UKRAINE: WHO WERE THE FATHERLAND'S DEFENDERS? THE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 KYIV 004021

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/16/2016
TAGS: PREL PGOV PARM ASEC UP
SUBJECT: UKRAINE: WHO WERE THE FATHERLAND'S DEFENDERS? THE
UPA CONTROVERSY FLARES UP AGAIN AT POKROVA

Classified By: DCM Sheila Gwaltney, reason 1.4 (b,d)


1. (SBU) Summary. The Orthodox feast day of Pokrova
(October 14),marked for centuries to honor defenders of the
fatherland, occasioned three dueling marches in downtown Kyiv
between elderly veterans of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army
(UPA) and nationalist supporters on the one hand and
Communists plus a wide range of pro-Russian and pan-Slavic
forces on the other. The most extreme groups, known to have
Russian connections, announced beforehand they expected
bloodshed and clashed with police in several early
altercations, leading to dozens of temporary detentions. The
same groups also tried to manipulate press coverage
afterwards, including posting doctored photos on the
internet. After a nasty 2005 Pokrova brawl between younger
supporters of UPA and the Communists on the streets of Kyiv,
however, Ukrainian authorities were ready and handled the
situation much better this year -- a court ruling late
October 13 prevented marches down Khreshchatyk, and thousands
of police kept the three main groups far apart from each
other. For his part, Yushchenko signed a decree October 14
to develop a comprehensive review of the participation of
Ukrainians in World War II and other 20th century conflicts,
to provide balanced information to Ukrainians, and to prepare
a draft law on the social status of Ukrainian independence
movement participants and to recognize organizations which
fought for Ukrainian independence from the 1920s-1950s.


2. (C) Comment: The controversy surrounding recognition of
the UPA's role in fighting the Nazis in World War II and for
an independent Ukraine has now spilled from the annual May
8-9 "victory over fascism" commemorations into the marking of
Pokrova, traditionally associated with the Cossacks but
consciously used by the UPA's founders in 1942 to launch
their movement. In contrast to the May events, dominated by
those nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union and Stalin,
the Pokrova marches saw the nationalist supporters on the
streets of Kyiv outnumber the Communists and pro-Russian
forces by a factor of at least two to one. More significant
is the fact that this overt Russian-affiliated intervention
into internal Ukrainian politics, both in advocacy of a
Ukrainian political force and via participation of a handful
of Kremlin sponsored or tolerated fringe groups and NGOs,
took place in Kyiv. Although such groups have been active in
Crimea since the Orange Revolution, their appearance and
willingness to rumble in Kyiv was unusual, as was their use
of digitally altered photos on the internet to sway
perceptions of events in Ukraine. However, the determination
of Ukrainian authorities to act firmly, quickly, and properly
prevented a potentially very nasty scenario from unfolding.
Yushchenko's October 14 decree will keep the political
controversy simmering; Communist leader Symonenko denounced
it from the floor of the Rada October 17 and demanded its
withdrawal. End Summary and Comment.

Marking Pokrova - with masses, marches, and court orders
-------------- --------------


3. (SBU) The Orthodox feast of Pokrova dates back to the
earliest days of Kyivan Rus and was marked with particular
reverence by the Cossacks, hearkening back to supposed
appearances of the Virgin Mary over battlefields offering
protection to the defenders of the fatherland. Numerous
special masses were held across Kyiv and Ukraine October 14;
the main Kyiv Patriarchate Volodymyrski Cathedral, the usual
church attended by the Yushchenko family, was as packed for
the mid-day service as it is for the Easter Vigil, with many
post-retirement age men in uniforms associated with the
Cossack movement.


4. (SBU) The Cossack "defender of the fatherland" legacy of
Pokrova was used by the founders of the UPA in 1942 to launch
their anti-Nazi insurgent efforts; UPA veterans and younger
nationalist supporters traditionally mark Pokrova with
commemorative marches. Nationalists propose to move
Ukrainian Army Day from February (a legacy of the Soviet
Armed Forces Day celebration) to October 14, to bring it in
line with Pokrova/Cossack traditions. FM Tarasyuk,
apparently in his capacity as party leader for Rukh, a
nationalist party, used the occasion of Pokrova to repeat
Yushchenko's calls to grant WWII veteran status to UPA
fighters, an appeal supported by a wide range of Ukrainian
nationalist parties.


5. (SBU) In 2005, the first post-Orange Revolution Pokrova,
authorities were caught off guard by street brawls between
young supporters of UPA on the one hand and
communist-affiliated marchers on the other. After UPA
veterans and Ukrainian nationalists initially received a
permit for a Pokrova 2006 march on Kreshchatyk, Kyiv's main
avenue traditionally used for military marches, both the

KYIV 00004021 002 OF 003


Communists and Pro-Russian Progressive Socialist leader
Natalya Vitrenko announced countermarches aimed at preventing
UPA/nationalists from marching down Khreshchatyk, in a replay
of the May controversies over the status of the UPA and its
claim to have defended the idea of an independent Ukraine by
fighting the Nazis. (Note: while the UPA did fight the
Germans, many historians argue that its main opponent was the
Polish Home Army and Polish citizens in western Ukraine, who
were massacred by the tens of thousands; there were also
concerns about anti-Semitic rhetoric and actions. The UPA
later fought the advancing Soviet Red Army, conducting
guerrilla operations and assassinations of Soviet officials
into the early 1950s, when resistance finally petered out,
assisted by the deportation of 500,000 western Ukrainians to
Siberia.)


6. (SBU) Fearing more violence this year, Kyiv courts late on
October 13 banned all Pokrova marches on Khreshchatyk.
Interior Ministry officials negotiated through the night with
various factions on revised zones of allowed movement, The
Government then deployed thousands of riot police and
plain-clothes policemen early October 14 to prevent the main
three groups from coming into contact with each other and to
restrict the flow of non-marchers onto Khreshchatyk.

A Hodge-Podge of Nationalist and pro-Soviet/Russian forces
-------------- --------------


7. (SBU) A total of at least 2000 Ukrainian nationalists
(some estimates ranged between 3000-5000) rallied at various
staging points in central Kyiv before convening in their
revised authorized zone around Mikhailovsky and Sofiivsky
Square. Led by no more than a dozen UPA veterans, they laid
flowers at the holodomor (1932-33 great famine) monument
before rallying around the statue of 17th century Ukrainian
leader Bohdan Khmelnytsky. In addition to hundreds of blue
and yellow Ukrainian flag and the red and black flag
associated with Ukrainian nationalists, there were also the
specific red and black flags of Ukrainian National
Assembly-Ukrainian National Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO) and the
Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (KUN),the blue flags of
the Svoboda party and the yellow flags of Tryzub (Trident),
another group claiming to be followers of Stepan Bandera.


8. (SBU) Between 300-500 Communist party and affiliated
supporters gathered on the edges of the Maidan (which itself
was ringed by police) and the nearby Khreshchatyk sidewalks,
listening to Soviet-era music. Around noon Communist
speakers made their way to the podium to denounce the UPA as
fascist collaborators, denigrated Yushchenko for supporting
UPA rights, and called for his impeachment. Groups that
affiliated themselves with the Communist march from the
Pechersk Lavra Monastery (controlled by the Moscow
Patriarchate) included: the "Rus" Union (whose flags
dominated); the Union of Orthodox Citizens (led by Valeriy
Kaurov); "United Motherland"; The "Orthodox Brotherhood"; the
Russian Bloc party; and the Crimean branch of "Proryv"
(Breakthrough),a radical "NGO" registered in Tiraspol,
Transnistria, Moldova which attempted a symbolic "severing"
of Crimea from Ukraine last January by digging a trench
across the main road out of Crimea in front of Russian TV
cameras.

Vitrenko, Russian-sponsored troublemakers, the Crimea card
-------------- --------------


9. (SBU) The trouble-makers spoiling for a fight were
associated with Natalya Vitrenko, whose party had issued a
statement saying they were ready for bloodshed. True to
their promise, they sparked at least three early morning
clashes with riot police. At 1100, we saw riot police
patting down a row of youth up against the wall; the
camouflage-clad protesters had shaved heads, red bandannas
over their faces, and waved the flag of the (Russian)
National Bolshevik front (a black hammer and sickle in a
white circle on a red field, evocative of the Nazi flag). A
plainclothes policeman told us later that Vitrenko's
supporters had been armed in their clashes. Interior
Minister Lutsenko in his news conference from Lviv later in
the day stated that Progressive Socialist activists had tried
to use tear gas against the police. Police detained 65
protesters, nearly all from Vitrenko Progressive Socialist
Party and the Eurasian Youth Union (EYU),releasing them
after writing up protocols of violations.


10. (C) Speaking on a bullhorn in front of Bessarabsky Market
(the opposite end of Khreshchatyk from the Maidan),a Russian
who did not identify himself before speaking but who could
have been Rodina leader Dmitry Rogozin extolled the eternal
union of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian Slavic
brothers and urged everyone to vote for Natalya Vitrenko in

KYIV 00004021 003 OF 003


the next elections (note: the speaker said that he had come
from Moscow for only one day. Rogozin appeared the night
before on ICTV's "Svoboda Slova" (Freedom of Speech) talk
show to defend his views that the breakup of the Soviet Union
was a mistake. When asked later October 14 by Fifth Channel
reporters whether he had participated in Vitrenko's protests
that morning, Rogozin declined to comment rather than denying
he had been involved. The EYU website showed a picture of
its Moscow leader Vladimir Nikitin fighting with police, but
that makes it unlikely Nikitin would have been free to make
comments later).


11. (SBU) For her part, Vitrenko, focusing primarily on
Crimea-related issues, incited racial hatred of Crimean
Tatars on behalf of the Slavic inhabitants of Crimea, warned
of the NATO threat to Crimea as indicated by this spring's
Feodosia events around the Sea Breeze exercise, denounced
NATO, UPA "Banderivtsi," and fascists together in one breath
and "American lackeys" Yushchenko and Yanukovych in another,
and gave thanks that Russian President Putin and the Duma
were defending true Slavic interests. There were dozens of
people who had traveled from Crimea for the march, carrying
an assortment of hand-lettered signs referring to Sevastopol
and other Crimea-related isseus. In addition to the
Progressive Socialist flags, those marching with Vitrenko
waved the Russian tricolor, the National Bolshevik Front
standard, and dozens of Eurasian Movement flags, both the
yellow/black of the Eurasian Youth Union (EYU) and the
Green/white of the "International Eurasian Movement."


12. (SBU) Note: the websites of the EYU and certain Russian
news agencies (Novy Region, Rosbalt) devoted heavy coverage
to the October 14 Kyiv events, claiming that Ukrainian
authorities used armed force to prevent an anti-fascist rally
and tortured EYU detainees and, in the case of Novy Region
(which has a Crimean branch),digitally manipulating at least
one photo from the barricades to claim Ukrainian authorities
had used excessive force regardless of the age and gender of
protesters. While Proryv marched with the Communists October
14, they are usually at the vanguard of radical action. On
October 9, Nadiya Polyakova, Proryv coordinator in
Simferopol, Crimea, told a press conference that branches in
Crimea, Transnistria, Abhazia, and South Ossetia had formed
the Proryv International Youth Front to provide mutual
assistance and support an agreement signed by the
"presidents" of the unrecognized "republics."

Yushchenko makes another run at righting history
-------------- ---


13. (SBU) For his part, Yushchenko signed a Presidential
Decree October 14 on the "all-sided study and objective
coverage of the Ukrainian Independence Movement and
facilitation of the national reconciliation process." The
decree tasks the Cabinet of Ministers and the Academy of
Sciences to develop a comprehensive review of the
participation of Ukrainians in World War II and other 20th
century conflicts, to provide balanced information to
Ukrainian society, and to prepare a draft law on the social
status of Ukrainian independence movement participants from
the 1920s-1950s and on recognizing organizations which fought
for Ukrainian independence from the 1920s-1950s.
Yushchenko's initial efforts in May 2005 to foster a
reconciliation between UPA vets and Red Army/Red Partisan
vets in time for the 60th anniversary of V-E day failed in
the face of sustained opposition, particularly from
communists and Red Army veterans. His decree expands the
historical framework of review considerably (covering both
the 1920s and 1930s); with Communist leader Symonenko's
October 17 salvo likely only the beginning, the historical
controversy over UPA and other Ukrainians who struggled
against Soviet rule in the name of an independent Ukraine
will continue to simmer.


14. (U) Visit Embassy Kiev's classified website at:
www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/kiev.
Taylor