Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

← Tulsi and the Fascists   |   For The Record programs from 1100, Complete Audio →

FTR #1098, FTR #1099, FTR #1100 and FTR #1101– Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 8 (The Intermarium Concept), Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 9 (Intermarium Redux: “Will the National Socialist Revolution Begin in Ukraine?”), Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 10–The Intermarium Continuity, Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 11–The Intermarium Continuity, Part 2 (Reflections on The Pivot Point)

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ November 23, 2019Post a comment Email This Post Email This Post Print This Post Print This Post
Tags  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

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

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 40+ years’ work.

Please con­sid­er sup­port­ing THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES.

FTR #1098: This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR #1099: This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR #1100: This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR #1101: This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Intro­duc­tion: In these pro­grams, we con­tin­ue dis­cus­sion of the Azov milieu and its “Inter­mar­i­um” out­reach, in the con­text of Ukraine as a “piv­ot point” cen­tral to con­trol of the World Island or Earth Island. The evo­lu­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept is fun­da­men­tal to analy­sis of this phe­nom­e­non.

Ukraine’s sig­nif­i­cance as a glob­al epi­cen­ter of bur­geon­ing fas­cism extends to the region’s online, ide­o­log­i­cal and icon­ic man­i­fes­ta­tion. Two recent Cana­di­an teens–Kam McLeod and Bry­er Schmegelsky–who appar­ent­ly killed three peo­ple in cold blood were influ­enced by Nazi cul­ture and Azov Bat­tal­ion man­i­fes­ta­tion in par­tic­u­lar. ” . . . . A Steam user con­firmed to The Globe and Mail that he talked to Mr. Schmegel­sky reg­u­lar­ly online. He recalled Mr. McLeod join­ing their chats as well. The user, whom The Globe is not iden­ti­fy­ing, pro­vid­ed pho­tos sent by an account believed to be owned by Mr. Schmegel­sky, show­ing him in mil­i­tary fatigues, bran­dish­ing what appears to be an air­soft rifle – which fires plas­tic pel­lets. Anoth­er pho­to shows a swasti­ka arm­band, and yet anoth­er fea­tures Mr. Schmegel­sky in a gas mask. The pho­tos were report­ed­ly sent in the fall of 2018, but the user said he stopped play­ing online games with Mr. Schmegel­sky ear­li­er this year after he con­tin­ued to praise Hitler’s Ger­many. One account con­nect­ed to the teens uses the logo of the Azov Bat­tal­ion, a far-right Ukrain­ian mili­tia that has been accused of har­bour­ing sym­pa­thies to neo-Nazis. . . .”

Dis­cussing Zbig­niew Brzezin­ski’s doc­trine of con­trol­ling Eura­sia by con­trol­ling the “piv­ot point” of Ukraine. Fun­da­men­tal to this analy­sis is the con­cept of the Earth Island or World Island as it is some­times known.

Brzezin­s­ki, in turn, draws on the geopo­lit­i­cal the­o­ries of Sir Hal­ford Mackinder, and, lat­er con­tem­po­rary Inter­mar­i­um adov­cates such as Alexan­dros Petersen. (For more about Petersen, see below.)

Stretch­ing from the Straits of Gibral­tar, all across Europe, most of the Mid­dle East, Eura­sia, Rus­sia, Chi­na and India, that stretch of land: com­pris­es most of the world’s land mass; con­tains most of the world’s pop­u­la­tion and most of the world’s nat­ur­al resources (includ­ing oil and nat­ur­al gas.) Geopoliti­cians have long seen con­trol­ling that land mass as the key to world dom­i­na­tion.

Most of the four pro­grams high­light­ing the evo­lu­tion and appli­ca­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept con­sist of read­ing and analy­sis of a long aca­d­e­m­ic paper by Mar­lene Laru­elle and Ellen Rivera. Of para­mount sig­nif­i­cance in this dis­cus­sion is the piv­otal role of Ukrain­ian fas­cist orga­ni­za­tions in the Inter­mar­i­um and close­ly con­nect­ed Promethean net­works, from the post World War I peri­od, through the time between the World Wars, through the Cold War and up to and includ­ing the Maid­an coup.

Mil­i­tary, eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal net­work­ing has employed the Inter­mar­i­um idea, with what the paper terms the “ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­nings” stem­ming from the evo­lu­tion of the Ukrain­ian fas­cist milieu in the twen­ti­eth and twen­ty-first cen­turies. Some of the most impor­tant U.S. think tanks and asso­ci­at­ed mil­i­tary indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions embody this con­ti­nu­ity: ” . . . . The con­ti­nu­ity of insti­tu­tion­al and indi­vid­ual tra­jec­to­ries from Sec­ond World War col­lab­o­ra­tionists to Cold War-era anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions to con­tem­po­rary con­ser­v­a­tive U.S. think tanks is sig­nif­i­cant for the ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­nings of today’s Inter­mar­i­um revival. . . .”

Think tanks man­i­fest­ing the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept include: Strat­for, The Insti­tute of World Pol­i­tics, The Cen­ter for a New Amer­i­can Secu­ri­ty, The Cen­ter for Euro­pean Pol­i­cy Analy­sis and the Atlantic Coun­cil.

Exem­pli­fy­ing the man­i­fes­ta­tion of fas­cist lega­cy in the Western/U.S. think tanks is the Insti­tute of World Pol­i­tics’ Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. ” . . . . In a long dossier, SPLC revealed Chodakiewicz to be a fre­quent com­men­ta­tor on right-wing Pol­ish media, such as the week­ly Najwyzszy Czas!, ‘the mag­a­zine of the Real Pol­i­tics Union par­ty, a fringe, pro-life, anti-gay mar­riage, pro-prop­er­ty rights, anti-income tax group,’ and the far-right Pol­ish web­site Fronda.pl.[101] In July 2008, Chodakiewicz was among those who accused Barack Oba­ma of hav­ing been a Mus­lim and a com­mu­nist asso­ciate. . . .”

We present key excerpts of the paper to under­score dom­i­nant fea­tures of this evo­lu­tion­ary con­ti­nu­ity:

  1. A key play­er in the events that brought the OUN suc­ces­sor orga­ni­za­tions to pow­er in Ukraine has been the Atlantic Coun­cil. It receives back­ing from NATO, the State Depart­ment, Lithua­nia and Ukrain­ian oli­garch Vik­tor Pinchuk. The think tank also receives major fund­ing from the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress, which evolved from the OUN. ” . . . . In 1967, the World Con­gress of Free Ukraini­ans was found­ed in New York City by sup­port­ers of Andriy Mel­nyk. [The head of the OUN‑M, also allied with Nazi Germany.–D.E.] It was renamed the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress in 1993. In 2003, the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress was rec­og­nized by the Unit­ed Nations Eco­nom­ic and Social Coun­cil as an NGO with spe­cial con­sul­ta­tive sta­tus. It now appears as a spon­sor of the Atlantic Coun­cil . . . . The con­ti­nu­ity of insti­tu­tion­al and indi­vid­ual tra­jec­to­ries from Sec­ond World War col­lab­o­ra­tionists to Cold War-era anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions to con­tem­po­rary con­ser­v­a­tive U.S. think tanks is sig­nif­i­cant for the ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­nings of today’s Inter­mar­i­um revival. . . .”
  2. Ukrain­ian pro­to-fas­cist forces were at the core of Josef Pil­sud­ski’s Pol­ish-led Inter­mar­i­um and over­lap­ping Promethean orga­ni­za­tions. Those forces coa­lesced into the OUN. ” . . . . Accord­ing to the British schol­ar and jour­nal­ist Stephen Dor­ril, the Promethean League served as an anti-com­mu­nist umbrel­la orga­ni­za­tion for anti-Sovi­et exiles dis­placed after the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment of Simon Petlu­ra (1879–1926) gave up the fight against the Sovi­ets in 1922.[12]  . . . . as Dor­ril affirms, ‘the real lead­er­ship and latent pow­er with­in the Promethean League emanat­ed from the Petlu­ra-dom­i­nat­ed Ukrain­ian Demo­c­ra­t­ic Repub­lic in exile and its Pol­ish spon­sors. The Poles ben­e­fit­ed direct­ly from this arrange­ment, as Promethean mil­i­tary assets were absorbed into the Pol­ish army, with Ukrain­ian, Geor­gian and Armen­ian con­tract offi­cers not uncom­mon in the ranks.’[13] The alliance between Pił­sud­s­ki and Petlu­ra became very unpop­u­lar among many West­ern Ukraini­ans, as it result­ed in Pol­ish dom­i­na­tion of their lands. This oppo­si­tion joined the insur­gent Ukrain­ian Mil­i­tary Orga­ni­za­tion (Ukrain­s­ka viisko­va orh­a­nizat­si­ia, UVO—founded 1920), which lat­er trans­formed into the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists (Orh­a­nizat­si­ia ukrain­skykh nat­sion­al­is­tiv, OUN). . . .”
  3. Accord­ing to for­mer Army intel­li­gence offi­cer William Gowen (a source used and trust­ed by John Lof­tus and Mark Aarons) the Inter­mar­i­um and Promethean net­work assets were used by Third Reich intel­li­gence dur­ing World War II. ” . . .  . Based on Gowen’s reports, such authors as Christo­pher Simp­son, Stephen Dor­ril, Mark Aarons, and John Lof­tus have sug­gest­ed that the net­works of the Promethean League and the Inter­mar­i­um were uti­lized by Ger­man intel­li­gence. . . .”
  4. Not sur­pris­ing­ly, the Intermarium/Promethean milieu appears to have been cen­tral­ly involved in the Nazi escape net­works, the Vat­i­can-assist­ed “Rat­lines,” in par­tic­u­lar. ” . . . . Amer­i­can intel­li­gence began to take notice of the Inter­mar­i­um net­work in August 1946[42] in the frame­work of Oper­a­tion Cir­cle, a Coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence Corps (CIC) project the orig­i­nal goal of which was to deter­mine how net­works inside the Vat­i­can had spir­it­ed away so many Nazi war crim­i­nals and col­lab­o­ra­tors, most­ly to South Amer­i­ca.[43] Among the group of CIC offi­cers involved in the oper­a­tion was Levy’s source William Gowen. Then a young offi­cer based in Rome, Gowen sus­pect­ed the Inter­mar­i­um net­work to be behind Nazi war crim­i­nals and col­lab­o­ra­tors’ exten­sive escape routes from Europe. . . .”
  5. It comes as no sur­prise, as well, that U.S. intel­li­gence absorbed the Intermarium/Promethean  net­works after the war. ” . . . . Accord­ing to Aarons and Lof­tus, although he had ini­tial­ly been thor­ough­ly opposed to this course of action, by ‘ear­ly July 1947, Gowen was strong­ly advo­cat­ing that Amer­i­can intel­li­gence should take over Inter­mar­i­um; before long, the CIC offi­cer was no longer hunt­ing for Nazis, but recruit­ing them.’[49] . . . .”
  6. One of the main com­po­nents of  the “Inter­mar­i­um con­ti­nu­ity” is the ABN—the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations. The OUN and asso­ci­at­ed ele­ments con­sti­tute the most impor­tant ele­ment of the ABN. ” . . . . a vast num­ber of anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions were formed in the imme­di­ate post-war peri­od and sup­port­ed by the US.[57] They con­sti­tute one of the main com­po­nents of the Inter­mar­i­um ‘genealog­i­cal tree,’ in the sense that they revived the mem­o­ry of Piłsudski’s attempts to uni­fy Cen­tral and East­ern Europe against Sovi­et Rus­sia and gave them new life, but blend­ed this mem­o­ry with far-right tones inspired by col­lab­o­ra­tion with Nazi Ger­many.[58] The most impor­tant of the Euro­pean anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions was the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations (ABN). . . . Because fas­cist move­ments were, in the 1930s, the first to orga­nize them­selves against the Sovi­et Union, the ABN recruit­ed mas­sive­ly among their ranks and served as an umbrel­la for many for­mer col­lab­o­ra­tionist para­mil­i­tary orga­ni­za­tions in exile, amongst them the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nationalists—Bandera (OUN‑B), the Croa­t­ian Ustaše, the Roman­ian Iron Guard, and the Slo­va­kian Hlin­ka Guard.[59] It thus con­tributed to guar­an­tee­ing the sur­vival of their lega­cies at least until the end of the Cold War. Accord­ing to the lib­er­al Insti­tute for Pol­i­cy Stud­ies think tank, cre­at­ed by two for­mer aides to Kennedy advi­sors, the ABN was the ‘largest and most impor­tant umbrel­la for for­mer Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors in the world.’ . . . .”
  7. In addi­tion to the OUN/Ukrainian fas­cist milieu, the Croa­t­ian Ustashe fas­cists became a dom­i­nant ele­ment. This is fun­da­men­tal to the Azov Bat­tal­ion’s Inter­mar­i­um project, dis­cussed in FTR #‘s 1096 and 1097. ” . . . . The most active groups with­in the ABN became the Ukrain­ian and Croa­t­ian orga­ni­za­tions, par­tic­u­lar­ly the Ukrain­ian OUN.[61] The OUN, under the lead­er­ship of Andriy Mel­nyk (1890–1964), col­lab­o­rat­ed with the Nazi occu­piers from the latter’s inva­sion of Poland in Sep­tem­ber 1939. The Gestapo trained Myko­la Lebed and the adher­ents of Melnyk’s younger com­peti­tor, Stepan Ban­dera (1909–1959), in sab­o­tage, guer­ril­la war­fare, and assas­si­na­tions. The OUN’s 1941 split into the so-called OUN‑B, fol­low­ing Stepan Ban­dera, and OUN‑M, fol­low­ing Andriy Mel­nyk,[62] did not keep both fac­tions from con­tin­u­ing to col­lab­o­rate with the Ger­mans. . . .”
  8. For­mer SS and Abwehr offi­cer Theodor Oberlaender–the “polit­i­cal offi­cer” (read “com­man­der”) of the Nachti­gall Bat­tal­ion in the Lviv pogram of 1941–became the Ger­man Min­is­ter of Expellees and was vital to the ascent of the OUN in the ABN. ” . . . .While in Sovi­et Ukraine the UPA kept on fight­ing against Moscow until the ear­ly 1950s, their capac­i­ties were exhaust­ed. . . . As Fed­er­al Min­is­ter for Dis­placed Per­sons, Refugees, and the War-Dam­aged dur­ing the Ade­nauer gov­ern­ment, Ober­län­der played a cru­cial role in the rise of the ABN and allowed Ukrain­ian col­lab­o­ra­tionists to take the lead in it. Yaroslav Stet­sko (1912–1986), who presided over the Ukrain­ian col­lab­o­ra­tionist gov­ern­ment in Lviv from as ear­ly as 30 June 1941, led the ABN from its cre­ation in 1946 until his death in 1986. . . .”
  9. The Army’s Counter Intel­li­gence Corps (CIC) con­firmed the pri­ma­cy of the OUN/B with­in the ABN: ” . . . . CIC con­firmed that by 1948 both the ‘Inter­mar­i­um’ and the UPA (Ukrain­ian par­ti­san com­mand) report­ed to the ABN pres­i­dent, Yaroslav Stet­sko. The UPA in turn had con­sol­i­dat­ed all the anti-Sovi­et par­ti­sans under its umbrel­la. Yaroslav Stet­sko was also Sec­re­tary of OUN/B and sec­ond in com­mand to Ban­dera, who had the largest remain­ing par­ti­san group behind Sovi­et lines under his direct com­mand. Thus, OUN/B had achieved the lead­er­ship role among the anti-Com­mu­nist exiles and was ascen­dant by 1950 . . . .”
  10. Con­tem­po­rary Ukraine is the focal point of the rein­car­nat­ed Inter­mar­i­um con­cept. ” . . . . The most recent rein­car­na­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um has tak­en form in Ukraine, espe­cial­ly among the Ukrain­ian far right, which has re-appro­pri­at­ed the con­cept by cap­i­tal­iz­ing on the sol­id ide­o­log­i­cal and per­son­al con­ti­nu­ity between actors of the Ukrain­ian far right in the inter­war and Cold War peri­ods and their heirs today. . . .”
  11. The con­ti­nu­ity of the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept as man­i­fest­ed in con­tem­po­rary Ukraine is epit­o­mized by the role of Yarosla­va Stet­sko (Yaroslav’s wid­ow and suc­ces­sor as a deci­sive ABN and OUN leader). Note the net­work­ing between her Con­gress of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists and Svo­bo­da. “. . . . This con­ti­nu­ity is exem­pli­fied by the wife of long-time ABN leader Yaroslav Stet­sko, Yarosla­va Stet­sko (1920–2003), a promi­nent fig­ure in the Ukrain­ian post-Sec­ond World War émi­gré com­mu­ni­ty who became direct­ly involved in post-Sovi­et Ukrain­ian pol­i­tics. Hav­ing joined the OUN at the age of 18, she became an indis­pens­able sup­port­er of the ABN after the war . . . . In July 1991, she returned to Ukraine, and in the fol­low­ing year formed the Con­gress of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists (CUN), a new polit­i­cal par­ty estab­lished on the basis of the OUN, pre­sid­ing over both.[129] Although the CUN nev­er achieved high elec­tion results, it coop­er­at­ed with the Social-Nation­al Par­ty of Ukraine (SNPU), which lat­er changed its name to Svo­bo­da, the far-right Ukrain­ian par­ty that con­tin­ues to exist. . . .”
  12. Yarosla­va Stet­sko’s CUN was co-found­ed by her hus­band’s for­mer sec­re­tary in the 1980s, Roman Svarych. Min­is­ter of Jus­tice in the Vik­tor Yuschenko gov­ern­ment (as well as both Tim­o­shenko gov­ern­ments), Svarych became the spokesman and a major recruiter for the Azov Bat­tal­ion. ” . . . . The co-founder of the CUN and for­mer­ly Yaroslav Stetsko’s pri­vate sec­re­tary, the U.S.-born Roman Zvarych (1953), rep­re­sents a younger gen­er­a­tion of the Ukrain­ian émi­gré com­mu­ni­ty active dur­ing the Cold War and a direct link from the ABN to the Azov Bat­tal­ion. . . . Zvarych par­tic­i­pat­ed in the activ­i­ties of the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations in the 1980s. . . . In Feb­ru­ary 2005, after Vik­tor Yushchenko’s elec­tion, Zvarych was appoint­ed Min­is­ter of Jus­tice. . . . Accord­ing to Andriy Bilet­sky, the first com­man­der of the Azov bat­tal­ion, a civ­il para­mil­i­tary unit cre­at­ed in the wake of the Euro­maid­an, Zvarych was head of the head­quar­ters of the Azov Cen­tral Com­mit­tee in 2015 and sup­port­ed the Azov bat­tal­ion with ‘vol­un­teers’ and polit­i­cal advice through his Zvarych Foun­da­tion. . . .”
  13. The “Inter­mar­i­um Con­ti­nu­ity” is inex­tri­ca­ble with the his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ism about the roles of the OUN and UPA in World War II. That revi­sion­ism is insti­tu­tion­al­ized in the Insti­tute of Nation­al Remem­brance. ” . . . .The rein­tro­duc­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um notion in Ukraine is close­ly con­nect­ed to the broad reha­bil­i­ta­tion of the OUN and UPA, as well as of their main hero, Stepan Ban­dera. . . . Dur­ing his pres­i­den­cy (2005–2010), and par­tic­u­lar­ly through the cre­ation of the Insti­tute for Nation­al Remem­brance,  Vik­tor Yushchenko built the image of Ban­dera as a sim­ple Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist fight­ing for his country’s inde­pen­dence . . . .”
  14. As dis­cussed in numer­ous pro­grams, anoth­er key ele­ment in the “Inter­mar­i­um Con­ti­nu­ity” is Katery­na Chu­machenko, an OUN oper­a­tive who served in the State Depart­ment and Ronald Rea­gan’s admin­is­tra­tion. She mar­ried Vik­tor Yuschenko. ” . . . . It is not unlike­ly Yushchenko’s readi­ness dur­ing his pres­i­den­cy (2005–2010) to open up to right-wing ten­den­cies of the Ukrain­ian exile leads back to his wife, who had con­nec­tions to the ABN. Katery­na Chu­machenko [Yushchenko], born 1961 in Chica­go, was socialised there in the Ukrain­ian exile youth organ­i­sa­tion SUM (Spilka Ukra­jin­sko­ji Molo­di, Ukrain­ian Youth Organ­i­sa­tion) in the spir­it of the OUN. Via the lob­by asso­ci­a­tion Ukrain­ian Con­gress Com­mit­tee of Amer­i­ca (UCCA) she obtained a post as  ‘spe­cial assis­tant’ in the U.S. State Depart­ment in 1986, and was from 1988 to 1989 employed by the Office of Pub­lic Liai­son in the White House. . . .”
  15. Embody­ing the “Inter­mar­i­um Con­ti­nu­ity” are the lus­tra­tion laws, which make it a crim­i­nal offense to tell the truth about the OUN and UPA’s roles in World War II. Note Volodymyr Via­tro­vy­ch’s posi­tion as min­is­ter of edu­ca­tion. ” . . . . This reha­bil­i­ta­tion trend accel­er­at­ed after the Euro­Maid­an. In 2015, just before the sev­en­ti­eth anniver­sary of Vic­to­ry Day, Volodymyr Via­tro­vych, min­is­ter of edu­ca­tion and long-time direc­tor of the Insti­tute for the Study of the Lib­er­a­tion Move­ment, an orga­ni­za­tion found­ed to pro­mote the hero­ic nar­ra­tive of the OUN–UPA, called on the par­lia­ment to vote for a set of four laws that cod­i­fied the new, post-Maid­an his­to­ri­og­ra­phy. Two of them are par­tic­u­lar­ly influ­en­tial in the ongo­ing mem­o­ry war with Rus­sia. One decrees that OUN and UPA mem­bers are to be con­sid­ered ‘fight­ers for Ukrain­ian inde­pen­dence in the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry,’ mak­ing pub­lic denial of this unlaw­ful. . . .”
  16. As high­light­ed in a Nation arti­cle in FTR #1072, ” . . . . With­in sev­er­al years, an entire gen­er­a­tion will be indoc­tri­nat­ed to wor­ship Holo­caust per­pe­tra­tors as nation­al heroes. . . .”
  17. As dis­cussed dis­cussed in FTR #‘s 1096 and 1097, the Azov Bat­tal­ion is in the lead­er­ship of the revival of the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept.” . . . . In this con­text of reha­bil­i­ta­tion of inter­war heroes, ten­sions with Rus­sia, and dis­il­lu­sion with Europe over its per­ceived lack of sup­port against Moscow, the geopo­lit­i­cal con­cept of Inter­mar­i­um could only pros­per. It has found its most active pro­mot­ers on the far right of the polit­i­cal spec­trum, among the lead­er­ship of the Azov Bat­tal­ion. . . .”
  18. Azov’s Inter­mar­i­um Sup­port Group has held three net­work­ing con­fer­ences to date, bring­ing togeth­er key fig­ures of what are euphem­ized as “nation­al­ist” orga­ni­za­tions. In addi­tion to focus­ing on the devel­op­ment of what are euphem­ized as “nation­al­ist” youth orga­ni­za­tions, the con­fer­ence is stress­ing mil­i­tary orga­ni­za­tion and pre­pared­ness: ” . . . . In 2016, Bilet­sky cre­at­ed the Inter­mar­i­um Sup­port Group (ISG),[152] intro­duc­ing the con­cept to poten­tial com­rades-in-arms from the Baltic-Black Sea region.[153] The first day of the found­ing con­fer­ence was reserved for lec­tures and dis­cus­sions by senior rep­re­sen­ta­tives of var­i­ous sym­pa­thet­ic orga­ni­za­tions, the sec­ond day to ‘the lead­ers of youth branch­es of polit­i­cal par­ties and nation­al­ist move­ments of the Baltic-Black Sea area.’ . . . . It also includ­ed ‘mil­i­tary attach­es of diplo­mat­ic mis­sions from the key coun­tries in the region (Poland, Hun­gary, Roma­nia and Lithua­nia). . . .”
  19. Azov’s third ISG con­fer­ence con­tin­ued to advance the mil­i­tary net­work­ing char­ac­ter­is­tics of the ear­li­er gath­er­ings, includ­ing the neces­si­ty of giv­ing mil­i­tary train­ing to what are euphem­ized as “nation­al­ist” youth orga­ni­za­tions: ” . . . . On Octo­ber 13, 2018, the ISG orga­nized its third con­gress. Besides the Ukrain­ian hosts, a large share of the for­eign speak­ers from Poland, Lithua­nia, and Croa­t­ia had a (para-)military back­ground, among them advi­sor to the Pol­ish Defence Min­is­ter Jerzy Tar­gal­s­ki and retired Brigadier Gen­er­al of the Croa­t­ian Armed Forces Bruno Zor­i­ca.[156] Among the talk­ing points of Pol­ish mil­i­tary edu­ca­tor Damien Duda were ‘meth­ods of the prepa­ra­tion of a mil­i­tary reserve in youth orga­ni­za­tions” and the “impor­tance of para­mil­i­tary struc­tures with­in the frame­work of the defence com­plex of a mod­ern state.’ . . . .”

Of crit­i­cal impor­tance in com­pre­hend­ing this con­ti­nu­ity is the over­lap­ping con­ti­nu­ity between the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion and the Cru­sade For Free­dom, which spawned the GOP’s Eth­nic Her­itage Out­reach Coun­cil, for all intents and pur­pos­es, a Nazi branch of the Repub­li­can Par­ty. In “The Secret Treaty of Fort Hunt,” Carl Ogles­by notes the pres­ence of the OUN/B and relat­ed Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean fas­cist groups that coa­lesced as the ABN in the Gehlen “Org.” 

Ogles­by notes: ” . . . . Gehlen became chief of the Third Reich’s For­eign Armies East (FHO), on April 1, 1942. He was thus respon­si­ble for Ger­many’s mil­i­tary intel­li­gence oper­a­tions through­out East­ern Europe and the Sovi­et Union. His FHO was con­nect­ed in this role with a num­ber of secret fas­cist orga­ni­za­tions in the coun­tries to Ger­many’s east. These includ­ed Stepan Ban­der­a’s “B Fac­tion” of the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists (OUN/B),15 Roma­ni­a’s Iron Guard,16 the Ustachis of Yugoslavia,17 the Vanagis of Latvia18 and, after the sum­mer of 1942, “Vlassov’s Army,“19 the band of defec­tors from Sovi­et Com­mu­nism march­ing behind for­mer Red hero Gen­er­al Andrey Vlassov. Lat­er on in the war, Gehlen placed one of his top men in con­trol of For­eign Armies West, which broad­ened his pow­er; and then after Admi­ral Wil­helm Canaris was purged and his Abwehr intel­li­gence ser­vice can­ni­bal­ized by the SS, Gehlen became in effect Nazi Ger­many’s over-all top intel­li­gence chief. . . .”

Beyond that, the Gehlen “Org” con­sti­tut­ed an exten­sion of the Third Reich’s nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment into our own intel­li­gence and polit­i­cal estab­lish­ments. 

As Ogles­by notes: “. . . . Indeed, a part­ly declas­si­fied CIA doc­u­ment reca­pit­u­lat­ed this sto­ry in the ear­ly 1970s, not­ing at this time:  Gehlen met with Admi­ral Karl Doenitz, who had been appoint­ed by Hitler as his suc­ces­sor dur­ing the last days of the Third Reich. Gehlen and the Admi­ral were now in a U.S. Army VIP prison camp in Wies­baden; Gehlen sought and received approval from Doenitz too!44 . . . . 47. As Gehlen was about to leave for the Unit­ed States, he left a mes­sage for Baun with anoth­er of his top aides, Ger­hard Wes­sel: “I am to tell you from Gehlen that he has dis­cussed with [Hitler’s suc­ces­sor Admi­ral Karl] Doenitz and [Gehlen’s supe­ri­or and chief of staff Gen­er­al Franz] Halder the ques­tion of con­tin­u­ing his work with the Amer­i­cans. Both were in agree­ment.” Hohne and Zolling, op. cit., n. 14, p. 61. In oth­er words, the Ger­man chain of com­mand was still in effect, and it approved of what Gehlen was doing with the Amer­i­cans. . . . And the whole con­cept of the deal he was about to offer his con­querors had been approved by a Nazi chain of com­mand that was still func­tion­ing despite what the world thought and still does think was the Nazis’ uncon­di­tion­al sur­ren­der. . . .”

The straight line from the Fuhrer Bunker to Lan­g­ley con­tin­ues through Wash­ing­ton D.C. itself and the GOP pres­ence there.

It was the Cru­sade For Free­dom, heav­i­ly over­lapped with the Gehlen Org, the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations and the GOP that extend­ed that straight line.

The brain­child of Allen Dulles, over­seen by his pro­tege Richard Nixon, CFF embraced most of the GOP’s lead­ing fig­ures:

. . . . Frus­tra­tion over Truman’s 1948 elec­tion vic­to­ry over Dewey (which they blamed on the “Jew­ish vote”) impelled Dulles and his pro­tégé Richard Nixon to work toward the real­iza­tion of the fas­cist free­dom fight­er pres­ence in the Repub­li­can Party’s eth­nic out­reach orga­ni­za­tion. As a young con­gress­man, Nixon had been Allen Dulles’s con­fi­dant. They both blamed Gov­er­nor Dewey’s razor-thin loss to Tru­man in the 1948 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion on the Jew­ish vote. When he became Eisenhower’s vice pres­i­dent in 1952, Nixon was deter­mined to build his own eth­nic base. . . .

. . . . Vice Pres­i­dent Nixon’s secret polit­i­cal war of Nazis against Jews in Amer­i­can pol­i­tics was nev­er inves­ti­gat­ed at the time. The for­eign lan­guage-speak­ing Croa­t­ians and oth­er Fas­cist émi­gré groups had a ready-made net­work for con­tact­ing and mobi­liz­ing the East­ern Euro­pean eth­nic bloc. There is a very high cor­re­la­tion between CIA domes­tic sub­si­dies to Fas­cist ‘free­dom fight­ers’ dur­ing the 1950’s and the lead­er­ship of the Repub­li­can Party’s eth­nic cam­paign groups. The motive for the under-the-table financ­ing was clear: Nixon used Nazis to off­set the Jew­ish vote for the Democ­rats. . . .

. . . . In 1952, Nixon had formed an Eth­nic Divi­sion with­in the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee. Dis­placed fas­cists, hop­ing to be returned to pow­er by an Eisen­how­er-Nixon ‘lib­er­a­tion’ pol­i­cy signed on with the com­mit­tee. In 1953, when Repub­li­cans were in office, the immi­gra­tion laws were changed to admit Nazis, even mem­bers of the SS. They flood­ed into the coun­try. Nixon him­self over­saw the new immi­gra­tion pro­gram. As Vice Pres­i­dent, he even received East­ern Euro­pean Fas­cists in the White House. . . .

. . . . As a young movie actor in the ear­ly 1950s, Rea­gan was employed as the pub­lic spokesper­son for an OPC front named the ‘Cru­sade for Free­dom.’ Rea­gan may not have known it, but 99 per­cent for the Crusade’s funds came from clan­des­tine accounts, which were then laun­dered through the Cru­sade to var­i­ous orga­ni­za­tions such as Radio Lib­er­ty, which employed Dulles’s Fas­cists. Bill Casey, who lat­er became CIA direc­tor under Ronald Rea­gan, also worked in Ger­many after World War II on Dulles’ Nazi ‘free­dom fight­ers’ pro­gram. When he returned to New York, Casey head­ed up anoth­er OPC front, the Inter­na­tion­al Res­cue Com­mit­tee, which spon­sored the immi­gra­tion of these Fas­cists to the Unit­ed States. Casey’s com­mit­tee replaced the Inter­na­tion­al Red Cross as the spon­sor for Dulles’s recruits. Con­fi­den­tial inter­views, for­mer mem­bers, OPC; for­mer mem­bers, British for­eign and Com­mon­wealth Office. . . .

. . . . . It was Bush who ful­filled Nixon’s promise to make the ‘eth­nic emi­gres’ a per­ma­nent part of Repub­li­can pol­i­tics. In 1972, Nixon’s State Depart­ment spokesman con­firmed to his Aus­tralian coun­ter­part that the eth­nic groups were very use­ful to get out the vote in sev­er­al key states. Bush’s tenure as head of the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee exact­ly coin­cid­ed with Las­z­lo Pasztor’s 1972 dri­ve to trans­form the Her­itage Groups Coun­cil into the party’s offi­cial eth­nic arm. The groups Pasz­tor chose as Bush’s cam­paign allies were the émi­gré Fas­cists whom Dulles had brought to the Unit­ed States. . . . 

In FTR #778, among oth­er pro­grams, we not­ed that the CFF/ABN/OUN/B milieu was pro­ject­ed back into East­ern Europe and the for­mer Sovi­et Union.

We should not fail to note that the Inter­mar­i­um Con­ti­nu­ity and its com­po­nent ele­ments derive in con­sid­er­able mea­sure from Allen Dulles and William Dono­van’s wartime trea­son, nego­ti­at­ing with the Third Reich and the Nazi SS to pool their resources for the upcom­ing Cold War.

In FTR #‘s 1058, 1059, 1060, we revis­it­ed the con­cept of “The Chris­t­ian West”: ” . . . . When it became clear that the armies of the Third Reich were going to be defeat­ed, it opened secret nego­ti­a­tions with rep­re­sen­ta­tives from the West­ern Allies. Rep­re­sen­ta­tives on both sides belonged to the transat­lantic finan­cial and indus­tri­al fra­ter­ni­ty that had active­ly sup­port­ed fas­cism. The thrust of these nego­ti­a­tions was the estab­lish­ment of The Chris­t­ian West. Viewed by the Nazis as a vehi­cle for sur­viv­ing mil­i­tary defeat, ‘The Chris­t­ian West’ involved a Hitler-less Reich join­ing with the U.S., Britain, France and oth­er Euro­pean nations in a transat­lantic, pan-Euro­pean anti-Sovi­et alliance. In fact, The Chris­t­ian West became a real­i­ty only after the ces­sa­tion of hos­til­i­ties. The de-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of Ger­many was abort­ed. Although a few of the more obvi­ous and obnox­ious ele­ments of Nazism were removed, Nazis were returned to pow­er at vir­tu­al­ly every lev­el and in almost every capac­i­ty in the Fed­er­al Repub­lic of Ger­many. . . .”

In FTR #1009, we detailed “Chris­t­ian West” nego­ti­a­tions to have a Hitler-less Third Reich join with the West­ern Allies, under­tak­en by OSS rep­re­sen­ta­tives Allen Dulles and William Dono­van, net­work­ing with Prince Max Egon von Hohen­lo­he, a proxy for SD offi­cer Wal­ter Schel­len­berg.

In in his 1985 vol­ume Amer­i­can Swasti­ka, the late author Charles High­am pro­vides us with insight into the Chris­t­ian West con­cept, reveal­ing the extent to which these SS/OSS nego­ti­a­tions set the tem­plate for the post-World War II world, as well as the degree of res­o­nance that key Amer­i­cans, such as Allen Dulles, had with Nazi ide­ol­o­gy, anti-Semi­tism in par­tic­u­lar.

The post­war polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic real­i­ties of the Dulles, Hohen­lo­he, Schel­len­berg meet­ings were fur­ther solid­i­fied when William (Wild Bill) Dono­van entered into his “M” Project. Impor­tant to note in this con­text, is the dom­i­nant role in world affairs played by car­tels, the fun­da­men­tal ele­ment in the indus­tri­al and finan­cial axis that was essen­tial to the cre­ation and per­pet­u­a­tion of fas­cism.

Much of the Third Reich’s mil­i­tary indus­tri­al com­plex, the pri­ma­cy of Ger­many in the post­war EU, as well as the cor­re­la­tion between post­war Europe as con­struct­ed in the Chris­t­ian West nego­ti­a­tions and long-stand­ing Ger­man plans for Euro­pean dom­i­na­tion are deriv­a­tive of the pow­er of car­tels. The Chris­t­ian West and “M” Projects:

  1. Revealed that Allen Dulles’ views res­onat­ed with Third Reich anti-Semi­tism, and that his opin­ions were shared by oth­er, like-mind­ed Amer­i­can pow­er bro­kers: ” . . . . He said that it would be unbear­able for any decent Euro­pean to think that the Jews might return some­day, and that there must be no tol­er­a­tion of a return of the Jew­ish pow­er posi­tions. . . . He made the curi­ous asser­tion that the Amer­i­cans were only con­tin­u­ing the war to get rid of the Jews and that there were peo­ple in Amer­i­ca who were intend­ing to send the Jews to Africa. . . .”
  2. Set the tem­plate for the post­war Fed­er­al Repub­lic of Ger­many and the EU: ” . . . . He [Dulles] reit­er­at­ed his desire for a greater Euro­pean polit­i­cal federation–and fore­saw the fed­er­al Ger­many that in fact took place. . . . Ger­many would be set up as the dom­i­nat­ing force in indus­try and agri­cul­ture in con­ti­nen­tal Europe, at the heart of a con­ti­nen­tal state run by Ger­many, the U.S.A., and Great Britain as a focus of trade. . . .”
  3. Were the vehi­cle for Allen Dulles to betray much of the Allied mil­i­tary plans for South­ern Europe to the Third Reich: “. . . . Dulles now pro­ceed­ed to sup­ply Hohen­lo­he with dol­lops of secret intel­li­gence, announc­ing that the U.S. Army would not land in Spain but, after con­quer­ing Tunisia, would advance from Africa toward the Ploesti oil fields to cut off the Ger­man oil sup­plies. He said it was like­ly the Allies would land in Sici­ly to cut off Rom­mel and con­trol Italy from there, and thus secure the advance in the Balka­ns. Hav­ing giv­en vir­tu­al­ly the entire bat­tle plan for Europe, top secret at the time, to one of Ger­many’s agents, Allen Dulles pro­ceed­ed to the almost unnec­es­sary rid­er that he had very good rela­tions with the Vat­i­can. . . .”
  4. Direct­ly fore­shad­owed the con­fronta­tion between the U.S. and the Sovi­et Union which became the Cold War.  “. . . . In oth­er meet­ings, Dulles . . . . pre­dict­ed that ‘the next world war would be between the U.S.A. and the Sovi­et Union.’ . . . .”
  5. Were the occa­sion for Dulles to laud the “genius” of Nazi pro­pa­gan­da min­is­ter Joseph Goebbels: “He . . . . described a recent speech by Dr. Goebbels as ‘a work of genius; I have rarely read a speech with such ratio­nal plea­sure.’ . . . .”

 Amer­i­can Swasti­ka by Charles High­am; Dou­ble­day & Co. [HC]; Copy­right 1985 by Charles High­am; ISBN 0–385-17874–3; pp. 191–194.

. . . . Dulles pressed ahead. He said that it would be unbear­able for any decent Euro­pean to think that the Jews might return some­day, and that there must be no tol­er­a­tion of a return of the Jew­ish pow­er posi­tions. He reit­er­at­ed his desire for a greater Euro­pean polit­i­cal federation–and fore­saw the fed­er­al Ger­many that in fact took place. . . . He made the curi­ous asser­tion that the Amer­i­cans were only con­tin­u­ing the war to get rid of the Jews and that there were peo­ple in Amer­i­ca who were intend­ing to send the Jews to Africa. This was Hitler’s dream of course: that the Jews would go to Mada­gas­car and stay there. . . . . . . . Dulles now pro­ceed­ed to sup­ply Hohen­lo­he with dol­lops of secret intel­li­gence, announc­ing that the U.S. Army would not land in Spain but, after con­quer­ing Tunisia, would advance from Africa toward the Ploesti oil fields to cut off the Ger­man oil sup­plies. He said it was like­ly the Allies would land in Sici­ly to cut off Rom­mel and con­trol Italy from there, and thus secure the advance in the Balka­ns. Hav­ing giv­en vir­tu­al­ly the entire bat­tle plan for Europe, top secret at the time, to one of Ger­many’s agents, Allen Dulles pro­ceed­ed to the almost unnec­es­sary rid­er that he had very good rela­tions with the Vat­i­can. . . . . . . . In oth­er meet­ings, Dulles . . . . pre­dict­ed that “the next world war would be between the U.S.A. and the Sovi­et Union.” . . . . Dulles obtained a great deal of infor­ma­tion relat­ing to Ger­many and plans for its recon­struc­tion after the war. He . . . . described a recent speech by Dr. Goebbels as “a work of genius; I have rarely read a speech with such ratio­nal plea­sure.” . . . . . . . . In July, [OSS chief William] Dono­van and the OSS began to take mat­ters into their own hands. No doubt inspired by the invig­o­rat­ing meet­ing in Switzer­land, Dono­van embarked on the so-called “M” project. . . . . . . . By now, the Ger­man [Franz Von Papen] had read the details of the peace pro­pos­al on micro­film and learned that it was more or less on the same lines as the Dulles pro­pos­als. Ger­many would be set up as the dom­i­nat­ing force in indus­try and agri­cul­ture in con­ti­nen­tal Europe, at the heart of a con­ti­nen­tal state run by Ger­many, the U.S.A., and Great Britain as a focus of trade. . . .  

While World War II was still under­way, the re-insti­tu­tion of the fas­cists in post-war Japan and the fus­ing of the Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal orga­ni­za­tion were cement­ed. At the  core of this was the for­ma­tion of the Black Eagle Trust, which set in motion fun­da­men­tals of the Cold War and the post­war eco­nom­ic order.

This–in tan­dem with the Chris­t­ian West formulation–locked in the post-World War II order.

Gold Warriors—America’s Secret Recov­ery of Yamashita’s Gold; by Ster­ling Sea­grave and Peg­gy Sea­grave; Ver­so [SC]; Copy­right 2003, 2005 by Ster­ling and Peg­gy Sea­grave; ISBN 1–84467-531–9; pp. 3–4.

. . . . The treasure–gold, plat­inum, and bar­rels of loose gems–was com­bined with Axis loot recov­ered in Europe to cre­ate a world­wide covert polit­i­cal action fund to fight com­mu­nism. This ‘black gold’ gave the Tru­man Admin­is­tra­tion access to vir­tu­al­ly lim­it­less unvouchered funds for covert oper­a­tions. It also pro­vid­ed an asset base that wa used by Wash­ing­ton to rein­force the trea­suries of its allies, to bribe polit­i­cal lead­ers, and to manip­u­late elec­tions in for­eign coun­tries. . . .

. . . . Dur­ing the war [Sec­re­tary of War Hen­ry] Stim­son had a brain­trust think­ing hard about Axis plun­der and how it should be han­dled when peace came. . . .

. . . . Stimson’s spe­cial assis­tants on this top­ic were his deputies John J. McCloy and Robert Lovett, and con­sul­tant Robert B. Ander­son, all clever men with out­stand­ing careers in pub­lic ser­vice and bank­ing. McCloy lat­er became head of the World Bank, Lovett sec­re­tary of defense, Ander­son sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury. Their solu­tion was to set up what is infor­mal­ly called the Black Eagle Trust. The idea was first dis­cussed with America’s allies in secret dur­ing July 1944, when forty-four nations met at Bret­ton Woods, New Hamp­shire, to plan the post­war world econ­o­my. . . .

The sig­nif­i­cance of Ukraine as key to the World Island–what Mackinder and lat­er Brzezin­s­ki termed “the piv­ot point”–is fun­da­men­tal to the geopo­lit­i­cal pow­er pol­i­tics that dom­i­nat­ed the last cen­tu­ry and this one, to date.

It was this cen­tu­ry-dom­i­nat­ing, geopo­lit­i­cal dynam­ic that Trump was cross­ing when he attempt­ed to with­hold mil­i­tary  aid to Ukraine. 

THIS is why he faces the impeach­ment pro­ceed­ings.

“For Pres­i­dent, Case of Pol­i­cy Vs. Obses­sion” by David E. Sanger; The New York Times; 11/15/2019 [West­ern Edi­tion]

. . . . In an oth­er­wise divid­ed Wash­ing­ton, one of the few issues of bipar­ti­san agree­ment for the past six years has been coun­ter­ing the Russ­ian pres­i­dent Vladimir V. Putin’s broad plan of dis­rup­tion. That effort starts in Ukraine,. where a hot war has been under­way in the east for five years, and a cyber­war under­way in the cap­i­tal, Kiev.

It is exact­ly that pol­i­cy that Mr. Trump ap[p[ears top have been dis­card­ing when he made clear, in the haunt­ing words attrib­uted to Gor­don D. Sond­land, who par­layed polit­i­cal dona­tions into the ambas­sador­ship to the Euro­pean Unionk that “Pres­i­dent Trump cares more about the inves­ti­ga­tion of Biden” than about Ukraine’s con­fronta­tion with Mr. Putin’s forces. . . .

1a. Ukraine’s sig­nif­i­cance as a glob­al epi­cen­ter of bur­geon­ing fas­cism extends to the region’s online, ide­o­log­i­cal and icon­ic man­i­fes­ta­tion. Two recent Cana­di­an teens–Kam McLeod and Bry­er Schmegelsky–who appar­ent­ly killed three peo­ple in cold blood were influ­enced by Nazi cul­ture and Azov Bat­tal­ion man­i­fes­ta­tion in par­tic­u­lar. ” . . . . A Steam user con­firmed to The Globe and Mail that he talked to Mr. Schmegel­sky reg­u­lar­ly online. He recalled Mr. McLeod join­ing their chats as well. The user, whom The Globe is not iden­ti­fy­ing, pro­vid­ed pho­tos sent by an account believed to be owned by Mr. Schmegel­sky, show­ing him in mil­i­tary fatigues, bran­dish­ing what appears to be an air­soft rifle – which fires plas­tic pel­lets. Anoth­er pho­to shows a swasti­ka arm­band, and yet anoth­er fea­tures Mr. Schmegel­sky in a gas mask. The pho­tos were report­ed­ly sent in the fall of 2018, but the user said he stopped play­ing online games with Mr. Schmegel­sky ear­li­er this year after he con­tin­ued to praise Hitler’s Ger­many. One account con­nect­ed to the teens uses the logo of the Azov Bat­tal­ion, a far-right Ukrain­ian mili­tia that has been accused of har­bour­ing sym­pa­thies to neo-Nazis. . . .”

“RCMP con­tin­ue search for sus­pects in three B.C. slay­ings” by Ian Bai­ley, Mike Hager and Justin Ling, The Globe and Mail, 07/23/2019.

Two teens miss­ing after the road­side slay­ings of three peo­ple in North­ern British Colum­bia over the past week have now been named sus­pects and are believed to be on the run through West­ern Cana­da.

RCMP say the pair have been spot­ted in North­ern Saskatchewan and Man­i­to­ba, and inves­ti­ga­tors are cau­tion­ing the pub­lic that the fugi­tives are armed and should not be approached.

A flood of tips since Mon­day has pro­pelled the inves­ti­ga­tion into the road­side killings of a trav­el­ling cou­ple and, more than 500 kilo­me­tres away, the body of a man police have not iden­ti­fied. The teens, Kam McLeod, 19, and Bry­er Schmegel­sky, 18, were orig­i­nal­ly report­ed miss­ing after their burned-out camper truck was found on Fri­day, but police have changed that assess­ment.

Mr. Schmegelsky’s Insta­gram page shows the two pos­ing for a pho­to, with Mr. Schmegelsky’s arm slung over Mr. McLeod.The teens have Face­book pages under their own names and both are linked to an account called “Illu­sive Game­ing.” That user­name, com­plete with the mis­spelling, also shows up on YouTube, as well as video-game net­works Twitch and Steam. The accounts share sim­i­lar imagery and themes, includ­ing the Com­mu­nist icon, far-right pol­i­tics, sex­u­al­ized Japan­ese ani­me and the sur­vival­ist video game Rust.

The ban­ner image for the Illu­sive Game­ing YouTube account fea­tures a mod­i­fied Sovi­et flag, but its pro­file pic­ture is the heraldic eagle of Hitler’s Ger­many. The page was active as of six months ago.

Steam accounts linked to Mr. Schmegel­sky and Mr. McLeod were last active a week before their pick­up truck was found on fire on B.C.’s High­way 37.

A Steam user con­firmed to The Globe and Mail that he talked to Mr. Schmegel­sky reg­u­lar­ly online. He recalled Mr. McLeod join­ing their chats as well.

The user, whom The Globe is not iden­ti­fy­ing, pro­vid­ed pho­tos sent by an account believed to be owned by Mr. Schmegel­sky, show­ing him in mil­i­tary fatigues, bran­dish­ing what appears to be an air­soft rifle – which fires plas­tic pel­lets. Anoth­er pho­to shows a swasti­ka arm­band, and yet anoth­er fea­tures Mr. Schmegel­sky in a gas mask. The pho­tos were report­ed­ly sent in the fall of 2018, but the user said he stopped play­ing online games with Mr. Schmegel­sky ear­li­er this year after he con­tin­ued to praise Hitler’s Ger­many.

One account con­nect­ed to the teens uses the logo of the Azov Bat­tal­ion, a far-right Ukrain­ian mili­tia that has been accused of har­bour­ing sym­pa­thies to neo-Nazis. Anoth­er account claims to be locat­ed in Rus­sia, near Moscow, and belongs to sev­er­al groups for fans of sex­u­al­ized Japan­ese ani­ma­tion. That account also used the heraldic eagle of the Nazis. . . .

1b. Dis­cussing Zbig­niew Brzezin­ski’s doc­trine of con­trol­ling Eura­sia by con­trol­ling the “piv­ot point” of Ukraine. Fun­da­men­tal to this analy­sis is the con­cept of the Earth Island or World Island as it is some­times known.

Brzezin­s­ki, in turn, draws on the geopo­lit­i­cal the­o­ries of Sir Hal­ford Mackinder, and, lat­er con­tem­po­rary Inter­mar­i­um adov­cates such as Alexan­dros Petersen. (For more about Petersen, see below.)

Stretch­ing from the Straits of Gibral­tar, all across Europe, most of the Mid­dle East, Eura­sia, Rus­sia, Chi­na and India, that stretch of land: com­pris­es most of the world’s land mass; con­tains most of the world’s pop­u­la­tion and most of the world’s nat­ur­al resources (includ­ing oil and nat­ur­al gas.) Geopoliti­cians have long seen con­trol­ling that land mass as the key to world dom­i­na­tion.  

“Amer­i­ca Piv­ots to Brzezinski’s Delu­sion of Eurasian Con­quest” by Paul Fitzger­ald and Eliz­a­beth Gould; OpE­d­News; 6/4/2015.

Rus­sia his­to­ri­an Stephen Cohen points to the neo­con­ser­v­a­tive estab­lish­ment for Amer­i­ca’s lat­est out­break of what can only be referred to as late-stage impe­r­i­al demen­tia. Neo­cons Robert Kagan and wife Vic­to­ria Nuland have cer­tain­ly done the heavy lift­ing to make Ukraine the stag­ing ground for what appears to be a NATO blitzkrieg on Moscow. But what­ev­er the deter­mi­na­tion of the neo­con plot, they are only the bark­ing dogs of mas­ter impe­ri­al­ist Zbig­niew Brzezin­s­ki, whose grand design has been creep­ing over the globe since he stepped into the Oval office as Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Advi­sor to Pres­i­dent Jim­my Carter in 1977.

Brzezin­s­ki stands apart as the inspi­ra­tion for the Ukraine cri­sis. His 1997 book The Grand Chess­board: Amer­i­can Pri­ma­cy and its Geostrate­gic Imper­a­tives lays out the blue­print for how Amer­i­can pri­macists should feel towards draw­ing Ukraine away from Rus­sia because, “With­out Ukraine, Rus­sia ceas­es to be a Eurasian empire.”

Brzezin­ski’s obses­sion derives from British geo­g­ra­ph­er Sir Hal­ford Mackinder’s 1904 def­i­n­i­tion of the Cen­tral-East­ern nations of Europe as the “Piv­ot Area”, whose geo­graph­ic posi­tion made them “the vital spring­boards for the attain­ment of con­ti­nen­tal dom­i­na­tion.” Whether any­one real­izes it, the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion’s cur­rent cam­paign against Rus­sia in Ukraine is of Mackinder’s design brought for­ward by Brzezin­s­ki. . . .

2. Most of the four pro­grams high­light­ing the evo­lu­tion and appli­ca­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept con­sist of read­ing and analy­sis of a long aca­d­e­m­ic paper by Mar­lene Laru­elle and Ellen Rivera. Of para­mount sig­nif­i­cance in this dis­cus­sion is the piv­otal role of Ukrain­ian fas­cist orga­ni­za­tions in the Inter­mar­i­um and close­ly con­nect­ed Promethean net­works, from the post World War I peri­od, through the time between the World Wars, through the Cold War and up to and includ­ing the Maid­an coup.

Mil­i­tary, eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal net­work­ing has employed the Inter­mar­i­um idea, with what the paper terms the “ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­nings” stem­ming from the evo­lu­tion of the Ukrain­ian fas­cist milieu in the twen­ti­eth and twen­ty-first cen­turies. Some of the most impor­tant U.S. think tanks and asso­ci­at­ed mil­i­tary indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions embody this con­ti­nu­ity: ” . . . . The con­ti­nu­ity of insti­tu­tion­al and indi­vid­ual tra­jec­to­ries from Sec­ond World War col­lab­o­ra­tionists to Cold War-era anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions to con­tem­po­rary con­ser­v­a­tive U.S. think tanks is sig­nif­i­cant for the ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­nings of today’s Inter­mar­i­um revival. . . .”

We present key excerpts of the paper to under­score dom­i­nant fea­tures of this evo­lu­tion­ary con­ti­nu­ity:

  1. A key play­er in the events that brought the OUN suc­ces­sor orga­ni­za­tions to pow­er in Ukraine has been the Atlantic Coun­cil. It receives back­ing from NATO, the State Depart­ment, Lithua­nia and Ukrain­ian Oli­garch Vik­tor Pinchuk. The think tank also receives major fund­ing from the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress, which evolved from the OUN. ” . . . . In 1967, the World Con­gress of Free Ukraini­ans was found­ed in New York City by sup­port­ers of Andriy Mel­nyk. [The head of the OUN‑M, also allied with Nazi Germany.–D.E.] It was renamed the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress in 1993. In 2003, the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress was rec­og­nized by the Unit­ed Nations Eco­nom­ic and Social Coun­cil as an NGO with spe­cial con­sul­ta­tive sta­tus. It now appears as a spon­sor of the Atlantic Coun­cil . . . . The con­ti­nu­ity of insti­tu­tion­al and indi­vid­ual tra­jec­to­ries from Sec­ond World War col­lab­o­ra­tionists to Cold War-era anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions to con­tem­po­rary con­ser­v­a­tive U.S. think tanks is sig­nif­i­cant for the ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­nings of today’s Inter­mar­i­um revival. . . .”
  2. Ukrain­ian pro­to-fas­cist forces were at the core of Josef Pil­sud­ski’s Pol­ish-led Inter­mar­i­um and over­lap­ping Promethean orga­ni­za­tions. Those forces coa­lesced into the OUN. ” . . . . Accord­ing to the British schol­ar and jour­nal­ist Stephen Dor­ril, the Promethean League served as an anti-com­mu­nist umbrel­la orga­ni­za­tion for anti-Sovi­et exiles dis­placed after the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment of Simon Petlu­ra (1879–1926) gave up the fight against the Sovi­ets in 1922.[12]  . . . . as Dor­ril affirms, ‘the real lead­er­ship and latent pow­er with­in the Promethean League emanat­ed from the Petlu­ra-dom­i­nat­ed Ukrain­ian Demo­c­ra­t­ic Repub­lic in exile and its Pol­ish spon­sors. The Poles ben­e­fit­ed direct­ly from this arrange­ment, as Promethean mil­i­tary assets were absorbed into the Pol­ish army, with Ukrain­ian, Geor­gian and Armen­ian con­tract offi­cers not uncom­mon in the ranks.’[13] The alliance between Pił­sud­s­ki and Petlu­ra became very unpop­u­lar among many West­ern Ukraini­ans, as it result­ed in Pol­ish dom­i­na­tion of their lands. This oppo­si­tion joined the insur­gent Ukrain­ian Mil­i­tary Orga­ni­za­tion (Ukrain­s­ka viisko­va orh­a­nizat­si­ia, UVO—founded 1920), which lat­er trans­formed into the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists (Orh­a­nizat­si­ia ukrain­skykh nat­sion­al­is­tiv, OUN). . . .”
  3. Accord­ing to for­mer Army intel­li­gence offi­cer William Gowen (a source used and trust­ed by John Lof­tus and Mark Aarons) the Inter­mar­i­um and Promethean net­work assets were used by Third Reich intel­li­gence dur­ing World War II. ” . . .  . Based on Gowen’s reports, such authors as Christo­pher Simp­son, Stephen Dor­ril, Mark Aarons, and John Lof­tus have sug­gest­ed that the net­works of the Promethean League and the Inter­mar­i­um were uti­lized by Ger­man intel­li­gence. . . .”
  4. Not sur­pris­ing­ly, the Intermarium/Promethean milieu appears to have been cen­tral­ly involved in the Nazi escape net­works, the Vat­i­can-assist­ed “Rat­lines,” in par­tic­u­lar. ” . . . . Amer­i­can intel­li­gence began to take notice of the Inter­mar­i­um net­work in August 1946[42] in the frame­work of Oper­a­tion Cir­cle, a Coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence Corps (CIC) project the orig­i­nal goal of which was to deter­mine how net­works inside the Vat­i­can had spir­it­ed away so many Nazi war crim­i­nals and col­lab­o­ra­tors, most­ly to South Amer­i­ca.[43] Among the group of CIC offi­cers involved in the oper­a­tion was Levy’s source William Gowen. Then a young offi­cer based in Rome, Gowen sus­pect­ed the Inter­mar­i­um net­work to be behind Nazi war crim­i­nals and col­lab­o­ra­tors’ exten­sive escape routes from Europe. . . .”
  5. It comes as no sur­prise, as well, that U.S. intel­li­gence absorbed the Intermarium/Promethean  net­works after the war. ” . . . . Accord­ing to Aarons and Lof­tus, although he had ini­tial­ly been thor­ough­ly opposed to this course of action, by ‘ear­ly July 1947, Gowen was strong­ly advo­cat­ing that Amer­i­can intel­li­gence should take over Inter­mar­i­um; before long, the CIC offi­cer was no longer hunt­ing for Nazis, but recruit­ing them.’[49] . . . .”
  6. One of the main com­po­nents of  the “Inter­mar­i­um con­ti­nu­ity” is the ABN—the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations. The OUN and asso­ci­at­ed ele­ments con­sti­tute the most impor­tant ele­ment of the ABN. ” . . . . a vast num­ber of anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions were formed in the imme­di­ate post-war peri­od and sup­port­ed by the US.[57] They con­sti­tute one of the main com­po­nents of the Inter­mar­i­um ‘genealog­i­cal tree,’ in the sense that they revived the mem­o­ry of Piłsudski’s attempts to uni­fy Cen­tral and East­ern Europe against Sovi­et Rus­sia and gave them new life, but blend­ed this mem­o­ry with far-right tones inspired by col­lab­o­ra­tion with Nazi Ger­many.[58] The most impor­tant of the Euro­pean anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions was the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations (ABN). . . . Because fas­cist move­ments were, in the 1930s, the first to orga­nize them­selves against the Sovi­et Union, the ABN recruit­ed mas­sive­ly among their ranks and served as an umbrel­la for many for­mer col­lab­o­ra­tionist para­mil­i­tary orga­ni­za­tions in exile, amongst them the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nationalists—Bandera (OUN‑B), the Croa­t­ian Ustaše, the Roman­ian Iron Guard, and the Slo­va­kian Hlin­ka Guard.[59] It thus con­tributed to guar­an­tee­ing the sur­vival of their lega­cies at least until the end of the Cold War. Accord­ing to the lib­er­al Insti­tute for Pol­i­cy Stud­ies think tank, cre­at­ed by two for­mer aides to Kennedy advi­sors, the ABN was the ‘largest and most impor­tant umbrel­la for for­mer Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors in the world.’ . . . .”
  7. In addi­tion to the OUN/Ukrainian fas­cist milieu, the Croa­t­ian Ustashe fas­cists became a dom­i­nant ele­ment. This is fun­da­men­tal to the Azov Bat­tal­ion’s Inter­mar­i­um project, dis­cussed in FTR #‘s 1096 and 1097. ” . . . . The most active groups with­in the ABN became the Ukrain­ian and Croa­t­ian orga­ni­za­tions, par­tic­u­lar­ly the Ukrain­ian OUN.[61] The OUN, under the lead­er­ship of Andriy Mel­nyk (1890–1964), col­lab­o­rat­ed with the Nazi occu­piers from the latter’s inva­sion of Poland in Sep­tem­ber 1939. The Gestapo trained Myko­la Lebed and the adher­ents of Melnyk’s younger com­peti­tor, Stepan Ban­dera (1909–1959), in sab­o­tage, guer­ril­la war­fare, and assas­si­na­tions. The OUN’s 1941 split into the so-called OUN‑B, fol­low­ing Stepan Ban­dera, and OUN‑M, fol­low­ing Andriy Mel­nyk,[62] did not keep both fac­tions from con­tin­u­ing to col­lab­o­rate with the Ger­mans. . . .”
  8. For­mer SS and Abwehr offi­cer Theodor Oberlaender–the polit­i­cal offi­cer for the UPA and the Nachti­gall Bat­tal­ion dur­ing the Lviv Pogrom of June 1941–was vital to the con­ti­nu­ity of the OUN and UPA and thus, the Inter­mar­i­um” . . . .While in Sovi­et Ukraine the UPA kept on fight­ing against Moscow until the ear­ly 1950s, their capac­i­ties were exhaust­ed. . . . As Fed­er­al Min­is­ter for Dis­placed Per­sons, Refugees, and the War-Dam­aged dur­ing the Ade­nauer gov­ern­ment, Ober­län­der played a cru­cial role in the rise of the ABN and allowed Ukrain­ian col­lab­o­ra­tionists to take the lead in it. Yaroslav Stet­sko (1912–1986), who presided over the Ukrain­ian col­lab­o­ra­tionist gov­ern­ment in Lviv from as ear­ly as 30 June 1941, led the ABN from its cre­ation in 1946 until his death in 1986. . . .”
  9. The Army’s Counter Intel­li­gence Corps (CIC) con­firmed the pri­ma­cy of the OUN/B with­in the ABN. Note the con­ti­nu­ity of OUN and UPA gueril­la war­fare in Ukraine, begun under third Reich aus­pices and enjoy­ing post World War II sup­port from CIA, and OPC. This has been cov­ered in AFA #1 and FTR #777.) : ” . . . . CIC con­firmed that by 1948 both the ‘Inter­mar­i­um’ and the UPA (Ukrain­ian par­ti­san com­mand) report­ed to the ABN pres­i­dent, Yaroslav Stet­sko. The UPA in turn had con­sol­i­dat­ed all the anti-Sovi­et par­ti­sans under its umbrel­la. Yaroslav Stet­sko was also Sec­re­tary of OUN/B and sec­ond in com­mand to Ban­dera, who had the largest remain­ing par­ti­san group behind Sovi­et lines under his direct com­mand. Thus, OUN/B had achieved the lead­er­ship role among the anti-Com­mu­nist exiles and was ascen­dant by 1950 . . . .”
  10. Con­tem­po­rary Ukraine is the focal point of the rein­car­nat­ed Inter­mar­i­um con­cept. ” . . . . The most recent rein­car­na­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um has tak­en form in Ukraine, espe­cial­ly among the Ukrain­ian far right, which has re-appro­pri­at­ed the con­cept by cap­i­tal­iz­ing on the sol­id ide­o­log­i­cal and per­son­al con­ti­nu­ity between actors of the Ukrain­ian far right in the inter­war and Cold War peri­ods and their heirs today. . . .”
  11. The con­ti­nu­ity of the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept as man­i­fest­ed in con­tem­po­rary Ukraine is epit­o­mized by the role of Yarosla­va Stet­sko (Yaroslav’s wid­ow and suc­ces­sor as a deci­sive ABN and OUN leader). Note the net­work­ing between her Con­gress of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists and Svo­bo­da. “. . . . This con­ti­nu­ity is exem­pli­fied by the wife of long-time ABN leader Yaroslav Stet­sko, Yarosla­va Stet­sko (1920–2003), a promi­nent fig­ure in the Ukrain­ian post-Sec­ond World War émi­gré com­mu­ni­ty who became direct­ly involved in post-Sovi­et Ukrain­ian pol­i­tics. Hav­ing joined the OUN at the age of 18, she became an indis­pens­able sup­port­er of the ABN after the war . . . . In July 1991, she returned to Ukraine, and in the fol­low­ing year formed the Con­gress of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists (CUN), a new polit­i­cal par­ty estab­lished on the basis of the OUN, pre­sid­ing over both.[129] Although the CUN nev­er achieved high elec­tion results, it coop­er­at­ed with the Social-Nation­al Par­ty of Ukraine (SNPU), which lat­er changed its name to Svo­bo­da, the far-right Ukrain­ian par­ty that con­tin­ues to exist. . . .”
  12. Yarosla­va Stet­sko’s CUN was co-found­ed by her hus­band’s for­mer sec­re­tary in the 1980s, Roman Svarych. Min­is­ter of Jus­tice in the Vik­tor Yuschenko gov­ern­ment (as well as both Tim­o­shenko gov­ern­ments), Svarych became the spokesman and a major recruiter for the Azov Bat­tal­ion. ” . . . . The co-founder of the CUN and for­mer­ly Yaroslav Stetsko’s pri­vate sec­re­tary, the U.S.-born Roman Zvarych (1953), rep­re­sents a younger gen­er­a­tion of the Ukrain­ian émi­gré com­mu­ni­ty active dur­ing the Cold War and a direct link from the ABN to the Azov Bat­tal­ion. . . . Zvarych par­tic­i­pat­ed in the activ­i­ties of the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations in the 1980s. . . . In Feb­ru­ary 2005, after Vik­tor Yushchenko’s elec­tion, Zvarych was appoint­ed Min­is­ter of Jus­tice. . . . Accord­ing to Andriy Bilet­sky, the first com­man­der of the Azov bat­tal­ion, a civ­il para­mil­i­tary unit cre­at­ed in the wake of the Euro­maid­an, Zvarych was head of the head­quar­ters of the Azov Cen­tral Com­mit­tee in 2015 and sup­port­ed the Azov bat­tal­ion with ‘vol­un­teers’ and polit­i­cal advice through his Zvarych Foun­da­tion. . . .”
  13. The “Inter­mar­i­um Con­ti­nu­ity” is inex­tri­ca­ble with the his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ism about the roles of the OUN and UPA in World War II. That revi­sion­ism is insti­tion­al­ized in the Insti­tute of Nation­al Remem­brance. ” . . . .The rein­tro­duc­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um notion in Ukraine is close­ly con­nect­ed to the broad reha­bil­i­ta­tion of the OUN and UPA, as well as of their main hero, Stepan Ban­dera. . . . Dur­ing his pres­i­den­cy (2005–2010), and par­tic­u­lar­ly through the cre­ation of the Insti­tute for Nation­al Remem­brance,  Vik­tor Yushchenko built the image of Ban­dera as a sim­ple Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist fight­ing for his country’s inde­pen­dence . . . .”
  14. As dis­cussed in numer­ous pro­grams, anoth­er key ele­ment in the “Inter­mar­i­um Con­ti­nu­ity” is Katery­na Chu­machenko, an OUN oper­a­tive who served in the State Depart­ment and Ronald Rea­gan’s admin­is­tra­tion. She mar­ried Vik­tor Yuschenko. ” . . . . It is not unlike­ly Yushchenko’s readi­ness dur­ing his pres­i­den­cy (2005–2010) to open up to right-wing ten­den­cies of the Ukrain­ian exile leads back to his wife, who had con­nec­tions to the ABN. Katery­na Chu­machenko [Yushchenko], born 1961 in Chica­go, was socialised there in the Ukrain­ian exile youth organ­i­sa­tion SUM (Spilka Ukra­jin­sko­ji Molo­di, Ukrain­ian Youth Organ­i­sa­tion) in the spir­it of the OUN. Via the lob­by asso­ci­a­tion Ukrain­ian Con­gress Com­mit­tee of Amer­i­ca (UCCA) she obtained a post as  ‘spe­cial assis­tant’ in the U.S. State Depart­ment in 1986, and was from 1988 to 1989 employed by the Office of Pub­lic Liai­son in the White House. . . .”
  15. Embody­ing the “Inter­mar­i­um Con­ti­nu­ity” are the lus­tra­tion laws, which make it a crim­i­nal offence to tell the truth about the OUN and UPA’s roles in World War II. Note Volodymyr Via­tro­vy­ch’s posi­tion as min­is­ter of edu­ca­tion. ” . . . . This reha­bil­i­ta­tion trend accel­er­at­ed after the Euro­Maid­an. In 2015, just before the sev­en­ti­eth anniver­sary of Vic­to­ry Day, Volodymyr Via­tro­vych, min­is­ter of edu­ca­tion and long-time direc­tor of the Insti­tute for the Study of the Lib­er­a­tion Move­ment, an orga­ni­za­tion found­ed to pro­mote the hero­ic nar­ra­tive of the OUN–UPA, called on the par­lia­ment to vote for a set of four laws that cod­i­fied the new, post-Maid­an his­to­ri­og­ra­phy. Two of them are par­tic­u­lar­ly influ­en­tial in the ongo­ing mem­o­ry war with Rus­sia. One decrees that OUN and UPA mem­bers are to be con­sid­ered ‘fight­ers for Ukrain­ian inde­pen­dence in the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry,’ mak­ing pub­lic denial of this unlaw­ful. . . .”
  16. As dis­cussed dis­cussed in FTR #‘s 1096 and 1097, the Azov Bat­tal­ion is in the lead­er­ship of the revival of the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept.” . . . . In this con­text of reha­bil­i­ta­tion of inter­war heroes, ten­sions with Rus­sia, and dis­il­lu­sion with Europe over its per­ceived lack of sup­port against Moscow, the geopo­lit­i­cal con­cept of Inter­mar­i­um could only pros­per. It has found its most active pro­mot­ers on the far right of the polit­i­cal spec­trum, among the lead­er­ship of the Azov Bat­tal­ion. . . .”
  17. Azov’s Inter­mar­i­um Sup­port Group has held three net­work­ing con­fer­ences to date, bring­ing togeth­er key fig­ures of what are euphem­ized as “nation­al­ist” orga­ni­za­tions. In addi­tion to focus­ing on the devel­op­ment of what are euphem­ized as “nation­al­ist” youth orga­ni­za­tions, the con­fer­ence is stress­ing mil­i­tary orga­ni­za­tion and pre­pared­ness: ” . . . . In 2016, Bilet­sky cre­at­ed the Inter­mar­i­um Sup­port Group (ISG),[152] intro­duc­ing the con­cept to poten­tial com­rades-in-arms from the Baltic-Black Sea region.[153] The first day of the found­ing con­fer­ence was reserved for lec­tures and dis­cus­sions by senior rep­re­sen­ta­tives of var­i­ous sym­pa­thet­ic orga­ni­za­tions, the sec­ond day to ‘the lead­ers of youth branch­es of polit­i­cal par­ties and nation­al­ist move­ments of the Baltic-Black Sea area.’ . . . . It also includ­ed ‘mil­i­tary attach­es of diplo­mat­ic mis­sions from the key coun­tries in the region (Poland, Hun­gary, Roma­nia and Lithua­nia). . . .”
  18. Azov’s third ISG con­fer­ence con­tin­ued to advance the mil­i­tary net­work­ing char­ac­ter­is­tics of the ear­li­er gath­er­ings, includ­ing the neces­si­ty of giv­ing mil­i­tary train­ing to what are euphem­ized as “nation­al­ist” youth orga­ni­za­tions. Note the con­tin­ued man­i­fes­ta­tion in the “new” Croa­t­ia of Ustachi polit­i­cal cul­ture. ” . . . . On Octo­ber 13, 2018, the ISG orga­nized its third con­gress. Besides the Ukrain­ian hosts, a large share of the for­eign speak­ers from Poland, Lithua­nia, and Croa­t­ia had a (para-)military back­ground, among them advi­sor to the Pol­ish Defence Min­is­ter Jerzy Tar­gal­s­ki and retired Brigadier Gen­er­al of the Croa­t­ian Armed Forces Bruno Zor­i­ca.[156] Among the talk­ing points of Pol­ish mil­i­tary edu­ca­tor Damien Duda were ‘meth­ods of the prepa­ra­tion of a mil­i­tary reserve in youth orga­ni­za­tions” and the “impor­tance of para­mil­i­tary struc­tures with­in the frame­work of the defence com­plex of a mod­ern state.’ . . . .”

“Imag­ined Geo­gra­phies of Cen­tral and East­ern Europe: The Con­cept of Inter­mar­i­um” by Mar­lene Laru­elle and Ellen Rivera; Covert Action Mag­a­zine; 3/23/2019.

[This arti­cle—orig­i­nal­ly pub­lished as a paper for the Insti­tute for Euro­pean, Russ­ian and Eurasian Stud­ies (IERES)—is the first in our series of in-depth analy­ses focus­ing on the activ­i­ties of the far-right and its var­i­ous con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous and his­tor­i­cal liaisons with intel­li­gence agen­cies. The pres­i­den­cy of Don­ald Trump has accel­er­at­ed an ambigu­ous rela­tion­ship to Europe, in the hope of shift­ing Europe’s—and par­tic­u­lar­ly NATO’s—center of grav­i­ty from the Paris-Berlin axis to a more Cen­tral and East­ern Europe hub; a hub which sees itself as the “oth­er” Europe—that is, opposed to the Euro­pean Union and its so-called “lib­er­al” social-wel­fare pro­grams and val­ues.

 After the Russ­ian Rev­o­lu­tion, the West backed first a mil­i­tary inva­sion and then the White armies against the new Sovi­et state.  When these efforts failed, the West then backed Pol­ish leader Joseph Pil­sud­sky and Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist Simon Petlyura’s Rus­so-Pol­ish war based on the dual con­cepts of Inter­mar­i­um and the Prometheus project. Once again, now led by the U.S., rightwing anti-Rus­sia forces are look­ing to Poland and its ultra-anti-Russ­ian allies to lead an increas­ing­ly aggres­sive front against Rus­sia.  The U.S. has been pour­ing weapons into East­ern Europe, backed up by an aggres­sive pro­gram of mil­i­tary train­ing and mil­i­tary exer­cis­es. An aggres­sive sys­tem of bilat­er­al mil­i­tary agree­ments between the U.S. and its East Euro­pean allies threat­en to pull West­ern Europe into a mul­ti­lat­er­al con­flict with Rus­sia via Arti­cle 5 of the NATO char­ter.

The authors trace these his­tor­i­cal devel­op­ments as a res­ur­rec­tion of the Intermarium—a geopo­lit­i­cal con­cept that envis­aged an alliance of coun­tries reach­ing from the Baltic Sea over the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea that would serve as a alter­na­tive pow­er bloc between Ger­many and Rus­sia. Mar­lene Laru­elle, Ph.D., is an Asso­ciate Direc­tor and Research Pro­fes­sor at the Insti­tute for Euro­pean, Russ­ian and Eurasian Stud­ies, Elliott School of Inter­na­tion­al Affairs. Ellen Rivera is an inde­pen­dent researcher spe­cial­ized in the post-war Ger­man far-right, with a par­tic­u­lar focus on post-war anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions. – Edi­tors]

Like the prover­bial cat, some con­cepts have sev­er­al lives. Or, like the mytho­log­i­cal phoenix, they can be reborn from the ash­es. This is cer­tain­ly the case of the Inter­mar­i­um, a geopo­lit­i­cal con­cept that envis­aged an alliance of coun­tries reach­ing from the Baltic Sea over the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea that would serve as a third pow­er bloc between Ger­many and Rus­sia. The Inter­mar­i­um belongs to the long geneal­o­gy of geopo­lit­i­cal con­cepts look­ing for and pro­mot­ing a Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean uni­ty: sand­wiched between a Mit­teleu­ropaunder Ger­man lead­er­ship in the nine­teenth cen­tu­ry and a Near Abroadunder Moscow’s super­vi­sion after 1991, the “mid­dle of Europe” or the “land between the seas” has been search­ing for his­tor­i­cal mod­els in every­thing from the Jag­el­lon­ian dynasty and the Pol­ish-Lithuan­ian Rzecz­pospoli­ta to the Aus­tro-Hun­gar­i­an empire.

Launched by Pol­ish state leader Józef Pił­sud­s­ki in the 1920s, the idea of a Między­morze (the Land between the Seas, latinized as Inter­mar­i­um) has since been reg­u­lar­ly revived in evolv­ing con­texts and finds itself reac­ti­vat­ed today. In its cur­rent form, it refers to the Cen­tral and East­ern “new Europe” dear to George Bush, Don­ald Rums­feld and now Don­ald Trump, cel­e­brat­ed for being more pro-Atlanti­cist than the West­ern “old Europe,” which is seen as being too con­cil­ia­to­ry with Rus­sia. The Inter­mar­i­um has also, grad­u­al­ly, come to com­prise a con­ser­v­a­tive Cen­tral and East­ern Europe that sees itself as the “oth­er” Europe—that is, opposed to the Euro­pean Union—and advances a con­ser­v­a­tive agen­da some­times per­me­able, as we see in the Ukrain­ian case, to far-right ide­o­log­i­cal schemes. 

The Inter­mar­i­um has also, grad­u­al­ly, come to com­prise a con­ser­v­a­tive Cen­tral and East­ern Europe that sees itself as the “oth­er” Europe—that is, opposed to the Euro­pean Union—and advances a con­ser­v­a­tive agen­da some­times per­me­able, as we see in the Ukrain­ian case, to far-right ide­o­log­i­cal schemes.

While the ear­ly his­to­ry of the Inter­mar­i­um has received lit­tle atten­tion from schol­ars, with the only exam­ple of such research being a doc­tor­al dis­ser­ta­tion by polit­i­cal sci­en­tist and attor­ney mem­ber of the Inter­na­tion­al Crim­i­nal Court Bar Jonathan Levy,[1] even less aca­d­e­m­ic atten­tion has been paid to the revival of the term since the 2000s. Yet it was deployed by for­mer Unit­ed States Army Europe (USAREUR) com­man­der Gen­er­al Ben Hodges to describe the U.S. strat­e­gy for Cen­tral and East­ern Europe,[2] before being revived on a much broad­er scale by the Pol­ish Par­ty of Law and Jus­tice as well as by Ukrain­ian far-right move­ments in the wake of the Euro­maid­an.[3]

To under­stand the many lives of this con­cept, one has to think of it as an “imag­ined geography”—a con­cept famous­ly launched by Edward Said to inter­pret the notion of Orient—or a geopo­lit­i­cal imag­i­nary in Ger­ard Toal’s perspective—a set of shared rep­re­sen­ta­tions of pow­er rela­tions and geog­ra­phy that may impact pol­i­cy deci­sions and pop­u­lar per­cep­tions of the world order.[4] We pro­pose here to fol­low Felix Beren­skoet­ter in his approach to con­cept analy­sis and see this Inter­mar­i­um geopo­lit­i­cal con­cept as hav­ing a cog­ni­tive func­tion which can be bro­ken in four dimen­sions: socio-polit­i­cal (for­ma­tion of the con­cept with­in a polit­i­cal sys­tem, its use among dif­fer­ent actors and its con­tes­ta­tion), tem­po­ral (his­toric­i­ty of a con­cept), mate­r­i­al (how the con­cept man­i­fests itself, and its agency), and the­o­ret­i­cal (how the con­cept is sit­u­at­ed in a broad­er ideation­al realm).[5]

We pro­pose here to fol­low Felix Beren­skoet­ter in his approach to con­cept analy­sis and see this Inter­mar­i­um geopo­lit­i­cal con­cept as hav­ing a cog­ni­tive func­tion which can be bro­ken in four dimen­sions: 

  1. socio-polit­i­cal (for­ma­tion of the con­cept with­in a polit­i­cal sys­tem, its use among dif­fer­ent actors and its con­tes­ta­tion),
  2. tem­po­ral (his­toric­i­ty of a con­cept),
  3. mate­r­i­al (how the con­cept man­i­fests itself, and its agency), and
  4. the­o­ret­i­cal (how the con­cept is sit­u­at­ed in a broad­er ideation­al realm).

Intermarium 1: Which Central Europe after the Empires?

The idea of the cre­ation of a third pow­er bloc between West­ern Europe, par­tic­u­lar­ly Ger­many, and Rus­sia, which came to be known as Inter­mar­i­um, emerged from the peri­od in which the Aus­tro-Hun­gar­i­an Empire was being dis­mem­bered in line with the Treaty of Ver­sailles that brought an end to the First World War. In 1919, Sir Hal­ford Mackinder, dis­cussing the oppo­si­tion between the “Heart­land” (con­ti­nen­tal pow­ers) and “sea pow­ers” (UK at that time), was already men­tion­ing the need for a “Mid­dle Tier of East Europe” going from the Baltic Sea to the Adri­at­ic to fed­er­ate in order to resist to both Ger­many and Rus­sia: “Per­haps the Small­er Pow­ers (…) will set about fed­er­at­ing among them­selves. A Scan­di­na­vian group, a group of the Mid­dle Tier of East Europe (Poland to Jugo-Slavia), and a Span­ish South Amer­i­can group (if not also includ­ing Brazil) may all, per­haps, be attain­able.”[6]

But the most well-known pro­po­nent of this Inter­mar­i­um con­cept in its first iter­a­tion was the Pol­ish leader Józef Pił­sud­s­ki (1867–1935), who, at the begin­ning of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry, had attempt­ed to cre­ate para­mil­i­tary units (the Com­bat Orga­ni­za­tion of the Pol­ish Social­ist Par­ty) to free Poland from the yoke of the three encroach­ing empires: Ger­many, Aus­tria-Hun­gary, and Rus­sia. His return to Poland after the defeat of the Cen­tral Pow­ers gave rise to the procla­ma­tion of the inde­pen­dent Sec­ond Pol­ish Repub­lic (1918–1939), of which he became head of state from 1918 to 1922, a peri­od that large­ly coin­cid­ed with the Pol­ish-Sovi­et war (1919–1921). 

As Poland became inde­pen­dent in 1918 after 123 years of for­eign con­trol, Pił­sud­s­ki envi­sioned a fed­er­a­tion of East­ern Euro­pean states that would, togeth­er, be strong enough to fend off poten­tial­ly bel­liger­ent neigh­bours, par­tic­u­lar­ly a down­sized Ger­many offend­ed by the loss of East­ern Prus­sia and a ris­ing Sovi­et Union. These ear­ly unsuc­cess­ful plans for an “East­ern Euro­pean Federation”—a Pol­ish-Lithuan­ian com­mon­wealth accom­pa­nied by a cur­ren­cy and cus­toms union with Belarus, Latvia, and Estonia—roughly par­al­leled the Jagiel­lon­ian com­mon­wealth of the Rzecz­pospoli­ta, which exist­ed from the six­teenth cen­tu­ry until Poland’s third dis­mem­ber­ment in 1795.[7]

While still in Ver­sailles, August Zales­ki, who would lat­er become Pol­ish for­eign min­is­ter, led talks with rep­re­sen­ta­tives of Lithua­nia and Ukraine about form­ing a fed­er­a­tion.[8] Short­ly there­after, in 1919–1920 Pił­sud­s­ki recon­cep­tu­al­ized the fed­er­a­tion as a broad­er “East­ern Euro­pean League of Nations.” Poland and Lithua­nia would again form a fed­er­al state in the East, with Belarus being grant­ed spe­cial auton­o­my. Ukraine and Roma­nia would enter into a mil­i­tary and polit­i­cal con­fed­er­a­cy with Poland. Fin­land and the Baltic states were to form a “Baltic Bloc,” while Azer­bai­jan, Geor­gia, and Arme­nia would com­prise a “Fed­er­al State of Cau­cau­sia.” These ear­ly plans for an East­ern Euro­pean fed­er­a­tion did not come to fruition: no new state want­ed to find itself under Pol­ish lead­er­ship. Instead, Belarus and Ukraine (re)integrated into the Sovi­et Union, while Lithua­nia became an inde­pen­dent coun­try. The nev­er-rat­i­fied War­saw Con­tract of March 1922 was, accord­ing to the Ger­man his­to­ri­an Hubert Leschnik, “the last seri­ous effort by Pol­ish diplo­ma­cy to estab­lish an Inter­mar­i­um, and dur­ing the term of for­eign min­is­ter Alek­sander Skrzyńs­ki (1924–1926) the MSZ [Pol­ish For­eign Min­istry] ulti­mate­ly bowed out of all ‘Inter­mar­i­um con­cep­tions.’”[9]

Dur­ing his sec­ond stint as de fac­to state leader (1926–1935), Piłsudski’s pri­ma­ry focus was on ensur­ing that the pro­vi­sions of the Treaty of Ver­sailles were upheld.[10] Nev­er­the­less, the peri­od also saw the estab­lish­ment of the Promethean League (Prom­e­te­js­ka Liga), a semi-clan­des­tine net­work that envi­sioned coop­er­a­tion between a group of nations fight­ing against the Sovi­et Union.[11] The Promethean League had its ide­o­log­i­cal roots in Piłsudski’s long-time geopo­lit­i­cal strat­e­gy, “Prometheanism,” i.e., the idea that any great pow­er would col­lapse if its eth­nic minori­ties were empow­ered, just as the Greek Prometheus helped mankind emerge from the shad­ow of the gods when he was giv­en fire. Accord­ing to the British schol­ar and jour­nal­ist Stephen Dor­ril, the Promethean League served as an anti-com­mu­nist umbrel­la orga­ni­za­tion for anti-Sovi­et exiles dis­placed after the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment of Simon Petlu­ra (1879–1926) gave up the fight against the Sovi­ets in 1922.[12] It was estab­lished by the Ukrain­ian émi­gré Roman Smal-Stocky and based in War­saw, but, as Dor­ril affirms, “the real lead­er­ship and latent pow­er with­in the Promethean League emanat­ed from the Petlu­ra-dom­i­nat­ed Ukrain­ian Demo­c­ra­t­ic Repub­lic in exile and its Pol­ish spon­sors. The Poles ben­e­fit­ed direct­ly from this arrange­ment, as Promethean mil­i­tary assets were absorbed into the Pol­ish army, with Ukrain­ian, Geor­gian and Armen­ian con­tract offi­cers not uncom­mon in the ranks.”[13] The alliance between Pił­sud­s­ki and Petlu­ra became very unpop­u­lar among many West­ern Ukraini­ans, as it result­ed in Pol­ish dom­i­na­tion of their lands. This oppo­si­tion joined the insur­gent Ukrain­ian Mil­i­tary Orga­ni­za­tion (Ukrain­s­ka viisko­va orh­a­nizat­si­ia, UVO—founded 1920), which lat­er trans­formed into the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists (Orh­a­nizat­si­ia ukrain­skykh nat­sion­al­is­tiv, OUN).[14]

Piłsudski’s ear­ly Inter­mar­i­um plans and lat­er the Promethean project were clan­des­tine­ly sup­port­ed by French and British intel­li­gence.

Piłsudski’s ear­ly Inter­mar­i­um plans and lat­er the Promethean project were clan­des­tine­ly sup­port­ed by French and British intel­li­gence.[15] These links dat­ed back to the First World War, when France sup­port­ed Piłsudski’s troops in the hope of defeat­ing the Sovi­ets. In Feb­ru­ary 1921, Pił­sud­s­ki trav­elled to Paris, where, dur­ing nego­ti­a­tions with French Pres­i­dent Alexan­dre Millerand, the foun­da­tions for the Fran­co-Pol­ish Mil­i­tary Alliance were laid. The most exhaus­tive study of sup­port for the Inter­mar­i­um project by French and British intel­li­gence was made by Jonathan Levy, based in part on three inter­views with for­mer Amer­i­can intel­li­gence agent William Gowen, the son of senior State Depart­ment offi­cer Franklin Gowen, who had been an assis­tant to Myron Tay­lor, Roosevelt’s per­son­al rep­re­sen­ta­tive to the Holy See under Pope Pius XII. Gowen described the Inter­mar­i­um “as a pre­war British-French spon­sored asso­ci­a­tion that would be use­ful in coun­ter­ing both Sovi­et and Ger­man ambi­tions in East­ern Cen­tral Europe. The orig­i­nal mem­bers, accord­ing to Gowen, were anti-Ger­man, anti-Hab­s­burg elites who also opposed social­ism and communism…Gowen named three promi­nent pre­war Inter­mar­i­um lead­ers: Vlatko Macek (Croa­t­ian Peas­ant Par­ty leader and Yugoslav Vice Pre­mier), Miha Krek (Catholic Slovene Peo­ples Par­ty leader and also Yugoslav Vice Pre­mier), and Gre­gorij Gafen­cu (Roman­ian For­eign Min­is­ter 1938–1941).”[16] All three would become West­ern intel­li­gence assets after the Sec­ond World War.[17]

A sec­ond, more seri­ous attempt to estab­lish an Inter­mar­i­um occurred dur­ing Colonel Józef Beck’s tenure as Poland’s for­eign min­is­ter (1932–1939). Fol­low­ing Poland’s two non-aggres­sion pacts signed with the USSR and the Ger­man Reich, Beck had been instruct­ed by Pił­sud­s­ki to find new solu­tions to guar­an­tee­ing Poland’s secu­ri­ty, since France was no longer con­sid­ered a trust­wor­thy ally.[18] Beck elab­o­rat­ed such solu­tions as a “poli­tique d’équilibre” aim­ing at an equal dis­tanc­ing from both Ger­many and Sovi­et Rus­sia; an “Inter­mar­i­um” as a third pow­er bloc between Ger­many and Rus­sia; and lat­er the con­cept of a “Third Europe,” an offen­sive alliance with the aim of fur­ther­ing the polit­i­cal influ­ence of Poland with­in Europe.[19] Beck made con­sid­er­able efforts to approach poten­tial fed­er­a­tion part­ners, but the only ones inter­est­ed appear to have been Hun­gary, Latvia, and Esto­nia. Beyond these three, his ideas appar­ent­ly fell on deaf ears.[20]

Intermarium 2: Central European Unity between Collaboration with the Nazis and Support from the Allies

Although all attempts to uni­fy the states of Cen­tral and East­ern Europe failed in the 1920s and 1930s, the new bal­ance of pow­ers that emerged dur­ing the Sec­ond World War helped to reopen some space for the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept. Declas­si­fied Amer­i­can intel­li­gence doc­u­ments indi­cate that the project con­tin­ued to receive sup­port from Pol­ish, British, and French intel­li­gence until the incor­po­ra­tion of Poland, Czecho­slo­va­kia, and Yugoslavia into the Axis, where­upon the estab­lished net­works were either “absorbed or sup­pressed by Ger­man mil­i­tary intel­li­gence.”[21] Based on Gowen’s reports, such authors as Christo­pher Simp­son, Stephen Dor­ril, Mark Aarons, and John Lof­tus have sug­gest­ed that the net­works of the Promethean League and the Inter­mar­i­um were uti­lized by Ger­man intel­li­gence.[22] But Levy argues that such an absorp­tion of pre-war Inter­mar­i­um net­works into Nazi intel­li­gence is unlike­ly giv­en Germany’s plans for Poland, and a clos­er look at the fates of these net­works’ lead­ers seems to indi­cate that, even if many shared the fas­cist Zeit­geist, they sought sup­port more from the Allies than from the Axis pow­ers. One of the three, the Roman­ian Grig­ore Gafen­cu, col­lab­o­rat­ed with the Ger­mans until the Nazi inva­sion of the Sovi­et Union on 22 June 1941, then looked for British and French sup­port. By the end of 1944, some of the old Inter­mar­i­um liaisons appear to have been reac­ti­vat­ed by MI6[23] and French Intel­li­gence.[24] Levy states: 

Even while the war was still rag­ing and enter­ing its final stages, MI6 offi­cers had made secret con­tact with pro-fas­cist ele­ments among the cen­tral and east­ern Euro­pean nation­al­ist groups. British Intel­li­gence saw the poten­tial val­ue of their pre-war con­nec­tions with organ­i­sa­tions such as the Promethean League, Inter­mar­i­um and the Ukrain­ian OUN‑B in again mount­ing anti-Sovi­et espi­onage oper­a­tions. (….) It was MI6, the British Secret Intel­li­gence Ser­vice, that rein­vig­o­rat­ed the east cen­tral Euro­pean fed­er­al move­ment by recon­sti­tut­ing the for­mer­ly Pol­ish spon­sored clan­des­tine pre-war orga­ni­za­tions: the Promethean League and the Inter­mar­i­um under the lead­er­ship of what was now called the Cen­tral Euro­pean Fed­er­al Club.[25]

The Cen­tral Euro­pean Fed­er­al Club (CEFC), which appro­pri­at­ed the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept, was estab­lished around 1940 in Britain as a plat­form for exiled anti-com­mu­nists and sup­port­ers of Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean fed­er­al­ism, some of whom had ties to the pre-war Inter­mar­i­um. The CEFC grew into a world­wide net­work, with offices in New York, Paris, Rome, Brus­sels,[26] Chica­go,[27] Jerusalem, and Beirut.[28] At the heart of the CEFC was the exiled for­mer col­lab­o­ra­tionist Czech mil­i­tary offi­cer Lev Prcha­la (1892–1963).[29] Upon reach­ing Eng­land, Prcha­la became an impor­tant fig­ure in the Czecho­slo­va­kian exile com­mu­ni­ty in Lon­don, head­ing the Czechoslo­vak Nation­al Coun­cil and lat­er the Czech Nation­al Com­mit­tee.[30] Prcha­la served as chair of the CEFC in 1951, accord­ing to a doc­u­ment in his rather lengthy CIA file,[31] and would lat­er become vice pres­i­dent of the Pre­sid­i­um of the People’s Coun­cil of the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations, which suc­ceed­ed the CEFC.[32]

From the moment of its incep­tion, the CEFC was active in the inter­na­tion­al are­na. On 25 April 1945, for instance, the CEFC appealed to the U.S. Con­gress, ask­ing for “aid and sup­port” for its ini­tia­tives in the face of Sovi­et aggres­sion: “The world must awake to the real­i­ty of the sit­u­a­tion and rec­og­nize that it is essen­tial to guar­an­tee equal free­dom and inde­pen­dence to all nations sit­u­at­ed between Ger­many and Rus­sia.”[33] That same year, the CEFC pub­lished the “Free Inter­mar­i­um Char­ter,” sub­ti­tled “The Inter­mar­i­um future is the fate of 160,000,000 Euro­peans.”[34] In 1946, a Con­gress of Del­e­gates of the Oppressed Euro­pean Nations was con­voked by the Scot­tish League for Euro­pean Free­dom with the assis­tance of the CEFC.[35]

Much of the CEFC’s activ­i­ty cen­tred around its Rome office, which start­ed to pub­lish the Inter­mar­i­um Bul­letin.[36] Accord­ing to a declas­si­fied U.S. Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Group doc­u­ment from 1946, the pres­i­dent of the CEFC Rome branch was Miha Krek.[37] Krek (1897–1969), named by Gowen as one of the three most promi­nent pre-war Inter­mar­i­um sup­port­ers, was a Sloven­ian lawyer and politi­cian who became an impor­tant rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the Yugoslav gov­ern­ment-in-exile in Lon­don and sub­se­quent­ly a British intel­li­gence asset. In 1944, he moved to Rome, where he orga­nized the anti-com­mu­nist Sloven­ian Nation­al Coun­cil Abroad. While there, he also estab­lished the Sloven­ian Wel­fare Soci­ety net­work, which helped sev­er­al thou­sand Slovenes emi­grate, espe­cial­ly to Argenti­na and the Unit­ed States.[38] The Sloven­ian Wel­fare Soci­ety is men­tioned in a CIA doc­u­ment from 1948 called “Orga­ni­za­tions for the Assis­tance of Refugees in Italy”[39] that lists sev­er­al of the now-infa­mous “rat­lines,”[40] such as the one set up by the Croa­t­ian priest Krunoslav Draganovic, who was said to be a “promi­nent mem­ber of the Inter­mar­i­um” and in close con­tact with Krek.[41] In 1947, Krek moved to the Unit­ed States and was offi­cial­ly elect­ed as pres­i­dent of the Slovene People’s Par­ty in Exile.

Amer­i­can intel­li­gence began to take notice of the Inter­mar­i­um net­work in August 1946[42] in the frame­work of Oper­a­tion Cir­cle, a Coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence Corps (CIC) project the orig­i­nal goal of which was to deter­mine how net­works inside the Vat­i­can had spir­it­ed away so many Nazi war crim­i­nals and col­lab­o­ra­tors, most­ly to South Amer­i­ca.[43] Among the group of CIC offi­cers involved in the oper­a­tion was Levy’s source William Gowen. Then a young offi­cer based in Rome, Gowen sus­pect­ed the Inter­mar­i­um net­work to be behind Nazi war crim­i­nals and col­lab­o­ra­tors’ exten­sive escape routes from Europe. To pur­sue this hunch, he secured as an asset the Hun­gar­i­an Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor Fer­enc Vaj­ta (who worked with the Ger­man Abwehr as a mem­ber of the col­lab­o­ra­tionist Hun­gar­i­an Arrow Cross[44]), whose “Hun­gar­i­an Pop­u­lar Front” seems to have been admit­ted into the CEFC/Intermarium[45] and who was in con­tact with French intel­li­gence.[46]

The CIA archives con­tain about 20 doc­u­ments that include the term Inter­mar­i­um,[47] most of which ref­er­ence Vajta’s files.[48] Accord­ing to Aarons and Lof­tus, although he had ini­tial­ly been thor­ough­ly opposed to this course of action, by “ear­ly July 1947, Gowen was strong­ly advo­cat­ing that Amer­i­can intel­li­gence should take over Inter­mar­i­um; before long, the CIC offi­cer was no longer hunt­ing for Nazis, but recruit­ing them.”[49] Oth­er declas­si­fied files describe how Vaj­ta and Gowen lat­er pledged U.S. sup­port for a new orga­ni­za­tion, a “Con­ti­nen­tal Union”[50] that would—unlike the French-British-Vat­i­can-sup­port­ed Intermarium—be under U.S. con­trol.[51] Upon being tracked down in the Unit­ed States in 1949, Vaj­ta became one of only two Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors to be deport­ed from the coun­try on the basis of their Nazi past since the end of the Sec­ond World War.[52]

That post-war intel­li­gence activ­i­ties in Rome were of great impor­tance to wary Sovi­et espi­onage is indi­cat­ed by the fact that no less than the infa­mous dou­ble agent Kim Phil­by, head of the SIS/MI6 anti-Sovi­et sec­tion since 1944, “infil­trat­ed the Ustashe rat­line and Vat­i­can Inter­mar­i­um with Sovi­et spies, while Angle­ton and Dulles chose to ignore the ultra-Fas­cist lean­ings of their Croa­t­ian assets.”[53] Accord­ing to a FOIA doc­u­ment, the British ceased to finan­cial­ly sup­port the Inter­mar­i­um net­work in June 1947[54] as part of an effort to prune the num­ber of cost­ly Churchill-sup­port­ed intel­li­gence projects and there­by relieve the strain on an overex­tend­ed British bud­get. By 1948, the Inter­mar­i­um net­work seems to have been super­seded by the anti-com­mu­nist umbrel­la orga­ni­za­tion Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations (ABN), found­ed in 1946 and sup­port­ed until its dis­so­lu­tion in the mid-1990s by the British, Amer­i­can, and Ger­man secret ser­vices.[55]

Intermarium 3: Central Europe as the Anti-Communist Front

In the frame­work of the Amer­i­can “Lib­er­a­tion Policy”—which John Dulles for­mu­lat­ed in 1953 as being direct­ed toward the lib­er­a­tion of Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean nations from Sovi­et dom­i­na­tion and the whole of Europe from Com­mu­nist influence—a vast num­ber of anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions were formed in the imme­di­ate post-war peri­od and sup­port­ed by the U.S.

In the frame­work of the Amer­i­can “Lib­er­a­tion Policy”—which John Dulles for­mu­lat­ed in 1953 as being direct­ed toward the lib­er­a­tion of Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean nations from Sovi­et dom­i­na­tion and the whole of Europe from Com­mu­nist influ­ence[56] —a vast num­ber of anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions were formed in the imme­di­ate post-war peri­od and sup­port­ed by the US.[57] They con­sti­tute one of the main com­po­nents of the Inter­mar­i­um “genealog­i­cal tree,” in the sense that they revived the mem­o­ry of Piłsudski’s attempts to uni­fy Cen­tral and East­ern Europe against Sovi­et Rus­sia and gave them new life, but blend­ed this mem­o­ry with far-right tones inspired by col­lab­o­ra­tion with Nazi Ger­many.[58]

The most impor­tant of the Euro­pean anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions was the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations (ABN). Offi­cial­ly found­ed on 16 April 1946, and head­quar­tered in Munich, it served as a coor­di­nat­ing cen­tre for anti-Com­mu­nist émi­gré polit­i­cal orga­ni­za­tions from the Sovi­et Union and neigh­bour­ing social­ist coun­tries. Because fas­cist move­ments were, in the 1930s, the first to orga­nize them­selves against the Sovi­et Union, the ABN recruit­ed mas­sive­ly among their ranks and served as an umbrel­la for many for­mer col­lab­o­ra­tionist para­mil­i­tary orga­ni­za­tions in exile, amongst them the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nationalists—Bandera (OUN‑B), the Croa­t­ian Ustaše, the Roman­ian Iron Guard, and the Slo­va­kian Hlin­ka Guard.[59] It thus con­tributed to guar­an­tee­ing the sur­vival of their lega­cies at least until the end of the Cold War. Accord­ing to the lib­er­al Insti­tute for Pol­i­cy Stud­ies think tank, cre­at­ed by two for­mer aides to Kennedy advi­sors, the ABN was the “largest and most impor­tant umbrel­la for for­mer Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors in the world.”[60]

The head­quar­ters and cells of the ABN orga­nized anti-Sovi­et ral­lies and demon­stra­tions, inter­na­tion­al con­fer­ences and con­gress­es, and the dis­tri­b­u­tion of var­i­ous anti-com­mu­nist pro­pa­gan­da pub­li­ca­tions. The ABN coop­er­at­ed close­ly with the World Anti-Com­mu­nist League (WACL) and the Euro­pean Free­dom Coun­cil (EFC). The most active groups with­in the ABN became the Ukrain­ian and Croa­t­ian orga­ni­za­tions, par­tic­u­lar­ly the Ukrain­ian OUN.[61] The OUN, under the lead­er­ship of Andriy Mel­nyk (1890–1964), col­lab­o­rat­ed with the Nazi occu­piers from the latter’s inva­sion of Poland in Sep­tem­ber 1939. The Gestapo trained Myko­la Lebed and the adher­ents of Melnyk’s younger com­peti­tor, Stepan Ban­dera (1909–1959), in sab­o­tage, guer­ril­la war­fare, and assas­si­na­tions. The OUN’s 1941 split into the so-called OUN‑B, fol­low­ing Stepan Ban­dera, and OUN‑M, fol­low­ing Andriy Mel­nyk,[62] did not keep both fac­tions from con­tin­u­ing to col­lab­o­rate with the Ger­mans.[63]

OUN‑B leader Stepan Ban­dera held meet­ings with the heads of Ger­man intel­li­gence regard­ing the for­ma­tion of a Ukrain­ian army. In Feb­ru­ary 1941, fol­low­ing nego­ti­a­tions with the leader of the Ger­man Abwehr, Wil­helm Canaris, Ban­dera received two and a half mil­lion marks to form the corps of the future inde­pen­dent army of Ukraine.[64] In April 1941, this “Legion of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists,” com­posed of 600 Ban­derites[65] incor­po­rat­ed into the Roland and Nightin­gale bat­tal­ions, both equipped by the Abwehr, was cre­at­ed ad hoc with the aim of fight­ing the Sovi­ets on behalf of the Third Reich. Sup­port­ers of both OUN fac­tions were recruit­ed into the infa­mous Ukrain­ian SS divi­sion Gal­izia, estab­lished by Hein­rich Himm­ler.[66] The OUN‑B lead­er­ship, upon its release from pref­er­en­tial deten­tion in a rather com­fort­able block in the con­cen­tra­tion camp Sach­sen­hausen in 1944, also agreed to coop­er­ate fur­ther with the Ger­mans.[67]

An impor­tant con­tact for the Ukraini­ans around the time of the Ger­man inva­sion of the Sovi­et Union, who would become deci­sive after the war, was the Abwehr offi­cer Theodor Ober­län­der (1905–1998). Ober­län­der became deputy com­man­der of the col­lab­o­ra­tionist Ukrain­ian “Nightin­gale Bat­tal­ion” (Nakhti­gal’ legion), estab­lished under Ger­man super­vi­sion and known for its utter bru­tal­i­ty.[68] Its com­man­der, Roman Shukhe­vich (1907–1950), a mil­i­tary leader of the OUN‑B who also served as Haupt­mann of a local Ger­man aux­il­iary police bat­tal­ion, was one of the orga­niz­ers of the Halych-Vol­hyn Mas­sacre, in which 40,000–60,000 eth­nic Poles were mur­dered.[69] “The OUN‑B and UPA alone had between 1943 and 1944 mur­dered more than 90,000 Poles and sev­er­al thou­sand Jews in the frame­work of ‘eth­nic cleans­ing.’”[70] OUN mem­bers sub­se­quent­ly assist­ed the Ger­man SS in mur­der­ing approx­i­mate­ly 200,000 Vol­hyn­ian Jews.[71]

The con­nec­tion with Ober­län­der would become cen­tral for Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist groups after the war. While in Sovi­et Ukraine the UPA kept on fight­ing against Moscow until the ear­ly 1950s, their capac­i­ties were exhaust­ed. Most of the OUN‑B cadres had tak­en refuge in the Dis­placed Per­son (DP) camps in Bavaria under Amer­i­can occu­pa­tion, where they re-orga­nized with the help of the occu­py­ing author­i­ties.[72] As Fed­er­al Min­is­ter for Dis­placed Per­sons, Refugees, and the War-Dam­aged dur­ing the Ade­nauer gov­ern­ment, Ober­län­der played a cru­cial role in the rise of the ABN and allowed Ukrain­ian col­lab­o­ra­tionists to take the lead in it. Yaroslav Stet­sko (1912–1986), who presided over the Ukrain­ian col­lab­o­ra­tionist gov­ern­ment in Lviv from as ear­ly as 30 June 1941, led the ABN from its cre­ation in 1946 until his death in 1986.[73] Apply­ing bru­tal intim­i­da­tion tac­tics learned dur­ing the war years,[74] the OUN‑B won the upper hand with­in the ABN, which con­sol­i­dat­ed its pow­er over rival anti-com­mu­nist umbrel­la orga­ni­za­tions. A report from the CIC, the pre­cur­sor to the Unit­ed States Army Intel­li­gence and Secu­ri­ty Com­mand (INSCOM), described the sit­u­a­tion as fol­lows: 

CIC con­firmed that by 1948 both the “Inter­mar­i­um” and the UPA (Ukrain­ian par­ti­san com­mand) report­ed to the ABN pres­i­dent, Yaroslav Stet­sko. The UPA in turn had con­sol­i­dat­ed all the anti-Sovi­et par­ti­sans under its umbrel­la. Yaroslav Stet­sko was also Sec­re­tary of OUN/B and sec­ond in com­mand to Ban­dera, who had the largest remain­ing par­ti­san group behind Sovi­et lines under his direct com­mand. Thus, OUN/B had achieved the lead­er­ship role among the anti-Com­mu­nist exiles and was ascen­dant by 1950, while the more mod­er­ate and Madis­on­ian-ori­ent­ed plat­forms and groups, the Prometheans, Cen­tral Euro­pean Fed­er­al Club and the oth­ers, had been fused with the ABN or aban­doned.[75]

In 1966, the ABN inte­grat­ed into the new­ly estab­lished World Anti-Com­mu­nist League. It nev­er­the­less remained head­quar­tered in Munich under an address that was also used by the Euro­pean Free­dom Coun­cil, found­ed by Stet­sko and Ober­län­der in 1967[76] and whose main aims were “to coor­di­nate and inten­si­fy anti-Com­mu­nist activ­i­ty in Europe and to give sup­port to the cause of the subjugat­ed peo­ples in the Sovi­et Rus­sian empire.”[77] The same address was giv­en as the con­tact for ABN Cor­re­spon­dence, a fierce­ly anti-com­mu­nist and his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ist mag­a­zine pub­lished from 1949 to 2000, at var­i­ous times in Eng­lish, Ger­man, and French.[78]

The ABN could count on last­ing sup­port from West­ern intel­li­gence ser­vices until it was dis­band­ed after the Berlin Wall col­lapsed. While the British ceased their sup­port of Bandera’s net­work in 1954, once any hope of guer­ril­la war­fare on the Sovi­et ter­ri­to­ry itself had dis­ap­peared, the ABN received back­ing from the Gehlen Orga­ni­za­tion (1946–1956) and lat­er from its suc­ces­sor, the Ger­man intel­li­gence ser­vice Bun­desnachrich­t­en­di­enst (BND). U.S. intel­li­gence like­wise con­tin­ued to sup­port the orga­ni­za­tion and appears to have recruit­ed many CIA assets from amongst the Mel­nyk fac­tion of the OUN.[79] For exam­ple, in the con­text of project AERODYNAMIC (1949–70; lat­er renamed QRPLUMB, 1970–91),[80] the CIA pro­vid­ed sup­port for the For­eign Rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the Ukrain­ian Supreme Lib­er­a­tion Coun­cil ZP/UHVR, a Ukrain­ian émi­gré orga­ni­za­tion estab­lished in 1949 of which Myko­la Lebed was elect­ed Min­is­ter of For­eign Affairs.[81] Accord­ing to declas­si­fied CIA doc­u­ments, QRPLUMB’s “oper­a­tional activ­i­ty con­cen­trat­ed on pro­pa­gan­da and con­tact oper­a­tions.”[82] Fur­ther­more, the “CIA helped to estab­lish in New York City the Pro­log Research and Pub­lish­ing Com­pa­ny in 1953 as ZP/UHVR’s pub­lish­ing and research arm.” Through a Munich-based affil­i­ate, the so-called Ukrain­ian Soci­ety for For­eign Stud­ies (CIA Cryptonyms: QRTERRACE, AETERRACE), Pro­log “pub­lished peri­od­i­cals and select­ed books and pam­phlets which sought to exploit and increase dis­si­dent nation­al­ist ten­den­cies in Sovi­et Ukraine.”[83]

In 1967, the World Con­gress of Free Ukraini­ans was found­ed in New York City by sup­port­ers of Andriy Mel­nyk. It was renamed the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress in 1993. In 2003, the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress was rec­og­nized by the Unit­ed Nations Eco­nom­ic and Social Coun­cil as an NGO with spe­cial con­sul­ta­tive sta­tus. It now appears as a spon­sor of the Atlantic Coun­cil, in the dona­tion brack­et of $250,000–$999,999 in 2015 and $100,000–$249,000 in 2016.[84] The con­ti­nu­ity of insti­tu­tion­al and indi­vid­ual tra­jec­to­ries from Sec­ond World War col­lab­o­ra­tionists to Cold War-era anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions to con­tem­po­rary con­ser­v­a­tive U.S. think tanks is sig­nif­i­cant for the ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­nings of today’s Inter­mar­i­um revival.

Intermarium 4: Central Europe as the Pro‑U.S. “New Europe”

After hav­ing been dilut­ed by the broad­er anti-com­mu­nist fight in the course of the Cold War, the con­cept of Inter­mar­i­um once again began to make the rounds in some West­ern strate­gic cir­cles in the late 2000s. The late Alexan­dros Petersen, in his book The World Island: Eurasian Geopol­i­tics and the Fate of the West(2011), inspired by Hal­ford Mackinder’s notion of the Heart­land and then by Brzezinski’s attempts to avoid the balka­niza­tion of Cen­tral and East­ern Europe, explained: “West­ern pol­i­cy-mak­ers must there­fore reac­quaint them­selves with Piłsudski’s con­cepts, espe­cial­ly that of Promethe­ism, in order to move beyond a con­tain­ment strat­e­gy and make the strate­gic inroads to Eura­sia that will pre­vent that crit­i­cal region from com­ing under the sway of author­i­tar­i­an orga­niz­ers, about which Mackinder warned.”[85]

This new usage of the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept has been revived by Strat­for, a pri­vate intel­li­gence think tank whose cus­tomers include large cor­po­ra­tions as well as gov­ern­ment agen­cies such as the U.S. Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty, the Marines, and the Defense Intel­li­gence Agency. The ear­li­est Strat­for email men­tion­ing the notion of Inter­mar­i­um dates from 2009 and advanced the con­cept in the con­text of Poland’s sol­i­dar­i­ty with Geor­gia fol­low­ing the August 2008 war with Rus­sia.[86] A total of 394 Strat­for emails up to Decem­ber 2011 (leaked by Wik­ileaks) con­tain the term “Inter­mar­i­um.”[87] Since around 2012, Strat­for has also used the term pub­licly. In 2012, the Hun­gar­i­an-born geopo­lit­i­cal ana­lyst and advi­sor George Fried­man, founder of Strat­for and still at the time its head, was vocal­ly pro­mot­ing an Inter­mar­i­um project in which Poland should dis­tance itself from the EU and form a bloc with oth­er Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean coun­tries between Ger­many and Rus­sia. In a video from the Euro­pean Forum of New Ideas in Octo­ber of that year, he stat­ed:

Poland must now depend on itself. Why? It’s a nation of 38 mil­lion, it has a vibrant econ­o­my, it has high­ly intel­li­gent edu­cat­ed peo­ple, and it is ris­ing. I will put a more rad­i­cal idea for­ward to you, which I think is a fun­da­men­tal one that we get from Gen­er­al Pił­sud­s­ki, the Inter­mar­i­um, [which] basi­cal­ly says we are caught between Ger­many and Rus­sia, and that stinks […][88]

In 2015, Strat­for rec­og­nized in its Geopo­lit­i­cal Diary web project that “it has been dis­cussing an alliance sys­tem called the Inter­mar­i­um for quite a while” and referred to Piłsudski’s orig­i­nal project:[89]

We have been argu­ing that, giv­en the re-emer­gence of Russ­ian pow­er, the idea of the Intermarium—supported not by France, but by the Unit­ed States, and focused on Russia—would become inevitable. [For­mer Unit­ed States Army Europe (USAREUR) com­man­der Gen­er­al Ben] Hodges’ state­ments on pre-posi­tion­ing essen­tial­ly announced the Inter­mar­i­um, or its small begin­ning. The area in which the equip­ment would be pre-posi­tioned stretch­es from the Baltic states through Poland and then skips to Roma­nia and Bul­gar­ia on the Black Sea. It sig­nals to the Rus­sians that what­ev­er hap­pens in Ukraine, the next line of coun­tries is the line that trig­gers the alliance.[90]

In 2017, Fried­man returned to the idea, stat­ing “The Inter­mar­i­um is a concept—really, an eventuality—that I have spo­ken about for near­ly a decade.” Boost­ed by the cur­rent U.S.-Russia ten­sions, he has advanced a more pre­cise vision of what this union is meant to be: he sees Poland and Romania—the two clos­est mil­i­tary allies of the U.S. in the region— as the “two foun­da­tions of the Inter­mar­i­um” and does not hes­i­tate to hope that the Inter­mar­i­um would chal­lenge the “hege­mo­ny of the 1950s-style cor­po­ra­tions that dom­i­nate Euro­pean eco­nom­ics” and pro­mote an eco­nom­ic mod­el that would be “more entre­pre­neur­ial, more close­ly resem­bling the Unit­ed States.”[91]

The con­cept has been sup­port­ed by oth­er pro-NATO think tanks such as the Insti­tute of World Pol­i­tics,[92] a nation­al secu­ri­ty and inter­na­tion­al affairs grad­u­ate school found­ed in 1990. Look­ing at its board of trustees, one can find, for exam­ple, William H. Web­ster, for­mer Direc­tor of the FBI and CIA.[93][94] Its founder, John Lenc­zows­ki, worked in the State Depart­ment in the Bureau of Euro­pean Affairs and as Spe­cial Advi­sor to the Under Sec­re­tary for Polit­i­cal Affairs in the ear­ly 1980s. From 1983 to 1987, he was Direc­tor of Euro­pean and Sovi­et Affairs at the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil and served as prin­ci­pal Sovi­et affairs advis­er to Ronald Rea­gan.[95] One of the IWP’s most impor­tant advo­cates of the Inter­mar­i­um is Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, who, besides hav­ing authored a book on the sub­ject,[96] has spo­ken on the top­ic at sev­er­al IWP con­fer­ences.[97] Chodakiewicz holds the Koś­ciuszko Chair in Pol­ish Stud­ies at the IWP and directs the Cen­ter for Inter­mar­i­um Stud­ies, whose mis­sion is:

to cham­pi­on the con­ti­nu­ity of Trans-Atlantic rela­tion­ships to re-stim­u­late US-Euro­pean ami­ty, and to recon­firm America’s com­mit­ment to Europe—a Europe that includes the Inter­mar­i­um. This is par­tic­u­lar­ly cru­cial in the ear that needs remind­ing that America’s sys­temic arrange­ments, insti­tu­tions, law, and cul­ture were trans­plant­ed from the Old Con­ti­nent and the Mediter­ranean Basin. The spir­it of Jerusalem-Athens-Rome via Lon­don arrived in the New World to forge a new nation.[98]

In 2015, IWP host­ed in Pen­ta­gon City a con­fer­ence enti­tled “Between Rus­sia and NATO: Secu­ri­ty Chal­lenges in Cen­tral and East­ern Europe,” fea­tur­ing, among oth­ers, Chodakiewicz:

At this year’s con­fer­ence, his [Chodakiewicz’s] talk focused on the his­to­ry of the Inter­mar­i­um, a region stretch­ing from the Baltic Sea, to the Black Sea, to the Adri­at­ic coast. He explained that, after the dis­so­lu­tion of the Hab­s­burg, Hohen­zollern, and Romanov dynas­ties in the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry, the region expe­ri­enced a peri­od of dis­in­te­gra­tion and pet­ty bick­er­ing in stark con­trast with the har­mo­ny that pre­vailed dur­ing the Pol­ish-Lithuan­ian Com­mon­wealth, last­ing from the six­teenth to the mid-eigh­teenth cen­turies. As the ancient nations of Poland and Hun­gary sought to secure their lost ter­ri­to­ries, eth­no-nation­al­ist states, like Latvia and Slo­va­kia, attempt­ed to dis­tance them­selves from their for­mer rulers. Con­flict­ing irre­den­tist claims and the pre­car­i­ous egos of the fledg­ling Cen­tral Euro­pean nation-states pre­clud­ed the sort of region­al sol­i­dar­i­ty nec­es­sary to defend the clus­ter of states from Ger­many and the USSR. The events and after­math of World War II demon­strat­ed once and for all the fool­ish­ness of region­al bick­er­ing in light of very real exis­ten­tial threats brew­ing at the thresh­olds of Cen­tral Europe: if the region hopes to avoid repeat­ing his­to­ry, Pro­fes­sor Chodakiewicz con­clud­ed, region­al sol­i­dar­i­ty must trump pet­ty intra-region­al con­cerns.[99]

Chodakiewicz had been appoint­ed by for­mer U.S. Pres­i­dent George W. Bush to serve as pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States Holo­caust Memo­r­i­al Coun­cil for a five-year term. His appoint­ment was crit­i­cized at the time by var­i­ous orga­ni­za­tions, such as the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­tre (SPLC), which sum­ma­rized alle­ga­tions that he held anti-Semit­ic views.[100] In a long dossier, SPLC revealed Chodakiewicz to be a fre­quent com­men­ta­tor on right-wing Pol­ish media, such as the week­ly Najwyzszy Czas!, “the mag­a­zine of the Real Pol­i­tics Union par­ty, a fringe, pro-life, anti-gay mar­riage, pro-prop­er­ty rights, anti-income tax group,” and the far-right Pol­ish web­site Fronda.pl.[101] In July 2008, Chodakiewicz was among those who accused Barack Oba­ma of hav­ing been a Mus­lim and a com­mu­nist asso­ciate.[102]

Anoth­er impor­tant fig­ure in the D.C. think tank world, Robert D. Kaplan, Senior Fel­low at the Cen­ter for a New Amer­i­can Secu­ri­ty, chief geopo­lit­i­cal ana­lyst at Strat­for for some years, and mem­ber of the Defense Pol­i­cy Board at the Pen­ta­gon while Robert Gates was Sec­re­tary of Defense, has like­wise used the notion of “Greater Inter­mar­i­um” to define the region and invite the U.S. to take a more active lead­er­ship role in Europe lest the con­ti­nent be frac­tured.[103] The same agen­da is advanced by the Wash­ing­ton-based Cen­ter for Euro­pean Pol­i­cy Analy­sis (CEPA), whose mis­sion is to pro­mote the “strate­gic the­ater encom­pass­ing the region between Berlin to Moscow, and from the Bar­ents Sea to the Black Sea, [as] represent[ing] an area vital of strate­gic inter­est to the Unit­ed States. (…) From Wil­son and Masaryk to Rea­gan, Hav­el and Wałęsa, CEPA works to pre­serve and extend the shared lega­cy of fight­ing for free­dom, and America’s essen­tial role in Europe, among a new gen­er­a­tion of Atlanti­cists.”[104] Based in Kyiv, the Insti­tute for Euro-Atlantic Coop­er­a­tion has been, too, nur­tur­ing the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept, with Kos­tiantyn Fedorenko and Andreas Umland propos­ing some con­crete ideas for the Inter­mar­i­um treaty that could address the con­tra­dic­tions of hav­ing some of its mem­bers inside EU and NATO, and some out­side.[105]

The Inter­mar­i­um con­cept thus seems to have grad­u­al­ly tak­en root among a group of U.S. pol­i­cy experts and deci­sion-mak­ers who sup­port strength­en­ing NATO’s pres­ence in Cen­tral and East­ern Europe. NATO’s expan­sion into East­ern Europe has been a fun­da­men­tal and endur­ing point of con­tention in East–West rela­tions, with Russ­ian lead­ers accus­ing the Unit­ed States of non-com­pli­ance with the oral com­mit­ment James Bak­er made to Gor­bachev that NATO would not move clos­er to Russ­ian bor­ders.[106] While nei­ther Geor­gia nor Ukraine has yet suc­ceed­ed in con­vinc­ing NATO to allow their acces­sion, sev­er­al oth­er ini­tia­tives have been deployed in the region. The turn­ing point was the July 2016 NATO sum­mit in War­saw, at which it was decid­ed to deter Rus­sia by strength­en­ing the Alliance’s mil­i­tary pres­ence on its east­ern flank. By 2017, there were four NATO bat­tal­ions in the region, sta­tioned in Poland, Esto­nia, Latvia, and Lithua­nia on a rota­tion­al basis. Each of these bat­tal­ions was pro­vid­ed by a NATO country—the Unit­ed States, Cana­da, Ger­many, or Britain. The 2016 sum­mit also inau­gu­rat­ed NATO’s Bal­lis­tic Mis­sile Defense, putting a base in Roma­nia. The stat­ed pur­pose is to counter the threats posed by Iran and North Korea, but Rus­sia believes it is also a tar­get. Mon­tene­gro was invit­ed to become NATO’s twen­ty-ninth mem­ber and dis­cus­sions on the sta­tus of Geor­gia and Ukraine were held, anger­ing Moscow.[107] NATO also launched a “Strate­gic Com­mu­ni­ca­tion Cen­ter” in Latvia and opened a train­ing cen­ter in Geor­gia.[108]

The Inter­mar­i­um con­cept fits into this geopo­lit­i­cal and mil­i­tary con­text quite well, offer­ing the miss­ing ide­o­log­i­cal and his­tor­i­cal legit­i­ma­tion of U.S. pol­i­cy for Cen­tral and East­ern Europe. . . . 

Intermarium 5: Central Europe Unity Revived through Regional Economic Cooperation

. . . . Simul­ta­ne­ous­ly with its pro­mo­tion by some Amer­i­can think tanks, the con­cept expe­ri­enced a revival in Cen­tral Europe, espe­cial­ly Poland. There, the mem­o­ry of Piłsudski’s project had nev­er total­ly dis­ap­peared but sim­ply trans­formed in line with the new geopo­lit­i­cal real­i­ties. The Paris-based émi­gré jour­nal Kul­tura—the main Pol­ish cul­tur­al jour­nal pub­lished in emi­gra­tion, led by Jerzy Giedroyć (1906–2000)—played a key role in refor­mu­lat­ing Poland’s East­ern strat­e­gy. . . .

. . . . Kul­tura’s “ULB” doc­trine was appro­pri­at­ed, and giv­en a more vir­u­lent­ly anti-Russ­ian tone, by the Con­fed­er­a­tion of Inde­pen­dent Poland (Kon­fed­er­ac­ja Pol­s­ki Niepodległej), clan­des­tine­ly launched from 1979by Leszek Moczul­s­ki (1930–1997), an admir­er of Pił­sud­s­ki who led some small far-right move­ments after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In 1994, the Con­fed­er­a­tion co-found­ed the League of Lands of Między­morze, which orga­nized three con­ven­tions in sub­se­quent years.[110] The term was also seized upon by some mem­bers of Sol­i­darność, who inte­grat­ed this “East­ern strat­e­gy” into their pro­gram­mat­ic dec­la­ra­tion at the movement’s First Con­fer­ence in Sep­tem­ber 1981.[111]

. . . . It was only dur­ing the next decade that the notion [of the Inter­mar­i­um] returned to promi­nence on the Pol­ish polit­i­cal land­scape, advanced by the con­ser­v­a­tive Law and Jus­tice Par­ty (PiS). The Kaczyńs­ki broth­ers, Lech and Jarosław, seized upon the term dur­ing their vic­to­ri­ous pres­i­den­tial cam­paign in 2005 and used it wide­ly up until Lech’s death in the Smolen­sk plane crash in 2010.[112] They asso­ci­at­ed it with Poland’s increased activism toward both the Viseg­rad group and the “East­ern Part­ner­ship” countries—including Lech’s sym­bol­ic trip to Tbil­isi dur­ing the 2008 Russ­ian war with Geor­gia along­side the pres­i­dents of Esto­nia, Lithua­nia, and Ukraine and the Lat­vian prime min­is­ter, intend­ed as a mes­sage of sup­port for Geor­gian sov­er­eign­ty. For­mer Deputy Min­is­ter of For­eign Affairs (1998–2001) and Min­is­ter of Nation­al Defense (2005–2007) Radoslaw Siko­rs­ki was like­wise a fer­vent sup­port­er of so-called Jagiel­lon­ian pol­i­tics.[113]

Around this time, the idea of a spe­cif­ic secu­ri­ty coali­tion for the Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean coun­tries was cham­pi­oned by the Lithuan­ian pres­i­dent, Algir­das Brazauskas, and his prime min­is­ter, Casimir Prun­skienė. At a 2006 sum­mit in Vil­nius devot­ed to “Com­mon Vision for Com­mon Neigh­bor­hood,” Prun­skienė declared: “I have not lost hope that the Baltic-Black Sea alliance is not only our his­tor­i­cal past from the time of the Grand Duchy of Lithua­nia. Cer­tain his­tor­i­cal moti­va­tions have remained until now.”[114]

How­ev­er, it was Poland that became the dri­ving force behind more active region­al inte­gra­tion, this time more eco­nom­ic than polit­i­cal or mil­i­tary.[115] Under the men­tor­ship of Jarosław Kaczyńs­ki, the new Pol­ish pres­i­dent, Andrzej Duda, elect­ed in 2015, relaunched the idea of a Baltic-Black Sea alliance on the eve of his inau­gu­ra­tion under the label of “Three Seas Ini­tia­tive” (TSI). Orig­i­nal­ly, the project grew out of a debate sparked by a report co-pub­lished by the Atlantic Coun­cil and the EU ener­gy lob­by group Cen­tral Europe Ener­gy Part­ners (CEEP) with the goal of pro­mot­ing big Cen­tral Euro­pean com­pa­nies’ inter­ests in the EU.[116] The report, enti­tled Com­plet­ing Europe—From the North-South Cor­ri­dor to Ener­gy, Trans­porta­tion, and Telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions Union, was co-edit­ed by Gen­er­al James L. Jones, Jr., for­mer Supreme Allied Com­man­der of NATO, U.S. Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Advi­sor, and chair­man of the Atlantic Coun­cil, and Pawel Olech­now­icz, CEO of the Pol­ish oil and gas giant Gru­pa Lotos.[117] It “called for the accel­er­at­ed con­struc­tion of a North-South Cor­ri­dor of ener­gy, trans­porta­tion, and com­mu­ni­ca­tions links stretch­ing from the Baltic Sea to the Adri­at­ic and Black Seas,” which at the time was still referred to as the “Adri­at­ic-Baltic-Black Sea Ini­tia­tive.”[118] The report was pre­sent­ed in Brus­sels in March 2015, where, accord­ing to Fred­er­ick Kempe, pres­i­dent and CEO of the Atlantic Coun­cil, it “gen­er­at­ed a huge amount of excite­ment.”[119]

In August 2016, the Dubrovnik meet­ing led to the for­mal cre­ation of the “Three Sea Ini­tia­tive.” The meet­ing was attend­ed by Pol­ish pres­i­dent Andrzej Duda, Roman­ian pres­i­dent Klaus Iohan­nis, and Bul­gar­i­an pres­i­dent Rosen Plevneliev. In addi­tion to this, “Hun­gary, Slo­va­kia, Lithua­nia, Latvia and Esto­nia dis­patched min­is­ters of for­eign affairs, where­as Aus­tria, Slove­nia and the Czech Repub­lic were rep­re­sent­ed on a low­er lev­el. The meet­ing was also attend­ed by rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Atlantic Coun­cil think tank.”[120] Since that Dubrovnik meet­ing, both Duda and Croa­t­ian Pres­i­dent Kolin­da Grabar-Kitarović have been staunch sup­port­ers of a part­ner bloc of Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean coun­tries. U.S. pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump vis­it­ed the TSI’s sec­ond sum­mit in July 2017 in War­saw,[121] with Marek Jan Chodakiewicz of the IWP help­ing to draft his speech.[122] In a Wash­ing­ton Post arti­cle report­ing on the meet­ing, jour­nal­ist Adam Tay­lor not­ed the pres­ence of the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept in TSI dis­cus­sions: “[Head of the War­saw office of the Euro­pean Coun­cil on For­eign Rela­tions Piotr] Buras not­ed that some in the Pol­ish Law and Jus­tice par­ty even refer to it as ‘Inter­mar­i­um’… which draws upon a Pol­ish for­eign pol­i­cy con­cept in the ’30s of the 20th cen­tu­ry which was open­ly direct­ed against the Ger­man dom­i­nance at that time.”[123]

At the lat­est TSI sum­mit in Bucharest in Sep­tem­ber 2018, Duda insist­ed on the need for a region­al part­ner­ship between the 12 coun­tries involved, but also wel­comed Ger­many and the U.S. as clos­est part­ners. He declared, “We want to be, and in real­i­ty we are, polit­i­cal prac­ti­tion­ers, the co-cre­ators of an effec­tive and active Cen­tral Europe, on a glob­al scale.”[124] Poland works close­ly with the Wash­ing­ton-based Cen­ter for Euro­pean Pol­i­cy Analy­sis (CEPA) men­tioned ear­li­er to advance this “Atlanti­cist” agen­da. . . .

Intermarium 6: Central Europe As Dreamed by the Ukrainian Far Right

. . . . The most recent rein­car­na­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um has tak­en form in Ukraine, espe­cial­ly among the Ukrain­ian far right, which has re-appro­pri­at­ed the con­cept by cap­i­tal­iz­ing on the sol­id ide­o­log­i­cal and per­son­al con­ti­nu­ity between actors of the Ukrain­ian far right in the inter­war and Cold War peri­ods and their heirs today.

This con­ti­nu­ity is exem­pli­fied by the wife of long-time ABN leader Yaroslav Stet­sko, Yarosla­va Stet­sko (1920–2003), a promi­nent fig­ure in the Ukrain­ian post-Sec­ond World War émi­gré com­mu­ni­ty who became direct­ly involved in post-Sovi­et Ukrain­ian pol­i­tics. Hav­ing joined the OUN at the age of 18, she became an indis­pens­able sup­port­er of the ABN after the war, first in its press bureau and from 1957 as edi­tor of its pub­li­ca­tion, the ABN Cor­re­spon­dence.[127] After her husband’s death in 1986, she suc­ceed­ed him as the ABN’s pres­i­dent and became a mem­ber of the pre­sid­i­um of the World Anti-Com­mu­nist League.[128] In July 1991, she returned to Ukraine, and in the fol­low­ing year formed the Con­gress of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists (CUN), a new polit­i­cal par­ty estab­lished on the basis of the OUN, pre­sid­ing over both.[129] Although the CUN nev­er achieved high elec­tion results, it coop­er­at­ed with the Social-Nation­al Par­ty of Ukraine (SNPU), which lat­er changed its name to Svo­bo­da, the far-right Ukrain­ian par­ty that con­tin­ues to exist.[130]

The co-founder of the CUN and for­mer­ly Yaroslav Stetsko’s pri­vate sec­re­tary, the U.S.-born Roman Zvarych (1953), rep­re­sents a younger gen­er­a­tion of the Ukrain­ian émi­gré com­mu­ni­ty active dur­ing the Cold War and a direct link from the ABN to the Azov Bat­tal­ion. In an inter­view, he declared that at age fif­teen he swore an oath to “achieve Ukrain­ian state­hood or … die fight­ing for it.”[131] Zvarych par­tic­i­pat­ed in the activ­i­ties of the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations in the 1980s.[132] In the frame­work of the for­ti­eth-anniver­sary com­mem­o­ra­tion of the Ukrain­ian Insur­gent Army (UPA), head­ed by Yaroslav Stet­sko, he rep­re­sent­ed the World Fed­er­a­tion of Ukrain­ian Stu­dents (CeSUS).[133] This put him on a list of par­tic­i­pants that includ­ed, among oth­ers, Sen­a­tor Bar­ry Gold­wa­ter, for­mer DIA Direc­tor Gen­er­al Daniel O. Gra­ham, for­mer SAC com­man­der-in-chief Gen­er­al Bruce K. Hol­loway, founder of the U.S. WACL chap­ter John K. Singlaub, Lev Dobri­an­sky, and Otto von Hab­s­burg.[134] In an inter­view pub­lished by the BBC Mon­i­tor­ing Kiev Unit in 2005, he stat­ed that he had met his future wife Svet­lana in 1983 in the con­text of a secret mis­sion for Stet­sko in Poland, where he was recruit­ing assets “for work in Ukraine.”[135] He served as a mem­ber of the Par­lia­men­tary Assem­bly of the Coun­cil of Europe from 1998 to 2005, and again from 2008 to 2013.[136]

In Feb­ru­ary 2005, after Vik­tor Yushchenko’s elec­tion, Zvarych was appoint­ed Min­is­ter of Jus­tice. His name appears on Wik­ileaks doc­u­ments in var­i­ous con­texts, includ­ing the leaked Strat­for emails and the so-called “Cable­gate” of around 250,000 U.S. clas­si­fied diplo­mat­ic cables.[137] Accord­ing to those emails, Zvarych seemed to have had fre­quent con­sul­ta­tions with the U.S. ambas­sador to Ukraine between 2006 and 2009. Accord­ing to Andriy Bilet­sky, the first com­man­der of the Azov bat­tal­ion, a civ­il para­mil­i­tary unit cre­at­ed in the wake of the Euro­maid­an, Zvarych was head of the head­quar­ters of the Azov Cen­tral Com­mit­tee in 2015 and sup­port­ed the Azov bat­tal­ion with “vol­un­teers” and polit­i­cal advice through his Zvarych Foun­da­tion.[138] Zvarych returned to par­lia­ment in March 2018.

The rein­tro­duc­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um notion in Ukraine is close­ly con­nect­ed to the broad reha­bil­i­ta­tion of the OUN and UPA, as well as of their main hero, Stepan Ban­dera. After Ukraine’s inde­pen­dence in late 1991, Ban­dera was pro­gres­sive­ly rein­tro­duced as a nation­al hero, first in West­ern Ukraine, where the mem­o­ry of hun­dreds of thou­sands of civil­ians deport­ed to Sovi­et camps was still vivid, then across the whole coun­try and in the new his­to­ry text­books com­mis­sioned after the Orange rev­o­lu­tion.[139] Dur­ing his pres­i­den­cy (2005–2010), and par­tic­u­lar­ly through the cre­ation of the Insti­tute for Nation­al Remem­brance,  Vik­tor Yushchenko built the image of Ban­dera as a sim­ple Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist fight­ing for his country’s inde­pen­dence, first in the 1930s against Poland, then in the ear­ly 1940s against the Sovi­et Union. His trou­bling bio­graph­i­cal elements—he twice col­lab­o­rat­ed with the Nazi regime, adhered to many nation­al social­ist prin­ci­ples, called for an eth­ni­cal­ly pure Ukrain­ian nation, and demon­strat­ed a fierce anti-Semi­tism in line with the Nazis’ geno­ci­dal policy—have often been ignored in the new offi­cial Ukrain­ian his­to­ri­og­ra­phy.[140] In 2009, the gov­ern­ment hon­oured Ban­dera with a postage stamp for his one-hun­dredth birth­day, and the fol­low­ing year he was posthu­mous­ly giv­en the offi­cial title of “Hero of Ukraine.”[141] This hon­our pro­voked out­rage in East­ern Ukraine and Europe, how­ev­er, and was even­tu­al­ly revoked.

The his­to­ri­an Ste­fanie Birk­holz, who wrote the most exhaus­tive study of the ABN to date, reminds us of Yushchenko’s spouse’s role in this strat­e­gy:

It is not unlike­ly Yushchenko’s readi­ness dur­ing his pres­i­den­cy (2005–2010) to open up to right-wing ten­den­cies of the Ukrain­ian exile leads back to his wife, who had con­nec­tions to the ABN. Katery­na Chu­machenko [Yushchenko], born 1961 in Chica­go, was socialised there in the Ukrain­ian exile youth organ­i­sa­tion SUM (Spilka Ukra­jin­sko­ji Molo­di, Ukrain­ian Youth Organ­i­sa­tion) in the spir­it of the OUN. Via the lob­by asso­ci­a­tion Ukrain­ian Con­gress Com­mit­tee of Amer­i­ca (UCCA) she obtained a post as “spe­cial assis­tant” in the U.S. State Depart­ment in 1986, and was from 1988 to 1989 employed by the Office of Pub­lic Liai­son in the White House. In 1991, like oth­er activists of the Ukrain­ian exile, she moved back to Ukraine. A pho­to­graph from 1983 shows Chu­machenko as direc­tor of the Ukrain­ian Nation­al Infor­ma­tion Ser­vice in con­ver­sa­tion with U.S. ambas­sador to the UN Jeane J. Kirk­patrick and Yaroslav Stet­sko.[142]

This reha­bil­i­ta­tion trend accel­er­at­ed after the Euro­Maid­an. In 2015, just before the sev­en­ti­eth anniver­sary of Vic­to­ry Day, Volodymyr Via­tro­vych, min­is­ter of edu­ca­tion and long-time direc­tor of the Insti­tute for the Study of the Lib­er­a­tion Move­ment, an orga­ni­za­tion found­ed to pro­mote the hero­ic nar­ra­tive of the OUN–UPA, called on the par­lia­ment to vote for a set of four laws that cod­i­fied the new, post-Maid­an his­to­ri­og­ra­phy. Two of them are par­tic­u­lar­ly influ­en­tial in the ongo­ing mem­o­ry war with Rus­sia. One decrees that OUN and UPA mem­bers are to be con­sid­ered “fight­ers for Ukrain­ian inde­pen­dence in the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry,” mak­ing pub­lic denial of this unlaw­ful. The sec­ond, “Con­demn­ing Com­mu­nist and Nation­al Social­ist (Nazi) Total­i­tar­i­an Regimes and Pro­hibit­ing the Pro­pa­gan­da of their Sym­bols,” for­mal­ly crim­i­nal­izes the entire Sovi­et regime in Ukraine, order­ing the removal of any Sovi­et-era sym­bols and mak­ing any breach pun­ish­able by up to ten years in prison.[143]

These decom­mu­niza­tion laws, adopt­ed with­out any pub­lic debate and which do not seem to have major­i­ty sup­port,[144] have been extreme­ly con­tro­ver­sial: the his­to­ri­an com­mu­ni­ty expressed appre­hen­sion about being told how to think “cor­rect­ly,”[145] and the joint inter­im opin­ion from the Coun­cil of Europe’s Venice Com­mis­sion and the OSCE/ODIHR found that the sec­ond law infringed on people’s rights to free­dom of expres­sion and asso­ci­a­tion. In 2017, Vya­tro­vych, already accused of “white­wash­ing” Ukrain­ian his­to­ry by plac­ing Sovi­et-era state archives under the juris­dic­tion of the Insti­tute for Nation­al Remem­brance,[146] stat­ed that dis­play­ing the Waf­fen-SS Gali­cia Divi­sion sym­bols did not fall under the 2015 law.[147] The most recent evi­dence of this trend is the Decem­ber 2018 deci­sion to declare Jan­u­ary 1 a nation­al day of com­mem­o­ra­tion of Stepan Ban­dera.[148]

In this con­text of reha­bil­i­ta­tion of inter­war heroes, ten­sions with Rus­sia, and dis­il­lu­sion with Europe over its per­ceived lack of sup­port against Moscow, the geopo­lit­i­cal con­cept of Inter­mar­i­um could only pros­per. It has found its most active pro­mot­ers on the far right of the polit­i­cal spec­trum, among the lead­er­ship of the Azov Bat­tal­ion.

This is the case, for instance, of Andriy Bilet­sky (1979), a Ukrain­ian mem­ber of par­lia­ment, lieu­tenant colonel of the police, and uni­ver­si­ty instruc­tor. From his youth, Bilet­sky was active in neo-Nazi cir­cles. He took the lead­er­ship of the neo-Nazi orga­ni­za­tion Patri­ot of Ukraine (Patri­ot Ukrainy) (1996–2014), which became a para­mil­i­tary wing of the Social-Nation­al Assem­bly (SNA).[149] In late Novem­ber 2013, the SNA and Patri­ot of Ukraine cre­at­ed Pravyi Sek­tor, joined by oth­er neo-Nazi groups such as White Ham­mer and C14, the neo-Nazi youth wing of Svo­bo­da. When in April 2014 Min­is­ter of Inter­nal Affairs Arsen Avakov autho­rized the cre­ation of civ­il para­mil­i­tary units to help a weak Ukrain­ian army fight against seces­sion­ism in the Don­bas region, the Asov Bat­tal­ion was offi­cial­ly formed, with Bilet­sky as its co-founder and first com­man­der.[150] The Kyiv gov­ern­ment began to pro­vide it with arms and a few month lat­ers incor­po­rat­ed it into the Nation­al Guard of Ukraine.[151] In 2015, the SNA trans­formed into the polit­i­cal youth orga­ni­za­tion Azov Civ­il Corps (Tsivil’nyi kor­pus Azov) and then, in Octo­ber 2016, into the Nation­al Corps polit­i­cal par­ty (Natsional’nyi kor­pus), of which Bilet­sky is the cur­rent leader.

In 2016, Bilet­sky cre­at­ed the Inter­mar­i­um Sup­port Group (ISG),[152] intro­duc­ing the con­cept to poten­tial com­rades-in-arms from the Baltic-Black Sea region.[153] The first day of the found­ing con­fer­ence was reserved for lec­tures and dis­cus­sions by senior rep­re­sen­ta­tives of var­i­ous sym­pa­thet­ic orga­ni­za­tions, the sec­ond day to “the lead­ers of youth branch­es of polit­i­cal par­ties and nation­al­ist move­ments of the Baltic-Black Sea area.”[154] The senior del­e­gates were from Belarus (Zmici­er Mick­iewicz, Belarus Secu­ri­ty Blog); Croa­t­ia (Leo Mar­ić, jour­nal­ist); Esto­nia (Vaba Ukraina, or “Free Ukraine”); Geor­gia (Gior­gi Kuparashvili, head of the Mil­i­tary School of Colonel Yevhen Kono­valets); Lithua­nia (Gin­tarė Narke­vičiūtė, Inter­na­tion­al Sec­re­tary of the Home­land Union – Lithuan­ian Chris­t­ian Democ­rats Par­ty); Poland (Mar­iusz Patey, direc­tor of the Insti­tute of Pro­fes­sor Roman Rybars­ki); Slo­va­kia (Sloven­ská pospoli­tosť, or “Slo­vak Broth­er­hood”); and Swe­den. It also includ­ed “mil­i­tary attach­es of diplo­mat­ic mis­sions from the key coun­tries in the region (Poland, Hun­gary, Roma­nia and Lithua­nia).”[155] On Octo­ber 13, 2018, the ISG orga­nized its third con­gress. Besides the Ukrain­ian hosts, a large share of the for­eign speak­ers from Poland, Lithua­nia, and Croa­t­ia had a (para-)military back­ground, among them advi­sor to the Pol­ish Defence Min­is­ter Jerzy Tar­gal­s­ki and retired Brigadier Gen­er­al of the Croa­t­ian Armed Forces Bruno Zor­i­ca.[156] Among the talk­ing points of Pol­ish mil­i­tary edu­ca­tor Damien Duda were “meth­ods of the prepa­ra­tion of a mil­i­tary reserve in youth orga­ni­za­tions” and the “impor­tance of para­mil­i­tary struc­tures with­in the frame­work of the defence com­plex of a mod­ern state.”[157]

Anoth­er promi­nent face of the Ukrain­ian neo-Nazi scene, who appears in both the Asov and the ISG con­text, has been Ole­na Semenya­ka. In a 2015 inter­view with Oleg Odnorozhenko, then the deputy com­man­der of the Azov reg­i­ment, pub­lished on the “Ukrain­ian Tra­di­tion­al­ist Club” web­site, Semenya­ka is pre­sent­ed as “coor­di­na­tor of the Depart­ment of Inter­na­tion­al Rela­tions of the ‘Azov’ reg­i­ment “Azov Recon­quista.’”[158] Lit­tle is known about the Recon­quista move­ment. It emerged some­time around 2015 in Ukraine,[159] and now has estab­lished groups in sev­er­al Euro­pean coun­tries, such as France,[160] Switzer­land,[161] and Fin­land.[162] When rep­re­sen­ta­tives of Euro­pean Recon­quista groups met in the frame­work of the First Paneu­ropa Con­fer­ence in Kyiv in April 2017, a con­fer­ence report described the Recon­quista project as fol­lows: “the Recon­quista Move­ment aim­ing at build­ing the Paneu­ro­pean con­fed­er­a­tion of sov­er­eign Euro­pean nations, or sim­ply Paneu­ropa, remains on the posi­tions of the clas­sic Third Way (the so-called third polit­i­cal the­o­ry) in the vein of Julius Evola, Ernst Jünger, Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, Oswald Mosley and Dominique Ven­ner.”[163] The Ukrain­ian Recon­quista net­work had a web­site active between 2015 and 2017 avail­able in nine lan­guages,[164] and still has a func­tion­ing YouTube chan­nel.[165]

The sec­ond Paneu­ropa Con­fer­ence was orga­nized in Kyiv on Octo­ber 15, 2018. Under the Recon­quista ban­ner, it host­ed along­side Semenya­ka speak­ers from West­ern Euro­pean far-right orga­ni­za­tions, among them Bjørn Chris­t­ian Rødal (Alliansen—Alternativ for Norge, Nor­way); Alber­to Pal­ladi­no (for­eign cor­re­spon­dent of Casa Pound Italia, Italy); Julian Ben­der (West Ger­many area leader of Der III. Weg, Ger­many); Maik Schmidt (leader of the Bran­den­burg branch of NPD’s JN, Ger­many); Yuri Noievyi (All-Ukrain­ian Svo­bo­da Asso­ci­a­tion, Ukraine); Anton Bady­da (Karpats­ka Sich, Ukraine); Greg John­son (rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the U.S. Alt-Right, edi­tor-in-chief of Counter-Cur­rents); and Mar­cus Follin (Swedish Pan-Euro­pean Nation­al­ist, Iden­ti­tar­i­an, Swe­den).[166] All the groups present, as well as the authors men­tioned above and the notion of “Third Way,” set the tone: they belong to the new Iden­ti­tar­i­an move­ments attempt­ing to reha­bil­i­tate fas­cist the­o­ries under a nar­ra­tive adapt­ed to our times of a white Europe fight­ing against both immi­grants and cos­mopoli­tan elites.

Semenya­ka her­self appears well inte­grat­ed into neo-Nazi coun­ter­cul­tur­al cir­cles. Since its incep­tion in 2016, she has spo­ken at every “Pact of Steel” (Stalevyi Pakt) con­fer­ence in Kyiv, an event that takes place in the frame­work of the neo-Nazi Black Met­al “Asgard­srei Fes­ti­val.” In 2016, her talk was on the top­ic of “Aris­toc­ra­cy of the Spir­it and the Great Euro­pean Recon­quista,” while in 2017 it was titled “Wotan, Pan, Diony­sus: At the Gates of the Grand Euro­pean Sol­stice”[167] —a nepa­gan rhetoric clas­sic for neo-Nazis coun­ter­cul­tur­al groups. For­mer­ly a fol­low­er of the Russ­ian far-right neo-Eurasian­ist ide­o­logue Alexan­der Dug­in,[168] who pro­pos­es a fed­er­a­tion “from Lis­bon to Vladi­vos­tok,” Semenya­ka turned into a Dug­in crit­ic with the Maid­an events but con­tin­ues to embrace the same rad­i­cal neo-pagan­ism in which Dug­in is root­ed.[169]  

Semenya­ka has been pro­mot­ing this new Inter­mar­i­um project on Face­book,[170] as well as through exten­sive trav­els in Europe to meet with var­i­ous local far-right pro­po­nents. In Feb­ru­ary 2018 she appeared in Tallinn at the Annu­al Eth­no­fu­tur Con­fer­ence orga­nized by Sinine Ära­tus, the youth wing of the Eston­ian nation­al­ist par­ty Blue Awak­en­ing, where she spoke on the “Inter­mar­i­um as a Lab­o­ra­to­ry of Euro­pean Arche­o­fu­tur­ism,” “and par­tic­i­pat­ed in the torch­light march on the occa­sion of the cen­te­nary of Estonia’s inde­pen­dence.”[171] In May 2018 she attend­ed the Euro­pean Con­gress of the “Young Nation­al­ists” (Junge Nation­al­is­ten), the youth wing of the Ger­man Nation­al Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty NPD,  in Riesa, Ger­many, giv­ing a lec­ture enti­tled “Beyond the ‘Wall of Time’: Ernst Jünger and Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger on the New Meta­physics”[172] —here too, two major philo­soph­i­cal ref­er­ences of today’s rad­i­cal right. On June 8, 2018, she appeared at the Iden­ti­tar­i­an Club house Kon­trakul­tur in Halle, Ger­many, which held an “Ukrain­ian Evening” where she spoke on the top­ic of “iden­ti­ty, geopol­i­tics, per­spec­tives” and, accord­ing to infor­ma­tion from the Iden­ti­tar­i­ans, intro­duced the con­cept of Inter­mar­i­um to the audi­ence.[173]

In Lieu of Conclusion: Intermarium’s four conceptual dimensions

. . . . The mate­r­i­al dimen­sion of the con­cept man­i­fests itself through some per­son­al and insti­tu­tion­al fil­i­a­tions: a geopo­lit­i­cal con­cept can­not be advanced with­out some agency. In the Inter­mar­i­um case, its agents have been groups and fig­ures for who the sup­port of the Unit­ed States to the region was/is the only guar­an­tee of secu­ri­ty against Rus­sia and a West­ern Europe accused of lack­ing sol­i­dar­i­ty toward its Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean neigh­bors. Some shared genealo­gies can be found between those who fought against ear­ly Com­mu­nism in the inter­war and war peri­ods, were involved into anti-Com­mu­nist struc­tures dur­ing the Cold War, and were reha­bil­i­tat­ed, direct­ly or indi­rect­ly, in today’s pol­i­tics against Putin’s Rus­sia. . . .

. . . . The socio-polit­i­cal dimen­sion of the con­cept posi­tions it inside the clas­sic con­ser­v­a­tive and/or far right repertoires—depending of coun­tries and peri­od of history—with almost no com­pe­ti­tion for mean­ing com­ing from more main­stream or from left­ist groups. Today’s revival should there­fore be under­stood not only as a geopo­lit­i­cal con­struc­tion against Rus­sia but as part of a wider con­cep­tu­al arse­nal inspired by con­ser­v­a­tive and/or far right ideas in tune with the cur­rent illib­er­al atmos­phere. While many West­ern Euro­pean far right groups are pro-Russ­ian, Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean far right tends to be more anti-Russ­ian, a posi­tion reac­ti­vat­ed by the 2014 Ukrain­ian cri­sis. The Pol­ish Law and Jus­tice Par­ty per­son­i­fies this illib­er­al stance: anti-Russ­ian and pro-US, but maybe even more mold­ed by an anti-lib­er­al pos­ture, and a vivid cri­tique of the Euro­pean con­struc­tion. The cur­rent ten­sions between the Viseg­rad coun­tries and the Euro­pean Union institutions—around the refugee cri­sis but also Brus­sels’ heavy crit­i­cisms of Hungary’s and Poland’s laws on media and jus­tice in particular—integrate the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept into the ide­o­log­i­cal toolk­it assert­ing the legit­i­ma­cy of Cen­tral and East­ern Europe’s right to an iden­ti­ty dis­so­ci­at­ed from West­ern Europe and claim­ing rep­re­sent­ing the “real” Europe.  Krzysztof Szcz­er­s­ki, chief of the Pol­ish president’s Cab­i­net and an advi­sor for inter­na­tion­al affairs, for instance, described for instance the Inter­mar­i­um as a Pol­ish answer to the cur­rent cri­sis fac­ing the EU in his recent book The Euro­pean Utopia: Inte­gra­tion Cri­sis and Pol­ish Ini­tia­tive of Rem­e­dy(2017). . . . .[174]

 

Mar­lene Laru­elle, Ph.D., is an Asso­ciate Direc­tor and Research Pro­fes­sor at the Insti­tute for Euro­pean, Russ­ian and Eurasian Stud­ies (IERES), Elliott School of Inter­na­tion­al Affairs, The George Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty. Dr. Laru­elle is also a Co-Direc­tor of PONARS (Pro­gram on New Approach­es to Research and Secu­ri­ty in Eura­sia) and Direc­tor of GW’s Cen­tral Asia Pro­gram. Dr.Laruelle received her Ph.D. in his­to­ry from the Nation­al Insti­tute of Ori­en­tal Lan­guages and Cul­tures (INALCO) and her “Habil­i­ta­tion” at Sci­ences-PoinParis. Dr. Laru­elle recent­ly authored Russ­ian Nation­al­ism: Imag­i­nar­ies, Doc­trines, and Polit­i­cal Bat­tle­fields (Rout­ledge, 2018) and edit­ed Entan­gled Far Rights: A Russ­ian-Euro­pean Intel­lec­tu­al Romance in the 20th Cen­tu­ry (Pitts­burgh Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2018), as well as Eurasian­ism and the Euro­pean Far Right: Reshap­ing the Rus­sia-Europe Rela­tion­ship(Lexington,2015).

Ellen­Rivera is an inde­pen­dent researcher spe­cial­ized in the post-war Ger­man far-right, with a par­tic­u­lar focus on post-war anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions. In the frame­work of her research pro­vid­ed by the George Wash­ing­ton University’s Insti­tute of Euro­pean, Russ­ian, and Eurasian Stud­ies (IERES) she has been study­ing the cur­rent links between pro­po­nents of the Ger­man and the Russ­ian far right, most­ly by means of exten­sive social net­work analy­ses and media mon­i­tor­ing.

The paper was first pub­lished as an IERES Occa­sion­al Papers series, March 2019.

Foot­notes:

Jonathan Levy, ‘The Inter­mar­i­um: Wil­son, Madi­son, & East Cen­tral Euro­pean Fed­er­al­ism’ (PhD dis­ser­ta­tion, Uni­ver­si­ty of Cincin­nati, 2006), https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ucin1147397806&disposition=attachment. The fol­low­ing authors have ded­i­cat­ed either a chap­ter or longer sec­tions to the ear­ly his­to­ry of Iner­mar­i­um: Stephen Dor­ril, MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty’s Secret Intel­li­gence Ser­vice (New York: Free Press, 2000); Mark Aarons and John Lof­tus, Rat­lines: How the Vatican’s Nazi Net­works Betrayed West­ern Intel­li­gence to the Sovi­ets (Lon­don: William Heine­mann, 1991); Mark Aarons and John Lof­tus, Unholy Trin­i­ty: The Vat­i­can, the Nazis, and Sovi­et Intel­li­gence (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991). 

[2]‘Wash­ing­ton Returns to a Cold War Strat­e­gy,’ Strat­for World­view, 2015, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/washington-returns-cold-war-strategy.

[3]Alexan­dra Wishart, ‘How the Ukrain­ian Far-Right Has Become One of the Biggest Pro­po­nents of Inter­mar­i­um,’ New East­ern Europe, 25 Sep­tem­ber 2018, http://neweasterneurope.eu/2018/09/25/ukrainian-far-right-become-one-biggest-proponents-intermarium/; Matthew Kott, ‘A Far Right Hijack of Inter­mar­i­um,’ New East­ern Europe, 26 May 2017, http://neweasterneurope.eu/2017/05/26/a‑far-right-hijack-of-intermarium/.

[4]Ger­ard Toal (Gearóid Ó Tuathail), Crit­i­cal Geopol­i­tics (Lon­don: Rout­ledge, 1996). 

[5]Felix Beren­skoet­ter, “Approach­es to Con­cept Analy­sis,” Mil­len­ni­um: Jour­nal of Inter­na­tion­al Stud­ies 45, no. 2 (2017): 151–173.

[6]Hal­ford J. Mackinder, Demo­c­ra­t­ic Ideals and Real­i­ty. A Study in the Pol­i­tics of Recon­struc­tion (Lon­don: Con­sta­ble and Co, 1919), 269.

[7]Janko Bek­ić and Mari­na Fun­duk, ‘The Adri­at­ic-Baltic-Black Sea Ini­tia­tive as the Revival of ‘Inter­mar­i­um,’” Insti­tute for Devel­op­ment and Inter­na­tion­al Rela­tions Brief, Feb­ru­ary 2016, www.irmo.hr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IRMO-Brief‑2–2016.pdf; Hubert Leschnik, Die Außen­poli­tik der Zweit­en pol­nis­chen Repub­lik: “Inter­mar­i­um” und “Drittes Europa” also Konzepte der pol­nis­chen Außen­poli­tik unter Außen­min­is­ter Józef Beck von 1932 bis 1939 (Saar­brück­en: Ver­lag Dr. Müller, 2010), p. 21; Levy, The Inter­mar­i­um, op. cit., p. 165.

[8]Leschnik, Die Außen­poli­tik der Zweit­en pol­nis­chen Repub­lik, op. cit., p. 29.

[9]Ibid., p. 32.

[10]Ibid.

[11]Levy, The Inter­mar­i­um, op. cit., 165.

[12]Ibid., p. 168–169.

[13]Ibid.

[14]Ibid., p. 170.

[15]Ibid., p. 184.

[16]Ibid., p. 180.

[17]Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency, ‘Paper Mills and Fab­ri­ca­tions,’ Feb­ru­ary 1952, p. 39 and p. 42, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/519697e4993294098d50b909; declas­si­fied files per­tain­ing to Miha Krek, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/miha%20krek; declas­si­fied files per­tain­ing to Grig­ore Gafen­cu, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/gafencu.

[18]Pił­sud­s­ki is report­ed to have said, “France will aban­don us, France will betray us.” Stanis­law Sier­pows­ki, Poli­ty­ka zagranicz­na Pol­s­ki, 31, quot­ed in Leschnik, Die Außen­poli­tik der Zweit­en pol­nis­chen Repub­lik,op. cit., p. 66.

[19]Leschnik, Die Außen­poli­tik der Zweit­en pol­nis­chen Repub­lik, op. cit., p. 4.

[20]Ibid.

[21]Levy, The Inter­mar­i­um, op. cit., p. 180 and p. 184.

[22]Ibid., p. 179.

[23]Dor­ril, op. cit.,p. 17 and p. 113.

[24]Aarons and Lof­tus, Unholy Trin­i­ty, op. cit., p. 52.

[25]Levy, The Inter­mar­i­um, op. cit., p. 26.

[26]A. T. Lane, Europe on the Move: The Impact of East­ern Enlarge­ment on the Euro­pean Union (Mün­ster: LIT Ver­lag, 2005), p. 125.

[27]Pauli Heikkilä, ‘Baltic Pro­pos­als for Euro­pean Uni­fi­ca­tion dur­ing World War II,’ Research Paper, Uni­ver­si­ty of Tar­tu, Esto­nia, 2014, p. 76, https://www.lvi.lu.lv/lv/LVIZ_2014_files/2.numurs/P_Heikila_Baltic_Proposals_LVIZ_2014_2(91).pdf.

[28]Levy, The Inter­mar­i­um, op. cit., p. 258.

[29]Declas­si­fied doc­u­ment ‘Gen­er­al Prcha­la and Asso­ciates,’ 19 Novem­ber 1951, https://ia801305.us.archive.org/12/items/PRCHALALEV-0115/PRCHALA%2C%20LEV_0115.pdf; Declas­si­fied doc­u­ment ‘Back­ground and Present Sta­tus of the Prcha­la Move­ment,’ 28 May 1951, https://archive.org/details/PRCHALALEV-0100.

[30]Declas­si­fied doc­u­ment ‘The Prcha­la Move­ment,’ 7 (?) Decem­ber 1951, https://archive.org/details/PEKELSKYVLADIMIRVOL1-0054.

[31]Declas­si­fied doc­u­ments per­tain­ing to Lev Prcha­la, https://archive.org/search.php?query=“prchala%2C+lev”; declas­si­fied doc­u­ment, 19 March 1951, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/PRCHALA%2C%20LEV_0091.pdf.

[32]Declas­si­fied doc­u­ment, ‘LETTER TO JAROSLAW STETZKO FROM (San­i­tized),’ 13 Sep­tem­ber 1958. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp80b01676r003900010031‑7.

[33]Pro­ceed­ings and debates of the 79th Con­gress, 25 April 1945.

[34]The Free Inter­mar­i­um Char­ter: The Inter­mar­i­um Future is the Fate of 160,000,000 Euro­peans! (Cen­tral Euro­pean Fed­er­al Club, 1945); Levy, The Inter­mar­i­um, op. cit., p. 233.

[35]‘Con­gress of Del­e­gates of the Oppressed Euro­pean Nations, Con­voked under the Aus­pices of the Scot­tish League for Euro­pean Free­dom with the Assis­tance of the Cen­tral Euro­pean Fed­er­al Club, Lon­don, Held on June 24th and 25th, 1946 in Edin­burgh, Scot­land’ [Report of pro­ceed­ings], https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000811070.

[36]Levy, The Inter­mar­i­um,op. cit., p. 249 ff.

[37]Declas­si­fied doc­u­ment, Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Group, ‘Sovi­et Pen­e­tra­tion of and Use of the ABN and Cen­tral Euro­pean Club,’ 31 Octo­ber 1946, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp82-00457r000100790001‑7.

[38]Declas­si­fied doc­u­ment, ‘Orga­ni­za­tions for the Assis­tance of Refugees in Italy,’ 2 Octo­ber 1948, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp82-00457r002200350003‑0. See also FOIA doc­u­ment, ‘Sloven­ian Immi­grants in Argenti­na,’ 31 March 1949, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdhttps://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp82-00457r002200350003‑0. See also Zlatko Skr­biš, Long-Dis­tance Nation­al­ism: Dias­po­ras, Home­lands and Iden­ti­ties (Abing­don: Tay­lor and Fran­cis, 2017), p. 32.

[39]‘Orga­ni­za­tions for the Assis­tance of Refugees in Italy,’ op. cit.

[40]The term “rat­line,” which orig­i­nal­ly denot­ed a rope lad­der reach­ing the top mast of a sail­ing boat, was lat­er used as “a gener­ic intel­li­gence term for an evac­u­a­tion net­work,” specif­i­cal­ly the escape routes estab­lished after the Sec­ond World War to help Nazis and Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors flee Europe in order to escape per­se­cu­tion as war crim­i­nals. See Aarons and Lof­tus, Unholy Trin­i­ty, op. cit., chap­ter XI. The var­i­ous rat­lines are amply described in Uki Goñi, The Real Odessa: How Perón Brought the Nazi War Crim­i­nals to Argenti­na (Lon­don: Gran­ta, 2002), and in Aarons and Lof­tus, Rat­lines, op. cit.

[41]Aarons and Lof­tus, Unholy Trin­i­ty, op. cit., pp. 57–58.

[42]Levy, The Inter­mar­i­um, op. cit., p. 254.

[43]Aarons and Lof­tus, Unholy Trin­i­ty, op. cit., p. 48.

[44]Infor­ma­tion Con­trol, Office of Spe­cial Oper­a­tions, ‘Fer­enc Vaj­ta,’ 25 Novem­ber (no year giv­en, prob­a­bly 1947), https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/VAJTA%2C%20FERENC_0021.pdf.

[45]Ibid.

[46]Ibid.

[47]FOIA doc­u­ments match­ing the search term “Inter­mar­i­um,” https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/intermarium.

[48]FOIA doc­u­ments per­tain­ing to Fer­enc Vaj­ta, https://archive.org/search.php?query=ferenc+vajta&page=2.

[49]Aarons and Lof­tus, Unholy Trin­i­ty, op. cit., pp. 61–62.

[50]FOIA doc­u­ment, “Infor­mal and Unof­fi­cial Con­ver­sa­tion with For­mer East­ern Euro­pean Diplo­mats Con­cern­ing the Pro­ject­ed Estab­lish­ment in Madrid of an ‘East­ern Euro­pean anti-Com­mu­nist Cen­ter,’” 3 Novem­ber 1947, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/VAJTA%2C%20FERENC_0019.pdf.

[51]Vaj­ta “claimed that the Inter­mar­i­um was anti-Amer­i­can in its make­up and poli­cies. He stat­ed that he had gath­ered this impres­sion from the peri­od when he was Hun­gar­i­an Con­sul Gen­er­al in Vien­na and worked with the French Gen­er­al Staff and the 2eme Bureau on Hun­gar­i­an emi­gre prob­lems, he added that his sub­se­quent rela­tions with Hun­gar­i­an and oth­er East­ern Euro­pean per­son­al­i­ties in the Inter­mar­i­um in Rome of this year con­firmed this belief. The British and French Gen­er­al Staffs, Mr. VAJTA remarked, are attempt­ing to ‘shut the U.S. out’ of East­ern Euro­pean affairs. Like­wise it was his belief that the entry of monar­chist ele­ments rep­re­sent­ing Otto of Hab­s­burg into the ranks of the Inter­mar­i­um, gave it an anti-Amer­i­can bent.” (‘Infor­mal and Unof­fi­cial Con­ver­sa­tion…,’ op. cit.)

[52]‘Office of Spe­cial Inves­ti­ga­tions,’ U.S. State’s Attorney’s Bul­letin, 54: 1 (Jan­u­ary 2016), p. 2, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-hrsp/legacy/2011/02/04/01–06USABulletin.pdf.

[53]Jonathan Levy, ‘The Law­suit Against the Vat­i­can and the CIA,’ News Insid­er, 17 Jan­u­ary 2001, http://www.newsinsider.org/editorials/Vatican_CIA.html. On Draganovic, see also Goñi, op. cit.

[54]‘Infor­mal and Unof­fi­cial Con­ver­sa­tion…,’ op. cit.

[55]Levy, The Inter­mar­i­um, op. cit., p. 319.

[56]J. Dulles, ‘State­ment on Lib­er­a­tion Pol­i­cy,’ Teach­ing Amer­i­can His­to­ry, 15 Jan­u­ary 1953, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/statement-on-liberation-policy/.

[57]Birk­holz, “Die stärk­sten Ver­bün­de­ten des West­ens:” Der Anti­bolschewis­tis­che Block der Natio­nen 1946–1996. Geschichte, Organ­i­sa­tion und Arbeitsweise eines … Zer­schla­gung der Sow­je­tu­nion (Ham­burg: KVV Konkret Ver­lag, 2017), p. 21.

[58]Richard L. Rashke, Use­ful Ene­mies: America’s Open-Door Pol­i­cy for Nazi War Crim­i­nals (New York: Del­phini­um Books, 2015).

[59]Birk­holz, op. cit., p.38.

[60]‘World Anti-Com­mu­nist League,’ Insti­tute for Pol­i­cy Stud­ies, 9 Jan­u­ary 1990. Archived ver­sion of 3 March 2016, https://web.archive.org/web/20160303235651/http://rightweb.irc-online.org/articles/display/World_Anti-Communist_League.

[61]Levy, The Inter­mar­i­um, op. cit., p. 170.

[62]Alexan­der Motyl (ed.), Ency­clo­pe­dia of Nation­al­ism, Vol­ume 2 (Cam­bridge, MA: Aca­d­e­m­ic Press, 2000), p. 40. 

[63]John M. Mer­ri­man, Ency­clo­pe­dia of Mod­ern Europe: Europe Since 1914: Ency­clo­pe­dia of the Age of War and Recon­struc­tion (Farm­ing­ton Hills, MI: Thom­son Gale, 2006), https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ounupa.

[64]Orga­ni­zat­si­ia ukrains’kikh nat­sion­al­is­tiv i Ukrains’ka povstans’ka armi­ia [Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists and the Ukrain­ian Insur­gent Army] (Insti­tute of His­to­ry of Ukraine of the Nation­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences of Ukraine, 2004), pp. 17–30, http://www.history.org.ua/LiberUA/Book/Upa/1.pdf.

[65]Motyl, op. cit., p. 40.

[66]Per Anders Rudling, ‘The OUN, the UPA and the Holo­caust: A Study in Man­u­fac­tur­ing of His­tor­i­cal Myth,’ The Carl Beck Papers in Russ­ian and East Euro­pean Stud­ies 2107 (2011), http://carlbeckpapers.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/cbp/article/view/164.

[67]Birk­holz, op. cit., p.33–34.

[68]Ibid.

[69]Tim­o­thy Sny­der, The Recon­struc­tion of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithua­nia, Belarus, 1569–1999 (New Haven, CT: Yale Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2003), p. 164, p. 168, p. 170, p.176.

[70]Birk­holz, op. cit., p.43. See also Grze­gorz Rossolin­s­ki-Liebe, Stepan Ban­dera: The Life and After­life of a Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ist: Fas­cism, Geno­cide, and Cult (Stuttgart: Ibi­dem, 2014), p. 324.

[71]‘Nazi War Crimes in Ukraine,’ Ency­clo­pe­dia of Ukraine, http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages\N\A\NaziwarcrimesinUkraine.htm.

[72]Birk­holz, op. cit., p.37; see also Rudling, op. cit.

[73]The chair­men of the ABN Peo­ples’ Coun­cil includ­ed V. Bērz­iņš, V. Kajum-Khan, F. Ďurčan­ský, F. Farkas de Kis­bar­nak, and R. Ostrows­ki. The long-time gen­er­al sec­re­taries were Dr. Niko Nakashidze and C. Poko­rný.

[74]Levy, The Inter­mar­i­um, op. cit., p. 318.

[75]Ibid. 

[76]Ivan Mat­teo Lom­bar­do (Pres­i­dent, Euro­pean Free­dom Coun­cil), ‘Aide Mem­oire. Euro­pean Cap­tive Nations and Free World’s Demands for Peace and Secu­ri­ty in Europe,’ ABN Cor­re­spon­dence25: 3 (1974), pp. 34–28, http://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/13975/file.pdf. Quot­ed in Birk­holz, op. cit., p., 62.

[77]‘Euro­pean Free­dom Coun­cil Formed at Munich Meet­ing,’ Svo­bo­da, 15 July 1967, http://ukrweekly.com/archive/pdf2/1967/The_Ukrainian_Weekly_1967-27.pdf.

[78]ABN Kor­re­spon­denz (Ger­man) (1949–1969), https://www.worldcat.org/title/abn-korrespondenz-monatl-informationsblatt-des-antibolschewistischen-blocks-der-nationen-erscheint-in-dt-engl-u-franz-sprache/oclc/183212035&referer=brief_results;ABN Cor­re­spon­dence(Eng­lish) (1950–2000), http://diasporiana.org.ua/?s=ABN+Correspondence; ABN Cor­re­spon­dence (French) (1952–1954); ABN Cor­re­spon­dence, Vol. XI, No.1, Jan­u­ary-Feb­ru­ary 1960, http://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/13903/file.pdf; ABN Cor­re­spon­dence, Vol. XXXIX, No. 1, Jan­u­ary-Feb­ru­ary 1988. http://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/14113/file.pdf.

[79]Birk­holz, op. cit., p.85. 

[80]Nation­al Archives and Records Admin­is­tra­tion, ‘Research Aid: Cryptonyms and Terms in Declas­si­fied CIA Files Nazi War Crimes and Japan­ese Impe­r­i­al Gov­ern­ment Records Dis­clo­sure Acts,’ June 2007, https://www.archives.gov/files/iwg/declassified-records/rg-263-cia-records/second-release-lexicon.pdf; declas­si­fied CIA-files about Project AERODYNAMIC, https://archive.org/details/AERODYNAMICand https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/Aerodynamic; Declas­si­fied CIA files about Project QRPLUMB, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/qrplumb; declas­si­fied CIA file ‘Project AERODYNAMIC,’ 15 Feb­ru­ary 1967, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/AERODYNAMIC%20%20%20VOL.%205%20%20(DEVELOPMENT%20AND%20PLANS)_0004.pdf.

[81]David C.S. Albanese, In Search of a Less­er Evil: Anti-Sovi­et Nation­al­ism and the Cold War (PhD dis­ser­ta­tion, North­east­ern Uni­ver­si­ty, 2015), 213 ff., https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:rx915s212.

[82]Nation­al Archives and Records Admin­is­tra­tion, ‘Research Aid,’ op. cit.

[83]Ibid.

[84]Atlantic Coun­cil, ‘Hon­or Roll of Con­trib­u­tors,’ 2015, https://web.archive.org/web/20170517122607/http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/support/supporters; Atlantic Coun­cil, ‘Hon­or Roll of Con­trib­u­tors,’ 2016, https://web.archive.org/web/20180519083222/http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/support/supporters.

[85]Alexan­dros Petersen, The World Island: Eurasian Geopol­i­tics and the Fate of the West (San­ta Bar­bara, CA: Praeger, 2011), p. 153.

[86]‘Rus­sia Pro­file Week­ly Experts Pan­el: Russia’s Stake in Ukrain­ian Elec­tions,’ Wik­ileaks, 28 Novem­ber 2009, https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/65/656190_-eurasia-utf-8-q-russia_profile_weekly_experts_panel.html.

[87]Leaked Strat­for emails con­tain­ing the term “Inter­mar­i­um” on Wik­ileaks, https://search.wikileaks.org/gifiles/?q=intermarium&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=1&file=&docid=&relid=0#searchresult.

[88]‘Lec­ture by George Fried­man “Beyond the Euro­pean Union: Europe in the Mid­dle of the 21st Cen­tu­ry,”’ YouTube video, 1:15:26, post­ed by “EFNI 2012” (Europe­jskie Forum Nowych Idei [Euro­pean Forum of New Ideas]), Octo­ber 25, 2012, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2858&v=ywrjTZrEgF4, time stamp [47:48]. 

[89]‘Wash­ing­ton Returns to a Cold War Strat­e­gy,’ Strat­for World­view, 27 Jan­u­ary 2015, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/washington-returns-cold-war-strategy.

[90]Ibid.

[91]George Fried­man, “From the Inter­mar­i­um to the Three Seas,” Geopo­lit­i­cal Futures, 7 July 2017, https://geopoliticalfutures.com/intermarium-three-seas/.

[92]Insti­tute for World Pol­i­tics web­site, https://www.iwp.edu/.

[93]Insti­tute of World Pol­i­tics, ‘Board of Trustees,’ https://www.iwp.edu/about/page/board-of-trustees.

[94]‘U.S. For­eign Pol­i­cy Options: Secu­ri­ty Chal­lenges in Cen­tral and East­ern Europe,’ YouTube video, 59:24, post­ed by “The Insti­tute of World Pol­i­tics,” May 6, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Fy3Y4lsUI.

[95]Ibid.

[96]Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Inter­mar­i­um: The Land between the Black and Baltic Seas (New Brunswick: Trans­ac­tion Pub­lish­ers, 2012).   

[97]A num­ber of Chodakiewicz’ speech­es on the top­ic are avail­able on YouTube, as a quick search shows: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chodakiewicz+intermarium.

[98]Insti­tute of World Pol­i­tics, ‘Cen­ter for Inter­mar­i­um Stud­ies,’ https://www.iwp.edu/programs/page/center-for-intermarium-studies.

[99]Pol­ish Amer­i­can Con­gress, ‘Notes from the Fifth Annu­al IWP Kosciuszko Chair Spring Sym­po­sium, “Between Rus­sia and NATO: Secu­ri­ty Chal­lenges in Cen­tral and East­ern Europe,”’ 25 April 2015, http://www.paclongisland.org/website_conference__4-25–15_reflections.pdf. Archived ver­sion: https://archive.fo/ApaDZ.

[100]Lar­ry Keller, ‘His­to­ri­an Marek Jan Chodakiewicz with Con­tro­ver­sial Views Serves on Holo­caust Muse­um Board,’ South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter, 29 Novem­ber 2009, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/historian-marek-jan-chodakiewicz-controversial-views-serves-holocaust-museum-board.

[101]Ibid.; arti­cles by Jan Marek Chodakiewicz on fronda.pl, http://www.fronda.pl/szukaj?cx=partner-pub-3000582343842169%3A1778531132&ie=UTF‑8&q=Chodakiewicz; arti­cles by Jan Marek Chodakiewicz on Najwyzszy Czas!, https://nczas.com/?s=chodakiewicz.

[102]Keller, op. cit.; Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, ‘Lus­trowanie Obamy,’ Salon24, 18 July 2008, https://www.salon24.pl/u/chodakiewicz/80994,lustrowanie-obamy.

[103]Robert D. Kaplan, ‘Europe’s New Medieval Map,’ Wall Street Jour­nal,19 Jan­u­ary 2016, http://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-new-medieval-map-1452875514.

[104]See the Center’s web­site, https://www.cepa.org/about.

[105]Kon­s­tiantyn Fedorenko and Andreas Umland, “How to solve Ukrain’s secu­ri­ty dilem­ma? The idea of an Inter­mar­i­um coali­tion in East-Cen­tral Europe,” War on the Rock, August 30, 2017, https://warontherocks.com/2017/08/how-to-solve-ukraines-security-dilemma-the-idea-of-an-intermarium-coalition-in-east-central-europe/

[106]Mary Elise Sarotte, ‘A Bro­ken Promise? What the West Real­ly Told Moscow About NATO Expan­sion,’ For­eign Affairs, Sep­tem­ber-Octo­ber 2014, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014–08-11/broken-promise.

[107]Richard Sokol­sky, ‘Not Qui­et on NATO’s East­ern Front,’ Carnegie Endow­ment for Inter­na­tion­al Peace, 29 June 2016, http://carnegieendowment.org/2016/06/29/not-quiet-on-nato-s-eastern-front-pub-63984.

[108]‘Rus­sia Sus­pends Joint Con­sul­ta­tions on Treaty on Con­ven­tion­al Armed Forces in Europe,’ ITAR-TASS, 10 March 2015, http://tass.com/russia/781973; ‘NATO Strate­gic Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Cen­ter Unveiled in Riga,’ Lat­vian Pub­lic Broad­cast­ing, 20 August 2015, http://www.lsm.lv/en/article/societ/society/nato-strategic-communications-center-unveiled-in-riga.a142243/; ‘NATO Opens Train­ing Cen­ter In Geor­gia,’ Radio Free Europe/Radio Lib­er­ty, 27 August 2015, http://www.rferl.org/a/georgia-nato-training-center/27212128.html.

[109]Pauline Joris, ‘La revue Kul­tura : au cœur de la dis­si­dence polon­aise’ [The Jour­nal Kul­tura: At the Heart of Pol­ish Dis­si­dence], Nou­velle Europe (blog), 5 Octo­ber 2009, http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/la-revue-kultura-au-c-ur-de-la-dissidence-polonaise.

[110]Robert Bulińs­ki, ‘Międzymorze—polska ułu­da czy real­ność’ [Intermarium—Polish Illu­sion or Real­i­ty], Tygod­nik Sol­i­darność2 (1414), 8 Jan­u­ary 2016, pp. 28–29.

[111]Sarah Struk, ‘La diplo­matie polon­aise: de la doc­trine “ULB” au Parte­nar­i­at Ori­en­tal’ [Pol­ish Diplo­ma­cy: From the ‘ULB’ Doc­trine to the East­ern Part­ner­ship], Nou­velle Europe (blog), 23 August 2010, http://www.nouvelle-europe.eu/la-diplomatie-polonaise-de-la-doctrine-ulb-au-partenariat-oriental.

[112]Lech Wyszczel­s­ki, Pol­s­ka mocarst­wowa : wiz­je i kon­cepc­je obozów poli­ty­cznych II Rzeczy­pospo­litej : Między­morze, fed­er­al­izm, prom­e­teizm, kolonie i inne dro­gi do wielkoś­ci [Pol­ish Super­pow­er: Visions and Con­cepts of Polit­i­cal Camps of the Sec­ond Pol­ish Repub­lic: Inter­mar­i­um, Fed­er­al­ism, Prometheanism, Colonies, and Oth­er Routes to Size] (War­saw: Bel­lona, 2015).

[113]Bulińs­ki, op. cit., pp. 28–29.

[114]Olek­siy Volovych, ‘The Baltic-Black Sea Union: Prospects of Real­iza­tion (Part 1),’ Borys­fen Intel, 30 May 2016, http://bintel.com.ua/en/article/volodich-balto/.

[115]Ibid.

[116]Cen­tral Euro­pean Ener­gy Part­ners, ‘About Us,’ https://www.ceep.be/about-us/.

[117]‘#1826 Gru­pa Lotos,’ Forbes, as of May 1, 2013, https://www.forbes.com/companies/grupa-lotos/.

[118]Atlantic Coun­cil, ‘Com­plet­ing Europe and the Three Seas Ini­tia­tive,’ pub­lished on the web­site of the Ukrain­ian Employ­ers Asso­ci­a­tion, https://www.hup.hr/EasyEdit/UserFiles/Completing%20Europe%20and%20the%20Three%20Seas%20Initiative.pdf; Bek­ić and Fun­duk, op. cit.

[119]“Pre­sen­ta­tion of the ‘Com­plet­ing Europe—from the North-South Cor­ri­dor to Ener­gy, Trans­porta­tion and Telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions Union’ Report to the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion,” Cen­tral Europe Ener­gy Part­ners, 2 March 2015, https://www.ceep.be/events/conference-presentation-of-the-completing-europe-from-the-north-south-corridor-to-energy-transportation-and-telecommunications-union-report-to-the-european-commission/; ‘Com­plet­ing Europe: From the North-South Cor­ri­dor to Ener­gy, Trans­porta­tion, and Telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions,’ YouTube, 54:15, post­ed by “Atlantic­Coun­cil,” April 8, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fayDnmf6rLg.

[120]‘Dubrovnik Forum Adopts Dec­la­ra­tion Called “The Three Seas Ini­tia­tive,”’ EBL News, 25 August 2016, https://eblnews.com/news/croatia/dubrovnik-forum-adopts-declaration-called-three-seas-initiative-34593; Bek­ićand Fun­duk, op. cit.

[121]‘Trump Trip to Poland Forces 3 Seas Sum­mit Change,’ Fox News, 13 June 2017, https://www.foxnews.com/world/trump-trip-to-poland-forces-3-seas-summit-change; ‘FACT­BOX-Three Seas Ini­tia­tive Sum­mit in War­saw,’ CNBC, 4 July 2017. Archived ver­sion: https://web.archive.org/web/20170708155139/https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/04/reuters-america-factbox-three-seas-initiative-summit-in-warsaw.html.

[122]Tom Porter, ‘Did a Pol­ish Far Right Activist Help Don­ald Trump Write His Speech in War­saw?’ Newsweek, 7 June 2017, https://www.newsweek.com/poland-trump-anti-semitism-632702.

[123]Adam Tay­lor, ‘Trump’s Vis­it to Poland Seen as a Snub to the E.U. and Ger­many,’ The Wash­ing­ton Post, 5 July 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/07/05/trumps-visit-to-poland-seen-as-a-snub-to-the-e-u-and-germany/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e5027159d076.

[124]‘Pres­i­dent Andrzej Duda on the Three Seas Initiative’s Sum­mit,’ Pres­i­dent of Poland, 17 Sep­tem­ber 2018, http://www.president.pl/en/news/art,844,president-andrzej-duda-on-the-three-seas-initiatives-summit.html.

[125]Kosciuszko Chair and Cen­ter for Inter­mar­i­um Stud­ies, ‘Belarus Ref­er­en­dum and the Inter­mar­i­um,’ The Insti­tute for World Pol­i­tics, 12 April 2012, https://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/detail/belarus-referendum-and-the-intermarium.

[126]See Char­ter 97’s report on the meet­ing: ‘Inter­mar­i­um Concept—Response To The Russ­ian Threat,’ Char­ter 97, 1 Octo­ber 2016, https://charter97.org/en/news/2016/10/1/225146/.

[127]Birkholz,op. cit., p.48–49; see also Jörg Kro­nauer, ‘Ukraine über alles!’ Ein Expan­sion­spro­jekt des West­ens (Ham­burg: KVV Konkret Ver­lag, 2014).

[128]Yarosla­va Stet­sko appeared on the list of del­e­gates of the high­ly secre­tive 16th WACL Con­fer­ence in Lux­em­bourg (held 20–23 Sep­tem­ber, 1983), togeth­er with Roman Zvarych, Cather­ine Chu­machenko, Theodor Ober­län­der, Gen­er­al John K. Singlaub, Daniel O. Gra­ham, and oth­ers.

[129]Roman Woronowycz, ‘Sla­va Stet­sko, Nation­al­ist Leader, Verk­hov­na Rada Deputy, Dies at Age 83,’ The Ukrain­ian Week­ly, 16 March 2003, http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/2003/110302.shtml; Birk­holz, op. cit., p.52.

[130]The Social-Nation­al Par­ty of Ukraine is a far-right Ukrain­ian polit­i­cal par­ty found­ed in 1991. In 2004, after Oleh Tyah­ny­bok became par­ty leader, the par­ty rebrand­ed itself, changed its name to Svo­bo­da, and dropped the Wolf­san­gel sym­bol. How­ev­er, it remains asso­ci­at­ed with the neo-Nazi scene and became part of the Social-Nation­al­ist Assem­bly set up in 2008. In 2013, Svo­bo­da par­tic­i­pat­ed in the pro-Euro­pean Union protests to influ­ence regime change but was sur­passed in pop­u­lar­i­ty by oth­er far-right move­ments, such as Pravyi Sek­tor. 

[131]Zenon Zawa­da, “Zvarych Sees Cam­paign to Force His Res­ig­na­tion, Sus­pects Dias­po­ra, Oth­ers,” The Ukrain­ian Week­ly, May 15, 2005, http://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/2005/200502.shtml.

[132]ABN Cor­re­spon­dence XXXII: 3/4 (May–August 1981), 10, http://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/14107/file.pdf; ABN Cor­re­spon­dence XXXII: 2 (March-April 1981), 92, http://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/14107/file.pdf.

[133]The Ukrain­ian ReviewXXX: 4 (Win­ter 1982), 92, http://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/14392/file.pdf.

[134]Ibid.

[135]Accord­ing to an inter­view with Zvarich pub­lished in Russ­ian in the 25 March 2005 issue of Fak­ty i kom­men­tarii [Facts and Com­men­tary] and repub­lished by the Kiev office of BBC Mon­i­tor­ing World­wide with the head­line “Ukrain­ian Jus­tice Min­is­ter Shares Per­son­al Sto­ry” on March 28, 2005.

[136]Coun­cil of Europe Par­lia­men­tary Assem­bly, ‘Roman Zvarych,’ archived on 18 April 2013 at https://web.archive.org/web/20130418093645/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/AssemblyList/AL_MemberDetails.asp?MemberID=4100.

[137]Files on Wik­ileaks match­ing the search term “Roman Zvarych,” https://search.wikileaks.org/advanced?q=%22roman+zvarych%22.

[138]Mar­i­ana Pit­sukh, “Andriy Bilet­sky: Avakov Is a Per­son of the Sys­tem, and I Con­sid­er This Sys­tem To Be Extreme­ly Neg­a­tive,” Ukrayin­s­ka Prav­da, 18 Octo­ber 2016, http://pda.pravda.com.ua/articles/id_7123983/.

[139]Wil­fred Jilge, ‘Com­pet­ing Vic­tim­hoods: Post-Sovi­et Ukrain­ian Nar­ra­tives on World War II’ in Ekazar Barkan, Eliz­a­beth A. Cole, and Kai Struve (eds) Shared His­to­ry, Divid­ed Mem­o­ry: Jews and Oth­ers in Sovi­et-Occu­pied Poland, 1939-1941 (Leipzig: Leipzig Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2007).

[140]Tim­o­thy Sny­der, ‘A Fas­cist Hero in Demo­c­ra­t­ic Kiev,’ The New York Review of Books, 24 Feb­ru­ary 2010, http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2010/02/24/a‑fascist-hero-in-democratic-kiev/.

[141]‘Ukaz Prezi­den­ta Ukrainy No. 46/2010: O prisvoenii S. Ban­dere zvani­ia Geroi Ukrainy’ [Decree of the Pres­i­dent of Ukraine No. 46/2010: On con­fer­ring the title of Hero of Ukraine to S. Ban­dera], Offi­cial Web­site of the Pres­i­dent of Ukraine, 20 Sep­tem­ber 2010, http://www.president.gov.ua/ru/documents/10353.html. Archived ver­sion from Jan­u­ary 25, 2010, https://web.archive.org/web/20100125175510/http://www.president.gov.ua/ru/documents/10353.html.

[142]Birk­holz, op. cit., p.54. See also Kro­nauer, op. cit. Dur­ing her tenure in the White House, Chu­machenko worked close­ly with Paula Dobri­an­sky. Dobriansky’s father, U.S. Ambas­sador Lev Dobri­an­sky, was a lead­ing fig­ure in the UCCA and served on the board of the Amer­i­can branch of the World Anti Com­mu­nist League (WACL) in the ear­ly 1980s.

[143]Lily Hyde, ‘Ukraine to Rewrite Sovi­et His­to­ry with Con­tro­ver­sial “Decom­mu­ni­sa­tion” Laws,’ The Guardian, 20 April 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/20/ukraine-decommunisation-law-soviet.

[144]‘The Major­i­ty of Ukraini­ans Demon­strate Lack of Trust towards the Gov­ernem­nt, Decom­mu­niza­tion Reform and Media,’ Lviv Media Forum, 6 Octo­ber 2015, http://lvivmediaforum.com/en/news/bilshist-ukrajintsiv-uperedzheni-do-vlady-dekomunizatsiji-ta-zmi/.

[145]See Georgii Kasyanov’s com­ments on Aksin’ia Kuri­na, ‘Istorik Georgii Kas’ianov: Sposo­bi zdi­is­nen­ni­ia deko­mu­nizat­sii nagaduiut’ komu­nis­tich­ni prak­ti­ki’ [His­to­ri­an Geor­gy Kasyanov: Meth­ods of Decom­mu­niza­tion are Rem­i­nis­cent of Com­mu­nist Prac­tices], Ukrains’ka Prav­da, 7 May 2017, http://life.pravda.com.ua/society/2016/05/7/211912/.

[146]Josh Cohen, ‘The His­to­ri­an White­wash­ing Ukraine’s Past,’ For­eign Pol­i­cy, 2 May 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/02/the-historian-whitewashing-ukraines-past-volodymyr-viatrovych/.

[147]‘Kiev ne priz­nal simvo­liku SS Galichiny Nat­sist­skoi’ [Kiev Does Not Rec­og­nize SS Gali­cia Divi­sion Sym­bols as Nazi], Kor­re­spon­dent, 18 May 2017, http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3853155-kyev-ne-pryznal-symvolyku-ss-halychyny-natsystskoi.

[148]JTA and Cnaan Liphshiz, “Ukraine Des­ig­nates Nation­al Hol­i­day to Com­mem­o­rate Nazi Col­lab­o­ra­tor,” Haaretz, 27 Decem­ber 2018, https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/ukraine-designates-national-holiday-to-commemorate-nazi-collaborator‑1.6787201.

[149]In Novem­ber 2008, Bilet­sky cre­at­ed the Social Nation­al Assem­bly (SNA), which includ­ed four oth­er orga­ni­za­tions: Spad­shchy­na (Her­itage), Patri­ot of Ukraine (2005), Revoli­ut­siya i Derzha­va (RiD, Rev­o­lu­tion and State), and Sla­va i Chest (SiCh, Glo­ry and Hon­or). 

[150]‘Dlia ure­g­ulirovani­ia sit­u­at­si­ia na Iugo-Vos­toke MVD soz­daet spet­spo­drazde­leni­ia po okhrane obshch­est­benno­go pori­ad­ka’ [To Resolve the Sit­u­a­tion in the South-East, the Min­istry of Inter­nal Affairs Cre­ates Spe­cial Divi­sions for the Pro­tec­tion of Pub­lic Order], Arena.in.ua, 15 April 2014, http://arena.in.ua/politka/186488-Dlya-uregulirovaniya-situaciya-na-YUgo-Vostoke-MVD-sozdaet-specpodrazdeleniya-po-ohrane-obshestvennogo-poryadka.html; ‘Azov Reg­i­ment Announces Cre­ation of Own Par­ty,’ UNIAN, 16 Sep­tem­ber 2016. Archived from the orig­i­nal on 17 Sep­tem­ber 2016, https://www.unian.info/politics/1526119-azov-regiment-announces-creation-of-own-party.html.

[151]‘Roz’iasnennia shodo sta­tusu spet­spidrozdilu “Azov”’ [Clar­i­fi­ca­tion As to the Sta­tus of the ‘Azov’ Spe­cial Forces], ngu.gov.ua, 23 April 2015. Archived from the orig­i­nal on 9 July 2015, https://web.archive.org/web/20150709162323/http://ngu.gov.ua/ua/news/rozyasnennya-shchodo-statusu-specpidrozdilu-azov.

[152]“2nd Paneu­ropa Con­fer­ence Was Held in Kyiv,” Ukrain­ian Tra­di­tion­al­ist Club, 3 Novem­ber 2018, http://uktk.org/2nd-paneuropa-conference-was-held-in-kyiv/.

[153]‘The AZOV Move­ment Held the Inau­gur­al Con­fer­ence of the Inter­mar­i­um Devel­op­ment Assis­tance Group,’ Inter­mar­i­um, n.d, http://intermariumnc.org/?p=224.

[154]Ibid.

[155]Ibid.

[156]Post on the Face­book page of ‘Inter­mar­i­um-Inter­reg­num,’ June 2, 2018, https://www.facebook.com/pg/intermariumsupportgroup/photos/?tab=album&album_id=247919152567343.

[157]Ibid.

[158]‘Azov Recon­quista: Inter­view with Oleg Odnorozhenko,’ Ukrain­ian Tra­di­tion­al­ist Club, June 9, 2015, uktk.org/azov-reconquista-interview-with-oleg-odnorozhenko-text-photo-video/; “Inter­view with Oleg Odnorozhenko. Part 1,” YouTube video, 5:44, post­ed by “Recon­quista,” May 9, 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBtp6DLgIck.

[159]Dur­ing a speech by the head of Nation­al Corps’ pro­pa­gan­da depart­ment, Myko­la Kravchenko, in the frame­work of the 1st Paneu­ropa Con­fer­ence the lat­ter “reflect­ed on the for­mat of the Recon­quista project as a result of two years of devel­op­ment,” point­ing out that the move­ment exist­ed as of 2015. ‘1st Paneu­ropa Con­fer­ence Report,’ Recon­quista Europe, 15 June 2017, archived ver­sion from 13 June 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20180613133924/http://reconquista-europe.tumblr.com/post/161847863121/1st-paneuropa-conference-report-the-1st-paneuropa.

[160]Accord­ing to French his­to­ri­an Nico­las Lebourg, in 2017 “the GUD in Lyon and New-Right mem­ber Pas­cal Lasalle … were involved in cre­at­ing the [French] Recon­quista, a ‘pan-Euro­pean’ move­ment (with an unashamed­ly pro-Nazi style) that oppos­es ‘Putin’s anti-nation­al regime,’ which it con­sid­ers divides Euro­pean peo­ples. Recon­quista wants to con­struct the ‘Inter­mar­i­um,’ mean­ing a Europe with fron­tiers at the Adri­at­ic, the Baltic, and the Black Seas.” Nico­las Lebourg, ‘The French Far Right in Russia’s Orbit,’ Carnegie Coun­cil for Ethics in Inter­na­tion­al Affairs, 15 May 2018, p. 33, https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/the-french-far-right-in-russias-orbit/_res/id=Attachments/index=1/Lebourg-EN%20revised%203.pdf.

[161]Recon­quista Europe, op. cit.

[162]Face­book page of “Recon­quista Suo­mi,” https://www.facebook.com/Reconquista-Suomi-651228365227266.

[163]Recon­quista Europe, op. cit.

[164]The web­site was acces­si­ble via whitereconquista.com and reconquista.co, and also offered a Recon­quista app. Archived ver­sion of whitereconquista.com from Feb­ru­ary 11, 2017, https://web.archive.org/web/20170211052338/http://en.whitereconquista.com:80/. See also “The Recon­quista App on Google Play Was Updat­ed for Android Plat­form,” Recon­quista, 20 August 2015, archived ver­sion from 4 Novem­ber 2015, https://web.archive.org/web/20151104205741/http://en.whitereconquista.com/the-reconquista-app-on-google-play-was-updated-for-android-platform.

[165]The YouTube chan­nel can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxlVysfTOEy3yyPGWVR9G‑Q.

[166]‘The Sec­ond Paneu­ropa Con­fer­ence in Kyiv,’ Face­book event cre­at­ed by the Plomin and Inter­reg­num-Inter­mar­i­um Face­book pages, 15 Octo­ber 2018, https://www.facebook.com/events/308172699997826/permalink/310511609763935.

[167]Ole­na Semenyaka’s 2016 speech, “Aris­toc­ra­cy of the Spir­it and the Great Euro­pean Recon­quista,” is avail­able at “Pact of Steel | Stale­vii Pakt | Stal’noi Pakt,” YouTube video, 53:30, post­ed by “Recon­quista Ukraina,” Feb­ru­ary 14, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsV8tA4rxy4, time stamps [23:36–45:20]. Her 2017 speech, “Wotan, Pan, Diony­sus: At the Gates of the Grand Euro­pean Sol­stice,” is avail­able at “Pact of Steel II | Stale­vii Pakt II | Stal’noi Pakt II,” YouTube video, 1:47:07, post­ed by “Recon­quista Ukraina,” Novem­ber 28, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R14Ej-VWaLU, time stamps [57:24 – 01:47:07]. Her wel­com­ing speech to the Pact of Steel III con­fer­ence in Decem­ber 2018 is avail­able at “Pact of Steel III | Stale­vii Pakt III | Stal’noi Pakt III,” YouTube video, 2:17:01, post­ed by “Recon­quista Ukraina,” Decem­ber 24, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7nlqtnmyu4, time stamps [0:00 – 7:49].

[168]Mark Sedg­wick, ‘Evola in the Ukrain­ian Par­lia­ment,’ Tra­di­tion­al­ists (blog), 6 July 2017, https://traditionalistblog.blogspot.com/2017/07/evola-in-ukrainian-parliament.html.

[169]‘Ole­na Semenya­ka: Hori­zons of Ukrain­ian Rev­o­lu­tion,’ Sergey Sergien­ko (blog), 17 March 2014, http://un3position.blogspot.com/2014/03/olena-semenyaka-horizons-of-ukrainian.html.

[170]‘Inter­mar­i­um Sup­port Group’ Face­book page, http://www.facebook.com/intermariumsupportgroup/; ‘Inter­reg­num-Inter­mar­i­um’ face­book page, https://www.facebook.com/interregnum.intermarium/.

[171]‘Lat­vian Legion Day,’ Recon­quista Europe (blog), archived ver­sion from 12 April 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20180412180924/http://reconquista-europe.tumblr.com/.

[172]Pic­ture of Ole­na Semenya­ka on the Face­book page of ‘3. JN Europakongress—REgeneration.EUROPA,’ 12 May 2018, https://www.facebook.com/871677009659302/photos/pcb.991910794302589/991909937636008/?type=3&theater; Maik Müller, ‘Report from 3rd JN Euro­pean Con­gress in Riesa,’ The Spear, 1 Novem­ber 2018, https://spear-national.org/maik-muller-report-from-3rd-jn-european-congress-in-riesa/.

[173]‘Vor­trag im IB-Haus­pro­jekt: Das Reg­i­ment Asow zu Gast in Halle,’ Sach­sen-Anhalt Recht­saussen, 13 June 2018, https://lsa-rechtsaussen.net/das-regiment-asow-zu-gast-in-halle/.

[174]Krzysztof Szcz­er­s­ki, Utopia europe­js­ka: kryzys inte­gracji i pol­s­ka inic­jaty­wa naprawy[The Euro­pean Utopia: Inte­gra­tion Cri­sis and Pol­ish Ini­tia­tive of Rem­e­dy] (Krakow: Bialy Kruk, 2017).

[175]https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/02/12/le-groupe-de-visegrad-allie-de-donald-trump-en-europe_5422389_3210.html#xtor=AL-32280270

Discussion

14 comments for “FTR #1098, FTR #1099, FTR #1100 and FTR #1101– Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 8 (The Intermarium Concept), Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 9 (Intermarium Redux: “Will the National Socialist Revolution Begin in Ukraine?”), Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 10–The Intermarium Continuity, Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 11–The Intermarium Continuity, Part 2 (Reflections on The Pivot Point)”

  1. Now that 2020 is poised to be a year-long sea­son of elec­tions and impeach­ment in the US, here’s a recent piece by Yasha Levine one of the poten­tial per­ils of this impeach­ment process play­ing out dur­ing the cam­paign sea­son: the pro­mo­tion of the idea that ‘we must fight the Rus­sians there or else we’ll have to fight them here’ rhetor­i­cal fram­ing as the under­lin­ing rea­son for impeach­ing Pres­i­dent Trump. It’s a nar­ra­tive that frames the con­flict in Ukraine as part of a larg­er war between the US and Rus­sia and Trump’s with­hold­ing of $400 mil­lion in mil­i­tary aid as a nation­al secu­ri­ty threat to the US because if the Ukrain­ian front line isn’t held, it’s just a mat­ter of time before Russ­ian armies invade Europe and even­tu­al­ly threat­en the US. It’s the kind of nar­ra­tive that is poten­tial­ly per­ilous for the impeach­ment process because it’s pred­i­cat­ed on suc­cess­ful­ly con­vinc­ing the Amer­i­can elec­torate that the con­flict in Ukraine real­ly does rep­re­sent some sort of exis­ten­tial cri­sis to the US. And it’s a nar­ra­tive that is com­plete­ly unnec­es­sary when it comes to mak­ing the case that Trump abused his pow­ers and com­mit­ted impeach­able crimes with his scheme to extort the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment into pub­licly open­ing inves­ti­ga­tions into Joe Biden and in many ways it’s a dis­trac­tions from that clear cut impeach­able pat­tern of behav­ior.

    But as Levine points out, it’s the Ukrain­ian peo­ple who are put in the great­est per­il with this ‘we must fight the Rus­sians there or else we’ll have to fight them here’ nar­ra­tive because US pol­i­cy towards Ukraine isn’t actu­al­ly about help­ing Ukraine ‘defeat’ Rus­sia. It’s about using the con­flict in Ukraine as a means of mak­ing Rus­sia bleed eco­nom­i­cal­ly and mil­i­tary and that’s about it because there’s no way Ukraine can tru­ly ‘defeat’ Rus­sia mil­i­tar­i­ly. No amount of mil­i­tary aid is going to mil­i­tar­i­ly dri­ve Rus­sia out of Crimea and no amount of mil­i­tary aid can mil­i­tar­i­ly defeat Russ­ian in the sep­a­ratist republics in East­ern Ukraine because the fight­ers there are over­whelm­ing­ly Ukraini­ans. There’s no ‘Rus­sia’ to defeat there, even if some Rus­sia mil­i­tary per­son­al are unof­fi­cial­ly oper­at­ing there. So a nar­ra­tive that frames con­tin­u­ing the con­flict in Ukraine as vital for US secu­ri­ty and any peace efforts as a kind of capit­u­la­tion to Russ­ian aggres­sion that would only encour­age future con­flicts is a nar­ra­tive that’s only going to lead to more Ukraini­ans killing Ukraini­ans. And that nar­ra­tive is com­plete­ly bipar­ti­san in the US.

    Even worse, as Levine reminds us, this fram­ing of the con­flict in Ukraine was a for­ward oper­at­ing base in a US-Russ­ian con­flict goes back the Cold War, as has the view that Ukrain­ian fas­cists and ultra­na­tion­al­ists are nec­es­sary allies in this con­flict. It’s a view that led to the US open­ing its doors to Ukrain­ian fas­cists and Nazi-col­lab­o­ra­tors after WWII and a tepid accep­tance of neo-Nazi mili­tias like the Azov Bat­tal­ion today. And those groups rep­re­sent the pri­ma­ry oppo­si­tion to a peace agen­da today. A peace agen­da today. A peace agen­da that the Ukrain­ian peo­ple over­whelm­ing­ly vot­ed for in the last elec­tion, where Volodymyr Zelen­sky ran on a peace agen­da plat­form and won with 73 per­cent of the vote.

    So while it might seem on the sur­face like fram­ing Trump’s actions as a nation­al secu­ri­ty threat strength­ens the case for impeach­ment, per­haps stick­ing to the sim­ple fact that Pres­i­dent Trump led scheme to extort a for­eign gov­ern­ment into gin­ning up a polit­i­cal show tri­al against his polit­i­cal oppo­nent would be the bet­ter approach, espe­cial­ly since that approach would­n’t be part of larg­er bipar­ti­san for­eign pol­i­cy based on a vision of end­less war in Ukraine to keep Amer­i­ca safe that does­n’t actu­al­ly keep Amer­i­ca safe and puts Ukraini­ans in per­il:

    yasha.substack.com

    Trump’s Impeach­ment, Ukraine, and War With Rus­sia
    Let me get all offi­cial and DC-like and call it the “Ukraine Doc­trine.”

    Yasha Levine
    Dec 21, 2019

    I’ve been try­ing to stay away from this spy-fed impeach­ment show as much as pos­si­ble, but it has been use­ful. It has helped bring to light the exis­tence of some­thing that’s now tak­en as gospel by much of America’s polit­i­cal, mil­i­tary, and for­eign pol­i­cy estab­lish­ment, but which had nev­er been spelled out so clear­ly and so pub­licly and so con­sis­tent­ly before. Let me get all offi­cial and DC-like and call it the “Ukraine Doc­trine.”

    It’s the idea that Ukraine is a for­ward oper­at­ing base in America’s war with Rus­sia — a strate­gic mil­i­tary bar­ri­er that’s keep­ing the Russ­ian horde pinned down and pre­vent­ing it from over­run­ning the west­ern world. That’s why you con­stant­ly hear all this talk about Ukraine being such a “vital” and “strate­gic” part­ner and why it requires a con­stant infu­sion of weapons. If Amer­i­ca doesn’t fight Rus­sia and kill Rus­sians in Ukraine, Russ­ian tanks are going to roll through the Don­bass, past Kiev, into Poland, then Ger­many and France…and then get on a boat and sail all the way to Amer­i­ca. And before you know it, Putin is going to be per­son­al­ly at your doorstep, ter­ror­iz­ing you and your fam­i­ly and steal­ing your Ama­zon pack­ages.

    It’s a ridicu­lous notion based on a bunch of reheat­ed para­noid Cold War Era think­ing. It was an exag­ger­a­tion then and it’s even more of an exag­ger­a­tion today. I mean, for a dan­ger­ous expan­sion­ist pow­er, Rus­sia couldn’t even keep Ukraine from going over to the EU in 2014 and had to grab Crimea, home to its Black Sea navy, by force. That kind of expan­sion­ist flex is weak indeed — and that’s in a bor­der­ing ter­ri­to­ry that’s been in Russia’s low orbit cul­tur­al­ly, lin­guis­ti­cal­ly, and polit­i­cal­ly for cen­turies.

    But this “Ukraine Doc­trine” is about more than just your rou­tine impe­r­i­al threat infla­tion. It’s basi­cal­ly an admis­sion that we are in an unde­clared war with Rus­sia. Not an ide­o­log­i­cal “val­ues” war or a soft pow­er pro­pa­gan­da war or a sanc­tions war, but what think-tankers like to call a “hot” war: a war in which Amer­i­ca is fight­ing Rus­sia on Ukrain­ian soil with Ukrain­ian bod­ies and Amer­i­can weapons, Amer­i­can train­ing, and Amer­i­can finan­cial sup­port.

    Reminder: If we don’t have Ukraini­ans killing Ukraini­ans in East­ern Ukraine with Amer­i­can weapons, Rus­sia will first invade Europe, then Amer­i­ca, then the world. pic.twitter.com/I4gzRHPdM7— Yasha Levine (@yashalevine) Decem­ber 21, 2019

    The argu­ment that “we must fight the Rus­sians there so we don’t have to fight them here” was made time and time again in dif­fer­ent ways all through­out the impeach­ment hear­ings and the non-stop cov­er­age and com­men­tary that sur­round them. Diplo­mats and for­eign pol­i­cy experts called up to tes­ti­fy stat­ed it as a mat­ter of fact. Mem­bers of con­gress talked about it as of it was set­tled pol­i­cy. It wasn’t debat­ed or called into ques­tion by the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, and it wasn’t attacked by the Repub­li­can oppo­si­tion either. As far as I could tell, no one dis­agreed with the premise that Amer­i­ca is at war with Rus­sia — and that Ukraine is the bat­tle­ground. I also don’t remem­ber it being declared by Con­gress and signed by any pres­i­dent. But then wars aren’t real­ly declared any­more.

    If you read the impeach­ment lit­er­a­ture, includ­ing the arti­cles of impeach­ment, you’ll find the notion that we are at war with Rus­sia under­lies a major part of the case against Trump. Aside from the charges of self-deal­ing and cor­rup­tion and attempts to influ­ence an elec­tion, Trump’s oth­er over­ar­ch­ing crime is he “com­pro­mised Amer­i­can nation­al secu­ri­ty” and “injured nation­al secu­ri­ty” by slight­ly delay­ing the near­ly $400 mil­lion in mil­i­tary aid to Ukraine that had been approved by Con­gress. The argu­ment is that he will “remain a threat to nation­al secu­ri­ty” if he remains pres­i­dent and so must be removed. This line of think­ing is expressed even more clear­ly in the House Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee report on impeach­ment.

    [see image of impeach­ment res­o­lu­tion text]

    The impeachment’s obses­sive focus on Rus­sia, Ukraine, and “nation­al secu­ri­ty” — what­ev­er that terms means — has been use­ful because it con­firms some­thing that I and oth­er jour­nal­ists and his­to­ri­ans who have stud­ied and report­ed from Ukraine have known for a long time. The point of America’s recent sup­port for Ukraine has had lit­tle to do with “democ­ra­cy” or “the rule of law” or “anti-cor­rup­tion” or any of the oth­er tired slo­gans con­stant­ly thrown around to jus­ti­fy impe­r­i­al inter­ven­tions. Today, Amer­i­ca sees Ukraine as a strate­gic ally because it can be used as a bat­ter­ing ram against Rus­sia. It’s about desta­bi­liza­tion. (Well, desta­bi­liza­tion and sleazy mon­ey-mak­ing, but the mon­ey-mak­ing goes with­out say­ing).

    Ukraine can’t defeat Rus­sia no mat­ter how many Amer­i­can mil­i­tary advis­ers train Ukrain­ian troops or how many mil­lions the good and total­ly not cor­rupt peo­ple at Raytheon Inc make sell­ing their Javelins. The point isn’t for Ukraine to win the war. The point is to make Rus­sia bleed — eco­nom­i­cal­ly and mil­i­tar­i­ly. And it doesn’t mat­ter how many peo­ple die or suf­fer or how much of Ukraine and its econ­o­my is laid to waste in the process.

    As I’ve writ­ten in bits and pieces before on here before, America’s for­eign pol­i­cy estab­lish­ment — its diplo­mats, spies, and politi­cians — have seen Ukraine as a key field of bat­tle against the Sovi­et Union going back to late 1940s. For decades, Ukraine and its dias­po­ra were con­sid­ered prime weapons for desta­bi­liz­ing the Sovi­et Union. It’s why Amer­i­ca, Cana­da, the UK, and oth­er west­ern coun­tries opened their doors to Ukrain­ian fas­cists and Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors after World War II. Their hard­core ide­ol­o­gy and their will­ing­ness to die for their lost nation­al­ist cause were seen as impor­tant qual­i­ties in the fight against com­mu­nism. Some of the ear­li­est covert armed CIA oper­a­tions against the Sovi­et Union involved para­chut­ing Ukrain­ian Nazi col­labo guer­ril­las behind Sovi­et lines to sab­o­tage and whip up rebel­lion among Ukrain­ian peas­ants.

    And lit­tle has changed today.

    Head reel­ing. Extrem­ist Azov Bat­tal­ion in #Ukraine recent­ly host­ed big West­ern mil­i­tary con­tin­gent. This is nuts. How does it look to see a US mil­i­tary offi­cer laugh­ing with guy wear­ing an SS Wolf­san­gel patch? New rule: Don’t meet guys wear­ing SS patch­es! https://t.co/uKtLxZMOtG pic.twitter.com/yr0xYH56EW— Defend­ing His­to­ry (@DefendingHistor) Jan­u­ary 16, 2018

    Amer­i­ca still sees Ukraine as a weapon against Rus­sia. And it still needs Ukrain­ian fas­cists and ultra-nation­al­ists to do the fight­ing and the killing. Where else could you find young men eager to get their limbs blown off to go fight the Rus­sians — which most­ly involves snip­ing and lob­bing mor­tars at Ukraini­ans on the oth­er side of the trench.

    The inter­ests of Ukrain­ian fas­cists and America’s for­eign pol­i­cy appa­ra­tus might again be in full align­ment, but this align­ment goes against the demo­c­ra­t­ic will of the Ukrain­ian peo­ple.

    It’s impor­tant to remem­ber that the major­i­ty of Ukraini­ans want peace. The country’s cur­rent pres­i­dent — Volodymir Zelen­sky — was elect­ed ear­li­er this year with the biggest mar­gin in Ukraine’s his­to­ry: 73% of the vote. He cam­paigned on a pro-peace plat­form and that he would end war in East­ern Ukraine — a war that has killed and maimed thou­sands, destroyed entire towns, and dis­placed more than a mil­lion peo­ple. I saw some of this destruc­tion myself when I report­ed on the con­flict back in 2014.

    [see image of nail darts recov­ered from a flechette bomb used by the Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary on civil­ian areas in East­ern Ukraine]

    Peo­ple vot­ed for Zelen­sky in huge num­bers in large part because they want­ed a peace­ful res­o­lu­tion to the civ­il war that has torn their coun­try apart. And not sur­pris­ing­ly, fas­cist and ultra-nation­al­ist move­ments are the main force in Ukrain­ian soci­ety that’s try­ing to stop the peace.

    But you won’t hear any of this in the polit­i­cal fren­zy that sur­rounds our impeach­ment hear­ings. It’s all about Amer­i­ca. And as far as our polit­i­cal estab­lish­ment is con­cerned, Ukraine is just a for­ward oper­at­ing base full of Ukraini­ans eager to die to keep us safe from the Rus­sians. What are friends and strate­gic part­ners for!

    ...

    ————

    “Trump’s Impeach­ment, Ukraine, and War With Rus­sia” by Yasha Levine; yasha.substack.com; 12/21/2019

    “It’s impor­tant to remem­ber that the major­i­ty of Ukraini­ans want peace. The country’s cur­rent pres­i­dent — Volodymir Zelen­sky — was elect­ed ear­li­er this year with the biggest mar­gin in Ukraine’s his­to­ry: 73% of the vote. He cam­paigned on a pro-peace plat­form and that he would end war in East­ern Ukraine — a war that has killed and maimed thou­sands, destroyed entire towns, and dis­placed more than a mil­lion peo­ple. I saw some of this destruc­tion myself when I report­ed on the con­flict back in 2014.”

    The Ukrain­ian peo­ple over­whelm­ing­ly vot­ed for the peace can­di­date, Volodymyr Zelen­sky. It’s one of the ironies in this whole sit­u­a­tion. It was Trump’s extortive shake­down of Zelen­sky’s new gov­ern­ment over the sale of Javelin mis­siles that helped kick off this whole impeach­ment process, and yet Zelen­sky still has a peace man­date. In oth­er words, the Javelin mis­siles aren’t intend­ed for use in wag­ing and mil­i­tar­i­ly con­quer­ing the sep­a­ratists in the east or push­ing Rus­sia out of Crimea. They’re intend­ed pri­mar­i­ly to give Ukraine bet­ter bar­gain­ing pow­er in upcom­ing peace process nego­ti­a­tions. But the way this con­flict is rou­tine­ly framed in the US, any peace plan that does­n’t involve the return of Crimea and the capit­u­la­tion of the sep­a­ratists is seen as Russ­ian appease­ment and an invi­ta­tion for a larg­er loom­ing con­flict between Rus­sia and ‘the West’. And it’s that fram­ing of the con­flict in Ukraine — as the front lines in a glob­al con­flict with Rus­sia — that’s led to the inclu­sion of the charge that Trump’s with­hold­ing of aid rep­re­sent­ed a mor­tal threat to US nation­al secu­ri­ty in the impeach­ment arti­cles against Trump. And it’s a fram­ing that dooms Ukraine to a con­flict it can’t pos­si­bly win and treats the coun­tries sol­diers as tools to sole­ly ‘bleed’ Rus­sia mil­i­tar­i­ly and eco­nom­i­cal­ly. It’s a cyn­i­cal pol­i­cy made all the more cyn­i­cal by Trump’s extortive shake­down tac­tics for per­son­al polit­i­cal gain:

    ...
    If you read the impeach­ment lit­er­a­ture, includ­ing the arti­cles of impeach­ment, you’ll find the notion that we are at war with Rus­sia under­lies a major part of the case against Trump. Aside from the charges of self-deal­ing and cor­rup­tion and attempts to influ­ence an elec­tion, Trump’s oth­er over­ar­ch­ing crime is he “com­pro­mised Amer­i­can nation­al secu­ri­ty” and “injured nation­al secu­ri­ty” by slight­ly delay­ing the near­ly $400 mil­lion in mil­i­tary aid to Ukraine that had been approved by Con­gress. The argu­ment is that he will “remain a threat to nation­al secu­ri­ty” if he remains pres­i­dent and so must be removed. This line of think­ing is expressed even more clear­ly in the House Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee report on impeach­ment.

    ...

    The impeachment’s obses­sive focus on Rus­sia, Ukraine, and “nation­al secu­ri­ty” — what­ev­er that terms means — has been use­ful because it con­firms some­thing that I and oth­er jour­nal­ists and his­to­ri­ans who have stud­ied and report­ed from Ukraine have known for a long time. The point of America’s recent sup­port for Ukraine has had lit­tle to do with “democ­ra­cy” or “the rule of law” or “anti-cor­rup­tion” or any of the oth­er tired slo­gans con­stant­ly thrown around to jus­ti­fy impe­r­i­al inter­ven­tions. Today, Amer­i­ca sees Ukraine as a strate­gic ally because it can be used as a bat­ter­ing ram against Rus­sia. It’s about desta­bi­liza­tion. (Well, desta­bi­liza­tion and sleazy mon­ey-mak­ing, but the mon­ey-mak­ing goes with­out say­ing).

    Ukraine can’t defeat Rus­sia no mat­ter how many Amer­i­can mil­i­tary advis­ers train Ukrain­ian troops or how many mil­lions the good and total­ly not cor­rupt peo­ple at Raytheon Inc make sell­ing their Javelins. The point isn’t for Ukraine to win the war. The point is to make Rus­sia bleed — eco­nom­i­cal­ly and mil­i­tar­i­ly. And it doesn’t mat­ter how many peo­ple die or suf­fer or how much of Ukraine and its econ­o­my is laid to waste in the process.
    ...

    Even worse, it’s a pol­i­cy that con­tin­ues the US’s long-stand­ing cozy rela­tion­ship with Ukrain­ian fas­cists and ultra­na­tion­al­ists, which hap­pens to be the same forces that pri­mar­i­ly oppos­es any peace agen­da today:

    ...
    As I’ve writ­ten in bits and pieces before on here before, America’s for­eign pol­i­cy estab­lish­ment — its diplo­mats, spies, and politi­cians — have seen Ukraine as a key field of bat­tle against the Sovi­et Union going back to late 1940s. For decades, Ukraine and its dias­po­ra were con­sid­ered prime weapons for desta­bi­liz­ing the Sovi­et Union. It’s why Amer­i­ca, Cana­da, the UK, and oth­er west­ern coun­tries opened their doors to Ukrain­ian fas­cists and Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors after World War II. Their hard­core ide­ol­o­gy and their will­ing­ness to die for their lost nation­al­ist cause were seen as impor­tant qual­i­ties in the fight against com­mu­nism. Some of the ear­li­est covert armed CIA oper­a­tions against the Sovi­et Union involved para­chut­ing Ukrain­ian Nazi col­labo guer­ril­las behind Sovi­et lines to sab­o­tage and whip up rebel­lion among Ukrain­ian peas­ants.

    And lit­tle has changed today.

    Head reel­ing. Extrem­ist Azov Bat­tal­ion in #Ukraine recent­ly host­ed big West­ern mil­i­tary con­tin­gent. This is nuts. How does it look to see a US mil­i­tary offi­cer laugh­ing with guy wear­ing an SS Wolf­san­gel patch? New rule: Don’t meet guys wear­ing SS patch­es! https://t.co/uKtLxZMOtG pic.twitter.com/yr0xYH56EW— Defend­ing His­to­ry (@DefendingHistor) Jan­u­ary 16, 2018

    Amer­i­ca still sees Ukraine as a weapon against Rus­sia. And it still needs Ukrain­ian fas­cists and ultra-nation­al­ists to do the fight­ing and the killing. Where else could you find young men eager to get their limbs blown off to go fight the Rus­sians — which most­ly involves snip­ing and lob­bing mor­tars at Ukraini­ans on the oth­er side of the trench.

    ...

    Peo­ple vot­ed for Zelen­sky in huge num­bers in large part because they want­ed a peace­ful res­o­lu­tion to the civ­il war that has torn their coun­try apart. And not sur­pris­ing­ly, fas­cist and ultra-nation­al­ist move­ments are the main force in Ukrain­ian soci­ety that’s try­ing to stop the peace.
    ...

    So as Trump’s much-deserved impeach­ment process plays out, let’s hope we see it focus on the poi­so­nous cyn­i­cism of Trump’s extor­tion of for­eign gov­ern­ment to gin up a show tri­al inves­ti­ga­tion into his polit­i­cal oppo­nent. After all, it’s the nor­mal­iza­tion of that kind of behav­ior that rep­re­sents the actu­al threat to the US. And Ukraine. And democ­ra­cy in gen­er­al.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | December 30, 2019, 2:49 pm

  2. Here’s a pair of sto­ries that, on the one hand, rep­re­sent just the lat­est exam­ple of the grow­ing pow­er and coor­di­na­tion of inter­na­tion­al far right net­works. But on the oth­er hand might rep­re­sent a sig­nif­i­cant shift in the over­all lead­er­ship direc­tion of the glob­al far right:

    The first sto­ry is about Tuck­er Carl­son — the most watched fig­ure on US cable news — speak­ing at the far right MCC Fes­zt, an event host­ed by the Math­ias Corv­i­nus Col­legium (MCC) in Budapest. It’s anoth­er sad typ­i­cal sto­ry about Carl­son’s ruth­less shame­less­ness.

    The sec­ond sto­ry is about Math­ias Corv­i­nus Col­legium, MCC Fes­zt, and the appar­ent attempt by Vik­tor Orban’s gov­ern­ment to turn MCC into a glob­al far right intel­lec­tu­al hub. And as we’ll see, the core ele­ment of Orban’s vision for MCC involves show­er­ing the orga­ni­za­tion with bil­lions of dol­lars in pub­lic fund­ing. In fact, Orban recent­ly had $1.7 bil­lion donat­ed to the MCC from pub­lic funds. Keep in mind the MCC is a pri­vate orga­ni­za­tion with close ties to Orban’s Fidesz par­ty. And $1.7 bil­lion is about 1 per­cent of the country’s GDP. MCC now con­trols assets worth more than the annu­al bud­get of Hungary’s entire high­er edu­ca­tion sys­tem. Unsur­pris­ing­ly, Hun­gary’s oppo­si­tion are describ­ing the move as an attempt estab­lish a kind of aca­d­e­m­ic far right deep state financed by loot­ing the pub­lic cof­fers.

    And with all this new­found wealth, the MCC isn’t just inter­est­ed in col­lege stu­dents. It now plans to use this mon­ey to expand pro­grams for high school and ele­ment school stu­dents, aim­ing in the next three years to enroll 10,000 stu­dents in 35 Euro­pean cities that have large Hun­gar­i­an pop­u­la­tions, most­ly in neigh­bor­ing coun­tries. So this mon­ey is going to be used to financed Hun­gar­i­an nation­al­ist (or sep­a­ratist) sen­ti­ments through­out Europe.

    But, get­ting back to Carl­son’s trip, we can’t for­get that the far right media mon­ster is heav­i­ly dri­ven by grift. Fig­ures like Carl­son say the things they do in large part because they’re paid to do so. It’s a move­ment of rhetor­i­cal mer­ce­nar­ies. So when the Hun­gar­i­an far right suc­ceeds to chan­nel­ing bil­lions of dol­lars in pub­lic funds into pri­vate orga­ni­za­tions with the mis­sion state­ment of pro­mot­ing far right thought, we should expect this Hun­gar­i­an net­work to have immense and grow­ing clout among the far right glob­al­ly. He who pays the bills writes the mer­ce­nary rhetoric:

    Talk­ing Points Memo

    Tuck­er Carl­son Sum­mers With Vik­tor Orban, Tout­ed As Speak­er At Budapest Far-right Gath­er­ing

    By Josh Koven­sky
    August 2, 2021 2:44 p.m.

    Fox News host Tuck­er Carl­son is billed as a speak­er at a far-right con­fer­ence in Hun­gary on Sat­ur­day, accord­ing to a fli­er for the event. The appear­ance will come days after the Fox host met with the country’s Prime Min­is­ter Vik­tor Orbán.

    Carl­son will pur­port­ed­ly offer his insights at MCC Fes­zt, an event host­ed by the Math­ias Corv­i­nus Col­legium, which the New York Times described in June as a gov­ern­ment-fund­ed plan to “train a con­ser­v­a­tive future elite.

    A pro­gram for MCC Fes­zt touts Carl­son as speak­ing on Sat­ur­day, deliv­er­ing a talk called “The World Accord­ing to Tuck­er Carl­son.”

    It’s part of a larg­er, four-day long pro­gram that also adver­tis­es a talk from a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of one of America’s esteemed con­ser­v­a­tive insti­tu­tions of high­er edu­ca­tion: Den­nis Prager of PragerU, which makes up for what it lacks in phys­i­cal space, accred­i­ta­tion, and dis­cernible cur­ricu­lum in Face­book viral­i­ty. Prager will deliv­er a talk on “media and free speech.”

    But Carl­son isn’t only in Budapest for the con­ser­v­a­tive lec­tures, hot springs, and fruit brandy, how­ev­er. The far-right news host sur­prised some on Mon­day after Orbán post­ed a pho­to of the two of them meet­ing on Face­book.

    ...

    The New York Times described MCC as ben­e­fit­ting from $1.7 bil­lion in grants from the Hun­gar­i­an gov­ern­ment and open sup­port from Orbán.

    Orbán has char­ac­ter­ized his approach to gov­er­nance as “illib­er­al democ­ra­cy.” He has both alarmed pro-democ­ra­cy activists in Europe while also offer­ing Amer­i­can observers of Trump a use­ful ana­logue for demo­c­ra­t­ic back­slid­ing. Orbán’s gov­ern­ment has used anti-Semit­ic imagery to demo­nize George Soros, a native of the coun­try, while also pres­sur­ing uni­ver­si­ties asso­ci­at­ed with him to close. Orbán has also gone out of his way to clamp down on LGBT rights dur­ing his tenure.

    In an inter­view with the New York Times, the chair of the MCC’s board Bal­azs Orbán (no rela­tion to the prime min­is­ter) said that “It’s very impor­tant for us to have our own agen­da, have our own mind-set, have our own inde­pen­dence, cul­ture.”

    “Ide­ol­o­gy is not impor­tant. Patri­o­tism is,” he added to the paper.

    The MCC board chair put a poster of Carlson’s vis­it on his Face­book page last week.

    Carl­son won’t be the first Amer­i­can con­ser­v­a­tive to plumb the reac­tionary depths that MCC has on tap.

    In Decem­ber 2020, the group’s Danube Insti­tute host­ed an online con­fer­ence that fea­tured “patri­ot­ic talks.”

    That includ­ed Prager, who seems to be a fix­ture at these events, as well as Har­lan Hill, a Trump acolyte who shares Carlson’s for­mer fond­ness for bowties, and David Webb, anoth­er Fox News host.

    Carl­son him­self had the country’s nation­al­ist for­eign min­is­ter Peter Szi­j­jar­to on his show in Feb­ru­ary 2019, using Hun­gary as an exam­ple of a “pro-fam­i­ly coun­try.”

    —————-

    “Tuck­er Carl­son Sum­mers With Vik­tor Orban, Tout­ed As Speak­er At Budapest Far-right Gath­er­ing” by Josh Koven­sky; Talk­ing Points Memo; 08/02/2021

    “Carl­son will pur­port­ed­ly offer his insights at MCC Fes­zt, an event host­ed by the Math­ias Corv­i­nus Col­legium, which the New York Times described in June as a gov­ern­ment-fund­ed plan to “train a con­ser­v­a­tive future elite.”

    Carl­son will ‘offer his insights’ at the MCC. Insights that are large­ly in line with Orban’s proud­ly illib­er­al world­view. It’s not hard to see why they want­ed to get Carl­son to come speak. And it was­n’t just Carl­son. Den­nis Prager of PragerU is also sched­uled to appear:

    ...
    It’s part of a larg­er, four-day long pro­gram that also adver­tis­es a talk from a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of one of America’s esteemed con­ser­v­a­tive insti­tu­tions of high­er edu­ca­tion: Den­nis Prager of PragerU, which makes up for what it lacks in phys­i­cal space, accred­i­ta­tion, and dis­cernible cur­ricu­lum in Face­book viral­i­ty. Prager will deliv­er a talk on “media and free speech.”
    ...

    And as dis­turb­ing as it is to read about this kind of inter­na­tion­al net­work­ing between Hun­gar­i­an fas­cists and pop­u­lar US right-wing per­son­al­i­ties, far more dis­turb­ing is the fact that the MCC has recent­ly been infused with so much pub­lic mon­ey that its going to be able to finance and expand on these kind of inter­na­tion­al far right con­fer­ences for decades to come. Orban is lit­er­al­ly build­ing a far right aca­d­e­m­ic Hun­gar­i­an ‘deep state’, with pub­lic mon­ey, and with plans of tak­ing it inter­na­tion­al:

    New York Times

    Cam­pus in Hun­gary is Flag­ship of Orban’s Bid to Cre­ate a Con­ser­v­a­tive Elite

    A res­i­den­tial col­lege was grant­ed about $1.7 bil­lion by Prime Min­is­ter Vik­tor Orban, part of his plan to cre­ate a more nation­al­is­tic soci­ety. Crit­ics say it is legal­ized theft of pub­lic funds.

    By Valerie Hop­kins
    June 28, 2021

    BUDAPEST — On a leafy hill­top in Budapest, a small edu­ca­tion­al foun­da­tion inside an aging, for­mer Com­mu­nist police build­ing has auda­cious plans to train a con­ser­v­a­tive future elite. It is con­struct­ing a colos­sal cam­pus, woo­ing con­ser­v­a­tive intel­lec­tu­als for the fac­ul­ty and expand­ing its pro­grams to train 10,000 stu­dents across Hun­gary and else­where in Europe.

    The price tag is expect­ed to run into many mil­lions of dol­lars, but mon­ey isn’t a prob­lem: The pri­vate­ly man­aged foun­da­tion, Math­ias Corv­i­nus Col­legium, or M.C.C., was recent­ly grant­ed more than $1.7 bil­lion in gov­ern­ment mon­ey and assets from a pow­er­ful bene­fac­tor: Hungary’s prime min­is­ter, Vik­tor Orban.

    A hero to Europe’s far right, Mr. Orban says he wants to over­haul edu­ca­tion and reshape his country’s soci­ety to have a more nation­al­is­tic, con­ser­v­a­tive body politic. But his crit­ics argue that the dona­tion is legal­ized theft, employed to tight­en Mr. Orban’s grip on pow­er by trans­fer­ring pub­lic mon­ey to foun­da­tions run by polit­i­cal allies.

    Even for Mr. Orban, who has per­sis­tent­ly flout­ed demo­c­ra­t­ic norms, it is a brazen move, espe­cial­ly as Hungary’s health sys­tem is under­fi­nanced and buck­ling under the strain of Covid-19. The $1.7 bil­lion trans­fer to the edu­ca­tion­al foun­da­tion is about 1 per­cent of the country’s gross domes­tic prod­uct. The foun­da­tion now con­trols assets worth more than the annu­al bud­get of the country’s entire high­er edu­ca­tion sys­tem.

    “This is not about Hun­gar­i­an high­er edu­ca­tion,” said Ist­van Hiller, a law­mak­er from the oppo­si­tion Social­ist Par­ty and for­mer edu­ca­tion min­is­ter who now serves as a deputy speak­er of Par­lia­ment. “This is about build­ing a foun­da­tion to solid­i­fy pow­er.”

    Mr. Orban has dom­i­nat­ed Hun­gar­i­an pol­i­tics for more than a decade, walk­ing a del­i­cate line with Euro­pean Union lead­ers, who for the most part have tol­er­at­ed his excess­es. But he is now under grow­ing pres­sure in Europe, where one leader has open­ly ques­tioned whether Hun­gary should remain in the bloc, and in Hun­gary, where his pop­u­lar­i­ty has suf­fered from his government’s han­dling of the coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic.

    Mr. Orban is expect­ed to seek a fifth term in 2022, fac­ing off against a new­ly uni­fied oppo­si­tion and the pos­si­bil­i­ty that his gov­ern­ing par­ty, Fidesz, could lose pow­er, or, at min­i­mum, its two-thirds “super­ma­jor­i­ty” in Par­lia­ment. Fidesz has used the super­ma­jor­i­ty to steer once-pub­lic assets to loy­al­ists, and crit­ics say the pos­si­bil­i­ty of elec­tion loss­es next year is accel­er­at­ing that trend.

    Bernadett Szel, an oppo­si­tion law­mak­er, said that Mr. Orban and his allies were cre­at­ing “an insur­ance pol­i­cy for them­selves” in case they lost pow­er by trans­fer­ring pub­lic mon­ey “to an ide­o­log­i­cal­ly con­strained cir­cle.”

    “They are act­ing like they are doing a pub­lic good,” Ms. Szel said, “but they are actu­al­ly steal­ing from the pub­lic.”

    Mr. Orban has already moved against pri­vate media out­lets in Hun­gary, cheer­ing the 2018 con­sol­i­da­tion of almost 500 under the own­er­ship of a sin­gle foun­da­tion con­trolled by his allies. But in late April, Mr. Orban over­saw one of the most sweep­ing sys­temic changes yet, with all but five pub­lic uni­ver­si­ties placed under the con­trol of pri­vate­ly man­aged foun­da­tions.

    The uni­ver­si­ties joined a grow­ing ecosys­tem of 32 foun­da­tions and most­ly con­ser­v­a­tive, gov­ern­ment-affil­i­at­ed think tanks which received about $3.5 bil­lion in pub­lic mon­ey in the past year, accord­ing to K‑Monitor, an inde­pen­dent non­prof­it. These inter­lock­ing foun­da­tions are actu­al­ly in pri­vate hands and con­trol pub­lic parks, a cin­e­ma, con­cert halls, a board­ing high school and much more.

    Mr. Orban, a cham­pi­on of what he calls illib­er­al democ­ra­cy, has spo­ken about his ambi­tion to inter­twine con­ser­v­a­tive pol­i­tics with cul­ture and acad­e­mia. His gov­ern­ment has banned gen­der stud­ies, and he now per­son­al­ly con­trols the appoint­ment of the top admin­is­tra­tor to the Hun­gar­i­an Acad­e­my of Sci­ences. (His gov­ern­ment also forced the Cen­tral Euro­pean Uni­ver­si­ty, found­ed by Hun­gar­i­an-Amer­i­can bil­lion­aire phil­an­thropist George Soros, to to relo­cate to Aus­tria.)

    When the gov­ern­ment moved to pri­va­tize the uni­ver­si­ties in April, the biggest ben­e­fi­cia­ry was the M.C.C. foun­da­tion, which received gov­ern­ment-owned shares worth $1.3 bil­lion in two com­pa­nies, cash injec­tions worth $462 mil­lion and $9 mil­lion of prop­er­ty, includ­ing a lux­u­ry estate and a mari­na on Lake Bal­a­ton in west­ern Hun­gary.

    The inces­tu­ous nature of the foundation’s struc­ture is evi­dent in its advi­so­ry boards. Mem­bers are appoint­ed for life, and only they can elect new mem­bers. Not a sin­gle woman sits on any of them.

    The leader of M.C.C.’s main board is Bal­azs Orban (no rela­tion to the prime min­is­ter), who has a dual role. As a state sec­re­tary in the prime minister’s office, he helped mas­ter­mind the prop­er­ty trans­fer to the foun­da­tion. And as its chair­man, he over­sees the recent­ly pri­va­tized assets. Anoth­er board mem­ber is Zoltan Sza­lai, who also runs a glossy, pro-gov­ern­ment week­ly called Mandin­er. A cafe he owns recent­ly received a $2 mil­lion dona­tion of once-pub­lic mon­ey for use as an event space. The cafe, Scru­ton, is named after the con­ser­v­a­tive Eng­lish philoso­pher Roger Scru­ton.

    M.C.C. is not a uni­ver­si­ty in its own right, but a res­i­den­tial col­lege. It pro­vides spe­cial sem­i­nars and a dor­mi­to­ry to stu­dents, select­ed after a bat­tery of I.Q. and oth­er tests, who then receive stipends, net­work­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties and exclu­sive fel­low­ships. Orban crit­ics have labeled the foun­da­tion as an insti­tu­tion designed to breed right-wing intel­lec­tu­als.

    In an inter­view with The New York Times, Bal­azs Orban said that the M.C.C. project was crit­i­cal for a small coun­try like Hun­gary, with its his­to­ry of occu­pa­tion by for­eign pow­ers.

    “It’s very impor­tant for us to have our own agen­da, have our own mind-set, have our own inde­pen­dence, cul­ture,” he said. “We always have to fight for it.”

    He was adamant that foment­ing “patri­o­tism” among the next gen­er­a­tion of Hungary’s lead­ers was the pri­or­i­ty.

    “Ide­ol­o­gy is not impor­tant. Patri­o­tism is,” he said.

    But recent arti­cles and pod­casts pro­duced by M.C.C. have dis­cussed read­ing lists or pushed intel­lec­tu­al lines sup­port­ive of the government’s antiglob­al­ist mes­sage, dis­cussing top­ics such as patri­o­tism at a time of glob­al­ism, or whether polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness is tol­er­ance or oppres­sion.

    Mr. Orban’s gov­ern­ment is not alone in tar­get­ing high­er edu­ca­tion. In Poland, a think tank with close ties to the right-wing gov­ern­ment recent­ly estab­lished Col­legium Inter­mar­i­um, a uni­ver­si­ty that hopes to fos­ter a con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian elite.

    Ivan Krastev, a Bul­gar­i­an polit­i­cal ana­lyst, said that the changes in Hun­gary appeared most­ly to be about mon­ey and pow­er. But he not­ed that lead­ers in Hun­gary and Poland viewed uni­ver­si­ties as key bat­tle­grounds in their quest to retain pow­er.

    “There is a very strong fear that uni­ver­si­ties are total­ly lost for the con­ser­v­a­tive side, that they are total­ly dom­i­nat­ed by left lib­er­als, and get­ting con­trol of uni­ver­si­ties is becom­ing a big pri­or­i­ty for these gov­ern­ments,” Mr. Krastev said..

    Bal­azs Orban plans to use the M.C.C.’s wealth to expand pro­grams for high school and ele­men­tary school stu­dents, aim­ing in the next three years to enroll 10,000 stu­dents in 35 Euro­pean cities that have large Hun­gar­i­an pop­u­la­tions, most­ly in neigh­bor­ing coun­tries.

    M.C.C. was estab­lished in 1996 with pri­vate mon­ey from a Fidesz backer, with the goal of train­ing a post-Com­mu­nist elite. It was known as more con­ser­v­a­tive than oth­er res­i­den­tial col­leges but was respect­ed for pro­vid­ing high-cal­iber inde­pen­dent pro­grams. While many lec­tur­ers’ views hew close­ly to the Fidesz line, some are inde­pen­dent or apo­lit­i­cal.

    In inter­views, some stu­dents won­dered if the influx of cash and gov­ern­ment atten­tion would force a more par­ti­san line of study. Oth­ers praised the insti­tu­tion for its qual­i­ty and low stu­dent-to-fac­ul­ty ratio, and for pro­vid­ing extra­or­di­nary access to schol­ars and pol­i­cy­mak­ers.

    ...

    While there are some con­ser­v­a­tive stu­dents at M.C.C., many do not nec­es­sar­i­ly sup­port the Orban gov­ern­ment. Some wor­ried pri­vate­ly that after M.C.C. received so much media atten­tion, their edu­ca­tion might come with a stig­ma attached.

    Even if the oppo­si­tion comes to pow­er next year, it is unclear whether they could dis­man­tle the edu­ca­tion­al foun­da­tions or restore uni­ver­si­ties to their pre­vi­ous sta­tus. A future par­lia­ment could not change the rules reg­u­lat­ing pub­lic inter­est foun­da­tions with­out a two-thirds major­i­ty.

    Elec­tions lose their mean­ing if a “deep state, with com­pe­ten­cies, assets and rev­enues giv­en to Fidesz,” remains in con­trol no mat­ter who wins, said Balint Mag­yar, a soci­ol­o­gist and for­mer two-term edu­ca­tion min­is­ter who research­es post-Com­mu­nist gov­ern­ments.

    Mr. Hiller, the for­mer Social­ist edu­ca­tion min­is­ter, said that the debate over the high­er edu­ca­tion sys­tem would deep­en polar­iza­tion in Hun­gary, no mat­ter who tri­umphs in the April vote.

    “The whole sys­tem is built on this ide­o­log­i­cal shift,” he said. “The effects will last for decades.”

    ———-

    “Cam­pus in Hun­gary is Flag­ship of Orban’s Bid to Cre­ate a Con­ser­v­a­tive Elite” by Valerie Hop­kins; New York Times; 06/28/2021

    “The price tag is expect­ed to run into many mil­lions of dol­lars, but mon­ey isn’t a prob­lem: The pri­vate­ly man­aged foun­da­tion, Math­ias Corv­i­nus Col­legium, or M.C.C., was recent­ly grant­ed more than $1.7 bil­lion in gov­ern­ment mon­ey and assets from a pow­er­ful bene­fac­tor: Hungary’s prime min­is­ter, Vik­tor Orban.”

    You can buy a lot of pro­pa­gan­da for $1.7 bil­lion. And that’s on top of the assets the MCC foun­da­tion already con­trolled. The vol­umes of pub­lic mon­ey being trans­ferred to this pri­vate enti­ties are so vast, crit­ics see it as a means of cre­at­ing “an insur­ance pol­i­cy for them­selves” in case they lost pow­er. In oth­er words, legal pre­emp­tive loot­ing that is simul­ta­ne­ous­ly cap­tur­ing the coun­try’s aca­d­e­m­ic insti­tu­tions, done under the guise of pro­mot­ing tra­di­tion­al con­ser­v­a­tive val­ues:

    ...
    A hero to Europe’s far right, Mr. Orban says he wants to over­haul edu­ca­tion and reshape his country’s soci­ety to have a more nation­al­is­tic, con­ser­v­a­tive body politic. But his crit­ics argue that the dona­tion is legal­ized theft, employed to tight­en Mr. Orban’s grip on pow­er by trans­fer­ring pub­lic mon­ey to foun­da­tions run by polit­i­cal allies.

    Even for Mr. Orban, who has per­sis­tent­ly flout­ed demo­c­ra­t­ic norms, it is a brazen move, espe­cial­ly as Hungary’s health sys­tem is under­fi­nanced and buck­ling under the strain of Covid-19. The $1.7 bil­lion trans­fer to the edu­ca­tion­al foun­da­tion is about 1 per­cent of the country’s gross domes­tic prod­uct. The foun­da­tion now con­trols assets worth more than the annu­al bud­get of the country’s entire high­er edu­ca­tion sys­tem.

    “This is not about Hun­gar­i­an high­er edu­ca­tion,” said Ist­van Hiller, a law­mak­er from the oppo­si­tion Social­ist Par­ty and for­mer edu­ca­tion min­is­ter who now serves as a deputy speak­er of Par­lia­ment. “This is about build­ing a foun­da­tion to solid­i­fy pow­er.”

    ...

    Bernadett Szel, an oppo­si­tion law­mak­er, said that Mr. Orban and his allies were cre­at­ing “an insur­ance pol­i­cy for them­selves” in case they lost pow­er by trans­fer­ring pub­lic mon­ey “to an ide­o­log­i­cal­ly con­strained cir­cle.”

    “They are act­ing like they are doing a pub­lic good,” Ms. Szel said, “but they are actu­al­ly steal­ing from the pub­lic.”

    Mr. Orban has already moved against pri­vate media out­lets in Hun­gary, cheer­ing the 2018 con­sol­i­da­tion of almost 500 under the own­er­ship of a sin­gle foun­da­tion con­trolled by his allies. But in late April, Mr. Orban over­saw one of the most sweep­ing sys­temic changes yet, with all but five pub­lic uni­ver­si­ties placed under the con­trol of pri­vate­ly man­aged foun­da­tions.

    The uni­ver­si­ties joined a grow­ing ecosys­tem of 32 foun­da­tions and most­ly con­ser­v­a­tive, gov­ern­ment-affil­i­at­ed think tanks which received about $3.5 bil­lion in pub­lic mon­ey in the past year, accord­ing to K‑Monitor, an inde­pen­dent non­prof­it. These inter­lock­ing foun­da­tions are actu­al­ly in pri­vate hands and con­trol pub­lic parks, a cin­e­ma, con­cert halls, a board­ing high school and much more.
    ...

    And note the gross open con­flict of inter­est at work here: the leader of MCC’s main board helped mas­ter­mind the pub­lic-to-pri­vate prop­er­ty trans­fers when he was a state sec­re­tary in Orban’s office. And if the oppo­si­tion does win pow­er, it’s unclear any­thing can be done to dis­man­tle this sys­tem. It real­ly is a kind of ‘deep state’ that will be wield­ing this enor­mous eco­nom­ic clout asso­ci­at­ed with these well-financed foun­da­tions for decades to come:

    ...
    When the gov­ern­ment moved to pri­va­tize the uni­ver­si­ties in April, the biggest ben­e­fi­cia­ry was the M.C.C. foun­da­tion, which received gov­ern­ment-owned shares worth $1.3 bil­lion in two com­pa­nies, cash injec­tions worth $462 mil­lion and $9 mil­lion of prop­er­ty, includ­ing a lux­u­ry estate and a mari­na on Lake Bal­a­ton in west­ern Hun­gary.

    The inces­tu­ous nature of the foundation’s struc­ture is evi­dent in its advi­so­ry boards. Mem­bers are appoint­ed for life, and only they can elect new mem­bers. Not a sin­gle woman sits on any of them.

    The leader of M.C.C.’s main board is Bal­azs Orban (no rela­tion to the prime min­is­ter), who has a dual role. As a state sec­re­tary in the prime minister’s office, he helped mas­ter­mind the prop­er­ty trans­fer to the foun­da­tion. And as its chair­man, he over­sees the recent­ly pri­va­tized assets. Anoth­er board mem­ber is Zoltan Sza­lai, who also runs a glossy, pro-gov­ern­ment week­ly called Mandin­er. A cafe he owns recent­ly received a $2 mil­lion dona­tion of once-pub­lic mon­ey for use as an event space. The cafe, Scru­ton, is named after the con­ser­v­a­tive Eng­lish philoso­pher Roger Scru­ton.

    ...

    Even if the oppo­si­tion comes to pow­er next year, it is unclear whether they could dis­man­tle the edu­ca­tion­al foun­da­tions or restore uni­ver­si­ties to their pre­vi­ous sta­tus. A future par­lia­ment could not change the rules reg­u­lat­ing pub­lic inter­est foun­da­tions with­out a two-thirds major­i­ty.

    Elec­tions lose their mean­ing if a “deep state, with com­pe­ten­cies, assets and rev­enues giv­en to Fidesz,” remains in con­trol no mat­ter who wins, said Balint Mag­yar, a soci­ol­o­gist and for­mer two-term edu­ca­tion min­is­ter who research­es post-Com­mu­nist gov­ern­ments.
    ...

    And then there’s the inter­na­tion­al ambi­tions in all this: MCC plans on expand­ing its pro­gram out­side of Hun­gary to 35 cities with large eth­nic Hun­gar­i­an pop­u­la­tions. A far right hyper-nation­al­ist Hun­gar­i­an chau­vin­ist move­ment pro­mot­ing its ide­ol­o­gy to kids in oth­er coun­tries. Just watch the sep­a­ratist move­ments blos­som from this. And Hun­gary isn’t even the only Euro­pean coun­try with a far right gov­ern­ment intent on cap­tur­ing it uni­ver­si­ties. Poland just estab­lished the Col­legium Inter­mar­i­um:

    ...
    Mr. Orban’s gov­ern­ment is not alone in tar­get­ing high­er edu­ca­tion. In Poland, a think tank with close ties to the right-wing gov­ern­ment recent­ly estab­lished Col­legium Inter­mar­i­um, a uni­ver­si­ty that hopes to fos­ter a con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian elite.

    Ivan Krastev, a Bul­gar­i­an polit­i­cal ana­lyst, said that the changes in Hun­gary appeared most­ly to be about mon­ey and pow­er. But he not­ed that lead­ers in Hun­gary and Poland viewed uni­ver­si­ties as key bat­tle­grounds in their quest to retain pow­er.

    “There is a very strong fear that uni­ver­si­ties are total­ly lost for the con­ser­v­a­tive side, that they are total­ly dom­i­nat­ed by left lib­er­als, and get­ting con­trol of uni­ver­si­ties is becom­ing a big pri­or­i­ty for these gov­ern­ments,” Mr. Krastev said.

    Bal­azs Orban plans to use the M.C.C.’s wealth to expand pro­grams for high school and ele­men­tary school stu­dents, aim­ing in the next three years to enroll 10,000 stu­dents in 35 Euro­pean cities that have large Hun­gar­i­an pop­u­la­tions, most­ly in neigh­bor­ing coun­tries.
    ...

    And that’s per­haps the biggest les­son to keep in mind here: while Hun­gary is clear­ly pro­mot­ing Hun­gary nation­al­ism and a Hun­gar­i­an-focused form of fas­cism, this is also all being done in the spir­it of inter­na­tion­al coop­er­a­tion with the glob­al far right. In the case of Cen­tral and East­ern Europe, the spir­it of the Inter­mar­i­um. That’s whey fig­ures like Tuck­er Carl­son and Den­nis Prager are speak­ing at MCC. MCC Fes­zt is effec­tive­ly a glob­al fas­cist cel­e­bra­tion. Yes, its express­ly a cel­e­bra­tion of Hun­gar­i­an fas­cism. But it’s real­ly a glob­al phe­nom­e­na with glob­al ambi­tions. So when we read about the Orban gov­ern­ment tak­ing bil­lions of dol­lars in pub­lic funds and assets and hand­ing them off to this Hun­gar­i­an deep state, keep in mind that Hun­gar­i­an deep state is oper­at­ing as part of a glob­al net­work. And would prob­a­bly like more of a lead­er­ship posi­tion role in that glob­al net­work, which should be a lot eas­i­er to achieve now with all that mon­ey.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 2, 2021, 3:20 pm

  3. Just a quick, fas­ci­nat­ing fol­low up on the sto­ry of MCC Fes­zt and the loot­ing of pub­lic funds in Hun­gary to finance a grow­ing net­work of far right insti­tu­tion with a focus on influ­enc­ing high­er edu­ca­tion, along with the fact that major US fig­ures like Tuck­er Carl­son and Den­nis Prager are speak­ing at the event: it turns out there’s anoth­er rather promi­nent Amer­i­can who will be speak­ing. And she’s does­n’t exact­ly fit the pro­file of the type of per­son to speak at an event like this, at least not in terms of her pub­lic image:

    Renee DiRes­ta is sched­uled to speak at the MCC Fes­zt. The very same Renee DiRes­ta of the Stan­ford Inter­net Obser­va­to­ry. Recall how DiRes­ta was the lead author of the report gen­er­at­ed by New Knowl­edge, a cyber­se­cu­ri­ty firm, for the US Sen­ate Intel­li­gence Com­mit­tee’s 2017 report on ‘Russ­ian inter­fer­ence’ in the 2016 elec­tion. Short­ly before join­ing New Knowl­edge, DiRes­ta was also involved with the now noto­ri­ous ‘exper­i­ment’ to run fake ‘Russ­ian’ Face­book dis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paigns dur­ing the 2017 spe­cial elec­tion for an Alaba­ma Sen­ate seat. Dis­in­for­ma­tion cam­paigns that were ped­dled to the media as Russ­ian dis­in­for­ma­tion oper­a­tions until it was inad­ver­tent­ly revealed that the whole thing was financed by bil­lion­aire Reid Hoff­man, at which point we were told it was all done for research pur­pos­es.

    So DiRes­ta has lit­er­al­ly been caught being involved with a group that was pro­mot­ing dis­in­for­ma­tion about dis­in­for­ma­tion, but has some­how end­ed up as one of the ‘go to’ fig­ures to talk about ‘Russ­ian dis­in­for­ma­tion’ in the US media. And now we’re learn­ing that shes’ going to attend a glob­al far right ‘fes­ti­val’ that’s part of Vik­tor Orban’s lat­est attempt to cap­ture and destroy what’s left of Hun­gary’s democ­ra­cy. The red flags just keep pil­ing up with her.

    It rais­es the ques­tion of what oth­er red flags about DiRes­ta that may have been missed. Well, here’s one: it also turns out DiRes­ta has been a men­tor at Peter Thiel’s “20 under 20” pro­gram — that pays young adults $100,000 to start a busi­ness instead of go to col­lege. She’s been a men­tor with the pro­gram since 2012. So DiRes­ta clear­ly has no real prob­lem with Thiel and his pol­i­tics. Pol­i­tics that would prob­a­bly res­onate quite nice­ly with the pol­i­tics being cel­e­brat­ed at MCC Fes­zt:

    MCC Fes­zt

    MCC “Gives a Voice to Tal­ent”

    June 23, 2021

    Three-day fes­ti­val in Eszter­gom.

    Budapest, 13 June 2021 — Math­ias Corv­i­nus Col­legium (MCC) will present its tal­ent devel­op­ment pro­grams and com­mu­ni­ty life, as well as excit­ing pub­lic dis­cus­sions and col­or­ful pop­u­lar music con­certs under the title “We Give a Voice to Tal­ent”. MCC Fest will take place in Eszter­gom between 5–7 August.

    There will be events in 8 venues on 6 stages, and the whole city cen­ter of Eszter­gom will be filled with life. The Csík Band, the Mag­a­sh­e­gyi Under­ground, PASO, Vera Tóth, András Kál­lay Saun­ders, Lot­fi Begi and DJ Dominique will per­form dur­ing the fes­ti­val. In addi­tion to enter­tain­ment, the MCC Fes­zt also fea­tures pre­sen­ta­tions and dis­cus­sions of pub­lic, cul­tur­al and social issues. Vis­i­tors will have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to meet renowned for­eign and Hun­gar­i­an aca­d­e­mics and gain insights into the careers of famous peo­ple who can serve as role mod­els through their suc­cess in life. Our guests will share their suc­cess sto­ries, includ­ing Renée DiRes­ta, who also appeared in the suc­cess­ful docu­d­ra­ma The Social Dilem­ma, Den­nis Mark Prager, best-sell­ing Amer­i­can author and radio talk show host, and Abishur Prakash, a world-renowned futur­ol­o­gist of Indi­an ori­gin. At the MCC Fes­zt, well-known Hun­gar­i­an speak­ers and pub­lic fig­ures will dis­cuss top­ics such as the coro­na virus pan­dem­ic, the chal­lenges fac­ing the Euro­pean Union, the direc­tion of the devel­op­ment of Hun­gar­i­an cul­ture, or the secret of suc­cess from the per­spec­tive of top Hun­gar­i­an entre­pre­neurs.

    The Edu Prom­e­nade next to the Lit­tle Danube will show­case MCC’s full range of train­ing cours­es, and we will also invite our part­ner orga­ni­za­tions. We believe it is impor­tant to meet these orga­ni­za­tions as well as the stu­dent asso­ci­a­tions, and all those who are also com­mit­ted to sup­port­ing Hun­gar­i­an tal­ent. With this in mind, guests of the MCC Fes­zt include the Sem­mel­weis Uni­ver­si­ty, the Uni­ver­si­ty of Pub­lic Ser­vice, the Corv­i­nus Sudents’ Union, the Nation­al Asso­ci­a­tion of Stu­dent and Youth Jour­nal­ists and the Chris­t­ian Roma Col­leges for Advanced Stud­ies.

    ...

    ———–

    “MCC ‘Gives a Voice to Tal­ent’ ”; http://www.mccfeszt.hu; 06/23/2021

    “Our guests will share their suc­cess sto­ries, includ­ing Renée DiRes­ta, who also appeared in the suc­cess­ful docu­d­ra­ma The Social Dilem­ma, Den­nis Mark Prager, best-sell­ing Amer­i­can author and radio talk show host, and Abishur Prakash, a world-renowned futur­ol­o­gist of Indi­an ori­gin.”

    There’s no short­age of ques­tions raised by her deci­sion to make this appear­ance. Like what is DiRes­ta plan­ning on talk­ing about? It’s hard to imag­ine it will be any­thing oth­er than ‘Russ­ian online dis­in­for­ma­tion’, her pro­claimed area of exper­tise. Are we to believe that Orban’s gov­ern­ment and this far right audi­ence is gen­uine­ly con­cerned about impact of ‘Russ­ian dis­in­for­ma­tion’? Heck, they’re prob­a­bly the secret source for much of it. And that points towards one of the most dark­ly fas­ci­nat­ing aspects of this whole: the self-pro­claimed high-pro­file expert on spot­ting ‘Russ­ian dis­in­for­ma­tion’ is walk­ing into a dis­in­for­ma­tion lion’s den to share her analy­sis. In oth­er worlds, this self-pro­claimed high-pro­file expert on spot­ting ‘Russ­ian dis­in­for­ma­tion’ appears to be poised to give a mas­ter class on how to ensure your dis­in­for­ma­tion is iden­ti­fied by DiRes­ta and her col­leagues as ‘Russ­ian dis­in­for­ma­tion’. The audi­ence should love it.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | August 3, 2021, 4:52 pm

  4. While the New Cold War between the US and Chi­na that is cur­rent­ly ramp­ing up should be a source of extreme dis­tress about the future, if there’s one sil­ver lin­ing to the US’s cur­rent fix­a­tion on Chi­na is that’s it present an oppor­tu­ni­ty for a bit of nation­al per­spec­tive on (now old) New Cold War with Rus­sia that has also been ramp­ing up over the last decade. After all, the US pop­u­lace has a lim­it­ed atten­tion span. You can’t foment too many New Cold Wars at the same time. You have to pri­or­i­tize. And right now, a New Cold War with Chi­na, and fear­mon­ger­ing about the loom­ing exis­ten­tial threat Chi­na presents to the US soci­ety, is clear­ly the top pri­or­i­ty, which makes this moment a good time to recall that the West is con­tin­u­ing to train bat­tal­ions of neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

    It’s still hap­pen­ing. And it’s still being done under the ban­ner oppos­ing an exis­ten­tial Russ­ian threat. That as the find­ing of a recent study released by the George Wash­ing­ton University’s Insti­tute for Euro­pean, Russ­ian and Eurasian Stud­ies. The study exam­ined social media accounts of the far right Cen­turia group, doc­u­ment­ing mem­bers giv­ing Nazi salutes, prais­ing Nazi SS units, and pro­mot­ing white nation­al­ism. That a Ukrain­ian far right group is doing these things isn’t news. It’s the fact that this unit was post­ing this stuff while being trained by Cana­di­an and oth­er NATO forces that makes this news.

    Cen­turia has report­ed­ly been active at the Het­man Petro Sahaidachny Nation­al Army Acad­e­my (NAA) since 2018. The NAA is described as Ukraine’s pre­mier mil­i­tary edu­ca­tion insti­tu­tion and a major hub for west­ern mil­i­tary assis­tance to the coun­try. Some mem­bers have even bragged on social media that they received train­ing from the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary in Cana­da. Yep. Beyond that, in May, Cen­turia orga­niz­ers boast­ed to their fol­low­ers that its mem­bers not only cur­rent­ly served as offi­cers in Ukraine’s mil­i­tary bu they’ve also “suc­ceed­ed in estab­lish­ing coop­er­a­tion with for­eign col­leagues from such coun­tries as France, the Unit­ed King­dom, Cana­da, the USA, Ger­man and Poland”. It’s the Inter­mar­i­um and Beyond.

    How did the Cana­di­an and Ukrain­ian mil­i­taries respond to the report? The Cana­di­an mil­i­tary acknowl­edged that it does­n’t proac­tive­ly exam­ine the back­grounds of those they train or look for signs of sup­port for far-right caus­es. In oth­er words, that’s Ukraine’s job. The Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary also acknowl­edged that it does­n’t screen those enter­ing the mil­i­tary or mil­i­tary cadets for extrem­ist views and ties, but went on to assert that the Cen­turia does­n’t even exist and the group is “fake”. Yes, the Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary is not only deny­ing it has an extrem­ist prob­lem but is claim­ing that such reports are hoax­es. So the Can­da­di­an mil­i­tary is intent on skirt­ing its respon­si­bil­i­ties while the Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary remains adamant about gaslight­ing the world about the sit­u­a­tion. And that’s all why our best hope of see­ing any real change in this pol­i­cy is the hope that the West­’s new exis­ten­tial freak­out about Chi­na will induce a lit­tle per­spec­tive on the ongo­ing exis­ten­tial freak­out about Rus­sia and the insan­i­ty of mil­i­tar­i­ly equip­ping neo-Nazis to fight the last alleged exis­ten­tial threat:

    Ottawa Cit­i­zen

    Far-right extrem­ists in Ukraine brag they have received train­ing from the Cana­di­an Forces: report

    The study from an insti­tute at George Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., tracked social media accounts of the far-right group Cen­turia, doc­u­ment­ing its Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary mem­bers giv­ing Nazi salutes, pro­mot­ing white nation­al­ism and prais­ing mem­bers of Nazi SS units.

    Author of the arti­cle:
    David Pugliese
    Pub­lish­ing date:
    Oct 04, 2021 • Octo­ber 4, 2021 •

    A new report from an Amer­i­can uni­ver­si­ty says far-right extrem­ists in Ukraine’s mil­i­tary have bragged they received train­ing from the Cana­di­an Forces and oth­er NATO nations.

    Far-right extrem­ists in Ukraine’s mil­i­tary have bragged they received train­ing from the Cana­di­an Forces and oth­er NATO nations, a new study from an Amer­i­can uni­ver­si­ty has uncov­ered.

    The study from an insti­tute at George Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., tracked social media accounts of the far-right group Cen­turia, doc­u­ment­ing its Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary mem­bers giv­ing Nazi salutes, pro­mot­ing white nation­al­ism and prais­ing mem­bers of Nazi SS units.

    The far-right group has been active since 2018 at the Het­man Petro Sahaidachny Nation­al Army Acad­e­my or NAA, accord­ing to the report from George Washington’s Insti­tute for Euro­pean, Russ­ian and Eurasian Stud­ies.

    The NAA is Ukraine’s pre­mier mil­i­tary edu­ca­tion insti­tu­tion and a major hub for west­ern mil­i­tary assis­tance to the coun­try, includ­ing from Cana­da.

    Cen­turia mem­bers acknowl­edged on social media they have received train­ing from the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary and have par­tic­i­pat­ed in mil­i­tary exer­cis­es with Cana­da. In May, Cen­turia orga­niz­ers boast­ed to their fol­low­ers that its mem­bers cur­rent­ly served as offi­cers in Ukraine’s mil­i­tary and “have suc­ceed­ed in estab­lish­ing coop­er­a­tion with for­eign col­leagues from such coun­tries as France, the Unit­ed King­dom, Cana­da, the USA, Ger­man and Poland,” accord­ing to the institute’s report.

    “The Ukrain­ian military’s fail­ure to check Cen­turia activ­i­ties sug­gests a lev­el of tol­er­ance on its part for the appar­ent pro­lif­er­a­tion of far-right ide­ol­o­gy and influ­ence with­in the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” the study warned.

    One mem­ber of the group has received offi­cer train­ing in the Unit­ed Kingdom’s Roy­al Mil­i­tary Acad­e­my Sand­hurst, grad­u­at­ing in late 2020. Anoth­er attend­ed the Ger­man Army Officer’s Acad­e­my in Dres­den in 2019.

    ...

    The NAA denied to the uni­ver­si­ty researchers that Cen­turia oper­at­ed with­in the acad­e­my and not­ed it had no tol­er­ance for extrem­ism. But the report has a num­ber of pho­tos of NAA cadets giv­ing Nazi salutes and pro­mot­ing far-right mate­r­i­al. One of the NAA cadets was a firearms instruc­tor for a far-right group that the Unit­ed Jew­ish Com­mu­ni­ty of Ukraine accused in 2021 of spread­ing anti-Semit­ic pro­pa­gan­da.

    Cana­di­an Forces spokes­woman Lt.-Cmdr. Julie McDon­ald said it was up to Ukraine to vet its own secu­ri­ty forces. But, if Cana­di­an mil­i­tary per­son­nel saw first-hand evi­dence of extrem­ist views, they could refuse to train those sol­diers, she added. The Cana­di­an Forces, how­ev­er, does not proac­tive­ly exam­ine the back­grounds of those they train or look for signs of sup­port for far-right caus­es.

    “The Depart­ment of Nation­al Defence and the Cana­di­an Armed Forces are strong­ly opposed to the glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of Nazism and all forms of racism, racial dis­crim­i­na­tion, xeno­pho­bia, intol­er­ance and extrem­ism,” McDon­ald added.

    Ukraine’s Min­istry of Defence told uni­ver­si­ty researchers that it did not screen those enter­ing the mil­i­tary or mil­i­tary cadets for extrem­ist views and ties. It stat­ed con­cerns about Cen­turia were base­less and that such an orga­ni­za­tion was “fake.”

    Bernie Far­ber, head of the Cana­di­an Anti-Hate Net­work, said it was not good enough for the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary to take a pas­sive approach in regard to far-right extrem­ism when it came to its train­ing of for­eign sol­diers. “Clear­ly Cana­da has a respon­si­bil­i­ty when it comes to who it trains,” Far­ber said. “It’s not good enough just to leave it to the Ukraini­ans. The end result is the fact that Cana­di­an troops may have trained Ukrain­ian Neo-Nazis.”

    Con­cerns about such train­ing have been cir­cu­lat­ing since 2015, when it was first decid­ed to send Cana­di­an troops to Ukraine. In April of that year, then-defence min­is­ter Jason Ken­ney acknowl­edged that Cana­di­an mil­i­tary lead­ers dis­cussed how to avoid train­ing extrem­ists. That was done ini­tial­ly by stip­u­lat­ing that only units of the Ukrain­ian Nation­al Guard and army be trained as opposed to some of the ad hoc mili­tias that had sprung up in the coun­try at the time.

    But MP Jack Har­ris, then the NDP defence crit­ic, warned that far-right groups were inte­grat­ing them­selves into the mil­i­tary, mak­ing it dif­fi­cult to weed out extrem­ists.

    Cen­turia also has ties to the Azov move­ment. In 2018, the U.S. Con­gress banned the use of U.S. funds to pro­vide arms, train­ing and oth­er assis­tance to the Azov Bat­tal­ion because of its links to the far right and Neo Nazis.

    ———-

    “Far-right extrem­ists in Ukraine brag they have received train­ing from the Cana­di­an Forces: report” by David Pugliese; Ottawa Cit­i­zen; 10/04/2021

    “The far-right group has been active since 2018 at the Het­man Petro Sahaidachny Nation­al Army Acad­e­my or NAA, accord­ing to the report from George Washington’s Insti­tute for Euro­pean, Russ­ian and Eurasian Stud­ies.”

    At least three years of activ­i­ty at the NAA, Ukraine’s pre­mier mil­i­tary edu­ca­tion insti­tu­tion. That’s how long Cen­turia has been oper­at­ing at the NAA. Oper­at­ing out in the open, accord­ing to the pho­tos in the report. The Nazi salutes and far right mate­r­i­al was­n’t being hid­den. Beyond that, Cen­turia mem­bers are open­ly brag­ging on social media about all the inter­na­tion­al net­work­ing they’re doing. So it’s simul­ta­ne­ous­ly mil­i­tary net­work­ing and far right net­work­ing. We are lit­er­al­ly watch­ing the cre­ation of inter­na­tion­al neo-Nazi inter-mil­i­tary net­works being fos­tered in real-time as part of a NATO mis­sion:

    ...
    The NAA is Ukraine’s pre­mier mil­i­tary edu­ca­tion insti­tu­tion and a major hub for west­ern mil­i­tary assis­tance to the coun­try, includ­ing from Cana­da.

    Cen­turia mem­bers acknowl­edged on social media they have received train­ing from the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary and have par­tic­i­pat­ed in mil­i­tary exer­cis­es with Cana­da. In May, Cen­turia orga­niz­ers boast­ed to their fol­low­ers that its mem­bers cur­rent­ly served as offi­cers in Ukraine’s mil­i­tary and “have suc­ceed­ed in estab­lish­ing coop­er­a­tion with for­eign col­leagues from such coun­tries as France, the Unit­ed King­dom, Cana­da, the USA, Ger­man and Poland,” accord­ing to the institute’s report.

    “The Ukrain­ian military’s fail­ure to check Cen­turia activ­i­ties sug­gests a lev­el of tol­er­ance on its part for the appar­ent pro­lif­er­a­tion of far-right ide­ol­o­gy and influ­ence with­in the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” the study warned.

    One mem­ber of the group has received offi­cer train­ing in the Unit­ed Kingdom’s Roy­al Mil­i­tary Acad­e­my Sand­hurst, grad­u­at­ing in late 2020. Anoth­er attend­ed the Ger­man Army Officer’s Acad­e­my in Dres­den in 2019.

    ...

    The NAA denied to the uni­ver­si­ty researchers that Cen­turia oper­at­ed with­in the acad­e­my and not­ed it had no tol­er­ance for extrem­ism. But the report has a num­ber of pho­tos of NAA cadets giv­ing Nazi salutes and pro­mot­ing far-right mate­r­i­al. One of the NAA cadets was a firearms instruc­tor for a far-right group that the Unit­ed Jew­ish Com­mu­ni­ty of Ukraine accused in 2021 of spread­ing anti-Semit­ic pro­pa­gan­da.
    ...

    Adding insult to injury, when pressed about this report, Canada’s mil­i­tary acknowl­edged that it does not proac­tive­ly try to iden­ti­fy extrem­ists among those they train. The Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary went even fur­ther and both acknowl­edged it does­n’t screen for extrem­ists while call­ing the entire Cen­turia group “fake”. It’s like an admis­sion and a denial merged into a sin­gle tru­ly awful response:

    ...
    Cana­di­an Forces spokes­woman Lt.-Cmdr. Julie McDon­ald said it was up to Ukraine to vet its own secu­ri­ty forces. But, if Cana­di­an mil­i­tary per­son­nel saw first-hand evi­dence of extrem­ist views, they could refuse to train those sol­diers, she added. The Cana­di­an Forces, how­ev­er, does not proac­tive­ly exam­ine the back­grounds of those they train or look for signs of sup­port for far-right caus­es.

    ...

    Ukraine’s Min­istry of Defence told uni­ver­si­ty researchers that it did not screen those enter­ing the mil­i­tary or mil­i­tary cadets for extrem­ist views and ties. It stat­ed con­cerns about Cen­turia were base­less and that such an orga­ni­za­tion was “fake.”
    ...

    Keep in mind that call­ing Cen­turia “fake” isn’t tech­ni­cal­ly the same thing as deny­ing that all of those social media pho­tos of NAA cadets giv­ing Nazi salutes and pro­mot­ing extrem­ist mate­r­i­al exist. It’s just say­ing Cen­turia, one of dozens of far right groups oper­at­ing in Ukraine, is fake. Which rais­es the pos­si­bil­i­ty that Ukraine’s Min­istry of Defense could have been lit­er­al­ly cor­rect when it call Cen­turia ‘fake’ in the sense that Cen­turia could be like an umbrel­la orga­ni­za­tion for all of the dif­fer­ent extrem­ist groups oper­at­ing in Ukraine’s mil­i­tary. Or maybe Ukraine’s Min­istry of Defense is just straight up lying and deny­ing the exis­tence of extrem­ists in its ranks as always. That’s unclear. But since it does­n’t look like the Ukrain­ian or Cana­di­an mil­i­taries were at all per­turbed by this report in any mean­ing­ful way, it seems like a safe bet that the Cen­turia social media posts are going to con­tin­ue. More pho­tos of Nazi salutes and hate lit­er­a­ture. More stud­ies doc­u­ment­ing this. And more requests that we all ignore the stud­ies and dis­be­lieve our lying eyes watch­ing the ongo­ing West­ern mil­i­tary train­ing and sup­port for neo-Nazi ter­ror­ist groups. And all under the aus­pice of fight­ing a ‘Russ­ian exis­ten­tial threat’. So now that the ‘Russ­ian exis­ten­tial threat’ is cur­rent­ly being replaced by a ‘Chi­nese exis­ten­tial threat’ (at least in terms of pri­or­i­ties and rhetoric), maybe now would be a good time to address with the broad­er pub­lic that gen­uine exis­ten­tial threat of the West­’s ongo­ing train­ing and sup­port for neo-Nazi ter­ror­ist groups that are embed­ding them­selves into West­ern mil­i­taries and build­ing inter­na­tion­al net­works.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | October 16, 2021, 4:11 pm

  5. Canada’s mil­i­tary affair with Ukrain­ian Nazis bub­bled up again. A affair that Canada’s mil­i­tary would clear­ly pre­fer to remain a secret but just keeps com­ing up. Recall how it was less than a month ago that we had reports about the Ukrain­ian far right Cen­turia group brag­ging on social media about being trained by the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary in Cana­da.

    This new report are about pair of train­ing events in Ukraine in 2018. In both cas­es, Cana­di­an offi­cers end­ed up meet­ing and hav­ing pic­tures tak­en with lead­ers of the Azov Bat­tal­ion, with­out objec­tion. That’s already scan­dalous enough. But it turns out, a year before the meet­ing, Canada’s Joint Task Force Ukraine pro­duced a brief­ing on the Azov Bat­tal­ion, acknowl­edg­ing its links to Nazi ide­ol­o­gy. “Mul­ti­ple mem­bers of Azov have described them­selves as Nazis,” the Cana­di­an offi­cers warned in their 2017 brief­ing (as if this was a secret and required a report).

    Flash for­ward to the sec­ond 2018 meet­ing, in Decem­ber 2018, when then-Cana­di­an Army com­man­der Lt.-Gen. Jean-Marc Lan­thi­er met with Azov lead­ers. Records show the pri­ma­ry con­cerns after the meet­ing was whether or not pic­tures would be pub­licly released.

    So we have mul­ti­ple fur­ther con­fir­ma­tions of what we already knew: Canada’s mil­i­tary has been know­ing­ly train­ing Nazi Bat­tal­ions.

    And as we’ll see, we’re get­ting fur­ther con­fir­ma­tion of what we also already knew: that expo­sure of this pol­i­cy isn’t real­ly going to change any­thing and the pol­i­cy will con­tin­ue. Yep, while Canada’s mil­i­tary has promised an inves­ti­ga­tion into these inci­dents, it’s also warn­ing that parts of the inves­ti­ga­tion might need to be kept secret. It’s a clue as to how this is going to go down:

    Ottawa Cit­i­zen

    Cana­di­an offi­cials who met with Ukrain­ian unit linked to neo-Nazis feared expo­sure by news media: doc­u­ments

    A year before the meet­ing, Canada’s Joint Task Force Ukraine pro­duced a brief­ing on the Azov Bat­tal­ion, acknowl­edg­ing its links to Nazi ide­ol­o­gy.

    David Pugliese
    Pub­lish­ing date:
    Nov 08, 2021

    Cana­di­an offi­cials who met with mem­bers of a Ukrain­ian bat­tal­ion linked to neo-Nazis didn’t denounce the unit, but were instead con­cerned the media would expose details of the get-togeth­er, accord­ing to new­ly released doc­u­ments.

    The Cana­di­ans met with and were briefed by lead­ers from the Azov Bat­tal­ion in June 2018. The offi­cers and diplo­mats did not object to the meet­ing and instead allowed them­selves to be pho­tographed with bat­tal­ion offi­cials despite pre­vi­ous warn­ings that the unit saw itself as pro-Nazi. The Azov Bat­tal­ion then used those pho­tos for its online pro­pa­gan­da, point­ing out the Cana­di­an del­e­ga­tion expressed “hopes for fur­ther fruit­ful co-oper­a­tion.”

    After a jour­nal­ist asked the Cana­di­an Forces about the Azov social media post­ings, offi­cers scram­bled to come up with a response, accord­ing to doc­u­ments obtained by this news­pa­per through Access to Infor­ma­tion law.

    Lt. Col. Fras­er Auld, com­man­der of Canada’s Joint Task Force Ukraine, warned that a news arti­cle might be soon pub­lished and could result in ques­tions being asked inside the Cana­di­an gov­ern­ment about why such a meet­ing took place.

    A year before the meet­ing, Canada’s Joint Task Force Ukraine pro­duced a brief­ing on the Azov Bat­tal­ion, acknowl­edg­ing its links to Nazi ide­ol­o­gy. “Mul­ti­ple mem­bers of Azov have described them­selves as Nazis,” the Cana­di­an offi­cers warned in their 2017 brief­ing..

    Bernie Far­ber, head of the Cana­di­an Anti-Hate Net­work, said the Cana­di­ans should have imme­di­ate­ly walked out of the Azov Bat­tal­ion brief­ing. “Cana­di­an armed forces per­son­nel do not meet with Nazis; peri­od, full stop,” Far­ber said. “This a hor­ren­dous mis­take that shouldn’t have been made.”

    Far­ber said it was also dis­turb­ing the Azov unit was able to use the Cana­di­ans in pro­pa­gan­da attempts to legit­imize its far-right ide­ol­o­gy. Besides its sup­port of Nazi ide­ol­o­gy, Azov mem­bers have been accused of war crimes and tor­ture.

    One gath­er­ing that jour­nal­ists didn’t find out about was a Decem­ber 2018 event in Ukraine attend­ed by then Cana­di­an Army com­man­der Lt.-Gen. Jean-Marc Lan­thi­er, accord­ing to the doc­u­ments.

    Mem­bers of the Azov Bat­tal­ion were present, but, again, instead of denounc­ing the battalion’s Nazi sym­pa­thies, the Depart­ment of Nation­al Defence and the Cana­di­an Forces focused con­cern on the pos­si­bil­i­ty that pho­tos might have been tak­en show­ing Cana­di­an sol­diers with mem­bers of the Azov unit.

    Chris Hen­der­son, then assis­tant deputy min­is­ter for pub­lic affairs, emailed more than 20 DND pub­lic-rela­tions offi­cers, wor­ried that pho­tos might appear online. “Do we have a clear expres­sion of CAF pol­i­cy toward this group?” he asked of the Azov Bat­tal­ion. “This may or may not prompt ques­tions, but we need to be ready and not come across as being tak­en by sur­prise.”

    Jaime Kirzn­er-Roberts, pol­i­cy direc­tor of the Friends of Simon Wiesen­thal Cen­ter, said Cana­da had to make it a pri­or­i­ty that its mil­i­tary per­son­nel have no involve­ment with far-right fas­cist mili­tias in Ukraine under any cir­cum­stances. “It’s con­cern­ing that, for the sec­ond time in a month, we have seen evi­dence of Cana­di­an mil­i­tary offi­cials engag­ing with Ukrain­ian neo-Nazi groups,” she added.

    Kirzn­er-Roberts was refer­ring to a recent report from an insti­tute at George Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty in the Unit­ed States reveal­ing that Cen­turia, a far-right group made up of Ukrain­ian sol­diers linked to the Azov move­ment, boast­ed they received train­ing from Cana­da and oth­er NATO coun­tries. Researchers with the uni­ver­si­ty tracked social media accounts of Cen­turia, doc­u­ment­ing its Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary mem­bers giv­ing Nazi salutes, pro­mot­ing white nation­al­ism and prais­ing mem­bers of Nazi SS units.

    In 2018, the U.S. Con­gress banned the use of U.S. funds to pro­vide arms, train­ing and oth­er assis­tance to the Azov Bat­tal­ion because of its links to the far-right and neo-Nazis.

    Nation­al Defence spokesman Dan Le Bouthilli­er said the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary was exam­in­ing its poli­cies on the vet­ting of for­eign troops it trains as well as the infor­ma­tion uncov­ered by the George Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty report.

    He had ear­li­er not­ed that the 2018 meet­ing with Azov Bat­tal­ion mem­bers was planned and orga­nized by Ukrain­ian author­i­ties. Cana­di­an mil­i­tary rep­re­sen­ta­tives had no pri­or knowl­edge of those who would be attend­ing, he added. Le Bouthilli­er not­ed it was the job of the Cana­di­an defence attaché to assess the sit­u­a­tion in the con­flict zone. “Cana­da has not, does not, and will not be pro­vid­ing sup­port to Azov and affil­i­at­ed enti­ties,” Le Bouthilli­er said.

    ...

    ———–

    “Cana­di­an offi­cials who met with Ukrain­ian unit linked to neo-Nazis feared expo­sure by news media: doc­u­ments” by David Pugliese; Ottawa Cit­i­zen; 11/08/02021

    “Jaime Kirzn­er-Roberts, pol­i­cy direc­tor of the Friends of Simon Wiesen­thal Cen­ter, said Cana­da had to make it a pri­or­i­ty that its mil­i­tary per­son­nel have no involve­ment with far-right fas­cist mili­tias in Ukraine under any cir­cum­stances. “It’s con­cern­ing that, for the sec­ond time in a month, we have seen evi­dence of Cana­di­an mil­i­tary offi­cials engag­ing with Ukrain­ian neo-Nazi groups,” she added.”

    The sec­ond time in a month we’ve had sto­ries about the Cana­di­an Mil­i­tary palling around with Ukrain­ian neo-Nazis. First it was the study out of the George Wash­ing­ton University’s Insti­tute for Euro­pean, Russ­ian and Eurasian Stud­ies reports about the Cen­turia group’s ongo­ing train­ing by the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary in Cana­da. It’s not a great trend.

    And now we have new reports about a 2018 meet­ing where Cana­di­an mil­i­tary offi­cials were briefed by lead­ers from the Azov Bat­tal­ion in June 2018 and allowed them­selves to be pho­tographed with bat­tal­ion offi­cials. But it gets worse, because we’re also learn­ing that Canada’s Joint Task Force Ukraine pro­duced a brief­ing on the Azov Bat­tal­ion a year before this meet­ing warn­ing about the group’s Nazi ide­ol­o­gy:

    ...
    The Cana­di­ans met with and were briefed by lead­ers from the Azov Bat­tal­ion in June 2018. The offi­cers and diplo­mats did not object to the meet­ing and instead allowed them­selves to be pho­tographed with bat­tal­ion offi­cials despite pre­vi­ous warn­ings that the unit saw itself as pro-Nazi. The Azov Bat­tal­ion then used those pho­tos for its online pro­pa­gan­da, point­ing out the Cana­di­an del­e­ga­tion expressed “hopes for fur­ther fruit­ful co-oper­a­tion.”

    After a jour­nal­ist asked the Cana­di­an Forces about the Azov social media post­ings, offi­cers scram­bled to come up with a response, accord­ing to doc­u­ments obtained by this news­pa­per through Access to Infor­ma­tion law.

    Lt. Col. Fras­er Auld, com­man­der of Canada’s Joint Task Force Ukraine, warned that a news arti­cle might be soon pub­lished and could result in ques­tions being asked inside the Cana­di­an gov­ern­ment about why such a meet­ing took place.

    A year before the meet­ing, Canada’s Joint Task Force Ukraine pro­duced a brief­ing on the Azov Bat­tal­ion, acknowl­edg­ing its links to Nazi ide­ol­o­gy. “Mul­ti­ple mem­bers of Azov have described them­selves as Nazis,” the Cana­di­an offi­cers warned in their 2017 brief­ing.
    ...

    And then there’s the new­ly revealed Decem­ber 2018 even in Ukraine attend­ed by Cana­di­an Army com­man­der Lt.-Gen. Jean-Marc Lan­thi­er. As records show, the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary was­n’t con­cerned about the fact that a gen­er­al met with the lead­ers of a neo-Nazi bat­tal­ion. They were con­cerned about pho­tos of it get­ting out:

    ...
    One gath­er­ing that jour­nal­ists didn’t find out about was a Decem­ber 2018 event in Ukraine attend­ed by then Cana­di­an Army com­man­der Lt.-Gen. Jean-Marc Lan­thi­er, accord­ing to the doc­u­ments.

    Mem­bers of the Azov Bat­tal­ion were present, but, again, instead of denounc­ing the battalion’s Nazi sym­pa­thies, the Depart­ment of Nation­al Defence and the Cana­di­an Forces focused con­cern on the pos­si­bil­i­ty that pho­tos might have been tak­en show­ing Cana­di­an sol­diers with mem­bers of the Azov unit.

    Chris Hen­der­son, then assis­tant deputy min­is­ter for pub­lic affairs, emailed more than 20 DND pub­lic-rela­tions offi­cers, wor­ried that pho­tos might appear online. “Do we have a clear expres­sion of CAF pol­i­cy toward this group?” he asked of the Azov Bat­tal­ion. “This may or may not prompt ques­tions, but we need to be ready and not come across as being tak­en by sur­prise.”
    ...

    Flash for­wards to today, and we now have assur­ances that the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary is inves­ti­gat­ing all of this. What should we expect from an inves­ti­ga­tion into what appears to have be the delib­er­ate, albeit embar­rass­ing, pol­i­cy? Here’s a hint: we are already being warned that parts of the inves­ti­ga­tion might have to remain secret:

    Ottawa Cit­i­zen

    Alle­ga­tions of Cana­di­an troops train­ing neo-Nazis and war crim­i­nals sparks mil­i­tary review

    A review into how Cana­da approves the for­eign mil­i­tary per­son­nel its trains should be ready by ear­ly next year but parts of the study will need to remain secret.

    David Pugliese
    Pub­lish­ing date:
    Nov 08, 2021

    A review into how Cana­da approves the for­eign mil­i­tary per­son­nel it trains should be ready by ear­ly next year, but parts of the study will need to remain secret, accord­ing to the Depart­ment of Nation­al Defence.

    The review fol­lows con­cerns raised by Jew­ish groups of the alleged involve­ment of Cana­di­an troops in train­ing neo-Nazis in Ukraine as well as warn­ings by sol­diers last year that some Iraqis who have received instruc­tion from Cana­da were involved in tor­ture and rape.

    DND spokesman Dan Le Bouthilli­er said the review was start­ed in late Octo­ber. “This review will look holis­ti­cal­ly at all mis­sions where the CAF con­ducts men­tor­ing or capac­i­ty build­ing func­tions with the armed forces of anoth­er nation,” he not­ed.

    But Le Bouthilli­er indi­cat­ed that some details of the review will remain secret as “the specifics of the process by which the CAF ver­i­fies the suit­abil­i­ty of train­ing can­di­dates is sub­ject to oper­a­tional secu­ri­ty restric­tions.”

    But crit­ics point out the Cana­di­an Forces does not actu­al­ly con­duct vet­ting of those for­eign troops that it trains, which is at the heart of the prob­lem. It leaves such vet­ting up to the nation pro­vid­ing the troops to be trained.

    The review comes as a Jew­ish group in Ukraine is high­light­ing a new video of Ukrain­ian para­troop­ers singing a song to hon­our Stepan Ban­dera. Ban­dera was a anti-Semi­te and Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor whose orga­ni­za­tion is linked to the mur­der of more than 100,000 Jews and Poles dur­ing the Sec­ond World War. He is revered in Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist and far-right cir­cles.

    The Cana­di­an mil­i­tary was warned in 2015 before start­ing its Ukraine train­ing mis­sion about the dan­gers of the far-right with­in the Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary ranks, but the senior lead­er­ship large­ly ignored those con­cerns.

    ...

    In Sep­tem­ber a report from an insti­tute at George Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty in the Unit­ed States revealed that Ukrain­ian sol­diers with links to neo-Nazi move­ments, such as Azov, boast­ed they received train­ing from Cana­da and oth­er NATO coun­tries.

    In the past, senior defence and Cana­di­an Forces lead­ers have been reluc­tant to con­demn the glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors in both Latvia and Ukraine, two coun­tries where Cana­di­an troops are con­duct­ing train­ing.

    In Sep­tem­ber 2019 Lat­vian Min­is­ter of Defence Artis Pabriks pub­licly praised mem­bers of the Lat­vian SS who fought for the Nazis, point­ing out they are “the pride of the Lat­vian peo­ple and of the state” and Latvia would not “allow any­one to dis­cred­it their mem­o­ry.”

    Then-defence min­is­ter Har­jit Saj­jan, a close friend of Pabriks, refused to con­demn the glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of the SS unit and Cana­di­an gen­er­als remained silent. The Lat­vian SS includ­ed those who had been involved in the mur­der of Jews dur­ing the Holo­caust. In addi­tion, mem­bers of the unit were among the last hold­outs in defend­ing the Nazi regime in Berlin.

    Jew­ish groups, how­ev­er, con­demned Pabriks com­ments. “Giv­en the fact that the (Lat­vian SS) fought for a vic­to­ry of the Third Reich, the most geno­ci­dal regime in his­to­ry, and that among those serv­ing in it were active par­tic­i­pants in the mass mur­der of Lat­vian Jew­ry, as well as of Ger­man and Aus­tri­an Jews deport­ed by the Nazis to Riga, such com­ments are incom­pre­hen­si­ble, let alone deeply offen­sive, com­ing from a senior min­is­ter of a coun­try with full mem­ber­ship in the Euro­pean Union and NATO,” Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesen­thal Cen­ter not­ed in his protest let­ter to the Lat­vian gov­ern­ment.

    Canada’s train­ing mis­sion to Iraq has also faced prob­lems. Ear­li­er this year this news­pa­per revealed that Cana­di­an sol­diers com­plained in 2018 to their com­man­ders that the Iraqi troops they were train­ing were war crim­i­nals who liked to show videos of their atroc­i­ties, includ­ing exe­cut­ing pris­on­ers and rap­ing a woman to death.

    But, after report­ing their con­cerns to the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary lead­er­ship, the sol­diers were told to con­tin­ue the train­ing and avoid watch­ing the videos the Iraqis want­ed to share with them, accord­ing to Cana­di­an Forces doc­u­ments.

    ————-

    ” Alle­ga­tions of Cana­di­an troops train­ing neo-Nazis and war crim­i­nals sparks mil­i­tary review” by David Pugliese; Ottawa Cit­i­zen; 11/08/2021

    “But crit­ics point out the Cana­di­an Forces does not actu­al­ly con­duct vet­ting of those for­eign troops that it trains, which is at the heart of the prob­lem. It leaves such vet­ting up to the nation pro­vid­ing the troops to be trained.”

    Yes, as crit­ics point out, Canada’s mil­i­tary does­n’t actu­al­ly vet the for­eign troops they train. And we don’t have to just believe the crit­ics. Recall how this was the mil­i­tary’s excuse in response to the Cen­turia group sto­ry last month. We were explic­it­ly told by Cana­di­an Forces spokes­woman Lt.-Cmdr. Julie McDon­ald it was up to Ukraine to vet its own secu­ri­ty forces. This is Canada’s pol­i­cy.

    But as the arti­cle reminds us, ;this sto­ry isn’t just about Cana­da or Ukraine. The tol­er­a­tion of the open adu­la­tion of Nazis is a prob­lem fac­ing all of NATO, with mem­bers of Latvia adopt­ing the cel­e­bra­tion of Lat­vian SS units as a point of nation­al pride. Canada’s mil­i­tary was silent on this in 2019 when Lat­vian Min­is­ter of Defence Artis Pabriks did exact­ly that. But Cana­da obvi­ous­ly was­n’t the only NATO mem­ber to stand qui­et­ly by when this hap­pened:

    ...
    In Sep­tem­ber 2019 Lat­vian Min­is­ter of Defence Artis Pabriks pub­licly praised mem­bers of the Lat­vian SS who fought for the Nazis, point­ing out they are “the pride of the Lat­vian peo­ple and of the state” and Latvia would not “allow any­one to dis­cred­it their mem­o­ry.”

    Then-defence min­is­ter Har­jit Saj­jan, a close friend of Pabriks, refused to con­demn the glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of the SS unit and Cana­di­an gen­er­als remained silent. The Lat­vian SS includ­ed those who had been involved in the mur­der of Jews dur­ing the Holo­caust. In addi­tion, mem­bers of the unit were among the last hold­outs in defend­ing the Nazi regime in Berlin.

    Jew­ish groups, how­ev­er, con­demned Pabriks com­ments. “Giv­en the fact that the (Lat­vian SS) fought for a vic­to­ry of the Third Reich, the most geno­ci­dal regime in his­to­ry, and that among those serv­ing in it were active par­tic­i­pants in the mass mur­der of Lat­vian Jew­ry, as well as of Ger­man and Aus­tri­an Jews deport­ed by the Nazis to Riga, such com­ments are incom­pre­hen­si­ble, let alone deeply offen­sive, com­ing from a senior min­is­ter of a coun­try with full mem­ber­ship in the Euro­pean Union and NATO,” Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesen­thal Cen­ter not­ed in his protest let­ter to the Lat­vian gov­ern­ment.
    ...

    And to add a bit of per­spec­tive on what to expect in terms of pol­i­cy changes, the fact that Canada’s mil­i­tary was telling sol­diers to con­tin­ue train­ing troops who liked to show war crimes videos of their own atroc­i­ties of rape and tor­ture more or less tells us how any inves­ti­ga­tion of this nature is going to be resolved. Train­ing hor­ri­ble peo­ple to do hor­ri­ble things is in keep­ing with the pol­i­cy:

    ...
    Canada’s train­ing mis­sion to Iraq has also faced prob­lems. Ear­li­er this year this news­pa­per revealed that Cana­di­an sol­diers com­plained in 2018 to their com­man­ders that the Iraqi troops they were train­ing were war crim­i­nals who liked to show videos of their atroc­i­ties, includ­ing exe­cut­ing pris­on­ers and rap­ing a woman to death.

    But, after report­ing their con­cerns to the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary lead­er­ship, the sol­diers were told to con­tin­ue the train­ing and avoid watch­ing the videos the Iraqis want­ed to share with them, accord­ing to Cana­di­an Forces doc­u­ments.
    ...

    So we’ll see what this inves­ti­ga­tion turns up. Or not. Prob­a­bly not actu­al­ly. They’re already warn­ing parts are going to have to remain a secret. In par­tic­u­lar, “the specifics of the process by which the CAF ver­i­fies the suit­abil­i­ty of train­ing can­di­dates is sub­ject to oper­a­tional secu­ri­ty restric­tions.” Don’t for­get, we were told last month after the Cen­turia inci­dent that Cana­da does­n’t do the vet­ting on its own of the for­eign sol­diers it trains. So, based on this new lan­guage, it sounds like some sort of vet­ting is qui­et­ly done, it’s just not done to deter­mine whether or not these peo­ple should be trained:

    ...
    DND spokesman Dan Le Bouthilli­er said the review was start­ed in late Octo­ber. “This review will look holis­ti­cal­ly at all mis­sions where the CAF con­ducts men­tor­ing or capac­i­ty build­ing func­tions with the armed forces of anoth­er nation,” he not­ed.

    But Le Bouthilli­er indi­cat­ed that some details of the review will remain secret as “the specifics of the process by which the CAF ver­i­fies the suit­abil­i­ty of train­ing can­di­dates is sub­ject to oper­a­tional secu­ri­ty restric­tions.”
    ...

    What parts of the review will we get to see in the end? Prob­a­bly the parts where we’re told that Canada’s mil­i­tary was nev­er the par­ty respon­si­ble for vet­ting these peo­ple in the first place. The parts of the report about how they had actu­al­ly vet­ted and deter­mined these were Nazi units but decid­ed to train them any­way will pre­sum­ably remain clas­si­fied, along with any parts of about how that pol­i­cy con­tin­ues.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | November 10, 2021, 5:33 pm

  6. Here’s a set of sto­ries relat­ed to Canada’s deep­en­ing mil­i­tary rela­tion­ship with Ukraine. There’s now plans for Cana­di­an firms to set up an small-arms ammu­ni­tion facil­i­ty in Ukraine, replac­ing the facil­i­ties that were lost to the sep­a­ratists in the East. Ukraine has report­ed­ly been lob­by­ing Cana­da for such a firm since 2017.

    First, recall the reports from back in Octo­ber about the Ukrain­ian far right Cen­turia group brag­ging on social media about being trained by the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary in Cana­da. Then, less than a month lat­er we get reports about 2018 train­ing mis­sions in Ukraine involv­ing mem­bers of the Azov Bat­tal­ion and Cana­di­an offi­cers.

    That’s all part of the con­text of this sto­ry about the plans for a small-arms muni­tions fac­to­ry. This has been a deep­en­ing mil­i­tary rela­tion­ship for sev­er­al years now. But it’s the peo­ple and com­pa­nies involved with this new small-arms muni­tions com­pa­ny that’s per­haps the most note­wor­thy. The plans were first announced back in June 2021, when Water­bury Far­rel of Bramp­ton, Ont. announced it had joined with a new­ly cre­at­ed firm called GL Muni­tions, based in Toron­to, to pro­vide Ukraine with the ammu­ni­tion-pro­duc­tion facil­i­ty.

    Also involved with the ven­ture was the Cana­di­an Com­mer­cial Cor­po­ra­tion (CCC) in Ottawa, which is a fed­er­al Crown cor­po­ra­tion that helps Cana­di­an firms secure inter­na­tion­al con­tracts with gov­ern­ments. On the Ukrain­ian end was Ukroboron­prom, Ukraine’s orga­ni­za­tion of defense firms.

    Then the plans changed. Sort of. Its not actu­al­ly clear what what, if any, change took place. GL Muni­tions was dis­solved and Andrew Leslie, a for­mer Lib­er­al MP and retired Cana­di­an Forces lieu­tenant gen­er­al, who was a direc­tor at the com­pa­ny, told the press that he was no longer asso­ci­at­ed with the ven­ture. No fur­ther details were giv­en. Then, on Novem­ber 5, the CCC informed Ukroboron­prom that GL Muni­tions changed its cor­po­rate struc­ture. In addi­tion, there was a new firm for Gold Leaf Muni­tions, with the same address in Toron­to as GL Muni­tions. David Angus of the Cap­i­tal Hill Group in Ottawa is list­ed as a direc­tor of Gold Leaf Muni­tions. Angus had been pre­vi­ous­ly reg­is­tered as a con­sul­tant for GL Muni­tions.

    And that’s it. That all we know about this mys­te­ri­ous new ven­ture. They start­ed off with one com­pa­ny and kind of sort of replaced it with anoth­er com­pa­ny with almost the same name at the same address. Andrew Leslie leaves, and there’s no expla­na­tion at all for why any of this hap­pened.

    But there are a cou­ple oth­er intel­li­gence-relat­ed aspects to this sto­ry worth not­ing. The first is very tan­gen­tial, but still kind of inter­est­ing. It’s the fact that when Andrew Leslie first left the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary as a Lieu­tenant-Gen­er­al in 2011, he took a job with CGI Group to head up their new Cana­di­an defense, pub­lic safe­ty and intel­li­gence unit after CGI pur­chased Stan­ley Inc in 2010, giv­ing it an entry into work for US intel­li­gence ser­vices. Leslie stayed in that posi­tion until 2013. Since then, CGI Group’s rela­tion­ship with the US intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty appears to have only got­ten stronger, with CGI Group receiv­ing a $100 mil­lion con­tract to over­haul the Defense Intel­li­gence Agen­cies intel­li­gence pro­cess­ing capa­bil­i­ties. The point being that Leslie is some­one with expe­ri­ence oper­at­ing in that space where the com­mer­cial sec­tor and intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty inter­sect.

    The sec­ond very inter­est­ing intel­li­gence-relat­ed piece of this sto­ry is that it turns out Antho­ny Teth­er, the for­mer head of US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), has been work­ing at Ukroboron­prom as an expert on poten­tial invest­ments. Teth­er was hired in 2016 to be in charge of Ukroboron­prom long-term devel­op­ment and was appoint­ed to the Super­vi­so­ry Board in Feb 2018. So it’s worth keep­ing in mind the dis­tinct pos­si­bil­i­ty of some DARPA-relat­ed angle to this new small-arms ven­ture. It rais­es some ques­tions about what kind muni­tions they’re plan­ning on mak­ing at that fac­to­ry.

    Final­ly, it’s worth recall­ing the intrigu­ing sto­ry involv­ing Erik Prince and Andreii Arte­menko pitch­ing an elab­o­rate scheme that sound­ed like a kind of attempt to pri­va­tize Ukraine’s mil­i­tary indus­tri­al com­plex into Prince’s glob­al mer­ce­nary oper­a­tions. The scheme involved hir­ing vet­er­ans of Ukraine’s civ­il war as mer­ce­nar­ies. It also includ­ed the pur­chase of the Motor Sich heli­copter engine man­u­fac­tur­ing plant that was part of a much larg­er vision for the trans­for­ma­tion of Ukraine’s defense sec­tor and the cre­ation of a “ver­ti­cal­ly inte­grat­ed avi­a­tion defense con­sor­tium.” Final­ly, Ukraine’s main intel­li­gence ser­vice would begin a close part­ner­ship with Lan­cast­er 6, a pri­vate mil­i­tary com­pa­ny involved with Prince’s deals in Africa the Mid­dle East. It also includ­ed a pro­pos­al to smooth over US-Ukraine rela­tions by hav­ing Joseph E. Schmitz lob­by the Trump admin­is­tra­tion on behalf of Ukraine.
    You have to won­der how the long-term vision for this mil­i­tary rela­tion­ship between Ukraine and Cana­da aligns with that Prince/Artemenko scheme.

    Ok, first, here’s an arti­cle from a cou­ple weeks ago about the mys­te­ri­ous­ly opaque and chang­ing plans around GL Muni­tions and its cor­po­rate dop­pel­ganger Gold Leaf Muni­tions:

    Ottawa Cit­i­zen

    Cana­da mak­ing plans to build ammo fac­to­ry in Ukraine amid ten­sions with Rus­sia

    The ini­tia­tive involves a num­ber of Ontario com­pa­nies and the Cana­di­an Com­mer­cial Cor­po­ra­tion in Ottawa.
    Author of the arti­cle:

    David Pugliese • Ottawa Cit­i­zen
    Pub­lish­ing date:
    Jan 10, 2022

    Amid mount­ing ten­sions with Rus­sia over Ukraine, Cana­da is mak­ing plans to build an ammu­ni­tion fac­to­ry in the lat­ter coun­try with help from a num­ber of Ontario-based com­pa­nies.

    Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin has threat­ened a mil­i­tary response if NATO nations, includ­ing Cana­da, con­tin­ue with “unfriend­ly” actions and their “obvi­ous­ly aggres­sive stance” con­cern­ing Ukraine.

    Rus­sia is con­cerned NATO will bring neigh­bour­ing Ukraine into the mil­i­tary alliance and has demand­ed guar­an­tees that it won’t hap­pen. Since Novem­ber, NATO has been warn­ing that Rus­sia could be plan­ning a large-scale inva­sion of Ukraine.

    Ukraine, which has been fight­ing Russ­ian-backed sep­a­ratists since 2014, has been call­ing on Cana­da and oth­er NATO coun­tries to pro­vide it with mod­ern weapon­ry and equip­ment. Ukraine lacks a facil­i­ty to pro­duce small-arms ammu­ni­tion and has been lob­by­ing Cana­da since 2017 for help in con­struct­ing one.

    That ini­tia­tive is now being planned and involves a num­ber of Ontario com­pa­nies and the Cana­di­an Com­mer­cial Cor­po­ra­tion in Ottawa. “CCC’s sup­port to Ukraine is cur­rent­ly at the explorato­ry stage,” con­firmed Mouk­tar Abdil­lahi, a spokesper­son for the cor­po­ra­tion.

    The Cana­di­an Com­mer­cial Cor­po­ra­tion is a fed­er­al Crown cor­po­ra­tion that helps Cana­di­an firms secure inter­na­tion­al con­tracts with gov­ern­ments.

    The ammu­ni­tion fac­to­ry pro­pos­al has tak­en a num­ber of twists and turns over the past sev­en months.

    In June, Water­bury Far­rel of Bramp­ton, Ont. announced it had joined with a new­ly cre­at­ed firm called GL Muni­tions, based in Toron­to, to pro­vide Ukraine with the ammu­ni­tion-pro­duc­tion facil­i­ty. Water­bury Far­rel stat­ed it was work­ing with the Cana­di­an gov­ern­ment, through the Cana­di­an Com­mer­cial Cor­po­ra­tion, to meet that goal. Also involved in the ven­ture was Ukroboron­prom, Ukraine’s orga­ni­za­tion of defence firms.

    But GL Muni­tions has been dis­solved, accord­ing to fed­er­al records. Andrew Leslie, a for­mer Lib­er­al MP and retired Cana­di­an Forces lieu­tenant gen­er­al, who was a direc­tor at the com­pa­ny, told this news­pa­per he was no longer asso­ci­at­ed with the ven­ture. Leslie did not pro­vide fur­ther details.

    Water­bury Far­rel did not respond to a request for com­ment.

    On Nov. 5, the CCC informed Ukroboron­prom that GL Muni­tions had changed its cor­po­rate struc­ture. “The founders of the Cor­po­ra­tion have indi­cat­ed that these changes will expe­dite the process towards final­iz­ing the cre­ation of the small-arms ammu­ni­tion depot,” the CCC let­ter not­ed.

    In the same let­ter, the CCC revealed the exis­tence of a new firm called Gold Leaf Muni­tions, with the same address in Toron­to as GL Muni­tions. David Angus of the Cap­i­tal Hill Group in Ottawa is list­ed as a direc­tor of Gold Leaf Muni­tions, but did not respond to repeat­ed requests for com­ment. Angus had been pre­vi­ous­ly reg­is­tered as a con­sul­tant for GL Muni­tions, accord­ing to the fed­er­al reg­istry of lob­by­ists.

    Ukraine once had a small-arms ammu­ni­tion pro­duc­tion facil­i­ty, but it is locat­ed in an area now con­trolled by Russ­ian-backed sep­a­ratists.

    In Decem­ber 2017, the House of Com­mons defence com­mit­tee rec­om­mend­ed the Cana­di­an gov­ern­ment pro­vide weapons to Ukraine, pro­vid­ed it demon­strat­ed it was work­ing to elim­i­nate cor­rup­tion at all lev­els of gov­ern­ment. Ukraine is con­sid­ered one of the most cor­rupt coun­tries in the world, but its gov­ern­ment has been try­ing to deal with the prob­lem.

    Cana­da has already sup­plied some equip­ment to Ukraine, includ­ing mine-clear­ing gear, hel­mets, tents, first-aid kits and bul­let-proof vests. A Win­nipeg com­pa­ny has also pro­vid­ed sniper rifles.

    In response to Russia’s back­ing of sep­a­ratists in east­ern Ukraine and its annex­a­tion of the Crimean Penin­su­la in 2014, Cana­da sent troops to help train Ukraine’s mil­i­tary.

    Cana­di­an for­eign affairs min­is­ter Mélanie Joly called on Rus­sia on Fri­day to “de-esca­late and engage in mean­ing­ful dia­logue — any mil­i­tary incur­sion into Ukraine will have seri­ous con­se­quences, includ­ing coor­di­nat­ed sanc­tions.”

    Besides a ban on Ukraine join­ing NATO, Putin has demand­ed that NATO scale back its troops and weapons in the region.

    On Fri­day, though, NATO Sec­re­tary Gen­er­al Jens Stoltenberg reject­ed any pro­pos­al that would stop the con­tin­ued expan­sion of the mil­i­tary alliance or lim­it the deploy­ment of troops and weapons.

    ...

    ————

    “Cana­da mak­ing plans to build ammo fac­to­ry in Ukraine amid ten­sions with Rus­sia” by David Pugliese; Ottawa Cit­i­zen; 01/10/2022

    “Ukraine, which has been fight­ing Russ­ian-backed sep­a­ratists since 2014, has been call­ing on Cana­da and oth­er NATO coun­tries to pro­vide it with mod­ern weapon­ry and equip­ment. Ukraine lacks a facil­i­ty to pro­duce small-arms ammu­ni­tion and has been lob­by­ing Cana­da since 2017 for help in con­struct­ing one.”

    It’s not hard to imag­ine Ukraine has been lob­by­ing for years for such a plant. But it’s notable that it’s Cana­da who they were lob­by­ing and ulti­mate­ly agreed. With the back­ing of the CCC, this is a gov­ern­ment backed ini­tia­tive:

    ...
    That ini­tia­tive is now being planned and involves a num­ber of Ontario com­pa­nies and the Cana­di­an Com­mer­cial Cor­po­ra­tion in Ottawa. “CCC’s sup­port to Ukraine is cur­rent­ly at the explorato­ry stage,” con­firmed Mouk­tar Abdil­lahi, a spokesper­son for the cor­po­ra­tion.

    The Cana­di­an Com­mer­cial Cor­po­ra­tion is a fed­er­al Crown cor­po­ra­tion that helps Cana­di­an firms secure inter­na­tion­al con­tracts with gov­ern­ments.
    ...

    But these plans have clear­ly hit some obsta­cles, with GL Muni­tions get­ting replaced with Gold Leaf Muni­tion — locat­ed at the same address — and the depar­ture of Andrew Leslie. What were the issues and who is ulti­mate­ly back­ing this ini­tia­tive? We have no idea. It’s part of why makes these reports about the chang­ing cor­po­rate struc­ture so mys­te­ri­ous: these announced changes are basi­cal­ly the only things we know about these com­pa­nies:

    ...
    The ammu­ni­tion fac­to­ry pro­pos­al has tak­en a num­ber of twists and turns over the past sev­en months.

    In June, Water­bury Far­rel of Bramp­ton, Ont. announced it had joined with a new­ly cre­at­ed firm called GL Muni­tions, based in Toron­to, to pro­vide Ukraine with the ammu­ni­tion-pro­duc­tion facil­i­ty. Water­bury Far­rel stat­ed it was work­ing with the Cana­di­an gov­ern­ment, through the Cana­di­an Com­mer­cial Cor­po­ra­tion, to meet that goal. Also involved in the ven­ture was Ukroboron­prom, Ukraine’s orga­ni­za­tion of defence firms.

    But GL Muni­tions has been dis­solved, accord­ing to fed­er­al records. Andrew Leslie, a for­mer Lib­er­al MP and retired Cana­di­an Forces lieu­tenant gen­er­al, who was a direc­tor at the com­pa­ny, told this news­pa­per he was no longer asso­ci­at­ed with the ven­ture. Leslie did not pro­vide fur­ther details.

    Water­bury Far­rel did not respond to a request for com­ment.

    On Nov. 5, the CCC informed Ukroboron­prom that GL Muni­tions had changed its cor­po­rate struc­ture. “The founders of the Cor­po­ra­tion have indi­cat­ed that these changes will expe­dite the process towards final­iz­ing the cre­ation of the small-arms ammu­ni­tion depot,” the CCC let­ter not­ed.

    In the same let­ter, the CCC revealed the exis­tence of a new firm called Gold Leaf Muni­tions, with the same address in Toron­to as GL Muni­tions. David Angus of the Cap­i­tal Hill Group in Ottawa is list­ed as a direc­tor of Gold Leaf Muni­tions, but did not respond to repeat­ed requests for com­ment. Angus had been pre­vi­ous­ly reg­is­tered as a con­sul­tant for GL Muni­tions, accord­ing to the fed­er­al reg­istry of lob­by­ists.
    ...

    And that right there is basi­cal­ly every­thing that’s pub­licly known about this ven­ture. The mys­tery of the chang­ing cor­po­rate struc­ture is all we know. And it’s that near com­plete lack of knowl­edge about the peo­ple involved with this ven­ture that makes any intel­li­gence-relat­ed sto­ries about the peo­ple and orga­ni­za­tions involved notable.

    So here’s a 2011 piece on Andrew Leslie’s move from the Cana­di­an Forces to head up the CGI Group’s new Cana­da defense, pub­lic safe­ty and intel­li­gence unit. He only spent a cou­ple years in this posi­tion before leav­ing in 2013, but when you’re brought in to lead the intel­li­gence defense con­tract­ing unit for a com­pa­ny like CGI Group you’re going to have plen­ty of ongo­ing con­nec­tions to the intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty:

    The Cana­di­an Press

    CGI to launch defence and intel­li­gence unit in Cana­da

    Pub­lished Sep­tem­ber 29, 2011

    CGI Group is launch­ing a Cana­di­an defence, pub­lic safe­ty and intel­li­gence unit based on sim­i­lar efforts in the Unit­ed States.

    Lieu­tenant-Gen­er­al Andrew Leslie, who retired ear­li­er this month after a 30-year career with the Cana­di­an Forces, will head the unit.

    The unit is intend­ed to serve Canada’s defence and secu­ri­ty needs around the world.

    Despite a 35-year his­to­ry of work­ing with near­ly 100 Cana­di­an gov­ern­ment civil­ian agen­cies, CGI’s work in the defence and intel­li­gence sec­tor has remained lim­it­ed.

    The Mon­tre­al-based com­pa­ny has said it viewed this untapped area as a prime tar­get for growth in Cana­da.

    With more than 7,500 spe­cial­ists around the world, CGI will offer ser­vices such as advanced ana­lyt­ics, bio­met­rics and cyber­se­cu­ri­ty, oper­a­tional logis­tics, sys­tems engi­neer­ing and train­ing.

    Last year, the com­pa­ny pur­chased Stan­ley Inc. for $1‑billion (U.S.), giv­ing it an entry into the defence and intel­li­gence side of the U.S. gov­ern­ment with about 75 per cent of its work being of a sen­si­tive nature includ­ing pro­cess­ing and doing secu­ri­ty checks for visa appli­cants on behalf of the U.S. State Depart­ment.

    Ear­li­er this year, CGI chief exec­u­tive Michael Roach said the Cana­di­an work like­ly would­n’t involve visa appli­ca­tions, but rather oth­er IT ser­vices.

    ...

    ———–

    “CGI to launch defence and intel­li­gence unit in Cana­da”; The Cana­di­an Press; 09/29/2011

    “Last year, the com­pa­ny pur­chased Stan­ley Inc. for $1‑billion (U.S.), giv­ing it an entry into the defence and intel­li­gence side of the U.S. gov­ern­ment with about 75 per cent of its work being of a sen­si­tive nature includ­ing pro­cess­ing and doing secu­ri­ty checks for visa appli­cants on behalf of the U.S. State Depart­ment.”

    Don’t for­get this sto­ry is from 2011. CGI Group’s pres­ence in the US intel­li­gence space has only grown, includ­ing the 100m DIA con­tract announced in Octo­ber.

    So that’s the tan­gen­tial­ly-relat­ed rela­tion­ship between Andrew Leslie, CGI Group, and the Cana­di­an and US intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ties.

    And now here’s a report from Feb 2018 describ­ing how Antho­ny Teth­er, the for­mer head of DARPA, was being appoint­ed to Ukroboron­prom’s Super­vi­so­ry Board after already spend­ing a year and a half in charge of Ukroboron­prom’s long-term devel­op­ment and help­ing to start GARDA, the Ukrain­ian ver­sion of DARPA:

    Defense World.NET

    Ukroboron­prom Appoints For­mer DARPA Head as Super­vi­so­ry Board Mem­ber

    Our Bureau
    08:36 AM, Feb­ru­ary 2, 2018

    Ukraine’s state run Ukroboron­prom has appoint­ed for­mer head of US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Antho­ny Teth­er as mem­ber of UOP Super­vi­so­ry Board.

    Antho­ny Teth­er has been in charge of Ukroboron­prom long-term devel­op­ment for over a year and a half. He assists in imple­ment­ing UOP devel­op­ment strat­e­gy, imple­men­ta­tion of reforms, cor­po­ra­ti­za­tion, and inter­na­tion­al audit. The for­mer head of DARPA con­tributed to strength­en­ing Ukroboronprom’s export poten­tial and invest­ment devel­op­ment. Under his chair­man­ship, the State Gen­er­al Advanced Research and Devel­op­ment Agency (GARDA, the pro­to­type of the Amer­i­can DARPA) was cre­at­ed, the com­pa­ny said in a state­ment Thurs­day.

    “As a mem­ber of the Super­vi­so­ry Board, Antho­ny Teth­er will help Ukroboron­prom to imple­ment the reform strat­e­gy and inter­na­tion­al audit,” said Roman Romanov, Ukroboron­prom Direc­tor Gen­er­al.

    Ear­li­er, Mykhay­lo Zhurovs’kyy – the rec­tor of the Nation­al Tech­ni­cal Uni­ver­si­ty of Ukraine “Kyiv Poly­tech­nic Insti­tute named after I. Siko­rsky” – was elect­ed as Chair­man of the Super­vi­so­ry Board. Lieu­tenant Gen­er­al Yaroslav Skal’ko, for­mer com­man­der-in-chief of the Ukrain­ian Air Force, was elect­ed as Vice-Chair­man.

    ...

    ———-

    “Ukroboron­prom Appoints For­mer DARPA Head as Super­vi­so­ry Board Mem­ber” by Our Bureau; Defense World.NET; 02/02/2018

    “Antho­ny Teth­er has been in charge of Ukroboron­prom long-term devel­op­ment for over a year and a half. He assists in imple­ment­ing UOP devel­op­ment strat­e­gy, imple­men­ta­tion of reforms, cor­po­ra­ti­za­tion, and inter­na­tion­al audit. The for­mer head of DARPA con­tributed to strength­en­ing Ukroboronprom’s export poten­tial and invest­ment devel­op­ment. Under his chair­man­ship, the State Gen­er­al Advanced Research and Devel­op­ment Agency (GARDA, the pro­to­type of the Amer­i­can DARPA) was cre­at­ed, the com­pa­ny said in a state­ment Thurs­day.”

    If any­one was qual­i­fied to help Ukraine start its own DARPA, it’s Antho­ny Teth­er. But Teth­er has­n’t just been help­ing Ukraine start GARDA. He’s also been sit­ting on the super­vi­so­ry board of Ukroboron­prom.

    Was the GL Muni­tions small-arms muni­tions plant a brain-child of Ukraine’s new mini-DARPA? It’s just one of the many ques­tions we’re fac­ing with this sto­ry. Ques­tions large­ly root­ed in the fact that we know absolute­ly noth­ing else about the project. Noth­ing oth­er than the fact that the more we learn about Canada’s deep­en­ing mil­i­tary rela­tion­ship with Ukraine the more ques­tions it rais­es.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | January 29, 2022, 4:36 pm

  7. It hap­pened again. Remem­ber how the world end­ed up learn­ing about the secret Cana­di­an mil­i­tary train­ing of Ukrain­ian extrem­ists only after the Cen­turia group — net­work of Ukrain­ian far right extrem­ists which claims to be devel­op­ing ties to mil­i­taries around the world — only after mem­bers of Cen­turia group bragged about the meet­ings and post­ed pho­tos on their social media pages. And at that time, we also learned that Cen­turia group mem­bers received offi­cer train­ing in the Unit­ed Kingdom’s Roy­al Mil­i­tary Acad­e­my Sand­hurst, grad­u­at­ing in late 2020. Then, less than a month lat­er, we got reports about 2018 train­ing mis­sions in Ukraine involv­ing mem­bers of the Azov Bat­tal­ion and Cana­di­an offi­cers. Train­ing mis­sions the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary intend­ed on keep­ing secret from the pub­lic. Well, we got a new report on the UK mil­i­tary’s extrem­ist train­ing oper­a­tions in Ukraine. Secret train­ing oper­a­tions that we only learned about because the extrem­ists once again post­ed about it online. And once again with unde­ni­able pho­tos.

    The fol­low­ing arti­cle from Declas­si­fied UK cov­ers is based on an online report about a meet­ing between UK per­son­nel and rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Ukrain­ian Nation­al Guard (NGU) that was post­ed on the NGU’s own web­site last year. The meet­ing was believed to have tak­en place in Sep­tem­ber 2021. There is no men­tion of the meet­ing on any pub­licly avail­able UK Min­istry of Defence (MoD) web­sites and Declas­si­fied under­stands that the MoD viewed the meet­ing as pri­vate and should not have been pub­li­cized.

    When asked about the meet­ing, the MoD refused to give any infor­ma­tion on the UK per­son­nel involved. But the pho­tos post­ed in the NGU give us a clue: Lt Col Andy Cox, deputy com­man­der of Orbital, was there with two oth­er British offi­cers. Orbital was found­ed in 2015, but has report­ed­ly only trained mem­bers of Ukraine’s reg­u­lar army. That’s what makes this meet­ing so poten­tial­ly sig­nif­i­cant: Orbital is appar­ent­ly plan­ning on expand­ing its train­ing to include the NGU, mean­ing Azov and any oth­er extrem­ist groups allowed to join Ukraine’s Nation­al Guard would be open for this kind of train­ing.

    The NGU online report even quotes Lt Col Cox as promis­ing “the British mil­i­tary is ready to involve rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Nation­al Guard of Ukraine in the train­ing activ­i­ties being con­duct­ed today for units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to devel­op their com­bat capa­bil­i­ties.” The MoD insists that it has no such plans is Cox was like­ly mis­quot­ed due to a trans­la­tion error. It’s not exact­ly a com­pelling denial giv­en all the secre­cy involved.

    So we have both Cana­da and the UK get­ting caught train­ing Ukraine’s neo-Nazi units and both show­ing no indi­ca­tion that this ‘secret’ train­ing was dis­con­tin­ued. All in all, it’s increas­ing­ly clear the West has big plans for groups like Azov. Big ‘secret’ plans that aren’t going to be thwart­ed with mere expo­sure:

    Declas­si­fied UK

    UK com­man­ders in Ukraine met neo-Nazi-linked Nation­al Guard to ‘deep­en mil­i­tary coop­er­a­tion’

    Ukraine’s Nation­al Guard says that in meet­ing last year the UK mil­i­tary agreed to start train­ing its forces, which include a thou­sand-strong neo-Nazi unit. The UK Min­istry of Defence dis­putes the claim.

    MATT KENNARD
    15 Feb­ru­ary 2022

    * Pho­tos of meet­ing in Kyiv last year – which UK per­son­nel thought was pri­vate – were post­ed by Ukraine’s Nation­al Guard (NGU)
    * UK MoD tells Declas­si­fied it has no plans to train NGU and that British com­man­der was mis­quot­ed
    * But UK mil­i­tary is engag­ing with NGU and aware of “the pecu­liar­i­ties of [its] com­bat oper­a­tions”
    * Appar­ent mem­ber of anoth­er far-right Ukrain­ian group was trained at Sand­hurst in 2020

    Details and pho­tos of the meet­ing in the cap­i­tal, Kyiv, were post­ed in Ukrain­ian on the web­site of Ukraine’s Nation­al Guard (NGU) last year.

    Declas­si­fied under­stands the UK Min­istry of Defence (MoD) believed the Sep­tem­ber 2021 meet­ing to be pri­vate and should not have been pub­li­cised. There is no men­tion of the meet­ing in any UK records that are pub­licly avail­able.

    Three British com­man­ders of Oper­a­tion Orbital – the UK military’s train­ing mis­sion in Ukraine – are pic­tured, along­side three NGU offi­cers. They sit around a table tak­ing notes.

    The MoD refused to give Declas­si­fied the names of the UK per­son­nel who attend­ed the meet­ing, cit­ing oper­a­tional and per­son­nel secu­ri­ty issues.

    How­ev­er, the NGU report names Lt Col Andy Cox, deputy com­man­der of Orbital, while two oth­er British offi­cers are pic­tured, one with his name tag promi­nent­ly dis­played.

    Orbital, which was launched in 2015, has so far only trained Ukraine’s reg­u­lar armed forces. Expand­ing it to include the Nation­al Guard would be con­tro­ver­sial due to sen­si­tiv­i­ties around the far-right sym­pa­thies of some of its units.

    The NGU was formed in 2014 to incor­po­rate an array of para­mil­i­tary and vol­un­teer bat­tal­ions which were fight­ing pro-Russ­ian sep­a­ratists in east­ern Ukraine. This includ­ed a neo-Nazi unit, the Azov Bat­tal­ion, which report­ed­ly has a thou­sand sol­diers.

    Now an offi­cial reg­i­ment with­in the NGU – and there­fore part of Ukraine’s Min­istry of Inter­nal Affairs – Azov fight­ers have been pic­tured in east­ern Ukraine with Nazi insignia such as swastikas and SS runes on their hel­mets.

    The battalion’s founder has said that Ukraine should “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semi­te-led Unter­men­schen [sub­hu­mans].”

    ‘Devel­op com­bat capa­bil­i­ties’

    The NGU report quotes Lt Col Cox as promis­ing “the British mil­i­tary is ready to involve rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Nation­al Guard of Ukraine in the train­ing activ­i­ties being con­duct­ed today for units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to devel­op their com­bat capa­bil­i­ties.”

    Cox adds: “We are cur­rent­ly con­sid­er­ing train­ing with the Nation­al Guard of Ukraine on defence oper­a­tions and the work of staff offi­cers.”

    He con­tin­ued: “We will start this work with the inclu­sion of NGU rep­re­sen­ta­tives in the train­ing activ­i­ties that are already being con­duct­ed by British instruc­tors in some units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.”

    But the MoD told Declas­si­fied it has no plans to start train­ing the NGU and that Cox was mis­quot­ed, prob­a­bly due to a trans­la­tion error.

    An MoD spokesper­son told Declas­si­fied: “The UK does not con­duct train­ing with the Nation­al Guard of Ukraine. This meet­ing was a rou­tine engage­ment between per­son­nel deployed on Oper­a­tion Orbital and a gov­ern­ment organ­i­sa­tion in Ukraine to improve mutu­al under­stand­ing.”

    ‘Pecu­liar­i­ties of com­bat oper­a­tions’

    The Sep­tem­ber meet­ing, how­ev­er, appears to be a sig­nif­i­cant engage­ment between the British mil­i­tary and the NGU.

    The report notes that British com­man­ders were “acquaint­ed with the his­to­ry of cre­ation, tasks and struc­ture of the Nation­al Guard of Ukraine”, “the pecu­liar­i­ties of the com­bat oper­a­tions of NGU units” as well as its “role and place in the secu­ri­ty and defence sec­tor of the state.”

    The NGU write-up of the meet­ing was titled: “The Nation­al Guard of Ukraine will deep­en mil­i­tary coop­er­a­tion with the Armed Forces of the Unit­ed King­dom”. It added: “The pur­pose of the meet­ing was to dis­cuss the expan­sion of fur­ther mil­i­tary coop­er­a­tion”.

    ...

    In the Sep­tem­ber 2021 meet­ing, Colonel Ser­hiy Malt­sev, head of inter­na­tion­al coop­er­a­tion for the NGU, told the British com­man­ders: “The con­tri­bu­tion made by the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary to build­ing the capac­i­ty of the Guards is dif­fi­cult to over­es­ti­mate.”

    He added: “Our joint achieve­ments with our Cana­di­an coun­ter­parts can serve as an exam­ple for the future coop­er­a­tion of the NGU with [the UK’s] Oper­a­tion Orbital.”

    ‘True patri­ots of Ukraine’

    Four months before the meet­ing with British com­man­ders, the same NGU web­site post­ed a state­ment to mark the Azov Regiment’s sev­en-year anniver­sary. Titled “Sev­en years of vic­to­ry”, it gushed with extrav­a­gant praise for the neo-Nazi unit.

    “In ear­ly May 2014, the ‘black men’ arrived in Berdyan­sk,” it not­ed, refer­ring to the port city on the north­ern coast of the Sea of Azov. “These were true patri­ots of Ukraine, who gath­ered here from all over the coun­try and ral­lied to repel the occu­piers who encroached on Ukrain­ian sov­er­eign­ty.”

    “The new­ly formed vol­un­teer unit was formed by car­ing men”, it con­tin­ued, adding “The Azovs sur­vived, hard­ened in fierce bat­tles.” It con­clud­ed: “Today, Azov is one of the most capa­ble units of the Ukrain­ian army, whose fight­ers have pro­fes­sion­al skills at the high­est lev­el, have the lat­est weapons and equip­ment and the same thirst for vic­to­ry as sev­en years ago.”

    But it is not only Ukraine’s NGU which is linked to far-right extrem­ism.

    In 2015, Dmytro Yarosh, then leader of the far-right Right Sec­tor par­ty, was appoint­ed a mil­i­tary advis­er to Colonel Gen­er­al Vik­tor Muzhenko, then Ukraine’s chief of gen­er­al staff.

    Yarosh is com­man­der of Right Sector’s para­mil­i­tary branch, the Ukrain­ian Vol­un­teer Army, which nev­er came under gov­ern­ment con­trol.

    But in 2017, the Kyiv Post report­ed that “around 130 for­mer Right Sec­tor fight­ers are now con­tract­ed sol­diers in the Ukrain­ian army prop­er”.

    In Novem­ber, Yarosh report­ed that he had been appoint­ed an advis­er to Valery Zaluzh­ny, com­man­der-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces.

    Yarosh calls him­self him­self a fol­low­er of Stepan Ban­dera, a mil­i­tant Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist and Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor dur­ing World War Two.

    When the Nazis invad­ed the USSR in June 1941, Bandera’s fol­low­ers mur­dered 4,000 Jews in Lviv, a city in west­ern Ukraine, in a few days, using weapons rang­ing from guns to met­al poles.

    It is esti­mat­ed that up to 1.6m Ukrain­ian Jews were killed in the Holo­caust.

    ...

    Britain’s Oper­a­tion Orbital has so far trained 22,000 mem­bers of Ukraine’s armed forces. In 2020, that train­ing was expand­ed “to incor­po­rate broad­er oper­a­tional and capa­bil­i­ty ori­en­tat­ed mar­itime and air capac­i­ty build­ing.”

    ———–

    “UK com­man­ders in Ukraine met neo-Nazi-linked Nation­al Guard to ‘deep­en mil­i­tary coop­er­a­tion’” by MATT KENNARD; Declas­si­fied UK; 02/15/2022

    “Declas­si­fied under­stands the UK Min­istry of Defence (MoD) believed the Sep­tem­ber 2021 meet­ing to be pri­vate and should not have been pub­li­cised. There is no men­tion of the meet­ing in any UK records that are pub­licly avail­able.”

    Whoops! Anoth­er secret meet­ing with one of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi bat­tal­ions got exposed by the Ukraini­ans again. And just as we saw with Canada’s mil­i­tary, which issued gener­ic and uncon­vinc­ing denials when its rela­tion­ship with the Azov Bat­tal­ion was exposed, we’re hear­ing more gener­ic uncon­vinc­ing denials from the UK mil­i­tary. It’s a big part of what makes this sto­ry so dis­turb­ing: West­ern mil­i­tary appear to be con­scious­ly intent on build­ing up the mil­i­tary capa­bil­i­ties of Ukraine’s most dan­ger­ous extrem­ist groups in secret. It’s such a big secret it gets implau­si­bly denied when exposed:

    ...
    Details and pho­tos of the meet­ing in the cap­i­tal, Kyiv, were post­ed in Ukrain­ian on the web­site of Ukraine’s Nation­al Guard (NGU) last year.

    ...

    Three British com­man­ders of Oper­a­tion Orbital – the UK military’s train­ing mis­sion in Ukraine – are pic­tured, along­side three NGU offi­cers. They sit around a table tak­ing notes.

    The MoD refused to give Declas­si­fied the names of the UK per­son­nel who attend­ed the meet­ing, cit­ing oper­a­tional and per­son­nel secu­ri­ty issues.

    How­ev­er, the NGU report names Lt Col Andy Cox, deputy com­man­der of Orbital, while two oth­er British offi­cers are pic­tured, one with his name tag promi­nent­ly dis­played.

    ...

    The NGU report quotes Lt Col Cox as promis­ing “the British mil­i­tary is ready to involve rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Nation­al Guard of Ukraine in the train­ing activ­i­ties being con­duct­ed today for units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to devel­op their com­bat capa­bil­i­ties.”

    ...

    But the MoD told Declas­si­fied it has no plans to start train­ing the NGU and that Cox was mis­quot­ed, prob­a­bly due to a trans­la­tion error.

    An MoD spokesper­son told Declas­si­fied: “The UK does not con­duct train­ing with the Nation­al Guard of Ukraine. This meet­ing was a rou­tine engage­ment between per­son­nel deployed on Oper­a­tion Orbital and a gov­ern­ment organ­i­sa­tion in Ukraine to improve mutu­al under­stand­ing.”

    ...

    The Sep­tem­ber meet­ing, how­ev­er, appears to be a sig­nif­i­cant engage­ment between the British mil­i­tary and the NGU.

    The report notes that British com­man­ders were “acquaint­ed with the his­to­ry of cre­ation, tasks and struc­ture of the Nation­al Guard of Ukraine”, “the pecu­liar­i­ties of the com­bat oper­a­tions of NGU units” as well as its “role and place in the secu­ri­ty and defence sec­tor of the state.”

    The NGU write-up of the meet­ing was titled: “The Nation­al Guard of Ukraine will deep­en mil­i­tary coop­er­a­tion with the Armed Forces of the Unit­ed King­dom”. It added: “The pur­pose of the meet­ing was to dis­cuss the expan­sion of fur­ther mil­i­tary coop­er­a­tion”.
    ...

    Also note how part of the rea­son this is even being con­sid­ered at all is because Azov was allowed to be incor­po­rat­ed into Ukraine’s Nation­al Guard (NGU). It’s a reminder that the Ukraine mil­i­tary is very keen on grant­i­ng these extrem­ist units ever more train­ing and offi­cial pow­er. It also rais­es ques­tions about what the plans are for groups like Right Sec­tor which haven’t been for­mal­ly incor­po­rat­ed into the Nation­al Guard but have been con­tract­ed to work for the gov­ern­ment. With the expan­sion of Orbital in 2020 “to incor­po­rate broad­er oper­a­tional and capa­bil­i­ty ori­en­tat­ed mar­itime and air capac­i­ty build­ing,” you have to won­der if Right Sec­tor is in store for some spe­cial train­ing too:

    ...
    Orbital, which was launched in 2015, has so far only trained Ukraine’s reg­u­lar armed forces. Expand­ing it to include the Nation­al Guard would be con­tro­ver­sial due to sen­si­tiv­i­ties around the far-right sym­pa­thies of some of its units.

    The NGU was formed in 2014 to incor­po­rate an array of para­mil­i­tary and vol­un­teer bat­tal­ions which were fight­ing pro-Russ­ian sep­a­ratists in east­ern Ukraine. This includ­ed a neo-Nazi unit, the Azov Bat­tal­ion, which report­ed­ly has a thou­sand sol­diers.

    Now an offi­cial reg­i­ment with­in the NGU – and there­fore part of Ukraine’s Min­istry of Inter­nal Affairs – Azov fight­ers have been pic­tured in east­ern Ukraine with Nazi insignia such as swastikas and SS runes on their hel­mets.

    ...

    Yarosh is com­man­der of Right Sector’s para­mil­i­tary branch, the Ukrain­ian Vol­un­teer Army, which nev­er came under gov­ern­ment con­trol.

    But in 2017, the Kyiv Post report­ed that “around 130 for­mer Right Sec­tor fight­ers are now con­tract­ed sol­diers in the Ukrain­ian army prop­er”.

    ...

    Britain’s Oper­a­tion Orbital has so far trained 22,000 mem­bers of Ukraine’s armed forces. In 2020, that train­ing was expand­ed “to incor­po­rate broad­er oper­a­tional and capa­bil­i­ty ori­en­tat­ed mar­itime and air capac­i­ty build­ing.”
    ...

    How exten­sive is the mil­i­tary train­ing of Ukraine’s neo-Nazis going to get? We’ll see. Or actu­al­ly, we prob­a­bly won’t see. It’s all an offi­cial secret, after all. At least until the extrem­ists start brag­ging about it online. So we might see.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 16, 2022, 4:35 pm

  8. With reports com­ing up that Belarus might be prepar­ing to enter the con­flict in the Ukraine fol­low­ing the pas­sage of a new con­sti­tu­tion ditch Belarus’s non-nuclear sta­tus, the prospects of the con­flict in Ukraine grow­ing into a larg­er region­al con­flict appear to be grow­ing.

    So to get a bet­ter idea of what exact­ly Vladimir Putin has in mind as the objec­tives for the attack on Ukraine, here’s a report about an arti­cle that was appar­ent­ly acci­den­tal­ly post­ed on the RIA Novosti news agency (and still avail­able on the inter­net archive) with a pub­li­ca­tion date of 8AM on Feb 26. The arti­cle was clear­ly post­ed acci­den­tal­ly because it was writ­ten as if the con­flict had already end­ed with Ukraine’s sur­ren­der.

    The piece attempts to describe both the rea­son­ing behind the attack but also the his­toric sig­nif­i­cance of the pre­sumed Russ­ian vic­to­ry. Part of the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion is appar­ent­ly that Putin decid­ed not to the the “Ukrain­ian ques­tion” to future gen­er­a­tion. An anti-Russ­ian Ukraine is viewed as an ahis­tor­i­cal abom­i­na­tion and large­ly the prod­uct of West­ern med­dling. To allow Ukraine to con­tin­ue down its cur­rent anti-Russ­ian path would even­tu­al­ly become irre­versible. In oth­er words, Rus­sia was watch­ing Ukraine — viewed by Putin as his­tor­i­cal­ly part of a ‘Greater Rus­sia’ — slow­ly get rad­i­cal­ized beyond repair and Putin decid­ed to inter­vene before it was too late.

    Then there’s the larg­er geopo­lit­i­cal dimen­sion to the inva­sion. To put it blunt­ly, the cap­ture of Ukraine is char­ac­ter­ized as the end of the old order and the begin­ning of a new mul­ti-polar world order. A world order where Euro­pean coun­tries like Ger­many and France throw off the yoke of US-UK Anglo-Sax­on dom­i­na­tion.

    So if we take this arti­cle as rep­re­sent­ing a peek inside the minds of the Krem­lin plans for this attack, it would appear the scale of the objec­tives are far greater than pre­emp­tive­ly deal­ing with the future threats of a Naz­i­fied Ukraine. It’s the kind of agen­da strong­ly hints at a push towards the dis­so­lu­tion of NATO as one of the pri­ma­ry end goals. It’s the kind of end goal that sug­gests the use of nuclear weapons may not be as unthink­able as in the past.

    Now, we have no idea at this point as to how much weight to place on this acci­den­tal­ly pub­lished piece. But at this point it does­n’t sound implau­si­ble that this real­ly does rep­re­sent the Krem­lin’s think­ing. After all, it’s not like this analy­sis would be incor­rect regard­ing the incred­i­ble dan­ger Ukraine rep­re­sent­ed towards Rus­sia in the long run. Ukraine has been increas­ing­ly ‘anti-Russ­ian’ as an offi­cial state ide­ol­o­gy since 2014 and that was only going to con­tin­ue as long as the civ­il war fes­tered. The long-term secu­ri­ty impli­ca­tions for Rus­sia from of a Ukraine dom­i­nat­ed by far right nation­al­ists real­ly are sig­nif­i­cant.

    And yet this view of Ukraine as sim­ply an exten­sion of Rus­sia is itself utter­ly ahis­tor­i­cal. The intense­ly anti-Russ­ian Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors of WWII like the OUN are obvi­ous exam­ples of how gen­uine Ukraini­ans who don’t at all iden­ti­fy with Rus­sia. Stephan Ban­dera was­n’t just an Anglo-Sax­on pawn. And there’s no way to sim­ply absorb ‘Ukraine’ into Rus­sia with­out tak­ing in that huge chunk of Ukraine that nev­er iden­ti­fied as Russ­ian and are now increas­ing­ly overt­ly anti-Russ­ian.

    So if we take this piece as rep­re­sent­ing a gen­uine look at the Krem­lin’s think­ing, we again have to ask whether or not a par­ti­tion­ing of Ukraine — between an eth­nic Russ­ian east and anti-Russ­ian West — is part of the plan. Oth­er­wise, it’s hard to see now Putin plans on cre­ate a ‘de-Naz­i­fied’ Ukraine that does­n’t involve a full-scale long-term occu­pa­tion of those areas of Ukraine that are going to be in a state of per­pet­u­al insur­rec­tion. And yet there was no hint of plans to par­ti­tion Ukraine in that acci­den­tal RIA Novosti piece. It sounds like the plan was to cap­ture Ukraine and more or less hold onto it indef­i­nite­ly as part of a ‘Greater Russ­ian’ union. So giv­en that a long-term occu­pa­tion of Ukraine would be required to real­is­ti­cal­ly ‘de-Naz­i­fy’ Ukraine, who knows, maybe Putin real­ly is plan­ning on ‘de-Naz­i­fy­ing’ Ukraine.

    But this is all assum­ing that Rus­sia real­ly does cap­ture Ukraine. And thus far, it’s unclear that’s going to hap­pen, at least not with­out the Russ­ian army being forced to lev­el a num­ber of large cities. This attack is a recipe for rad­i­cal­iz­ing the Ukrain­ian pop­u­lace even more. So at the same time Belarus appears to prepar­ing to both host nuclear weapons and enter this war, we appear to be look­ing at a very nasty long-term occu­pa­tion of Ukraine, with the Krem­lin’s goal of ‘de-Naz­i­fy­ing’ Ukraine at at the same time with Ukraine’s neo-Nazi mili­tias posi­tioned to play the role of the West­ern backed ‘good guy patri­ots’.

    To get a pre­view of how this could play out, here’s a tweet that was just put out by the offi­cial twit­ter account of Ukraine’s Nation­al Guard. It’s a tweet show­ing a video of a sol­dier dip­ping bul­lets in but­ter before load­ing them into a clip, with the cap­tion, “Azov fight­ers of the Nation­al Guard greased the bul­lets with lard against the Kady­rov orcs”. Yes, the Ukrain­ian Nation­al Guard is cel­e­brat­ing how its lead­ing neo-Nazi bat­tal­ion is spe­cial­ly prepar­ing bul­lets to kill Chechen Mus­lims. The tweet was flagged for vio­lat­ing Twit­ter’s hate speech, but it was kept up with a mes­sage, “This Tweet vio­lat­ed the Twit­ter Rules about hate­ful con­duct. How­ev­er, Twit­ter has deter­mined that it may be in the public’s inter­est for the Tweet to remain acces­si­ble” :

    Azov fight­ers of the Nation­al Guard greased the bul­lets with lard against the Kady­rov orcs??????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???????????? ??????????????????? ?? ??? ???????? ????? https://t.co/SBQltMr4bM pic.twitter.com/A1ci7tZL8r— ??? (@ng_ukraine) Feb­ru­ary 27, 2022

    That’s the dynam­ic poised to play out. The long-term dynam­ic: Rus­sia jus­ti­fy­ing the occu­pa­tion under the ban­ner of de-Naz­i­fy­ing Ukraine while the West spon­sors open neo-Nazi mili­tias at the same time it denies they’re neo-Nazis. Yes, not all of Ukraine’s mil­i­tary are neo-Nazis. But its overt neo-Nazis groups like Azov that have a proven track record for get­ting the cov­er­age and glo­ry. They’re going to be get­ting A LOT of inter­na­tion­al cov­er­age. It’s no sur­prise. Azov views this war as both a just cause and a recruit­ment cam­paign. That’s the per­verse dynam­ic at work. The kind of per­verse dynam­ic that could end up being a far right pro­pa­gan­da boon across Europe.

    It’s also cru­cial to keep in mind that it’s Ukraine’s far right “nation­al­ist” neo-Nazis who have been call­ing for BOTH rearm­ing Ukraine with nuclear weapons AND reori­en­tat­ing Ukraine AWAY from the west and cre­at­ing a new Baltic Euro­pean Union. Recall how Svo­bo­da, Right Sec­tor, and Nation­al Corps (Azov’d polit­i­cal wing) joint­ly called for exact­ly that in 2017. In oth­er words, the form­ing the Inter­mar­i­um. How would the Krem­lin feel­ing about the for­ma­tion of an Inter­mar­i­um that’s oper­at­ing out­side the “Anglo-Sax­on” orbit? It’s an increas­ing­ly impor­tant ques­tion going for­ward.

    So if the Krem­lin has a long-term goal of pulling con­ti­nen­tal Europe out of the “Anglo-Sax­on” orbit, it’s going to be worth keep­ing in mind that far right polit­i­cal rev­o­lu­tions across Europe are poten­tial­ly a great way to accom­plish that goal, and it’s hard to think of a more effec­tive tool for foment­ing those far right rev­o­lu­tions than a long-run­ning occu­pa­tion in Ukraine that posi­tions neo-Nazi bat­tal­ions as the plucky free­dom fight­ers. Don’t for­get that a grow­ing num­ber of the neo-Nazis fight­ing in Ukraine are going to be for­eign far right fight­ers trav­el­ing to the coun­try. At some point they’re going to go home, should they sur­vive, with all sorts of new mil­i­tary train­ing and expe­ri­ence. In oth­er words, the neo-Nazis fight­ing Rus­sia in Ukraine are best allies Putin has in the long-term strug­gle of peel­ing Europe away from the US and UK:

    The Jerusalem Post

    Russ­ian inva­sion a ‘solu­tion to Ukrain­ian ques­tion’ — Russ­ian state news
    A quick­ly delet­ed arti­cle referred to the inde­pen­dence of Belarus and Ukraine as a “ter­ri­ble cat­a­stro­phe.”

    By TZVI JOFFRE
    Pub­lished: FEBRUARY 28, 2022 12:07

    Rus­sia is “restor­ing its uni­ty” and pro­vid­ing a “solu­tion to the Ukrain­ian ques­tion” in its inva­sion of Ukraine, reads an opin­ion piece that was seem­ing­ly pub­lished by acci­dent by Russ­ian news agency RIA Novosti before being quick­ly tak­en down. The arti­cle was record­ed by the Inter­net Archive’s Way­back Machine before it was tak­en offline.

    “A new world is being born before our eyes,” wrote Petr Akopov in the arti­cle. “Rus­si­a’s mil­i­tary oper­a­tion in Ukraine has ush­ered in a new era — and in three dimen­sions at once. And of course, in the fourth, domes­ti­cal­ly. Here begins a new peri­od both in ide­ol­o­gy and in the very mod­el of our socio-eco­nom­ic sys­tem.”

    Echo­ing sim­i­lar state­ments made recent­ly by Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin, Akopov referred to the 1991 dec­la­ra­tions of inde­pen­dence by Belarus and Ukraine as a “ter­ri­ble cat­a­stro­phe” and an “unnat­ur­al dis­lo­ca­tion.”

    “Rus­sia is restor­ing its his­tor­i­cal full­ness, gath­er­ing the Russ­ian world, the Russ­ian peo­ple togeth­er — in its entire­ty of Great Rus­sians, Belaru­sians and Lit­tle Rus­sians (a term used before the 20th cen­tu­ry to refer to what is now Ukrain­ian ter­ri­to­ry),” con­tin­ued the arti­cle.

    “Vladimir Putin has assumed, with­out a drop of exag­ger­a­tion, a his­toric respon­si­bil­i­ty by decid­ing not to leave the solu­tion of the Ukrain­ian ques­tion to future gen­er­a­tions,” wrote Akopov.

    Akopov added that the “ques­tion” need­ed to be solved for two “key rea­sons.” The first rea­son is the “com­plex of a divid­ed peo­ple,” which he described as “when the Russ­ian house first lost part of its foun­da­tion (Kiev), and then was forced to come to terms with the exis­tence of two states, not one, but two peo­ples.”

    The sec­ond rea­son is to pre­vent Ukraine from being anti-Russ­ian and an out­post for the West.

    Akopov stressed that Ukraine’s state­hood would not be liq­ui­dat­ed if Rus­sia suc­ceeds in its goals, but would instead be “reor­ga­nized, re-estab­lished and returned to its nat­ur­al state of part of the Russ­ian world.”

    The author the­o­rized about the bound­aries of the “alliance” with Rus­sia, offer­ing the Col­lec­tive Secu­ri­ty Treaty Orga­ni­za­tion (CSTO), which includes post-Sovi­et states in Cen­tral Asia, the Eurasian Eco­nom­ic Union or the Union State of Rus­sia and Belarus. “This will be decid­ed after the end is put in the his­to­ry of Ukraine as anti-Rus­sia. In any case, the peri­od of the split of the Russ­ian peo­ple is com­ing to an end,” wrote Akopov.

    The arti­cle added that Rus­sia, Belarus and Ukraine would act as a sin­gle unit in terms of geopol­i­tics and that the West was “indig­nant” as it saw a “return of Rus­sia to its his­tor­i­cal bor­ders in Europe.”

    “The West as a whole, and even more so Europe in par­tic­u­lar, did not have the strength to keep Ukraine in its sphere of influ­ence, and even more so to take Ukraine for itself,” wrote Akopov, adding that Europe’s era of “glob­al lead­er­ship is over.”

    Akopov wrote that a “new world order” was being con­struct­ed, cre­at­ing a “mul­ti­po­lar world.”

    “Chi­na and India, Latin Amer­i­ca and Africa, the Islam­ic world and South­east Asia — no one believes that the West leads the world order, much less sets the rules of the game,” wrote Akopov. “Rus­sia has not only chal­lenged the West, it has shown that the era of West­ern glob­al dom­i­na­tion can be con­sid­ered com­plete­ly and final­ly over. The new world will be built by all civ­i­liza­tions and cen­ters of pow­er, nat­u­ral­ly, togeth­er with the West (unit­ed or not) — but not on its terms and not accord­ing to its rules.”

    ...

    ————

    “Russ­ian inva­sion a ‘solu­tion to Ukrain­ian ques­tion’ — Russ­ian state news” by TZVI JOFFRE; The Jerusalem Post; 02/28/2022

    ““A new world is being born before our eyes,” wrote Petr Akopov in the arti­cle. “Rus­si­a’s mil­i­tary oper­a­tion in Ukraine has ush­ered in a new era — and in three dimen­sions at once. And of course, in the fourth, domes­ti­cal­ly. Here begins a new peri­od both in ide­ol­o­gy and in the very mod­el of our socio-eco­nom­ic sys­tem.””

    A new world is being born, both inside and out­side of Rus­sia. That’s pre­emp­tive cel­e­bra­to­ry mes­sage from this author, echo­ing many of the themes from Putin’s own speech­es on this con­flict. As the author sees it, Putin him­self has assumed the respon­si­bil­i­ty of not leav­ing the solu­tion of the Ukrain­ian ques­tion to future gen­er­a­tions. Ukraine’s “com­plex of a divid­ed peo­ple” needs to be reuni­fied under a pro-Russ­ian iden­ti­ty and will not be allowed to become an anti-Russ­ian west­ern out­post:

    ...
    “Rus­sia is restor­ing its his­tor­i­cal full­ness, gath­er­ing the Russ­ian world, the Russ­ian peo­ple togeth­er — in its entire­ty of Great Rus­sians, Belaru­sians and Lit­tle Rus­sians (a term used before the 20th cen­tu­ry to refer to what is now Ukrain­ian ter­ri­to­ry),” con­tin­ued the arti­cle.

    “Vladimir Putin has assumed, with­out a drop of exag­ger­a­tion, a his­toric respon­si­bil­i­ty by decid­ing not to leave the solu­tion of the Ukrain­ian ques­tion to future gen­er­a­tions,” wrote Akopov.

    Akopov added that the “ques­tion” need­ed to be solved for two “key rea­sons.” The first rea­son is the “com­plex of a divid­ed peo­ple,” which he described as “when the Russ­ian house first lost part of its foun­da­tion (Kiev), and then was forced to come to terms with the exis­tence of two states, not one, but two peo­ples.”

    The sec­ond rea­son is to pre­vent Ukraine from being anti-Russ­ian and an out­post for the West.
    ...

    And regard­ing Belarus’s appar­ent­ly deci­sion to enter the war and host nuclear weapons, note the pre­dic­tion that Rus­sia, Belarus, and Ukraine would act as a sin­gle unit in terms of geopol­i­tics as part of the con­struc­tion of this new mul­ti­po­lar world:

    ...
    The arti­cle added that Rus­sia, Belarus and Ukraine would act as a sin­gle unit in terms of geopol­i­tics and that the West was “indig­nant” as it saw a “return of Rus­sia to its his­tor­i­cal bor­ders in Europe.”

    “The West as a whole, and even more so Europe in par­tic­u­lar, did not have the strength to keep Ukraine in its sphere of influ­ence, and even more so to take Ukraine for itself,” wrote Akopov, adding that Europe’s era of “glob­al lead­er­ship is over.”

    Akopov wrote that a “new world order” was being con­struct­ed, cre­at­ing a “mul­ti­po­lar world.”
    ...

    Again, it’s hard to know how much weight to put on this dis­ap­peared opin­ion piece. But there’s no deny­ing the sim­i­lar­i­ties between Akopov’s and Putin’s worlds on these top­ics. So if we assume this piece rep­re­sents the Krem­lin’s ambi­tions, it appears those ambi­tions include a dis­so­lu­tion of NATO over the long-run as part of a larg­er ini­tia­tive to pull Europe out of the “Anglo-Sax­on” orbit. Ambi­tions that, again, over­lap remark­ably with long-term goal of Ukraine’s far right and any oth­er fans of a neo-Inter­mar­i­um.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | February 28, 2022, 5:05 pm

  9. @Pterrafractyl–

    Sev­er­al Points to con­sid­er here:
    1.–This may be a gen­uine doc­u­ment. I, for one, cer­tain­ly would not claim oth­er­wise. How­ev­er with cyber-oper­a­tions being a part of con­tem­po­rary war­fare, it is impor­tant to main­tain crit­i­cal dis­tance on such mat­ters.

    2.–The “Jerusalem Post” has a strong right-lean­ing edi­to­r­i­al bias. Does­n’t mean the arti­cle is inac­cu­rate, but the paper’s edi­to­r­i­al stance must be borne in mind.

    3.–I think that, polit­i­cal­ly and ide­o­log­i­cal­ly, Rus­sia has already LOST the war!

    I strong­ly sus­pect that there are U.S. and, per­haps, oth­er spec ops troops inside Ukraine, as spec­u­lat­ed about in a pre­vi­ous com­ment of yours.

    Per­haps Erik Prince’s mer­ce­nar­ies are play­ing a role.

    Remem­ber that Rus­sia only has 150,000 troops in Ukraine. That may not be enough, par­tic­u­lar­ly since the com­bi­na­tion of anti-armor mis­siles and “MANPADS” such as Stinger mis­siles will do much to neu­tral­ize Russ­ian armor and air­craft, as will the Advanced Turk­ish drones.

    If Rus­sia does indeed invade major cities, the land­scape will be a death trap for armor–urban com­bat is always messy and bloody and will heav­i­ly favor the defense.

    If the Rus­sians encir­cle the cities and bom­bard them with heavy artillery, that will pro­duce heavy civil­ian casu­al­ties and would be a MAJOR pro­pa­gan­da vehi­cle for Ukraine and the West.

    4.–IF Rus­sia does not win the war in a clear-cut fash­ion, that “defeat,” cou­pled with the eco­nom­ic dam­age inflict­ed by West­ern sanc­tions might lead to Putin’s polit­i­cal down­fall.

    I sus­pect that is the desired polit­i­cal “Endgame” of what I increas­ing­ly see as a Euro­pean redux of the Afghanistan trap real­ized by Brzezin­s­ki.

    Recall that when the Sovi­ets invad­ed Afghanistan, we were not told that the U.S./CIA had a covert op going on in Afghanistan specif­i­cal­ly designed to give the Sovi­ets THEIR “Viet­nam.”

    Putin’s down­fall is what is intend­ed here, I sus­pect.

    5. IF Putin’s polit­i­cal swan song does indeed fol­low this episode, the West doubt­less sees a mal­leable “Free Mar­ket Pup­pet” as a suc­ces­sor.

    Per­haps that will be the case.

    How­ev­er, there is anoth­er pos­si­bil­i­ty.

    The nation­al humil­i­a­tion may ben­e­fit the vir­u­lent fas­cist ele­ment in Rus­sia, bol­ster­ing their aggres­sive nation­al­ism.

    (For more about this top­ic, see–among oth­er programs–FTR#118. https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-118-russian-fascism/ and FTR#139 https://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-139-miscellaneous-articles-and-updates/)

    The best-known fig­ure on the Russ­ian right is Vladimir Zhiri­novsky, financed by Ger­man Nazi pub­lish­er and JFK assas­si­na­tion land­scape fig­ure Ger­hard Frey.

    IF the Russ­ian fas­cist and ultra-nation­al­ists ascend to pow­er in Rus­sia, THEN you will have a fas­cist, Yock­ey-style gov­ern­ment in Rus­sia.

    Yock­ey saw a Naz­i­fied Rus­sia unit­ed with a Naz­i­fied Europe as what he called The Imperi­um. That was envis­aged as an anti‑U.S. enti­ty!

    In that con­text, do NOT over­look the enor­mous Russ­ian nuclear arse­nal.

    Imag­ine that in Yock­eyite Nazi hands!

    THAT just might turn out to be the ulti­mate out­come of this!

    6.–Much is being made in the media of Zelen­sky’s Jew­ish affil­i­a­tion. In the Russ­ian fas­cist milieu which MIGHT ascend as a result of this, that will be seen as affir­ma­tion of the Inter­na­tion­al Jew­ish Con­spir­a­cy man­i­fes­ta­tion!

    Zelen­sky’s Jew­ish­ness is as rel­e­vant as Clarence Thomas’s black­ness.

    Zelen­sky got elect­ed because he was a TV per­son­al­i­ty.

    Of course, here in the US–the cra­dle of Democracy—that could nev­er hap­pen.

    What fun.

    Keep up the great work!

    Best,

    Dave

    Posted by Dave Emory | February 28, 2022, 6:05 pm

  10. @Dave: Regard­ing the risks of Putin being replaced by overt Yock­eyite Russ­ian fas­cists, here’s a set of arti­cles point­ing at how close to that sit­u­a­tion we might already be. The first arti­cle describes how the Moscow for­eign pol­i­cy estab­lish­ment was report­ed­ly tak­en com­plete­ly by sur­prise by Putin’s deci­sion to invade. In keep­ing with being utter­ly baf­fled as to what the under­ly­ing strat­e­gy could be for the deci­sion to invade, it sounds like observers have con­clud­ed that Putin is increas­ing­ly iso­lat­ed and mak­ing deci­sions based less on log­ic and more on emo­tion than the Putin of yes­ter­year.

    But then we get to the sec­ond arti­cle that was pub­lished on Feb 22, the day of the inva­sion. It turns out there was one notable Russ­ian fig­ure who pub­licly pre­dict­ed the date of the inva­sion near­ly down the hour: Vladimir Zhiri­novksy, who made a speech on Decem­ber 27 where he declare a major event would take place at 4:00 am on Feb­ru­ary 22.

    Now, as observers note, Feb 22 was­n’t just a ran­dom date. It was the anniver­sary of the col­lapse of Vik­tor Yanukovy­ch’s gov­ern­ment eight years ear­li­er. In oth­er words, for a politi­cian like Zhiri­novsky who rou­tine­ly makes threats to the world, Feb 22 was kind of the default date he would choose. Did Zhiri­novsky just get lucky? Or did he know ‘the plan’ two months in advance despite the rest of the Moscow for­eign pol­i­cy estab­lish­ment get­ting caught flat foot­ed? And if it’s the lat­ter, what does that say about the rel­a­tive influ­ence the Russ­ian ultra-nation­al­ists might already have with Putin.

    Final­ly, there’s a March 2018 inter­view of Zhiri­novsky in the Ger­man out­let Deutsche Well where he not only calls for the breakup of Ukraine but voic­es an open enthu­si­asm for eco­nom­i­cal­ly divorc­ing Rus­sia from the West. He also pledged to have all the sanc­tions on Rus­sia lift­ed in a mat­ter of months should he win the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion (he got near­ly 6% of the vote) by threat­en­ing war with the West if it did­n’t com­ply. Was that four year old inter­view of a Russ­ian fas­cist a hint of what’s to come? Has Putin more or less come around to the Zhiri­novsky view that ‘the West’ rep­re­sents an exis­ten­tial threat to Rus­sia and a new Cold War is the best alter­na­tive? Lets hope the West­’s gov­ern­ments are ask­ing these ques­tions and com­ing up with a bet­ter answer than “let’s be as hard as pos­si­ble on the Russ­ian peo­ple to teach them a les­son!”

    Ok, first, here’s the NY Times piece describ­ing how Moscow’s for­eign pol­i­cy estab­lish­ment was left with a sense that the man they spent decades study­ing is act­ing as a dif­fer­ent per­son:

    The New York Times

    Rus­sians Now See a New Side to Putin: Drag­ging Them Into War

    The auto­crat who has steered Rus­sia for 22 years was embraced by many Rus­sians for what they saw as his ratio­nal­i­ty and astute risk man­age­ment. That image has been upend­ed.

    By Anton Troianovs­ki
    Feb. 24, 2022

    MOSCOW — Rus­sians thought they knew their pres­i­dent.

    They were wrong.

    And by Thurs­day, it appeared too late to do any­thing about it.

    For most of his 22-year rule, Vladimir V. Putin pre­sent­ed an aura of calm deter­mi­na­tion at home — of an abil­i­ty to astute­ly man­age risk to nav­i­gate the world’s biggest coun­try through treach­er­ous shoals. His attack on Ukraine negat­ed that image, and revealed him as an alto­geth­er dif­fer­ent leader: one drag­ging the nuclear super­pow­er he helms into a war with no fore­see­able con­clu­sion, one that by all appear­ances will end Russia’s attempts over its three post-Sovi­et decades to find a place in a peace­ful world order.

    Rus­sians awoke in shock after they learned that Mr. Putin, in an address to the nation that aired before 6 a.m., had ordered a full-scale assault against what Rus­sians of all polit­i­cal stripes often refer to as their “broth­er­ly nation.”

    There was no spon­ta­neous pro-war jubi­la­tion. Instead, lib­er­al-lean­ing pub­lic fig­ures who for years tried to com­pro­mise with and adapt to Mr. Putin’s creep­ing author­i­tar­i­an­ism found them­selves reduced to post­ing on social media about their oppo­si­tion to a war they had no way to stop.

    Oth­er Rus­sians expressed them­selves more open­ly. From St. Peters­burg to Siberia, thou­sands took to city streets chant­i­ng “No to war!,” clips post­ed on social media showed, despite an over­whelm­ing pres­ence by police offi­cers. OVD Info, a rights group, said more than 1,700 peo­ple were arrest­ed across the coun­try.

    And in Moscow’s for­eign pol­i­cy estab­lish­ment, where ana­lysts over­whelm­ing­ly char­ac­ter­ized Mr. Putin’s mil­i­tary buildup around Ukraine as an elab­o­rate and astute bluff in recent months, many admit­ted on Thurs­day that they had mon­u­men­tal­ly mis­judged a man they had spent decades study­ing.

    “Every­thing that we believed turned out to be wrong,” said one such ana­lyst, insist­ing on anonymi­ty because he was at a loss over what to say.

    “I don’t under­stand the moti­va­tions, the goals or the pos­si­ble results,” said anoth­er. “What is hap­pen­ing is very strange.”

    “I’ve always tried to under­stand Putin,” a third ana­lyst, Tatiana Stanovaya of the polit­i­cal analy­sis firm R. Poli­tik, reflect­ed. But now, she said, the use­ful­ness of log­ic seemed at a lim­it. “He has become less prag­mat­ic, and more emo­tion­al.”

    On state tele­vi­sion, Mr. Putin’s most pow­er­ful pro­pa­gan­da tool, the Krem­lin tried to project an air of nor­mal­cy. The state-run news media char­ac­ter­ized Thursday’s inva­sion as not a war, but a “spe­cial mil­i­tary oper­a­tion” lim­it­ed to east­ern Ukraine. Mr. Putin was shown meet­ing with the vis­it­ing prime min­is­ter of Pak­istan, Imran Khan, as though he were still shrewd­ly car­ry­ing on his day-to-day busi­ness.

    “This is not the begin­ning of a war,” Maria V. Zakharo­va, the for­eign ministry’s spokes­woman, said on tele­vi­sion. “Our desire is to pre­vent devel­op­ments that could esca­late into a glob­al war.”

    ...

    Many Rus­sians had bought into the Kremlin’s nar­ra­tive that theirs was a peace-lov­ing coun­try, and Mr. Putin a care­ful and cal­cu­lat­ing leader. After all, many Rus­sians still believe, it was Mr. Putin who lift­ed their coun­try out of the pover­ty and chaos of the 1990s and made it into a place with a decent stan­dard of liv­ing and wor­thy of inter­na­tion­al respect.

    “It’s so strange that Rus­sia could attack any­one,” a 60-year-old pen­sion­er said on Thurs­day as she walked through the breath­tak­ing Moscow park, Zaryadye, that inter­na­tion­al archi­tects designed ahead of the soc­cer World Cup Rus­sia host­ed in 2018. “This has nev­er hap­pened before in his­to­ry.”

    ...

    In the last three months, as Amer­i­can offi­cials warned that Mr. Putin’s troop buildup was a pre­lude to an inva­sion, Rus­sians dis­missed such talk as a West­ern fail­ure to under­stand their president’s fun­da­men­tal deter­mi­na­tion to man­age risk and avoid rash moves with unpre­dictable con­se­quences. And with lead­ing oppo­si­tion fig­ures impris­oned or exiled, there were few fig­ures with the influ­ence to orga­nize an anti­war move­ment.

    ...

    Dur­ing the pan­dem­ic, ana­lysts had noticed a change in Mr. Putin — a man who iso­lat­ed him­self in a bub­ble of social dis­tanc­ing with­out par­al­lel among West­ern lead­ers. In iso­la­tion, he appeared to become more aggriev­ed and more emo­tion­al, and increas­ing­ly spoke about his mis­sion in stark his­tor­i­cal terms. His pub­lic remarks descend­ed ever deep­er into dis­tort­ed his­to­ri­og­ra­phy as he spoke of the need to right per­ceived his­tor­i­cal wrongs suf­fered by Rus­sia over the cen­turies at the hands of the West.

    The polit­i­cal sci­en­tist Gleb O. Pavlovsky, a close advis­er to Mr. Putin until falling out with him in 2011, said he was stunned by the president’s dark descrip­tion of Ukraine as a dire threat to Rus­sia in his hour­long speech to the nation on Mon­day.

    “I have no clue where he got all that — he seems to be read­ing some­thing total­ly strange,” Mr. Pavlovsky said. “He’s become an iso­lat­ed man, more iso­lat­ed than Stal­in was.”

    Ms. Stanovaya, the ana­lyst, said she now felt that Mr. Putin’s height­ened obses­sion with his­to­ry in recent years had become key to under­stand­ing his moti­va­tion. After all, the war against Ukraine appeared impos­si­ble to explain strate­gi­cal­ly, since it had no clear res­o­lu­tion and would inevitably only increase anti-Russ­ian sen­ti­ment abroad and esca­late Russia’s con­fronta­tion with the NATO alliance.

    “Putin has brought him­self to a place in which he sees it as more impor­tant, more inter­est­ing, more com­pelling to fight for restor­ing his­tor­i­cal jus­tice than for Russia’s strate­gic pri­or­i­ties,” Ms. Stanovaya said. “This morn­ing, I real­ized that a cer­tain shift has tak­en place.”

    She said that by all appear­ances, the rul­ing elite around Mr. Putin did not real­ize that Thursday’s war was com­ing, and was uncer­tain about how to respond. Beyond state tele­vi­sion per­son­al­i­ties and pro-Krem­lin politi­cians, few promi­nent Rus­sians spoke out in sup­port of the war.

    But that, she said, did not mean that Mr. Putin risked any kind of palace coup, giv­en his tight hold on the country’s sprawl­ing secu­ri­ty appa­ra­tus and his expan­sive crack­down on dis­sent over the last year.

    “He can still act for a long time,” Ms. Stanovaya said. “Inside Rus­sia, he is prac­ti­cal­ly secure from polit­i­cal risk.”

    ————-

    “Rus­sians Now See a New Side to Putin: Drag­ging Them Into War” By Anton Troianovs­ki; The New York Times; 02/24/2022

    “And in Moscow’s for­eign pol­i­cy estab­lish­ment, where ana­lysts over­whelm­ing­ly char­ac­ter­ized Mr. Putin’s mil­i­tary buildup around Ukraine as an elab­o­rate and astute bluff in recent months, many admit­ted on Thurs­day that they had mon­u­men­tal­ly mis­judged a man they had spent decades study­ing.”

    If Moscow’s for­eign pol­i­cy estab­lish­ment tru­ly was this utter­ly tak­en aback by Putin’s deci­sions, that would sug­gest his plans real­ly were a close­ly held secret. Held close­ly all the way up until the inva­sion itself:

    ...
    “Every­thing that we believed turned out to be wrong,” said one such ana­lyst, insist­ing on anonymi­ty because he was at a loss over what to say.

    “I don’t under­stand the moti­va­tions, the goals or the pos­si­ble results,” said anoth­er. “What is hap­pen­ing is very strange.”

    “I’ve always tried to under­stand Putin,” a third ana­lyst, Tatiana Stanovaya of the polit­i­cal analy­sis firm R. Poli­tik, reflect­ed. But now, she said, the use­ful­ness of log­ic seemed at a lim­it. “He has become less prag­mat­ic, and more emo­tion­al.”

    ...

    Ms. Stanovaya, the ana­lyst, said she now felt that Mr. Putin’s height­ened obses­sion with his­to­ry in recent years had become key to under­stand­ing his moti­va­tion. After all, the war against Ukraine appeared impos­si­ble to explain strate­gi­cal­ly, since it had no clear res­o­lu­tion and would inevitably only increase anti-Russ­ian sen­ti­ment abroad and esca­late Russia’s con­fronta­tion with the NATO alliance.

    “Putin has brought him­self to a place in which he sees it as more impor­tant, more inter­est­ing, more com­pelling to fight for restor­ing his­tor­i­cal jus­tice than for Russia’s strate­gic pri­or­i­ties,” Ms. Stanovaya said. “This morn­ing, I real­ized that a cer­tain shift has tak­en place.”

    She said that by all appear­ances, the rul­ing elite around Mr. Putin did not real­ize that Thursday’s war was com­ing, and was uncer­tain about how to respond. Beyond state tele­vi­sion per­son­al­i­ties and pro-Krem­lin politi­cians, few promi­nent Rus­sians spoke out in sup­port of the war.
    ...

    It’s those ques­tions about who knew what in Moscow that bring us to the fol­low­ing piece pub­lished on the day of the inva­sion: Almost two months ear­li­er, Russ­ian fas­cist ultra-nation­al­ist Vladimir Zhiri­novsky pre­dict­ed the tim­ing of the inva­sion almost to the hour:

    The Tele­graph

    How the Krem­lin’s ‘jester’ appeared to pre­dict the date of Rus­sia enter­ing Ukraine months ago

    “At 4am on Feb­ru­ary 22nd you’ll feel our new pol­i­cy,” warned Vladimir Zhiri­novsky on Decem­ber 27

    By Josie Ensor, US Cor­re­spon­dent
    22 Feb­ru­ary 2022 • 7:40am

    An ultra­na­tion­al­ist Russ­ian politi­cian appeared to pre­dict the date Feb­ru­ary 22 as the start of Moscow’s inva­sion of Ukraine.

    In what is being seen as a prophet­ic address to the Duma, Vladimir Zhiri­novsky, the pop­ulist leader of one of the country’s main polit­i­cal par­ties, told Russia’s par­lia­ment on Decem­ber 27 of last year: “At 4am on Feb­ru­ary 22nd you’ll feel our new pol­i­cy. I’d like 2022 to be peace­ful. But I love the truth.”

    Mr Zhiri­novksy, who heads the KGB-found­ed Lib­er­al Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, went on: “It won’t be peace­ful. It will be a year when Rus­sia once again becomes great.”

    With his fiery speech­es, the flam­boy­ant 75-year-old has been per­ceived as a Krem­lin jester — while being odd­ly clear-sight­ed on some issues. He is cur­rent­ly hos­pi­talised with coro­n­avirus.

    Rus­sia watch­ers not­ed that Feb­ru­ary 22 is the anniver­sary of the date on which pop­u­lar protests in Ukraine drove out pro-Moscow Pres­i­dent Vik­tor Yanukovych and top­pled his regime. This was one of the pre­cip­i­tat­ing inci­dents that led to Rus­si­a’s seizure of Crimea.

    Mr Zhiri­novsky, known for his anti-West stance, warned that the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment would take a new, more aggres­sive direc­tion in regards to its poli­cies toward Ukraine on that date.

    Mr Zhiri­novsky did not elab­o­rate on what this new direc­tion might be or pro­vide any fur­ther evi­dence that it was com­ing, but it high­light­ed the poten­tial sym­bol­ism of Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin tak­ing action now.

    Two days before the oper­a­tion, the Twit­ter account of the Russ­ian Min­istry of For­eign Affairs changed its logo to read: “22. 02. 22”

    ...

    Kaza­khstan-born Mr Zhiri­novsky is known for his nation­al­ist, anti-West­ern invec­tive rhetoric.

    In the 1990s he advo­cat­ed using nuclear weapons against the Russ­ian North Cau­ca­sus repub­lic of Chech­nya at the start of the Sec­ond Chechen War.

    He has also called for forcibly retak­ing Alas­ka from the US and for restor­ing Moscow’s con­trol of for­mer Sovi­et states and the incor­po­ra­tion of Kaza­khstan into Rus­sia.

    He chal­lenged Mr Putin in the 2018 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, win­ning near­ly 6 per cent of the vote.

    ————

    “How the Krem­lin’s ‘jester’ appeared to pre­dict the date of Rus­sia enter­ing Ukraine months ago” by Josie Ensor; The Tele­graph; 02/22/2022

    “In what is being seen as a prophet­ic address to the Duma, Vladimir Zhiri­novsky, the pop­ulist leader of one of the country’s main polit­i­cal par­ties, told Russia’s par­lia­ment on Decem­ber 27 of last year: “At 4am on Feb­ru­ary 22nd you’ll feel our new pol­i­cy. I’d like 2022 to be peace­ful. But I love the truth.””

    Is this a “even a stopped clock is right twice a day?” moment? Or did Vladimir Zhiri­novsky know the exact date and time of the inva­sion and decid­ed to share it with the world? As observers note, the cho­sen time was­n’t ran­dom. It was the 8 year anniver­sary of the top­pling of Vik­tor Yanukovy­ch’s gov­ern­ment in the face of the Maid­an protests. He could have just got­ten lucky. But was that actu­al­ly what hap­pened? Or did Zhiri­novksy share infor­ma­tion he knew about. The answer to that ques­tion is poten­tial­ly quite sig­nif­i­cant in terms of get­ting an idea of what drove Putin’s deci­sion-mak­ing. Has Zhiri­novksy been oper­at­ing in Putin’s inner cir­cle in recent months?

    ...
    Rus­sia watch­ers not­ed that Feb­ru­ary 22 is the anniver­sary of the date on which pop­u­lar protests in Ukraine drove out pro-Moscow Pres­i­dent Vik­tor Yanukovych and top­pled his regime. This was one of the pre­cip­i­tat­ing inci­dents that led to Rus­si­a’s seizure of Crimea.

    Mr Zhiri­novsky, known for his anti-West stance, warned that the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment would take a new, more aggres­sive direc­tion in regards to its poli­cies toward Ukraine on that date.

    Mr Zhiri­novsky did not elab­o­rate on what this new direc­tion might be or pro­vide any fur­ther evi­dence that it was com­ing, but it high­light­ed the poten­tial sym­bol­ism of Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin tak­ing action now.

    Two days before the oper­a­tion, the Twit­ter account of the Russ­ian Min­istry of For­eign Affairs changed its logo to read: “22. 02. 22”
    ...

    And as the fol­low­ing arti­cle from March of 2018. It’s an inter­view of Zhiri­novsky in the Ger­man out­let Deutsche Welle. Zhiri­novksy is more or less act­ing the way he always does, mak­ing high­ly provoca­tive state­ments and issu­ing threats. But it’s also eeri­ly pre­scient. Zhiri­novksy open­ly calls for the balka­niza­tion of Ukraine — on the grounds that an anti-Russ­ian regime runs the coun­try — at the same time he open­ly embraces the idea of eco­nom­i­cal­ly cut­ting off Rus­sia from the West. At the time it sound­ed like clas­sic out­landish blus­ter for Zhiri­novksy, and yet, four years lat­er here we are. So we again need to ask: is this is a “even a stopped clock is right twice a day” sit­u­a­tion? Or is it a reflec­tion of the grow­ing influ­ence of ultra-nation­al­ist think­ing inside the Krem­lin as Putin’s obses­sions with the his­toric injus­tices fes­tered?

    Deutsche Welle

    Zhiri­novsky: ‘Europe, you shall trem­ble!’

    Right-wing pop­ulist Vladimir Zhiri­novsky is the leader of Rus­si­a’s Lib­er­al Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, and one of Putin’s sev­en chal­lengers in the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. Dur­ing a con­ver­sa­tion with DW, he threat­ened the West.

    Date 11.03.2018
    Author Juri Rescheto

    Deutsche Welle: Mr. Zhiri­novsky, you have run as a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date five times already. This will be the sixth time. Don’t you find it bor­ing?

    Vladimir Zhiri­novsky: How can such a thing be bor­ing? Are you get­ting bored doing inter­views? That’s work. It’s the most respon­si­ble, rep­re­sen­ta­tive and solemn work there is — like sport. Any­one who does not aim for the Olympic Games or cham­pi­onships should not be in the sports indus­try.

    You said that Rus­sia needs an elect­ed monar­chy. Would you like Rus­sia to be ruled by a czar called Vladimir Zhiri­novsky?

    No, but Rus­sia achieved a great deal as a monar­chy. We should have kept our monar­chy. Like Great Britain, Den­mark, Hol­land, Swe­den and Nor­way. An alter­na­tive would be now to choose a monarch and change the coun­try’s name to “Russ­ian Empire.” The pres­i­dent would be called the “supreme ruler.”

    ‘Ukraine is to blame’

    A pres­i­den­tial can­di­date can­not be indif­fer­ent to rela­tions with his neigh­bors. Your coun­try is at a dead end on the ques­tion of Ukraine. What do you think should be done?

    Ukraine is falling apart any­way. Poland should take the west­ern part, Hun­gary should take the Carpathi­an Moun­tains, Roma­nia should take Bukov­ina and Bessara­bia. We’ll take the whole of Novorossiya. Ukraine has no future.

    I don’t think that Ukraine would be so enthu­si­as­tic about these remarks. What could be done to improve rela­tions?

    Noth­ing. There is an anti-Russ­ian regime in pow­er there, and that is what mat­ters.

    So, you believe that Ukraine is to blame for every­thing and that it is not Putin’s pol­i­cy that has led to these prob­lems?

    Only Ukraine. Their anti-Russ­ian, pro-West­ern, uncon­sti­tu­tion­al forces. The Ukraini­ans will col­lapse and we will have to rebuild them. Don­bass, Luhan­sk and oth­er regions.

    ‘Sanc­tions help Rus­si­a’s devel­op­ment’

    The West has pun­ished Rus­sia for ille­gal­ly annex­ing Crimea. Do you think the Cold War is already there and if so, what can be done?

    I like the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion. The sanc­tions strength­en our domes­tic econ­o­my.

    ...

    Are you say­ing it is bet­ter to be worse off?

    It’s bet­ter if the West sees us as the ene­my and impos­es restric­tions on us every­where. Sanc­tions, sanc­tions and more sanc­tions. Then we’ll rise up and devel­op more quick­ly.

    This is the first time I have met a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date who wants his coun­try to be pun­ished ...

    I am not talk­ing about pun­ish­ment, but about the fact that the West is unable to do oth­er­wise. And that’s its own fault. But it’s an advan­tage for Rus­sia. If the West were to treat us like Ukraine, with all that EU coop­er­a­tion, the Schen­gen agree­ment, we would have been soft­ened, agreed to every­thing and would have been degrad­ed. Instead, how­ev­er, we are becom­ing stronger and that will help us to destroy the West so that it does­n’t both­er us any­more.

    ‘Ger­many, Amer­i­ca dis­turb the human race’

    You want to destroy the West?

    Of course. It is dis­turb­ing the human race. Amer­i­ca, Ger­many.

    How is Ger­many dis­turb­ing the human race? How is Ger­many both­er­ing Rus­sia?

    It rules Europe. Why is this the case, actu­al­ly?

    But Ger­many is Rus­si­a’s most impor­tant eco­nom­ic and trade part­ner.

    We don’t need it! I don’t want you to buy any­thing from us. We’re not buy­ing any­thing from you. If you did­n’t buy our gas, our entire coun­try would have gas pipelines by now. And if you did­n’t buy our oil, our fuel would be very cheap.

    March 18, 8 p.m. The elec­tion results are pret­ty clear. What should Rus­sia be expect­ing at the end of elec­tion day?

    I could win. And then the next morn­ing every­one in the coun­try would be on the street with a smile on his or her face and would be hap­py. Two or three months lat­er, all sanc­tions would be abol­ished. You Euro­peans and Amer­i­cans would coop­er­ate. I would bring the world to the brink of war. I would say, either you do what I want, or you’d bet­ter hide in a bunker.

    Sounds like a great dic­ta­tor.

    Why? Why are you inter­fer­ing in our busi­ness? We’re not inter­fer­ing with you. Why do you have the right to say how we Rus­sians should live? The Crimea is Russ­ian coun­try. Russ­ian peo­ple live there. Russ­ian peo­ple also live in the Don­bass. We gave you Ger­mans a chance to reunite. What did you pay us for that? Ten times less than you could have paid. Europe, you shall trem­ble! Even if I do not win on March 18, the regime in Rus­sia will force you to stop teach­ing us how to live. We Russ­ian are not going to take orders from you!

    ———-

    “Zhiri­novsky: ‘Europe, you shall trem­ble!’ ” by Juri Rescheto; Deutsche Welle; 03/11/2018

    “Ukraine is falling apart any­way. Poland should take the west­ern part, Hun­gary should take the Carpathi­an Moun­tains, Roma­nia should take Bukov­ina and Bessara­bia. We’ll take the whole of Novorossiya. Ukraine has no future.”

    He was­n’t minc­ing word. Just carve Ukraine up and hand the pieces over to the sur­round­ing coun­tries. Nor did Zhiri­novsky see a path out of this inevitable end for Ukraine as long as there was an anti-Russ­ian gov­ern­ment in pow­er:

    ...
    I don’t think that Ukraine would be so enthu­si­as­tic about these remarks. What could be done to improve rela­tions?

    Noth­ing. There is an anti-Russ­ian regime in pow­er there, and that is what mat­ters.

    So, you believe that Ukraine is to blame for every­thing and that it is not Putin’s pol­i­cy that has led to these prob­lems?

    Only Ukraine. Their anti-Russ­ian, pro-West­ern, uncon­sti­tu­tion­al forces. The Ukraini­ans will col­lapse and we will have to rebuild them. Don­bass, Luhan­sk and oth­er regions.
    ...

    Inter­est­ing­ly, at the same time he was tout­ing the sanc­tions on Rus­sia as being ben­e­fi­cial for strength­en­ing the inter­nal Russ­ian econ­o­my, he also pledge that should he win the pres­i­den­cy all of the sanc­tions would be lift­ed in a mat­ter of months after bring­ing the world to the brink of war:

    ...
    The West has pun­ished Rus­sia for ille­gal­ly annex­ing Crimea. Do you think the Cold War is already there and if so, what can be done?

    I like the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion. The sanc­tions strength­en our domes­tic econ­o­my.

    ...

    March 18, 8 p.m. The elec­tion results are pret­ty clear. What should Rus­sia be expect­ing at the end of elec­tion day?

    I could win. And then the next morn­ing every­one in the coun­try would be on the street with a smile on his or her face and would be hap­py. Two or three months lat­er, all sanc­tions would be abol­ished. You Euro­peans and Amer­i­cans would coop­er­ate. I would bring the world to the brink of war. I would say, either you do what I want, or you’d bet­ter hide in a bunker.

    Sounds like a great dic­ta­tor.

    Why? Why are you inter­fer­ing in our busi­ness? We’re not inter­fer­ing with you. Why do you have the right to say how we Rus­sians should live? The Crimea is Russ­ian coun­try. Russ­ian peo­ple live there. Russ­ian peo­ple also live in the Don­bass. We gave you Ger­mans a chance to reunite. What did you pay us for that? Ten times less than you could have paid. Europe, you shall trem­ble! Even if I do not win on March 18, the regime in Rus­sia will force you to stop teach­ing us how to live. We Russ­ian are not going to take orders from you!
    ...

    Now, it’s pret­ty clear we’re not going to see a lift­ing of sanc­tions any time soon. Zhiri­novsky is going to get his wish of a heav­i­ly sanc­tioned econ­o­my. So what hap­pens now that Zhiri­novsky’s desired super-sanc­tions are set to be imposed for years to come, poten­tial­ly effec­tive­ly cut­ting Rus­si­a’s econ­o­my from the West? Are the Russ­ian peo­ple could do sud­den­ly reject all of the his­toric griev­ances Putin pred­i­cat­ed this inva­sion on and decide the time has come for Rus­sia to embrace the West? Sure, that’s pos­si­ble. It hap­pened in the 90s. And Rus­sia spent that decade in a state of West­ern-sanc­tioned plun­der. That’s how we got Putin, after all. In response to Rus­si­a’s last ‘turn to the West’. It was­n’t that long ago.

    And that’s all part of what makes the threat of a turn towards Russ­ian fas­cists such an alarm­ing pos­si­bil­i­ty right now. The West­’s plan in response to Putin’s appar­ent full embrace of Russ­ian nation­al­ist revan­chism is to cut Rus­sia off from the West indef­i­nite­ly until Rus­sia ‘learns its lessons’. West­ern pol­i­cy plan­ners all seem very excit­ed about the prospects about the lessons to be learned. And so is Vladimir Zhiri­novsky, although pre­sum­ably for very dif­fer­ent lessons.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | March 1, 2022, 5:00 pm

  11. @Pterrafractyl–

    I would­n’t place ANY stock in what Troianovs­ki writes.

    He is a pure pro­pa­gan­dist, in the CIA/Warren Report/Serge Schme­mann tra­di­tion of the NYT.

    That rag is pure pro­pa­gan­da at this point in time, at least with regard to Ukraine.

    Putin’s pri­ma­ry polit­i­cal ratio­nale for the attack–“De-Nazification” is not only rel­e­vant, but con­cep­tu­al­ly just. You would NEVER know that from the NYT or Troianovs­ki.

    What should be con­tem­plat­ed is how neg­a­tive out­come in the war and nation­al humil­i­a­tion through sanc­tions etc. could empow­er the likes of Zhiri­novsky.

    “Weimar Rus­sia” might be some­thing to con­tem­plate.

    Yock­ey saw Rus­sia as join­ing a unit­ed, Nazi Euro­pean Imperi­um, fun­da­men­tal­ly opposed to the U.S. and Jews.

    Stay tuned.

    Best,

    Dave

    Posted by Dave Emory | March 1, 2022, 5:39 pm

  12. With the Russ­ian inva­sion of Ukraine already look­ing like it could be an extend­ed bloody slog that incurs a mas­sive cost on each side of the con­flict, it’s going to be worth keep­ing in mind that if the strat­e­gy of mak­ing this inva­sion as painful as pos­si­ble to Rus­sia does­n’t actu­al­ly work, we could be look­ing at a sce­nario where Rus­sia effec­tive­ly feels the need to lev­el the coun­try because that’s the only out­come that ‘evens out’ all the killed Russ­ian sol­diers. That’s the log­ic of a bloody bat­tle of attri­tion. The worse this con­flict gets, the more each side MUST ask for MORE than the sta­tus quo as price for peace. All sides are going to need some sort of ‘win’ for peace. A ‘win’ that rep­re­sents some sort of tan­gi­ble improve­ment over the sta­tus quo that pre­ced­ed this inva­sion. Rus­sia needs a ‘win’. Ukraine needs a big ‘win’. And the US and EU pre­sum­ably need a ‘win’ of some sort too in terms of the long-term secu­ri­ty arrange­ments. That’s the nee­dle in need of thread­ing here. And the blood­i­er it gets, the big­ger those ‘wins’ need to be at the time time mutu­al­ly agreed upon ‘win’ con­di­tions get hard­er to achieve.

    So with that seem­ing­ly intractable sit­u­a­tion in mind, it’s also going to be worth keep­ing in mind that the Yock­eyite strain of fas­cism — a strain of fas­cism very much aligned with the Inter­mar­i­um vision — rep­re­sents the kind of pow­er­ful threat to all of the inter­est­ed par­ties here. Well, if you ignore the Ukrain­ian fas­cists. Or Russ­ian fas­cists. Or any oth­er West­ern fas­cists with Yock­eyite ambi­tions. A fas­cist Eurasian union is a threat to every­one. And yet this con­flict is poised to tur­bo-charge Yock­ey-style pan-Eurasian fas­cism. Not just in Ukraine, but Rus­sia in par­tic­u­lar. Espe­cial­ly if the war con­tin­ues to go poor­ly for Rus­sia and sup­port for Putin erodes and is replaced with more overt Russ­ian fas­cism.

    And as the fol­low­ing review of Fran­cis Park­er Yock­ey’s lega­cy reminds us, notable fig­ures inside Russ­ian like Vladimir Zhiri­novsky and Alek­san­dr Dug­in open­ly voice sup­port for Yock­ey-style pan-Eurasian fas­cism. The prospects for a Yock­ey-ite takeover of Rus­sia isn’t just a ran­dom hypo­thet­i­cal. And the worse this war goes for Rus­sia, the greater the risk that hypo­thet­i­cal becomes a real­i­ty.

    Vladimir Putin put a goal of the ‘de-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion’ of Ukraine as a core goal of the mil­i­tary cam­paign. But as Putin put it, the threat of Ukraine isn’t lim­it­ed to Ukraine itself. Putin was por­tray­ing Ukraine as a NATO-backed exis­ten­tial long-term threat. In oth­er words, this con­flict isn’t just about Rus­si­a’s secu­ri­ty con­cerns over Ukraine. It’s about the larg­er Russ­ian secu­ri­ty con­cerns over NATO itself. And that puts broad­er region­al secu­ri­ty con­cerns on the nego­ti­a­tion table. So as the world scram­bles for some sort of mutu­al­ly accept­able ‘win’ con­di­tions for peace in Ukraine, the fact that the Yock­ey-ism man­i­fest­ed by Euro­pean fas­cists of all stripes — Ukrain­ian, Russ­ian, and any oth­er Euro­pean fas­cist — rep­re­sents a grow­ing threat to all of the nego­ti­at­ing par­ties is going to be some­thing to keep in mind. A mean­ing­ful long-term pan-Eurasian com­mit­ment to mean­ing­ful­ly address pan-Eurasian fas­cism could be a pret­ty big mutu­al ‘win’:

    Law Review of Books

    America’s “Mein Kampf”: Fran­cis Park­er Yock­ey and “Imperi­um”

    August 8, 2020 • By Antho­ny Mostrom

    WHILE SITTING ALONE in a qui­et gar­den in Wies­baden, Ger­many, in Octo­ber 1946 amid the rub­ble of bombed-out streets, an unknown Amer­i­can named Fran­cis Park­er Yock­ey, who had recent­ly been flown out by the US gov­ern­ment to work as a review attor­ney for the War Crimes tri­bunals, jot­ted down in a note­book: “The ambi­tion to rule souls is the strongest of all pas­sions. Self-inter­est is the key to com­mon­place trans­ac­tions. Where is the man who would not glad­ly be stabbed, if in exchange he could be Cae­sar?”

    A strange sen­ti­ment, one would think, espe­cial­ly com­ing from an Amer­i­can hired to sift through the details of slaugh­ter com­mit­ted by a far more ter­ri­ble dic­ta­tor than Cae­sar. But Fran­cis Park­er Yockey’s mind was already fixed (or per­haps fix­at­ed) on cer­tain high-stakes goals, and being hired for this par­tic­u­lar job at Wies­baden was part of the plan. Though he was brought onboard as part of the legal team whose job it was to pass judg­ment on accused “sec­ond-string” Nazi war crim­i­nals, Yock­ey (who was 29 at the time) came to Ger­many pre­pared to do some­thing else entire­ly: to help the very Nazis he was hired to pros­e­cute.

    Four­teen years lat­er, in June 1960, he would end up com­mit­ting sui­cide in a dank jail cell in San Fran­cis­co, his body report­ed­ly dressed only in under­wear and SS-style boots: a high-strung Amer­i­can fas­cist oper­a­tive unwill­ing to face a psy­chi­atric exam­i­na­tion and a pos­si­ble tri­al that would sure­ly have dis­closed the names of his con­tacts and his secre­tive move­ments world­wide. This amid scream­ing news­pa­per head­lines in the San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle declar­ing the mys­tery man with many pass­ports to be “as impor­tant a fig­ure in world Fas­cism as we now know.” Today, Yock­ey is remem­bered as the father of Holo­caust denial.

    A grad­u­ate of Notre Dame Law School (’41) who also stud­ied at George­town Uni­ver­si­ty, Yock­ey had already devot­ed years of his youth to some high-risk, con­spir­a­to­r­i­al involve­ment with far-right groups in the Unit­ed States before, dur­ing, and after World War II. These activ­i­ties, accord­ing to Yock­ey biog­ra­ph­er Kevin Coogan (see the excel­lent book Dream­er of the Day: Fran­cis Park­er Yock­ey and the Post­war Fas­cist Inter­na­tion­al), includ­ed secret­ly help­ing Ger­man Nazi spies who had land­ed on Amer­i­can and Mex­i­can shores, at the very moment the US was at war with Ger­many.

    Long remem­bered in his home­town of Lud­ing­ton, Michi­gan, as a tal­ent­ed young man from a good Catholic fam­i­ly, Yock­ey was intel­lec­tu­al­ly gift­ed, a con­cert-lev­el pianist as a teenag­er, a Marx­ist-turned-Nazi in col­lege, and, accord­ing to con­ser­v­a­tive his­to­ri­an Arthur Her­man (in his book The Idea of Decline in West­ern His­to­ry), “self-edu­cat­ed and bril­liant­ly mad.” Just how Yock­ey, a known pro-Nazi activist in the Chica­go area dur­ing the 1930s, could suc­cess­ful­ly cam­paign to get him­self attached to the war crimes tri­als was just one of many odd twists and turns in this strange and intense man’s life, which became even stranger dur­ing the deep­est frost of the Cold War.

    Evi­dence exists, for exam­ple, to show that while in Wies­baden, Yock­ey active­ly tried to help accused Nazi war crim­i­nals by shar­ing top-secret gov­ern­ment doc­u­ments with Ger­man defense lawyers; these defen­dants includ­ed Ger­man SS Gen­er­al Otto Ohlen­dorf, respon­si­ble for the deaths of 90,000 peo­ple in Ukraine and the Cau­ca­sus.

    But Yockey’s real and last­ing claim to fame involves what occurred after his check­ered sojourn in Ger­many end­ed. In 1947, Yock­ey began a pat­tern of rest­less trav­el, and he secured a room at a small inn on the Irish coast to write a 600-page book: Imperi­um, which called for a transna­tion­al, neo-Nazi Euro­pean Empire that, in his imag­in­ing, would one day stretch “from the rocky promon­to­ries of Gal­way to the Urals.”

    In an uncan­ny mir­ror-image moment of oppos­ing prophe­cies, Yock­ey wrote Imperi­um at the very moment George Orwell was busy writ­ing Nine­teen Eighty-Four at his own iso­lat­ed cot­tage, on a Scot­tish island just a short dis­tance away from Yockey’s retreat at Brit­tas Bay.

    Since its pub­li­ca­tion, Imperi­um has inspired gen­er­a­tions of far-right activists, anti­semites, and racial­ly moti­vat­ed the­o­reti­cians (and a few politi­cians) who dream today of a “Eurasian” imperi­um based on racial-col­lec­tivist prin­ci­ples in Europe, Rus­sia, and the Unit­ed States. With­out ques­tion the most influ­en­tial anti­se­mit­ic book since Mein Kampf and The Pro­to­cols of the Elders of Zion, Imperi­um has remained in print for almost 60 years.

    Yockey’s mes­sage made its way to Amer­i­ca ear­ly on. In 1962, a San Francisco–based far-right activist named Willis Car­to, who would go on to pub­lish a vicious­ly anti­se­mit­ic news­pa­per in Wash­ing­ton, DC, called The Spot­light, was the first to reprint Yockey’s hard-to-find book for a new, Amer­i­can audi­ence. (Imperi­um was orig­i­nal­ly pub­lished in 1948, in a lim­it­ed two-vol­ume edi­tion in Great Britain. Only 200 of the orig­i­nal sets were made.)

    Car­to was a life­long anti­semite, and he fell hard not only for Yockey’s prophe­cies of an all-white Europe and Amer­i­ca, but also took to heart Yockey’s absurd state­ments in Imperi­um that the Holo­caust was a hoax: “Thou­sands of the peo­ple who had been killed pub­lished accounts of their expe­ri­ences in these camps,” Yock­ey wrote jeer­ing­ly in 1947. “‘Gas-cham­bers’ that did not exist were pho­tographed, and a ‘gas­mo­bile’ was invent­ed to tit­il­late the mechan­i­cal­ly mind­ed.” Yock­ey fin­ished this snide pas­sage by writ­ing that the “pro­pa­gan­da” relat­ing to gas cham­bers and con­cen­tra­tion camps was “sim­ply dis­gust­ing to dis­crim­i­nat­ing Euro­peans.”

    It is absurd to think that Yock­ey, of all peo­ple, real­ly believed this. He already knew far too much about the death camps, as did the rest of the world, thanks to his work at Wies­baden. But here we can trace Carto’s own lat­er influ­ence, as one of the most effec­tive Holo­caust deniers in Amer­i­can his­to­ry, back to the book he cham­pi­oned and sold by mail order through his news­pa­per for years: Imperi­um. Car­to even wrote the glow­ing intro­duc­to­ry pro­file of the book’s mys­te­ri­ous author for the Amer­i­can edi­tion, one which tend­ed to cre­ate hero­ic myths that have until recent­ly gone unchal­lenged. He claimed, for exam­ple, that Yock­ey, the bril­liant young lawyer, had tak­en a prin­ci­pled stand against the Nazi tri­als, when in fact he was mere­ly fired for being a malin­ger­er.

    As an epi­dem­ic of dan­ger­ous young white males with man­i­festos and auto­mat­ic weapons con­tin­ues to ter­ror­ize week­end shop­pers in the Unit­ed States, one needs to under­stand the “sacred text” that has inspired so many of these and oth­er agi­tat­ed white racial­ists and self-styled “iden­ti­tar­i­ans,” trans­fixed by dreams of a pure, white Amer­i­can home­land for Cau­casians. Indeed, as rad­i­cal­ized “lone wolves” increas­ing­ly act out, inspired by online insan­i­ty and enraged by the pres­ence of the immi­grant next door, the influ­ence of books like Imperi­um, The Turn­er Diaries, and Hitler’s Mein Kampf increas­ing­ly becomes some­thing more than a fringe phe­nom­e­non.

    Imperi­um was orig­i­nal­ly pub­lished in 1948. On its ded­i­ca­tion page are the words: To the hero of the Sec­ond World War. The book express­es its author’s Pruss­ian-fla­vored, neo-Nazi world­view in a stern, imper­son­al tone that reads as harsh and ice cold, not least when one of Yockey’s many hates is under dis­cus­sion, e.g., “Lib­er­al­ism”:

    A moment’s reflec­tion shows that Lib­er­al­ism is entire­ly neg­a­tive. It is not a for­ma­tive force, but always and only a dis­in­te­grat­ing force. […] Lib­er­al­ism is, in one word, weak­ness. […] Lib­er­al­ism is an escape from hard­ness into soft­ness, from mas­culin­i­ty into fem­i­nin­i­ty, from His­to­ry to herd-graz­ing, from real­i­ty into her­biv­o­rous dreams.

    Sand­wiched between its eru­dite chap­ters on Euro­pean his­to­ry are oth­er chap­ters, in which Imperi­um’s mes­sage becomes much, much clear­er: “Race and Pol­i­cy”; “Race, Peo­ple, Nation, State”; “Sub­jec­tive Mean­ing of Race”; “Cul­ture Dis­tor­tion”; “Cul­ture Pathol­o­gy”; “Cul­ture Par­a­sitism”: “The par­a­site is spir­i­tu­al­ly with­out, but phys­i­cal­ly with­in. […] There is not, can­not be, a Cul­ture-bear­ing stra­tum in a colony.”

    To Yock­ey, a man who bemoaned the Unit­ed States’s lack of “Cul­ture-bear­ing” elites, Amer­i­ca-the-mon­gre­lized was just such a colony: “[D]eadly to the healthy real­iza­tion of the cul­ture is the min­gling in the cul­tur­al life of par­a­sitic ele­ments, the activ­i­ty of the Cul­ture-par­a­site, his par­tic­i­pa­tion in cre­ation and for­ma­tion of Cul­ture-tasks, ideas, and pol­i­cy.”

    Then there is Imperi­um’s lofty, neo-Spen­g­ler­ian view from on high of the pass­ing of the gen­er­a­tions, writ­ten in qua­si-mys­ti­cal and racial terms:

    Above the men of race, below — those with­out race. The first are swept up into action and events by the great cos­mic rhythm of motion, the sec­ond are passed over by His­to­ry. The first are the mate­ri­als of high His­to­ry, the sec­ond have out­last­ed every Cul­ture, and when the still­ness resumes its sway over the land­scape after the whirl­wind of events, these are the great mass.

    Through­out Imperi­um, the Yock­eyan coinage “Cul­ture-dis­torter” is employed as a cod­ed term for Jew. That any­one could write, or sym­pa­thize with, such stuff at a time when the atroc­i­ties of Auschwitz were recent news should give one pause. Such incen­di­ary themes assured Imperi­um a vir­tu­al non-recep­tion among Amer­i­can and Euro­pean anti­com­mu­nists and con­ser­v­a­tives in the 1950s, who found its under­ly­ing Nazi mes­sage appalling. Even Ger­ald L. K. Smith, the fire-breath­ing pro­tégé of the late Huey Long and a crude, Klan-lean­ing preach­er from Arkansas, after a brief meet­ing with Yock­ey in 1950 decid­ed the man was a com­mu­nist. (Smith would have been even more appalled to know that Yock­ey, the ex-Catholic, con­sid­ered him­self a pagan: “I believe in many gods, more than one.”)

    Imperi­um is obsessed with, baf­fled by, Rus­sia: “The true Rus­sia is the one which Petrin­ism tried to coerce. […] Rus­sia, the true, spir­i­tu­al Rus­sia, is prim­i­tive and reli­gious. […] Every­thing West­ern is there­fore hos­tile and dead­ly to the Russ­ian soul.”

    But it was Yockey’s lat­er think­ing about Rus­sia that proved to be high­ly con­tro­ver­sial among his fel­low trav­el­ers, when Stalin’s para­noid and bru­tal cam­paign against “cos­mopoli­tan,” i.e., Jew­ish appa­ratchiks, turned Yockey’s head in favor of the Sovi­et Union. This rad­i­cal turn in Yockey’s think­ing dur­ing the most fraught years of the Cold War result­ed in defec­tions among his sup­port­ers, who decid­ed he was now so far right he had gone too far left. Yock­ey was unfazed, and con­tin­ued to stress in the pages of Front­fight­er, a mimeo­graphed hate-newslet­ter he mailed out to post office box­es world­wide, that an Amer­i­can soft-sell dom­i­na­tion of Europe was the greater dan­ger to the Euro­pean “soul” than any Russ­ian dom­i­na­tion-by-force. He was inch­ing toward an old­er ide­ol­o­gy: an East­ern-ori­ent­ed, pro-Russ­ian Ger­man ide­ol­o­gy from the 1920s known as Nation­al Bol­she­vism, one which advo­cat­ed an alliance between the “young peo­ples” of Rus­sia and Ger­many as a “blonde bul­wark” against the deca­dent West: Eng­land, France, and the Unit­ed States.

    Yock­ey wrote Imperi­um under the pseu­do­nym Ulick Varange, which to him sym­bol­ized the meet­ing of Ire­land-with-Rus­sia. The writer was savvy enough not to men­tion the names Hitler or Nation­al Social­ism in the book at all, instead rely­ing on code terms like “Pruss­ian Social­ism” and “the Euro­pean Rev­o­lu­tion of 1933” to get his neo­fas­cist mes­sage across. Imperi­um’s basic mes­sage at the time was to assure hard­core fas­cists across the globe that their Nazi dreams were not in vain, that fas­cism tru­ly did rep­re­sent the real­iza­tion of the Spir­it of the Age, and that “the day” would come again, if fas­cists would avoid pet­ty-sta­tism in pur­suit of the Imperi­um.

    Imperi­um’s rep­u­ta­tion and its impact have, over the last 70 years, arguably under­gone four dis­tinct phas­es, all of them restrict­ed to the far off-the-radar fringe of pol­i­tics, but in the online world we inhab­it now, much less so. The first phase was the most hid­den and “under­ground,” when the book upon its orig­i­nal pub­li­ca­tion made waves inside the post­war, neo-Nazi dias­po­ra, prin­ci­pal­ly in Europe and South Amer­i­ca. Imperi­um served as a ral­ly­ing cry and pep talk for for­mer Nazis to raise the “West­ern ban­ner” but this time as a pan-Euro­pean ban­ner, an idea advo­cat­ed lat­er by Sir Oswald Mosley in Eng­land (in books such as The Alter­na­tive and Europe: A Nation). The sec­ond wave of what some now call “Yock­ey­ism” occurred posthu­mous­ly, fol­low­ing Yockey’s sui­cide in a San Fran­cis­co jail cell after his arrest by FBI agents in 1960; accord­ing to the San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle a trio of agents had arrest­ed him for pass­port fraud, and Yock­ey swal­lowed cyanide in his cell, like Her­mann Göring. The ear­ly ’60s saw not a fas­cist risorg­i­men­to, of course, but a glob­al upsurge in anti­semitism, par­tic­u­lar­ly in Ger­many and pos­si­bly stirred up there by the arrest of Eich­mann.

    This was the era when George Lin­coln Rock­well, the volatile head of the Amer­i­can Nazi Par­ty, sud­den­ly became a cer­ti­fied media celebri­ty, appear­ing reg­u­lar­ly on nation­al TV. Copies of Imperi­um began to cir­cu­late in cer­tain dark cor­ners of both the John Birch Soci­ety and the Repub­li­can Par­ty, at a time when fig­ures like Rock­well could unabashed­ly “warn” Repub­li­cans that Bar­ry Gold­wa­ter was “too Jew­ish” to run for pres­i­dent. Lat­er, in the left-dom­i­nat­ed late ’60s, Willis Car­to attempt­ed to start a so-called Nation­al Youth Alliance, a move­ment that offered Imperi­um as its guid­ing text. The move­ment fiz­zled: so much for the improb­a­ble dream of start­ing a far-right, Yock­eyite move­ment dur­ing the anti–Vietnam War era. Pos­si­bly, Car­to was 15 years too late.

    The third Yock­ey-Imperi­um wave was arguably the most con­se­quen­tial: this was dur­ing the 1970s and ’80s, which saw the lam­en­ta­ble growth of that log­i­cal absur­di­ty known as Holo­caust denial. Few real­ize now (or real­ized then) that this “move­ment” was large­ly engi­neered by (once again) the anti-Jew­ish pro­pa­gan­dist Car­to and his news­pa­per The Spot­light, which for decades delight­ed in shad­ing real news sto­ries with racial slurs, refer­ring to Nixon’s Sec­re­tary of State, for exam­ple, as “Jew Kissinger.”

    Accord­ing to author Deb­o­rah Lip­stadt in her book Deny­ing the Holo­caust: “Yock­ey laid out the essen­tial ele­ments of Holo­caust Denial.” Car­to, the acolyte, then car­ried the ball much fur­ther. While Imperi­um’s pseu­do-debunk­ing of one of the most exhaus­tive­ly doc­u­ment­ed crimes in his­to­ry amount­ed to cru­el sar­casm, oth­er, lat­er writ­ers were only too hap­py to lay out deeply detailed-but-absurd claims that, for exam­ple: Auschwitz was noth­ing more than a rub­ber-tree farm (Thies Christo­phersen); Hitler nev­er ordered the killing of Jews because no writ­ten order exists (David Irv­ing); there were no gas cham­bers because the author wasn’t aware of them at the time (Robert Fau­ris­son). These too rep­re­sent some of the rick­ety foun­da­tions of deny­ing the Holo­caust, about as ten­u­ous as deny­ing that Oswald shot Kennedy.

    And why does any­one try to “deny” the Holo­caust? Lip­stadt makes the sharp obser­va­tion that “there were those who were not will­ing to aban­don [fas­cism and Nazism]. They knew that the only means of try­ing to revive them would be to sep­a­rate them from the hor­rors of the Holo­caust and the […] atroc­i­ties that accom­pa­nied it.”

    The fourth and cur­rent phase of Yockey’s lega­cy has been hydra-head­ed and com­plex. The online era has seen a groundswell of inter­est, world­wide, in the major 20th-cen­tu­ry racist books, the list of which is very long; this of course includes Yockey’s mag­num opus. Extrem­ist reap­praisals of these books hide in plain sight on the inter­net, while at any giv­en moment young seek­ers and out­casts sift through the writ­ings of Hitler, Yock­ey, William L. Pierce, George Lin­coln Rock­well, David Duke, and oth­ers for a racial ral­ly­ing cry that some­how always involves Jew-hatred. And inevitably, we have seen real-life unhinged per­sons tak­ing their angry mes­sage to the streets: in 1998 in Jasper, Texas, a mur­der­er named John William King pompous­ly quot­ed Fran­cis Park­er Yock­ey in court after being con­vict­ed of mur­der­ing a black man by drag­ging him down a road behind a pick­up truck. “The promise of suc­cess,” this cold-blood­ed mur­der­er intoned to the court, “is with the man who is deter­mined to die proud­ly when it is no longer pos­si­ble to live proud­ly.” (The Yock­ey quo­ta­tion was in fact a near-iden­ti­cal rephras­ing of Niet­zsche.) Even a few brainier mem­bers of the ultra­vi­o­lent prison gang the Aryan Broth­er­hood, long ram­pant in California’s pris­ons, have gone on record as prais­ing Imperi­um.

    But Yockey’s writ­ings have had an equal­ly sig­nif­i­cant effect on today’s Euro­pean and Russ­ian far-right activists and politi­cians, some of whom are quick to point out that Yock­ey him­self, by the mid-1950s, had become pro-Russ­ian once he real­ized Stal­in had turned toward his own, lethal anti­se­mit­ic pol­i­cy. Thus, present-day Russ­ian neo­fas­cist politi­cians like Vladimir Zhiri­novsky and Alek­san­dr Dug­in can, with more or less straight faces, advo­cate in favor of vari­a­tions on an old ide­ol­o­gy that once tried to wipe out their coun­try. And many of these right-wing Rus­sians now embrace Yockey’s dream of pan-Europa, but under a more recent catch-word: Eurasian­ism.

    A Ukrain­ian schol­ar named Anton Shekhovtsov, the author of a book called Rus­sia and the West­ern Far Right, not­ed at a lec­ture giv­en in Vien­na in 2017 that Fran­cis Yock­ey “believed in the ide­al of so-called pan-Euro­pean Fas­cism,” and “imag­ined a real­ly unit­ed Europe, that would not be divid­ed by the cap­i­tal­ist West and the social­ist East.” Yock­ey, he said, “did not believe in the nation-state,” and “thought that, geopo­lit­i­cal­ly, Europe would only sur­vive between the two ‘evils,’ the US and the Sovi­et Union, as a unit­ed force. [Yock­ey] imag­ined this Europe as being deeply illib­er­al and Fas­cist.”

    Speak­ing of Yockey’s com­rades with­in the post­war, West Ger­man right, which includ­ed such “illib­er­al” polit­i­cal par­ties as the neo-Nazi SRP (Sozial­is­tis­che Reichspartei Deutsch­lands, banned by the Ade­nauer gov­ern­ment as essen­tial­ly Nazi), Shekhovtsov said:

    They were neu­tral­ists. They were ide­o­log­i­cal­ly influ­enced by the neu­tral­ist move­ments in West Ger­many, some of them. They were also influ­enced by clas­si­cal geopol­i­tics. And they did con­sid­er the US and the Sovi­et Union to be evils, equal­ly. But with time, they increas­ing­ly start­ed to think that it would be bet­ter to align with the Sovi­et Union, in order to resist the US.

    […]

    Fran­cis Yock­ey imag­ined the Euro­pean Imperi­um that would include Rus­sia: Sovi­et Rus­sia.

    Shekhovtsov char­ac­ter­ized the mav­er­ick American’s influ­ence on the glob­al far right, from the ear­ly 1960s onward, as “a very impor­tant devel­op­ment that influ­enced, I would argue, what we see now.” Indeed, what we see now are anti-demo­c­ra­t­ic cur­rents gain­ing ground in Hun­gary, Poland, and Rus­sia, and a seem­ing­ly new day, in which a book by David Duke (Jew­ish Suprema­cism) can be sold open­ly in the book­store of the State Duma in Moscow and trav­el­ers in Amman, Jor­dan, can eas­i­ly pur­chase a copy of The Pro­to­cols of the Elders of Zion at the air­port. A time when Jews are leav­ing Paris by the thou­sands, and Jew­ish cen­ters are shot up by unsta­ble hot­heads in the Unit­ed States, some­thing unheard of until the turn of the new cen­tu­ry. Mean­while, Vladimir Putin’s own fas­ci­na­tion with an ear­ly 20th-cen­tu­ry Russ­ian fas­cist philoso­pher, Ivan Ilyin, has been not­ed by the West­ern press.

    It’s not too much to rec­og­nize that Yock­ey, the one­time stu­dent of geopol­i­tics at Georgetown’s School of For­eign Ser­vice, was uti­liz­ing a cer­tain odd strain of strate­gic think­ing of his own when, dur­ing the Cold War–saturated 1950s, he urged his fel­low neo-Nazis around the world to “play the Russ­ian card”: “By thus play­ing off Rus­sia against the lead­er­ship of Amer­i­can Jew­ry,” Yock­ey announced to his com­rade-sub­scribers, “Europe can bring about its own lib­er­a­tion from the per­ils of Jew­ish Democ­ra­cy imposed by Amer­i­can bay­o­nets.

    In this one sen­tence, a few of the bizarre cat­e­gories jostling inside Yockey’s head are seen in stark relief. But beyond the jar­ring note, this dec­la­ra­tion seems to hint that Yock­ey, the shad­owy fas­cist man with many alias­es (these includ­ed Richard Hatch, Franz Lud­wig Yor­ck, and Ulick Varange) was deeply involved in the clan­des­tine, cloak-and-dag­ger polit­i­cal intrigue going on in West Ger­many, where he was well con­nect­ed with Ger­man ex-gen­er­als and neo-Nazis for the rest of his life: a fugi­tive life mold­ed by the pres­sures of the Cold War and an over­heat­ed mind. It is no exag­ger­a­tion to say that Yock­ey, who nev­er stayed in one place too long through­out the 1950s, was in con­tact with almost every impor­tant Nazi and neo­fas­cist activist in West­ern Europe and Britain at that time. (British Union of Fas­cists leader Oswald Mosley met him in 1948 and thought Yock­ey “a man of some abil­i­ty,” but also con­sid­ered him to be “one of the peo­ple who believe in a world con­spir­a­cy run by the Jews, which always seems to me the most com­plete non­sense.”) “The nag­ging sus­pi­cion that Yock­ey was work­ing with both the Nazis and the Com­mu­nists to encour­age the spread of anti-Amer­i­can sen­ti­ment in Europe and the Third World is what led Wash­ing­ton to become so con­cerned with him,” accord­ing to his biog­ra­ph­er Kevin Coogan.

    Washington’s fears were not unfound­ed. In 1953, Yock­ey trav­eled to Egypt, where he met and inter­viewed Pres­i­dent Gamal Abdel Nass­er. Why? A shared hatred of Israel, of course. Egypt was expe­ri­enc­ing an influx of for­mer Nazis at the time, becom­ing a ver­i­ta­ble “sec­ond Argenti­na,” and it was Yockey’s con­nec­tions inside the world­wide net­work of Nazi-SS fugi­tives that made the inter­view pos­si­ble (along with some added help from a Dr. Mahoud Saleh, the head of Egypt’s “Anti-Zion­ist Soci­ety”). Yock­ey, the slim and dap­per Amer­i­can per­son­al­ly hand­ed over to Nass­er the plans for a new­ly devel­oped “cobalt bomb,” which, in his heart of hearts, he hoped would even­tu­al­ly be used against the Jew­ish state. To Yockey’s great dis­ap­point­ment, the cobalt bomb lat­er turned out to be a dud when it was declared a “sci­en­tif­ic fraud” by the Aus­tri­an gov­ern­ment. Despite this, Yock­ey would remem­ber Nass­er him­self as “a great and vig­or­ous man.”

    Though he nev­er spoke a word for or against Islam, Yock­ey knew quite a few Nazis who had actu­al­ly con­vert­ed. These includ­ed a for­mer high-lev­el Nazi offi­cial named Johann von Leers, who once worked for Josef Goebbels’s Pro­pa­gan­da Min­istry and gained a rep­u­ta­tion there as “Hitler’s num­ber one anti­semite.” After mov­ing to Nazi-friend­ly Egypt in the ear­ly 1950s, von Leers changed both his reli­gion and his name to Omar Amin von Leers, and worked for the Egypt­ian Min­istry of Infor­ma­tion, spread­ing Jew-hatred in a new land.

    Buried in the files of the FBI are a series of let­ters that demon­strate the extent to which the Amer­i­can neo­fas­cist was will­ing to go in his quest to save Nazi lives. Ear­ly in 1952, after slip­ping back into the Unit­ed States under the radar, Yock­ey briefly resided in Wash­ing­ton, just a block away from what he liked to call “the infa­mous State Depart­ment.” Soon there­after he was work­ing on a new project with one of his clos­est friends and finan­cial back­ers in New York, a self-described “Amer­i­can Fas­cist” named Harold Kei­th Thomp­son, Yale ’46, a for­mer mem­ber of the Ger­man Amer­i­can Bund and one­time pen pal of the deposed Kaiser.

    Togeth­er, they typed up an absurd­ly bom­bas­tic (and aggres­sive­ly anti-Amer­i­can) appeal to Pres­i­dent Truman’s Sec­re­tary of State Dean Ache­son, argu­ing for the release of con­vict­ed Ger­man war crim­i­nals then lan­guish­ing in Span­dau Prison: “When men act as agents of a Gov­ern­ment rep­re­sent­ing the col­lec­tive will of a nation,” the pair insist­ed, “there is a def­i­nite incon­gruity involved in lat­er con­vict­ing such men as indi­vid­ual ‘war crim­i­nals.’”

    ...

    Yock­ey did not affix his name to these let­ters, as he was want­ed for ques­tion­ing by the FBI, which would have been astound­ed to know that he was back in the coun­try. Thomp­son, on the oth­er hand, was already known pub­licly as an avowed Hit­lerite, hav­ing writ­ten a series of arti­cles titled “I Am an Amer­i­can Fas­cist” for Coro­net mag­a­zine, and so had noth­ing to lose.

    They must have made an odd pair: Thomp­son was as jovial a per­son­al­i­ty as Yock­ey was stern and high-strung, a man with a report­ed­ly intense stare and an “impe­ri­ous” man­ner, at least toward oth­er men. Nev­er­the­less, to read the Thomp­son-Yock­ey let­ters along­side Acheson’s calm, mea­sured response is to be remind­ed which side of human­i­ty had won the war.

    Armed with his false pass­ports, Yock­ey appar­ent­ly enjoyed a num­ber of cool­ing off peri­ods on the West Coast (main­ly in Los Ange­les) at least four times dur­ing the 1950s, accord­ing to his FBI, CIA, and Army files. In 1957, FBI agents believed Yock­ey to be “liv­ing in Los Ange­les as a pimp or a gigo­lo.” At this time, too, he was mak­ing mon­ey writ­ing porn, includ­ing hard­core S&M, with titles like Ardu­ous Fig­ure Train­ing at Bond­haven. The FBI lat­er dis­cov­ered some of these book­lets in his suit­case. (“Remem­ber me,” the book began. “I’m Alice, sec­re­tary of Bond­haven, one of the fore­most and strictest bondage soci­eties in the world.”)

    As for polit­i­cal writ­ings, his last pub­lished essay was issued as a pam­phlet called “The World in Flames: An Esti­mate of the World Sit­u­a­tion,” a more or less dry, sta­tis­ti­cal account of the US-USSR stand­off in the year of 1960, ren­dered odd by such state­ments as: “the regimes of Wash­ing­ton and Moscow togeth­er make up a Con­cert of Bol­she­vism.” Print­ed up by two of Yockey’s anony­mous back­ers in New York, the pam­phlet was mailed off to post-office box­es from Buenos Aires to Berlin … but could an “analy­sis” of a Cold War between “Russ­ian bar­bar­ians” and “Amer­i­ca-Jew­ry” influ­ence any­one of record? Con­sid­er­ing the times, it’s quite pos­si­ble.

    But even some­one as obtuse as Yock­ey (who one acquain­tance described to the FBI as “the most bril­liant screw­ball” he ever met) could be cau­tious enough to keep his most vicious thoughts pri­vate. In an unpub­lished man­u­script titled Thoughts: Per­son­al and Super­per­son­al, the anti-Amer­i­can Nazi the­o­rist made clear what he felt, in his heart of hearts, about what he called “the Amer­i­can mon­ster”:

    The ele­ment […] which tor­tures the soul is the fact that this […] thing can­not be tracked down to its lair and destroyed. We can­not have the sat­is­fac­tion of stand­ing over this mis­be­got­ten prod­uct of blind forces, sword in hand, watch­ing its final con­vul­sions, watch­ing its het­e­ro­clite human mate­r­i­al scat­ter like nomads over the emp­ty land­scape.

    Fran­cis Park­er Yock­ey, the one­time piano prodi­gy from Lud­ing­ton, Michi­gan, and a once-promis­ing young lawyer, was describ­ing the land of his birth dur­ing the Kennedy admin­is­tra­tion.

    The now famous AP/Wide World pho­to tak­en of Yock­ey in hand­cuffs, on June 13, 1960, in a San Fran­cis­co cour­t­house, was vir­tu­al­ly unknown before the age of the inter­net. That has all changed, and we know that there is a pow­er in iconog­ra­phy, a pow­er that excites the young and the impres­sion­able and those who search for heroes in a non-hero­ic age. It’s more than obvi­ous that Yockey’s present-day acolytes believe him to have been a “mar­tyr” to West­ern civ­i­liza­tion, and in fact, he too believed it: “I will be a mar­tyr […] I’m not afraid to die for my beliefs,” he pur­port­ed­ly told Willis Car­to through a wire-mesh screen, on the after­noon of June 10th, 1960 in the San Fran­cis­co city jail.

    “This is not a small fish,” one unnamed FBI agent told the San Fran­cis­co Exam­in­er. “This is a man we are very, very inter­est­ed in.” Though Yock­ey had been arrest­ed by Bureau agents osten­si­bly for pass­port fraud, the FBI did reveal to reporters that the mys­te­ri­ous case was “def­i­nite­ly a secu­ri­ty mat­ter.” Yockey’s sui­cide by potas­si­um cyanide cap­sule days lat­er enraged both the State Depart­ment and the FBI, who had been track­ing his move­ments for years and were eager to final­ly talk to the man the San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle described as a “sig­nif­i­cant Fas­cist with inter­na­tion­al con­nec­tions […] as impor­tant a fig­ure in world Fas­cism as we now know.”

    In his melo­dra­mat­ic intro­duc­tion to the 1962 reprint of Imperi­um, Willis Car­to claimed that Yock­ey announced in his cell the night before he died: “I’ll sleep through ’til morn­ing,” as if his hero were some myth­i­cal and mod­ern-day Bar­barossa. Accord­ing to local papers, Yockey’s actu­al words to a cell­mate were: “You’ll sleep all night, of course.” The cell­mate, a bur­glar named Adam Nie­man, told the press he felt Yock­ey “had knowl­edge of peo­ple he loved, and thought he’d be forced to reveal it.”

    “The bit­ter­est of all things,” Yock­ey wrote in the midst of his Cold War wan­der­ings,

    is frus­tra­tion. It is a vic­to­ry of the out­side over the inside, the vic­to­ry of Acci­dent over Des­tiny. There are degrees of frus­tra­tion. Defeat is no frus­tra­tion, pro­vid­ed one has been able to exert his pow­ers to the utmost, to use him­self up. Who can say Napoleon or Hitler were frus­trat­ed? The worst frus­tra­tion (ask me, I know it) is LACK OF OPPORTUNITY.

    Yockey’s present-day adher­ents, mean­while, seem to con­sist large­ly of young, com­put­er-bound “cham­pi­ons of the West” who sit in their soft easy chairs and indulge in fan­tasies of racial civ­il war and mind­less Jew-hatred (itself a kind of cul­tur­al pat­ri­cide), while cul­ti­vat­ing a dis­tort­ed and fal­si­fied view of his­to­ry that attempts to deny the exis­tence of the Jew­ish geno­cide, an exer­cise in bad faith that fools no one. Cui bono?

    But what was once set­tled has become unset­tled. As the late essay­ist John J. Reil­ly wrote back in 2002: “Yockey’s life inter­sect­ed with 20th cen­tu­ry forces and ideas that were often obscure. That is not to say they were not also pow­er­ful, and may be more so in the 21st cen­tu­ry.” Time will tell whether Yock­ey, the would-be mar­tyr and prophet of the Imperi­um was right when he wrote, in 1947, as the fires of Ger­man cities were dying and smol­der­ing and slow­ly turn­ing to ash: “Good or bad, the mon­archs are com­ing.”

    ————-

    “America’s “Mein Kampf”: Fran­cis Park­er Yock­ey and “Imperi­um”” By Antho­ny Mostrom; Law Review of Books; 08/08/2020

    “But Yockey’s real and last­ing claim to fame involves what occurred after his check­ered sojourn in Ger­many end­ed. In 1947, Yock­ey began a pat­tern of rest­less trav­el, and he secured a room at a small inn on the Irish coast to write a 600-page book: Imperi­um, which called for a transna­tion­al, neo-Nazi Euro­pean Empire that, in his imag­in­ing, would one day stretch “from the rocky promon­to­ries of Gal­way to the Urals.””

    A fas­cist empire stretch­ing from Gal­way to the Urals. We can all agree that would be a bad thing, right? Well, what a con­ve­nient poten­tial com­mon cause.

    Of course, ral­ly around this com­mon cause would require actu­al­ly acknowl­edg­ing the exis­tence of these fas­cist move­ments and their grow­ing influ­ence. But that’s where the pan-Euro­pean nature of the phe­nom­e­na can help: this isn’t just an issue with Ukrain­ian fas­cists. Or Russ­ian fas­cists. It’s a pan-Euro­pean fas­cist phe­nom­e­na that pos­es a major threat long-term threat to both Rus­sia and Ukraine. Along with the rest of Europe and the world. How about a mutu­al long-term pledge of pan-Euro­pean anti-fas­cism, from Gal­way to the Urals as the foun­da­tion for a peace plan?

    ...
    Imperi­um is obsessed with, baf­fled by, Rus­sia: “The true Rus­sia is the one which Petrin­ism tried to coerce. […] Rus­sia, the true, spir­i­tu­al Rus­sia, is prim­i­tive and reli­gious. […] Every­thing West­ern is there­fore hos­tile and dead­ly to the Russ­ian soul.”

    But it was Yockey’s lat­er think­ing about Rus­sia that proved to be high­ly con­tro­ver­sial among his fel­low trav­el­ers, when Stalin’s para­noid and bru­tal cam­paign against “cos­mopoli­tan,” i.e., Jew­ish appa­ratchiks, turned Yockey’s head in favor of the Sovi­et Union. This rad­i­cal turn in Yockey’s think­ing dur­ing the most fraught years of the Cold War result­ed in defec­tions among his sup­port­ers, who decid­ed he was now so far right he had gone too far left. Yock­ey was unfazed, and con­tin­ued to stress in the pages of Front­fight­er, a mimeo­graphed hate-newslet­ter he mailed out to post office box­es world­wide, that an Amer­i­can soft-sell dom­i­na­tion of Europe was the greater dan­ger to the Euro­pean “soul” than any Russ­ian dom­i­na­tion-by-force. He was inch­ing toward an old­er ide­ol­o­gy: an East­ern-ori­ent­ed, pro-Russ­ian Ger­man ide­ol­o­gy from the 1920s known as Nation­al Bol­she­vism, one which advo­cat­ed an alliance between the “young peo­ples” of Rus­sia and Ger­many as a “blonde bul­wark” against the deca­dent West: Eng­land, France, and the Unit­ed States.

    Yock­ey wrote Imperi­um under the pseu­do­nym Ulick Varange, which to him sym­bol­ized the meet­ing of Ire­land-with-Rus­sia. The writer was savvy enough not to men­tion the names Hitler or Nation­al Social­ism in the book at all, instead rely­ing on code terms like “Pruss­ian Social­ism” and “the Euro­pean Rev­o­lu­tion of 1933” to get his neo­fas­cist mes­sage across. Imperium’s basic mes­sage at the time was to assure hard­core fas­cists across the globe that their Nazi dreams were not in vain, that fas­cism tru­ly did rep­re­sent the real­iza­tion of the Spir­it of the Age, and that “the day” would come again, if fas­cists would avoid pet­ty-sta­tism in pur­suit of the Imperi­um.

    ...

    The fourth and cur­rent phase of Yockey’s lega­cy has been hydra-head­ed and com­plex. The online era has seen a groundswell of inter­est, world­wide, in the major 20th-cen­tu­ry racist books, the list of which is very long; this of course includes Yockey’s mag­num opus. Extrem­ist reap­praisals of these books hide in plain sight on the inter­net, while at any giv­en moment young seek­ers and out­casts sift through the writ­ings of Hitler, Yock­ey, William L. Pierce, George Lin­coln Rock­well, David Duke, and oth­ers for a racial ral­ly­ing cry that some­how always involves Jew-hatred. And inevitably, we have seen real-life unhinged per­sons tak­ing their angry mes­sage to the streets: in 1998 in Jasper, Texas, a mur­der­er named John William King pompous­ly quot­ed Fran­cis Park­er Yock­ey in court after being con­vict­ed of mur­der­ing a black man by drag­ging him down a road behind a pick­up truck. “The promise of suc­cess,” this cold-blood­ed mur­der­er intoned to the court, “is with the man who is deter­mined to die proud­ly when it is no longer pos­si­ble to live proud­ly.” (The Yock­ey quo­ta­tion was in fact a near-iden­ti­cal rephras­ing of Niet­zsche.) Even a few brainier mem­bers of the ultra­vi­o­lent prison gang the Aryan Broth­er­hood, long ram­pant in California’s pris­ons, have gone on record as prais­ing Imperi­um.

    But Yockey’s writ­ings have had an equal­ly sig­nif­i­cant effect on today’s Euro­pean and Russ­ian far-right activists and politi­cians, some of whom are quick to point out that Yock­ey him­self, by the mid-1950s, had become pro-Russ­ian once he real­ized Stal­in had turned toward his own, lethal anti­se­mit­ic pol­i­cy. Thus, present-day Russ­ian neo­fas­cist politi­cians like Vladimir Zhiri­novsky and Alek­san­dr Dug­in can, with more or less straight faces, advo­cate in favor of vari­a­tions on an old ide­ol­o­gy that once tried to wipe out their coun­try. And many of these right-wing Rus­sians now embrace Yockey’s dream of pan-Europa, but under a more recent catch-word: Eurasian­ism.

    A Ukrain­ian schol­ar named Anton Shekhovtsov, the author of a book called Rus­sia and the West­ern Far Right, not­ed at a lec­ture giv­en in Vien­na in 2017 that Fran­cis Yock­ey “believed in the ide­al of so-called pan-Euro­pean Fas­cism,” and “imag­ined a real­ly unit­ed Europe, that would not be divid­ed by the cap­i­tal­ist West and the social­ist East.” Yock­ey, he said, “did not believe in the nation-state,” and “thought that, geopo­lit­i­cal­ly, Europe would only sur­vive between the two ‘evils,’ the US and the Sovi­et Union, as a unit­ed force. [Yock­ey] imag­ined this Europe as being deeply illib­er­al and Fas­cist.”

    Speak­ing of Yockey’s com­rades with­in the post­war, West Ger­man right, which includ­ed such “illib­er­al” polit­i­cal par­ties as the neo-Nazi SRP (Sozial­is­tis­che Reichspartei Deutsch­lands, banned by the Ade­nauer gov­ern­ment as essen­tial­ly Nazi), Shekhovtsov said:

    They were neu­tral­ists. They were ide­o­log­i­cal­ly influ­enced by the neu­tral­ist move­ments in West Ger­many, some of them. They were also influ­enced by clas­si­cal geopol­i­tics. And they did con­sid­er the US and the Sovi­et Union to be evils, equal­ly. But with time, they increas­ing­ly start­ed to think that it would be bet­ter to align with the Sovi­et Union, in order to resist the US.

    […]

    Fran­cis Yock­ey imag­ined the Euro­pean Imperi­um that would include Rus­sia: Sovi­et Rus­sia.

    Shekhovtsov char­ac­ter­ized the mav­er­ick American’s influ­ence on the glob­al far right, from the ear­ly 1960s onward, as “a very impor­tant devel­op­ment that influ­enced, I would argue, what we see now.” Indeed, what we see now are anti-demo­c­ra­t­ic cur­rents gain­ing ground in Hun­gary, Poland, and Rus­sia, and a seem­ing­ly new day, in which a book by David Duke (Jew­ish Suprema­cism) can be sold open­ly in the book­store of the State Duma in Moscow and trav­el­ers in Amman, Jor­dan, can eas­i­ly pur­chase a copy of The Pro­to­cols of the Elders of Zion at the air­port. A time when Jews are leav­ing Paris by the thou­sands, and Jew­ish cen­ters are shot up by unsta­ble hot­heads in the Unit­ed States, some­thing unheard of until the turn of the new cen­tu­ry. Mean­while, Vladimir Putin’s own fas­ci­na­tion with an ear­ly 20th-cen­tu­ry Russ­ian fas­cist philoso­pher, Ivan Ilyin, has been not­ed by the West­ern press.

    It’s not too much to rec­og­nize that Yock­ey, the one­time stu­dent of geopol­i­tics at Georgetown’s School of For­eign Ser­vice, was uti­liz­ing a cer­tain odd strain of strate­gic think­ing of his own when, dur­ing the Cold War–saturated 1950s, he urged his fel­low neo-Nazis around the world to “play the Russ­ian card”: “By thus play­ing off Rus­sia against the lead­er­ship of Amer­i­can Jew­ry,” Yock­ey announced to his com­rade-sub­scribers, “Europe can bring about its own lib­er­a­tion from the per­ils of Jew­ish Democ­ra­cy imposed by Amer­i­can bay­o­nets.
    ...

    Of course, giv­en the trans-nation­al pan-Eurasian nature of Yock­ey-ism and the fact that Ukraine’s Nazi move­ments have already embraced the vision of a pan-Euro­pean fas­cism, there’s anoth­er dark sce­nario we have to keep in mind: Russ­ian and Ukraine both and up embrac­ing Yock­ey-style fas­cism as a result of this con­flict. It’s anoth­er path towards peace. At least peace between Ukraine and Rus­sia. There would pre­sum­ably be a lot more war over­all under that sce­nario.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | March 14, 2022, 3:57 pm

  13. @Pterrafractyl–

    Bra­vo!

    Now, keep in mind what I have warned about in the “How Many Lies Before You Belong to The Lie?” series:

    Putin was lured into a trap–a choice between “real, real bad” (the war/invasion option he took) and “Worse still”–a bru­tal mil­i­tary re-con­quest of the Donet­sk Repub­lic by the 125,000 Ukrain­ian troops massed at the bor­der, a nuclear-armed and (as we will cov­er in FTR#1234) bio­log­i­cal war­fare-armed, NATO-aligned and thor­ough­ly OUN/B‑Nazified Ukraine sit­ting at Rus­si­a’s doorstep.

    The goal of this trap–a Euro­pean reca­pit­u­la­tion of the Brzezin­s­ki “Afghanistan OP”–is regime change in Moscow.

    Note that Ian (Mr. Zbig’s) son is on the Atlantic Coun­cil, one of the top OUN-aligned think tanks.

    Now, con­tem­plate this: a “Weimar Rus­sia,” bro­ken mil­i­tar­i­ly and eco­nom­i­cal­ly, inter­na­tion­al­ly humil­i­at­ed and sub­ju­gat­ed.

    And with all those nukes, includ­ing lots of small ones that could find their way to Nazi ele­ments around the world will­ing to use them in a “Turn­er Diaries” man­i­fes­ta­tion.

    The William Luther Pierce vol­ume ends with a low-lev­el nuk­ing of the Pen­ta­gon with a small atom­ic war­head.

    If the US and the West gets what it wants, it may be a sear­ing exam­ple of the old adage “Be Care­ful What You Wish For–You MIGHT Get It!”

    Indeed, we may all “get it.”

    Best,

    Dave

    Think abou

    Posted by Dave Emory | March 14, 2022, 7:19 pm

  14. Is civ­il war in Poland’s future? Let’s hope not, but that’s the warn­ing just made by for­mer pres­i­dent Lech Wale­sa. If the rul­ing far right PiS par­ty wins again in the upcom­ing elec­tions, civ­il war will be the only remain­ing solu­tion to fix the coun­try.

    That warn­ing was issue dur­ing a chill­ing inter­view in Haaretz where Wale­sa warned Israel to avoid going down the anti-demo­c­ra­t­ic path Poland has trav­eled. And as we’re going to see, it’s not the first time Wale­sa made this civ­il war warn­ing. He did the same back in Decem­ber of 2015, short­ly after PiS won the elec­tions and imme­di­ate­ly pro­ceed­ed to stack Poland’s con­sti­tu­tion­al court with hack par­ti­san judges hand-picked by PiS’s unelect­ed par­ty boss Jaroslaw Kaczyn­s­ki, who is now seen as Poland’s de fac­to ruler.

    Flash for­ward to today, and we find that con­sti­tu­tion­al court is so bro­ken that it is cur­rent­ly fac­ing a mutiny of judges who observed that the con­sti­tu­tion­al court’s pres­i­den­t’s term end­ed at the end of the year. The court pres­i­dent also turns out to be a PiS loy­al­ist who insists her term end at the end of this year. Those six judges wrote to Poland’s pres­i­dent demand­ing the selec­tion of a new court pres­i­dent. And it turns out their demands could have sig­nif­i­cant polit­i­cal con­se­quences of the PiS. How so? Because the PiS-led gov­ern­ment is des­per­ate to please the EU in order to earn the release of bil­lions of euros in pan­dem­ic stim­u­lus funds that have thus far been held up over con­cerns about Poland’s demo­c­ra­t­ic back­slid­ing. In response, Poland’s par­lia­ment just passed a law that back­tracks on some of the PiS’s legal ‘reforms’ that have most irked the EU. But that new law still needs to be review by Poland’s high court, which is cur­rent­ly fac­ing a mutiny.

    That’s just a snap­shot of Poland’s bro­ken democ­ra­cy. So bro­ken that, as Wale­sa warns, demo­c­ra­t­ic solu­tions may no longer be avail­able:

    Haaretz

    Ex-pres­i­dent Lech Wale­sa Wit­nessed Poland’s Demo­c­ra­t­ic Back­slide. He Offers His Warn­ing to Israel

    The Nobel Prize lau­re­ate spear­head­ed the fight against the Pol­ish com­mu­nist author­i­ties 40 years ago. Now, he sounds the alarm for Israelis about mis­takes that under­mined demo­c­ra­t­ic gov­ern­ment in his coun­try

    Ofer Aderet
    Feb 23, 2023

    For­mer Pol­ish Pres­i­dent Lech Wale­sa, whose efforts in the 1980s led to the col­lapse of the com­mu­nist regime in his coun­try, is warn­ing Israelis not to allow their gov­ern­ment to com­plete its plans for regime change.

    “Tell your peo­ple that this must not hap­pen because you might still end up like Poland,” Wale­sa told Haaretz on Mon­day. The 79-year-old for­mer pres­i­dent and Nobel Peace Prize lau­re­ate also acknowl­edged that the Poles have failed in their efforts to halt anti­de­mo­c­ra­t­ic pol­i­cy changes that the con­ser­v­a­tive right-wing Pol­ish gov­ern­ment has pur­sued since com­ing to pow­er in 2015.

    “We made a major mis­take in Poland. From the first moment that ideas sim­i­lar to those now being expressed there in Israel were heard, we need­ed to fight them very force­ful­ly,” Wale­sa said. “But we didn’t fight enough and today it’s already impos­si­ble.”

    The state of democ­ra­cy in Poland today is so grave, he said, that “it would require a rev­o­lu­tion in the streets with the use of force” to restore the sit­u­a­tion to what it was. “That’s how far the Law and Jus­tice par­ty has gone in destroy­ing democ­ra­cy and free­dom.”

    Wale­sa warned that Israelis must act quick­ly to pre­vent a dete­ri­o­ra­tion that could end in civ­il war, as he has pre­dict­ed is pos­si­ble in Poland fol­low­ing the par­lia­men­tary elec­tion planned for Novem­ber. “If Law and Jus­tice also win the com­ing elec­tion, there will be a civ­il war here. To pre­vent a civ­il war there in Israel, you need to imme­di­ate­ly oppose the government’s moves. Don’t per­mit them to destroy your democ­ra­cy,” he said.

    Wale­sa also com­ment­ed on the Pol­ish government’s takeover of the country’s judi­cial sys­tem and pub­lic broad­cast­ing in a bid to min­i­mize the sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers and over­sight of the gov­ern­ment. In recent months, lead­ers of the Israeli protests over regime change them­selves have warned that Israel could descend into a sit­u­a­tion like in Poland and Hun­gary, where demo­c­ra­t­ic gov­ern­ment has been under­mined.

    “It’s so dif­fi­cult for me to say this, because I know your prime min­is­ter,” Wale­sa said of Prime Min­is­ter Ben­jamin Netanyahu. “And I’ve met with him sev­er­al times and have no desire to hurt him, but I see that what hap­pened in Poland is due to also hap­pen in Israel, and I very much oppose these ideas.”

    A dif­fer­ent bat­tle

    In the 1980s, Wale­sa, who was work­ing as an elec­tri­cian at a ship­yard in Gdan­sk, led a non­vi­o­lent fight against the com­mu­nist regime that took over the coun­try fol­low­ing the defeat of the Nazis in World War II. His­to­ri­ans have viewed him as a fig­ure who man­aged to cre­ate the ini­tial cracks in the Iron Cur­tain, which lat­er led to the col­lapse of the entire Sovi­et bloc.

    The Sol­i­dar­i­ty move­ment that he found­ed, and which was the first inde­pen­dent work­ers’ orga­ni­za­tion in the com­mu­nist bloc, led protest strikes over work­ing con­di­tions in the 1980s. It lat­er expand­ed and direct­ed its efforts against cen­sor­ship and vio­la­tions of free­dom to union­ize and free­dom of reli­gion. It was met with dizzy­ing suc­cess, with­out blood­shed.

    In 1989, rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Pol­ish gov­ern­ment and the oppo­si­tion, head­ed by Wale­sa, met for a series of round­table dis­cus­sions, after which it was decid­ed to hold elec­tions. The new­ly elect­ed prime min­is­ter of the gov­ern­ment that fol­lowed, Tadeusz Mazowiec­ki of the Sol­i­dar­i­ty move­ment, was East­ern Europe’s first non-com­mu­nist leader in 40 years. Wale­sa was appoint­ed Poland’s pres­i­dent. Then, in Novem­ber 1989, the Berlin Wall fell and in 1991 the Sovi­et Union col­lapsed.

    “The bat­tle against com­mu­nism was dif­fer­ent from the bat­tles today,” Wale­sa said, but not­ed the prin­ci­ples that guid­ed him in orga­niz­ing a suc­cess­ful rev­o­lu­tion: “I had grown up with white being white and black being black. There are things that can’t be agreed to, and I didn’t agree [to them].”

    ...

    He rec­om­mend­ed that Israelis who are now tak­ing to the streets also cir­cu­late peti­tions demand­ing the fall of the gov­ern­ment. “If you col­lect more sig­na­tures than it got in the elec­tion, you have the demo­c­ra­t­ic right to throw these peo­ple out,” he said. “You can go to the world and present your demands.”

    ‘It’s their law’

    Since fin­ish­ing his term as pres­i­dent in 1995, Wale­sa has not held an offi­cial posi­tion in Poland. In recent years, he had made head­lines on two occa­sions. In 2013, he shocked the coun­try for say­ing that homo­sex­u­als have no right to hold impor­tant polit­i­cal posi­tions. His crit­ics not­ed that despite being a free­dom fight­er who had brought down a dic­ta­to­r­i­al regime and estab­lished democ­ra­cy in Poland, he was also con­ser­v­a­tive and reli­gious, and has nev­er sup­port­ed social progress.

    His rep­u­ta­tion was also dam­aged in 2016 when Poland’s Insti­tute of Nation­al Remem­brance, a gov­ern­ment agency that inves­ti­gates Nazi and com­mu­nist crimes, claimed that Wale­sa had col­lab­o­rat­ed with the com­mu­nist author­i­ties pri­or to his oppo­si­tion to the regime. The insti­tute pro­duced doc­u­ments that pur­port­ed­ly showed that he was an infor­mant for the regime in the 1970s and had pro­vid­ed infor­ma­tion in exchange for cash. Wale­sa claimed that the doc­u­ments were forged.

    In recent years, he has been promi­nent in the fight against the cur­rent Pol­ish gov­ern­ment. In his inter­view with Haaretz, he wore a shirt with the Pol­ish word for con­sti­tu­tion on it – a reminder that even the exis­tence of a con­sti­tu­tion, which Israel lacks in a full sense, is not an absolute guar­an­tee that democ­ra­cy won’t be under­mined.

    “Our con­sti­tu­tion includ­ed the prin­ci­ple of sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers, but not suf­fi­cient­ly explic­it­ly and strong­ly,” he said. “There were things that we didn’t antic­i­pate.”

    “In the future, it will be pos­si­ble to amend that. In Law and Jus­tice, they inter­pret­ed it as they saw fit and they began destroy­ing the con­sti­tu­tion,” Wale­sa said. “Poland wasn’t destroyed in the wake of fas­cism or under the com­mu­nist regime, but they’ve allowed the pop­ulists and dem­a­gogues to do what­ev­er they want­ed and they’ve destroyed our democ­ra­cy. It’s crazy what they’ve done and there’s no way to fight it because they will always say that they are act­ing in accor­dance with the law.”

    “But it’s their law,” Wale­sa added.

    ———-

    “Ex-pres­i­dent Lech Wale­sa Wit­nessed Poland’s Demo­c­ra­t­ic Back­slide. He Offers His Warn­ing to Israel” by Ofer Aderet; Haaretz; 02/23/2023

    “Wale­sa warned that Israelis must act quick­ly to pre­vent a dete­ri­o­ra­tion that could end in civ­il war, as he has pre­dict­ed is pos­si­ble in Poland fol­low­ing the par­lia­men­tary elec­tion planned for Novem­ber. “If Law and Jus­tice also win the com­ing elec­tion, there will be a civ­il war here. To pre­vent a civ­il war there in Israel, you need to imme­di­ate­ly oppose the government’s moves. Don’t per­mit them to destroy your democ­ra­cy,” he said.”

    There’s going to be civ­il war in Poland if this con­tin­ues. That was the omi­nous warn­ing Lech Wale­sa just deliv­ered, along with the warn­ing that Israel risks going down the same path. A path of allow­ing attacks on demo­c­ra­t­ic insti­tu­tions to go unan­swered for so long that the basic checks and bal­ances of Poland’s demo­c­ra­t­ic sys­tem of gov­ern­ment is no longer left intact, leav­ing extreme action like civ­il war as the only remain­ing option. Let’s hope Wale­sa is incor­rect about his civ­il war pre­dic­tion, but it’s hard to argue with his analy­sis on the state of Poland’s democ­ra­cy. Poland is effec­tive­ly a cap­ture one-par­ty state:

    ...
    “Tell your peo­ple that this must not hap­pen because you might still end up like Poland,” Wale­sa told Haaretz on Mon­day. The 79-year-old for­mer pres­i­dent and Nobel Peace Prize lau­re­ate also acknowl­edged that the Poles have failed in their efforts to halt anti­de­mo­c­ra­t­ic pol­i­cy changes that the con­ser­v­a­tive right-wing Pol­ish gov­ern­ment has pur­sued since com­ing to pow­er in 2015.

    “We made a major mis­take in Poland. From the first moment that ideas sim­i­lar to those now being expressed there in Israel were heard, we need­ed to fight them very force­ful­ly,” Wale­sa said. “But we didn’t fight enough and today it’s already impos­si­ble.”

    The state of democ­ra­cy in Poland today is so grave, he said, that “it would require a rev­o­lu­tion in the streets with the use of force” to restore the sit­u­a­tion to what it was. “That’s how far the Law and Jus­tice par­ty has gone in destroy­ing democ­ra­cy and free­dom.”

    ...

    Wale­sa also com­ment­ed on the Pol­ish government’s takeover of the country’s judi­cial sys­tem and pub­lic broad­cast­ing in a bid to min­i­mize the sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers and over­sight of the gov­ern­ment. In recent months, lead­ers of the Israeli protests over regime change them­selves have warned that Israel could descend into a sit­u­a­tion like in Poland and Hun­gary, where demo­c­ra­t­ic gov­ern­ment has been under­mined.

    ...

    In recent years, he has been promi­nent in the fight against the cur­rent Pol­ish gov­ern­ment. In his inter­view with Haaretz, he wore a shirt with the Pol­ish word for con­sti­tu­tion on it – a reminder that even the exis­tence of a con­sti­tu­tion, which Israel lacks in a full sense, is not an absolute guar­an­tee that democ­ra­cy won’t be under­mined.

    “Our con­sti­tu­tion includ­ed the prin­ci­ple of sep­a­ra­tion of pow­ers, but not suf­fi­cient­ly explic­it­ly and strong­ly,” he said. “There were things that we didn’t antic­i­pate.”

    “In the future, it will be pos­si­ble to amend that. In Law and Jus­tice, they inter­pret­ed it as they saw fit and they began destroy­ing the con­sti­tu­tion,” Wale­sa said. “Poland wasn’t destroyed in the wake of fas­cism or under the com­mu­nist regime, but they’ve allowed the pop­ulists and dem­a­gogues to do what­ev­er they want­ed and they’ve destroyed our democ­ra­cy. It’s crazy what they’ve done and there’s no way to fight it because they will always say that they are act­ing in accor­dance with the law.”

    “But it’s their law,” Wale­sa added.
    ...

    Nor is this the first time Wale­sa made these civ­il war warn­ings. It was back in Decem­ber of 2015, months and PiS month the elec­tions, when the unelect­ed leader of PiS, Jaraslaw Kaczyn­s­ki, basi­cal­ly tried to install 5 judges of his own choos­ing on the 15-mem­ber con­sti­tu­tion­al court. A play that, as we’re going to see, worked. Poland’s Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court is, today, a par­ti­san farce. And as Wale­sa warned at the time, “I am warn­ing them, it’s going to end in a civ­il war”:

    Deutsche Welle

    Wale­sa rais­es fear of ‘civ­il war’ in Poland

    Decem­ber 18, 2015

    Lech Wale­sa said he was begin­ning to feel “ashamed” of Poland’s rul­ing Law and Jus­tice (PiS) par­ty’s elec­tion win and added to his pre­vi­ous call that the new gov­ern­ment uphold democ­ra­cy’s divi­sion of pow­ers among the exec­u­tive, leg­isla­tive and judi­cial branch­es.

    Since win­ning Octo­ber’s elec­tion, the PiS, led by Jaroslaw Kaczyn­s­ki, who is nei­ther pres­i­dent nor prime min­is­ter, has attempt­ed to install five judges of its own choos­ing to Poland’s 15-mem­ber con­sti­tu­tion­al court as it pre­pares to imple­ment con­tro­ver­sial soci­etal reforms.

    The court has the pow­er to veto new leg­is­la­tion.

    Will end bad­ly, warns Wale­sa

    Wale­sa, who in the 1980s head­ed the Sol­i­dar­i­ty move­ment against then-Sovi­et rule, told Pol­ish pub­lic tele­vi­sion late Thurs­day that while changes were need­ed in Poland, the way in which PiS was pro­ceed­ing did not amount to an “open and demo­c­ra­t­ic” reform process.

    “If they don’t do it like that, I am warn­ing them, it’s going to end in a civ­il war,” he said.

    On Wednes­day, he had told pri­vate Radio Zet that the PiS’s polit­i­cal course would “lead to a lot of mis­for­tune. It will end bad­ly.”

    Democ­ra­cy’s three-way divi­sion of pow­er and sys­tem of checks and bal­ances was “indis­pen­si­ble,” Wale­sa said.

    The Nobel Peace Prize recip­i­en­t’s words car­ry extra weight because Kaczyn­s­ki was his advi­sor when Wale­sa became Poland’s first demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly elect­ed pres­i­dent since World War Two in 1990.

    The two have, how­ev­er, occa­sion­al­ly clashed over issues.

    Anoth­er pro-democ­ra­cy protest is planned for Sat­ur­day. A demon­stra­tion last Sat­ur­day, called by an oppo­si­tion alliance, drew 50,000 peo­ple in War­saw. The next day some 35,000 pro-gov­ern­ment sup­port­ers ral­lied in the cap­i­tal.

    ‘Valid’ appointees reject­ed by Duda

    The new PiS-led gov­ern­ment for­mal­ly head­ed by Prime Min­is­ter Bea­ta Szyd­lo refus­es to rec­og­nize oth­er judges pre­vi­ous­ly appoint­ed by par­lia­ment when the lib­er­al Civic Plat­form (PO) was in pow­er.

    On Wednes­day, Pol­ish Pres­i­dent Andrzej Duda reject­ed three judges picked by the past par­lia­ment, despite the court’s rul­ing that the appoint­ments were valid.

    The PiS nation­al con­ser­v­a­tives also want to change the court’s under­pin­ning leg­is­la­tion by remov­ing a para­graph that guar­an­tees the pan­el’s inde­pen­dence.

    Kaczyn­s­ki had pre­vi­ous­ly described the for­mer cen­trist gov­ern­ment as a “crony sys­tem.” Crit­ics have said he wants influ­ence over the court because with­out its back­ing he will not be able to imple­ment promised social and polit­i­cal reforms.

    On Wednes­day, Szyd­lo ver­bal­ly attacked oppo­nents, say­ing “for those who cry the loud­est it’s not about democ­ra­cy, but about defend­ing their influ­ence and posi­tions.”

    ...

    ———–

    “Wale­sa rais­es fear of ‘civ­il war’ in Poland”; Deutsche Welle; 12/18/2015

    “Since win­ning Octo­ber’s elec­tion, the PiS, led by Jaroslaw Kaczyn­s­ki, who is nei­ther pres­i­dent nor prime min­is­ter, has attempt­ed to install five judges of its own choos­ing to Poland’s 15-mem­ber con­sti­tu­tion­al court as it pre­pares to imple­ment con­tro­ver­sial soci­etal reforms.”

    Yes, it was around 7 1/2 years ago when Poland’s Con­sti­tu­tion Court was stacked with par­ti­san hacks select­ed by the unelect­ed PiS par­ty leader. That hap­pened, despite all the warn­ings that this was going to break Poland’s democ­ra­cy:

    ...
    Wale­sa, who in the 1980s head­ed the Sol­i­dar­i­ty move­ment against then-Sovi­et rule, told Pol­ish pub­lic tele­vi­sion late Thurs­day that while changes were need­ed in Poland, the way in which PiS was pro­ceed­ing did not amount to an “open and demo­c­ra­t­ic” reform process.

    “If they don’t do it like that, I am warn­ing them, it’s going to end in a civ­il war,” he said.

    On Wednes­day, he had told pri­vate Radio Zet that the PiS’s polit­i­cal course would “lead to a lot of mis­for­tune. It will end bad­ly.”

    Democ­ra­cy’s three-way divi­sion of pow­er and sys­tem of checks and bal­ances was “indis­pen­si­ble,” Wale­sa said.
    ...

    And that brings us to the fol­low­ing utter­ly bro­ken sce­nario Poland finds itself in today: in order to com­ply with the EU’s con­ster­na­tion over Poland’s illib­er­al back­slid­ing, Poland’s PiS-led gov­ern­ment passed a new law that back­tracks on some of the con­tro­ver­sial ‘legal reforms’ that result­ed in the EU block­ing the release of COVID-19 pan­dem­ic relief funds of Poland as a penal­ty. But there’s a catch: this new law needs to be reviewed by the same 15-judge con­sti­tu­tion­al court the PiS has stacked with cronies. But at least 6 of the 15 judges insist that the term for the pres­i­dent of Poland’s con­sti­tu­tion­al court, Julia Przyleb­s­ka, expired at the end of last year. The six judges wrote a let­ter to Pres­i­dent Andrzej Duda request­ing that a new pres­i­dent be select­ed. And since at least 11 out of 15 judges on the pan­el need to par­tic­i­pate in a deci­sion, hav­ing 6 hold outs implies that the review of the new con­sti­tu­tion­al law may not hap­pen.

    That’s all part of the con­text of Lech Wale­sa’s omi­nous warn­ing to Israel: Poland’s judi­cial sys­tem is cur­rent­ly so bro­ken that it may not even be capa­ble of review­ing its own attempts at con­sti­tu­tion­al reforms:

    Politico.eu

    Poland’s EU bil­lions now depend on a taint­ed top court embroiled in a civ­il war

    The Con­sti­tu­tion­al Tri­bunal is rul­ing on a law aimed at defus­ing the rule of law con­flict with the EU.

    By Woj­ciech Kosc
    March 4, 2023 4:00 am CET

    WARSAW — Poland’s legal war with the EU began when the rul­ing par­ty seized con­trol of the country’s top con­sti­tu­tion­al court — but that body is now so dys­func­tion­al it may derail Warsaw’s hopes of get­ting bil­lions in EU recov­ery funds.

    The Con­sti­tu­tion­al Tri­bunal is sup­posed to rule on whether laws passed by par­lia­ment jibe with the Pol­ish con­sti­tu­tion. Pres­i­dent Andrzej Duda last month hand­ed it the hot pota­to of adju­di­cat­ing on a new law that aims to tone down the rule of law dis­pute with the EU by back­track­ing on some legal reforms.

    The law is cru­cial in get­ting the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion to agree to release €36 bil­lion in loans and grants from the bloc’s pan­dem­ic recov­ery fund — some­thing the rul­ing Law and Jus­tice (PiS) par­ty des­per­ate­ly wants ahead of this fall’s par­lia­men­tary elec­tion.

    But PiS’s past tin­ker­ing with the court has thrown it into such dis­ar­ray that it’s not clear if the tri­bunal will even be able to meet to rule on the case.

    There’s a fight on over the sta­tus of Julia Przyleb­s­ka, the tribunal’s pres­i­dent and a per­son­al friend of PiS boss and Poland’s de fac­to ruler Jaroslaw Kaczyn­s­ki.

    At least six of the court’s 15 judges say that her six-year term as pres­i­dent expired at the end of last year — a stance she rejects, insist­ing her term ends in Decem­ber.

    “There’s no mutiny,” Jakub Stelina, one of the judges who ques­tion the legit­i­ma­cy of Przyleb­s­ka, told POLITICO. “There’s no legal ques­tion that judge Przylebska’s term as the tribunal’s pres­i­dent has expired.”

    Przyleb­s­ka insists all is well. Ear­li­er this week she told Pol­ish radio: “The Con­sti­tu­tion­al Tri­bunal will be prepar­ing for a rul­ing. We will meet soon for the hear­ing.” How­ev­er, she wouldn’t be drawn on how soon she’ll move, say­ing only: “Cer­tain­ly it will not take years, as the oppo­si­tion claims.”

    But the six judges also wrote to Duda this week, call­ing for a new pres­i­dent to be select­ed, imply­ing if that doesn’t hap­pen the tri­bunal won’t be able to exam­ine the legal reform law, which amends how Poland han­dles dis­ci­pli­nary cas­es against judges.

    On Wednes­day, Przyleb­s­ka con­vened a gen­er­al assem­bly of the tri­bunal, con­sist­ing of two-thirds of the court’s judges — and received a major­i­ty back­ing for her con­tin­ued pres­i­den­cy .

    “There’s no mess in the [tri­bunal],” tweet­ed Krysty­na Pawlow­icz, a hard-right jus­tice who is loy­al to Przyleb­s­ka.

    How­ev­er, that doesn’t end the rebel­lion, and that means trou­ble for efforts to decide on the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of the legal reform bill. To hear the case, Przyleb­s­ka needs to gath­er a pan­el of 11 judges — and if the six rebels dig in their heels, she won’t have the num­bers to do that.

    To make mat­ters even more com­pli­cat­ed for PiS, the six judges are seen as close to Jus­tice Min­is­ter Zbig­niew Zio­bro, the leader of PiS’s small­er Euroskep­tic coali­tion part­ner that is opposed to any retreat in the spat with Brus­sels.

    Taint­ed past

    The cur­rent sit­u­a­tion is a con­se­quence of the chaos that over­came the tri­bunal as Duda and PiS took pow­er in 2015. One of their first steps was for the new­ly elect­ed pres­i­dent to refuse to swear in three judges named by the out­go­ing par­lia­ment. Instead, the new PiS-con­trolled leg­is­la­ture chose three new judges, who were sworn in dur­ing a late-night cer­e­mo­ny by Duda.

    “Three tri­bunal judges shouldn’t be there at all in the first place,” said Jakub Jaraczews­ki, a research coor­di­na­tor for Democ­ra­cy Report­ing Inter­na­tion­al, a Berlin-based NGO, adding: “If any of the three judges in ques­tion rule on any­thing, it’s a denial of the right to a tri­bunal estab­lished by law.”

    Kaczyn­s­ki has made con­trol of the courts a key part of his nation­al­ist government’s polit­i­cal pro­gram. His back­ers argue that’s need­ed to make the judi­cial sys­tem more effi­cient and to purge it of peo­ple dat­ing back to the com­mu­nist sys­tem that end­ed in 1989. Skep­tics see it as a way of putting judges under polit­i­cal con­trol.

    Brus­sels shares that view.

    “The [Euro­pean] Com­mis­sion also con­sid­ers that the Con­sti­tu­tion­al Tri­bunal no longer meets the require­ments of an inde­pen­dent and impar­tial tri­bunal pre­vi­ous­ly estab­lished by law,” it said when refer­ring Poland to the Court of Jus­tice of the EU for vio­lat­ing EU law last month, not­ing “irreg­u­lar­i­ties” in the appoint­ment of the three judges.

    Zio­bro called the law­suit a “planned attack on the Pol­ish state.”

    After the tri­bunal came under the con­trol of PiS loy­al­ists, the num­ber of cas­es it heard dropped dra­mat­i­cal­ly. It is trot­ted out to tack­le polit­i­cal­ly expe­di­ent issues for the rul­ing par­ty — in 2020 tight­en­ing already strict abor­tion rules, and in 2021 rul­ing that the Pol­ish con­sti­tu­tion has pri­ma­cy over EU law, which wors­ened already foul rela­tions with Brus­sels.

    ...

    With a rebel­lion inside the tri­bunal and the PiS-led coali­tion locked in an inter­nal fight over how much it can budge on the rule of law, a ver­dict on the jus­tice sys­tem leg­is­la­tion — and any even­tu­al Com­mis­sion deci­sion to release the funds — is still far in the future.

    ———

    “Poland’s EU bil­lions now depend on a taint­ed top court embroiled in a civ­il war” By Woj­ciech Kosc; Politico.eu; 03/04/2023

    “The cur­rent sit­u­a­tion is a con­se­quence of the chaos that over­came the tri­bunal as Duda and PiS took pow­er in 2015. One of their first steps was for the new­ly elect­ed pres­i­dent to refuse to swear in three judges named by the out­go­ing par­lia­ment. Instead, the new PiS-con­trolled leg­is­la­ture chose three new judges, who were sworn in dur­ing a late-night cer­e­mo­ny by Duda.”

    As we can see, that 2015 stunt — where the unelect­ed leader of PiS tried to stack the con­sti­tu­tion­al court with five par­ti­san hacks — large­ly worked. They got three of them.

    But the plan appar­ent­ly worked too well. Poland’s courts are no so cap­ture there’s a 6‑judge mutiny under­way. A mutiny that threat­ens the con­sti­tu­tion­al court’s abil­i­ty to review the very con­sti­tu­tion­al reforms Poland was effec­tive­ly forced to imple­ment to secure a release of EU fund­ing:

    ...
    The Con­sti­tu­tion­al Tri­bunal is sup­posed to rule on whether laws passed by par­lia­ment jibe with the Pol­ish con­sti­tu­tion. Pres­i­dent Andrzej Duda last month hand­ed it the hot pota­to of adju­di­cat­ing on a new law that aims to tone down the rule of law dis­pute with the EU by back­track­ing on some legal reforms.

    The law is cru­cial in get­ting the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion to agree to release €36 bil­lion in loans and grants from the bloc’s pan­dem­ic recov­ery fund — some­thing the rul­ing Law and Jus­tice (PiS) par­ty des­per­ate­ly wants ahead of this fall’s par­lia­men­tary elec­tion.

    But PiS’s past tin­ker­ing with the court has thrown it into such dis­ar­ray that it’s not clear if the tri­bunal will even be able to meet to rule on the case.

    There’s a fight on over the sta­tus of Julia Przyleb­s­ka, the tribunal’s pres­i­dent and a per­son­al friend of PiS boss and Poland’s de fac­to ruler Jaroslaw Kaczyn­s­ki.

    At least six of the court’s 15 judges say that her six-year term as pres­i­dent expired at the end of last year — a stance she rejects, insist­ing her term ends in Decem­ber.

    ...

    But the six judges also wrote to Duda this week, call­ing for a new pres­i­dent to be select­ed, imply­ing if that doesn’t hap­pen the tri­bunal won’t be able to exam­ine the legal reform law, which amends how Poland han­dles dis­ci­pli­nary cas­es against judges.

    On Wednes­day, Przyleb­s­ka con­vened a gen­er­al assem­bly of the tri­bunal, con­sist­ing of two-thirds of the court’s judges — and received a major­i­ty back­ing for her con­tin­ued pres­i­den­cy .

    “There’s no mess in the [tri­bunal],” tweet­ed Krysty­na Pawlow­icz, a hard-right jus­tice who is loy­al to Przyleb­s­ka.

    How­ev­er, that doesn’t end the rebel­lion, and that means trou­ble for efforts to decide on the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of the legal reform bill. To hear the case, Przyleb­s­ka needs to gath­er a pan­el of 11 judges — and if the six rebels dig in their heels, she won’t have the num­bers to do that.
    ...

    As we can see, Poland is at a brink. How will this con­sti­tu­tion­al legal lim­bo sit­u­a­tion resolve itself? Time will tell. And who knows, maybe this will all ulti­mate­ly end up hurt­ing the PiS’s elec­toral chances lat­er this year. Let’s hope so. Civ­il war isn’t inevitable. But it’s going to be a lot more like­ly after Poland’s fas­cists com­plete their fas­cist project. A fas­cist project they iron­i­cal­ly appear to be an elec­tion away from com­plet­ing.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | March 7, 2023, 5:02 pm

Post a comment

Miscellaneous Archives

Thyssen LogoUncle Sam and The Swastika The Third Reich as historical outgrowth of multi-national corporate capitalism; the financing and arming of Nazi Germany. Read more »