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.

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast 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, com­plete through Late Fall of 2021 (through FTR #1215).

“Polit­i­cal language…is designed to make lies sound truth­ful and mur­der respectable, and to give an appear­ance of solid­i­ty to pure wind.”

— George Orwell, 1946

­­­FTR#1232 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Intro­duc­tion: We con­tin­ue our cov­er­age of the war in Ukraine. 

Pres­i­dent Putin has been por­trayed as a “mad­man” in the West. As we have seen, his stat­ed war goal of “De-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion” is alto­geth­er rel­e­vant and valid.

The arti­cle below is summed up as fol­lows: ” . . . . After a ‘New York Times’ reporter gross­ly dis­tort­ed what Putin and Zelen­sky have said and done about nuclear weapons, Steven Starr cor­rects the record and deplores West­ern media, in gen­er­al, for mis­in­form­ing and lead­ing the entire world in a dan­ger­ous direc­tion. . . .”

Putin’s claim that Ukraine was seek­ing nuclear weapons also is sub­stan­tive. 

Mr. Emory has stat­ed that he think that Putin fell into a well-laid trap, a Euro­pean iter­a­tion of the Afghanistan gam­bit, in which Zbig­niew Brzezin­s­ki lured the Sovi­et Union into invad­ing Afghanistan, in order to give them their “Viet­nam.” Togeth­er with the delib­er­ate col­lapse of petro­le­um prices, that war helped top­ple the U.S.S.R.

Ian Brzezin­s­ki, Zbig­niew’s son, is a key mem­ber of the Atlantic Coun­cil–one of the major vehi­cles for the OUN milieu’s activ­i­ties in the U.S. As not­ed in pre­vi­ous pro­grams: ” . . . . 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. . . .”

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis:

• One ele­ment of the bait­ed trap was Ukraine mov­ing to gain either “nukes or Nato mem­ber­ship. If, for the sake of argu­ment, Ukraine became a mem­ber of NATO, then they could devel­op nukes with impuni­ty, because a Russ­ian attack would trig­ger World War Three. ” . . . . In oth­er words, the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum was express­ly about Ukraine giv­ing up its nukes and not becom­ing a nuclear weapon state in the future. Zelensky’s speech at Munich made it clear that Ukraine was mov­ing to repu­di­ate the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum; Zelen­sky essen­tial­ly stat­ed that Ukraine must be made a mem­ber of NATO, oth­er­wise it would acquire nuclear weapons. . . .”
• ” . . . . So, when the leader of Ukraine essen­tial­ly threat­ens to obtain nuclear weapons, this is most cer­tain­ly con­sid­ered to be an exis­ten­tial threat to Rus­sia. That is why Putin focused on this dur­ing his speech pre­ced­ing the Russ­ian inva­sion of Ukraine. Sanger and The New York Times must dis­count a Ukrain­ian nuclear threat; they can get away with doing so because they have sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly omit­ted news per­tain­ing to this for many years. . . .”
• There has been no more alarm­ing devel­op­ment in the war than the Russ­ian com­bat around Ukraine’s nuclear facil­i­ties. The sig­nif­i­cance of that com­bat comes into clear view in light of the fol­low­ing, which shows that this is not mere reck­less behav­ior on the part of Rus­sia. ” . . . . Ukraine has plen­ty of plu­to­ni­um, which is com­mon­ly used to make nuclear weapons today; eight years ago Ukraine held more than 50 tons of plu­to­ni­um in its spent fuel assem­blies stored at its many nuclear pow­er plants (prob­a­bly con­sid­er­ably more today, as the reac­tors have con­tin­ued to run and pro­duce spent fuel). Once plu­to­ni­um is reprocessed/separated from spent nuclear fuel, it becomes weapons usable. Putin not­ed that Ukraine already has mis­siles that could car­ry nuclear war­heads, and they cer­tain­ly have sci­en­tists capa­ble of devel­op­ing repro­cess­ing facil­i­ties and build­ing nuclear weapons. In his Feb. 21 tele­vised address, Putin said Ukraine still has the infra­struc­ture left­over from Sovi­et days to build a bomb. . . .”
• ” . . . . ‘Ukraine has the nuclear tech­nolo­gies cre­at­ed back in the Sovi­et times and deliv­ery vehi­cles for such weapons, includ­ing air­craft, as well as the Sovi­et-designed Tochka‑U pre­ci­sion tac­ti­cal mis­siles with a range of over 100 kilo­me­ters.’ . . .”
• Anoth­er ele­ment of the bait­ed trap was an appar­ent Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary buildup at the bor­der of the break­away provinces in the East. ” . . . . The New York Times, in its over­all cov­er­age, chose not to report that the Ukrain­ian forces had deployed half of its army, about 125,000 troops, to its bor­der with Don­bass by the begin­ning of 2022. . . .”
• His­tor­i­cal back­ground to the seces­sion bid: ” . . . . both the provinces of Donet­sk and Lugan­sk in the Don­bass region vot­ed for inde­pen­dence from Ukraine in 2014 in resis­tance to a U.S.-backed coup that over­threw the elect­ed pres­i­dent Vik­tor Yanukovych in Feb­ru­ary of that year. The inde­pen­dence vote came just eight days after neo-Nazis burned dozens of eth­nic Rus­sians alive in Odessa.  To crush their bid for inde­pen­dence, the new U.S.-installed Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment then launched an “anti-ter­ror­ist” war against the provinces, with the assis­tance of the neo-Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion, which had tak­en part in the coup. It is a war that is still going on eight years lat­er, a war that Rus­sia has just entered. . . .”
• ” . . . . For years the U.S. pro­claimed that the Bal­lis­tic Mis­sile Defense (BMD) facil­i­ties it was plac­ing in Roma­nia and Poland, on the Russ­ian bor­der, were to pro­tect against an “Iran­ian threat,” even though Iran had no nuclear weapons or mis­siles that could reach the U.S. But the dual-use Mark 41 launch­ing sys­tems used in the Aegis Ashore BMD facil­i­ties can be used to launch Tom­a­hawk cruise mis­siles, and will be fit­ted with SM‑6 mis­siles that, if armed with nuclear war­heads, could hit Moscow in five-to-six min­utes. Putin explic­it­ly warned jour­nal­ists about this dan­ger in 2016; Rus­sia includ­ed the removal of the U.S. BMD facil­i­ties in Roma­nia and Poland in its draft treaties pre­sent­ed to the U.S. and NATO last Decem­ber. . . .”

Mod­ern Times: Cel­e­bra­tion of the 75th Anniver­sary of the 14th Waf­fen SS Divi­sion in Lviv, Ukraine in sum­mer of 2018. THIS is what lurks beneath the thin facade of Zelen­sky’s “Jew­ish­ness.”

Next, we tack­le “Volodymyr Zelen­sky and the ‘Jew­ish Ques­tion.’ ” (This is a grim pun. “The Jew­ish Ques­tion” was the Third Reich’s euphemism for the impend­ing “Final Solu­tion” to “The Jew­ish Ques­tion.”)

The alto­geth­er valid Russ­ian mil­i­tary goal of the inva­sion was “De-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion.” That jus­ti­fi­ca­tion has been attacked as a ruse by using Zelen­sky’s Jew­ish affil­i­a­tion as a rebut­tal.

In that regard we note:

• ” . . . . Zelensky’s top finan­cial backer, the Ukrain­ian Jew­ish oli­garch Igor Kolo­moisky, has been a key bene­fac­tor of the neo-Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion and oth­er extrem­ists mili­tias. . . . Igor Kolo­moisky, a Ukrain­ian ener­gy baron of Jew­ish her­itage, has been a top fun­der of Azov since it was formed in 2014. He has also bankrolled pri­vate mili­tias like the Dnipro and Aidar Bat­tal­ions, and has deployed them as a per­son­al thug squad to pro­tect his finan­cial inter­ests. . . .”
• ” . . . . Though Zelen­sky made anti-cor­rup­tion the sig­na­ture issue of his cam­paign, the Pan­do­ra Papers exposed him and mem­bers of his inner cir­cle stash­ing large pay­ments from Kolo­moisky in a shad­owy web of off­shore accounts. . . .”
• ” . . . . They are the ultra­na­tion­al­ist Nation­al Mili­tia, street vig­i­lantes with roots in the bat­tle-test­ed Azov Bat­tal­ion that emerged to defend Ukraine against Rus­sia-backed sep­a­ratists but was also accused of pos­si­ble war crimes and neo-Nazi sym­pa­thies. Yet despite the con­tro­ver­sy sur­round­ing it, the Nation­al Mili­tia was grant­ed per­mis­sion by the Cen­tral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion to offi­cial­ly mon­i­tor Ukraine’s pres­i­den­tial elec­tion on March 31. . . .”
• ” . . . . In March 2019, mem­bers of the Azov Battalion’s Nation­al Corps attacked the home of Vik­tor Medved­chuk, the lead­ing oppo­si­tion fig­ure in Ukraine, accus­ing him of trea­son for his friend­ly rela­tions with Vladimir Putin, the god­fa­ther of Medvedchuk’s daugh­ter. Zelensky’s admin­is­tra­tion esca­lat­ed the attack on Medved­chuk, shut­ter­ing sev­er­al media out­lets he con­trolled in Feb­ru­ary 2021 with the open approval of the U.S.  State Depart­ment, and jail­ing the oppo­si­tion leader for trea­son three months lat­er. Zelen­sky jus­ti­fied his actions on the grounds that he need­ed to ‘fight against the dan­ger of Russ­ian aggres­sion in the infor­ma­tion are­na.’ Next, in August 2020, Azov’s Nation­al Corps opened fire on a bus con­tain­ing mem­bers of Medvedchuk’s par­ty, Patri­ots for Life, wound­ing sev­er­al with rub­ber-coat­ed steel bul­lets. . . .”
• ” . . . . Accord­ing to one Greek res­i­dent in Mar­i­upol recent­ly inter­viewed by a Greek news sta­tion, ‘When you try to leave you run the risk of run­ning into a patrol of the Ukrain­ian fas­cists, the Azov Bat­tal­ion,’ he said, adding ‘they would kill me and are respon­si­ble for every­thing.’ Footage post­ed online appears to show uni­formed mem­bers of a fas­cist Ukrain­ian mili­tia in Mar­i­upol vio­lent­ly pulling flee­ing res­i­dents out of their vehi­cles at gun­point. Oth­er video filmed at check­points around Mar­i­upol showed Azov fight­ers shoot­ing and killing civil­ians attempt­ing to flee. . . .”

Jew­ish iden­ti­ty is not rel­e­vant to the sit­u­a­tion as the Bor­mann group’s busi­ness oper­a­tions have includ­ed Jew­ish par­tic­i­pants as a mat­ter of strate­gic intent. In turn, this has giv­en the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion con­sid­er­able influ­ence in Israel. 

” . . . . I spoke with one Jew­ish busi­ness­man in Hart­ford, Con­necti­cut. He had arrived there quite unknown sev­er­al years before our con­ver­sa­tion, but with Bor­mann mon­ey as his lever­age. Today he is more than a mil­lion­aire, a qui­et leader in the com­mu­ni­ty with a cer­tain share of his prof­its ear­marked, as always, for his ven­ture cap­i­tal bene­fac­tors. This has tak­en place in many oth­er instances across Amer­i­ca and demon­strates how Bor­man­n’s peo­ple oper­ate in the con­tem­po­rary com­mer­cial world, in con­trast to the fan­ci­ful non­sense with which Nazis are described in so much ‘lit­er­a­ture.’ So much empha­sis is placed on select Jew­ish par­tic­i­pa­tion in Bor­mann com­pa­nies that when Adolf Eich­mann was seized and tak­en to Tel Aviv to stand tri­al, it pro­duced a shock wave in the Jew­ish and Ger­man com­mu­ni­ties of Buenos Aires. . . .”

1. Pres­i­dent Putin has been por­trayed as a “mad­man” in the West. As we have seen, his stat­ed war goal of “De-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion” is alto­geth­er rel­e­vant and valid.

The arti­cle below is summed up as fol­lows: ” . . . . After a ‘New York Times’ reporter gross­ly dis­tort­ed what Putin and Zelen­sky have said and done about nuclear weapons, Steven Starr cor­rects the record and deplores West­ern media, in gen­er­al, for mis­in­form­ing and lead­ing the entire world in a dan­ger­ous direc­tion. . . .”

His claim that Ukraine was seek­ing nuclear weapons also is sub­stan­tive. 

Mr. Emory has stat­ed that he think that Putin fell into a well-laid trap, a Euro­pean iter­a­tion of the Afghanistan gam­bit, in which Zbig­niew Brzezin­s­ki lured the Sovi­et Union into invad­ing Afghanistan, in order to give them their “Viet­nam.” Togeth­er with the delib­er­ate col­lapse of petro­le­um prices, that war helped top­ple the U.S.S.R.

(Ian Brzezin­s­ki, Zbig­niew’s son, is a key mem­ber of the Atlantic Coun­cil–one of the major vehi­cles for the OUN/B milieu’s activ­i­ties in the U.S.)

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis:

• One ele­ment of the bait­ed trap was Ukraine mov­ing to gain either “nukes or Nato mem­ber­ship. If, for the sake of argu­ment, Ukraine became a mem­ber of NATO, then they could devel­op nukes with impuni­ty, because a Russ­ian attack would trig­ger World War Three. ” . . . . In oth­er words, the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum was express­ly about Ukraine giv­ing up its nukes and not becom­ing a nuclear weapon state in the future. Zelensky’s speech at Munich made it clear that Ukraine was mov­ing to repu­di­ate the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum; Zelen­sky essen­tial­ly stat­ed that Ukraine must be made a mem­ber of NATO, oth­er­wise it would acquire nuclear weapons. . . .”
• ” . . . . So, when the leader of Ukraine essen­tial­ly threat­ens to obtain nuclear weapons, this is most cer­tain­ly con­sid­ered to be an exis­ten­tial threat to Rus­sia. That is why Putin focused on this dur­ing his speech pre­ced­ing the Russ­ian inva­sion of Ukraine. Sanger and The New York Times must dis­count a Ukrain­ian nuclear threat; they can get away with doing so because they have sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly omit­ted news per­tain­ing to this for many years. . . .”
• There has been no more alarm­ing devel­op­ment in the war than the Russ­ian com­bat around Ukraine’s nuclear facil­i­ties. The sig­nif­i­cance of that com­bat comes into clear view in light of the fol­low­ing, which shows that this is not mere reck­less behav­ior on the part of Ukraine. ” . . . . Ukraine has plen­ty of plu­to­ni­um, which is com­mon­ly used to make nuclear weapons today; eight years ago Ukraine held more than 50 tons of plu­to­ni­um in its spent fuel assem­blies stored at its many nuclear pow­er plants (prob­a­bly con­sid­er­ably more today, as the reac­tors have con­tin­ued to run and pro­duce spent fuel). Once plu­to­ni­um is reprocessed/separated from spent nuclear fuel, it becomes weapons usable. Putin not­ed that Ukraine already has mis­siles that could car­ry nuclear war­heads, and they cer­tain­ly have sci­en­tists capa­ble of devel­op­ing repro­cess­ing facil­i­ties and build­ing nuclear weapons. In his Feb. 21 tele­vised address, Putin said Ukraine still has the infra­struc­ture left­over from Sovi­et days to build a bomb. . . .”
• ” . . . . ‘Ukraine has the nuclear tech­nolo­gies cre­at­ed back in the Sovi­et times and deliv­ery vehi­cles for such weapons, includ­ing air­craft, as well as the Sovi­et-designed Tochka‑U pre­ci­sion tac­ti­cal mis­siles with a range of over 100 kilo­me­ters.’ . . .”
• Anoth­er ele­ment of the bait­ed trap was an appar­ent Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary buildup at the bor­der of the break­away provinces in the East. ” . . . . The New York Times, in its over­all cov­er­age, chose not to report that the Ukrain­ian forces had deployed half of its army, about 125,000 troops, to its bor­der with Don­bass by the begin­ning of 2022. . . .”
• His­tor­i­cal back­ground to the seces­sion bid: ” . . . . both the provinces of Donet­sk and Lugan­sk in the Don­bass region vot­ed for inde­pen­dence from Ukraine in 2014 in resis­tance to a U.S.-backed coup that over­threw the elect­ed pres­i­dent Vik­tor Yanukovych in Feb­ru­ary of that year. The inde­pen­dence vote came just eight days after neo-Nazis burned dozens of eth­nic Rus­sians alive in Odessa.  To crush their bid for inde­pen­dence, the new U.S.-installed Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment then launched an “anti-ter­ror­ist” war against the provinces, with the assis­tance of the neo-Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion, which had tak­en part in the coup. It is a war that is still going on eight years lat­er, a war that Rus­sia has just entered. . . .”
• ” . . . . For years the U.S. pro­claimed that the Bal­lis­tic Mis­sile Defense (BMD) facil­i­ties it was plac­ing in Roma­nia and Poland, on the Russ­ian bor­der, were to pro­tect against an “Iran­ian threat,” even though Iran had no nuclear weapons or mis­siles that could reach the U.S. But the dual-use Mark 41 launch­ing sys­tems used in the Aegis Ashore BMD facil­i­ties can be used to launch Tom­a­hawk cruise mis­siles, and will be fit­ted with SM‑6 mis­siles that, if armed with nuclear war­heads, could hit Moscow in five-to-six min­utes. Putin explic­it­ly warned jour­nal­ists about this dan­ger in 2016; Rus­sia includ­ed the removal of the U.S. BMD facil­i­ties in Roma­nia and Poland in its draft treaties pre­sent­ed to the U.S. and NATO last Decem­ber. . . .”

“Ukraine & Nukes” by Steven Starr; Con­sor­tium News; 3/3/2022.

After a “New York Times” reporter gross­ly dis­tort­ed what Putin and Zelen­sky have said and done about nuclear weapons, Steven Starr cor­rects the record and deplores West­ern media, in gen­er­al, for mis­in­form­ing and lead­ing the entire world in a dan­ger­ous direc­tion.

The New York Times recent­ly pub­lished an arti­cle by David Sanger enti­tled “Putin spins a con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry that Ukraine is on a path to pro­duce nuclear weapons.”  Unfor­tu­nate­ly, it is Sanger who puts so much spin in his report­ing that he leaves his read­ers with a gross­ly dis­tort­ed ver­sion of the what the pres­i­dents of Rus­sia and Ukraine have said and done.

Ukrain­ian Volodymyr  Zelensky’s recent state­ments at the Munich con­fer­ence cen­tered around the 1994 Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum, which wel­comed Ukraine’s acces­sion to the Nuclear Non-Pro­lif­er­a­tion Treaty (NPT) in con­junc­tion with Ukraine’s deci­sion to return to Rus­sia the nuclear weapons left on its ter­ri­to­ry by the Sovi­et Union.

In oth­er words, the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum was express­ly about Ukraine giv­ing up its nukes and not becom­ing a nuclear weapon state in the future. Zelensky’s speech at Munich made it clear that Ukraine was mov­ing to repu­di­ate the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum; Zelen­sky essen­tial­ly stat­ed that Ukraine must be made a mem­ber of NATO, oth­er­wise it would acquire nuclear weapons.

This is what Zelen­sky said, with empha­sis added: 

“I want to believe that the North Atlantic Treaty and Arti­cle 5 will be more effec­tive than the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum.

Ukraine has received secu­ri­ty guar­an­tees for aban­don­ing the world’s third nuclear capa­bil­i­ty [i.e. Ukraine relin­quished the Sovi­et nuclear weapons that had been placed in Ukraine dur­ing the Cold War]. We don’t have that weapon. … There­fore, we have some­thing. The right to demand a shift from a pol­i­cy of appease­ment to ensur­ing secu­ri­ty and peace guar­an­tees. 

Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to con­vene con­sul­ta­tions with the guar­an­tor states of the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum. Three times with­out suc­cess. . . I am ini­ti­at­ing con­sul­ta­tions in the frame­work of the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum. The Min­is­ter of For­eign Affairs was com­mis­sioned to con­vene them. If they do not hap­pen again or their results do not guar­an­tee secu­ri­ty for our coun­try, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum is not work­ing and all the pack­age deci­sions of 1994 are in doubt. . . 

“I am ini­ti­at­ing con­sul­ta­tions in the frame­work of the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum. The Min­is­ter of For­eign Affairs was com­mis­sioned to con­vene them. If they do not hap­pen again or their results do not guar­an­tee secu­ri­ty for our coun­try, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum is not work­ing and all the pack­age deci­sions of 1994 are in doubt.”

Sanger’s Times arti­cle implies that it was a “con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry” that Zelen­sky was call­ing for Ukraine to acquire nuclear weapons. Sanger was not igno­rant of the mean­ing of the Budapest Mem­o­ran­dum, rather he chose to delib­er­ate­ly ignore it and mis­rep­re­sent­ed the facts. 

Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin, along with the major­i­ty of Rus­sians, could not ignore such a threat for a num­ber of his­tor­i­cal rea­sons that The New York Times and ide­o­logues such as Sanger have also cho­sen to ignore. It is impor­tant to list some of those facts, since most Amer­i­cans are unaware of them, as they have not been report­ed in the West­ern main­stream media. Leav­ing parts of the sto­ry out turns Putin into just a mad­man bent on con­quest with­out any rea­son to inter­vene.

First, both the provinces of Donet­sk and Lugan­sk in the Don­bass region vot­ed for inde­pen­dence from Ukraine in 2014 in resis­tance to a U.S.-backed coup that over­threw the elect­ed pres­i­dent Vik­tor Yanukovych in Feb­ru­ary of that year. The inde­pen­dence vote came just eight days after neo-Nazis burned dozens of eth­nic Rus­sians alive in Odessa.  To crush their bid for inde­pen­dence, the new U.S.-installed Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment then launched an “anti-ter­ror­ist” war against the provinces, with the assis­tance of the neo-Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion, which had tak­en part in the coup. It is a war that is still going on eight years lat­er, a war that Rus­sia has just entered. 

Dur­ing these eight years, the Ukrain­ian Armed Forces and Azov have used artillery, snipers and assas­si­na­tion teams to sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly butch­er more than 5,000 peo­ple (anoth­er 8,000 were wound­ed) — most­ly civil­ians — in the Donet­sk Peo­ples Repub­lic, accord­ing to the leader of the DPR, who pro­vid­ed these fig­ures in a press con­fer­ence recent­ly. In the Luhan­sk People’s Repub­lic, an addi­tion­al 2,000 civil­ians were killed and 3,365 injured. The total num­ber of peo­ple killed and wound­ed in Don­bass since 2014 is more than 18,000.

This has received at most super­fi­cial cov­er­age by The New York Times; it has not been cov­ered by West­ern cor­po­rate media because it does not fit the offi­cial Wash­ing­ton nar­ra­tive that Ukraine is pur­su­ing an “anti-ter­ror­ist oper­a­tion” in its unre­lent­ing attacks on the peo­ple of Don­bass.  For eight years the war instead has been por­trayed as a Russ­ian “inva­sion,” well before Russia’s cur­rent inter­ven­tion.

Like­wise, The New York Times, in its over­all cov­er­age, chose not to report that the Ukrain­ian forces had deployed half of its army, about 125,000 troops, to its bor­der with Don­bass by the begin­ning of 2022. 

The impor­tance of neo-Nazi Right Sek­tor politi­cians in the Ukraine gov­ern­ment and neo-Nazi mili­tias (such as the Azov Bat­tal­ion) to the Ukrain­ian Armed Forces, also goes unre­port­ed in the main­stream cor­po­rate media.  The Azov bat­tal­ion flies Nazi flags; they have been trained by teams of U.S. mil­i­tary advis­ers and praised on Face­book these days. In 2014, Azov was incor­po­rat­ed in the Ukrain­ian Nation­al Guard under the direc­tion of the Inte­ri­or Min­istry.

The Nazis killed some­thing on the order of 27 mil­lion Soviets/Russians dur­ing World War II (the U.S. lost 404,000). Rus­sia has not for­got­ten and is extreme­ly sen­si­tive to any threats and vio­lence com­ing from neo-Nazis. Amer­i­cans gen­er­al­ly do not under­stand what this means to Rus­sians as the Unit­ed States has nev­er been invad­ed.  

So, when the leader of Ukraine essen­tial­ly threat­ens to obtain nuclear weapons, this is most cer­tain­ly con­sid­ered to be an exis­ten­tial threat to Rus­sia. That is why Putin focused on this dur­ing his speech pre­ced­ing the Russ­ian inva­sion of Ukraine. Sanger and The New York Times must dis­count a Ukrain­ian nuclear threat; they can get away with doing so because they have sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly omit­ted news per­tain­ing to this for many years.

Sanger makes a very mis­lead­ing state­ment when he writes, “Today Ukraine does not even have the basic infra­struc­ture to pro­duce nuclear fuel.”

Ukraine is not inter­est­ed in mak­ing nuclear fuel — which Ukraine already pur­chas­es from the U.S. Ukraine has plen­ty of plu­to­ni­um, which is com­mon­ly used to make nuclear weapons today; eight years ago Ukraine held more than 50 tons of plu­to­ni­um in its spent fuel assem­blies stored at its many nuclear pow­er plants (prob­a­bly con­sid­er­ably more today, as the reac­tors have con­tin­ued to run and pro­duce spent fuel). Once plu­to­ni­um is reprocessed/separated from spent nuclear fuel, it becomes weapons usable. Putin not­ed that Ukraine already has mis­siles that could car­ry nuclear war­heads, and they cer­tain­ly have sci­en­tists capa­ble of devel­op­ing repro­cess­ing facil­i­ties and build­ing nuclear weapons.

In his Feb. 21 tele­vised address, Putin said Ukraine still has the infra­struc­ture left­over from Sovi­et days to build a bomb. He said:

“As we know, it has already been stat­ed today that Ukraine intends to cre­ate its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just brag­ging.

Ukraine has the nuclear tech­nolo­gies cre­at­ed back in the Sovi­et times and deliv­ery vehi­cles for such weapons, includ­ing air­craft, as well as the Sovi­et-designed Tochka‑U pre­ci­sion tac­ti­cal mis­siles with a range of over 100 kilo­me­ters.

But they can do more; it is only a mat­ter of time. They have had the ground­work for this since the Sovi­et era.

In oth­er words, acquir­ing tac­ti­cal nuclear weapons will be much eas­i­er for Ukraine than for some oth­er states I am not going to men­tion here, which are con­duct­ing such research, espe­cial­ly if Kiev receives for­eign tech­no­log­i­cal sup­port. We can­not rule this out either.

If Ukraine acquires weapons of mass destruc­tion, the sit­u­a­tion in the world and in Europe will dras­ti­cal­ly change, espe­cial­ly for us, for Rus­sia. We can­not but react to this real dan­ger, all the more so since let me repeat, Ukraine’s West­ern patrons may help it acquire these weapons to cre­ate yet anoth­er threat to our coun­try.”

NATO-US Refuse Bind­ing Nuclear Treaties

In his Times piece, Sanger states, “Amer­i­can offi­cials have said repeat­ed­ly that they have no plans to place nuclear weapons in Ukraine.”

But the U.S. and NATO have refused to sign legal­ly bind­ing treaties with Rus­sia to this effect. In real­i­ty, the U.S. has been mak­ing Ukraine a de fac­to mem­ber of NATO, while train­ing and sup­ply­ing its mil­i­tary forces and con­duct­ing joint exer­cis­es on Ukrain­ian ter­ri­to­ry. Why wouldn’t the U.S. place nuclear weapons in Ukraine — they have already done so at mil­i­tary bases with­in the bor­ders of five oth­er Euro­pean mem­bers of NATO.  This in fact vio­lates the spir­it of the NPT, anoth­er issue that Sanger avoids when he notes that Rus­sia has demand­ed that the U.S. remove nuclear weapons from the Euro­pean NATO-mem­ber states.

For years the U.S. pro­claimed that the Bal­lis­tic Mis­sile Defense (BMD) facil­i­ties it was plac­ing in Roma­nia and Poland, on the Russ­ian bor­der, were to pro­tect against an “Iran­ian threat,” even though Iran had no nuclear weapons or mis­siles that could reach the U.S. But the dual-use Mark 41 launch­ing sys­tems used in the Aegis Ashore BMD facil­i­ties can be used to launch Tom­a­hawk cruise mis­siles, and will be fit­ted with SM‑6 mis­siles that, if armed with nuclear war­heads, could hit Moscow in five-to-six min­utes. Putin explic­it­ly warned jour­nal­ists about this dan­ger in 2016; Rus­sia includ­ed the removal of the U.S. BMD facil­i­ties in Roma­nia and Poland in its draft treaties pre­sent­ed to the U.S. and NATO last Decem­ber. 

I won­der if Sanger has ever con­sid­ered what the U.S. response would be if Rus­sia placed mis­sile launch­ing facil­i­ties on the Cana­di­an or Mex­i­can bor­der? Would the U.S. con­sid­er that a threat, would it demand that Rus­sia remove them or else the U.S. would use mil­i­tary means to do so?

30 Years Ago 

Sanger states that today Rus­sia takes a “stark­ly dif­fer­ent from the tone Moscow was tak­ing 30 years ago, when Russ­ian nuclear sci­en­tists were being vol­un­tar­i­ly retrained to use their skills for peace­ful pur­pos­es.”

Rus­sians would reply that 30 years ago NATO had not moved to Russ­ian bor­ders and was not flood­ing Ukraine with hun­dreds of tons of weapons and the U.S. had not yet over­thrown the gov­ern­ment in Kiev to install an anti-Russ­ian regime.

While the Times is still con­sid­ered the U.S. “paper of record,” dur­ing the last few decades it has devolved into the pri­ma­ry mouth­piece for the offi­cial nar­ra­tives com­ing from Wash­ing­ton.

There is a real dan­ger to the nation when a free press is replaced with cor­po­rate media that sti­fles and cen­sors dis­sent. Rather than a free press, we now have a Min­istry of Pro­pa­gan­da that acts as an echo cham­ber for the lat­est dik­tats from the White House. The sys­tem­at­ic cre­ation of false nar­ra­tives by cor­po­rate media, designed to serve the pur­pos­es of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, have so mis­in­formed the Amer­i­can pub­lic about world events that we find the nation ready to go to war with Rus­sia. 

This is sui­ci­dal course for not only the U.S. and the EU, but for civ­i­liza­tion as a whole, because this would like­ly end in a nuclear war that will destroy all nations and peo­ples.  

2a. Next, we tack­le “Volodymyr Zelen­sky and the ‘Jew­ish Ques­tion.’ ” (This is a grim pun. “The Jew­ish Ques­tion” was the Third Reich’s euphemism for the impend­ing “Final Solu­tion” to “The Jew­ish Ques­tion.”)

The alto­geth­er valid Russ­ian mil­i­tary goal of the inva­sion was “De-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion” has been attacked as a ruse using Zelen­sky’s Jew­ish affil­i­a­tion as a rebut­tal.

In that regard we note:

• ” . . . . Zelensky’s top finan­cial backer, the Ukrain­ian Jew­ish oli­garch Igor Kolo­moisky, has been a key bene­fac­tor of the neo-Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion and oth­er extrem­ists mili­tias. . . . Igor Kolo­moisky, a Ukrain­ian ener­gy baron of Jew­ish her­itage, has been a top fun­der of Azov since it was formed in 2014. He has also bankrolled pri­vate mili­tias like the Dnipro and Aidar Bat­tal­ions, and has deployed them as a per­son­al thug squad to pro­tect his finan­cial inter­ests. . . .”
• ” . . . . Though Zelen­sky made anti-cor­rup­tion the sig­na­ture issue of his cam­paign, the Pan­do­ra Papers exposed him and mem­bers of his inner cir­cle stash­ing large pay­ments from Kolo­moisky in a shad­owy web of off­shore accounts. . . .”
• ” . . . . They are the ultra­na­tion­al­ist Nation­al Mili­tia, street vig­i­lantes with roots in the bat­tle-test­ed Azov Bat­tal­ion that emerged to defend Ukraine against Rus­sia-backed sep­a­ratists but was also accused of pos­si­ble war crimes and neo-Nazi sym­pa­thies. Yet despite the con­tro­ver­sy sur­round­ing it, the Nation­al Mili­tia was grant­ed per­mis­sion by the Cen­tral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion to offi­cial­ly mon­i­tor Ukraine’s pres­i­den­tial elec­tion on March 31. . . .”
• ” . . . . In March 2019, mem­bers of the Azov Battalion’s Nation­al Corps attacked the home of Vik­tor Medved­chuk, the lead­ing oppo­si­tion fig­ure in Ukraine, accus­ing him of trea­son for his friend­ly rela­tions with Vladimir Putin, the god­fa­ther of Medvedchuk’s daugh­ter. Zelensky’s admin­is­tra­tion esca­lat­ed the attack on Medved­chuk, shut­ter­ing sev­er­al media out­lets he con­trolled in Feb­ru­ary 2021 with the open approval of the U.S.  State Depart­ment, and jail­ing the oppo­si­tion leader for trea­son three months lat­er. Zelen­sky jus­ti­fied his actions on the grounds that he need­ed to ‘fight against the dan­ger of Russ­ian aggres­sion in the infor­ma­tion are­na.’ Next, in August 2020, Azov’s Nation­al Corps opened fire on a bus con­tain­ing mem­bers of Medvedchuk’s par­ty, Patri­ots for Life, wound­ing sev­er­al with rub­ber-coat­ed steel bul­lets. . . .”
• ” . . . . Accord­ing to one Greek res­i­dent in Mar­i­upol recent­ly inter­viewed by a Greek news sta­tion, ‘When you try to leave you run the risk of run­ning into a patrol of the Ukrain­ian fas­cists, the Azov Bat­tal­ion,’ he said, adding ‘they would kill me and are respon­si­ble for every­thing.’ Footage post­ed online appears to show uni­formed mem­bers of a fas­cist Ukrain­ian mili­tia in Mar­i­upol vio­lent­ly pulling flee­ing res­i­dents out of their vehi­cles at gun­point. Oth­er video filmed at check­points around Mar­i­upol showed Azov fight­ers shoot­ing and killing civil­ians attempt­ing to flee. . . .”

“How Zelen­sky Made Peace With Neo-Nazis” by Alex Rubin­stein and Max Blu­men­thal [The Gray­zone]; Con­sor­tium News; 3/4/2022.

Back in Octo­ber 2019, as the war in east­ern Ukraine dragged on, Ukrain­ian Pres­i­dent Volodymyr Zelen­sky trav­eled to Zolote, a town sit­u­at­ed firm­ly in the “gray zone” of Don­bas, where over 14,000 had been killed, most­ly on the pro-Russ­ian side. There, the pres­i­dent encoun­tered the hard­ened vet­er­ans of extreme right para­mil­i­tary units keep­ing up the fight against sep­a­ratists just a few miles away.

Elect­ed on a plat­form of de-esca­la­tion of hos­til­i­ties with Rus­sia, Zelen­sky was deter­mined to enforce the so-called Stein­meier For­mu­la con­ceived by then-Ger­man For­eign Min­is­ter Wal­ter Stein­meier which called for elec­tions in the Russ­ian-speak­ing regions of Donet­sk and Lugan­sk. 

In a face-to-face con­fronta­tion with mil­i­tants from the neo-Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion who had launched a cam­paign to sab­o­tage the peace ini­tia­tive called “No to Capit­u­la­tion,” Zelen­sky encoun­tered a wall of obsti­na­cy. 

With appeals for dis­en­gage­ment from the front­lines firm­ly reject­ed, Zelen­sky melt­ed down on cam­era. “I’m the pres­i­dent of this coun­try. I’m 41 years old. I’m not a los­er. I came to you and told you: remove the weapons,” Zelen­sky implored the fight­ers.

Once video of the stormy con­fronta­tion spread across Ukrain­ian social media chan­nels, Zelen­sky became the tar­get of an angry back­lash.

Andriy Bilet­sky, the proud­ly fas­cist Azov Bat­tal­ion leader who once pledged to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semi­te-led Unter­men­schen,” vowed to bring thou­sands of fight­ers to Zolote if Zelen­sky pressed any fur­ther. Mean­while, a par­lia­men­tar­i­an from the par­ty of for­mer Ukrain­ian Pres­i­dent Petro Poroshenko open­ly fan­ta­sized about Zelen­sky being blown to bits by a militant’s grenade. . . .

. . . . This Feb. 24, when Russ­ian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin sent troops into Ukrain­ian ter­ri­to­ry on a stat­ed mis­sion to “demil­i­ta­rize and denaz­i­fy” the coun­try, U.S. media embarked on a mis­sion of its own: to deny the pow­er of neo-Nazi para­mil­i­taries over the country’s mil­i­tary and polit­i­cal sphere. As the U.S. gov­ern­ment-fund­ed Nation­al Pub­lic Radio insist­ed, “Putin’s lan­guage [about denaz­i­fi­ca­tion] is offen­sive and fac­tu­al­ly wrong.”

In its bid to deflect from the influ­ence of Nazism in con­tem­po­rary Ukraine, U.S.  media has found its most effec­tive PR tool in the fig­ure of Zelen­sky, a for­mer TV star and come­di­an from a Jew­ish back­ground. It is a role the actor-turned-politi­cian has eager­ly assumed.

But as we will see, Zelen­sky has not only ced­ed ground to the neo-Nazis in his midst, he has entrust­ed them with a front line role in his country’s war against pro-Russ­ian and Russ­ian forces.

 Jew­ish­ness as West­ern Media PR Device 

Hours before Putin’s Feb. 24 speech declar­ing denaz­i­fi­ca­tion as the goal of Russ­ian oper­a­tions,  Zelen­sky “asked how a peo­ple who lost 8 mil­lion of its cit­i­zens fight­ing Nazis could sup­port Nazism,” accord­ing to the BBC.

Raised in a non-reli­gious Jew­ish fam­i­ly in the Sovi­et Union dur­ing the 1980s, Zelen­sky has down­played his her­itage in the past. “The fact that I am Jew­ish bare­ly makes 20 in my long list of faults,” he joked dur­ing a 2019 inter­view in which he declined to go into fur­ther detail about his reli­gious back­ground.

Today, as Russ­ian troops bear down on cities like Mar­i­upol, which is effec­tive­ly under the con­trol of the Azov Bat­tal­ion, Zelen­sky is no longer ashamed to broad­cast his Jew­ish­ness. “How could I be a Nazi?” he won­dered aloud dur­ing a pub­lic address. For a U.S. media engaged in an all-out infor­ma­tion war against Rus­sia, the president’s Jew­ish back­ground has become an essen­tial pub­lic rela­tions tool. 

A few exam­ples of the U.S. media’s deploy­ment of Zelen­sky as a shield against alle­ga­tions of ram­pant Nazism in Ukraine are below (see mash-up above for video): 

PBS New­sHour not­ed Putin’s com­ments on denaz­i­fi­ca­tion with a qual­i­fi­er: “even though Pres­i­dent Volodymyr Zelen­sky is Jew­ish and his great uncles died in the Holo­caust.”

On Fox & Friends, for­mer CIA offi­cer Dan Hoff­man declared that “it’s the height of hypocrisy to call the Ukrain­ian nation to denaz­i­fy — their pres­i­dent is Jew­ish after all.”

On MSNBC, Vir­ginia Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen. Mark Warn­er said Putin’s “ter­mi­nol­o­gy, out­ra­geous and obnox­ious as it is — ‘denaz­i­fy’ where you’ve got frankly a Jew­ish pres­i­dent in Mr. Zelen­sky. This guy [Putin] is on his own kind of per­son­al jihad to restore greater Rus­sia.”

Repub­li­can Sen. Mar­sha Black­burn said on Fox Busi­ness she’s “been impressed with Pres­i­dent Zelen­sky and how he has stood up. And for Putin to go out there and say ‘we’re going to denaz­i­fy’ and Zelen­sky is Jew­ish.”

In an inter­view with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Gen. John Allen denounced Putin’s use of the term, “de-Naz­i­fy” while the news­man and for­mer Israel lob­by­ist shook his head in dis­gust. In a sep­a­rate inter­view with Blitzer, the so-called “Ukraine whistle­blow­er” and Ukraine-born Alexan­der Vin­d­man grum­bled that the claim is “patent­ly absurd, there’s real­ly no mer­it… you point­ed out that Volodymyr Zelen­sky is Jew­ish… the Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty [is] embraced. It’s cen­tral to the coun­try and there is noth­ing to this Nazi nar­ra­tive, this fas­cist nar­ra­tive. It’s fab­ri­cat­ed as a pre­text.”

Behind the cor­po­rate media spin lies the com­plex and increas­ing­ly close rela­tion­ship Zelensky’s admin­is­tra­tion has enjoyed with the neo-Nazi forces invest­ed with key mil­i­tary and polit­i­cal posts by the Ukrain­ian state, and the pow­er these open fas­cists have enjoyed since Wash­ing­ton installed a West­ern-aligned regime through a coup in 2014. 

In fact, Zelensky’s top finan­cial backer, the Ukrain­ian Jew­ish oli­garch Igor Kolo­moisky, has been a key bene­fac­tor of the neo-Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion and oth­er extrem­ists mili­tias. . . .

Neo-Nazi Wave of intim­i­da­tion

. . . . Igor Kolo­moisky, a Ukrain­ian ener­gy baron of Jew­ish her­itage, has been a top fun­der of Azov since it was formed in 2014. He has also bankrolled pri­vate mili­tias like the Dnipro and Aidar Bat­tal­ions, and has deployed them as a per­son­al thug squad to pro­tect his finan­cial inter­ests.

In 2019, Kolo­moisky emerged as the top backer of Zelensky’s pres­i­den­tial bid. Though Zelen­sky made anti-cor­rup­tion the sig­na­ture issue of his cam­paign, the Pan­do­ra Papers exposed him and mem­bers of his inner cir­cle stash­ing large pay­ments from Kolo­moisky in a shad­owy web of off­shore accounts. 

When Zelen­sky took office in May 2019, the Azov Bat­tal­ion main­tained de fac­to con­trol of the strate­gic south­east­ern port city of Mar­i­upol and its sur­round­ing vil­lages. As Open Democ­ra­cy not­ed, “Azov has cer­tain­ly estab­lished polit­i­cal con­trol of the streets in Mar­i­upol. To main­tain this con­trol, they have to react vio­lent­ly, even if not offi­cial­ly, to any pub­lic event which diverges suf­fi­cient­ly from their polit­i­cal agen­da.”

Attacks by Azov in Mar­i­upol have includ­ed assaults on “fem­i­nists and lib­er­als” march­ing on Inter­na­tion­al Women’s Day among oth­er inci­dents.

In March 2019, mem­bers of the Azov Battalion’s Nation­al Corps attacked the home of Vik­tor Medved­chuk, the lead­ing oppo­si­tion fig­ure in Ukraine, accus­ing him of trea­son for his friend­ly rela­tions with Vladimir Putin, the god­fa­ther of Medvedchuk’s daugh­ter. 

Zelensky’s admin­is­tra­tion esca­lat­ed the attack on Medved­chuk, shut­ter­ing sev­er­al media out­lets he con­trolled in Feb­ru­ary 2021 with the open approval of the U.S.  State Depart­ment, and jail­ing the oppo­si­tion leader for trea­son three months lat­er. Zelen­sky jus­ti­fied his actions on the grounds that he need­ed to “fight against the dan­ger of Russ­ian aggres­sion in the infor­ma­tion are­na.”

Next, in August 2020, Azov’s Nation­al Corps opened fire on a bus con­tain­ing mem­bers of Medvedchuk’s par­ty, Patri­ots for Life, wound­ing sev­er­al with rub­ber-coat­ed steel bul­lets.

Zelen­sky Winds Up Col­lab­o­rat­ing

Fol­low­ing his failed attempt to demo­bi­lize neo-Nazi mil­i­tants in the town of Zolote in Octo­ber 2019, Zelen­sky called the fight­ers to the table, telling reporters “I met with vet­er­ans yes­ter­day. Every­one was there – the Nation­al Corps, Azov, and every­one else.”

A few seats away from the Jew­ish pres­i­dent was Yehven Karas, the leader of the neo-Nazi C14 gang.

Dur­ing the Maid­an “Rev­o­lu­tion of Dig­ni­ty” that oust­ed Ukraine’s elect­ed pres­i­dent in 2014, C14 activists took over Kiev’s city hall and plas­tered its walls with neo-Nazi insignia before tak­ing shel­ter in the Cana­di­an embassy.

As the for­mer youth wing of the ultra-nation­al­ist Svo­bo­da Par­ty, C14 appears to draw its name from the infa­mous 14 words of U.S.  neo-Nazi leader David Lane: “We must secure the exis­tence of our peo­ple and a future for white chil­dren.” . . .

By offer­ing to car­ry out acts of spec­tac­u­lar vio­lence on behalf of any­one will­ing to pay, the hooli­gans have fos­tered a cozy rela­tion­ship with var­i­ous gov­ern­ing bod­ies and pow­er­ful elites across Ukraine.

C14 neo-Nazi gang offers to car­ry out vio­lence-for-hire: “C14 works for you. Help us keep afloat, and we will help you. For reg­u­lar donors, we are open­ing a box for wish­es. Which of your ene­mies would you like to make life dif­fi­cult for? We’ll try to do that.”

A March 2018 report by Reuters stat­ed that “C14 and Kiev’s city gov­ern­ment recent­ly signed an agree­ment allow­ing C14 to estab­lish a ‘munic­i­pal guard’ to patrol the streets,” effec­tive­ly giv­ing them the sanc­tion of the state to car­ry out pogroms.

As The Gray­zone report­ed, C14 led raid to “purge” Romani from Kiev’s rail­way sta­tion in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Kiev police.

Not only was this activ­i­ty sanc­tioned by the Kiev city gov­ern­ment, the U.S.  gov­ern­ment itself saw lit­tle prob­lem with it, host­ing Bon­dar at an offi­cial U.S.  gov­ern­ment insti­tu­tion in Kiev where he bragged about the pogroms. C14 con­tin­ued to receive state fund­ing through­out 2018 for “nation­al-patri­ot­ic edu­ca­tion.”

Karas has claimed that the Ukrain­ian Secu­ri­ty Serves would “pass on” infor­ma­tion regard­ing pro-sep­a­ratist ral­lies “not only [to] us, but also Azov, the Right Sec­tor and so on.”

“In gen­er­al, deputies of all fac­tions, the Nation­al Guard, the Secu­ri­ty Ser­vice of Ukraine and the Min­istry of Inter­nal Affairs work for us. You can joke like that,” Karas said.

Through­out 2019, Zelen­sky and his admin­is­tra­tion deep­ened their ties with ultra-nation­al­ist ele­ments across Ukraine.

Just days after Zelensky’s meet­ing with Karas and oth­er neo-Nazi lead­ers in Novem­ber 2019, Olek­siy Hon­charuk – then the prime min­is­ter and deputy head of Zelensky’s pres­i­den­tial office – appeared on stage at a neo-Nazi con­cert orga­nized by C14 fig­ure and accused mur­der­er Andriy Medved­ko.

Zelensky’s min­is­ter for vet­er­ans affairs not only attend­ed the con­cert, which fea­tured sev­er­al anti-Semit­ic met­al bands, she pro­mot­ed the con­cert on Face­book.

Also in 2019, Zelen­sky defend­ed Ukrain­ian foot­baller Roman Zolzulya against Span­ish fans taunt­ing him as a “Nazi.” Zolzulya had posed beside pho­tos of the World War II-era Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor Stepan Ban­dera and open­ly sup­port­ed the Azov Bat­tal­ion. Zelen­sky respond­ed to the con­tro­ver­sy by pro­claim­ing that all of Ukraine backed Zolzulya, describ­ing him as “not only a cool foot­ball play­er but a true patri­ot.”

In Novem­ber 2021, one of Ukraine’s most promi­nent ultra-nation­al­ist mili­ti­a­men, Dmytro Yarosh, announced that he had been appoint­ed as an advis­er to the com­man­der-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Yarosh is an avowed fol­low­er of the Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor Ban­dera who led Right Sec­tor from 2013 to 2015, vow­ing to lead the “de-Rus­si­fi­ca­tion” of Ukraine.

A month lat­er, as war with Rus­sia drew clos­er, Zelen­sky award­ed Right Sec­tor com­man­der Dmytro Kot­syubay­lo the “Hero of Ukraine” com­men­da­tion. Known as “Da Vin­ci,” Kosyubay­lo keeps a pet wolf in his front­line base, and likes to joke to vis­it­ing reporters that his fight­ers “feed it the bones of Russ­ian-speak­ing chil­dren.” . . .

‘If We Get killed…We Died Fight­ing a Holy War’

. . . . On Feb.27, the offi­cial Twit­ter account of the Nation­al Guard of Ukraine post­ed video of “Azov Fight­ers” greas­ing their bul­lets with pig fat to humil­i­ate Russ­ian Mus­lim fight­ers from Chech­nya.

A day lat­er, the Azov Battalion’s Nation­al Corps announced that the Azov Battalion’s Kharkiv Region­al Police would begin using the city’s Region­al State Admin­is­tra­tion build­ing as a defense head­quar­ters. Footage post­ed to Telegram the fol­low­ing day shows the Azov-occu­pied build­ing being hit by a Russ­ian airstrike.

Besides autho­riz­ing the release of hard­core crim­i­nals to join the bat­tle against Rus­sia, Zelen­sky has ordered all males of fight­ing age to remain in the coun­try. Azov mil­i­tants have pro­ceed­ed to enforce the pol­i­cy by bru­tal­iz­ing civil­ians attempt­ing to flee from the fight­ing around Mar­i­upol.  

Accord­ing to one Greek res­i­dent in Mar­i­upol recent­ly inter­viewed by a Greek news sta­tion, “When you try to leave you run the risk of run­ning into a patrol of the Ukrain­ian fas­cists, the Azov Bat­tal­ion,” he said, adding “they would kill me and are respon­si­ble for every­thing.”

Footage post­ed online appears to show uni­formed mem­bers of a fas­cist Ukrain­ian mili­tia in Mar­i­upol vio­lent­ly pulling flee­ing res­i­dents out of their vehi­cles at gun­point.

Oth­er video filmed at check­points around Mar­i­upol showed Azov fight­ers shoot­ing and killing civil­ians attempt­ing to flee. . . .

2b. Azov’s Druzhy­na mili­tia was award­ed the job of elec­tion mon­i­tor­ing by the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment in their recent elec­tions. ” . . . . They are the ultra­na­tion­al­ist Nation­al Mili­tia, street vig­i­lantes with roots in the bat­tle-test­ed Azov Bat­tal­ion that emerged to defend Ukraine against Rus­sia-backed sep­a­ratists but was also accused of pos­si­ble war crimes and neo-Nazi sym­pa­thies. Yet despite the con­tro­ver­sy sur­round­ing it, the Nation­al Mili­tia was grant­ed per­mis­sion by the Cen­tral Elec­tion Com­mis­sion to offi­cial­ly mon­i­tor Ukraine’s pres­i­den­tial elec­tion on March 31. . . .”

2c. Jew­ish iden­ti­ty is not rel­e­vant to the sit­u­a­tion as the Bor­mann group’s busi­ness oper­a­tions have includ­ed Jew­ish par­tic­i­pants as a mat­ter of strate­gic intent. In turn, this has giv­en the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion con­sid­er­able influ­ence in Israel. 

” . . . . I spoke with one Jew­ish busi­ness­man in Hart­ford, Con­necti­cut. He had arrived there quite unknown sev­er­al years before our con­ver­sa­tion, but with Bor­mann mon­ey as his lever­age. Today he is more than a mil­lion­aire, a qui­et leader in the com­mu­ni­ty with a cer­tain share of his prof­its ear­marked, as always, for his ven­ture cap­i­tal bene­fac­tors. This has tak­en place in many oth­er instances across Amer­i­ca and demon­strates how Bor­man­n’s peo­ple oper­ate in the con­tem­po­rary com­mer­cial world, in con­trast to the fan­ci­ful non­sense with which Nazis are described in so much ‘lit­er­a­ture.’ So much empha­sis is placed on select Jew­ish par­tic­i­pa­tion in Bor­mann com­pa­nies that when Adolf Eich­mann was seized and tak­en to Tel Aviv to stand tri­al, it pro­duced a shock wave in the Jew­ish and Ger­man com­mu­ni­ties of Buenos Aires. . . .”

Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile by Paul Man­ning; Lyle Stu­art [HC]; Copy­right 1981 by Paul Man­ning; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; pp.226–227.

. . . . Since the found­ing of Israel, the Fed­er­al Repub­lic of Ger­many had paid out 85.3 bil­lion marks, by the end of 1977, to sur­vivors of the Holo­caust. East Ger­many ignores any such lia­bil­i­ty. From South Amer­i­ca, where pay­ment must be made with sub­tle­ty, the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion has made a sub­stan­tial con­tri­bu­tion. It has drawn many of the bright­est Jew­ish busi­ness­men into a par­tic­i­pa­to­ry role in the devel­op­ment of many of its cor­po­ra­tions, and many of these Jews share their pros­per­i­ty most gen­er­ous­ly with Israel. If their pro­pos­als are sound, they are even pro­vid­ed with a spe­cial­ly dis­pensed ven­ture cap­i­tal fund.

I spoke with one Jew­ish busi­ness­man in Hart­ford, Con­necti­cut. He had arrived there quite unknown sev­er­al years before our con­ver­sa­tion, but with Bor­mann mon­ey as his lever­age. Today he is more than a mil­lion­aire, a qui­et leader in the com­mu­ni­ty with a cer­tain share of his prof­its ear­marked, as always, for his ven­ture cap­i­tal bene­fac­tors. This has tak­en place in many oth­er instances across Amer­i­ca and demon­strates how Bor­man­n’s peo­ple oper­ate in the con­tem­po­rary com­mer­cial world, in con­trast to the fan­ci­ful non­sense with which Nazis are described in so much ‘lit­er­a­ture.’

So much empha­sis is placed on select Jew­ish par­tic­i­pa­tion in Bor­mann com­pa­nies that when Adolf Eich­mann was seized and tak­en to Tel Aviv to stand tri­al, it pro­duced a shock wave in the Jew­ish and Ger­man com­mu­ni­ties of Buenos Aires. Jew­ish lead­ers informed the Israeli author­i­ties in no uncer­tain terms that this must nev­er hap­pen again because a rep­e­ti­tion would per­ma­nent­ly rup­ture rela­tions with the Ger­mans of Latin Amer­i­ca, as well as with the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion, and cut off the flow of Jew­ish mon­ey to Israel. It nev­er hap­pened again, and the pur­suit of Bor­mann qui­et­ed down at the request of these Jew­ish lead­ers. He is resid­ing in an Argen­tine safe haven, pro­tect­ed by the most effi­cient Ger­man infra­struc­ture in his­to­ry as well as by all those whose pros­per­i­ty depends on his well-being. Per­son­al invi­ta­tion is the only way to reach him. . . .