The national-independence struggles of all nation enslaved by Moscow have not only anti-communist content, but are fundamentally directed against Russian imperialism, against its essence and strength, its expansion and its dominant position in global political life ...
The remnants of ancient rusophilic orientations and the disparity of communism and Russian expansion which spawned them have lost all influence and ground in the movements of the national-independence nations enslaved. Now for all Communism and Moscow imperialism are the same enemy
A real bibliographic success of the 1920s-2023 was the publication of a collection of articles and essays by the leader of the CNS (Revolutionary) Stepan Bandery (1900-1959) in "Our Format".
The book "Shot". This is the case erstwhile the book appears at the right time and place.
Since 2014, erstwhile the Russians arrived in Ukraine with arms in hand, the interest in Ukrainian personalities and activities of Ukrainian leaders of revolutionary nationalists has grown significantly.
Interestingly, according to a sociological survey conducted in January 2023, after a large-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Kiev global Institute of Sociology (KIIS), the number of Ukrainians positively assessing Stepan Bandera's character increased by nearly 50 points over the last year - by nearly 50 points and reached unprecedented 84%.
It can be assumed that this is simply a manifestation of a kind of defensive reaction by Ukrainians. 1 can even say – self-preservation instinct of history.
To what degree the Ukrainians are ready for a comprehensive and thus critical perception of the legacy CNS(r) and its leader is another issue that is not the subject of this review. But in any case, we are dealing with the other effect of the alleged "denasification" of Ukraine, which was planned by Russian dictator Putin.
Rethinking experience, justification and disappointment
As a author and revolutionary theorist Stepan Bandera declared only in exile in 1946.
Therefore, journalism presented in the “Perspectives of the Ukrainian Revolution” represents for us the “late Bander” – Bandera, in view of the necessity of evolution.
Bandera had to not only interpret, but besides reinterpret experience – both his and the full Ukrainian nationalist movement.
Bandera had to learn from what he did and what he did not. In this, any of which proved fatal.
Bandera had to say goodbye to the illusions.
In this sense, the first article draws attention "The importance of broad masses and their range" (January 1946).
This clearly contrasts with specified a basic paper CNS The interwar period is the "Reminiscence of the Second large Convention of Ukrainian Nationalists".
The appeal was approved in August 1939, erstwhile the OUN was inactive united (at least formally) and Bandera held a prison conviction for organising an assassination of the Polish Minister of the Interior Bronisław Pieracki (1895-1934).
This paper places a bet on "reeducation of the nation to a nationalist community" creation ‘a new, heroic kind of Ukrainian’ .
Instead, in this article, Bandera calls primarily for the survey of an environment where political work must be carried out:
“You gotta know and realize people, their way of thinking... First of all, you request to be curious in their material situation, surviving conditions, living, working, the possibilities of arranging and improving their lives, their conditions, needs and desires"
It highlights the request to accept people as they are, with all their disadvantages:
"To approach the masses, you should not trust only on high-value elements or already produced ones and only deal with specified and others wave your hand."
These were moments previously ignored by Ukrainian nationalists. As a result, the effects of CNS activities in the Centre and on the Left Bank are rather modest. Far from the “heroic kind of Ukrainian” the local population was primarily curious in the socio-economic problems of the future Ukraine.
Nationalistic derivatives had no answers to these questions. Incidentally, Stepan Bandera does not answer these questions in any of his articles.
Another manifestation of Bander's re-thinking of the inter-war ideological position of the CNS was the designation of the usefulness of multipartyity in Ukraine's political life.
Previously, the CNS had a "directive and leading role" both in the fight for the Ukrainian independent cathedral state and in the future.
This was the case before the break-up of the CNS in 1940 into ‘melnikwits’ and ‘bangers’, and so it was after him.
At this point, it is worth recalling that before the outbreak of planet War II, nationalists were able to argue with all political opponents from the proukrian spectrum, both with “legalists” in inter-war Poland (such as the Ukrainian National Democratic Union, UNDO ) and with the emigration of UNRiv and Hetman.
The opponents must have remembered that.
Therefore, in the end, only any UNDO representatives, any of the clergy close to the metropolis, were able to be brought to the Ukrainian Liberation Council. Andrei Szeptic , part of the Ukrainian Socialist extremist organization (USRP) – oldest (since 1890). ) Ukrainian political party, erstwhile led by Ivan Frank _ And respective another representatives of the Hetman movement, which almost did not be until 1944.
All these people were already a kind of walking political antiques.
Finally, as the reader will see, Bandera himself has in time mentioned little and little about UGVR in his articles.
Instead, Bandera had to criticise the EMUR's abroad Representation after any time, which he blamed for another division in the CNS, more specifically in its abroad Parties (ZCh OUN).
The 4 printed articles included in the collection from February to October 1954 are devoted to the issue of the divided that led to the emergence of a “dualism” among the overseas CNS(b) (two people headed by it — Zenon Matla and Lew Rebet ).
In them, Bandera tried to halt emotional invectors against his erstwhile associates (one of whom, Lew Rebet, was to be killed in 1957 by Bohdan Staszyński , the same individual who would have killed Bandera himself 2 years later).
Stepan Bandera had to revise 1 of the fundamental attitudes of the pre-war CNS towards the main force of the Ukrainian liberation movement. Both “Banderers” and “Melnikivists” followed Doncov Dummy with so much force that they proclaimed the peasantry.
And it's not "gazda" – due to the fact that then it would truly be possible to draw any analogies with the "bawers" of Szemetov – alternatively any "boyhood at all". Including his foolishness, ignorance, superstition and patriarchal customs.
In his work “Perspectives of the Ukrainian National Liberation Revolution” Bandera places a bet on a inactive almost ignored city:
"The city is not only the seat of the main enemy forces, but is the center of almost all areas of life. Therefore, the conquest of a country cannot be limited to the conquest of its village, but it is imperative that the cities be conquered completely. This is simply a fundamental issue for the Ukrainian national revolution." (p. 583).
The CNS leader did not miss Ukrainian State Restoration Act of June 30, 1941 .
This event is inactive controversial among historians – was it worth it? Did nationalists rush to trust on Hitler ? After all, he had already woken them up erstwhile he agreed to hand over to Hungary Karpacka Ukraine. In addition, Bandera's men did not even have adequate soldiers to support their actions.
Looking for prospects
This series of articles and essays by Stepan Bandera is devoted to analysing his current geopolitical situation: the Korean War, the confrontation of the socialist camp with the free world, the likelihood of the outbreak of planet War III, including atomic weapons.
Bandera sought not only to anticipate further developments on the global stage, but besides to find a place in them for both the Ukrainian liberation movement and the full Ukraine.
This happened at a time erstwhile post-war Europe treated the wounds of planet War II. Tired of war, Europeans wanted peace and were not truly curious in “some” Ukraine.
"The fight against the liberation of Ukraine against the slavery of Moscow-Bolshevik inactive does not find appropriate knowing with the support of Western countries ” — he had to say Bander in 1954 in a speech to Ukrainians in the United States and Canada.
The same was the attitude of the civilized planet to the remainder of the nations that the russian Empire has absorbed since the early 20th century or absorbed into its orbit as satellites after planet War II.
The abstinence, and even the indifference of the free planet towards Ukrainian liberation aspirations, was accompanied by the indifference of much of Ukrainian emigration.
"A large part of Ukrainian citizenship abroad avoids active participation and support for independent political work" He was forced to tell Stepan Bander.
Meanwhile, the possible of the "third planet war" between the Western Allies and the USSR, which Bander himself and his fellow nationalists counted on and on which any calculations were based, was worse than the position of peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems.
The course of the West for "peaceful coexistence" with the Communist bloc in the form of the USSR and its satellites was undoubtedly 1 of Bandera's disappointments, both from the point of view of the values embodied by the West and from the point of view of geopolitics.
On the pages of his journalism, he interprets this course as a weakness of the West. specified a weakness, which in his opinion is not able to full address even the NATO block, if it does not take into account the needs and struggles of the nations enslaved by Moscow - above all, of the Ukrainians.
Time View
The reason why the leader of the CNS(r) remained unrelenting is that in the fight for liberation 1 must trust primarily on one's own forces alternatively than on large powers.
His conviction remains that only those who are capable of fighting for their freedom can number on outside help.
More than 1 verse of his articles was devoted to this issue. Here are just a few:
"We must besides have as many and as best allies as possible in our liberation fight, and above all, the real one. And Ukraine can have them. But only if she fights herself and erstwhile she is strong."
63 years after Stepan Bandera's death, beginning on 24 February 2022, this installation proved prophetic.
Western states began to aid Ukraine by providing her with weapons and training Ukrainian soldiers only erstwhile they found that Ukrainians were trying and doing everything to defend themselves from Russian pressure.
Another strong conviction of Stepan Bandera was his categorical rejection of socialism. For him socialism in any form was almost synonymous with absolute evil. And before that conclusion was reached by modern Ukrainian journalists, Stepan Bandera reached him in 1950.
For Stepan Bandera both Russia and the Russian people are fundamentally hostile forces.
And regardless of the government in this country. This is simply a crucial part of his journalism. 1 could say that this is 1 of her basic thoughts.
"The imperialism of the Russian people, according to the head of the CNS(b), is the phenomenon of historical order, which changes its forms and methods of action, but remains unchanged in its essence. Its essence is the constant quest to subdue another peoples and at the expense of their exploitation and destruction, to continually increase their power, the growth of the Moscow people and their empire has reached its domain.” .
For Stepan Bandera, the fight against Russia was inextricably linked to the fall of the Russian Empire in any form and its further disintegration into national states.
Interestingly, Siberia is 1 of those countries or ‘United States of Siberia’ .
At this point, it should be mentioned how in 2014 a full delegation of Siberian separatists appeared in Majdan. However, neither they nor another central movements in Russia were then supported by authoritative Kiev.
It was only from 2022 that individual Ukrainian politicians began to talk out about it, but there is no systematic work in this direction at government or parliament level.
The flag categorically rejects any cooperation of Ukrainian emigration with Russian liberals. This is what the Western circles insisted on, seeking to organize a united anti-communist front ignoring the laws of nations enslaved by Russia.
"The national conflict could have a common language and march on the same front only with specified Moscow anti-communist forces, which would not have imperialist tendencies, would not argue the aims of the enslaved nations... But he doesn't have the strength. ..with a more crucial influence among Moscow ” - says Bandera
It can be said that the leader of the CNS(b) no longer believed in the "good Russians". However, it is incorrect to say that he did not give them a chance in Ukraine itself.
Bandera considered complete loyalty to the Ukrainian state, its people and their conflict for freedom as the key to their free existence:
"Those Moscals who meet these requirements should be ensured and ensured complete and comprehensive equality in all civilian rights and full freedom of their national development, in accordance with global rules on national minorities" .
Flag and Poles
Nothing unusual about that, but the Polish subject does not occupy crucial place in Stepan Bandera's publishing.
However, his attitude towards Poles, judging by the articles published in the collection, can be brought (although with a certain pull) to the Ukrainian proverb known inactive in the 17th century: "Let us sing with Lachow, let us be with Lachow". It’s okay. ”
The leader of the CNS(r) was far from the "Jagielloński" idea. He besides found the thought of Intermorz unacceptable – notabene popular present among both Polish and Ukrainian supporters of close political, economical and military cooperation between the countries of the erstwhile Republic.
In his publications, Bandera criticises both the discriminatory policy of inter-war Poland towards Ukrainians and Polish claims to western Ukrainian lands.
However, this criticism is carried out alternatively from rational positions. The harm to Poland and its inhabitants is stressed.
"It is impossible without moral disgust to look at Poland's policy towards Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania, it is impossible to realize the suicidal content of this policy for the Polish people, following which Polish policy towards Ukraine 300 years later is simply a mediocre satellite of Moscow's policy, which caused irreparable harm for Poland itself, for the past of the full nation, which will be done for many centuries" - wrote Bandera in Article "Front of the Enslaved Nations".
However, it is worth noting that erstwhile writing about the war of the Ukrainian nationalist movement "on 2 fronts", i.e. against Nazi Germans and the USSR, Bander does not mention an armed confrontation with Polish armed forces.
It is not known (at least no specified evidence has been found) whether Stepan Bandera expressed his attitude to the Volyn massacre publicly, privately, orally or in writing.
However, it is known that he was communicating in the concentration camp with the Chief Commander of the National Army Stefan “Grot” Rowicki (1895-1944), and Bandera's companions in prison even prepared the russian escape (unfortunately this plan failed) .
And in terms of the fates of the western Ukrainian lands at least they found common language – at a time erstwhile both nations reached inhuman and bloody excesses.
However, in his publications, Bander leads the reader to believe that Poles are the same people enslaved by Moscow as Ukrainians. And that's why both nations can be allies:
"In both nations and in their liberation forces there is simply a affirmative interest in anti-Moscow and anti-communist processes of the second nation and sympathy for its national struggles for independence".
For a long time, Stepan Bandera will stay a symbol of the uncompromising fight against Moscow's aggression and its unchanging imperialism, regardless of the political government prevailing in Russia. And in the close future, most likely not just for the Ukrainians.
The author of this survey is
Yuri Rudnycki
Journalist, political commentator. Author of the book "Jeremia Wyszniewiecki. Attempted rehabilitation" (2008)
