ethnic Ukrainians played the biggest role in the liberation, not the Russians. The Russian foreign ministry has since debunked this claim because, as so often in the propaganda machines, the key detail somehow forgot to be addressed: the names of the units in the Red Army were assigned according to the territory where they were formed, not to the nationality of the people involved. The name “Ukrainian” in this sense therefore applies to the formation of the Red Army, implying it was originally formed on the Ukrainian territory but at the same time comprising of numerous ethnicities. The Russian foreign ministry has also released the corresponding historical documents, listing the quantitative data on different nationalities in the 1st Ukrainian Front; the number of Russian soldiers in the formation is still higher than Ukrainian. Somehow this seemed utterly relevant for the few propaganda hungry leaders of nations of Eastern Europe because they were well aware of the confusion and inevitable conclusion the name “1st Ukrainian front” will draw.
This, of course, is also in line with their propaganda machine against Russia, raging and blowing up steam ever since the start of the Ukrainian crisis which is just another case of the so many times before seen false flag operations. The democratically elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovyich, was ousted (effectively) in a coup d`etat in 2014, succeeded by the covertly neo- Nazi members of the People`s Front Party and its most visible figure, now prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. At this point, we also have to acknowledge that the leadership of Yanukovyich was not flawless and, in comparison to democracies in Europe, rested upon much stronger leadership figure and traditional political culture. But this was not his biggest crime. If this was his biggest crime, the lack of (western standards type of) democratic features, world politics should look much different today. First example that comes to mind is Saudi Arabia. I don`t see any western nagging about lack of democracy and the need to regime change, because they are a great ally to US in the Middle East and their world oil games. I see that calls for Iran, whose political system and level of democratic standards is at an incomprehensively higher level than in any other “ally” state in the Middle East. This is then, as always, just a geopolitical stretch of the Anglo-American power and the need to align the regimes to the desired agenda. But I guess that such discrepancies are not unexpected in a world, where the Nobel Peace Prize goes out to the President, waging wars in the name of his country`s financial and oil empire. So no, this was not the biggest crime of Yanukovyich`s regime. The biggest crime were the heavy ties with Russia which was blatantly visible after the new government took office, when the first few steps were alienating from Russia, Eurasian Economic Union and rapprochement with NATO, the EU and the IMF.
Therefore, ousting Yanukovyich, by no means perfect but still an elected president of Ukraine, in a revolution that reinstalled the anti- Russian power machine, taking actions against Russian culture and language in Ukraine, was the promotion of democracy, American style: “what we say is good for you is also always correct (and comes from a completely altruistic place)”. And after the official banning of the Russian language, a plebiscite was executed on the Crimean peninsula with the help of Russia, one of the most closely intertwined regions of Ukraine with its Soviet roots. West likes to forget that historical links are hard to break and such linkage between people should be celebrated, not judged. Former president of Kyrgyzstan once commented on the new grand game in Eurasia, saying “God and geography gave us Russia”. Of course, in the case of Ukraine, we must not forget about Sevastopol, home to the Russian navy fleet and many economic and infrastructural-pipeline bonds the countries share. This is also an important part of Russian protectionism over Ukraine, leftover (or an awakening) of hard realpolitik in the Russian bear.
After the mounting pressure in Ukraine, blasting over the Russian image on international stage, snubbing on the Auschwitz ceremony, came victory day. This should be a united day of joy over vindicated allies against the destructive Nazi ideology. Instead this day is being abused for political reasons, the worst kind of rape that can happened to a significant historical victory.
Of course, here we are referring to the celebrations of victory day in Russia and banning of the celebration by numerous world leaders, due to “Russian politics in Ukrainian crisis” (how come nobody questions the politics of Ukraine and other western powers?). Soviet Union lost millions of soldiers in the WW2 fighting and these losses were significantly larger than for any other major power engaged in the conflict. Winning the war is also part of the historical memory of Russian people and robbing these people of their sense of victory is an utter crime.
Victory day is a day of victory over Nazism. It has nothing to do with current world politics and its interpretation, it is a historical fact, and as such it should always be memorized and celebrated. Speaking of historical facts, here is also another one: the Red Army played a major role in the final destruction of the Nazis. Russians, as legal successor of Soviet Union, have the right to be proud of that historical fact. They have the right to demand the world to do the same. They have the right to demand respect.
Additionally, we should always remember that victory in WW2, from every battle, be it on the smallest scale, was a victory of people, not politicians. The defeat of Nazi Germany came as a result of numerous personal sacrifices for a better tomorrow. There were no politicians in the first line of defense. Accordingly, I am asking: Who are you, Mr. Obama, to boycott the memory of people who helped to liberate a huge part of Europe and vindicate over Nazism? Who are you, David Cameron, to dare to do the same? The message was clear: Not to rain on your parade, Russians, but we have more important, politically correct things to do.
The defeat of Nazism was a victory of people, not politics. If people would not be there to fight wars, politicians could draft as much resolution and strategies they would like, to no effect. WW2 was the clash of ideologies that sprung out of an economic disaster, caused by the imperialistic politics after ww1, for sure, but it was played out on the backs of people. And out of these numerous people, to whom we should be grateful everyday for their contribution, many of them were Russians. The story can be twisted as much as the westerns like, but the truth remains: the Soviet Union DID help to win WW2. No amount of propaganda can ever change that.