Fyens Stiftstidende kronik 03. April Tænk i Udvikling

Her er teksten mere læsbar.

Vejkantsbyer er uddøende og ikke rentable. Regneark er taknemmelige, særlig når konkurrencesamfundet holdes op som ideal.

Jeg har undervist unge, som kommer fra sociale boligområde også kaldet ghettoer, er de rentable?

Nej, vi kan ikke overleve som socialt samfund, hvis alt skal gøres op i regneark. Mit velfærd er ikke kun bundet til de antal kroner, der hver måned går ind på lønkontoen, så skulle jeg ikke, overhovedet ikke skrive digte. Selvfølgelig er der en nedre grænse.
Men Danmark fremtid er ikke kun rentabilitet for de øvre lag af konkurrencesamfundet.
Fjernelse af landsbyer er store overskrifter i et Danmark, der er ved at falde fra hinanden. Der har vi vist været før, og så fundet fornuftige løsninger.

Begrebet udkant tror jeg er opfundet hos en kreativ gruppe mennesker, der måske netop har befundet sig i deres egen udkant, og så er det vel næsten til grin, at vi i så lille et land for alvor vil tale om udkant.

Vi har en nedrivningspulje. Brug den til at fjerne ruiner fra landsbyer, lige som der er postet penge i bysanering.

Og giv os så de statslån, så folk kan låne til at købe huse uden for byerne. Låne til mindre virksomheder. Igangsætte projekter.
Der står mange tomme landbrugsbygninger, som burde kunne bruges, hvis man måtte.
Brug nogle penge på stabil hurtig net, mobilforbindelse.
En offentlig trafik som er anvendelig. Telebusser, uddannelsesbusser.
Ingen sløjfning af stoppesteder på de lokale togforbindelser. De unge skal have mulighed for at komme til og fra uddannelsessteder. Det virker også tåbeligt, at man forsøger at reducere privatbilismen, ved at gøre den kollektive trafik både dårligere og dyrere.

Her på Fyn har der været en debat om vækstmotorer og små tiltag. Odense er motoren på Fyn. H.C. Andersen er en turistmagnet, (og ville have haft større betydning, hvis der ikke var gået kage i den dengang med Tina Turner.)

Men sidste år beviste H.C. Andersen Festivals, at ting godt kan fungere i Odense. Vi har en international Kortfilm festival, som går fint hånd i hånd med dansk kortfilm, der henter priser.

FilmFyn hov, hvor er Odense her? Det er ellers en overskudsforretning, kære politikere
Vi kan altså noget med film i Danmark, måske fordi vi stadig opfatter det som en kunst og ikke en industri, hvor man skal sælge flest mulig billetter.
Mærk lige den kreativitet der er i Filmværkstederne.

Ikke at man har noget imod stort billetsalg, men det er ikke billetsalget som en kvalitetsmåler. Det er kunst, som bliver skabt af kreative kræfter.

Derfor er det stadig fint med en kirsebærfestival i Kerteminde, en rosenfestival i Bogense. Fredelig droneudvikling i lufthavnen. Egeskov, lystfiskeri....

Men det er Odense, som skal tiltrække, derfor kan turister godt bo på et hotel i Nyborg, en campingplads ved Hasmark, et sommerhus ved Fåborg ...

Jeg er selv aktiv med et mikrolille kulturtiltag (også for turister) på Enebærodde.

Her undrer jeg mig gang på gang over, at der ikke er lavet en cykelrute Fjorden rundt.

Fra Odense langs Fjorden via Munkebo og Kerteminde, Fyens Hoved over Gabet med fjordbåden og tilbage mod Odense, eller omvendt rækkefølge. Overnatninger undervejs. Besøg hos kunstnere, lokale madproducenter, historiske steder, naturoplevelser, gode spisesteder.
Fjordbåden kunne også sejle på marsvinekig, sælkig.

Jamen meget kunne bygges op med udgangspunkt i Odense.
Hvis vi tør række ud efter fremtiden på samme måde, som andre rakte ud efter fremtiden da Højskolebevægelsen opstod, da Andelsbevægelsen opstod.

Smagen af Fyn. Hvorfor ikke smagen af Odense Fjord.

Der er rigtig mange, som vil elske det her smukke land, selv med en regnbyge eller to, måske viser den vej til drømme ved regnbuens fod!

Hvorfor nytænker vi ikke forsamlingshusene ind i 2014. Kulturhuset med hot-spot. Information, toilet, en kop kaffe måske.

Vi har forsamlingshuse i stort tal over hele landet.

Når skolen er lukket, butikkerne lukket, er der mange steder, hvor en frivillig bestyrelse kæmper for at holde forsamlingshuset i gang. Laver frivilligt arbejde når huset skal repareres, står klar til juletræsfest, dilettant.

Det kunne måske også være her, der var computercafe for de grupper, som har svært ved at følge med i det digitale Danmark.
Lad os komme i gang og tænke udvikling i stedet for afvikling. Så må Carsten Hansen gerne holde indvielsestalerne.

PS

Jeg er født på landet og bor nu på en landlig idyl, hvor jeg skriver og er kontaktperson for et bogforlag, andelsforlag. Jeg nyder stedet, bortset fra når vi er sneet inde og en palle bøger skal transporteres på kælk.

Men har boet både i Odense, København, Skive, Grækenland og Kroatien.

International Landminedag

MINEPRINSESSE.

Et smil

og en barnlig glæde

over de tre farver

det hvide papir.

En prinsessedrøm

lever også her

i skyggen

af krigens golde bjerge.

Det sorte hår

smykkerne

ansigtet med røde stramme læber

den flotte kjole

med tre farver vævet sammen;

men den ene fod mangler

mineprinsesse.

Digtet er fra Aktindsigt. Prinsessen er tegnet af Astrid Bjerregaard. Det nederste billede er digtet både på dansk og russisk.
Oprindelig skrevet inspireret af krigen i Tjetjenien, men desværre stadig aktuel.

Verdens PoesiDag kl. 15.00 Odense Centralbibliotek

Anne Skamstrup Heiberg har lavet de flotte tegninger til mine korte tekster om MADIBA

I samarbejde med Odense Centralbibliotek markerer Fynske Forfattere Verdens Poesidag med et arrangement på hovedbiblioteket.
I år er temaet ord og billeder, og digterne får hjælp fra grafikere fra Fyns Grafiske Værksted.

Ni digtere og ni grafikere er blevet sat fuldstændig tilfældigt sammen parvis som en ”blind date” mellem en digter og en grafiker. De kunstnerpar, der er opstået, har fået til opgave at frembringe et eller flere værker, der præsenteres, når vi den 21. marts markerer Verdens Poesidag. Det er helt op til de enkelte par, hvordan de vil løse opgaven; men ord og billede skal på en eller anden måde arbejde sammen. Deltagerne er:
Bjarne Kim Pedersen, digter & Anne S. Heiberg, grafiker
Per Nielsen, digter & Line Eskestad, grafiker
Jørgen Wassilefsky, digter & Marianne Lindberg Jepsen, grafiker
Anders Vægter Nielsen, digter & Ingrid Duch, grafiker
Poul G. Exner, digter & Kirsten Panduro, grafiker
Cindy Lynn Brown, digter & Wieslaw Dabrowski, grafiker
Inga Mollerup, digter & Jens Bohr, grafiker
Iben Fogh Staal, digter & Kurt Dupont Larsen
Johanna Thielst, digter & Elmar Mønster, grafiker

Vi fejrer Verdens Poesidag på Odense Centralbibliotek med en poetisk fernisering den 21. marts kl. 15, hvor projektet præsenteres.
Udstillingen vil herefter kunne ses på Odense Centralbibliotek frem til slutningen af april.  

Til en russisk soldat/ To a Russian soldier

polfoto

TIL EN RUSSISK SOLDAT

med kærlig hilsen

må jeg sætte blomster i

din kalashnikov

TO A RUSSIAN SOLDIER

with love

may I put flowers in

your kalashnikov

(Bjarne Kim Pedersen)

JEWS In Ukraine

WORLD JEWISH NEWS

Open letter of Ukrainian Jews to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin.

05.03.2014, Jews and Society

To the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

Mr. President!

We are Jewish citizens of Ukraine: businessmen, managers, public figures, scientists and scholars, artists and musicians. We are addressing you on behalf of the multi-national people of Ukraine, Ukraine's national minorities, and on behalf of the Jewish community.

You have stated that Russia wants to protect the rights of the Russian-speaking citizens of the Crimea and all of Ukraine and that these rights have been flouted by the current Ukrainian government. Historically, Ukrainian Jews are also mostly Russian-speaking. Thus, our opinion on what is happening carries no less weight than the opinion of those who advise and inform you.

We do not believe that you are easy to fool. You consciously pick and choose lies and slander from the massive amount of information about Ukraine. And you know very well that Victor Yanukovich's statement concerning the time after the latest treaty had been signed that “...Kyiv is full of armed people who have begun to trash buildings, places of worship, churches. Innocent people have begun to suffer. People have simply been robbed and killed in the street...” are lies, from the first word to the very last.

The Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine are not being humiliated or discriminated against, their civil rights have not been limited. Meanderings about “forced Ukrainization” and “bans on the Russian language” that have been so common in Russian media are on the heads of those who invented them. Your certainty of the growth of anti-Semitism in Ukraine also does not correspond to the actual facts. It seems you have confused Ukraine with Russia, where Jewish organizations have noticed growth in anti-Semitic tendencies last year.

Right now, after Ukraine has survived a difficult political crisis, many of us have wound up on different sides of the barricades. The Jews of Ukraine, as all ethnic groups, are not absolutely unified in their opinion towards what is happening in the country. But we live in a democratic country and can afford a difference of opinion.

They have tried to scare us (and are continuing their attempts) with “Bandera followers” and “Fascists” attempting to wrest away the helm of Ukrainian society, with imminent Jewish progroms. Yes, we are well aware that the political opposition and the forces of social protests who have secured changes for the better are made up of different groups. They include nationalistic groups, but even the most marginal do not dare show anti-Semitism or other xenophobic behavior. And we certainly know that our very few nationalists are well-controlled by civil society and the new Ukrainian government – which is more than can be said for the Russian neo-Nazis, who are encouraged by your security services.

We have a great mutual understanding with the new government, and a partnership is in the works. There are quite a few national minority representatives in the Cabinet of Ministers: the Minister of Internal Affairs is Armenian, the Vice Prime Minister is a Jew, two ministers are Russian. The newly-appointed governors of Ukraine's region are also not exclusively Ukrainian.

Unfortunately, we must admit that in recent days stability in our country has been threatened. And this threat is coming from the Russian government, namely – from you personally. It is your policy of inciting separatism and crude pressure placed on Ukraine that threatens us and all Ukrainian people, including those who live in Crimea and the Ukrainian South-East. South-eastern Ukrainians will soon see that for themselves.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, we highly value your concern about the safety and rights of Ukrainian national minorities. But we do not wish to be “defended” by sundering Ukraine and annexing its territory. We decisively call for you not to intervene in internal Ukrainian affairs, to return the Russian armed forces to their normal fixed peacetime location, and to stop encouraging pro-Russian separatism.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, we are quite capable of protecting our rights in a constructive dialogue and in cooperation with the government and civil society of a sovereign, democratic, and united Ukraine. We strongly urge you not to destabilize the situation in our country and to stop your attempts of delegitimizing the new Ukrainian government.

Signed:

Josef Zisels Chairman of the Association of Jewish Communities and Organizations of Ukraine (VAAD) Ukraine, Executive Vice President of the Congress of National Communities of Ukraine

Alexander Suslensky D.Sc., Vice President of the Jewish Confederation of Ukraine, businessman

Andrei Adamovsky First Vice President of the Jewish Confederation of Ukraine, member of the “Hillel” Jewish Student organization Observation Council (citizen of Russia)

Evgen Chervonenko Vice President of the European Jewish Congress, businessman

Rabbi Alex Dukhovny Head Rabbi of the Ukrainian Progressive Judaism communities

Rabbi Reuven Stamov Head Rabbi of the Ukrainian Traditional Judaism communities

Alexander Paskhaver Member of the VAAD Ukraine Coordation Council, economist

Leonid Finberg Director of the NaUKMA Center for the Studies of History and Culture of Eastern European Jewry, VAAD Ukraine Vice Chairman

Anatoliy Podolsky Director of the Ukrainian Center for Holocaust Studies, Vice Chairman of VAAD Ukraine

Igor Kuperberg Chairman of the Zionist Federation of Ukraine, Vice Chairman of VAAD Ukraine

Semen Belman Vice President of the Jewish Council of Ukraine, President of the Chernigiv Jewish Community

Alexander Gaidar Leader of the Union of Ukrainian Progressive Judaism Religious Communities

Vyacheslav Likhachev CNCU Chief expert in monitoring and analysing xenophobia and anti-Semitism, member of the VAAD Ukraine Coordination Council(citizen of Russia and Israel)

Michael Gold Editor-in-chief of the VAAD Ukraine newspaper “Hadashot”

Galina Haraz Engineer (citizen of Ukraine and Israel)

Igor Turov PhD in history, Director of the Jewish Studies Certificate Program of VAAD Ukraine, VAAD Ukraine Presidium member

Diana Gold VAAD Ukraine Presidium member

Alexander Roitburg Artist

Evgen Greben Director of the “Maccabi” Jewish Cultural and Sports Society (Kyiv)

Grigoriy Pickman “B'nei B'rith Leopolis” President

Igor Kerez VAAD Ukraine Trustee Board member, businessman

Artem Fedorchuk, Director of the Intarnationsl Centar on Jewish Education and Field Studies

(Signatures still being collected)

March 4, 2014

Some Clarifications Regarding Ukraine http://projectmaidan.com/

MARCH 3, 20141:08 AM

Some Clarifications Regarding Ukraine

By Capt Stephen L. Szyszka (Ret.)

With the recent developments in Ukraine, I feel obligated to take a new approach. Certain disinformation, repeated by many media outlets and intellectuals (some would say, provocateurs) in the West, like Stephen Cohen of Princeton, has been raging for months, and now it is in full attack mode. I will repeat certain of these assertions, and then provide a clarification of the same.

Ukrainian soldiers (left) and unidentified gunmen (right) at the gate of a Crimean infantry base. Photo: Darko Vojinovic/AP

The inaccurate assertions below are repeated by certain Western media outlets and intellectuals, and I feel obligated to provide clarifications.

1. Assertion: The new government in Ukraine is illegitimate, and Yanukovych is still the duly-elected president. The only way forward is to accept the agreement between Yanukovich and opposition political leaders of Febuary 21st as witnessed by three European Foreign Ministers which established a power-sharing arrangement keeping Yanukovych in power through December.
   
   Clarification: Yanukovych’s security forces were executing a plan in which hired Russian snipers assassinated dozens of peaceful protesters during the negotiation of this agreement in the single greatest day of carnage since the protests began. Only after this did some more extreme faction of the protesters, a tiny minority, armed in order to defend themselves. Due to Yanukovych’s bad-faith negotiation, the agreement to which they refer is meaningless. Additionally, the agreement required Yanukovych to sign the Parliament’s restoration of the 2004 Constitution within a reasonable time frame, which he did not. Subsequently, the Parliament, in full complement (no ruling party members were excluded and in fact many of them voted with the opposition), voted to impeach Yanukovych, and subsequently ordered his arrest. Hence, Yanukovych is not the president, he is a fugitive from justice.
   
2. Assertion: Yanukovych did not flee his office. He was chased out by armed extremists who were shooting at him and his family.
   
   Clarification: this is an outright lie. There is no evidence of such shootings.
   
3. Assertion: The protesters/perpetrators of the coup are neonazi fascists who intend to create an ethnically pure Ukrainian state, specifically targeting Russians for discrimination and repression.
   
   Clarification: The protesters consist of Ukrainians, Russians, Georgians, Armenians, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders. Many of these groups are represented in the new government, as well. Even the Moscow-controlled faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate are calling out these lies in Russian and Eastern Ukrainian media. No incidents of Ukrainians infringing on the rights of any ethnic or religious minority have been documented.
   
4. Assertion: Crimea is historically Russian land, importunely gifted to Ukraine by Khrushchev, that is so ingrained in Russian DNA that it must be returned to Russia, as are the Eastern portions of Ukraine, for that matter.
   
   Clarification: At best, this is selective history. At worst, it is ongoing disinformation. Crimea was annexed into the Russian Empire in the 17th century by Catherine the Great. Prior to this annexation, Crimea was often conquered and reconquered, by Asian Hordes in the first millennium, by the Ottomans, Cossacks, and others over the years. So if history goes back only to 1700, those Russian chauvinists who claim Crimea is “ancient Russian land” are correct. If one goes back to 1960, Ukrainians can make the same claim. If one goes back to A.D. 1000, Ukraine’s precursor state centered in Kyiv once again has the legitimate claim. If one goes to 1200, Mongolia has that right, so those Russians who claim indignantly that this is their land from time immemorial are not presenting an accurate picture of history. Those who can arguably claim the greatest right to Crimea are the Muslim Tatars who had lived there since that first millennium, until forcibly expatriated by Russian/Soviet policy. Only recently have they been allowed to return to their ancient homeland, and although a minority of ~14% in Crimea, that have made it clear that they want to live in a democratic Ukraine and not in an authoritarian Russia. As for the Russians in Eastern Ukraine, they are only there because the Holodomor (Famine-Genocide) of the 1930s starved to death millions of Ukrainians, and Russians were sent their to repopulate the land and work the farms.
   
5. Assertion: Extremists started the violence on the maidan, and the government showed great restraint until forced into the military option.
   
   Clarification: There is ample evidence and testimony that the protesters were peaceful and unarmed from November through the middle of January. Throughout, the government attempted to incite them to violence through the use of hired titushky thugs, who infiltrated the Maidan, stirring up trouble, giving the militia an excuse to employ force. There is video evidence and testimony of these people being rounded up, hired, conspiring with the Berkut special forces, and then slipping from one side of the barricades to the other, stirring up violence. These same thugs hired by the mayor of Kharkiv, Kenes, were responsible for multiple kidnappings and beatings, maiming and deaths of not only protesters, but also medical personnel and journalists. Every time the government negotiated with the opposition, force was employed against the protesters, testifying to Yanukovych’s lack of good faith. The January 18th assassinations were the final straw.
   
6. Assertion: Russian forces in Crimea are only defending Russian interests and citizens against the provocations of an illegal government installed in Kyiv.
   
   Clarification: There is zero evidence of such provocations. As previously in Kyiv, armed, well-organized, unmarked militiamen appeared and surrounded a number of key facilities (communications nodes, police facilities, government buildings) and set up roadblocks restricting movement in Crimea without provocation. They forbade duly-elected members of the Crimean parliament from entering the building, and only certain members were allowed in. Subsequently, with only 42 of 100 parliament members allowed in the chamber, they elected a new speaker (illegal, since he is a Russian citizen, not Ukrainian) and requested that Russia send in forces to protect them. It has been demonstrated that these unmarked lads are Russians, as one of them let it slip to an interviewer, whereas the bulk of them refuse to answer. They prohibit journalists from access and doing their job. If they are doing such honorable work, why are they afraid of openness? The phone links to Ukraine are blocked. The only TV broadcasts permitted are those originating in Russia, and they-the Russia-controlled media-are fueling this hysteria. Further, showing pro-Russia protests in Crimea is inaccurate, since those who would protest against Russian intervention are beaten and forced to remain indoors. To reiterate, there are not any western provocateurs in Crimea, and none have been shown to be there.
   
7. Assertion: This coup is hostile to Russian citizens, ethnic Russians, and Russian-speakers. The evidence they cite here is the toppling of Lenin statues all over the country, and the banning of the Russian language by Parliament.
   
   Clarification: Lenin brought about the most vile, destructive and repressive empire in recorded history and ought not be revered by anybody, most specifically the Russian people. His actions resulted in their subjugation for 70 years, and it is high time to topple all of these statues. Regardless, toppling a statue of Lenin is not anti-Russian, it is Anti-Soviet Union and should be welcomed by all post-Soviet nations. Secondly, there is no such law banning the Russian language in Ukraine.  What the Parliament did is repeal a law that had elevated the Russian language in Ukraine to the level of a state language. This in no way limits people’s rights to function using that language. Newspapers, radio and TV broadcasts, schools, shops, all can and likely will continue functioning in Russian. People can and will continue speaking Russian if that is their preferred language.

Finally, there are many instances and examples of Russian people (citizens, ethnics, speakers, etc.) in Ukraine’s east, in Russia, and around the world, who are appalled at Putin’s adventurism, who stand for a free and democratic Ukraine with whom Russia should have normal “equal-partner” relations. And in Russia, those who dare voice their support for a free Ukraine are jailed, whilst others are instructed by their employers to go protest in support of the occupation, and show no passion for the cause. It is not the Russian people writ large who are in favor of this invasion. It is only the chauvinistic minority who cling to outdated stereotypes, and refuse to acknowledge the realities of today. This invasion is not supported by the Russian people. It is a fabrication of the cynical Russian leadership.

FILED UNDER:  RT, COHEN, EUROMAIDAN, UKRAINE, CRIMEA, RUSSIA.

Ukrainske experter om Euromaidan og 'højre-fraktion' change.org

Collective statement by experts on Ukrainian nationalism on the role of far right groups in Ukraine’s protest movement, and a warning about the Russian imperialism-serving effects of some supposedly anti-fascist media reports from Kyiv

We are a group of researchers who comprise specialists in the field of Ukrainian nationalism studies, and most of the world’s few experts on the post-Soviet Ukrainian radical right. Some of us publish regularly in peer-reviewed 

journals and with academic presses. Others do their research within governmental and non-governmental organizations specializing on the monitoring of xenophobia in Ukraine.

As a result of our professional specialization and research experience, we are aware of the problems, dangers and potential of the involvement of certain right-wing extremist groupings in the Ukrainian protests. Following years of intensive study of this topic, we understand better than many other commentators the risks that its far right participation entails for the EuroMaidan. Some of our critical comments on nationalist tendencies have triggered angry responses from ethnocentrists in Ukraine and the Ukrainian diaspora living in the West.

While we are critical of far right activities on the EuroMaidan, we are, nevertheless, disturbed by a dangerous tendency in too many international media reports dealing with the recent events in Ukraine. An increasing number of lay assessments of the Ukrainian protest movement, to one degree or another, misrepresents the role, salience and impact of Ukraine’s far right within the protest movement. Numerous reports allege that the pro-European movement is being infiltrated, driven or taken over by radically ethnocentrist groups of the lunatic fringe. Some presentations create the misleading impression that ultra-nationalist actors and ideas are at the core or helm of the Ukrainian protests. Graphic pictures, juicy quotes, sweeping comparisons and dark historical references are in high demand. They are combined with a disproportionate consideration of one particularly visible, yet politically minor segment within the confusing mosaic that is formed by the hundreds of thousands of protesters with their different motivations, backgrounds and aims.

Both the violent and non-violent resistance in Kyiv includes representatives from all political camps as well as non-ideological persons who may have problems locating themselves politically. Not only the peaceful protesters, but also those using sticks, stones and even Molotov Cocktails, in their physical confrontation with police special units and government-directed thugs, constitute a broad movement that is not centralized. Most protesters only turned violent in response to increasing police ferocity and the radicalization of Yanukovych’s regime. The demonstrators include liberals and conservatives, socialists and libertarians, nationalists and cosmopolitans, Christians, non-Christians and atheists.

True, the violent and non-violent protesters also comprise a variety of radicals of both the far right and far left. Yet, the movement as a whole merely reflects the entire Ukrainian population, young and old. The heavy focus on right-wing radicals in international media reports is, therefore, unwarranted and misleading. Such an over-representation may have more to do with the sensationalist potential of extremely ethnonationalistic slogans, symbols or uniforms than with the actual situation, on the ground.

We even suspect that, in some semi-journalistic reports, especially those in Kremlin-influenced mass media, the inordinate attention to far right elements in Ukraine’s protest movement has nothing to do with anti-fascism. Paradoxically, the production, biases and dissemination of such reports may themselves be driven by an imperial form of ultra-nationalism - in this case, its Russian permutation. By fundamentally discrediting one of the most impressive mass actions of civil disobedience in the history of Europe, such reports help to provide a pretext for Moscow’s political involvement, or, perhaps, even for a Russian military intervention into Ukraine, like in Georgia in 2008. (In a revealing blog, Anton Shekhovtsov has recently detailed the activities of some obviously pro-Kremlin institutions, connections and authors. See “Pro-Russian network behind the anti-Ukrainian defamation campaign” at http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2014/02/pro-russian-network-behind-anti.html. Probably, there are more of them.)

In light of these threats, we call upon commentators, especially those on the political left, to be careful when voicing justified criticism of radical Ukrainian ethnonationalism. The more alarmist statements on the EuroMaidan are likely to be used by the Kremlin’s “political technologists” for the implementation of Putin’s geopolitical projects. By providing rhetorical ammunition for Moscow’s battle against Ukrainian independence, such alarmism unintentionally helps a political force which is a far more serious threat to social justice, minority rights and political equality than all Ukrainian ethnocentrists taken together.

We also call upon Western commentators to show empathy with a nation-state that is very young, unconsolidated and under a serious foreign threat. The fragile situation in which Ukraine’s nation still finds itself and the enormous complications of everyday life in such a transitional society give birth to a whole variety of odd, destructive and contradictory opinions, behaviors and discourses. Support for fundamentalism, ethnocentrism and ultra-nationalism may sometimes have more to do with the permanent confusion and daily anxieties of the people living under such conditions than with their deeper beliefs.

Finally, we call upon all those who have either no particular interest for, or no deeper knowledge of, Ukraine to not comment on this region’s complicated national questions without engaging in some in-depth research. Being specialists in this field, some of us struggle every day to adequately interpret the growing political radicalization and para-militarization of the Ukrainian protest movement. In face of what can only be called state-terror against Ukraine’s population, an increasing number of both ordinary Ukrainians and high-brow Kyiv intellectuals are concluding that, although surely preferable, non-violent resistance is impractical. Reporters who have the necessary time, energy and resources should visit Ukraine, or/and do some serious reading on the issues their articles address. Those who are unable to do so may want to turn their attention to other, more familiar, uncomplicated and less ambivalent topics. This should help to avoid, in the future, the unfortunately numerous clichés, factual errors, and misinformed opinion that often accompany discussions of events in Ukraine.

S I G N A T U R E S:

Iryna Bekeshkina, researcher of political behavior in Ukraine, Sociology Institute of the National Academy of Sciences, Ukraine

Tetiana Bezruk, researcher of the far right in Ukraine, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine

Oleksandra Bienert, researcher of racism and homophobia in Ukraine, PRAVO. Berlin Group for Human Rights in Ukraine, Germany

Maksym Butkevych, researcher of xenophobia in post-Soviet Ukraine, “No Borders” Project of the Social Action Center at Kyiv, Ukraine

Vitaly Chernetsky, researcher of modern Ukrainian and Russian culture in the context of globalization, University of Kansas, USA

Marta Dyczok, researcher of Ukrainian national identity, mass media and historical memory, Western University, Canada

Kyrylo Galushko, researcher of Ukrainian and Russian nationalism, Institute of Ukrainian History, Ukraine

Mridula Ghosh, researcher of human rights abuses and the far right in Ukraine, East European Development Institute, Ukraine

Olexiy Haran, researcher of Ukrainian political parties, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine

John-Paul Himka, researcher of Ukrainian nationalist participation in the Holocaust, University of Alberta, Canada

Ola Hnatiuk, researcher of right-wing tendencies in Ukraine, University of Warsaw, Poland

Yaroslav Hrytsak, researcher of historic Ukrainian nationalism, Ukrainian Catholic University at L’viv, Ukraine

Adrian Ivakhiv, researcher of religio-nationalist groups in post-Soviet Ukraine, University of Vermont, USA

Valeriy Khmelko, researcher of ethno-national structures in Ukrainian society, Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, Ukraine

Vakhtang Kipiani, researcher of Ukrainian nationalism and samizdat, "Istorychna pravda" (www.istpravda.com.ua), Ukraine

Volodymyr Kulyk, researcher of Ukrainian nationalism, identity and media, Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies at Kyiv, Ukraine

Natalya Lazar, researcher of the history of the Holocaust in Ukraine and Romania, Clark University, USA

Viacheslav Likhachev, researcher of Ukrainian and Russian xenophobia, Euro-Asian Jewish Congress, Israel

Mykhailo Minakov, researcher of Russian and Ukrainian political modernization, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine

Michael Moser, researcher of languages and identities in Ukraine, University of Vienna, Austria

Bohdan Nahaylo, researcher of ethnic tensions in Eastern Europe and the CIS, formerly with UNHCR, France

Volodymyr Paniotto, researcher of post-Soviet xenophobia, Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, Ukraine

Olena Petrenko, researcher of war-time Ukrainian nationalism, Ruhr University of Bochum, Germany

Anatolii Podolskyi, researcher of genocide history and antisemitism, Ukrainian Center for Holocaust Studies at Kyiv, Ukraine

Alina Polyakova, researcher of radical right movements, University of Bern, Switzerland

Andriy Portnov, researcher of modern Ukrainian, Polish and Russian nationalism, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany

Yuri Radchenko, researcher of war-time Ukrainian nationalism, Center on Inter-Ethnic Relations in Eastern Europe at Kharkiv, Ukraine

William Risch, researcher of Ukrainian nationalist thought and politics, Georgia College, USA

Anton Shekhovtsov, researcher of West and East European right-wing extremism, University College London, United Kingdom

Oxana Shevel, researcher of Ukrainian national identity and historical memory, Tufts University, USA

Myroslav Shkandrij, researcher of inter-war Ukrainian radical nationalism, University of Manitoba, Canada

Konstantin Sigov, researcher of post-Soviet discourse strategies of the “Other,” Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine

Gerhard Simon, researcher of contemporary Ukrainian history and nationality affairs, University of Cologne, Germany

Iosif Sissels, researcher of hate speech and antisemitism, Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities (VAAD) at Kyiv, Ukraine

Timothy Snyder, researcher of historic Ukrainian nationalism, Yale University, USA

Kai Struve, researcher of Ukrainian radical nationalism and the Holocaust, University of Halle, Germany

Mykhaylo Tyaglyy, researcher of genocide and antisemitism, Ukrainian Center for Holocaust Studies at Kyiv, Ukraine

Andreas Umland, researcher of the Russian and Ukrainian post-Soviet extreme right, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine

Taras Voznyak, researcher of Ukrainian intellectual life and nationalism, Magazine “JI” (L’viv), Ukraine

Oleksandr Zaitsev, researcher of Ukrainian integral nationalism, Ukrainian Catholic University at L’viv, Ukraine

Yevgeniy Zakharov, researcher of xenophobia and hate crimes in today Ukraine, Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, Ukraine