Dear Editor:
Many Ukrainian Americans don’t remember when American academics and policymakers did not conceal their negative stance to the idea of Ukraine’s independence. Ukrainians tended to ignore that antipathy, buoyed instead by declarations of support from politicians, and thus were shocked when in 1991, after Ukraine declared its independence and held a referendum that overwhelmingly endorsed independence, the U.S. balked at extending recognition. Only Mikhail Gorbachev’s dismantlement of Soviet state organs made recognition inevitable.
There was a lesson to be learned, which unfortunately was lost on many Ukrainian Americans. We prefer to focus on what is encouraging, pushing aside things that complicate the picture, however portentous they may be.
In his well-intentioned effort to hearten Ukrainians by recounting pro-Ukrainian remarks recently voiced by U.S. diplomats at House Intelligence Committee hearings, letter-writer Andriy Ripecky (December 15) does a disservice in omitting segments which are not what Ukrainians expect to hear. The citation of William Taylor’s concluding sentence to his opening statement drops a fragment that unwittingly reveals how many in our diplomatic corps may view their mission in Ukraine. It begins with “This story describes a nation developing an inclusive, democratic nationalism,” then continues with the qualifier, “not unlike what we in America, in our best moments, feel about our diverse country – less concerned about what language we speak, what religion if any we practice, where our parents and grandparents came from; more concerned about building a new country.”
For many Ukrainians this portends building a Ukraine that is not really Ukrainian, where citizens hold a weak sense of national identity, oblivious to their national heritage and estranged from Ukraine’s Christian spirituality.
A preceding statement about “a young nation, struggling to break free of its past…” is equally puzzling since it’s not quite clear which past is referred to. If it’s the Soviet past, then why was that not stated? But if it’s the past that is maligned by Ukrainophobes, then this is troubling since it means succumbing to distortions and turning away from age-old traditions, aspirations and national heroes.
Ukrainians have a long tradition of openness to people of diverse backgrounds who, sadly, reciprocated by doing their part in furthering the economic exploitation and political oppression of Ukrainians. How many other countries can match Ukraine’s number of minority members elected to top governmental positions?
My hunch is that my observations will be met with hostility by many readers. Many couldn’t fathom how Ukrainians dared speak of betrayal when a few years after the Budapest memorandum was signed Ukraine was “advised” to stand down as Russian units occupied its territories. Never mind how politicians and the media don’t refrain from upbraiding presidents for policies which they represent as betraying America’s allies.
Certain aspects of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship warrant critical evaluation. Farmland privatization is one such issue. Foreign diplomats are pushing it, though Ukrainians are understandably apprehensive. Hopefully, the Ukrainian American establishment realizes that the designs of certain Western circles may not necessarily promote Ukraine’s best interests.
Ihor Mirchuk
Easton, Pa.