Ukrainian Politician Stepan Khmara: Ukraine Is Not a Multinational State

He also believes that the rules should be set by Ukrainians.

In a new episode of the Antypody program on the Islandia channel, Ukrainian politician, human rights activist and political prisoner Stepan Khmara spoke about Ukrainian nationalism, Poroshenko's mistakes, traitors in Donbas and religion in Ukraine.

There are a great many fighters for Ukraine. Especially now. And I am not talking now about those people who are at the front. I am talking about those people who fight for Ukraine inside the country, and very often there is an impression that each of them defends some Ukraine of his own, his own concept.

And I think that, given such a variety of different Ukraines that exist today within active society, it would probably be logical to ask those people who actually fought for this Ukraine, not on the pages of social networks, not on the sofa, but directly in real life, in the camps, in particular, as you did. What did you fight for, Mr. Stepan?

For our Ukrainian idea. So that sooner or later an independent, unified Ukrainian national state would emerge. That was the idea, that was the main goal of my life, that was my choice.

I think all people who fight for Ukraine can sign up to your words.

I don't think so, because they see Ukraine differently. Some, and I am not counting enemies, but Ukrainians who don't think much about what they say. For example, you can hear that Ukraine is a multinational state. That is absurd, that is wrong. How can Ukraine be a multinational state when the Ukrainian ethnos makes up over 80%?

According to internationally established norms, a state where one ethnic group makes up up to 50% is considered a national state. For example, we consider ourselves a European state, and all states in Europe are national, where the base ethnic group forms the state: its name, its identity, its cultural, so to speak, field. In Ukraine many do not understand this.

I say again, I am not talking about enemies, but some national minorities want to dictate rules to us. They don't want to understand that the rules must be set by Ukrainians. And Ukraine must be Ukrainian. And our task, as Ukrainians, as the base nation, is to do everything to ensure a decent life for all our citizens, including representatives of national minorities.

And why is this done, exactly this positioning of Ukraine as a multinational state? Perhaps these people don't mean anything bad when they say it, and they say it simply stating a fact: that many nationalities live on this territory. Does this, in your opinion, have some purpose after all, and if so, what is it?

It varies. When this is said by ordinary citizens, as they are called, that is one thing. But when I often hear it from journalists who work in the media, it causes me a certain alarm and warning. Because they influence the formation of public opinion and misinform. Our state has not yet firmly found its footing; it is still in the stage of formation and strengthening.

And indeed, the absence of such a clear concept of understanding this, and of understanding responsibility for one's words, affects national security to some extent, if not directly then indirectly. Because a fairly tough ideological struggle is going on in the world. Moreover, we must remember that, as God would have it, we happened to be neighbors of a terrible monster, which is Russian imperialism.

Which does not see the existence of Ukraine. They have always craved our death. And this is not only what happened 100 years ago, when the communists came to power in the Russian Empire; it has been going on for centuries. That is why this matters so much, this word is decisive. The struggle for identity, in fact for the Ukrainian state, for its security. What kind of state will it be?

You know, our dream, which must be the basis of the Ukrainian idea, must determine what the state should be. First, it must be a Ukrainian national state. Second, it must be a powerful state. Our goal is for our state to be one of the leading ones in Europe, if not the largest, the strongest or the richest, then at least one of them. We are destined not to be weak.

A Ukrainian state will never survive if it is weak; our enemies will tear it apart. Because, understanding our potential, this is a large territory, a rich territory, a great people, a great ethnos. Therefore all the distant and close neighbors, as they say, some directly, some not directly, would not want to see Ukraine as such a state. But we must remember our dream, our idea.

So that to be a state, so that it becomes firmly established once and for all, we speak of our ethnic territories, and not even the full ones, but those which, according to international law, are legitimized within our territorial borders, which, by the way, were recognized as early as the beginning of the 20th century, when our borders were defined.

Later they changed somewhat, but in international law they were finally fixed after the Second World War. Moreover, after the Second World War, both through the United Nations and through the victors, the coalition of victors over Hitler's Nazism, these borders were confirmed.

Ukraine was one of the founders of the United Nations.

Yes. And then all this was confirmed in the Final Act in Helsinki in 1975. We know who first violated these rules, the international law that was legitimized after the Second World War. It is precisely Russia. We must remember this and always emphasize that Russia is a vicious violator of international law and the international order.

It violated our territorial integrity, it occupied part of our territory. And it worries me that the world community, above all the European community, and also the United States of America, treat this somewhat irresponsibly. Because an aggressor for such a violation must immediately get not only a slap on the hands but also a blow to the head. By all possible means.

To put it in its place. Because the threat to Ukraine's existence is first of all a threat to us, but it is also a threat to Europe, and consequently to the world order. The world order, which became more humane after the Second World War, may fall apart. We see what is happening in Russia and what its whims are.

That it has not renounced its imperial whims, which have been brewing in it for centuries and continue on. Nothing changes in the Russian Empire. Only the names are transformed. There was a tsarist regime, then a Bolshevik one under different masks. But the imperial idea did not disappear; it is one and the same. It is the establishment of its own world order. And now, in today's days, we see this.

You mentioned the national idea, the Ukrainian idea. Can “away from Moscow” be a national idea? Should the national idea be something deeper?

Without understanding this slogan, which would become, so to speak, our everyday life, our state will always be under threat. Always. It cannot be otherwise. Whoever wishes us death, we must remember, emphasize and resist with all our strength. This must be done within the country with all our might, and we must do everything to convey this understanding to the rest of the European and democratic world community.

What is the highest value for Ukraine?

If we take the political side, then undoubtedly the highest value is the state. Because without a state Ukrainians cannot exist and have no prospects for the future. The only guarantee of this is one's own state.

The state to ensure freedom, right? That is, freedom is a fundamental value for Ukrainians. We are a very freedom-loving people, and for us freedom is perhaps the most important thing.

Yes, but it cannot be realized without the freedom of the nation. So again we return to the national state. I have always said that if someone thinks it can be bad for Ukrainians in Ukraine while it will be good for someone else, that is a great illusion. Likewise, if there is no peace in Ukraine, then Europe will also be under threat, and it will not have peace either.

Well, obviously because Ukraine is part of Europe.

Yes. And because the Russian imperial idea can only be a threat if Ukraine is part of it. Without the Ukrainian component, the Russian idea is absolutely not viable, even tactically. Because we have that sin, it is our mistake, that our ancestors took a very active part in building the Russian Empire. Let us recall who was the ideologist of Russian imperialism: our fellow countryman Feofan Prokopovich.

No, well, if we don't go back to ancient times at all and talk about who went to found Moscow.

Well, that's a thing. Back then the orders were different. The question of national statehood did not yet exist. States were built on a different principle then. Later, when European tribes turned into European peoples and nations, they began to fight to have a worthy place under the sun, and therefore they fought for their rights.

After the First World War, Europe became a union of national states. Unfortunately, we then failed to hold on to our state. Not because we are so bad. We must look at ourselves self-critically, but, as they say, not only sprinkle ashes on our heads, and also remember that we did not survive because we were divided.

You know, they always throw at us these ideological fakes, that where there are two Ukrainians, there are two hetmans. We did not hold on because our state was destroyed by external aggression. In that case, the Ukrainian People's Republic. That is, the external factor played the main role. And then they destabilized everything from within and fueled class struggle.

So this claim may be part of some external narrative, right? We remember those separate, Soviet, nasty phrases humiliating for Ukrainians, like “a partisan detachment with a Ukrainian is a partisan detachment with a traitor” and “two Ukrainians, three hetmans.”

And it takes root in our mentality, it takes root in our memory. As a result we perceive it as if we invented it ourselves, reached this conclusion. But in fact I think this is a very serious observation, that it was thrown in from outside, most likely.

But no one says that we showed maximum will and organization in creating such a force for struggle as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. It was created, again, by ideological Ukrainian patriots, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. That is why it fought against such a monster as Russian imperialism. For ten years they could not destroy it. I saw this with my own eyes. I saw that mass self-sacrifice.

For the sake of the idea they gave up everything. Not only those guys and girls who fought directly with weapons in their hands, but the whole people supported them and were united. We had no external help. The people fed, clothed, sheltered and assisted. And this was only on part of Ukraine's territory, because the other part had been destroyed root and branch earlier.

Just think what potential strength lies hidden in the Ukrainian nation. To destroy about ten million people by the Holodomor alone, that is one thing. And then to amputate from it, so to speak, its brain, the intelligentsia.

The Executed Renaissance…

Not only that. This was done all the time, from beginning to end, right up to the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

I want to ask you about a phenomenon, or rather a phenomenon you have faced for many years, including in the camps. And I want to ask what is wrong with the Muscovites? What unites them all and at the same time distinguishes them from us?

For me there were no illusions even before, but in the camps this was further confirmed. Of the most democratic democrats, I know only one non-imperialist. Of all the Muscovites from the camps whom I knew, the only normal man without imperial ambitions is Oleksiy Smirnov from Moscow. Thank God, he is alive and well.

He is a decent person who came to the camps without orienting himself on the national question, but he wanted to know. He asked questions, such childish questions. He wanted to understand, he was a decent guy. But unfortunately, these are exceptions. 

So what is wrong with them? What is this global flaw of theirs? 

You know, I have a cat, my kitty understands many words. I talk to her, and she understands. She cannot say it, but she answers: “Meow.” And dogs can be taught anything at all. They, poor things, just cannot speak like people. But they have their own language too. The Muscovites have been trained since time immemorial, from the Mongol yoke on, then Ivan the Terrible, then Peter the Great. That was a monster. He did nothing good for Russia, because he turned Russia into a monster.

But if there had been no Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great or Catherine the Great, Russia today might have been a wonderful state, a good neighbor. But they trained them and inoculated them with this imperial plague, this infection. They are expansionists, so they hate everyone. Reagan defined it correctly. It is an evil empire and it must not exist. And he did everything, and he did it wisely.

And the world today must also understand that this scum can still do a great deal of evil to the world. Let us hope this will not happen, that sobriety will come. There will not always be such worthless authorities as those currently in European countries. Unfortunately. Well, there are no serious leaders who can think strategically rather than only about their own benefit.

And who accommodate our so-called businessmen, who see nothing beyond money. Beyond personal benefit, but personal benefit can lead to the death of the one who receives it. And so it goes. And with Nord Stream 2, you just have to spit once and put Moscow in its place. There is oil and gas in the Middle East, it is not hard to deliver. Moscow needs to be put in its place.

What to do with the occupied territories? 

Prepare. And at the appropriate moment, of course, recapture them, because they will not leave on their own. But that will happen when such a moment comes. Take advantage of it and strike precise blows. For now we are not marching on Moscow. You understand, the state does not do many things it should do. How could we agree to humanitarian convoys? That was under Poroshenko.

His peace initiatives. A week of ceasefire, and what were the Muscovites doing during that time? They brought tanks, artillery and so on into Donbas. They saw that Ukrainians could be led around by the nose. Merkel helped. She came to Kyiv, as you remember, on August 23, 2014. She arrived without prior arrangements, and so on. 

Right before Ilovaisk.

Yes. And what did Poroshenko do? He kept the Chief of the General Staff and the Minister of Defense beside him and held a parade, while the guys shouted: “Give us help.” There was no such help. And this “comrade” carries on. Instead of taking action, our intelligence conducted a brilliant operation, and these people handed it over to the Muscovites. 

Do you believe this story? 

What is there to believe? It is unambiguous. Zelensky made a confession at a press conference. He clearly indicated that he had given orders not to do it, that it was a harmful operation, that the intelligence officers were “crap,” they were this and that, and the next day they were dismissed, and so on.

Instead of rewarding them. Even if you are already so worthless and gave the order to abort, you should have used all that information and handed it to the French, because there were bandits there who fought even in former French colonies, you understand. Then they would only have thanked us for it. What are we even talking about. 

Well, Erdogan might not have thanked us, had the Turkish plane been shot down, as there is such a version. 

To carry out such an operation, and this is proven by facts, the way they called these Muscovites idiots. This is colossal. And what would Erdogan have against it? And how do we know there was no agreement with the Turkish special services? No one will say so. No one will admit it, and rightly so. And how do we know that not everything was coordinated there? 

There is a very important question that arises when we talk about the probable liberation of Donbas. These are Ukrainian citizens who became collaborators, who killed their compatriots as part of the occupation forces. What should be done with them, and how far can such a phenomenon as amnesty be considered? 

I will tell you, when we liberate Donbas, they will be the first to flee. Because they understand that if they are not shot, they will be imprisoned for a long time. These are people who killed, who committed crimes, collaborators. They understand perfectly well that they will be punished. A special tribunal will try them, and they will simply be shot. 

But we don't have the death penalty. 

I am telling you, a special tribunal, this was a war. And how did the Nuremberg trial go?

In your opinion, can amnesty be applied to those who fought on the Russian side?

No. Those who fought, no. They are traitors, they broke the law. Criminal responsibility is mandatory. Amnesty may apply to minor officials. Well, maybe deprive them of the right to take part in elections for ten years. People understand everything perfectly well. And those who fought will be the first to flee, they are not the last idiots. 

What main traumas did the Soviet system inflict on Ukrainians? And for how many more generations will these traumas make themselves felt? 

Well, first of all it is the destruction of our national consciousness, as it is now customary to call it, of our identity. This is primarily in the humanitarian sphere. Our true history and our culture were taken away from us. The largest number of prisoners in Soviet times were intellectuals, creative intelligentsia, because they work with consciousness. Why were the most talented writers destroyed?

So that they would not create what could shape identity.

Vasyl Symonenko was not a politician. And Stus, one of the talented poets, his works are worthy of more than one Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, he did not live to see the time when he could have received that recognition. The destruction of our consciousness. You understand, the Soviet empire strengthened gradually. They struck at the foundation of the nation.

I will make a small remark. When I was a student, some people looked at me as if they did not quite understand. Because I could go to the library and read Lenin's works. There was something to learn from that bandit, and so it later came in handy in life too. This is a person who managed with his cunning politics to subjugate Ukraine. Well, not only he, but he, as they say, is the leader. Such a dangerous enemy must be studied and must be known.

Afterwards they tried to root all this out and amputate memory, above all historical memory. Not without reason the Muscovites are erecting a monument to Volodymyr the Great in the center of Moscow. Although what relation do they have to him? None. And they lay claim to our princely period, to historical memory. Who brought them education? Who tried to impose religion on them?

Although they accepted Christianity only formally, and they never were and never became Christians. If today we look at the Russian Orthodox Church, it is a monster, it is blasphemy that they call themselves Christians. We see this, including in the Russian Orthodox Church that operates in Ukraine. True, for some reason it hypocritically calls itself the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

But it is not clear why the Ukrainian authorities do not enforce the law adopted by our imperfect Verkhovna Rada. It was supposed to re-register and, according to the law, be called the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. They categorically oppose this.

And the authorities have fallen silent. And when our state leaders, including people who head structures directly related to national security, do not understand this.

That within today's Ukraine the greatest ideological strategic enemy is the Russian Orthodox Church, and the head of the Security Service of Ukraine is a parishioner of that church, then my gray hair stands on end.