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

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

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

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

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

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

Lis­ten: MP3

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

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

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

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

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

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

By work­ing with­in net­works such as the Promethean League [8], the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations [9] and oth­er intel­li­gence-con­nect­ed net­works, the “Ban­dera” have suc­cess­ful­ly com­man­deered the ide­o­log­i­cal, polit­i­cal and jour­nal­is­tic atti­tudes and poli­cies pur­sued by the coun­tries that host­ed them.

Fol­low­ing the anti-Russ­ian “lus­tra­tion” laws [10], Petro Poroshenko is mov­ing to alter the cit­i­zen­ship laws to allow select for­eign­ers to get fast-tracked cit­i­zen­ship in order to allow them to hold cab­i­net posi­tions. It sounds like he’s also con­sid­er­ing just allow­ing for­eign­ers to fill those posts with­out the cit­i­zen­ship require­ment. It sounds as if he wish­es to install per­son­nel from the OUN/B dias­po­ra in Ukraine’s law enforce­ment and nation­al secu­ri­ty appa­ra­tus.

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

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

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

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

By work­ing with­in net­works such as the Promethean League [8], the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations [9] and oth­er intel­li­gence-con­nect­ed net­works, the “Ban­dera” have suc­cess­ful­ly com­man­deered the ide­o­log­i­cal, polit­i­cal and jour­nal­is­tic atti­tudes and poli­cies pur­sued by the coun­tries that host­ed them.

“Ukraine: Why Ban­dera Have the Largest Geo-Polit­i­cal Voice in EU” by George Elia­son; OpEdNews.com; 8/1/2014. [11]

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

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

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

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

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

Where Ukrain­ian Extrem­ism Start­ed

In 1848 the mod­ern Ukrain­ian state came into being  [12]under the Aus­tro-Hun­gar­i­an (Haps­burg) Empire, in what is called the Spring of Nations ( see Roots of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ism ‑Paul Robert Magosci). Under the Haps­burg empire the Ukrain­ian peo­ple were first rec­og­nized as a dis­tinct nation­al­i­ty and freed from the serf­dom they had been under since the seat of the Rus empire moved from Kiev to Moscow.

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

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

Why Ultra Nation­al­ism or Nazism became the East­ern Euro­pean Mod­el

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

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

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

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

Prometheanism as the Root of Russ­ian Hate

Anoth­er recent project is called Prometheanism [13]. Accord­ing to Wikipedia: “The cre­ator and soul of the Promethean con­cept [wrote Cha­raszkiewicz] was Mar­shal Pil­sud­s­ki, who as ear­ly as 1904, in a mem­o­ran­dum to the Japan­ese gov­ern­ment, point­ed out the need to employ the numer­ous non-Russ­ian nations that inhab­it­ed the basins of the Baltic, Black and Caspi­an Seas in its strug­gle against Rus­sia, and empha­sized that the Pol­ish nation [14], by virtue of its his­to­ry, love of free­dom, and uncom­pro­mis­ing stance toward [the three empires that had par­ti­tioned Poland out of polit­i­cal exis­tence at the end of the 18th cen­tu­ry] would, in that strug­gle, doubt­less take a lead­ing place and help achieve the eman­ci­pa­tion of oth­er nations oppressed by Rus­sia.”

This would be achieved by help­ing these nations to devel­op along strong ultra nation­al­ist lines. All the Promethean coun­tries agreed to put any dis­putes behind them and work togeth­er until they were all free ultra nation­al­ist states. For Ukraine from its incep­tion as a rec­og­nized peo­ple in 1848, Nazism is the only form of gov­ern­ment it has ever known. The short lived gov­ern­ments that fol­lowed and con­tin­ued in exile all these years were known for their unre­lent­ing [15] bru­tal­i­ty and extreme ultra nation­al char­ac­ter­is­tics.

The Roots of Ultra-Ban­dera Ukraine’s Rus­so­pho­bia

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

Ukraine and the East­ern Bloc- Devel­op­ing the Ultra

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

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

The gov­ern­ment of West Ukraine (Gali­cia) and Ukraine formed a loose main­ly sym­bol­ic union based on ultra nation­al­ism. Each had its own nation­al gov­ern­ment, army, and laws. Simon Petliu­ra [16] was one of the orig­i­nal lead­ers of the Haps­burg coun­tries to sign onto Prometheanism. But even as the rec­og­nized dic­ta­tor of Ukraine he was forced to move the gov­ern­ment into exile.The only accept­able form of gov­ern­ment to a Ukrain­ian is the Gali­cian (West Ukraine) mod­el of extreme ultra-nation­al­ism. Petliu­ra is revered as a hero in West­ern Ukraine and a butch­er every­where else for his pogroms, tor­ture, and mur­der.

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

Promethean Coun­tries whose lead­ers emi­gat­ed

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

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

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

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

The 1930’s

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

Fol­low­ing the WWI breakup of the Aus­tria-Hun­gary Empire the Ban­dera were an ide­al fit. The Ger­mans were the sis­ter empire to their own and they expect­ed the same kind of treat­ment. That fact made it nat­ur­al for the Ban­dera to swear allegeance to the Third Reich for­ev­er [17]. It was a slap in the face when they did­n’t get the same rights they had under the Empire. This fact, cou­pled with Hitler los­ing the war are the only rea­sons they hate being called Nazis today.

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

WW2

Any­one who has fol­lowed Ukraine at all is well aware of Ban­der­a’s activ­i­ties in WWII. The geno­cide of over 500,000 peo­ple in Ukraine [18], the SS Divi­sions that the ultra nation­al­ists manned, fight­ing against both the Sovi­et Union and the West­ern Allies. The Ban­dera SS Divi­sions also manned the con­cen­tra­tion camps that became exter­mi­na­tion camps dur­ing the war. The Ban­dera have nev­er stood tri­al for crimes against human­i­ty, and nev­er even had to apol­o­gize.

Post WW2

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

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

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

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

Yaroslav Stet­sko, the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations

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

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

The ABN pro­vid­ed Europe with:

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

ABN Groups includ­ed;

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

The Re-emer­gence of the Ukrain­ian Gov­ern­ment in Exile

When Symon Petliu­ra (pres­i­dent of the gov­ern­ment in exile) was assas­si­nat­ed in 1926, Andrii Livyt­sky took over. In 1945 Livyt­sky reac­ti­vat­ed the Gov­ern­ment-in-exile of the Ukrain­ian Nation­al Repub­lic [19] and invit­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the new emi­gra­tion to join it. In 1946 he instruct­ed Isaak Mazepa to unite all polit­i­cal par­ties around the state cen­ter of the UNR, and that union even­tu­al­ly result­ed in the orga­ni­za­tion of the Ukrain­ian Nation­al Coun­cil [20] (1947).

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

1950’s Sovi­et Union

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

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

Because Nazism was­n’t taught in school beyond the fact that it is evil, what Ukrain­ian ultra nation­al­ism is was for­got­ten. Most sur­vivors of the atroc­i­ties just did not talk about it. Thus, in the 1990’s, ultra nation­al­ism could emerge [21] and remain unrec­og­nized in plain sight, grow­ing into the orga­ni­za­tion­al force behind the Orange Rev­o­lu­tion and the Coup in 2014. All the pro-coup forces present in 2014 includ­ing Tryzub/ Pravy Sek­tor were active in 1991.

1950’s Anti-Bol­she­vik Europe

In the late 1940’s and into the 50’s cold war fever [22] spread across Europe. Gov­ern­ments began their move to the right and even­tu­al­ly far right, cul­mi­nat­ing in the UK with Prime Min­is­ter Mar­garet Thatch­er. Com­mu­nist sym­pa­thiz­ers in gov­ern­ment were fer­ret­ed out. Anti- Com­mu­nist groups such as the ABN became the go to net­works for intel­li­gence and sab­o­tage efforts. Dur­ing the 50’s, Stet­sko’s ABN absorbed or destroyed every oth­er group or net­work not pre­vi­ous­ly aligned with it, and became the sole provider of intel­li­gence to all of Europe’s intel agen­cies and gov­ern­ments regard­ing the Sovi­et threat. These were the only East­ern Euro­pean gov­ern­ment struc­tures that Europe ever dealt with for over 50 years.

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

The Haps­burgs and Ban­dera 1960’s and 70’s

The Haps­burg monar­chy helped guide the lead­er­ship in their for­mer pos­ses­sions. The Free­dom Coun­cil was formed by Otto von Haps­burg and Yaroslav Stet­sko at a con­fer­ence in Munich [23] on June 30-July 2 1967, as a coor­di­nat­ing body for orga­ni­za­tions fight­ing com­mu­nism in Europe [24].

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

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

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

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

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

The EFC fur­ther insti­tu­tion­al­ized and legit­imized the ABN groups under Stet­sko. All of the anti-com­mu­nist work­ing groups [25] in every coun­try were tied direct­ly into the respec­tive intel­li­gence ser­vices and for­eign pol­i­cy deal­ing with the Sovi­et Union. This enhanced their stand­ing and made their sup­port part of nation­al pol­i­cy across Europe.

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

Bri­an Crozi­er

Bri­an Crozi­er [26] and the Insti­tute for the Study of Con­flict (ISC) brought the influ­ence Stet­sko’s ABN groups had in the UK to a peak under Mar­garet Thatch­er.

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

From the 1950s onwards, Crozi­er set about expos­ing  [27]the true char­ac­ter of left-wing dic­ta­tor­ships, and chal­lenged the illu­sions of their West­ern apol­o­gists. By argu­ing that the West must stand up to com­mu­nism , he helped pro­vide the intel­lec­tu­al under­pin­ning for the robust defence strat­e­gy cham­pi­oned by Pres­i­dent Rea­gan and Mar­garet Thatch­er.”

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

The “Inter­mar­i­um”

The Prome­thi­an­ism project start­ed over a hun­dred years ago, build­ing an ultra nation­al­ist Ukraine and East­ern Europe as a buffer to Rus­sia [28]. It’s called the Inter­mar­i­um. [29]

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

NAZI EUROPE

When you look hon­est­ly at the fruit of the Haps­burg Spring of Nations, Prometheanism [30]and the Euro­pean [31] and US sup­port­ed Ban­dera, its real­ly stag­ger­ing. Ukraine is only in the spot­light because it was the only place where regime change could come quick­ly. Many of the East Euro­pean coun­tries in the EU and NATO are already Nazi, or are imple­ment­ing the polit­i­cal ground­work for the estab­lish­ment of ultra nation­al gov­er­nance.

Gali­cia (West Ukraine), Ruthe­nia ( West Ukraine), Esto­nia [32]Poland [33]Latvia [34]Lithua­nia [35], Aus­tria, Hun­gary [36], Post WW I Ger­many, Bosnia [37], Herce­gov­ina [38], Ser­bia Croa­t­ia [39]Slove­nia [40] and Roma­nia [41] stepped into this mod­el.

The prob­lem with these exam­ples is that they are not cul­tur­al excep­tions, but the rule. In 2007 [42] at Tbil­isi, Geor­gia, a stat­ue of Prometheus was ded­i­cat­ed by Geor­gian Pres­i­dent Mikheil Saakashvili and Pol­ish Pres­i­dent Lech Kaczyn„ski. Saakashvili has shown by his mil­i­tant sup­port for Nazi Kiev that he is a true believ­er in Prometheamis­m’s ultra nation­al­ism.

The Ukraini­ans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Hon­or­ing Col­lab­o­ra­tors;” german-foreign-policy.com; 11/26/2014. [43]

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

Deep Con­cern

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

Nazi Glo­ri­fi­ca­tion not reject­ed

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

In the Strug­gle against Rus­sia

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

Free­dom Fight­ers

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

Hitler’s Part­ner is being reha­bil­i­tat­ed

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

“Counter Insur­gency”

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

[1] Unit­ed Nations Gen­er­al Assem­bly: Six­ty-ninth ses­sion of the Third Com­mit­tee. Agen­da item 66 (a): Elim­i­na­tion of racism, racial dis­crim­i­na­tion, xeno­pho­bia and relat­ed intol­er­ance. A/C.3/69/L.56/Rev.1. 19.11.2014.
[2] See A Broad-Based Anti-Russ­ian Alliance [44]Ter­min beim Botschafter [45] and Juschtschenkos Mythen [46].
[3] See Zwis­chen Moskau und Berlin (IV) [47].
[4] See Tag der Kol­lab­o­ra­teure [48] and “Lib­er­a­tion Fight­ers” and “Occu­pi­er” [49].
[5] Frank Bren­dle: Inter­na­tion­al gegen SS-Ver­her­rlichung. www.neues-deutschland.de 17.03.2014.
[6] Györ­gy Dalos: Hor­thy im Hoch. www.nzz.ch 03.07.2012.
[7] Job­bik und Neue Ungarische Garde wei­hen neues Hor­thy-Denkmal ein. pusztaranger.wordpress.com 23.06.2013.
[8] Paul Jan­dl: Hitlers ungarisch­er Part­ner wird reha­bil­i­tiert. www.welt.de 05.06.2012.
[9] See Ein pos­i­tives Ungarn-Bild [50].

3. Fol­low­ing the anti-Russ­ian “lus­tra­tion” laws [10], Petro Poroshenko is mov­ing to alter the cit­i­zen­ship laws to allow select for­eign­ers to get fast-tracked cit­i­zen­ship in order to allow them to hold cab­i­net posi­tions. It sounds like he’s also con­sid­er­ing just allow­ing for­eign­ers to fill those posts with­out the cit­i­zen­ship require­ment. It sounds as if he wish­es to install per­son­nel from the OUN/B dias­po­ra in Ukraine’s law enforce­ment and nation­al secu­ri­ty appa­ra­tus.

“Poroshenko Wants to See For­eign­ers Head­ing ‘Ukraine’s FBI,’ Fill Cab­i­net Posi­tions” by Katya Gorchin­skaya; Kyiv Post; 11/27/2014. [51]

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Robert Par­ry informs us that Ukraine’s new finance min­is­ter is a for­mer US State Depart­ment offi­cer and Ukrainian/American from the Chica­go area who just got her Ukrain­ian cit­i­zen­ship this week. Jaresko is–obviously–part of the Ukrain­ian dias­po­ra in the Unit­ed States. She was pres­i­dent and CEO of a USAID-backed fund (sound famil­iar? [52]) that was intend­ed to ‘kick start’ the pri­vate equi­ty busi­ness in the region fol­low­ing the col­lapse of the Sovi­et Union. You read that right: an Amer­i­can that ran a USAID pri­vate equi­ty fund is now Ukraine’s Min­is­ter of Finance [53]:

“Ukraine’s Made-in-USA Finance Min­is­ter” by Robert Par­ry; Con­sor­tium News; 12/5/2014. [54]

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

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

Jaresco served as pres­i­dent and chief exec­u­tive offi­cer of West­ern NIS Enter­prise Fund (WNISEF), which was cre­ated by the U.S. Agency for Inter­na­tional Devel­op­ment (U.S. AID) with $150 mil­lion to spur busi­ness activ­ity in Ukraine. She also was cofounder and man­ag­ing part­ner of Hori­zon Cap­i­tal which man­aged WNISEF’s invest­ments at a rate of 2 to 2.5 per­cent of com­mit­ted cap­i­tal, fees exceed­ing $1 mil­lion in recent years, accord­ing to WNISEF’s 2012 annu­al report [55].

The growth of that insid­er deal­ing at the U.S.-taxpayer-funded WNISEF is fur­ther under­scored by the num­ber of para­graphs com­mit­ted to list­ing the “relat­ed par­ty trans­ac­tions,” i.e., poten­tial con­flicts of inter­est, between an ear­ly annu­al report from 2003 [56]and the one a decade lat­er.

...

Jaresko, who served in the U.S. Embassy in Kiev after the col­lapse of the Sovi­et Union, has said [57] that West­ern NIS Enter­prise Fund was “fund­ed by the U.S. gov­ern­ment to invest in small and medi­um-sized busi­nesses in Ukraine and Moldo­va – in essence, to ‘kick-start’ the pri­vate equi­ty indus­try in the region.”

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

...