We hold great respect for Peter Micallef-Eynaud’s desire to understand the complex situation in Ukraine (January 17).
His sincere interest, emotional engagement and effort to provide moral support and comfort to people enduring immense hardships reflect his kind heart.
However, we deeply regret that Micallef-Eynaud, a compassionate Christian soul, has fallen victim to the Russophobic nationalist narratives propagated by the current Kiev authorities – narratives that have their roots in Ukraine’s western regions, which the author visited.
It is evident that this exposure led to his one-sided perception of reality, including his shocking and unfounded accusation of Russia pursuing a policy of genocide against the Ukrainian people. Where did he derive this unthinkable assertion that “Those who identify as Ukrainian are being killed or pushed out”? Who told him this?
Such claims have never been made by Russian leadership or found in Russian media. In Russia, Ukrainians have always been regarded as a brotherly people, as they are today and will remain in the future. Meanwhile, it is in Kiev where discriminatory policies aimed at eradicating all things Russian are being implemented.
Terms such as “genocide” should not be thrown around lightly without concrete evidence and independent analysis. When such statements are made without substantiation, they become tools for manipulating the emotions of readers.
It is also apparent that Micallef-Eynaud lacks personal military experience, which explains his shock and bewilderment at Ukrainian accounts of combat. Such emotional descriptions naturally leave a deep impression on someone unfamiliar with the realities of warfare. However, objective analysis requires not only personal impressions but also systematic fact-checking.
This also applies to Micallef-Eynaud’s reference to the “starving Ukrainians under Stalin” – events that modern Kiev authorities also label as genocide. It is clear that this assertion lacks proper analysis of the historical context.
The famine of the 1930s was a tragedy for many peoples of the Soviet Union, including Russians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs and others. It was a shared catastrophe driven by political and economic factors, not a deliberate act targeting any single nation.
At the same time, since we are discussing the genocide of civilians, the author failed to mention the crimes of Ukrainian nationalists led by Stepan Bandera, who, at one time, exterminated Russians, Jews, Poles and other ethnic groups in Ukraine. These events undoubtedly merit mention if we aim for an objective examination of that historical period. However, for understandable reasons, Ukrainian hosts chose not to inform their Maltese guest about them.
We must also address the author’s claim that “Ukrainian children in the occupied areas are said to have been spirited away somewhere in the deep heartlands of Russia”.
We wish to reiterate that the sole purpose of evacuating children from conflict zones is to save their lives. In the vast majority of cases, children arrived in safe regions of Russia with their parents or close relatives. Our goal is to protect childhood and restore the rights and legitimate interests of these children.
The sole purpose of evacuating children from conflict zones is to save their lives- Andrey Lopukhov
The statement that Catholics constitute approximately 20 per cent of Ukraine’s population, with the rest being Orthodox Christians, also requires clarification. Such statistics pertain exclusively to the western regions of Ukraine, where the share of Greek Catholics is indeed high. In other regions, however, the overwhelming majority of residents remain Orthodox Christians.
The nationalist fervour of Kiev authorities has reached the point where they aim to divide Orthodoxy in Ukraine along national lines, embarking on a path of persecution and confessional discrimination against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP). The forced seizure of church property, legal pressure and restrictions on UOC-MP activities are glaring examples of religious freedom violations in Ukraine.
Finally, we question the claim by one of the author’s Ukrainian companions about her parents who “suffered terribly under the Red Army during World War II”.
It is worth recalling that Ukrainians themselves made up a significant part of the Red Army, which fought against Nazism and liberated Europe from fascist tyranny during World War II.
The Red Army’s mission was one of collective liberation, not oppression of the peoples of the USSR. It is difficult to imagine anyone, especially on the territory of Soviet Ukraine, suffering from its actions unless they were involved in collaboration with the Nazis or similar activities.
We genuinely appreciate Micallef-Eynaud’s effort to understand the situation but it is clear that his conclusions are based on narrow, one-sided information from residents of a small part of the country who do not represent the views of all Ukrainians.
Notably, he did not speak with anyone from eastern Ukraine or the residents of Donbas. They could have shared much about unlawful arrests, discrimination, persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and the ban on Russian education and language, which remains the native tongue for the overwhelming majority of people in these regions.
Such perspectives would have provided a more accurate and balanced understanding, enabling him to form an objective opinion on the situation in Ukraine.
We firmly believe that the path to peace and understanding lies in open and honest dialogue that incorporates the perspectives of all stakeholders. Only through such dialogue can we build a sustainable foundation for reconciliation and a shared future.
Andrey LopukhovAndrey Lopukhov is the Russian Ambassador to Malta.