A Russ1 Television segment recently aired delivering an unprovoked, disparaging and rhetorical diatribe directed at the Ukrainian community in Canada. The confounding and vitriolic segment is not only misleading, it is also incredibly narrow in scope. Devoid of objectivity, or anything even remotely resembling truth or accuracy, this would-be ‘expose’ is so full of contempt, innuendo and half-truths that it can hardly be regarded as ‘journalism’ at all. It is, rather, an over-simplified, arrogant, hateful and blatant piece of propaganda, couched as a pseudo op-ed report, aimed solely and squarely at the Ukrainian diaspora.
Who would claim production of such a piece? And why? The segment aired on January 13, 2019. Understanding the roots and nature of this propaganda piece begins with Russ24 anchorman, Dmitry Kiselyov, who introduced the segment.
Kiselyov is a darling of the state-owned and controlled Russian media and is, in fact, personally and professionally banned from Canada and virtually ALL European countries; he has a dubious association and obvious complicity with Putin and the Kremlin. The EU sanctions list, for example, informs that Kiselyov supports “deployment of Russian forces in the Ukraine” and he has been quoted as saying, “Russia ... could turn the U.S. into radioactive dust”. Referring to gays, Kiselyov is quoted as saying, “. . . burn their hearts after they die”. Is it any wonder why relations between Canada, the EU, the West in general, and Kiselyov are strained?
Having been barred from Canada, his minion, Anton Lyadov (introduced by Kiselyov as ‘our correspondent’) opens the segment. Lyadov appears in the vicinity of a war memorial in an Oakville, Ontario cemetery and begins his diatribe by inferring that the Ukrainian soldiers (killed during WWII) to whom this monument is dedicated were simply Nazis. This, he assumes, through his ‘revelation’, that elements of the unit fought in the German Army as the 14th SS ‘Galicia’ Division. His statements infer, of course, that the soldiers to whom the monument is dedicated were not simply defenders/war heroes of Ukraine, but ‘more significantly’ members of a division that participated in battles alongside/with the Wermacht. In his estimation, these soldiers are apparently undeserving of a monument, especially in Canada. Lyadov continues his diatribe about the Ukrainian diaspora being over-influential and leading the Canadian government astray.
There is no journalistic attempt whatsoever to understand or explain the context and circumstances within which Ukrainians would have deemed it necessary to associate with Germany. The fact Lyadov avoids is straightforward. Russia has had its eyes (and often feet) in Ukraine for centuries, but most relevant and immediate to the Ukrainians of Galicia at that time would have been not only the collective, but individual and specific memories of various Russian Imperial armies on their lands. Some examples include: Tsarist armies throughout 1917 and 1918, then Lenin’s Bolshevik armies beginning in 1919 (after Ukraine’s declaration of independence), followed by Stalin’s ongoing campaigns and totalitarian actions culminating with the Holodomor of 1932-33. It is important to realize that these events, for people of that time, were no further away in time than the “Gulf Wars” or “9/11” are for us now. Russian forces, whether tsarist, Bolshevik or Stalinist, have consistently made concerted military and political efforts to, as York University historian, Orest Subtenly writes, “... transform the myth of Galicia’s ‘Russianness’ into a reality.” From current perspectives, it is easy to read “Ukraine” rather than just Galicia into the author’s statement.
There was and is no idealogical or political bond between Ukrainian soldiers’ fighting and the German Wermacht. Lyadov fails to mention the contempt the Germans had for this division (and Slavs in general) and that, in fact, the division ultimately battled both the Germans and Russians; the armies were both occupying (first as allies and friends, then as foes) Ukrainian territory at that time. Ukraine, and Slavic countries and nations in general, were viewed by Nazi Germany simply as fodder for their armies and sources for slave labour.
Yes, history is complex, controversial and messy; conscripts and ‘volunteers’ for this, and other divisions of the German Wermacht, were made up of various ethnicities, often Belarusians, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians. The 30th Waffen Grenadier Division, for example, turned on their (Nazi) German leadership and ultimately fought alongside the Allies or as ‘independent’ units against the occupying German armies (and later other Russian occupying armies). The cemetery monument simply commemorates the efforts of those who fought against these occupying armies - Lyadov’s angle on the ‘Nazi connection’ is strategically oversimplified and misleading because Lyadov must avoid objectivity, investigation, research and historical evidence because these will completely betray his message. Lyadov’s narrow, unsophisticated, tabloid-style persona and approach are maintained because, to be outright propaganda, these elements (objectivity, investigation, detail, research and evidence) must be missing. And indeed they are. His accusations are supremely hypocritical, as well.
Hypocritical because there is, significantly and ironically, a particularly glaring omission that Lyadov makes (and has travelled a long way from Russia to make). He does not state, or even allude to, the fact that the country where he apparently lives, works (and openly chooses to represent) had wholeheartedly and completely as a nation collaborated with Nazi Germany to further its advantage and enhance its own borders. Surely Lyadov, and Kiselyov, for that matter, have heard of the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact?! Signed, significantly, in Moscow on August 23, 1939, the act smoothed the way for Nazi German armies to invade Poland on Sept.1, 1939, followed closely (about two weeks later) by invading Soviet armies. Even casual research of this time period will show photos of triumphant German/Soviet armies meeting and greeting each other on divided, conquered Polish territory. “Soviet and German Friends - Poland 1939” needs only a simple YouTube search to find original footage of the camaraderie, the friendly, smiling and triumphant conquerors’ faces with side-by-side portraits of Hitler and Stalin in the background. This is substantially more significant than elements of an army division with extremely limited options, caught between the empires of the Soviet Union and Germany.
The collaboration and collusion between the USSR (with Russia, of course, at its heart) and Nazi Germany included and involved, of course, Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the political leadership/ government of the time along with their vast armies. The pact goes beyond collaboration; the pact must also be recognized as blatant collusion because maps of Europe were ‘re-drawn’ and ‘signed-off’ in secret by Stalin himself and by Ribbentrop.
During the Soviet collaboration with Nazi Germany, and while the German armies focused attention on ‘their share of’ Poland, Belgium and France, the Soviets helped themselves to, among other countries, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. “Time/Life” publications describe these actions as ‘carving up the carcass’. Lyadov, however, complete with self-righteous indignation, obsesses and focuses his attention and innuendo on elements of a division purportedly part of a larger SS German army unit. This is a very significant point given how the present Russian leadership and elements of that society continue to revere and admire Stalin - at his monuments and memorials. This was the man who led the entire USSR and its armies to collaborate and collude with Nazi Germany.
Moreover, the pact was calculated and opportunistic, and significantly, present-day leadership and elements of Russian society continue to adore those involved in the Nazi collaboration. The cover alone of the June 7, 2017 “Newsweek” - “Why Russia Still Loves Josef Stalin, One of the 20th Century's Most Brutal Despots” - is quite revealing. Lyadov somehow fails to include any of these very relevant points in his ‘shocking expose’ on the Ukrainian diaspora. Russian president, Vladimir Putin, himself dismisses the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the close ties between his country and Nazi Germany as simply a ‘necessary evil’. This must be an effort to diminish the magnitude and scope of the association. Apparently, everyone else is somehow more culpable.
Lyadov continues by re-directing his self-righteous disdain and scorn to the recently erected “Holodomor Memorial” on the CNE grounds. He interviews Irena Bronikova as his perplexing guest expert on history and the memorial. She is a perplexing choice because her qualifications to lecture and inform about the 1932-33 Holodomor are stated as: “resident of Toronto”?! Many of us are ‘residents of Toronto’. But if that is the only qualification accompanying one’s name when introduced for an interview, then it is expected one would speak about Toronto’s garbage collection, or the condition of the roads, or perhaps traffic congestion in the inner city. But these are apparently Bronikova’s qualifications to discuss the Holodomor.
In other words, despite her apparent total and utter lack of credentials, Ms. Bronikova crudely and crassly disparages the monument (as does Lyadov) and apparently ‘reveals’ that peoples of other nations and ethnicities also died during the Holodomor. This is neither insightful nor informative. All of us realize and understand, for instance, that during the Holocaust of WWII, many millions of people from many nations were killed. This is historically indisputable. But it is also undeniable that Hitler’s rage specifically targeted European Jewry. A similar situation exists with regards to the Holodomor.
Pulitzer-prize winning historian and author, Anne Applebaum, of excellent accreditation, in an interview with Russian Service correspondent, Natalya Golitsina, states that, “...by the fall of 1932, a number of measures (were) taken that specifically targeted Ukrainians and affecting Ukraine...” and that Josef Stalin had contrived “...to target Ukraine specifically.” Many other notable and qualified historians, such as Robert Conquest, are also in agreement with Applebaum. Newspapers of the time, perhaps most importantly, corroborate Applebaum’s assertions.
The front page headlines of the August 6, 1934 issue of “Daily Express” reads “The Horror of the Ukraine” and the “Chicago American” headline is “Six Million Perish in Soviet Famine”. Related front page articles then report specifically on Ukraine as bearing the brunt of the famine. The newspapers’ front pages are complete with some of the first horrifying photographs of the effects of Stalin’s ‘Holodomor’ policy.
So the “Holodomor Memorial” is simply that - a memorial for Ukrainian victims, who bore the brunt of the Holodomor , presented by Ukrainians. Are Lyadov and Bronikova suggesting that Ukrainians must speak for everyone while they - Lyadov, Bronikova, Russia, Putin, Stalin - answer to no one?
Are these Russian spokespersons suggesting that the Ukrainian diaspora is over-reacting?! That the Stalin-manufactured famine impacted and affected a number of geographic areas is certain. That Ukraine was the main target during this time is revealed by universally accepted and empirically documented mortality figures. While I’m loathe to use statistics when discussing any such incredible and unnecessary loss of life, statistics and numbers are revealing to demonstrate the genocidal-based motive behind Stalin’s and the USSR’s policies. Cold statistics and numbers have a basic way of communicating information to make a point. It is commonly accepted among qualified historians and researchers of the time period, that at least 90% of the victims of the 1932-33 Holodomor were ethnic
Ukrainians. There were 4.5% ethnic Russians, 1.5 % Jews, 1.1% ethnic Poles among the many other victims. These numbers are staggering given that estimates of casualties of the Holodomor range between 6 - 10 million people killed. So is it that difficult to understand, particularly for Lyadov and Bronikova, why the Ukrainian diaspora has established a memorial for Ukrainian victims as they were clearly the main targets of Stalin’s policies and the USSR’s power politics?
Furthermore, the fact that one of the newspaper’s headlines refers to “Soviet” is revealing for a number of reasons. Ukrainians at the time were technically Soviet citizens. While many of the editorial points in the newspapers’ articles focused on conditions in Ukraine, it is important to understand the magnitude and scope of the Holodomor in a wider context; it was a method of power and control in its genocidal origins and motives. In 1931, for example, some historians reference a trial run of 1932-33 Holodomor tactics (i.e., outright confiscation of food and crops by the military, cordoning off borders and methods of escape) that was unleashed upon Kazakhstan. It is estimated that nearly 40% of the ethnic Kazakh population of Kazakhstan perished that year. This is significant, in and of itself, and very revealing, considering those victims were Soviet citizens, as well. This is especially relevant given the rise in popularity, as well as reverence, that the architect (Josef Stalin) of these horrific events has in Russia today.
Apparently showing reverence for tyrannical murderers is in vogue in Russia today, by at least some elements of Russian society, as described in the earlier “Newsweek” magazine article referenced - “Why Russia Still Loves Josef Stalin, One of the 20th Century's Most Brutal Despots”. Throngs of people appear at numerous events displaying Stalin posters, banners, slogans and likenesses celebrating ‘his achievements’. Certainly every society and culture has diverging, sometimes contradictory, opinions, beliefs, outlooks and lifestyles. And there is a particularly acute contradiction demonstrated here. While “The Wall of Sorrow” has been officially erected in Moscow to commemorate victims of Stalin’s brutal reign, it is noteworthy to learn that “Memorial”, Russia’s oldest human rights group, has reported that ceremonies at this and other memorials have been banned altogether. Parades celebrating Stalin are apparently approved while ceremonies at memorials to his victims are banned. This is a bizarre contradiction.
Stalin’s apologists posit that his victims were “sacrifices of the war against the fascists”; however, it is revealing to note that the vast majority of Stalin’s victims were killed before World War II (the Great Purge of the 1930’s, the Holodomor) and after the war (the Gulag system of deportation and imprisonment). Imagine reactions to a German or Western politician, or a parade of people celebrating Adolf Hitler by displaying posters with his photo?! Stalin murdered literally millions of Soviet citizens, including Russian citizens; reference any writings by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and yet Stalin is adored, revered and respected by many current leaders and elements of Russian society. Perhaps Lyadov and Bronikova could address this anomaly in their next ‘expose’.
Additionally, it is worth noting how Lyadov, particularly, loathes Ukrainian embroidered garb - really?! And how aghast he is that Canadian politicians (Justin Trudeau, John Tory, Chrystia Freeland, Borys Wrzesnewskyj and others) occasionally don embroidered shirts. He infers, states really, that this is another indication of the over-influential effect the Ukrainian diaspora has on Canadian politics. Apparently, he has not heard of the internment of Ukrainians, as well as others of Austro-Hungarian Empire origins in Canada around the time of the First World War; or understands that a democratic society generally invites and encourages participation. Lyadov, then, will be particularly enraged to learn that Holodomor memorials exist in many parts of the world. As well as in Toronto, Edmonton, Windsor, Calgary and other Canadian cities, Holodomor memorials are erected in Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, and in Poland and Germany. The European Parliament and a number of countries/governments around the world have recognized and declared the Holodomor a genocide.
Perhaps Lyadov and Kiselyov will begin an international Ukrainian conspiracy campaign in another instalment of their ‘show’ similar to the ones repugnantly forwarded by post-WWII neo-Nazis about the Jewish diaspora.
Many will remember, or have knowledge, the repugnant diatribes of those who at first denied the existence of the WWII Holocaust. Then slowly, grudgingly, ‘reneging’, as it were, from total denial, to indignant, reprehensible questioning of the actual number of victims. Historical fact and documentation have silenced those arrogant enough to deny that The Holocaust ever happened or the inconceivable magnitude and unimaginable impact on a people, their lives and culture.
There is no intention here whatsoever of comparing one cataclysm to another in terms of ferocity, or number of victims, or methods, or impact, or scope. And there have been many such intentional cataclysms, within which tens of millions perished, perpetrated for control and domination: the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the so-called ‘Killing Fields’ of Cambodia and the horrors perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge, the starvation and mass murders in Maoist China. But at least one similarity does exist among these horrific events - the fact that there are apologists who come forth to minimize the significance of these appalling events, trivialize and disparage the victims, and deflect responsibility away from the perpetrators. Such seems to be the case with Lyadov, Kiselyov and Bronikova.
Within a few minutes of viewing Lyadov’s ‘report’, it's myopic nature, biased and misleading propagandist approach became very apparent. And during a fleeting few seconds, colleagues, friends and I actually appear near the end of this ‘report’. Lyadov’s voice-over basically refers to us as examples of the troublesome diaspora either born here or arrived in this country but unable to speak either Ukrainian or Russian. But Lyadov is mistaken, yet again.
A Response to Russ1 Television
