please, help

influential ukrainians warn obama, west of rising russian threat

ATTN:

dear world,

the foundation of the ukrainian independent state in 1991 was one of the important results and, at the same time, one of the guarantees of the end of the global conflict between the “east” and the “west”, the twofold division of europe, and the spread of the ideals of freedom and democracy in the world. ukraine made its considerable contribution to world’s and european security by renouncing its nuclear weapon. the budapest memorandum of 1994 was then confirmed by the respective guarantees of the state–members of the un security council. at the time, this resolution, along with the concurrent expansion of the eu and the euro-atlantic system of collective security played an important role in the strengthening of security in europe.

today, however, one cannot fail to notice the inefficiency of these guarantees.

the russian government intentionally took on the political course towards the destruction of the existing system of security. one of the key aspects of this policy is the attempt to force ukraine to serve the needs of russia’s geopolitical interests. this strategy resulted in the sharp escalation of tensions in the relationships between the two states. russia’s information war against ukraine took on unprecedented forms. the russian public is presented with the image of ukrainians as a enemy and a major destabilizing factor in the relationships between the eu and russia.

the russian side does not allow for the view that the ukrainian foreign policy towards ukraine’s accession to the nato is an authentic right of our state; that ukraine’s pro-western foreign policy cannot be considered as an action against russia but that it rather serves as a reflection of ukraine’s national interests. ukraine voluntarily renounced its nuclear weapons. ukraine can only resist its contemporary foreign challenges and threats within the system of collective security.

the address of the president of russia from august 11, 2009 became one of the steps in the realization of the kremlin’s foreign policy that outwardly ignores ukrainian sovereignty, reveals russia’s intrusion into the internal affairs of ukraine, and contradicts the generally accepted norms of international law. the ukrainian people respects the democratic choice of the russian people and demands the reciprocal respect for its own choice as well. the decision of the russian president to postpone the appointment of an ambassador to ukraine in anticipation of the potential arrival of a new authority in our country that, as president medvedev hopes, would lead a different (apparently more russia’s friendly) policy, can be only assessed as an outward pressure of the neighboring country on the electoral choices of ukrainian citizens.

we regret that the russian government consistently ignores the lessons of history. we hope that the new elites of our neighboring country would be primarily preoccupied with the liberties, rights, and well-being of the peoples of the russian federation. we do not doubt that the existing tensions provoked by the russian power center are superficial and temporary. the depth and the profundity of the interpersonal relationships between representatives of the two peoples – ukrainians and russians – will eventually restore the friendly relationships between our countries.

at the same time, we believe that the recent address of russian president, vladimir medvedev, to ukrainian president, viktor yushchenko, marks a substantially new phase in the attitudes of the russian power center to ukraine. for the first time in many years, there emerged the indications that kremle does not exclude the use of force as its means of geopolitical influences in ukraine.

there are other indications of this geopolitical strategy. among them are president medvedev’s proposal to russia’s state duma of a project of the law that allows the use of russian armed forces outside of the territory of the russian federation and the launch of the respective propagandistic campaign. we consider the following — russia’s president’s disrespectful neglect of the letter-response of victoryushchenko, the unfounded accusations of ukrainian soldiers by the russian prosecutor officefor their involvement in the last-year war on the georgian side; russia’s president’s treatment of the necessary actions of ukrainian policemen in crimea as an adverse attempt to impinge on the activity of russia’s black sea fleet — as the direct propagandistic justification of a possible military intervention into ukraine’s internal affairs with the aim of suppressing ukraine’s sovereignty and freedom, and transforming ukraine into the sphere of russia’s immediate influence and control. russia’s rhetoric towards ukraine brings home the horrible historical examples of the 1930s.

we realize the transparent nature of the ukrainian political system, the detrimental impact of the exiting antagonism within the ukrainian power center, all serious factors that reduce the efficiency of ukraine’s foreign policy and hinder its economic growth. ukraine is nevertheless a large and free country with huge democratic potentials that is heading on the road towards the implementation of the european system of law. this is a country that during its eighteenth years of independence achieved respect and became an important subject of european politics. the subordination of ukraine to russia’ s strategy threatens to bring back the division of europe. it could cause direct threats to the international and national security of the eu member-states; decrease general trust and security in europe; lead to the escalation of tensions and antagonism in international relationships in general.

we appeal to the government of the usa, great britain, france and china with the proposal to organize an international conference of the guarantor-states regarding § 6 of the budapest memorandum with the aim to provide real guarantees of security to ukraine, proclaimed in the memorandum.

we also appeal to the governing institutions of the eu to take a clear and non-ambivalent position regarding the sovereignty of ukraine; to warn russian against any attempts of intruding into ukraine’s internal affairs.

we appeal separately to the state-members of the vyshegrad group (which always favored ukraine and its euro-atlantic endeavors) with the request to design their common or separate positions regarding the escalations of ukraine-russia’s relationships.

yurij andukhovych, writer

viacheslav briukhovetskyi, hero of ukraine, doctor of philology, the honorary rector of the national university “kyiv-mohyla academy.”

bohdan havrylyshyn, foreign member of the national academy of sciences of ukraine, ph.d., head of the supervisory council of the international institute of management.

semen gluzman, civil rights defender, the acting secretary of the association of ukraine’s psychiatrists, director of the american-ukrainian council of the defense of human rights.

yaroslav hrytsak, ph.d. in history, professor, head of the institute of historical research of ivan franko lviv national university of ukraine.

mykola zulyns’kyi, professor of the national academy of sciences of ukraine, ph.d. in philology, head of taras shevshenko institute of literature of the national academy of sciences of ukraine.

oxana zabuzhko, writer.

serhii komisarenko, professor of the national academy of sciences of ukraine and the academy of medical sciences of ukraine, doctor of sciences (biology); head of o.v. palladin institute of biochemistry of the national academy of sciences of ukraine.

leonid kravchuk, hero of ukraine, the first president of ukraine.

vasyl kremin’, professor of the national academy of sciences of ukraine, ph.d. in philology, president of the pedagogical academy of ukraine.

yurii laniuk, composer.

levko lukianenko, hero of ukraine.

myroslav marynovych, first vice-president of the ukrainian catholic university, president of the institute of the history of religion and society of the ukrainian catholic university.

myroslav popovych, professor of the national academy of sciences of ukraine, ph.d. in philology, head of hryhorii skovoroda institute of philosophy of the national academy of sciences of ukraine.

serhii rakhmanin, journalist, editor of the politics section of the weekly “dzerkalo tyzhnia.”

mykola riabchuk, writer, publicist.

konstiantyn sytnyk, professor of the national academy of sciences of ukraine, doctor of sciences, biology, honorary head of m. holodnyi institute of botanic of the national academy of sciences of ukraine.

volodymyr sirenko, national actor of ukraine, leading conductor and art director of the national academic symphony orchestra of ukraine.

taras stets’kiv, deputy of the ukrainian parliament.

volodymyr filenko, deputy of the ukrainian parliament.

ihor yukhnovs’kyi, hero of ukraine, doctor of sciences (physics and mathematics), head of the ukrainian committee of sciences and culture of the national academy of ukraine.

taras vozniak, philosopher, political observer, editor-in-chief of the independent magazine “ї.”

oleksii volovych, head of the odessa branch of the national institute of strategic research by the office of the president of ukraine.

rustem zhanzhoga, political observer, leading researcher of the institute of world’s economy and international relationships of the national academy of sciences of ukraine, member of pen-club.

oleksander filts, mds, professor, president of the ukrainian psychiatrist association.

ihor markov, political observer, head of the section of the ethno-social research of the institute of ethnology of the national academy of sciences of ukraine.

oleksandr ivankiv, first vice-president of the institute of ukrainian national memory.

ihor koliushko, head of the center of political and judicial reforms.

ilko kucheriv,director of the democratic initiatives foundation.