Second, Mr Wagner also seems to be ignorant of the fact that the Muscovite-Russian variant of Byzantine-Orthodoxy has little in common with any other, particularly its caesero-papism, which influenced Ukrainian lands only for the years when they belonged to the empire. If, as Mr Wagner implies, Byzantine-Orthodoxy is somehow not part of what he calls the "Occidental Idea," then would he also argue against Greek membership in the EU?

Third, yes, due to planned imperial government policies reaching back to the 18th century, and continued by the Soviet regime from the 1930s, there is a heavy proportion of Russian-speakers in the country today. But is Mr Wagner implying that language-use determines political loyalties. If he is, would he perhaps advocate the return of Ireland to England, or Brazil to Portugal? It is also true Ukraine remains for the most part a Russian economic colony, but why does he think "Orange revolutionaries" will not change this once they do get hold of the "political reigns?" Or, if European and US and Japanese corporations decide they want Ukrainian labour and resources? Does he need to be reminded of how many activists it took to separate the American colonies from Britain? Mr. Wagner should also take note that Mr Putin has seen to it that there are no oligarchic interests in Russia, whose political climate is quite unlike Ukraine's to say the least.He need only have asked any Russian political refugee living in Ukraine
And enjoying Ukrainian liberties. Finally, and perhaps most important does Mr Wagner think that the past determines the future? I was of the opinion the past merely shapes it.

Mr. Wagner talks of imperial desires. Yes, the world is a wicked place, but if two interests coincide does the moral worth of one negate the other? How would Mr Wager judge, for example the Hitler Stalin pact? Mr. Wagner goes on to mention the vexed matter of collaboration with the Nazi's, claiming that all, rather than only some, western Ukrainians were involved. If this is to implicitly disqualify Ukrainians from EU membership and somehow isolate them from his "occidental idea," he should perhaps take into account that Nazism was a European phenomenon, just like the inquisition, and that lots of western Europeans thought it a good thing, just like many supported the Inquisition. Who among the Gentiles has the right to cast the first stone?

I shall leave it to specialists on Galicia to point-out to Mr.Wagner the relevance of what he calls "the Galician myth-cum-trademark for Kiev's EU bid," and all his erroneous claims about that region.
I will note only one. Habsburg rulers considered western Ukrainians their most loyal subjects, and national leaders in the early 20th century there were not separatists. Precisely because they, unlike
Pilsudksi and the Poles, did not change horses in time and abandon Vienna, the Entente in 1918 and 1919 supported Poland and not the West Ukrainian Peoples Republic.

In this case, it was amusing to read about someone like Putin expressing concern about democracy. But it was also pathetic to be reminded about "lavish" government receptions for such a man in France. Would Russian re-payment of pre-1917 French loans have anything to do with this?

In any case, Mr. Papadopoulos goes too far when, like Mr. Wagner, he begins repeating politicized neo-soviet neo-imperial Russian views as if they were accepted truths.

There is no "historical closeness" between Ukraine and Russia other than the sort that was produced by 200 years of domination and millions of unnatural Ukrainian deaths during that time. By this kind
of logic Greece and Turkey are also "historically close" and should therefore be united in one state -- Turkish dominated naturally. The author also refers to an "East Slavic Group" as if this were a
basis for political unity. Again, imperial minded Russian think like this, but should, therefore all "South Slavs" belong to one state? Should all "Semites' or "Aryans' belong to one state?

Second, The author talks about resentment among "Ukrainians" without distinguishing exactly which "Ukrainians" he his talking about.The pro-Russian Russian citizens of Ukraine, or pensioners who were
educated in Soviet schools and know only what they learned there, or the extremist fringe who like to claim they represent a majority?

Third, There is no single entity called "the West" with a collective will and policy. Does the author think that EU countries and Japan and the US agree on everything all the time? The author must surely
know that Sweden and Poland, to mention only the most important states, do not fawn before Putin's gas-threats and are not concerned that a minority of pro-Russian anti-NATO extremist groups in Ukraine are indeed anti-EU, anti-US, anti -democratic, and anti-Semitic to boot. By supporting such groups, the EU will indeed not "provoke the ire" of people like Putin -- but should it?

Fourth, the author also seems to ignorant of the fact that Ukraine's neo-soviet Russophile Party of Regions likes to oppose NATO when out of power, but not when in power, and that Russia and Putin
during the last decades have taken part in more NATO exercises and agreements than Ukraine. If NATO is good for Putin's Russia, why not for Ukraine?

And finally, NATO already borders Russia, in case Mr.Papadopoulus doesn't know, and that does not seem to have led to war or a "weakening" of Russia. In the age of intercontinental missles and mach-2 jets, a few hundred kilometres in one direction or another is meaningless. The real issue is not NATO but good old-fashioned imperial domination-- which the Russian ruling-elite, unlike all the other European ruling-elites,cannot forget and shed. Preferring direct control of land population and resources, to trade, today's Russian old-fashioned elite threatens EU with instability. By not opposing this kind of neo-colonialism on the Eurasian continent the EU is digging its own grave.

Stephen Velychenko
CERES Associate;
Research Fellow,Chair of Ukrainian Studies;
Munk Center
University of Toronto
Devonshire Place
Toronto M5S 3K7