Украина: Олигархический мятеж в Донбассе

Ukraine: The Oligarchic Rebellion in the Donbass – in Russian. Available also in English, French and Polish.

Andrew Butko, CC BY-SA 3.0

Andrew Butko, CC BY-SA 3.0

С точки зрения концентрации капитала Донбасс существенно превосходит другие области Украины и является главным бастионом монополистического капитала.

После падения режима Януковича, то есть после потери государственной власти политической и экономической элитой Донбасса, эта элита попала в панику. Решила отступить в свою твердыню, чтобы сохранить свою власть по крайней мере там: ввести автономию региона, на этот раз политическую, принять поддержку русского империализма и, при необходимости, с его военной поддержкой, организовать сецессию.

Мы знаем, какова была роль Рината Ахметова, донецкого промышленного магната и самого могущественного олигарха Украины. «Донецкая Народная Республика была его проектом», прямо признавал сайт сепаратистов «Русская весна». Один из руководителей мятежа, Павел Губарев, наивно рассказал российским СМИ о роли Партии регионов и Ахметова: «Начали появляться лидеры так называемого народного ополчения во всех городах. И партия власти, олигархи наши восточные начали работать с активистами народного ополчения. Оказалось, что две трети из активистов уже на содержании олигарха Ахметова. Очень небольшая группа лиц сохраняла верность идее, но при этом все равно брала деньги. Деньги брали все!»

«Донбасские контрас» – такой термин особенно уместен применительно к олигархическому мятежу в Донбассе, потому что он напоминает нам о вооруженном контрреволюционном движении под эгидой США в Никарагуа после свержения режима Сомосы.


Вся статья доступна здесь: 

Збигнев Марцин Ковалевский, Украина: Олигархический мятеж в Донбассе

Comrade Mauser, You Have the Floor – in French

The Alliance of Cuban Trotskyists and Revolutionary Nationalists


Servando Cabrera Moreno, Territoire (1963)

Servando Cabrera Moreno, Territoire (1963)

This essay appeared in 2003, in the last issue of the French quarterly, Cahiers Léon Trotsky, whose editor was a great historian of the communist movement, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and revolutions, Pierre Broué. He passed away two years later.

Paraphrasing what Trotsky said about the 1905 revolution in the Russian empire, it can be said that the events of 1933 in Cuba formed a majestic prologue to the revolutionary drama of 1959. But later, in revolutionary Cuba, one of the decisive aspects of this prologue was hidden: the Trotskyist movement, which experienced its rise during the 1933 revolution and played a role in it, disappeared totally from the history of this revolution. It was well known and obvious that, in 1933, the mortal enemies of the Hundred Days’ Government, led by a reformist nationalist, Ramón Grau San Martín, and a revolutionary nationalist, Antonio Guiteras, were the Cuban ruling class and the American imperialism. But what was hidden after 1959 in Cuba was the fact that one part of the Cuban left fought this government, too, while another part defended it. “In the spectrum of revolutionary forces”, recognizes now a prominent Cuban historian, Julio César Guanche, “the Grau-Guiteras government was defended, among others, by the Bolshevik Leninist Party (PBL) and the International Workers’ Defense (DOI), of Trotskyist affiliation, and sectors that, animated by this inspiration, cohabited [with other radicals] inside the Student Left Wing (AIE) and the Havana Workers’ Federation (FOH), while it was fought ferociously by the National Workers’ Confederation of Cuba (CNOC) and the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC), both following the ‘Soviet Marxism-Leninism’”.

The Stalinist Communists and the union apparatuses under their control characterized the Hundred Days’ Government as a Fascist one. But after 1959, during nearly forty years, their struggle against this government was largely silenced in Cuban historiography, while the Bolshevik Leninist Party was erased from it. Nevertheless, the stubborn silence around this party was ambiguous. In the best Cuban historiography of the 1933 revolution, the Trotskyist movement was an invisible, never-mentioned but present ghost of history. If you knew the chapter about Cuba in the book by Robert Alexander on Trotskyism in Latin America, published in 1973, and if you obtained from your Cuban friends an elementary confidential knowledge on the matter, it was possible to find or identify at least some Trotskyist imprints and hear some echoes of the Trotskyist voice in the revolutionary history of Cuba. It was in this manner that I found and heard them living in Cuba for nearly five years in the second half of the ‘70s. Paradoxically, it was only during my visit to Cuba in 2005 that I could know personally the 87-year-old veteran Trotskyist militant with a very clear-sighted mind and never-waning working class and revolutionary spirit: Idalberto Ferrera Acosta.

The historiographical breakthrough came in 1997, when Rafael Soler Martínez, a historian from the University of Oriente (Santiago de Cuba), defended in Havana his PhD thesis about Trotskyists in the 1933 revolution and recognized that they were a revolutionary current. My Belgian friend Eric Toussaint was present at the defense and reported publicly about it. Soler Martínez published soon in Cuba four articles based on his thesis. In 2000, the second relevant work appeared: in Britain Gary Tennant published his own very important PhD thesis on the history of Cuban Trotskyism.

Soler Martínez’ and Tennant’s approaches to the subject were substantially if not radically different and their interpretations of the same facts sometimes frontally opposed. Such a major difference concerned a key question of the program and strategy of Cuban Trotskyists: the question of permanent revolution. For Soler Martínez, “their dogmatic, mechanist and sectarian positions did not allow them to understand the need of a national liberation, anti-imperialist, agrarian and democratic stage in the revolution, as a necessary previous phase for the uninterrupted transition to the socialist phase”. For Tennant, the contrary was true: they conceived “a democratic anti-imperialist revolution as a distinct stage on the path towards proletarian revolution”. Tennant attributed to them a “one-sided approach to revolution which not only borrowed the slogans of the national liberation movement, but saw the revolutionary nationalist sector as a vehicle for the proletarian revolution” and inclined them to follow this radical petty bourgeois sector. For Soler Martínez, “they negated the revolutionary potentialities of the petty bourgeoisie, the role that it should play in the revolution and the necessity of the alliance of workers not only with peasants but also with this social force”.

My essay was a critical and polemical comment to Tennant’s book. I presented an essentially different story. Cuba was a country where, since the war of independence, petty bourgeois revolutionary nationalism was a very dynamic factor of political struggles and established its long-term hegemony in the revolutionary movements. This hegemony was exercised even over large sectors of the workers’ movement. It was what the most brilliant Cuban communist Julio Antonio Mella understood very well and it was why he defended and applied consistently the politics of the anti-imperialist united front. Later, Cuban Trotskyists followed, in general, his united front politics. At the same time, they were attached to the theory of permanent revolution.

Since the defeat of the 1933 revolution, a majority of them progressively chose the so-called “external way of building the Fourth International”. In practice, in this manner they renounced their political independence, merged with revolutionary nationalists and dissolved their current inside the nationalist currents. But, contrary to what Tennant said, it was not the end of the story. They did not abandon the basic element of the theory of permanent revolution: the idea that in an underdeveloped and dependent country, it is impossible to overthrow imperialist domination and accomplish the outstanding historical tasks of the national democratic revolution without overthrowing capitalism and making a socialist revolution. They implanted this idea rather successfully inside nationalist currents.

Alberto Sendic observed effects of this implantation and its transmission to the revolutionary nationalist movement that led the Cuban revolution to the victory in 1959, when he stayed in Cuba in 1960. In this decisive year, Sendic said later, “many Trotskyist ideas circulated and inspired measures by and the evolution of the revolution and its leadership team.” Sendic was an Uruguayan Trotskyist and brother of Raúl Sendic, the future leader of Tupamaros. He told me about his discovery and we discussed it at length when I met him in Paris in the ‘80s.

“Trotskyism influenced the revolutionary nationalist tendency led by Antonio Guiteras”, wrote Adolfo Gilly, Sendic’s former Argentinian comrade who also stayed in Cuba at the beginning of the ‘60s. “I am sure that it is possible to study it and to gather evidence that it had something to do with the apparently strange permanent course of the revolution” of 1959.

My essay was the first – and, it seems, is still the only – contribution to such a study.

The full text in French is available hereZbigniew Marcin Kowalewski, Le camarade Mauser a la parole. L’alliance des trotskystes avec les nationalistes révolutionnaires cubains

Edited by Andrew Pollack

Black God and White Devil in the Urban Ghettos of America – in Polish

Religion and Black Nationalism of the Nation of Islam

The Nation of Islam, commonly known as the Black Muslim movement, appeared during the Great Depression in the black ghettos of the big urban and industrial centers in the Emnorthern United States. It was founded by W. Fard Muhammad, one of the probably most mysterious figures in the history of Black America, in whom his followers saw the incarnation of Allah. Its doctrine was a combination of an extremely heterodox or “heretical” Islam and a separatist variety of black nationalism. A quarter of century later, the marginal sect led by Elijah Muhammad as Messenger of Allah became the most important new religious movement to emerge in the U.S. in the twentieth century. It has proved to be the largest and longest-lived nationalist movement among the American blacks. Its activities, including the preaching of “black internationalism”, were seen by the federal authorities as a threat to national security. The outstanding revolutionary leader Malcolm X emerged from its bosom. Rooted in the lowest layers of the black working class, the Nation of Islam durably and successfully questions the liberal middle-class leadership of the northern black communities, which aspires toward integration into white society.

The full text in Polish is available here:

Zbigniew Marcin Kowalewski, Czarny Bóg i biały diabeł w miejskich gettach Ameryki. Religia i czarny nacjonalizm Narodu Islamu

Poltava: On Some Political and Propaganda Mistakes

scan0004The internal instruction published here in Ukrainian is one of the most important political documents of the postwar nationalist armed underground in Soviet Ukraine. It was found in the Sectoral State Archive of Security Service of Ukraine (HDA SBU) and appeared in the second volume of collected writings of Petro Fedun – “Poltava”, edited by Mykhaylo Romanyuk and published in 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

As the director of the Main Propaganda Center (HOSP) of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), Commander Poltava issued this instruction in January 1946. He was than 27 years old. It was addressed to militants of the underground movement who were responsible for local propaganda work, and its aim was to correct their often mistaken approaches to several political problems, processes and events.

As I observed earlier on this web site, while Poltava and other Ukrainian revolutionary nationalists made at this time a clear distinction between Stalinism and socialism or communism, they did not see a major difference between Stalinism and Bolshevism. This is very visible in this instruction.

The most important points discussed in the instruction were the following ones.

In the first place, Poltava called on militants to be very clear in their propaganda work concerning the question of Stalinist imperialism. This is not an imperialism of Russian people, he explained, and the Russian people is not responsible for the imperialist policy of the Stalinist regime. This regime oppresses and exploits not only all non-Russian nationalities, but also the Russian people itself, and one of the political tasks of the Ukrainian nationalist movement is to gain the Russian masses for a common struggle against the “Stalinist exploitative regime”. “So, we must speak about Stalinist imperialism, and not about Russian imperialism, about imperialism of the Stalinist Bolshevik clique, and not about imperialism of the Russian people; we must speak about imperialist elements among the Russian people as about Stalinist agents, mercenaries, traitors and enemies of their own people and of working people in general.”

Poltava explained also that another mistake is to call the Soviet regime a communist one, because those who rule in the Soviet Union “are not communists at all” and they did not build a communist society but “betrayed communist ideas”. “True communists should fight, like us, against Stalin – an exploiter of working people and oppressed nationalities.” He explained also that it is a mistake to call them Reds, because those who rule in the USSR, “having nothing to do with either communism or socialism, have also nothing to do with the red flag that symbolizes an essentially just struggle of the working class for its liberation”.

Discussing another point, Poltava wrote: “Frequently we express ourselves as defenders of capitalism. For example, we say that an unemployed worker lives better in the USA than an employed worker in the USSR. To say that means that unemployment is not a particularly bad thing, that is, it means that you accept it.” But the Soviet worker “knows that unemployment is one of the greatest tragedies of the working class in the capitalist system”. “We must say very clearly that we condemn unemployment as something that is intrinsic to putrefying capitalism, that we oppose the capitalist exploitative system in general and that, at the same time, we oppose the newest methods of exploitation of workers in the Bolshevik system. We cannot attack only the Bolshevik system and be silent about capitalism, but we must obligatorily attack at the same time both systems. It arises from our program.”

Several points of the instruction had to do with problems of international politics.

On the United Nations, Poltava commented that “we are for the closest possible cooperation of all nations”, but “we cannot expect anything good for us from the UN”, because it is “an imperialist institution that puts leadership over the world in the hands of three great powers”.

The future inevitable conflict between the Soviet Union and the Anglo-Americans, Poltava wrote, must be explained as an effect of “imperialist antagonism between these states”. We cannot say that England “will not accept that there exists a dictatorship over the sixth part of the world” or that “England will fight to liberate nations”, because “in our opinion, England is also an imperialist state”.

“[Electoral] victories of socialists in England and France should be positively appreciated. We are for the overthrow of exploitation of man by man, for the overthrow of capitalist system, so we consider that the struggle of working people of all countries for their liberation is just and we welcome their successes.” We welcome them especially, observed Poltava, because these parties are independent, not subordinated to the Soviet policy.

The situation is different in the East European countries under Soviet domination. There, the governing “so-called left-wing parties” are Soviet agencies. “Programs of these governments and parties in different countries are just from the point of view of the needs of the popular masses, and reforms that they are doing are necessary.” “If behind these reforms were not the aspirations of the Bolshevik Moscow to dominate these countries politically, economically and culturally, all would be fine.”

For this reason, in their propaganda Ukrainian nationalists should not attack either the programs of these parties and the reforms realized by these governments nor those sectors of the masses that support them, but “only agent, treacherous, renegade leaderships of those parties and agent governments”. “In this manner, we will not march together with some reactionary groups in these countries that, motivated by their egoistic class interests, are opposed to any reforms”.

Poltava pointed to the case of the Polish armed underground that, originating in the wartime Home Army (AK, the mainstream anti-Nazi resistance movement), fought now the new “communist” regime established under Soviet domination. “We have a common enemy – and, in fact, we have nothing more in common”, he wrote in the instruction. “It is like this because while we say clearly that we fight for an Ukrainian Independent United State and want that every nation should live in its own independent national state, the AK is subordinated in fact to its government in exile that strives toward the restoration of Poland in its frontiers from before 1939, that is, also on the Ukrainian and Byelorussian lands. While we are against landlords and capitalists, the AK actively opposes the parcelling out of the landlords’ estates.” Poltava commented, “The same happens with the Rumanian Iron Guard, Serbian Chetniks, Croatian Ustasha and Bulgarian underground groups.”

The last point made by Poltava was the growing anticolonial revolution in Southeast Asia. He wrote, “The struggle in Indochina and Indonesia is an independent struggle for national liberation of colonial peoples (Annamites in Indochina and Malays in Indonesia) against French and Dutch domination. Bolsheviks have no influence upon this struggle. In contrast, the struggle of Azerbaijanis in Northern Iran is inspired by Bolsheviks who, exploiting the Azerbaijani [national] question, that is not solved by the Iranian government, strengthen there their influence, preparing an annexation of this part of Iran with the aim to weaken there the influence of England.”

Edited by Andrew Pollack


The full text in Ukrainian is available here:

Петро Федун – «Полтава», Про деякі політично-пропагандивні помилки

L’Ukraine : Réveil d’un peuple, reprise d’une mémoire (1989)


f8Publié par Hérodote. Revue de géographie et de géopolitique en 1989, deux ans avant l’ascension d’Ukraine à l’indépendance nationale, ce long article expliquait les causes profondes de l’essor des aspirations indépendantistes dans ce pays et de l’inévitabilité de sa séparation de l’Union soviétique.

À l’époque, dans le monde entier, l’opinion publique ne se rendait pas compte du fait que la question ukrainienne était la plus grave et explosive de toutes les questions de nationalités qui se posaient en URSS.

L’article avertissait que les tentatives des pouvoirs impériaux moscovites visant à étouffer d’une manière ou d’une autre les aspirations nationales du peuple ukrainien ne pouvaient qu’exacerber la question ukrainienne et risquaient d’« introduire une dimension chaotique dans le processus d’ensemble de l’histoire universelle ».

Le drame actuel confirme pleinement la justesse de cet avertissement.


L’article est accessible ici:

Zbigniew Marcin Kowalewski, L’Ukraine : Réveil d’un peuple, reprise d’une mémoire (1989)

Il y a aussi des fragments en espagnol:

Zbigniew Marcin Kowalewski, Ucrania: Despertar de un pueblo, recuperación de una memoria (1991)

Ucrania: Despertar de un pueblo, recuperación de una memoria (1991)

Mitrophan_Grekov_02Los fragmentos del ensayo que apareció en la revista francesa Hérodote, traducidos al español y publicados en 1991 en la revista Correo Internacional editada en Argentina.

En general, los historiadores de la revolución rusa no ven a Ucrania más que como un territorio que permitió la expansión de esa revolución, en un movimiento desde el centro a la periferia del viejo imperio.

Así, la revolución ucraniana —imbricada en la revolución rusa sin ser idéntica a ella— pura y simplemente desaparece de las páginas de la historia, cuando en realidad constituía un sujeto pleno; fue de hecho la más potente, la más masiva y la más violenta de todas las revoluciones realizadas por las nacionalidades oprimidas del imperio zarista.

En los fragmentos del ensayo reproducidos aquí explico la historia de esta revolución y el dramático conflicto entre los comunistas rusos y ucranianos (bolcheviques, borotbistas y ukapistas) en torno a la cuestión de la independencia de Ucrania. Explico también la suerte posterior del pueblo ucraniano, sometido una vez más a la opresión nacional y explotación bajo el régimen burocrático gran ruso que se instauró en la Unión Soviética en el proceso de contrarrevolución estalinista.

El texto completo de los fragmentos del ensayo es accesible aquí:

Zbigniew Marcin Kowalewski, Ucrania: Despertar de un pueblo, recuperación de una memoria (1991)

El nacionalismo revolucionario ucraniano en el imperio estalinista (1986)

Boris Krimer

Foto Boris Krimer

Este artículo apareció en 1986 en la revista mexicana La Batalla. Se reproduce aquí con el epílogo escrito en 2015.

La cuestión nacional ucraniana siempre ha sido y sigue siendo un efecto histórico de la doble opresión imperialista, polaca y rusa, del pueblo ucraniano y las luchas nacionales ucranianas contra esta opresión en los dos frentes. Comencé a estudiarla en 1984, viviendo en exilio en Francia.

Por un lado, mi objetivo era comprender las causas y la historia del dramático conflicto polaco-ucraniano y sus presentes consecuencias. El conflicto llegó a su horrible climax en 1943-44, cuando en Ucrania occidental (anteriormente polaca) las guerrillas de los dos lados masacraron mutuamente a las poblaciones civiles, y en 1944-47, cuando el régimen estalinista polaco llevó a cabo una limpieza étnica total de cientos de miles de ucranianos que vivían dentro de las nuevas fronteras, las de posguerra. En 1984, el régimen del General Jaruzelski lanzó en los medios de comunicación polacos una nueva campaña chovinista antiucraniana explotando el legado de este terrible conflicto.

Por otro lado, comprendí que la crisis cada vez más profunda del sistema soviético era al mismo tiempo una crisis del imperialismo burocrático ruso que anunciaba una desintegración de la Unión Soviética según las líneas nacionales. Era posible y hasta muy probable que, por primera vez desde la época del Estado cosaco en el siglo XVII, Ucrania llegara pronto a ser un Estado independiente. El auge de las aspiraciones ucranianas a la independencia nacional era una señal significativa.

Entre las luchas nacionales ucranianas que hacía falta estudiar una de las más importantes era la lucha llevada a cabo desde 1943, primero bajo la ocupación nazi y luego bajo el poder soviético, por una amplia insurgencia y una clandestinidad armada nacionalistas en Ucrania occidental. En Polonia y en la Unión Soviética la historia de este movimiento estaba sometida a un control ideológico extremadamente severo e increíblemente distorsionada por los regímenes burocráticos.

En los años de guerra y de posguerra el movimiento nacionalista ucraniano era dirigido por una corriente inicialmente de extrema derecha, “nacionalista integral”: por los llamados banderistas, es decir, seguidores de Stepan Bandera (en realidad, después de su encarcelamiento por los nazis en 1941, él nunca recuperó el liderazgo ni volvió a Ucrania). El punto crucial, totalmente oscurecido por la literatura soviética y polaca sobre el asunto, era el hecho de que al empeñarse en una insurgencia nacional y social de masas, esta corriente se volcó progresivamente hacia la izquierda.

En el curso de su lucha contra el régimen estalinista ella adoptó un programa de construcción de una “sociedad sin clases” en el futuro Estado independiente, basada en la “socialización de los medios de producción fundamentales”, la “economía planificada” y la “democracia política”. Uno de los principales teóricos de este nuevo nacionalismo genuinamente revolucionario, el comandante Petro Fedun “Poltava”, reconoció explíctamente en un correo interno: “Nuestro programa es, de hecho, un programa del socialismo.”

Descubrí todo eso con enorme asombro…

El artículo completo es accesible aquí:

Zbigniew Marcin Kowalewski, El nacionalismo revolucionario ucraniano en el imperio estalinista (1986)

En este sitio hay también artículos sobre el mismo tema en inglés y en francés.

Ukraine : Une rébellion oligarchique dans le Donbass

Ruins_of_Donetsk_International_Airport_(2)Publié originalement en polonais dans Le Monde diplomatique – Edycja polska, en décembre 2014.

La « contra du Donbass » – un tel terme convient particulièrement à la rébellion oligarchique du Donbass, car elle rappelle singulièrement le mouvement armé contre-révolutionnaire sponsorisé par les États-Unis au Nicaragua après le renversement du régime de Somoza.

Les barons du Parti des régions et les magnats industriels ont commencé à mobiliser cette « contra » déjà pendant le Maïdan. Une campagne de propagande a été déclanchée avec le soutien des télévisions du régime russe, hégémoniques dans cette région, concernant le danger mortel venant des « nazis, fascistes et bandéristes ».

Le Parti communiste d’Ukraine (PCU), assez influent dans le Donbass, affolait carrément les gens avec des répliques de la rhétorique nazie sur les ghettos juifs : le Maïdan – « blanc à l’extérieur, noir à l’intérieur » – serait comme les ghettos noirs des États-Unis : un foyer de parasites oisifs.

Citons cette propagande infâme : «  Au moins à New York, à Los Angeles et à San Francisco la police fait parfois des raids dans de tels lieux et flingue simplement quelques Nègres enragés. [19]  Rien de surprenant dans cette explosion du racisme : le PCU est un parti colonial.


 L’article complet est accessible ici :

Zbigniew Marcin Kowalewski, Ukraine : Une rébellion oligarchique dans le Donbass


Aussi en anglais et en polonais.

Ukrainian “capitulates” after 30 years in prison (1986)


Euromaidan, Mstyslav Chernov

This article was written in 1986. A year earlier Mikhail Gorbachev acceded to power in the Soviet Union. Three months earlier, at the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, he announced a sensational program of reforms. For growing sectors of the left in the world it augured or at least promised a rebirth of socialism in the USSR. My point of view was completely different.

Events at the top of the Soviet power pyramid confirmed that the bureaucratic rule entered a phase of irremediable crisis. On the horizon there was the capitalist restoration and the breakup of the USSR along national lines. What became very probable was a mass upsurge of the oppressed nationalities against Russian imperialism.

It posed the crucial problem: if national revolutions broke out there, how they would be able to combine with sociopolitical revolutions against both the bureaucratic rule and the capitalist restoration?

But at the same time it was very probable that the fall of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc would be accompanied by an enormous political confusion, crisis and fall of the radical left on the world scale. This is why I wrote:

“I read recently that Reagan has declared himself a supporter of Solidarność’s program. How could he say that he is a supporter of a program that calls for building a self-governed republic based on social ownership of the means of production and on workers’ self-management? Why not? If American workers and unionists do not know much more about it than American Blacks and Chicanos used to know about the program of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army? We should realize the kind of world we are living in. The Kremlin satraps lay claim to the tradition of the Russian revolution and declare their support for the Third World liberation movements. The man who led the victorious revolution against American imperialism in Cuba goes to Moscow to proclaim there that ‘you can’t shut out the sun with a finger’. The sun in question is the USSR, which other revolutionists, the Ukrainians, have excoriated as a giant prison house of nations. Some leaders of the Polish revolution, crushed by the totalitarian bureaucracy, have sent the chiefs of US imperialism, which exploits the workers and oppresses the peoples of a good part of the planet, expressions of gratitude for the latters’ intransigent defence of democracy. We have to recognize the devastating consequences these paradoxes have for the consciousness of the workers and peoples throughout the world, in whatever camp they live, whatever immediate enemy they face. You could get the impression that we have set one foot into the Orwellian world in which ‘freedom is slavery and ignorance is power’. But we should not give way to impressions. We should assume our responsibilities.”

Today the challenge is still essentially the same.

The full article is available here:

Zbigniew Marcin Kowalewski, Ukrainian “capitulates” after 30 years in prison (1986)

1 2 3 4