Hybrid Speech of a Hybrid President, or on Fence-Sitting September 24, 2016 Analysis Translated by Helga Green 16:34:31 24/09/2016 stoyakin.org.ua The President of Ukraine did not take the floor in the UN. I do not know in what capacity Petro Poroshenko delivered a speech there, I can make one observation only: that was not the speech of an American agent of influence. The agent would not set up his masters in such a way. In fact, the President’s UN speech was the elaboration on the message expressed by its title: the entire world is sitting on the fence while Russia’s actions present a threat for humanity. On morals The President starts with the moral tragedy. He expands on the disappearance of the feeling of empathy, the perception of another person’s grief as one’s own. These are the words of a man, who, I remind you, had approved of the blockade of the Crimea and Donbass aimed at driving the citizens of Ukraine living there to despair, in order for them to oust the occupants (if the Ukrainian state is unable to defend them). It is true that we have a problem with empathy. We are not only unable to feel someone else’s pain, we are ignoring our own. We cause starvation of the dwellers of the occupied territories (fortunately, the occupants are feeding them). We get the soldiers, who survived encirclement, convicted for loss of weapons. And still we address the citizens of foreign countries with a plea to support us in this. Luckily for us, global politics does not abide by the norms of moral, otherwise in answer to those invectives NATO bombers would appear in the sky over Kiev. By the way, the President’s speech was delivered soon after the bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya were declared unjustified. Nevertheless, Poroshenko dared to mention “the pain of others”. On hybrid wars The President of Ukraine stressed that his country “became the firing ground for the testing of new methods of hybrid warfare. (…) Its consequences can be seen in Europe, America, and on the other continents. They are political pressure, blatant propaganda, interference into electoral process, economic coercion, secret diversions and military operations, cyber attacks, abuse of diplomatic measures”. I cannot believe that the graduate of the department of international relations of the Kiev University never studied the textbook on diplomacy, where such things are described. He did read it, and he passed the exams, hence, he does know. However, he failed to pronounce the most important word – “Maidan”. And it is this word that is the key one, that reveals the essence of present-day “hybrid wars”. The structure itself of the term “anti-Maidan” makes it clear that anti-Maidan is just a reaction. What is makes us most bitter is the fact that Petro Poroshenko himself is not a product of the “hybrid war”, he is the natural product and the constituent part (and, in my opinion, a very typical one) of Ukrainian political elite. However he wants to be perceived as a product of the “hybrid war” against Ukraine. Well, his claim might be justified. Perhaps, he would not have become a president as a “product and a constituent part”. Looking into Ukrainian mirror Poroshenko attempted to boast of his spacious mind and the ability to apprehend foreign events. Nevertheless he only can do it with the help of the funfair mirror of Ukrainian. Thus, he says that “The terrorist part of the undeclared hybrid war of Russia against Ukraine is obvious. It is dramatic that it has become a reality in the occupied territories of the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions of Ukraine”. If only the President mentioned the liberated areas… But he did not! And it is the territories that are allegedly occupied that are subjected to terrorist shelling on the part of Ukrainian “knights in white armor”… How could he give it all away? He can, as it is quite possible that no one in UN can get it, or, perhaps someone would recollect that journalists are being blown to pieces in downtown Kiev… The President claims that he has got evidence of Russia’s ties with terrorists, but he does not present them and he takes no measures against them. Instead he keeps on buying gas and coal from Russia. What if the terrorists plant a bomb into gas, or, more probably, into coal? He does not mention such possibility. He mentions 700 tanks. There had been more of them on the bases and in warehouses of the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions. Nevertheless, I do believe him, as the armaments from the storages are good for nothing. The President complains that we failed to call the Tribunal in regard to the Malaysian plane crash over Donbass… Well, the causes of its crash are obscure, and he should have thought about the possibility of its being downed by a Ukrainian rocket, even if it was done from the DPR territory. But no, he does not. The President speaks about the children hostages in Donbass, but he forgets about tens (if not hundreds) of cases of jihadists using children for terror acts. Maybe he should not give out the office that has been sponsoring the Islamic militants? The President mentions Syria, but… exclusively in the context of the Crimea. For once he is distracted by North Korea, speaking about breach of agreement on nuclear weapons non-proliferation. This is serious. But…“regrettably, all the guarantees are PowerPoint deep. Let us be frank, we failed the exam on the Budapest memorandum”. Ahem… Does the President of Ukraine suggest offering North Korea the guarantees in accordance with the agreement that no country is going to adhere to? Funny… By the way, I cannot bring myself to suggest that the President of Ukraine, the graduate of the Kiev University, does not know who offered guarantees to Czechoslovakia and Poland, and how they were kept in 1938 and 39. I just cannot. Positive agenda Four paragraphs: 1. “Lifting of the vetoing right in case of mass crimes and in the cases, when the state-member of the UN Security Council is a party of the dispute”. Oh, really? Then the USA should be excluded from the UN Security Council… Suffice is to recollect how many times the US were in point of fact a party of a conflict and how mass crimes were covered up by its authority. 2. The UN Security Council “should turn into a really democratic and representative body”. The UN Security Council had originally been an undemocratic body, in which nuclear states are represented in capacity of permanent members. The purpose of this body is to prevent nuclear catastrophe – suicide of the humanity as a result of the inability of a third-rate state to stop a civil war in its territory by other means than “the killing of everyone”. I am against such democracy. And I hope that Petro Poroshenko is also against democracy in this instance. 3. “There is a need in turning of our organization into a structure that is able to effectively react to aggression acts and bring those guilty of it to legal responsibility”. Even the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine is unable to do it. Although such need does exist. 4. “There’s a need to think over the mechanisms of registering the evidence of aggressive acts of certain states against other states and ensure fixed responsibility”. These are the words of the head of state that had registered a mass of evidence of aggression… Nevertheless, they are irrelevant. I repeat for the umpteenth time that “the evidence of an aggressive act” cannot be convincing for the global community if it is not convincing for the country subjected to aggression itself. And such evidence is not convincing for Ukraine, as it has not introduced martial law, has not broken diplomatic relations, has not declared war with the aggressor. The President still wants someone else to be responsible for Ukrainian affairs, but not him. Bottom line The President of Ukraine did not take the floor in the UN. I do not know in what capacity Petro Poroshenko delivered a speech there, I can make one observation only: that was not the speech of an American agent of influence. The agent would not set up his masters in such a way. Copyright © 2016. All Rights Reserved.