- Spitfire List - http://spitfirelist.com -

FTR #824 Bringing It All Back Home, Ukrainian-Style: The Evolution and Triumph of Ukrainian Fascism

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash drive that can be obtained here. [1] The new drive is a 32-gigabyte drive that is current as of the programs and articles posted by 10/02/2014. The new drive (available for a tax-deductible contribution of $65.00 or more) contains FTR #812 [2].  (The previous flash drive was current through the end of May of 2012 and contained FTR #748 [3].)

You can subscribe to e-mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE [4]

You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE [5].

You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself HERE [6].

Listen: MP3

This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment [7]

NB: This description contains material not included in the original broadcast.


Svoboda leader Oleh Tiahnybok salutes


Insignia on Azov soldiers’ helmets

Introduction: The U.S. was one of three countries to vote against a U.N. resolution condemning the celebration of Nazi collaborators as “freedom fighters”–something the U.S. has been promoting since the end of World War II. Germany and the EU nations abstained. Ukraine itself and Canada were the other countries that voted against the resolution. The OUN/B diaspora and its influence in the GOP and intelligence services of the U.S. is the primary consideration to be weighed in connection with this disgraceful episode.

The large OUN/B  diaspora population in Canada undoubtedly has much to do with that nation’s behavior in this context.

Most of the program relies on an important piece by George Eliason, who resides and works in Ukraine. (NB: in this piece “Bandera” is a collective noun applied to the individuals and institutions adhering to the ideology and methodology of OUN/B leader Stephan Bandera.)

In this article, Eliason analyzes the role of the OUN/B diaspora and its pivotal role in the generation and propagation of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian ideology.

By working within networks such as the Promethean League [10], the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations [11] and other intelligence-connected networks, the “Bandera” have successfully commandeered the ideological, political and journalistic attitudes and policies pursued by the countries that hosted them.

Fol­low­ing the anti-Russian “lus­tra­tion” laws [12], Petro Poroshenko is moving to alter the cit­i­zen­ship laws to allow select for­eign­ers to get fast-tracked cit­i­zen­ship in order to allow them to hold cab­i­net posi­tions. It sounds like he’s also con­sid­er­ing just allow­ing for­eign­ers to fill those posts with­out the cit­i­zen­ship require­ment. It sounds as if he wishes to install personnel from the OUN/B diaspora in Ukraine’s law enforcement and national security apparatus.

Ukrainian/American Natalie Jaresko–Ukraine’s new finance minister–is a former State Department officer who was just granted citizenship last week. She was formerly head of a US Agency for International Development-backed fund. (US AID is a frequent cover for intelligence activities.)

Program Highlights Include: British intelligence officer Brian Crozier’s role in the immersion of Bandera in the intelligence services and political establishments of the UK and other European countries ; review of the Free Congress Foundation’s role in installing the “Bandera” and other Eastern European Nazi collaborators in newly-liberated countries of the former Soviet bloc; discussion of Simon Petliura’s establishment of fascism as the template for Ukrainian nationalism; the influence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire on the development of fascism in Ukraine and other Eastern European nations.

1. Most of the program relies on an important piece by George Eliason, who resides and works in Ukraine. (NB: in this piece “Bandera” is a collective noun applied to the individuals and institutions adhering to the ideology and methodology of OUN/B leader Stephan Bandera.)

In this article, Eliason analyzes the role of the OUN/B diaspora and its pivotal role in the generation and propagation of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian ideology.

By working within networks such as the Promethean League [10], the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations [11] and other intelligence-connected networks, the “Bandera” have successfully commandeered the ideological, political and journalistic attitudes and policies pursued by the countries that hosted them.

“Ukraine: Why Bandera Have the Largest Geo-Political Voice in EU” by George Eliason; OpEdNews.com; 8/1/2014. [13]

*”Bandera” here is used as a generic term for the followers of Stephan Bandera and their institutions–D.E.

Part I of the Series- Bandera — Into The House of Lector

Today with the support of Europe, Australia, Canada, the US directly, NGOs, the IMF and UN indirectly; Kiev enjoys an unparalleled geopolitical position. Whatever lie it tells is the new truth.

Commentators have been scrambling to make sense of this, and of how Nazism could have popped up so boldly with the support of the free Western World. We’re told it only plays a small part in what is going on in Ukraine, but history is often stranger than fiction and in this case fiction is the story you have been told. Ukraine is a paradox: There has never been a democratic oriented government in Kiev and democratic protests were the ruse to get Western support.

From the late 1980’s to Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the Bandera world leaders looked at Ukraine sensing independence would soon happen. Their greatest concern in the run up to freedom was that there were no Nazis in Ukraine, or more precisely only a few, located around the Bandera capital of Lviv, with no political power. From 1991, with the help of the US and EU they have been preparing to change that fact radically. The paradox is that modern Ukraine’s Nazi governments have always been active on the world stage. The only form of government the modern Ukrainian state has ever known has been the worlds longest continuing and most extreme ultra nationalist government the planet has ever seen.

Where Ukrainian Extremism Started

In 1848 the modern Ukrainian state came into being  [14]under the Austro-Hungarian (Hapsburg) Empire, in what is called the Spring of Nations ( see Roots of Ukrainian Nationalism -Paul Robert Magosci). Under the Hapsburg empire the Ukrainian people were first recognized as a distinct nationality and freed from the serfdom they had been under since the seat of the Rus empire moved from Kiev to Moscow.

In the Austria-Hungarian Empire they were known as the Tyroleans of the east. The term means Austrians of the east. With their recognition as a people by Vienna, they acquired the Habsburg model of government. These countries include: Galicia (West Ukraine), Ruthenia ( West Ukraine), Estonia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Austria, Hungary. After WW I Germany adopted this model, as did Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia, Slovenia, and Romania.

When fleshed out, this government model is an extreme form of ultra nationalism. The only part of Ukraine recognized by the empire was Galicia which was a major holding for the Hapsburgs. Linguistically there were four languages in what is now Ukraine. Ruthenians, also called Russyns, had a unique language. Galicia had its own, which is now called Ukrainian. Dnieper Ukraine spoke a similar language. People in Little Russia (the South East), which was outside of the Hapsburg holdings spoke Russian and were a part of Greater Russia. (ibid). Western Ukraine was entirely devoted to the Austro- Hungarian empire and was its staunchest supporter in war.

Why Ultra Nationalism or Nazism became the Eastern European Model

The ultra nationalist government model that the Austro-Hungarian Empire set out for the individual nations in the empire during the 1848 Spring of Nations set up a dual loyalty system that bound the countries inside the Empire to Vienna’s rule. Each country weeded out citizens that lacked total loyalty to the empire’s ultra national patriotism, or considered other forms of governance. They did this through pogroms and genocide.

Each citizen’s identity had to wrap around the exceptionalism as defined by the leaders of their country. Each citizen was first and foremost entirely devoted to the nation, demonstrated by national sacrifice or heroism. To be entirely devoted to nation involved an almost cultic devotion to the Emperor and the Empire that the nation was part of, and belonged to, and Galician Ukraine became the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s poster child.

Ultra nationalism shielded Hapsburg West Ukraine from Russian influence outside and from Polish influence inside. It kept all of the Empire’s possessions from gaining too much influence in sister countries and competing for loyalties.

In World War 1, The Ukrainian state fought on the side of Germany with Austria-Hungary. They founded the Ukrainian Galician Army which laid the foundation for the later UPA and Bandera movements. With the breakup of the Hapsburg empire, the vassal states were freed by default, not by choice. With the Empire gone, the only choice was to declare a republic or be absorbed by Poland. It should be noted that the Ultra Nationalism displayed by Kiev today is neither original nor Ukrainian. Furthermore, most people are not aware that the other Hapsburg remnant states display the same ultra national tendencies as Bandera Ukraine but have not been able to become established as such. (See Hungary, where the ultra nationalist Jobbik Party won 20% of the electorate in 2014.)

Prometheanism as the Root of Russian Hate

Another recent project is called Prometheanism [15]. According to Wikipedia: “The creator and soul of the Promethean concept [wrote Charaszkiewicz] was Marshal Pilsudski, who as early as 1904, in a memorandum to the Japanese government, pointed out the need to employ the numerous non-Russian nations that inhabited the basins of the Baltic, Black and Caspian Seas in its struggle against Russia, and emphasized that the Polish nation [16], by virtue of its history, love of freedom, and uncompromising stance toward [the three empires that had partitioned Poland out of political existence at the end of the 18th century] would, in that struggle, doubtless take a leading place and help achieve the emancipation of other nations oppressed by Russia.”

This would be achieved by helping these nations to develop along strong ultra nationalist lines. All the Promethean countries agreed to put any disputes behind them and work together until they were all free ultra nationalist states. For Ukraine from its inception as a recognized people in 1848, Nazism is the only form of government it has ever known. The short lived governments that followed and continued in exile all these years were known for their unrelenting [17] brutality and extreme ultra national characteristics.

The Roots of Ultra-Bandera Ukraine’s Russophobia

All ultra-nationalism functions by focusing on a national myth. This means that history and reality are irrelevant. The myth creates the nation that can do no wrong and is set above morality. The root of Galician hatred of Russia is based in its national myth. According to this myth they are the sole heirs to Kiev Rus the forerunner of their nation. They are the heirs of the language, and the rightful rulers of all Rus people. According to the myth, the Moscovy empire stole their birthright and language. This is what prompted the 2014 Moskal on the knives murderous rage that is part and parcel of Ukrainian nationalism. At the same time they point out that they were called Ukrainians and spoke the Ukrainian language in the days of Kievan Rus to justify the nationalist myth that language is what binds them (History of Ukraine- Rev. Isadore Nahayewsky, PHD- America Publishing House of the Providence Association of Ukrainian Catholics in America 1962). The nationalist myth is a common denominator in every ultra nationalist or nazi country. In the case of Ukrainians, they consider that they have been done an irreparable wrong by history, and the only way to right it is to destroy Russia.

Ukraine and the Eastern Bloc- Developing the Ultra

From 1917 to 1921 Ukraine existed as three independent states; Western Ukraine, Ukraine, and the Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic (disbanded 1918 and integrated with Soviet Ukraine).

During this time, no Ukrainian government lasted more than a year before being overthrown by increasingly ultra nationalists; however, the Southeastern region was never a part of ultra national Ukraine.

The government of West Ukraine (Galicia) and Ukraine formed a loose mainly symbolic union based on ultra nationalism. Each had its own national government, army, and laws. Simon Petliura [18] was one of the original leaders of the Hapsburg countries to sign onto Prometheanism. But even as the recognized dictator of Ukraine he was forced to move the government into exile.The only acceptable form of government to a Ukrainian is the Galician (West Ukraine) model of extreme ultra-nationalism. Petliura is revered as a hero in Western Ukraine and a butcher everywhere else for his pogroms, torture, and murder.

As the Soviet Union grew stronger, Poland set up what it and eventually the West would consider the only legitimate governments of the Promethean countries.

Promethean Countries whose leaders emigated

  1. The Ukrainian People’s Republic, to Poland, France and Czechoslovakia;
  2. Georgia, to France;
  3. Azerbaijan, to Turkey and France;
  4. Kuban and Don, to Czechoslovakia;
  5. The Northern Caucasus’ Mountain National Center, to Turkey;
  6. The Armenian National Center, to France;
  7. The Tatar National Centers (Crimea, Idel-Ural, Turkestan), to Turkey, France and Poland

Eventually, with the addition of a few more anti-bolshevik countries (in exile) they would be looked upon as a mini- UN by the west. The common denominators were that all are extremely ultra nationalist and all have a common hatred for Russia.

Prometheanism is still very active today, focusing on destroying the perceived Russian imperialism.

** Note:With this development, unless otherwise specified, Bandera is used as a generic term which, like its synonym Nazi, should be used as a group description for all “in exile” governments under direct Bandera leadership. All of the above listed have been.

The 1930’s

History dealt another real slight to ultra nationalist Ukraine by crediting the rise of Nazism to Adolf Hitler. After WWI Germany also moved into the Hapsburg model of independent governance. Hitler wasn’t original, he just developed into the big kid on the block. Nazi Germany had little use for Nazi Ukraine until after the war started. German Nazi ideology was based on industrial fascism, while Ukrainian ideology was based on agricultural fascism. Ukraine was seen as a backwater to the German ultra nationalists at the time, and this hasn’t changed.

Following the WWI breakup of the Austria-Hungary Empire the Bandera were an ideal fit. The Germans were the sister empire to their own and they expected the same kind of treatment. That fact made it natural for the Bandera to swear allegeance to the Third Reich forever [19]. It was a slap in the face when they didn’t get the same rights they had under the Empire. This fact, coupled with Hitler losing the war are the only reasons they hate being called Nazis today.

It’s also why in some of the private armies operating in Ukraine today they swear allegiance to the 3rd Reich ideal.


Anyone who has followed Ukraine at all is well aware of Bandera’s activities in WWII. The genocide of over 500,000 people in Ukraine [20], the SS Divisions that the ultra nationalists manned, fighting against both the Soviet Union and the Western Allies. The Bandera SS Divisions also manned the concentration camps that became extermination camps during the war. The Bandera have never stood trial for crimes against humanity, and never even had to apologize.

Post WW2

In 1946, three developments happened that profoundly changed the world we live in. The first happened as the ultra nationalist Ukrainian emigre populations settled into their host countries and started to participate as dual citizens. Keep in mind that other than for a few brief years, Ukrainian ultra nationalism only existed as a government in the diaspora. The first the Ultra Nationalists were political extremists from a tiny region and afterward only existed as a standing army.

During and after WWII, the Bandera army moved out of Ukraine, emigrating as a nazi army to host countries all over Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, and further West. The Bandera were comprised of, at minimum, 4 Waffen SS divisions as well as the large civilian army they maintained for genocide.

The Bandera started taking public office as citizens of the host country and maintained representation in the Ukrainian government in exile. They joined political parties and pushed the host countries political ideologies toward the far right as they went. They worked together as a bloc to push for the destruction of the Soviet Union and the reinstatement of a government that would become Nazi Ukraine.

Eventually, as office holders or advisers they were in position to push Bandera’s objectives in conjunction with the government in exile. The other Bandera (all associated groups) described under the Promethean project and below did the same thing, working hand in hand with the Ukrainian leadership. Eventually this mix dominated all of Western politics, especially the conservative and ultra liberal parties whereever they went by stoking nationalist fervor and pride – or Exceptionalism. After 1947 they were recruited as agents in the cold war. Eventually across Europe and the West they would run the cold war and gain access to the highest positions of power on the continent.

Yaroslav Stetsko, the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations

Stetsko was Stepan Bandera’s second in command and founder of many of the groups that would push for Ukrainian independence. Stetsko took over world leadership of Bandera’s OUN-B faction in the late 1960’s until 1986 when he died. He was never charged with crimes against humanity.

***The Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations was a group of extreme ultra nationalist Eastern European countries whose purpose was the destruction of the Soviet Union and Communism by furthering the Promethean project’s aims. ABN countries were developed on ultra nationalist foundations, and their acceptance across the west was due to their work during the cold war.

The ABN provided Europe with:

  • On the ground intelligence inside the Soviet Union
  • Espionage experts inside the Soviet Union
  • Propagandists that could communicate with people inside their respective bloc countries and disseminate anti Soviet propaganda to the local populations, building nationalist tensions.
  • Raise funds for conservative and ultra conservative candidates in countries across Europe
  • NATO actionable intelligence: Bandera has been described as the only weapon needed to destroy the Soviet Union. This was due to its ability to infiltrate governments, influence policy makers, and get their own people into positions of power.

ABN Groups included;

  • The Bulgarian National Front, (Bulgaria)
  • The Belarusian Central Rada, (Belarus)
  • The Cossack National Liberation Movement
  • The Croatian National Liberation Movement, (Croatia)
  • The Czech Movement for Freedom (Za Svobodu), (Czech Republic)
  • The Czech National Committee,
  • The Estonian Liberation Movement, (Estonia)
  • The Union of Estonian Fighters for Freedom,
  • The “Free Armenia” Committee, (Georgia)
  • The Hungarian Liberation Movement, (Hungary)
  • The Hungarian Mindszenty Movement,
  • The Latvian Association for the Struggle against Communism, (Latvia)
  • The Lithuanian Rebirth Movement, (Lithuania)
  • The Slovak Liberation Committee, (Slovakia)
  • The National Turkestanian Unity Committee, (Turkestan)

The Re-emergence of the Ukrainian Government in Exile

When Symon Petliura (president of the government in exile) was assassinated in 1926, Andrii Livytsky took over. In 1945 Livytsky reactivated the Government-in-exile of the Ukrainian National Republic [21] and invited representatives of the new emigration to join it. In 1946 he instructed Isaak Mazepa to unite all political parties around the state center of the UNR, and that union eventually resulted in the organization of the Ukrainian National Council [22] (1947).

In 1945, at the founding of the United Nations, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was given founding member status. Eventually through the work of the ABN, UNC, and many other Bandera (include all captive nation countries under ABN), the UNC stepped into this position unofficially. Eventually all factions of the Ukrainian Diaspora would coalesce around the UNC and the government in exile of Ukraine. By the 1980’s the Ukrainian National Republic government in exile became the only representation of a free Ukraine for Europe, the West, and its allies.

1950’s Soviet Union

The Soviet Union that the world heard about during the Cold War until its collapse was the propaganda the Bandera developed about Stalinism. In January 1950, the Soviet Union offered a general amnesty to all Bandera fighters. During the 1950’s the Soviets pushed out the last of the Bandera guerilla fighters and after Stalin the Soviets went through a period of de-Stalinization. This normalization made possible Bandera’s resurgence in Ukraine.

Normalization (or Sovietification) meant taking all the different republics in the Soviet Union and homogenizing them in order create one nation. Part of that effort was to whitewash the Ukrainian Nazis from the history books, both to assimilate and protect primarily the Galician population that was left, from retribution for the genocide Bandera committed in west, central, and eastern Ukraine.

Because Nazism wasn’t taught in school beyond the fact that it is evil, what Ukrainian ultra nationalism is was forgotten. Most survivors of the atrocities just did not talk about it. Thus, in the 1990’s, ultra nationalism could emerge [23] and remain unrecognized in plain sight, growing into the organizational force behind the Orange Revolution and the Coup in 2014. All the pro-coup forces present in 2014 including Tryzub/ Pravy Sektor were active in 1991.

1950’s Anti-Bolshevik Europe

In the late 1940’s and into the 50’s cold war fever [24] spread across Europe. Governments began their move to the right and eventually far right, culminating in the UK with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Communist sympathizers in government were ferreted out. Anti- Communist groups such as the ABN became the go to networks for intelligence and sabotage efforts. During the 50’s, Stetsko’s ABN absorbed or destroyed every other group or network not previously aligned with it, and became the sole provider of intelligence to all of Europe’s intel agencies and governments regarding the Soviet threat. These were the only Eastern European government structures that Europe ever dealt with for over 50 years.

During this time, European defense and foreign policy revolved around what their Bandera partners reported. When you consider everything that occurred during the Cold War, that is considerable. From the late 1940’s until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, MI5 (British Intelligence) dealt exclusively with Bandera groups. Europe was introduced to all the various governments in exile and especially the Ukrainian. These are the only Eastern European partners Europe ever knew. During this period it became the policy of Western European countries to help free the captive Soviet bloc nations, support the governments in exile’ claims to legitimacy and protect their rights.

The Hapsburgs and Bandera 1960’s and 70’s

The Hapsburg monarchy helped guide the leadership in their former possessions. The Freedom Council was formed by Otto von Hapsburg and Yaroslav Stetsko at a conference in Munich [25] on June 30-July 2 1967, as a coordinating body for organizations fighting communism in Europe [26].

EMP H.R.H. Otto von Hapsburg was honorary chairman of the European Freedom Council, based in Munich, during the 1980s and allied to the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN). The EFC was founded in 1967 and in 1987 celebrated its 20th anniversary. The Executive President at that time was British M.P Mr. John Wilkinson, and one of two Vice-Presidents was Mrs. Slava Stetsko, M.A. (ABN).

The European Freedom Council (EFC), which Yaraslav Stetsko co-founded and participated in, operated in close conjunction with ABN. Annual conferences for the ABN and EFC were often held together, and the leadership of both organizations knew each other and

corresponded regularly. The EFC functioned as ABN”s Western counterpart and sought to “mobilize support of the Free World for the subjugated nations'” liberation struggle.”A mass Western mobilization in support of ABN”s disenfranchised delegates could only strengthen the united multi-national ABN front”.

The administrative structure of EFC resembled that of ABN, and the EFC represented anti-communist groups from Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England, France, West Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.

The EFC extended into Asia with the Asian-Pacific Anti-Communist League, that included Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, China (Taiwan), Thailand, and Vietnam. (Eastern European unity under Russian Communism and the Anti-Bolshevik Block of Nations: Conception, Ideology, and Conferences by Alexander Nicholas Sosoenko).

The EFC further institutionalized and legitimized the ABN groups under Stetsko. All of the anti-communist working groups [27] in every country were tied directly into the respective intelligence services and foreign policy dealing with the Soviet Union. This enhanced their standing and made their support part of national policy across Europe.

How important were they? Slava Stetsko is the only major WWII Nazi figure to ever hold high national office anywhere in the world. She had the support of a united Europe behind her. She was awarded the medal of Freedom in the US. The EFC gave her almost immediate access to all the European heads of state, and in Britain the full support of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party.

Brian Crozier

Brian Crozier [28] and the Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) brought the influence Stetsko’s ABN groups had in the UK to a peak under Margaret Thatcher.

Started in the 1960’s his ISC became one of the best intel gatherers in the world. It’s not many men that can start their own intelligence branch, but Brian Crozier did. Both MI5 and the CIA relied on his intelligence operations, developed through ties with the ABN since the 1940’s. When Stetsko helped cofound the World Anti-Communist League it increased Crozier’s value internationally and expanded his influence in the western hemisphere. (Transnational Anti-Communism and the Cold War: Agents, Activities, and Networks edited by Luc van Dongen, Stephanie Roulin, Giles Scott-Smith):

From the 1950s onwards, Crozier set about exposing  [29]the true character of left-wing dictatorships, and challenged the illusions of their Western apologists. By arguing that the West must stand up to communism , he helped provide the intellectual underpinning for the robust defence strategy championed by President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.”

Crozier was a constant fixture lecturing at the Ministry of Defense about the communist threat. His view of it was exactly that of the ABN. Detente was weakness. The Soviet Union had to be dismantled. In 1991 it was.

The “Intermarium”

The Promethianism project started over a hundred years ago, building an ultra nationalist Ukraine and Eastern Europe as a buffer to Russia [30]. It’s called the Intermarium. [31]

The formation of the renewed Baltic-Black Sea region, or the Intermarium, started in the 1990s. In 1993, US Presidential National Security Adviser Anthony Lake proclaimed the concept of expanding democracy. It provided for the involvement of former Eastern bloc countries and Soviet republics, save Russia, in Transatlantic institutions. The Clinton Administration launched NATO’s eastward expansion in 1994 with a view to its implementation. The Kremlin adamantly objected to this policy.


When you look honestly at the fruit of the Hapsburg Spring of Nations, Prometheanism [32]and the European [33] and US supported Bandera, its really staggering. Ukraine is only in the spotlight because it was the only place where regime change could come quickly. Many of the East European countries in the EU and NATO are already Nazi, or are implementing the political groundwork for the establishment of ultra national governance.

Galicia (West Ukraine), Ruthenia ( West Ukraine), Estonia [34]Poland [35]Latvia [36]Lithuania [37], Austria, Hungary [38], Post WW I Germany, Bosnia [39], Hercegovina [40], Serbia Croatia [41]Slovenia [42] and Romania [43] stepped into this model.

The problem with these examples is that they are not cultural exceptions, but the rule. In 2007 [44] at Tbilisi, Georgia, a statue of Prometheus was dedicated by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and Polish President Lech Kaczyn„ski. Saakashvili has shown by his militant support for Nazi Kiev that he is a true believer in Prometheamism’s ultra nationalism.

The Ukrainians

Before 1991, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, but from the West’s perspective where were the Ukrainians? More importantly, who were the Ukrainians? The Ukrainian National Republic had existed outside Ukraine for over 80 years. It was a friend to the West and its people were the Ukrainians. People inside Soviet Ukraine were Soviet citizens, unless they were working with the Bandera operatives. Europe never met them. Europe never knew them. Europe did not and does not recognize the indigenous people of Ukraine unless they are given the stamp of approval by their longtime friend – the Ukrainian Emigre Population’s leadership.

In 1991 the president of the Ukrainian National Republic gave his power and the seal of state to Leonid Kuchma who until then had been a communist leader in Kiev. Kuchma was born in Galicia, Poland (Ukraine), and was for his entire life a Ukrainian ultra nationalist. In accepting the seal, the flag of Galicia (Bandera) Kuchma agreed to bring the new state in line with the law and tradition of the Ukrainian National Republic circa 1919.

In 2014 that is what finally happened. That was what Maidan was about. When Poroshenko gave his inaugural address he paid homage to this fact. He said that the wars of 1917-1920 had finally been won. This was acknowledged by his election. This new Ukraine was now under the laws and traditions of 1920’s Ukraine as demanded by Symeon Petliura. This was finally the Ukraine they had been waiting for. Today ultra nationalist Ukraine makes that clear by this genocidal war through which Kiev is choosing its citizens.

Why doesn’t Europe see or hear the Donbass Genocide?

Europe can’t see Ukrainians being murdered or tortured, bombed or gassed, hacked with axes or beaten with stones because their longtime friend and ally assures them they would not do that to their own citizens- the Ukrainians.

In Europe’s view the people in Donbass are an old Soviet relic that never represented Ukraine and needs to go away. Donbass was never a part of the Ukraine they know – then or now.

2. The U.S. was one of three countries to vote against a U.N. resolution condemning the celebration of Nazi collaborators as “freedom fighters”–something the U.S. has been promoting since the end of World War II. Germany and the EU nations abstained.

Ukraine itself and Canada were the other countries that voted against the resolution. The OUN/B diaspora and its influence in the GOP and intelligence services of the U.S. is the primary consideration to be weighed in connection with this disgraceful episode.

The large OUN/B  diaspora population in Canada undoubtedly has much to do with that nation’s behavior in this context.

“Honoring Collaborators;” german-foreign-policy.com; 11/26/2014. [45]

The Federal Republic of Germany has refused to vote in favor of a United Nations resolution condemning the glorification of National Socialism and Nazi collaboration. Last week, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly passed a resolution strongly criticizing the edification of memorials to Nazi functionaries and the stylization of Nazi collaborators as “freedom fighters.” Germany and the other EU nations abstained, the USA, Canada, and Ukraine voted against the document, with 115 nations voting in favor. Berlin and Brussels use the excuse of not wanting to support a resolution initiated by Russia. In fact, a vote in favor of the document would have caused hefty disputes within the EU, and between the EU and important allies. With growing frequency, notorious Nazi collaborators are being publicly honored in such EU countries as Hungary or the Baltic countries and in Ukraine, in some cases by officials of the respective governments.

Deep Concern

The UN resolution expresses its “deep concern about the glorification, in any form, of the Nazi movement, neo-Nazism, and former members of the Waffen SS organization.” As examples the document names erecting monuments and memorials and holding public demonstrations in the name of the glorification of the Nazi past but also by “attempting to declare such members and those who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition and collaborated with the Nazi movement participants in national liberation movements.” The resolution explicitly “emphasizes that any commemorative celebration of the Nazi regime, its allies and related organizations, whether official or unofficial” should be prohibited by UN member states. The resolution especially expresses its condemnation “of any denial or attempt to deny the Holocaust.”[1]

Nazi Glorification not rejected

Last Friday, when the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly put the resolution to a vote, the German Ambassador to the UN found himself unable to cast his vote in favor. All other EU nations also abstained, along with countries, dependent, in one way or the other, on the EU, such as Andorra, Bosnia-Herzegovina or Mali. Ukraine, the United States, and Canada voted pointblank against the resolution. The latter two countries are sheltering rather influential Ukrainian exile communities, characterized by former Nazi collaborators of the “Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists” (OUN). The reason generally given last Friday was that they did not want to support a resolution initiated by Russia. The Soviet Union – of which Russia had been its core – was the country accounting for the most casualties from Nazi terror – 27 million. However, had Germany and the other EU nations voted in favor of the resolution, it would have necessarily caused hefty disputes. Today, collaborators, who had joined the Nazis in the war against Moscow, are commemorated in several European countries.

In the Struggle against Russia

This is particularly true of Ukraine, where, since early 2012, German organizations have been working – and intensively so, since 2013 – to incorporate the Svoboda Party and its affiliated forces into an anti-Russian alliance of organizations. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[2]) Svoboda honors the OUN and particularly its commander Stepan Bandera, who is very popular throughout West Ukraine. In 1941, Bandera’s militias actively supported Nazi Germany in its attack on the Soviet Union. Svoboda also honors the “Ukrainian Partisan Army” (UPA), which, in the wake of the German war of extermination, had participated in mass murders of European Jews.[3] In the course of the Maidan protests, both this party and other fascist organizations, receiving vigorous support from Germany, were playing a growing role. Consequently, since the end of February, Svoboda has had several ministers in the Ukrainian putsch regime. Today, fascist battalions are among the most resolute combatants in East Ukraine’s civil war. Some of their commanders have been elected to parliament in the Verchovna Rada on electoral tickets of the parties forming the future government. At the beginning of the month, an activist of the fascist “Right Sector” and deputy commander of the fascist “Asov Battalion,” had been named police chief of the District of Kiev. In their struggle against Russia, Ukraine is uninhibitedly developing the traditions of its anti-Soviet Nazi collaboration – at the side of Germany.

Freedom Fighters

Nazi collaborators are also being honored in EU member countries, for example, in the Baltic nations. Regular commemoration honor parades for the Waffen SS, sponsored by their national Waffen SS veterans are organized in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. In Latvia, one of the most recent marches was held last spring, with approx. 2,000 participants – which, in proportion to the size of the population, would correspond to a demonstration of 80,000 in Germany. Observers point out that in Riga’s state-run Latvian “Occupation Museum” the Latvian Waffen SS militias are referred to as “freedom fighters” in the struggle against Moscow. Organizers of the Waffen SS memorial march are invited to schools to teach courses in “patriotism.”[4] The “All for Latvia” national alliance party, which has consistently been in the government since 2011, supports these memorial parades. The party recurringly raises the issue of the deportation (“repatriation”) of the country’s Russian-speaking minority. One of the party’s leaders had once declared that the Russian minority – nearly one quarter of the population – are “occupiers” or “illegal colonialists.” A critical appraisal of Nazi collaboration is not welcome in this country. As the historian Maris Ruks notes, Latvian scholars risk “setbacks in their careers, if they engage in too detailed research into the Holocaust.”[5] In the current confrontation with Russia, the Baltic countries are among the EU’s most aggressive forces.

Hitler’s Partner is being rehabilitated

Also in Hungary fascist traditions are becoming more prevalent. Showcase examples are the new memorials to the “Reich’s Deputy” and Nazi collaborator Miklós Horthy, which have been inaugurated since 2012. After changing the name “Freedom Square” to “Horthy Square,” in April 2012, in Gyömrö, near Budapest, a Horthy statue was erected in the village of Kereki in southern Hungary.[6] A Horthy commemorative plaque was installed on its premises of the Calvinist College in Debrecen in May 2012. Other memorials have followed. For example, in June 2013 in the East Hungarian village of Hencida [7] and in November of the same year right in Budapest. “Hitler’s Hungarian partner is being rehabilitated,” wrote German press organs back in 2012, attentively noting that, at Hitler’s side, Horthy had led Hungary “into war against the Soviet Union.”[8] However, currently, Hungary is not one of those countries taking a particularly aggressive stand toward Russia. The rehabilitation of Nazi collaborators extends far beyond Horthy. Since the 1990s, there have been many commemorative plaques dedicated to the ethnic, anti-Semitic writer, Albert Wass, who had been a loyal follower of Horthy and the Nazi Reich. His writings have been as accepted into the country’s curriculums as those of Jozsef Nyiro, who still in 1944 was active in the Nazi Arrow Cross Party.[9] Hungary’s “Jobbik” Party – which polled 20.5 percent in the April 6, 2014 elections, its greatest success ever – stands in the tradition of the Arrow Cross Party.

“Counter Insurgency”

This is hardly an exhaustive list of EU countries publicly honoring Nazi collaborators. In Croatia, for example, monuments to Nazi opponents were destroyed, while, streets were being named after Mile Budak, the fascist Ustasha’s leading propagandist and, for awhile, Croatia’s Foreign Minister during the period of Nazi collaboration. In Italy’s Affile, to the east of Rome, a mausoleum to the fascist war criminal, Rodolfo Graziani was inaugurated in 2012. Graziani, who had initially been engaged in “counter insurgency” in Libya, ordered hostages shot and used poisoned gas in Ethiopia. Toward the end of the war, he was having Italians executed for refusing to collaborate with the Nazi puppet regime in Salò. Had Germany and the other EU countries not refused to vote in favor of last Friday’s UN resolution, they would – had they taken the document seriously – be facing serious conflicts with one another and with their close allies, e.g. their partners in Ukraine.

[1] United Nations General Assembly: Sixty-ninth session of the Third Committee. Agenda item 66 (a): Elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. A/C.3/69/L.56/Rev.1. 19.11.2014.
[2] See A Broad-Based Anti-Russian Alliance [46]Termin beim Botschafter [47] and Juschtschenkos Mythen [48].
[3] See Zwischen Moskau und Berlin (IV) [49].
[4] See Tag der Kollaborateure [50] and “Liberation Fighters” and “Occupier” [51].
[5] Frank Brendle: International gegen SS-Verherrlichung. www.neues-deutschland.de 17.03.2014.
[6] György Dalos: Horthy im Hoch. www.nzz.ch 03.07.2012.
[7] Jobbik und Neue Ungarische Garde weihen neues Horthy-Denkmal ein. pusztaranger.wordpress.com 23.06.2013.
[8] Paul Jandl: Hitlers ungarischer Partner wird rehabilitiert. www.welt.de 05.06.2012.
[9] See Ein positives Ungarn-Bild [52].

3. Fol­low­ing the anti-Russian “lus­tra­tion” laws [12], Petro Poroshenko is moving to alter the cit­i­zen­ship laws to allow select for­eign­ers to get fast-tracked cit­i­zen­ship in order to allow them to hold cab­i­net posi­tions. It sounds like he’s also con­sid­er­ing just allow­ing for­eign­ers to fill those posts with­out the cit­i­zen­ship require­ment. It sounds as if he wishes to install personnel from the OUN/B diaspora in Ukraine’s law enforcement and national security apparatus.

“Poroshenko Wants to See For­eign­ers Head­ing ‘Ukraine’s FBI,’ Fill Cab­i­net Positions” by Katya Gorchinskaya; Kyiv Post; 11/27/2014. [53]

Pres­i­dent Petro Poroshenko asked the new par­lia­ment to amend leg­is­la­tion to allow for­eign­ers to take top jobs in the nation, includ­ing head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

“I have a con­crete sug­ges­tion to all who is involved, accord­ing to pro­ce­dure spelled out in law, to the appoint­ment of this extremely impor­tant insti­tu­tion. I sug­gest invit­ing to this job a per­son from out­side of Ukraine,” Poroshenko told the new par­lia­ment on Thurs­day, the day of its opening.

“Thus we will have an advan­tage – an absence of con­nec­tions in the Ukrain­ian polit­i­cal elite,” Poroshenko explained.

The Anti-Corruption Bureau is yet to be cre­ated, and is sup­posed to fight top-level cor­rup­tion. It has already been dubbed “Ukraine’s FBI,” and the process of its cre­ation is closely watched by Ukraine’s for­eign cred­i­tors and local busi­ness community.

More­over, Poroshenko said he wanted to amend the law to allow for­eign­ers to take other top jobs, or sim­plify the pro­ce­dure for grant­ing Ukrain­ian cit­i­zen­ship to foreigners.

“My idea is, by chang­ing the law, to allow for­eign­ers into state ser­vice, includ­ing gov­ern­ment seats, or extend the list of per­sons the pres­i­dent can grant Ukrain­ian cit­i­zen­ship, through fast track­ing,” Poroshenko said.

Poroshenko’s admin­is­tra­tion hired an inter­na­tional recruit­ing com­pany, Korn Ferry, and its local branch WE Part­ners, to iden­tify can­di­dates for the next gov­ern­ment. They approached for­eign­ers in Ukraine and abroad. They are Amer­i­can, Lithuan­ian and Geor­gian nation­als, accord­ing to Insider.ua, a Ukrain­ian site that spe­cial­izes in polit­i­cal news.

Cur­rently, the law has a lim­ited list of rea­sons to gain Ukrain­ian cit­i­zen­ship. It can hap­pen through birth, adop­tion or in cases when at least of the par­ents has such cit­i­zen­ship. For­eign­ers wish­ing to gain Ukrain­ian cit­i­zen­ship have to give up their orig­i­nal passports.

Poroshenko implied in his speech that there may be peo­ple who are pre­pared to con­sider such an option. “The deci­sive steps of such for­eign­ers, which will be pre­pared to turn down their own cit­i­zen­ship and accept a Ukrain­ian cit­i­zen­ship, will be a con­fir­ma­tion of their deci­sive­ness of the inten­tions of our poten­tial part­ners and can­di­dates,” he said.

Poroshenko’s sug­ges­tion to appoint for­eign­ers was met with some skep­ti­cism in the ses­sion hall, which the pres­i­dent also noted: “I can see that not every­one in this hall likes this idea.”

4. Robert Parry informs us that Ukraine’s new finance min­is­ter is a for­mer US State Depart­ment offi­cer and Ukrainian/American from the Chicago area who just got her Ukrain­ian cit­i­zen­ship this week. Jaresko is–obviously–part of the Ukrainian diaspora in the United States. She was pres­i­dent and CEO of a USAID-backed fund (sound famil­iar? [54]) that was intended to ‘kick start’ the pri­vate equity busi­ness in the region fol­low­ing the col­lapse of the Soviet Union. You read that right: an Amer­i­can that ran a USAID pri­vate equity fund is now Ukraine’s Min­is­ter of Finance [55]:

“Ukraine’s Made-in-USA Finance Min­is­ter” by Robert Parry; Con­sor­tium News; 12/5/2014. [56]

A top prob­lem of Ukraine has been cor­rup­tion and crony­ism, so it may raise eye­brows that new Finance Min­is­ter Natalie Jaresko, an ex-U.S. diplo­mat and newly minted Ukrain­ian cit­i­zen, was involved in insider deal­ings while man­ag­ing a $150 mil­lion U.S. AID-backed invest­ment fund, writes Robert Parry.

Ukraine’s new Finance Min­is­ter Natalie Jaresko, a for­mer U.S. State Depart­ment offi­cer who was granted Ukrain­ian cit­i­zen­ship only this week, headed a U.S. government-funded invest­ment project for Ukraine that involved sub­stan­tial insider deal­ings, includ­ing $1 million-plus fees to a man­age­ment com­pany that she also con­trolled.

Jaresco served as pres­i­dent and chief exec­u­tive offi­cer of West­ern NIS Enter­prise Fund (WNISEF), which was cre­ated by the U.S. Agency for Inter­na­tional Devel­op­ment (U.S. AID) with $150 mil­lion to spur busi­ness activ­ity in Ukraine. She also was cofounder and man­ag­ing part­ner of Hori­zon Cap­i­tal which man­aged WNISEF’s invest­ments at a rate of 2 to 2.5 per­cent of com­mit­ted cap­i­tal, fees exceed­ing $1 mil­lion in recent years, accord­ing to WNISEF’s 2012 annual report [57].

The growth of that insider deal­ing at the U.S.-taxpayer-funded WNISEF is fur­ther under­scored by the num­ber of para­graphs com­mit­ted to list­ing the “related party trans­ac­tions,” i.e., poten­tial con­flicts of inter­est, between an early annual report from 2003 [58]and the one a decade later.

Jaresko, who served in the U.S. Embassy in Kiev after the col­lapse of the Soviet Union, has said [59] that West­ern NIS Enter­prise Fund was “funded by the U.S. gov­ern­ment to invest in small and medium-sized busi­nesses in Ukraine and Moldova – in essence, to ‘kick-start’ the pri­vate equity indus­try in the region.”

While the ulti­mate suc­cess of that U.S.-funded endeavor may still be unknown, it is clear that the U.S. AID money did “kick-start” Jaresko’s career in equity invest­ments and put her on the path that has now taken her to the job of Ukraine’s new finance min­is­ter. Ukrain­ian Pres­i­dent Petro Poroshenko cited her expe­ri­ence in these invest­ment fields to explain his unusual deci­sion to bring in an Amer­i­can to run Ukraine’s finances and grant her citizenship.