GW ISSN 0001 - 0545 8 20004 F K k d m fa UaMonsf lu e a lm fa InolivicLta/sf, { lijR& tt, lira m fof/f / OF U K R R 1 N » '' “ OUTICRL ll/U)NERS t:~ I! SBWIL I iLn Million № - j - ABN demonstrations against the Russian occupation of our subjugated countries in Madrid in November 1980 during the Conference on the Security and Co-operation in Europe. Verlagspostamt: Miinchen 2 January - February 1981 Vol. XXXII. No. 1 C O N T E N T S : The Frontiers of Culture (continuation) . 7 Dr. Anathole W. Bedriy A. Solzhenitsyn defends Russian colonialism and imperialism (continuation)............................. 12 Ivan Kandyba reveals the truth about Russian unlawfulness in Ukraine (continuation) 24 P. Scbifferli Western weakness encouraging Russian expansion and in v a s io n ...............................................................35 Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and p e o p l e s ...........................38 Helsinki Accord damaging to Ukraine . 40 Central Asian Peoples pose problem for the Krem lin .......................................................43 Support for the subjugated nations .... 46 O b it u a r y ....................................................................49 Herausgeber: American Friends of the sent in unrequested cannot be returned in Antibolshevik Bloc of Nations (AF ABN) case of non-publication unless postage is Inhaber: B. Fedorak —■ Chairman of enclosed. A F ABN It is not our practice Beide: 136 Second Avenue, New York, to pay for contributed materials. N. Y. 10003, U SA Reproduction permitted but only Zweigstelle Deutschland: Zeppelinstr. 67, with indication of source (ABN-Corr.). 8000 M ünchen 80 Annual subscription: Publisher: American Friends of the Anti­ 15 Dollars in USA, and the equivalent bolshevik Bloc of Nations (AFABN), of 15 Dollars in all other countries. 136 Second Avenue, New York, N. Y. Remittances to Deutsche Bank, Munich, 10003, U SA Filiale Depositenkasse, Neuhauser Str. 6, Account, No. 30/261 35 (ABN) Editorial Staff: Board of Editors. Editor-in-Chief: Mrs. Slava Stetsko, M. A. 8000 M unich 80, Zeppelinstr. 67/0 Schriftleitung: Redaktionskollegium. Verantw. Redakteur Frau Slava Stetzko. West Germany. Zeppelinstraße 67/0, 8000 M ünchen 80, Articles signed with name or pseudonym Telefon: 48 25 32 do not necessarily reflect the Editor’s o- Druckgenossenschaft „Cicero“ e.G. pinion, but that of the author. Manuscripts Zeppelinstraße 67, 8000 München 80 Zinoviy Karbowych The Neglec ted Power Present Western policy regarding the Russian empire and possibility of change? The policy of U.S. and N.A.T.O. with reference to the Russian empire up to the present invariably stemmed from agreements of the Second World War in different tactical variations, but did not change in principle. Generally, it was based on the traditional British concept of balance of power — previously in continental or regional content, and with the defeat of Germany and Japan and the emergence upon the world arena of two military superpowers ■— U.S. and U.S.S.R. — in global dimension. Neither Western Europe nor Japan have as yet become superpowers, prerogatives of which constitute the strength of ther­ monuclear and ballistic missile armaments. China is a potential superpower within the technological-thermonuclear meaning, although as far as its popula­ tion is concerned, it already is a superpower. However, at present, on the scale of current historical reality, there stand two superpowers in technological-mili­ tary sense — U.S.S.R. and U.S. The external political conception of every American government till now was to keep the appropriate balance of military, particularly thermonuclear and missile, power between U.S. and the U.S.S.R. This is nothing new. It is only the repetition of the conception of Metternich and Bismarck, which so enthused Kissinger. It is only the invariable imperialistic notion, which disregards the year 1848, and which forced the Austro-Hungarian Kaiser to plead for help from the Moscow Tsar, to quench Kossuth’s uprising. The undisputable fact of the existence of new ideologically-political super­ power inside the Russian empire is still disregarded by the U.S. in its official policy. Nixon was the most earnest representative of this policy, talented, un­ caring and decisive statesman, who openly defined his own conception, as the political conception of the U.S. concerning U.S.S.R. — the conception of ba­ lance of (military — atomic and missile) power, as guarantee of peace. To put it more succinctly — easing, calming, detente with limitation of U.S.S.R. expan­ sion, or — detente with containment (suppression of Russian conquests). Thus, a combination of Dulles’ policy, formulated by Kennan during the Truman administration, expressed in the article in “Foreign Affairs” signed anonymously by Mr. X., with the policy of detente, based upon a variant of Metternich’s balance of power, utilized by Kissinger pursuant to Nixon’s plans with referen­ ce to current situation. All this is happening with repetition of the same mista­ kes made by Metternich, by ignoring the underground explosions, which later on weakened and finally destroyed the empire. Metternich himself ended his career in . England. And Nixon . with Watergate and the defeat in Viet­ nam. The policy of President Carter was full of Quaker illusions, who, in his lack of foreign affairs knowledgeability, admitted that only Afghanistan made him realize the Russian danger. President Reagan seems to be bringing more consciousness of reality into the office of the presidency, we will have to wait and see. During the time of serious world crisis caused by the U.S.S.R., the U.S. falls into a risky extreme, exchanging a statesman, of great decisions, one absolutely necessary for an anti-Bolshevist stand, courageous fighter for a Baptist leader, who, from humanitarian motives of super-perfection, causes the defeat (with many casualties in the desert) of the hostage rescue attempt in Iran and com­ promises a powerful nation! 1 President Carter suffered defeat in the desert because the Pentagon under his influence planned the mission in such a way as to save the hostages without American or Iranian casualties, and thereby instead of sending sixteen helicop­ ters, sent only eight, in order that such a large number not be discovered by the Iranians. The smallest risk, the greatest security, a fiasco result! However, it would be erroneous not to appreciate American power because of Carter's failures. In a comparison of the military power of U.S. and U.S.S.R., even with the current superiority of U.S.S.R. in connection with thermonuclear and missile armaments, land forces and navy, three factors will be decisive: a) The entire complex of technology and economy of the U.S. in comparison with the continuous backwardness of technology and economy of the U.S.S.R., which even if it does possess excessive armaments, but lacks the wide all- encompassing economic-technological basis, namely, the top of the pyramid is seen, without said pyramid having any fundament; b) The initiative, resourcefulness and inventiveness of a free individual in comparison to a robot acting under the dictates of governmental and party aparatus; c) The most important factor, still ignored by official U.S. policy — the subjugated nations, headed by Ukraine, which are breaking down the empire from inside. There could be no Western victory, without the West taking this factor into consideration in its strategy. It is important to note that in a crisis situation, the American nation dis­ played more political national instinct, honor, dignity and patriotism than any nation of Western Europe! The American people have passed the test of mature patriotism better than their leadership. Vance’s resignation constituted a favorable factor for the cause of anti- Bolshevism. He was a person from the school of “Foreign Affairs Council”, which graduated for the most part secretaries of state who were inclined toward a policy of accomodation — co-existence, détente, Rooseveltism! Vance’s resignation constituted a victory for sensible forces, who better realize the dan­ gers of bolshevism and how to counteract it. Force versus force! The two deter­ minative Presidential advisers — Brzezinski and Muskie, both'of Polish descent, could have brought about a change in American foreign policy, or at least shar­ pened its edge against the Russian empire if they had no opposition in the Government. Negative role with reference to changes in U.S. policy is played by Germa­ ny and France, who are trying by every means possible to continue the policy of detente and cooperation on the basis of inexistent military balance of power. They believe that no alternative exists to the policy of détente. They do not want to realize that Russia is utilizing different tactical conceptions of relations with the West only as means of world conquest. Under the shadow of détente, Russia literally occupied Angola, Ethiopia, Yemen, Mozambique and lastly Afghanistan. Bonn and Paris are currently safeguarding themselves with the brainless formula of divisibility of détente, namely its presumptive continuity in Europe, and toleration of Russian aggression outside Europe, which formula constitutes suicide. Oil of the Near East and raw materials of Africa in Russian hands — is identical with Western European capitulation before Russia! Washington until now stood steadfastedly upon conservation of the positions of Yalta and Potsdam, confirming said positions inseparably at Helsinki, going even further than Yalta, outdoing the peace agreement, and finally acknow­ 2 ledging the inviolability of the Russian empire, including therein the so-called satellite nations. As a result of respecting the principles of division of spheres of influence, including severing of live bodies of cut up nations — Vietnam, Korea, Germany — the U.S. suffered defeat in Vietnam, itself refusing to and forcefully objecting to Presidents Diem and Thieu marching north to liberate the communist dominated Northern Vietnam.