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

For The Record  

FTR#1233 How Many Lies Before You Belong to The Lie?, Part 6

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#1233 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Intro­duc­tion: This pro­gram con­tin­ues our cov­er­age of the Ukraine War, embod­ied by the quote from Mort Sahl that is the title of this series.

We begin by high­light­ing a full-page ad in the New York Times, attack­ing Rus­sia for its inva­sion of Ukraine. 

“Nobel Lau­re­ates Sup­port Ukraine;” Full Page Ad in The New York Times; 3/10/2022; p. A7 [West­ern Edi­tion]. The ad was paid for by the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress.

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. . . .”

Oleh Tihany­bok, leader of the OUN/B suc­ces­sor orga­ni­za­tion Svo­bo­da.

Mr. Emory takes note of a PBS New­shour inter­view with Artem Semenikhin of the neo-Nazi Svo­bo­da par­ty. Por­tray­ing him as an anti-Russ­ian hero, the pro­gram does not note that the por­trait of OUN/B leader Stephan Ban­dera is clear­ly vis­i­ble in the back­ground, despite the Zoom blur­ring effect.

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. . . .”

Next, we con­clude with an arti­cle which embod­ies Mr. Emory’s analy­sis of the war and its atten­dant cov­er­age as a “philoso­pher’s stone,” effect­ing an alchem­i­cal trans­for­ma­tion of the U.S., the West in gen­er­al and most of the peo­ple and insti­tu­tions in them into what might be called “the embod­i­ment of the Ukrain­ian Insti­tute of Nation­al Mem­o­ry.”

Golinkin penned an op-ed piece for The New York Times in which he men­tioned none of what he spoke about three years ago. Instead, he repeat­ed anti-Sovi­et and/or anti-Russ­ian mate­r­i­al which is prac­ti­cal­ly insti­tu­tion­al­ized at this point.

At the end of his Nation piece, Golinkin gave voice to a very impor­tant insight: ” . . . . By tol­er­at­ing neo-Nazi gangs and bat­tal­ions, state-led Holo­caust dis­tor­tion, and attacks on LGBT and the Roma, the Unit­ed States is telling the rest of Europe: “We’re fine with this.” The implications—especially at a time of a glob­al far-right revival—are pro­found­ly dis­turb­ing. . . .”

Points of analy­sis and dis­cus­sion in Golink­in’s old­er work include:

* The ele­va­tion of the neo-Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion that was for­mal­ly incor­po­rat­ed into Ukraine’s armed forces yet remains a neo-Nazi bat­tal­ion.
* Azov is now engaged in polic­ing with its Nation­al Druzhi­na street patrol units that have engaged in anti-Roma pogroms.
* Azov’s cam­paign to turn Ukraine into an inter­na­tion­al hub of white suprema­cy.
* Andriy Parubiy’s role in cre­at­ing Ukraine’s Nazi Par­ty that he con­tin­ues to embrace and that’s rou­tine­ly ignored as he has become the par­lia­ment speak­er.
* The deputy min­is­ter of the Interior—which con­trols the Nation­al Police—is a vet­er­an of Azov, Vadim Troy­an.
* Gov­ern­ment spon­sor­ship of his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ism and holo­caust denial though agen­cies like Ukrain­ian Insti­tute of Nation­al Mem­o­ry. It is now ille­gal to speak unfa­vor­ably of the OUN/B or the UPA, both of which were Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tionist orga­ni­za­tions  with bloody, lethal his­to­ries.
* Torch­light parades are now nor­mal.
* With­in sev­er­al years, an entire gen­er­a­tion will be indoc­tri­nat­ed to wor­ship Holo­caust per­pe­tra­tors as nation­al heroes.
* Books that crit­i­cize the now-glo­ri­fied WWII Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors like Stepan Ban­dera are get­ting banned.
* Pub­lic offi­cials make threats against Ukraine’s Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty with no reper­cus­sions.
* The neo-Nazi C14’s street patrol gangs are both respon­si­ble for anti-Roma pogroms and also the recip­i­ent of gov­ern­ment funds to run a children’s edu­ca­tion­al camp. Last Octo­ber, C14 leader Ser­hiy Bon­dar was wel­comed at Amer­i­ca House Kyiv, a cen­ter run by the US gov­ern­ment.
* It’s open sea­son on the LGBT com­mu­ni­ty and far right groups rou­tine­ly attack LGBT gath­er­ings.
* Ukraine is extreme­ly dan­ger­ous for jour­nal­ists and the gov­ern­ment has sup­port­ed the doxxing and intim­i­da­tion of jour­nal­ist by the far right like Myrovorets group.
* The gov­ern­ment is try­ing to repeal laws pro­tect­ing the many minor­i­ty lan­guages used in Ukraine.

And yet, as the arti­cle notes at the end, its many exam­ples were just a small sam­pling of what has tran­spired in Ukraine since 2014:

1a.  We begin by high­light­ing a full-page ad in the New York Times, attack­ing Rus­sia for its inva­sion of Ukraine. 

“Nobel Lau­re­ates Sup­port Ukraine;” Full Page Ad in The New York Times; 3/10/2022; p. A7 [West­ern Edi­tion]. The ad was paid for by the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress.

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. . . .”

1b. Mr. Emory takes note of a PBS New­shour inter­view with Artem Semenikhinof the neo-Nazi Svo­bo­da par­ty. Por­tray­ing him as an anti-Russ­ian hero, the pro­gram does not note that the por­trait of OUN/B leader Stephan Ban­dera is clear­ly vis­i­ble in the back­ground, despite the Zoom blur­ring effect.

“Local Jews in shock after Ukrain­ian city of Kono­top elects neo-Nazi may­or” by SAM SOKOL; The Jerusalem Post; 12/21/2015

. . . . Accord­ing to reports, Semenikhin dri­ves around in a car bear­ing the num­ber 14/88, a numero­log­i­cal ref­er­ence to the phras­es “we must secure the exis­tence of our peo­ple and a future for white chil­dren” and “Heil Hitler”; replaced the pic­ture of Pres­i­dent Petro Poroshenko in his office with a por­trait of Ukrain­ian nation­al leader and Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor Stepan Ban­dera; and refused to fly the city’s offi­cial flag at the open­ing meet­ing of the city coun­cil because he object­ed to the star of David embla­zoned on it. The flag also fea­tures a Mus­lim cres­cent and a cross.

Svo­bo­da, known as the Social-Nation­al Par­ty of Ukraine until 2004, has been accused of being a neo-Nazi par­ty by Ukrain­ian Jews and while par­ty lead­ers have a his­to­ry of mak­ing anti-Semit­ic remarks, their rhetoric has toned down con­sid­er­ably over the past years as they attempt­ed to go main­stream.

While it man­aged to enter main­stream pol­i­tics and gain 36 out of 450 seats in the Rada, Ukraine’s par­lia­ment, the party’s sup­port seemed to evap­o­rate fol­low­ing the 2014 Ukrain­ian rev­o­lu­tion, in which it played a cen­tral role. It cur­rent­ly holds six seats in the leg­is­la­ture.

The par­ty man­aged to improve its stand­ing dur­ing recent munic­i­pal elec­tions, how­ev­er, obtain­ing some 10 per­cent of the vote in Kiev and gar­ner­ing sec­ond place in the west­ern city of Lviv. For the most part, how­ev­er, Svo­bo­da is far from the major wor­ry for Ukrain­ian Jews that it was only two years ago.

“It is a sad, but a real­i­ty when anti-Semi­tes are being elect­ed in local gov­ern­ing bod­ies, even may­ors pro­mot­ing hate and intol­er­ance.

Kono­top is a clear case,” said Eduard Dolin­sky of the Ukrain­ian Jew­ish Com­mit­tee.

For the Jews of Kono­top, how­ev­er, wor­ries per­sist, with Ilya Bezruchko, the Ukrain­ian rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the US-based Nation­al Coali­tion Sup­port­ing Eurasian Jew­ry, say­ing he believed res­i­dents, who gen­er­al­ly get along well with local Jews, vot­ed for Semenikhin because he pro­ject­ed an image of some­one who could bring change and reform a cor­rupt sys­tem.

How­ev­er, Semenikhin him­self has a his­to­ry of fraud, hav­ing been arrest­ed for pos­ing as an elec­tric­i­ty com­pa­ny work­er in order to extract pay­ments from busi­ness­es in Kiev in 2012, Bezruchko charged.

Bezruchko, whose late grand­fa­ther was the head of the com­mu­ni­ty and whose moth­er cur­rent­ly works for the city coun­cil, said Semenikhin and his assis­tant have left angry com­ments on his Face­book page in response to crit­i­cal arti­cles that the Jew­ish activist had post­ed on his blog.

He claimed that some­one close to the may­or claimed that he would be hos­pi­tal­ized if he returned to the city from Kiev, where he cur­rent­ly lives, and that the may­or him­self post­ed to say that his moth­er was cor­rupt and should be fired from her job.

“The reac­tion of [the] com­mu­ni­ty is shock. Peo­ple are shocked it could hap­pen in [a] city and nobody believed it could hap­pen here but it hap­pened some­how,” com­mu­ni­ty activist Igor Nechayev told The Jerusalem Post by phone Mon­day.

While there have been a cou­ple of instances of anti-Semit­ic graf­fi­ti over the past decade and one occa­sion­al­ly hears ref­er­ences to con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries iden­ti­fy­ing Ukrain­ian polit­i­cal lead­ers as Jews, for the most part, rela­tions between the Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty and their non-Jew­ish neigh­bors are cor­dial, he said.

How­ev­er, while the may­or attempts to make sure his state­ments nev­er cross over into out­right anti-Semi­tism, many things he says can be inter­pret­ed in such a way, he con­tin­ued. As an exam­ple, he referred to a recent state­ment by Semenikhin in which the may­or refused to apol­o­gize for anti-Jew­ish actions tak­en by far-right nation­al­ists in World War II, inti­mat­ing that it was because those respon­si­ble for the Holodomor famine of the 1930s were large­ly Jew­ish.

The Holodomor was a man­made famine that came about dur­ing the col­lec­tiviza­tion of agri­cul­ture in the Sovi­et Union and which led to the starv­ing deaths of mil­lions. Ukraini­ans con­sid­er it a geno­cide.

“The com­mu­ni­ty is dis­cussing the sit­u­a­tion and they under­stand that the may­or is bal­anc­ing between anti-Semi­tism— – he isn’t cross­ing a red­line with state­ments but say­ing bor­der things that can be under­stood as anti-Semit­ic,” he explained.

1c. 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. . . .

3. Next, we con­clude with an arti­cle which embod­ies Mr. Emory’s analy­sis of the war and its atten­dant cov­er­age as a “philoso­pher’s stone,” effect­ing an alchem­i­cal trans­for­ma­tion of the U.S., the West in gen­er­al and most of the peo­ple and insti­tu­tions in them into what might be called “the embod­i­ment of the Ukrain­ian Insti­tute of Nation­al Mem­o­ry.”

Golinkin penned an op-ed piece for The New York Times in which he men­tioned none of what he spoke about three years ago. Instead, he repeat­ed anti-Sovi­et and/or anti-Russ­ian mate­r­i­al which is prac­ti­cal­ly insti­tu­tion­al­ized at this point.

At the end of his Nation piece, Golinkin gave voice to a very impor­tant insight: ” . . . . By tol­er­at­ing neo-Nazi gangs and bat­tal­ions, state-led Holo­caust dis­tor­tion, and attacks on LGBT and the Roma, the Unit­ed States is telling the rest of Europe: “We’re fine with this.” The implications—especially at a time of a glob­al far-right revival—are pro­found­ly dis­turb­ing. . . .”

Points of analy­sis and dis­cus­sion in Golink­in’s old­er work include:

* The ele­va­tion of the neo-Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion that was for­mal­ly incor­po­rat­ed into Ukraine’s armed forces yet remains a neo-Nazi bat­tal­ion.
* Azov is now engaged in polic­ing with its Nation­al Druzhi­na street patrol units that have engaged in anti-Roma pogroms.
* Azov’s cam­paign to turn Ukraine into an inter­na­tion­al hub of white suprema­cy.
* Andriy Parubiy’s role in cre­at­ing Ukraine’s Nazi Par­ty that he con­tin­ues to embrace and that’s rou­tine­ly ignored as he has become the par­lia­ment speak­er.
* The deputy min­is­ter of the Interior—which con­trols the Nation­al Police—is a vet­er­an of Azov, Vadim Troy­an.
* Gov­ern­ment spon­sor­ship of his­tor­i­cal revi­sion­ism and holo­caust denial though agen­cies like Ukrain­ian Insti­tute of Nation­al Mem­o­ry. It is now ille­gal to speak unfa­vor­ably of the OUN/B or the UPA, both of which were Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tionist orga­ni­za­tions  with bloody, lethal his­to­ries.
* Torch­light parades are now nor­mal.
* With­in sev­er­al years, an entire gen­er­a­tion will be indoc­tri­nat­ed to wor­ship Holo­caust per­pe­tra­tors as nation­al heroes.
* Books that crit­i­cize the now-glo­ri­fied WWII Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors like Stepan Ban­dera are get­ting banned.
* Pub­lic offi­cials make threats against Ukraine’s Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty with no reper­cus­sions.
* The neo-Nazi C14’s street patrol gangs are both respon­si­ble for anti-Roma pogroms and also the recip­i­ent of gov­ern­ment funds to run a children’s edu­ca­tion­al camp. Last Octo­ber, C14 leader Ser­hiy Bon­dar was wel­comed at Amer­i­ca House Kyiv, a cen­ter run by the US gov­ern­ment.
* It’s open sea­son on the LGBT com­mu­ni­ty and far right groups rou­tine­ly attack LGBT gath­er­ings.
* Ukraine is extreme­ly dan­ger­ous for jour­nal­ists and the gov­ern­ment has sup­port­ed the doxxing and intim­i­da­tion of jour­nal­ist by the far right like Myrovorets group.
* The gov­ern­ment is try­ing to repeal laws pro­tect­ing the many minor­i­ty lan­guages used in Ukraine.

And yet, as the arti­cle notes at the end, its many exam­ples were just a small sam­pling of what has tran­spired in Ukraine since 2014:

“Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine” by Lev Golinkin; The Nation; 02/22/2019.

Five years ago, Ukraine’s Maid­an upris­ing oust­ed Pres­i­dent Vik­tor Yanukovych, to the cheers and sup­port of the West. Politi­cians and ana­lysts in the Unit­ed States and Europe not only cel­e­brat­ed the upris­ing as a tri­umph of democ­ra­cy, but denied reports of Maidan’s ultra­na­tion­al­ism, smear­ing those who warned about the dark side of the upris­ing as Moscow pup­pets and use­ful idiots. Free­dom was on the march in Ukraine.

Today, increas­ing reports of far-right vio­lence, ultra­na­tion­al­ism, and ero­sion of basic free­doms are giv­ing the lie to the West’s ini­tial eupho­ria. There are neo-Nazi pogroms against the Roma, ram­pant attacks on fem­i­nists and LGBT groups, book bans, and state-spon­sored glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors.

These sto­ries of Ukraine’s dark nation­al­ism aren’t com­ing out of Moscow; they’re being filed by West­ern media, includ­ing US-fund­ed Radio Free Europe (RFE); Jew­ish orga­ni­za­tions such as the World Jew­ish Con­gress and the Simon Wiesen­thal Cen­ter; and watch­dogs like Amnesty Inter­na­tion­al, Human Rights Watch, and Free­dom House, which issued a joint report warn­ing that Kiev is los­ing the monop­oly on the use of force in the coun­try as far-right gangs oper­ate with impuni­ty.

Five years after Maid­an, the bea­con of democ­ra­cy is look­ing more like a torch­light march.

A neo-Nazi bat­tal­ion in the heart of Europe

Vol­un­teer Ukrain­ian Unit Includes Nazis.”—USA Today, March 10, 2015

The DC establishment’s stan­dard defense of Kiev is to point out that Ukraine’s far right has a small­er per­cent­age of seats in the par­lia­ment than their coun­ter­parts in places like France. That’s a spu­ri­ous argu­ment: What Ukraine’s far right lacks in polls num­bers, it makes up for with things Marine Le Pen could only dream of—paramilitary units and free rein on the streets.

Post-Maid­an Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi for­ma­tion in its armed forces. The Azov Bat­tal­ion was ini­tial­ly formed out of the neo-Nazi gang Patri­ot of Ukraine. Andriy Bilet­sky, the gang’s leader who became Azov’s com­man­der, once wrote that Ukraine’s mis­sion is to “lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade…against the Semi­te-led Unter­men­schen.” Bilet­sky is now a deputy in Ukraine’s par­lia­ment.

In the fall of 2014, Azov—which is accused of human-rights abus­es, includ­ing tor­ture, by Human Rights Watchand the Unit­ed Nations—was incor­po­rat­ed into Ukraine’s Nation­al Guard.

While the group offi­cial­ly denies any neo-Nazi con­nec­tions, Azov’s nature has been con­firmed by mul­ti­ple West­ern out­lets: The New York Times called the bat­tal­ion“open­ly neo-Nazi,” while USA TodayThe Dai­ly BeastThe Tele­graph, and Haaretzdoc­u­ment­ed group mem­bers’ pro­cliv­i­ty for swastikas, salutes, and oth­er Nazi sym­bols, and indi­vid­ual fight­ers have also acknowl­edged being neo-Nazis.

In Jan­u­ary 2018, Azov rolled out its Nation­al Druzhi­nastreet patrol unit whose mem­bers swore per­son­al feal­ty to Bilet­sky and pledged to “restore Ukrain­ian order” to the streets. The Druzhi­na quick­ly dis­tin­guished itself by car­ry­ing out pogroms against the Roma and LGBTorga­ni­za­tions and storm­ing a munic­i­pal coun­cil. Ear­li­er this year, Kiev announced the storm­ing unit will be mon­i­tor­ing polls in next month’s pres­i­den­tial elec­tion.

In 2017, Con­gress­man Ro Khan­na led the effort to ban Azov from receiv­ing U.S. arms and train­ing. But the dam­age has already been done: The research group Belling­cat proved that Azov had already received access to Amer­i­can grenade launch­ers, while a Dai­ly Beast inves­ti­ga­tion showed that US train­ers are unable to pre­vent aid from reach­ing white suprema­cists. And Azov itself had proud­ly post­ed a video of the unit wel­com­ing NATO rep­re­sen­ta­tives.

(Azov isn’t the only far-right for­ma­tion to get West­ern affir­ma­tion. In Decem­ber 2014, Amnesty Inter­na­tion­al accused the Dnipro‑1 bat­tal­ion of poten­tial war crimes, includ­ing “using star­va­tion of civil­ians as a method of war­fare.” Six months lat­er, Sen­a­tor John McCain vis­it­ed and praised the bat­tal­ion.)

Par­tic­u­lar­ly con­cern­ing is Azov’s cam­paign to trans­form Ukraine into a hub for transna­tion­al white suprema­cy. The unit has recruit­ed neo-Nazis from Ger­many, the UKBrazilSwe­den, and Amer­i­ca; last Octo­ber, the FBI arrest­ed four Cal­i­for­nia white suprema­cists who had alleged­ly received train­ing from Azov. This is a clas­sic exam­ple of blow­back: US sup­port of rad­i­cals abroad ric­o­chet­ing to hit Amer­i­ca.

Far right ties to gov­ern­ment

Ukrain­ian police declare admi­ra­tion for Nazi collaborators”—RFE, Feb­ru­ary 13, 2019

Speak­er of Par­lia­ment Andriy Paru­biycofound­ed and led two neo-Nazi orga­ni­za­tions: the Social-Nation­al Par­ty of Ukraine(lat­er renamed Svo­bo­da), and Patri­ot of Ukraine, whose mem­bers would even­tu­al­ly form the core of Azov.

Although Paru­biy left the far right in the ear­ly 2000’s, he hasn’t reject­ed his past. When asked about it in a 2016 inter­view, Paru­biy replied that his “val­ues” haven’t changed. Paru­biy, whose auto­bi­og­ra­phy shows him march­ing with the neo-Nazi wolf­san­gel sym­bol used by Aryan Nationsreg­u­lar­ly meets with Wash­ing­ton think tanksand politi­cians; his neo-Nazi back­ground is ignored or out­right denied.

Even more dis­turb­ing is the far right’s pen­e­tra­tion of law enforce­ment. Short­ly after Maid­an, the US equipped and trainedthe new­ly found­ed Nation­al Police, in what was intend­ed to be a hall­mark pro­gram but­tress­ing Ukrain­ian democ­ra­cy.

The deputy min­is­ter of the Interior—which con­trols the Nation­al Police—is Vadim Troy­an, a vet­er­an of Azov and Patri­ot of Ukraine. In 2014, when Troy­an was being con­sid­ered for police chief of Kiev, Ukrain­ian Jew­ish lead­ers were appalled by his neo-Nazi back­ground. Today, he’s deputy of the depart­ment run­ning US-trained law enforce­ment in the entire nation.

Ear­li­er this month, RFE report­edon Nation­al Police lead­er­ship admir­ing Stepan Bandera—a Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor and Fas­cist whose troops par­tic­i­pat­ed in the Holocaust—on social media.

The fact that Ukraine’s police is pep­pered with far-right sup­port­ers explains why neo-Nazis oper­ate with impuni­ty on the streets.

State-spon­sored glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors

Ukrain­ian extrem­ists cel­e­brate Ukrain­ian Nazi SS divisions…in the mid­dle of a major Ukrain­ian city”—Anti-Defama­tion League Direc­tor of Euro­pean Affairs, April 28, 2018

It’s not just the mil­i­tary and street gangs: Ukraine’s far right has suc­cess­ful­ly hijacked the post-Maid­an gov­ern­ment to impose an intol­er­ant and ultra­na­tion­al­ist cul­ture over the land.

In 2015, the Ukrain­ian par­lia­ment passed leg­is­la­tion mak­ing two WWII paramilitaries—the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists (OUN) and the Ukrain­ian Insur­gent Army (UPA)—heroes of Ukraine, and made it a crim­i­nal offenseto deny their hero­ism. The OUN had col­lab­o­rat­ed with the Nazis and par­tic­i­pat­ed in the Holo­caust, while the UPA slaugh­tered thou­sands of Jews and 70,000–100,000 Poles on their own voli­tion.

The gov­ern­ment-fund­ed Ukrain­ian Insti­tute of Nation­al Mem­o­ry is insti­tu­tion­al­iz­ing the white­wash­ing of Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors. Last sum­mer, the Ukrain­ian par­lia­ment fea­tured an exhib­itcom­mem­o­rat­ing the OUN’s 1941 procla­ma­tion of coop­er­a­tion with the Third Reich (imag­ine the French gov­ern­ment installing an exhib­it cel­e­brat­ing the Vichy state!).

Torch­light march­es in hon­or of OUN/UPA lead­ers like Roman Shukhevych (a com­man­der in a Third Reich aux­il­iary bat­tal­ion) are a reg­u­lar fea­ture of the new Ukraine. The recu­per­a­tion even extends to SS Galichi­na, a Ukrain­ian divi­sion of the Waf­fen-SS; the direc­tor of the Insti­tute of Nation­al Mem­o­ry pro­claimed that the SS fight­ers were “war vic­tims.” The government’s embrace of Ban­dera is not only deplorable, but also extreme­ly divi­sive, con­sid­er­ing the OUN/UPA are reviledin east­ern Ukraine.

Pre­dictably, the cel­e­bra­tion of Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors has accom­pa­nied a rise in out­right anti-Semi­tism.

Jews Out!” chant­ed thou­sands dur­ing a Jan­u­ary 2017 march hon­or­ing OUN leader Ban­dera. (The next day the police denied hear­ing any­thing anti-Semit­ic.) That sum­mer, a three-day fes­ti­valcel­e­brat­ing the Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tor Shukhevych capped off with the fire­bomb­ing of a syn­a­gogue. In Novem­ber 2017, RFE report­ed Nazi salutes as 20,000 marched in hon­or of the UPA. And last April, hun­dreds marched in L’viv with coor­di­nat­ed Nazi salutes hon­or­ing SS Galichi­na; the march was pro­mot­edby the L’viv region­al gov­ern­ment.

The Holo­caust revi­sion­ism is a mul­ti-pronged effort, rang­ing from gov­ern­ment-fund­ed sem­i­narsbrochures, and board games, to the pro­lif­er­a­tion of plaquesstat­ues, and streetsrenamed after butch­ers of Jews, to far-right chil­dren camps, where youth are incul­cat­ed with ultra­na­tion­al­ist ide­ol­o­gy.

With­in sev­er­al years, an entire gen­er­a­tion will be indoc­tri­nat­ed to wor­ship Holo­caust per­pe­tra­tors as nation­al heroes.

Book bans

No state should be allowed to inter­fere in the writ­ing of his­to­ry.”—British his­to­ri­an Antony Beevor, after his award-win­ning book was banned in Ukraine, The Tele­graph, Jan­u­ary 23, 2018

Ukraine’s State Com­mit­tee for Tele­vi­sion and Radio Broad­cast­ing is enforc­ing the glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of Ukraine’s new heroes by ban­ning“anti-Ukrain­ian” lit­er­a­ture that goes against the gov­ern­ment nar­ra­tive. This ide­o­log­i­cal cen­sor­ship includes acclaimed books by West­ern authors.

In Jan­u­ary 2018, Ukraine made inter­na­tion­al head­lines by ban­ning Stal­in­grad by award-win­ning British his­to­ri­an Antony Beevor because of a sin­gle para­graphabout a Ukrain­ian unit mas­sacring 90 Jew­ish chil­dren dur­ing World War II. In Decem­ber, Kiev bannedThe Book Thieves by Swedish author Anders Rydell (which, iron­i­cal­ly, is about the Nazis’ sup­pres­sion of lit­er­a­ture) because he men­tioned troops loy­al to Symon Petliu­ra (an ear­ly 20th-cen­tu­ry nation­al­ist leader) had slaugh­tered Jews.

This month, the Ukrain­ian embassy in Wash­ing­ton export­ed this intol­er­ance to Amer­i­ca by brazen­ly demand­ing the Unit­ed States ban a Russ­ian movie from Amer­i­can the­aters. Appar­ent­ly, the bil­lions Wash­ing­ton invest­ed in pro­mot­ing democ­ra­cy in Ukraine have failed to teach Kiev basic con­cepts of free speech.

Anti-Semi­tism

“I’m telling you one more time—go to hell, kikes. The Ukrain­ian peo­ple have had it to here with you.”—Security ser­vices reserve gen­er­al Vasi­ly Vovk, May 11, 2017

Unsur­pris­ing­ly, gov­ern­ment-led glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of Holo­caust per­pe­tra­tors was a green light for oth­er forms of anti-Semi­tism. The past three years saw an explo­sion of swastikas and SS runes on city streets, death threats, and van­dal­ism of Holo­caustmemo­ri­als, Jew­ish cen­tersceme­ter­iestombs, and places of wor­ship, all of which led Israel to take the unusu­al step of pub­licly urg­ing Kiev to address the epi­dem­ic.

Pub­lic offi­cials make anti-Semit­ic threats with no reper­cus­sions. These include: a secu­ri­ty ser­vices gen­er­al promis­ing to elim­i­nate the zhi­di (a slur equiv­a­lent to ‘kikes’); a par­lia­ment deputy going off on an anti-Semit­ic rant on tele­vi­sion; a far-right politi­cian lament­ing Hitler didn’t fin­ish offthe Jews; and an ultra­na­tion­al­ist leader vow­ing to cleanse Odessa of zhi­di.

For the first few years after Maid­an, Jew­ish orga­ni­za­tions large­ly refrained from crit­i­ciz­ing Ukraine, per­haps in the hope Kiev would address the issue on its own. But by 2018, the increas­ing fre­quen­cy of anti-Semit­ic inci­dents led Jew­ish groups to break their silence.

Last year, the Israeli government’s annu­al reporton anti-Semi­tism heav­i­ly fea­tured Ukraine, which had more inci­dents than all post-Sovi­et states com­bined. The World Jew­ish Con­gress, the US Holo­caust Memo­r­i­al Muse­um, and 57 mem­bersof the US Con­gress all vocif­er­ous­ly con­demned Kiev’s Nazi glo­ri­fi­ca­tion and the con­comi­tant anti-Semi­tism.

Ukrain­ian Jew­ish lead­ers are also speak­ing out. In 2017, the direc­tor of one of Ukraine’s largest Jew­ish orga­ni­za­tions pub­lished a New York Times op-ed urg­ing the West to address Kiev’s white­wash­ing. Last year, 41 Ukrain­ian Jew­ish lead­ers denounced the growth of anti-Semi­tism. That’s espe­cial­ly telling, giv­en that many Ukrain­ian Jew­ish lead­ers sup­port­ed the Maid­an upris­ing.

None of these con­cerns have been addressed in any mean­ing­ful way.

Roma pogroms

“‘They want­ed to kill us’: masked neo-fas­cists strike fear into Ukraine’s Roma.”—The Guardian , August 27, 2018

Ukraine’s far right has resist­ed car­ry­ing out out­right attacks on Jews; oth­er vul­ner­a­ble groups haven’t been so lucky.

Last spring, a lethal wave of anti-Roma pogroms swept through Ukraine, with at least six attacks in two months. Footage from the pogroms evokes the 1930s: Armed thugs attack women and chil­dren while raz­ing their camps. At least one man was killed, while oth­ers, includ­ing a child, were stabbed.

Two gangs behind the attacks—C14 and the Nation­al Druzhi­na—felt com­fort­able enough to proud­ly post pogrom videos on social mediaThat’s not sur­pris­ing, con­sid­er­ing that the Nation­al Druzhi­na is part of Azov, while the neo-Nazi C14 receives gov­ern­ment fund­ing for “edu­ca­tion­al” pro­grams. Last Octo­ber, C14 leader Ser­hiy Bon­dar was wel­comed at Amer­i­ca House Kyiv, a cen­ter run by the US gov­ern­ment.

Appeals from inter­na­tion­al orga­ni­za­tions and the US embassy fell on deaf ears: Months after the Unit­ed Nations demand­ed Kiev end “sys­tem­at­ic per­se­cu­tion” of the Roma, a human-rights group report­ed C14 were alleged­ly intim­i­dat­ing Roma in a jointpatrol with the Kiev police.

LGBT and Women’s‑rights groups

“‘It’s even worse than before’: How the ‘Rev­o­lu­tion of Dig­ni­ty’ Failed LGBT Ukraini­ans.”—RFE, Novem­ber 21, 2018

In 2016, after pres­sure from the US Con­gress, the Kiev gov­ern­ment began pro­vid­ing secu­ri­ty for the annu­al Kiev Pride parade. How­ev­er, this increas­ing­ly looks like a Potemkin affair: two hours of pro­tec­tion, with wide­spread attacks on LGBT indi­vid­u­als and gath­er­ings dur­ing the rest of the year. Nation­al­ist groups have tar­get­ed LGBT meet­ings with impuni­ty, going so far as to shut down an event host­ed by Amnesty Inter­na­tion­al as well as assault a West­ern jour­nal­ist at a trans­gen­der rights ral­ly. Women’s‑rights march­es have also been tar­get­ed, includ­ing brazen attacks in March.

Attacks on press

“The Com­mit­tee to Pro­tect Jour­nal­ists con­demns a Ukrain­ian law enforce­ment raid at the Kiev offices of Media Hold­ing Vesti…more than a dozen masked offi­cers ripped open doors with crow­bars, seized prop­er­ty, and fired tear gas in the offices.”—The Com­mit­tee to Pro­tect Jour­nal­ists, Feb­ru­ary 9, 2018

In May 2016, Myrotvorets, an ultra­na­tion­al­ist web­site with links to the gov­ern­ment, pub­lished  the per­son­al data of thou­sands of jour­nal­ists who had obtained accred­i­ta­tion from Rus­sia-backed rebels in east­ern Ukraine. Myrotvorets labeled the jour­nal­ists “ter­ror­ist col­lab­o­ra­tors.”

A gov­ern­ment-tied web­site declar­ing open sea­son on jour­nal­ists would be dan­ger­ous any­where, but it is espe­cial­ly so in Ukraine, which has a dis­turb­ing track record of jour­nal­ist assas­si­na­tions. This includes Oles Buz­i­na, gunned down in 2015, and Pavel Sheremet, assas­si­nat­ed by car bomb a year lat­er.

The Myrotvorets dox­ing was denounced by West­ern reporters, the Com­mit­tee to Pro­tect Jour­nal­ists, and ambas­sadorsfrom the G7 nations. In response, Kiev offi­cials, includ­ing Inte­ri­or Min­is­ter Arsen Avakov, praised the site: “This is your choice to coop­er­ate with occu­py­ing forces,” Avakov told jour­nal­ists, while post­ing“I Sup­port Myrotvorets” on Face­book. Myrotvorets remains oper­a­tional today.

Last fall brought anoth­er attack on the media, this time using the courts. The Pros­e­cu­tor General’s office was grant­ed a war­rant to seize records of RFE anti-cor­rup­tion reporter Natal­ie Sedlet­s­ka. An RFE spokes­woman warned that Kiev’s actions cre­at­ed “a chill­ing atmos­phere for jour­nal­ists,” while par­lia­ment deputy Mustafa Nayyem called it “an exam­ple of creep­ing dic­ta­tor­ship.”

Lan­guage laws

“[Prime Min­is­ter Arseniy Yat­senyuk] also made a per­son­al appeal to Russ­ian-speak­ing Ukraini­ans, pledg­ing to support…a spe­cial sta­tus to the Russ­ian lan­guage.”—US Sec­re­tary of State John Ker­ryApril 24, 2014

Ukraine is extra­or­di­nar­i­ly mul­ti­lin­gual: In addi­tion to the mil­lions of Russ­ian-speak­ing east­ern Ukraini­ans, there are areas where Hun­gar­i­an, Roman­ian, and oth­er tongues are preva­lent. These lan­guages were pro­tect­ed by a 2012 region­al-lan­guage law.

The post-Maid­an gov­ern­ment alarmed Russ­ian-speak­ing Ukraini­ans by attempt­ing to annul that law. The US State Depart­ment and Sec­re­tary of State John Ker­ry sought to assuage fears in 2014 by pledg­ingthat Kiev would pro­tect the sta­tus of Russ­ian. Those promis­es came to naught.

A 2017 law man­dat­ed that sec­ondary edu­ca­tion be con­duct­ed strict­ly in Ukrain­ian, which infu­ri­at­edHun­gary, Roma­nia, Bul­gar­ia, and Greece. Sev­er­al regions passed leg­is­la­tion ban­ningthe use of Russ­ian in pub­lic life. Quo­tas enforce Ukrain­ian usage on TV and radio. (This would be akin to Wash­ing­ton forc­ing Span­ish-lan­guage media to broad­cast most­ly in Eng­lish.)

And in Feb­ru­ary 2018, Ukraine’s supreme court struck down the 2012 region­al lan­guage law—the one Ker­ry promised east­ern Ukraini­ans would stay in effect.

Cur­rent­ly, Kiev is prepar­ing to pass a dra­con­ian law that would man­date the use of Ukrain­ian in most aspects of pub­lic life. It’s anoth­er exam­ple of Kiev alien­at­ing mil­lions of its own cit­i­zens, while claim­ing to embrace West­ern val­ues.

The price of will­ful blind­ness

These exam­ples are only a tiny frac­tion of Ukraine’s slide toward intol­er­ance, but they should be enough to point out the obvi­ous: Washington’s deci­sion to ignore the pro­lif­er­a­tion of armed neo-Nazi groups in a high­ly unsta­ble nation only led to them gain­ing more pow­er.

In essay after essay, DC for­eign-pol­i­cy heads have denied or cel­e­brat­ed the influ­ence of Ukraine’s far right. (Curi­ous­ly, the same ana­lysts vocif­er­ous­ly denounce ris­ing nation­al­ism in Hun­gary, Poland, and Italy as high­ly dan­ger­ous.) Per­haps think-tankers delud­ed them­selves into think­ing Kiev’s far-right phase would tuck­er itself out. More like­ly, they sim­ply embraced DC’s go-to strat­e­gy of “my enemy’s ene­my is my friend.” Either way, the ram­i­fi­ca­tions stretch far beyond Ukraine.

America’s back­ing of the Maid­an upris­ing, along with the bil­lions DC sinks into post-Maid­an Kiev, make it clear: Start­ing Feb­ru­ary 2014, Ukraine became Washington’s lat­est democ­ra­cy-spread­ing project. What we per­mit in Ukraine sends a green light to oth­ers.

By tol­er­at­ing neo-Nazi gangs and bat­tal­ions, state-led Holo­caust dis­tor­tion, and attacks on LGBT and the Roma, the Unit­ed States is telling the rest of Europe: “We’re fine with this.” The implications—especially at a time of a glob­al far-right revival—are pro­found­ly dis­turb­ing.

Discussion

3 comments for “FTR#1233 How Many Lies Before You Belong to The Lie?, Part 6”

  1. Are the prospects for peace in Ukraine real? It’s a ques­tion that was dif­fi­cult to approach non-cyn­i­cal­ly fol­low­ing the appar­ent assas­si­na­tion of one of Ukraine’s own peace nego­tia­tors, Denis Kereev, as part of some sort of counter-intel­li­gence oper­a­tion. But we are indeed get­ting reports of real progress between the Russ­ian and Ukrain­ian nego­tia­tors, with the con­tours of a 15 point peace plan under con­sid­er­a­tion. The plan includes a num­ber of points we should expect: Rus­sia is demand­ing Ukraine change its con­sti­tu­tion to pledge not to join NATO or any oth­er mil­i­tary alliance. The host­ing of for­eign mil­i­tary bases would also be banned. Some sort of neu­tral­i­ty along the mod­el of Swe­den or Aus­tria would be sought.

    Ukraine will also have to mod­i­fy its con­sti­tu­tion to secure Russ­ian as an offi­cial lan­guage, reverse the high­ly inflam­ma­to­ry moves fol­low­ing the 2014 Maid­an revolt that stripped Russ­ian of its offi­cial sta­tus, help­ing to pre­cip­i­tate the sep­a­ratist move­ments.

    Ukraine is appar­ent­ly open to these demands, but is request­ing secu­ri­ty assur­ances of its own. It sounds like the idea is some sort of Ukraine-cen­tric mini-NATO. A ‘Ukrain­ian mod­el of secu­ri­ty guar­an­tees’, with guar­an­tor coun­tries that would step in to pro­tect Ukraine if it’s ever again attacked.

    Time will tell how real­is­tic these talks are, but the fact that it will require mul­ti­ple con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ments seems like a poten­tial obsta­cle. As the fol­low­ing arti­cle notes, Ukraine amend­ed its con­sti­tu­tion in 2019 with an amend­ment that explic­it­ly stat­ed Ukraine’s inten­tions of join­ing NATO. As we’re also going to see, the pres­i­dent of the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion, Don­ald Tusk, was at the Feb 2019 cer­e­mo­ny when the amend­ment was signed, where he declared that “there can be no Europe with­out Ukraine.” Then-Pres­i­dent Petro Poroshenko announced at the cer­e­mo­ny Ukraine’s intent on sub­mit­ting its appli­ca­tion for NATO by 2023, imply­ing a poten­tial 2022 appli­ca­tion. So as these peace talks play out, it’s going to be worth keep­ing in mind that one of the key issues in the draft peace pro­pos­al — a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment to pledge NOT to joint NATO — is in direct response to an EU-endorsed 2019 con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment that oblig­at­ed Ukraine to join NATO next year:

    Finan­cial Times

    Ukraine and Rus­sia explore neu­tral­i­ty plan in peace talks
    Fif­teen-point draft deal would involve Kyiv renounc­ing Nato ambi­tions in return for secu­ri­ty guar­an­tees

    Max Sed­don in Riga, Roman Olearchyk in Kyiv, Arash Mas­sou­di in Lon­don and Neri Zil­ber in Tel Aviv
    March 16, 2022 1:54 pm

    Ukraine and Rus­sia have made sig­nif­i­cant progress on a ten­ta­tive peace plan includ­ing a cease­fire and Russ­ian with­draw­al if Kyiv declares neu­tral­i­ty and accepts lim­its on its armed forces, accord­ing to five peo­ple briefed on the talks.

    Ukrain­ian and Russ­ian nego­tia­tors dis­cussed the pro­posed deal in full for the first time on Mon­day, said two of the peo­ple. The 15-point draft con­sid­ered that day would involve Kyiv renounc­ing its ambi­tions to join Nato and promis­ing not to host for­eign mil­i­tary bases or weapon­ry in exchange for pro­tec­tion from allies such as the US, UK and Turkey, the peo­ple said.

    How­ev­er, the nature of west­ern guar­an­tees for Ukrain­ian secu­ri­ty — and their accept­abil­i­ty to Moscow — could prove to be a big obsta­cle to any deal, as could the sta­tus of the country’s ter­ri­to­ries seized by Rus­sia and its prox­ies in 2014. A 1994 agree­ment under­pin­ning Ukrain­ian secu­ri­ty failed to pre­vent the Kremlin’s aggres­sion against its neigh­bour.

    Although Moscow and Kyiv both said they had made progress on the terms of a deal, Ukrain­ian offi­cials are scep­ti­cal Russia’s Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin is ful­ly com­mit­ted to peace and wor­ry that Moscow could be buy­ing time to regroup its forces and resume its offen­sive.

    “There’s a like­li­hood this is trick­ery and illu­sion. They lie about every­thing — Crimea, the build-up of troops on the bor­der, and the ‘hys­te­ria’ over the inva­sion,” said a Ukrain­ian source briefed on the talks.

    “We need to put pres­sure on them until they have no oth­er choice” but to agree a peace deal, the per­son added.

    Putin showed no sign of com­pro­mise on Wednes­day, vow­ing Moscow would achieve all of its war aims in Ukraine. “We will nev­er allow Ukraine to become a strong­hold of aggres­sive actions against our coun­try,” he said.

    But a Russ­ian source briefed on the talks said the pro­posed set­tle­ment, if agreed, could give both sides a cred­i­ble way to declare vic­to­ry in the war.

    “Every side needs a win,” the per­son said. “He needs to be able to sell it to the peo­ple. Putin can say that we want­ed to stop Ukraine join­ing Nato and putting for­eign bases and mis­siles in its ter­ri­to­ry. If they do that, he can say, ‘I got it.’”

    Israel’s Prime Min­is­ter Naf­tali Ben­nett has been the pri­ma­ry inter­na­tion­al medi­a­tor on the talks, three peo­ple famil­iar with the mat­ter said, fol­low­ing a sur­prise vis­it to Moscow on March 5, with back-to-back talks with both lead­ers as recent­ly as two days ago.

    Recep Tayyip Erdo­gan, pres­i­dent of Turkey, also spoke by phone with Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelen­sky as he and his top offi­cials inten­si­fied their efforts to help bro­ker a peace deal between Kyiv and Moscow.

    Mykhai­lo Podolyak, a senior advis­er to Zelen­sky, told the Finan­cial Times that any deal would involve “the troops of the Russ­ian Fed­er­a­tion in any case leav­ing the ter­ri­to­ry of Ukraine” cap­tured since the inva­sion began on Feb­ru­ary 24 — name­ly south­ern regions along the Azov and Black seas, as well as ter­ri­to­ry to the east and north of Kyiv.

    Ukraine would main­tain its armed forces but would be oblig­ed to stay out­side mil­i­tary alliances such as Nato and refrain from host­ing for­eign mil­i­tary bases on its ter­ri­to­ry.

    Putin’s press sec­re­tary Dmit­ry Peskov told reporters on Wednes­day that neu­tral­i­ty for Ukraine based on the sta­tus of Aus­tria or Swe­den was a pos­si­bil­i­ty.

    “This option is real­ly being dis­cussed now, and is one that can be con­sid­ered neu­tral,” said Peskov.

    Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s for­eign min­is­ter, said that “absolute­ly spe­cif­ic word­ings” were “close to being agreed” in the nego­ti­a­tions.

    On Wednes­day Ned Price, the US state depart­ment spokesper­son, told reporters that Wash­ing­ton wel­comed the expres­sions of hope and opti­mism about the diplo­mat­ic talks between Russ­ian and Ukraine. But he said the US want­ed to see “de-esca­la­tion” from Rus­sia and there was no “tan­gi­ble indi­ca­tion” that Putin was “chang­ing course”.

    Despite the progress in peace talks, Ukraine’s cities came under heavy shelling for a third con­sec­u­tive night while Kyiv said it was launch­ing a counter-offen­sive against Russ­ian invaders.

    Local offi­cials in the besieged city of Mar­i­upol said Russ­ian troops bombed and destroyed a the­atre, where hun­dreds of peo­ple had tak­en shel­ter.

    Though Ukraine’s con­sti­tu­tion com­mits it to seek mem­ber­ship of Nato, Zelen­sky and his aides have increas­ing­ly played down the country’s chances of join­ing the transat­lantic mil­i­tary alliance, a prospect that Rus­sia sees as a provo­ca­tion.

    “There is no effec­tive sys­tem of Euro­pean secu­ri­ty now, which would be mod­er­at­ed by Nato. As soon as a seri­ous war began in Europe, Nato quick­ly stepped aside,” Podolyak said.

    “We pro­pose a ‘Ukrain­ian mod­el of secu­ri­ty guar­an­tees’, which implies the imme­di­ate and legal­ly ver­i­fied par­tic­i­pa­tion of a num­ber of guar­an­tor coun­tries in the con­flict on the side of Ukraine, if some­one again encroach­es on its ter­ri­to­r­i­al integri­ty,” he added.

    Ukraine, Podolyak added, would as part of any deal “def­i­nite­ly retain its own army”. He also played down the sig­nif­i­cance of a ban on for­eign bases in Ukraine, say­ing that was already pre­clud­ed by Ukrain­ian law.

    Two of the peo­ple said the puta­tive deal also includ­ed pro­vi­sions on enshrin­ing rights for the Russ­ian lan­guage in Ukraine, where it is wide­ly spo­ken though Ukrain­ian is the only offi­cial lan­guage. Rus­sia has framed its inva­sion as an attempt to pro­tect Russ­ian speak­ers in Ukraine from what it claims is “geno­cide” by “neo-Nazis”.

    The biggest stick­ing point remains Russia’s demand that Ukraine recog­nise its 2014 annex­a­tion of Crimea and the inde­pen­dence of two sep­a­ratist statelets in the east­ern Don­bas bor­der region.

    Ukraine has refused but was will­ing to com­part­men­talise the issue, Podolyak said.

    ...

    ————

    “Ukraine and Rus­sia explore neu­tral­i­ty plan in peace talks” by Max Sed­don, Roman Olearchyk, Arash Mas­sou­di and Neri Zil­ber; Finan­cial Times; 03/16/2022

    “Ukrain­ian and Russ­ian nego­tia­tors dis­cussed the pro­posed deal in full for the first time on Mon­day, said two of the peo­ple. The 15-point draft con­sid­ered that day would involve Kyiv renounc­ing its ambi­tions to join Nato and promis­ing not to host for­eign mil­i­tary bases or weapon­ry in exchange for pro­tec­tion from allies such as the US, UK and Turkey, the peo­ple said.

    It’s a start. A 15 point plan that can hope­ful­ly achieve some sort of ‘win’ sta­tus for all par­ties. Russ­ian is demand­ing Ukraine pledge to stay out of NATO and remain neu­tral, some­thing that will require a change to Ukraine’s con­sti­tu­tion fol­low­ing the 2019 amend­ment that added NATO mem­ber­ship aspi­ra­tions. Ukraine appears to be open to this, but is talk­ing about some sort of Ukraine-spe­cif­ic NATO-like mil­i­tary alliance. A “Ukrain­ian mod­el of secu­ri­ty guar­an­tees” that implies the guar­an­tors of Ukraine’s secu­ri­ty will come to the coun­try’s assis­tance if its attacked. Will Rus­sia agree to a peace arrange­ment the includes NATO-like pledges of secu­ri­ty from oth­er par­ties? Keep in mind, while the US would pre­sum­ably be one of the pre­ferred guar­an­tors of Ukraine’s secu­ri­ty, we haven’t got­ten any names of which coun­tries might poten­tial­ly play that ‘guar­an­tor’ role. Might we see some­thing anal­o­gous to an Inter­mar­i­um-like mil­i­tary alliance focused on Ukraine’s region­al neigh­bors emerge from this?

    ...
    How­ev­er, the nature of west­ern guar­an­tees for Ukrain­ian secu­ri­ty — and their accept­abil­i­ty to Moscow — could prove to be a big obsta­cle to any deal, as could the sta­tus of the country’s ter­ri­to­ries seized by Rus­sia and its prox­ies in 2014. A 1994 agree­ment under­pin­ning Ukrain­ian secu­ri­ty failed to pre­vent the Kremlin’s aggres­sion against its neigh­bour.

    ...

    Mykhai­lo Podolyak, a senior advis­er to Zelen­sky, told the Finan­cial Times that any deal would involve “the troops of the Russ­ian Fed­er­a­tion in any case leav­ing the ter­ri­to­ry of Ukraine” cap­tured since the inva­sion began on Feb­ru­ary 24 — name­ly south­ern regions along the Azov and Black seas, as well as ter­ri­to­ry to the east and north of Kyiv.

    Ukraine would main­tain its armed forces but would be oblig­ed to stay out­side mil­i­tary alliances such as Nato and refrain from host­ing for­eign mil­i­tary bases on its ter­ri­to­ry.

    Putin’s press sec­re­tary Dmit­ry Peskov told reporters on Wednes­day that neu­tral­i­ty for Ukraine based on the sta­tus of Aus­tria or Swe­den was a pos­si­bil­i­ty.

    “This option is real­ly being dis­cussed now, and is one that can be con­sid­ered neu­tral,” said Peskov.

    ...

    Though Ukraine’s con­sti­tu­tion com­mits it to seek mem­ber­ship of Nato, Zelen­sky and his aides have increas­ing­ly played down the country’s chances of join­ing the transat­lantic mil­i­tary alliance, a prospect that Rus­sia sees as a provo­ca­tion.

    “There is no effec­tive sys­tem of Euro­pean secu­ri­ty now, which would be mod­er­at­ed by Nato. As soon as a seri­ous war began in Europe, Nato quick­ly stepped aside,” Podolyak said.

    “We pro­pose a ‘Ukrain­ian mod­el of secu­ri­ty guar­an­tees’, which implies the imme­di­ate and legal­ly ver­i­fied par­tic­i­pa­tion of a num­ber of guar­an­tor coun­tries in the con­flict on the side of Ukraine, if some­one again encroach­es on its ter­ri­to­r­i­al integri­ty,” he added.

    Ukraine, Podolyak added, would as part of any deal “def­i­nite­ly retain its own army”. He also played down the sig­nif­i­cance of a ban on for­eign bases in Ukraine, say­ing that was already pre­clud­ed by Ukrain­ian law.
    ...

    Also note how two of the biggest stick­ing points — the inde­pen­dence of the sep­a­ratist republics and the annex­a­tion of Crimea — remain unre­solved, but can be poten­tial­ly com­part­men­tal­ized. That’s actu­al­ly huge progress giv­en the cir­cum­stances and the extreme­ly low like­li­hood of those ter­ri­to­ries ever return­ing to Ukrain­ian con­trol:

    ...
    The biggest stick­ing point remains Russia’s demand that Ukraine recog­nise its 2014 annex­a­tion of Crimea and the inde­pen­dence of two sep­a­ratist statelets in the east­ern Don­bas bor­der region.

    Ukraine has refused but was will­ing to com­part­men­talise the issue, Podolyak said.
    ...

    Final­ly, note the poten­tial­ly huge sym­bol­ic vic­to­ry that Putin can take away from this. A vic­to­ry that would actu­al­ly make a real dif­fer­ence in terms of pro­tect­ing the rights of eth­nic Rus­sians in Ukraine: enshrin­ing the Russ­ian lan­guage as an offi­cial lan­guage in the Ukrain­ian con­sti­tu­tion. Recall how it was the moves by the post-Maid­an gov­ern­ment to strip the Russ­ian lan­guage of its offi­cial sta­tus in Feb­ru­ary 2014 that inflamed the sep­a­ratist pas­sions in the first place. It’s the kind of ‘win’ for Putin that’s actu­al­ly ‘win’/‘win’ all around:

    ...
    Two of the peo­ple said the puta­tive deal also includ­ed pro­vi­sions on enshrin­ing rights for the Russ­ian lan­guage in Ukraine, where it is wide­ly spo­ken though Ukrain­ian is the only offi­cial lan­guage. Rus­sia has framed its inva­sion as an attempt to pro­tect Russ­ian speak­ers in Ukraine from what it claims is “geno­cide” by “neo-Nazis”.
    ...

    So does this peace plan have a shot? Let’s hope so, although the points about amend­ing Ukraine’s con­sti­tu­tion might be eas­i­er said than done. After all, you need the par­lia­ment to do that.
    Still, it’s quite a stick­ing point if Ukraine lit­er­al­ly has NATO aspi­ra­tions in its con­sti­tu­tion. Not just that, but as the fol­low­ing Feb 2019 arti­cle notes, then-Pres­i­dent Petro Poroshenko announced that Ukraine should “sub­mit a request for EU mem­ber­ship and receive a NATO mem­ber­ship action plan no lat­er than 2023,” dur­ing the sign­ing cer­e­mo­ny. Beyond that, Euro­pean Coun­cil Pres­i­dent Don­ald Tusk was at the sign­ing cer­e­mo­ny, where he pro­claimed that “there can be no Europe with­out Ukraine.” In terms of answer­ing the ques­tion of ‘why attack now?’, the fact that Ukraine had plans to sub­mit for NATO mem­ber­ship next year might have some­thing to do with that answer.

    So as these peace talks play out, the fact that Ukraine placed NATO ambi­tions in its con­sti­tu­tion three years ago with plans on accel­er­at­ing the process next year, and the EU appeared to be ful­ly on board with this agen­da, are pre­sum­ably loom­ing large over Rus­si­a’s goals in these talks. It’s the kind of back­drop to these peace talks that sug­gests the resis­tance to an anti-NATO amend­ment isn’t just going to come from Ukraine:

    Radio Free Europe/Radio Lib­er­ty

    Ukraine Pres­i­dent Signs Con­sti­tu­tion­al Amend­ment On NATO, EU Mem­ber­ship

    Feb­ru­ary 19, 2019 19:50 GMT

    Ukrain­ian Pres­i­dent Petro Poroshenko has signed a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment com­mit­ting the coun­try to becom­ing a mem­ber of NATO and the Euro­pean Union.

    Address­ing par­lia­ment on Feb­ru­ary 19, Poroshenko said he saw secur­ing Ukraine’s mem­ber­ship in NATO and the EU as his “strate­gic mis­sion.”

    Ukraine should “sub­mit a request for EU mem­ber­ship and receive a NATO mem­ber­ship action plan no lat­er than 2023,” the pres­i­dent told the Verk­hov­na Rada.

    How­ev­er, he acknowl­edged that his coun­try needs to come a “long way” to meet the cri­te­ria of join­ing both insti­tu­tions.

    Euro­pean Coun­cil Pres­i­dent Don­ald Tusk attend­ed the sign­ing of the con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment in the par­lia­ment build­ing.

    Address­ing the law­mak­ers in Ukrain­ian, Tusk, who is Pol­ish, said that “there can be no Europe with­out Ukraine.”

    He also warned Ukrain­ian politi­cians against using pop­ulist and nation­al­ist tac­tics ahead of the March 31 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, in which Poroshenko is run­ning for a sec­ond five-year term.

    “Go around temp­ta­tions of rad­i­cal nation­al­ism and pop­ulism, as you have done so far,” Tusk said in his speech.

    The EU offi­cial also warned law­mak­ers against “inter­nal con­flicts,” which he said only ben­e­fit “that third coun­try,” hint­ing at Rus­sia.

    Tusk is on a three-day vis­it to Ukraine, which is com­mem­o­rat­ing the fifth anniver­sary of the Euro­maid­an protests, which led to the ouster of Moscow-friend­ly Pres­i­dent Vik­tor Yanukovych in Feb­ru­ary 2014.

    ...

    ————–

    “Ukraine Pres­i­dent Signs Con­sti­tu­tion­al Amend­ment On NATO, EU Mem­ber­ship”; Radio Free Europe/Radio Lib­er­ty; 02/19/2019

    “Ukraine should “sub­mit a request for EU mem­ber­ship and receive a NATO mem­ber­ship action plan no lat­er than 2023,” the pres­i­dent told the Verk­hov­na Rada.”

    No lat­er than 2023. That was the pro­posed sched­ule for Ukraine’s NATO ambi­tions announced in Feb­ru­ary of 2019. It’s the kind of announce­ment that sug­gests Ukraine may have been plan­ning on sub­mit­ting its appli­ca­tion this year. You have to won­der if that was the key pre­cip­i­tat­ing event guid­ing Putin’s deci­sion-mak­ing. That and the fact that the EU was clear­ly very much on board with this agen­da:

    ...
    Euro­pean Coun­cil Pres­i­dent Don­ald Tusk attend­ed the sign­ing of the con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment in the par­lia­ment build­ing.

    Address­ing the law­mak­ers in Ukrain­ian, Tusk, who is Pol­ish, said that “there can be no Europe with­out Ukraine.”
    ...

    And note the dark warn­ings Tusk felt forced to make at an event designed to be a kind of Euro­pean embrace of Ukraine: warn­ings against extrem­ist nation­al­ism, which were dom­i­nat­ing the 2019 elec­tions and which Petro Poroshenko was dou­ble and tripling down on:

    ...
    He also warned Ukrain­ian politi­cians against using pop­ulist and nation­al­ist tac­tics ahead of the March 31 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, in which Poroshenko is run­ning for a sec­ond five-year term.

    “Go around temp­ta­tions of rad­i­cal nation­al­ism and pop­ulism, as you have done so far,” Tusk said in his speech.

    The EU offi­cial also warned law­mak­ers against “inter­nal con­flicts,” which he said only ben­e­fit “that third coun­try,” hint­ing at Rus­sia.
    ...

    Also recall how it was those very same 2019 elec­tions that saw Zelen­skiy elect­ed by an over­whelm­ing mar­gin. It was a pop­u­lar rejec­tion of Poroshenko’s ultra­na­tion­al­ist appeals. Yes, as we’ve seen, Zelen­skiy was effec­tive­ly forced to drop his peace agen­da and suc­cumb to the mil­i­tant stances of ‘nation­al­ist’ fas­cist groups, but it’s cru­cial to keep in mind that he real­ly was elect­ed on a peace agen­da. An agen­da that was effec­tive­ly a rejec­tion of the far right extrem­ism behind the nation­al­ism Poroshenko was bas­ing his reelec­tion bid on.

    And that’s per­haps the most impor­tant piece of Ukraine’s recent his­to­ry to keep in mind as these talks play out: The described peace plan is rough­ly in line with the sen­ti­ments expressed by the Ukrain­ian pub­lic with the over­whelm­ing 2019 vic­to­ry of Zelen­skiy. A rejec­tion of ultra-nation­al­ism. A rejec­tion of vir­u­lent Rus­so­pho­bia. And a desire to come to some sort of peace­ful set­tle­ment with the sep­a­ratists. That was what was sup­posed to be on the agen­da with Zelen­skiy his­toric 2019 vic­to­ry. Yes, the prospects for peace have changed sig­nif­i­cant­ly with this bloody inva­sion. But the peace agen­da Zelen­skiy was elect­ed on was effec­tive­ly killed by Ukraine’s Nazis long before Putin’s inva­sion. See­ing that peace plan get res­ur­rect­ed under these con­di­tions is far from ide­al, but also far from the worst out­come.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | March 16, 2022, 4:00 pm
  2. We got anoth­er update on the sta­tus of the peace talks between Rus­sia and Ukraine after reports that Vladimir Putin phoned Turk­ish Pres­i­dent Recep Tayyip Erdo­gan to inform him of the pre­cise demands for a peace deal. So at least from the Russ­ian side we appear to have solid­i­fy­ing list of demands. Demands that, as we’ll see, aren’t all that demand­ing, although the dev­il is of course in the details. But it’s rough­ly along the lines of a peace deal that we’ve already heard about: Ukraine pledges to not join NATO and main­tain a state of mil­i­tary neu­tral­i­ty. Crimea is rec­og­nized as part of Rus­sia. The Don­bas regions are rec­og­nized as inde­pen­dent. And the de-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of Ukraine is con­duct­ed. It’s that last demand that’s poten­tial­ly the stick­ing point here since the oth­er demands are effec­tive­ly the sta­tus quo any­way. But as the fol­low­ing BBC piece sug­gests, per­haps it will sim­ply be enough for Ukraine to denounce all forms of Nazism and crack down on all of the overt Nazi groups oper­at­ing in the coun­try. Which, of course, is going to be eas­i­er said than done. This is where real­i­ty of the pro­found influ­ence of far right extrem­ism that has gripped Ukrain­ian soci­ety will become much more appar­ent. Is the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment real­ly ready to effec­tive­ly out­law the Azov Bat­tal­ion? Or groups like C14 or Right Sec­tor? Because that’s pre­sum­ably part of the peace demands.

    It all under­scores the warped nature of this sit­u­a­tion: Putin ordered a full scale bloody inva­sion of Ukraine only to ulti­mate­ly issue rel­a­tive­ly mild peace demands. Or at least they should be con­sid­ered rel­a­tive­ly mild demands...but that’s assum­ing the demand that Ukraine out­laws its overt Nazi groups isn’t too much to ask. And real­is­ti­cal­ly, it is prob­a­bly too much to ask. After all, if the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment did give in to those demands, some of the most heav­i­ly armed con­tin­gents of the Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary would effec­tive­ly be forced to decide if they’re going to dis­band or go to war with Ukraine. And we can be pret­ty con­fi­dent about their answer. Nonethe­less, some sort of for­mal denounce­ment and dis­band­ing of Ukraine’s Nazi bat­tal­ions appears to be one of Rus­sian’s key terms for peace.

    It all rais­es the grim ques­tion: so if Vlolodymr Zelen­skiy does indeed agree to these peace terms and the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment for­mal­ly dis­bands the Azov Bat­tal­ion, fol­lowed by the Azov move­ment lead­ing the far right in an insur­rec­tionary war against the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment, will the West defend the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment against the Nazis, or will we all just throw our hands up and declare Ukraine a ‘lost cause’? Because a new Ukrain­ian civ­il war — fought between the Nazis and every­one else this time — appears to be a very pos­si­ble price of peace with Rus­sia:

    BBC

    Ukraine con­flict: Putin lays out his demands in Turk­ish phone call

    By John Simp­son
    World Affairs edi­tor

    Pub­lished
    3/17/2022

    Turkey has posi­tioned itself with great care to be the go-between with Rus­sia and Ukraine — and this seems to be pay­ing off.

    On Thurs­day after­noon, Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin rang the Turk­ish Pres­i­dent, Recep Tayyip Erdo­gan, and told him what Rus­si­a’s pre­cise demands were for a peace deal with Ukraine.

    With­in half an hour of the end­ing of the phone call, I inter­viewed Mr Erdo­gan’s lead­ing advis­er and spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin. Mr Kalin was part of the small group of offi­cials who had lis­tened in on the call.

    The Russ­ian demands fall into two cat­e­gories.

    The first four demands are, accord­ing to Mr Kalin, not too dif­fi­cult for Ukraine to meet.

    Chief among them is an accep­tance by Ukraine that it should be neu­tral and should not apply to join Nato. Ukraine’s Pres­i­dent Volodymyr Zelen­sky has already con­ced­ed this.

    There are oth­er demands in this cat­e­go­ry which most­ly seem to be face-sav­ing ele­ments for the Russ­ian side.

    Ukraine would have to under­go a dis­ar­ma­ment process to ensure it was­n’t a threat to Rus­sia. There would have to be pro­tec­tion for the Russ­ian lan­guage in Ukraine. And there is some­thing called de-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion.

    This is deeply offen­sive to Mr Zelen­sky, who is him­self Jew­ish and some of whose rel­a­tives died in the Holo­caust, but the Turk­ish side believes it will be easy enough for Mr Zelen­sky to accept. Per­haps it will be enough for Ukraine to con­demn all forms of neo-Nazism and promise to clamp down on them.

    The sec­ond cat­e­go­ry is where the dif­fi­cul­ty will lie, and in his phone call, Mr Putin said that it would need face-to-face nego­ti­a­tions between him and Pres­i­dent Zelen­sky before agree­ment could be reached on these points. Mr Zelen­sky has already said he’s pre­pared to meet the Russ­ian pres­i­dent and nego­ti­ate with him one-to-one.

    Mr Kalin was much less spe­cif­ic about these issues, say­ing sim­ply that they involved the sta­tus of Don­bas, in east­ern Ukraine, parts of which have already bro­ken away from Ukraine and stressed their Rus­sian­ness, and the sta­tus of Crimea.

    Although Mr Kalin did­n’t go into detail, the assump­tion is that Rus­sia will demand that the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment should give up ter­ri­to­ry in east­ern Ukraine. That will be deeply con­tentious.

    The oth­er assump­tion is that Rus­sia will demand that Ukraine should for­mal­ly accept that Crimea, which Rus­sia ille­gal­ly annexed in 2014, does indeed now belong to Rus­sia. If this is the case, it will be a bit­ter pill for Ukraine to swal­low.

    Nev­er­the­less, it is a fait accom­pli, even though Rus­sia has no legal right to own Crimea and actu­al­ly signed an inter­na­tion­al treaty, after the fall of Com­mu­nism but before Vladimir Putin came to pow­er, accept­ing that Crimea was part of Ukraine.

    Still, Pres­i­dent Putin’s demands are not as harsh as some peo­ple feared and they scarce­ly seem to be worth all the vio­lence, blood­shed and destruc­tion which Rus­sia has vis­it­ed on Ukraine.

    Giv­en his heavy-hand­ed con­trol over the Russ­ian media, it should­n’t be too hard for him and his acolytes to present all this as a major vic­to­ry.

    For Ukraine, though, there are going to be seri­ous anx­i­eties.

    If the fine details of any agree­ment aren’t sort­ed out with immense care, Pres­i­dent Putin or his suc­ces­sors could always use them as an excuse to invade Ukraine again.

    A peace deal could take a long time to sort out, even if a cease­fire stops the blood­shed in the mean­time.

    Ukraine has suf­fered appalling­ly over the past few weeks, and rebuild­ing the towns and cities which Rus­sia has dam­aged and destroyed will take a long time. So will rehous­ing the mil­lions of refugees who have fled their homes.

    What about Vladimir Putin him­self? There have been sug­ges­tions that he is ill, or pos­si­bly even men­tal­ly unbal­anced. Did Mr Kalin detect any­thing strange about him in the phone call? Not at all, he said. Mr Putin had appar­ent­ly been clear and con­cise in every­thing he said.

    ...

    ————

    “Ukraine con­flict: Putin lays out his demands in Turk­ish phone call” by John Simp­son; BBC; 03/17/2022

    “Still, Pres­i­dent Putin’s demands are not as harsh as some peo­ple feared and they scarce­ly seem to be worth all the vio­lence, blood­shed and destruc­tion which Rus­sia has vis­it­ed on Ukraine.”

    Yes, the Krem­lin’s demands aren’t near­ly as demand­ing as many feared. But that does­n’t mean they’ll nec­es­sar­i­ly be easy to imple­ment. Pledg­ing to stay out of NATO will require chang­ing the Ukrain­ian con­sti­tu­tion. But at least that can be clear­ly addressed. The demands for de-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion are far less clear in terms of how that would be imple­ment­ed bar­ring a long-stand­ing Russ­ian occu­pa­tion. Inter­st­ing­ly, though, the Turkey diplo­mats appeared to have the sense that Zelen­skiy could find an accept­able com­pro­mise for a ‘de-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion’ agen­da rel­a­tive­ly eas­i­ly. Maybe all it will sim­ply require that Ukraine con­demn ALL forms of Nazism, and not just the old school Ger­many Nazis:

    ...
    The Russ­ian demands fall into two cat­e­gories.

    The first four demands are, accord­ing to Mr Kalin, not too dif­fi­cult for Ukraine to meet.

    Chief among them is an accep­tance by Ukraine that it should be neu­tral and should not apply to join Nato. Ukraine’s Pres­i­dent Volodymyr Zelen­sky has already con­ced­ed this.

    ...

    Ukraine would have to under­go a dis­ar­ma­ment process to ensure it was­n’t a threat to Rus­sia. There would have to be pro­tec­tion for the Russ­ian lan­guage in Ukraine. And there is some­thing called de-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion.

    This is deeply offen­sive to Mr Zelen­sky, who is him­self Jew­ish and some of whose rel­a­tives died in the Holo­caust, but the Turk­ish side believes it will be easy enough for Mr Zelen­sky to accept. Per­haps it will be enough for Ukraine to con­demn all forms of neo-Nazism and promise to clamp down on them.

    ...

    Giv­en his heavy-hand­ed con­trol over the Russ­ian media, it should­n’t be too hard for him and his acolytes to present all this as a major vic­to­ry.
    ...

    That should be easy, right? Just decry the Azov Bat­tal­ion and oth­er overt Nazi groups and that’s it. The ‘de-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion’ demand is sat­is­fied. Easy peasy. Or at least it should be. But will it be that easy? Just how unthink­able is the idea of the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment actu­al­ly denounc­ing and crack­ing down on its very real Nazis? What will those groups do in response? Will the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment have to engage in full scale war with rebel­lious Nazis who don’t take kind­ly to these ‘de-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion’ demands? These are the kind of nag­ging detail that under­scores the dark nature of this sit­u­a­tion.

    And that brings us to the fol­low­ing arti­cle from a cou­ple days ago in The Nation about a Russ­ian attack on a base near Ukraine’s bor­der with Poland. An attack on what appears to be a train­ing base for the new­ly formed Ukrain­ian For­eign Legion. The details of the attack dis­put­ed, with the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment say­ing 35 were killed and 134 wound­ed. The Russ­ian gov­ern­ment put the death toll at 180. As we’ll see, based on the inter­views of two Ger­man mem­bers of this legion, it appears the Russ­ian esti­mates may have been an under­es­ti­mate with the death toll close to 200.

    The Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment is insist­ing that this was­n’t base where for­eign fight­ers were being trained and in fact the attack was a mis­sile strike from the Sea of Azov that was most­ly repelled by Ukraine’s air defens­es, with only some mis­siles get­ting through. But accord­ing to the two eye wit­ness­es, the attack was car­ried out by two planes and the strike killed a large num­ber of the for­eign fight­ers they had been train­ing with. “The Rus­sians knew exact­ly where to shoot,” accord­ing to one.

    Recall that, while this Ukrain­ian For­eign Legion was only for­mal­ly cre­at­ed last month fol­low­ing the inva­sion, we had reports of the Azov Bat­tal­ion plan­ning on the cre­ation of a For­eign Legion back in 2019. And the Vol­un­teer Bat­tal­ions have been effec­tive­ly act­ing like For­eign Legions since 2014. So while the attack was­n’t on one of the overt Nazi Bat­tal­ions like Azov, sym­bol­i­cal­ly it was effec­tive­ly in the spir­it of the ‘de-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion’ goal of the con­flict. It points towards anoth­er dark aspect of this con­flict: the more for­eign fight­ers who end up get­ting killed, the eas­i­er it is for Putin to declare this oper­a­tion a suc­cess from a de-Naz­i­fi­caiton stand­point sim­ply because the for­eign legions are so noto­ri­ous­ly over­flow­ing with far right extrem­ists. So if you want to help end the war, trav­el­ing to Ukraine as a for­eign fight­er and get­ting killed is one way to help. Because the more reports we get about attacks like this the eas­i­er it’s going to be for Putin to declare the ‘mil­i­tary oper­a­tion’ a suc­cess:

    The Nation

    A Russ­ian Strike Kills For­eign Fight­ers in Ukraine
    Two Ger­man vol­un­teer fight­ers said many of their fel­low for­eign legion­naires had been killed in the bomb­ing and esti­mat­ed the death toll at over 200.

    By Nico­las Niar­chosT­wit­ter
    March 15, 2022

    Lviv, Ukraine—A Russ­ian air strike on a mil­i­tary base in the far west of Ukraine on Sun­day was Moscow’s clos­est attack yet to NATO ter­ri­to­ry. The Inter­na­tion­al Peace­keep­ing and Secu­ri­ty Cen­ter, near the town of Novoy­a­vorivsk, is only 12 miles from the Pol­ish bor­der, and was host­ing up to 1,000 for­eign fight­ers, who had crossed the bor­der to fight in the new­ly formed Ukrain­ian For­eign Legion. Accord­ing to Ukrain­ian offi­cials, at least 35 peo­ple were killed in the strike and some 134 were wound­ed. The Russ­ian gov­ern­ment says that, in fact, it killed 180 for­eign fight­ers. “The destruc­tion of for­eign mer­ce­nar­ies who arrived on the ter­ri­to­ry of Ukraine will con­tin­ue,” a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the Russ­ian Defense Min­istry said in a state­ment online.

    The Ukraini­ans have vehe­ment­ly denied the Russ­ian reports that for­eign fight­ers were killed. At a press brief­ing in the city of Lviv on Mon­day, Maksym Kozyt­skyy, the gov­er­nor of the region, said, “There are no casu­al­ties among for­eign fight­ers. These are fakes prop­a­gat­ed by the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment.” Accord­ing to him, Russ­ian planes over the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov fired some 30 rock­ets at the base, and Ukraine’s air defens­es inter­cept­ed all but eight.

    But new state­ments from fight­ers present dur­ing the strike call into ques­tion this account of the attack. Two Ger­man vol­un­teer fight­ers said many of their fel­low for­eign legion­naires, cross­ing the Ukrain­ian bor­der into Poland in a tight­ly packed queue on Mon­day evening, had been killed in the strike, and esti­mat­ed the death toll at over 200. “It was real­ly hard, tru­ly hard,” Peter Füch­sel told me. He said got­ten to know sev­er­al of the dead in the two weeks or so before the attack. On Tues­day morn­ing, the Dai­ly Mir­ror of Britain report­ed that three for­mer mem­bers of the British spe­cial forces were among the dead.

    Füch­sel, 55, is a dri­ver for dis­abled chil­dren from cen­tral Ger­many; his fel­low fight­er, Andreas, did not give his last name but said that he works load­ing and unload­ing trucks in Mün­ster and that he is 56 years old. Both men said two planes had car­ried out the attack. “One of the planes also fired on the base,” Füch­sel said.

    The two vol­un­teers have mil­i­tary expe­ri­ence. Füch­sel, a 25-year vet­er­an of the Ger­man Bun­deswehr, sport­ed a short beard and sil­ver rings, one adorned with a skull. He said he had arrived in Ukraine over­land from Ger­many on March 3. “I went to fight in Ukraine, because I thought it was a just war, and I saw how brave­ly the Ukraini­ans were fight­ing,” he said. “When I saw that the Ger­man gov­ern­ment was only giv­ing the Ukraini­ans 5,000 hel­mets at the begin­ning of the war, I felt it was a joke, like I was read­ing an Aster­ix com­ic.” It wasn’t pol­i­tics so much as a sense of out­rage and injus­tice that drove them. Many of their friends told them it was “mad­ness” to go and fight; oth­ers under­stood. Both of them have no imme­di­ate fam­i­ly.

    Once in Ukraine, Füch­sel went to Kyiv, the cap­i­tal, which is under siege by Russ­ian troops. “Every­thing was so chaot­ic there,” he said. “I stayed only for a cou­ple of days.” He was sent back to Lviv, where he believed it would be safe, to train with oth­er vol­un­teers at the facil­i­ty out­side Novoy­a­vorivsk. While he liked the oth­er vol­un­teers he met there, he thought they were not ready to fight in a war. “Lots of them were only 18 years old,” Füch­sel said. “Some ran away from home. They want­ed an adven­ture. They want­ed to fight. Lots of them talked about Call of Duty”—the war video game—“they had no idea what was going on.” Some 20,000 fight­ers have trav­eled to Ukraine to fight against Rus­sia.

    Füch­sel and Andreas liked life on the base. The fight­ers came from lots of dif­fer­ent coun­tries; they all got on well, and the food was good. Only 50 or so mem­bers of the unit had pre­vi­ous­ly served in the mil­i­tary. Both Füch­sel and Andreas, how­ev­er, were crit­i­cal of the train­ing they received: At first, the Ukrain­ian offi­cers on the base seemed to dis­agree on how to train the vol­un­teers. “There was no com­par­i­son to the Ger­man army,” Füch­sel said. “There you are in a prop­er unit. You train togeth­er.” They said their train­ing con­sist­ed of a day of the­o­ry when they were shown Youtube clips of how to use a Kalash­nikov, and then two days of weapons prac­tice with min­i­mal instruc­tion. Füch­sel said that after the attack the vol­un­teers were told they would go on to fight at the front with­in a week.

    In the ear­ly hours of Sun­day morn­ing, an alarm rang out in the bar­racks that the men were sleep­ing in, and then anoth­er. The sec­ond alarm stopped sound­ing, and then there was silence. The men at the bar­racks went back to bed. Short­ly there­after, around 6 am, a series of explo­sions tore through the two bar­racks next door. “There were two min­utes between explo­sions,” Füch­sel said. (Dou­ble-tap airstrikes, which kill first respon­ders, are wide­ly con­sid­ered war crimes.) The men streamed into the cold air. “The Rus­sians knew exact­ly where to shoot,” Füch­sel said. Footage post­ed to Telegram from after the attacks showed piles of rub­ble and craters around the base. The fight­ers were instruct­ed to go into woods and to not light fires. “Some of the men were only in their under­wear,” he con­tin­ued. “It was minus 15 degrees Celsius”—almost minus 10 Fahrenheit—“in the woods. There was no plan, noth­ing.”

    ...

    Most of the oth­er vol­un­teers, Füch­sel said, are stay­ing to fight. Indeed, on Mon­day a num­ber were strolling around Lviv’s cen­tral square in the late win­ter sun­shine. “Until the strike, I was sure that the Ukraini­ans would win,” Füch­sel told me when we met at the bor­der lat­er that after­noon. “Now, today, I don’t under­stand how the Ukraini­ans have got­ten this far and man­aged like this.” He added, “The for­eign fighters—they are just being used for can­non fod­der.”

    ———-

    “A Russ­ian Strike Kills For­eign Fight­ers in Ukraine” by Nico­las Niar­chos; The Nation; 03/15/2022

    “Most of the oth­er vol­un­teers, Füch­sel said, are stay­ing to fight. Indeed, on Mon­day a num­ber were strolling around Lviv’s cen­tral square in the late win­ter sun­shine. “Until the strike, I was sure that the Ukraini­ans would win,” Füch­sel told me when we met at the bor­der lat­er that after­noon. “Now, today, I don’t under­stand how the Ukraini­ans have got­ten this far and man­aged like this.” He added, “The for­eign fighters—they are just being used for can­non fod­der.”

    For­eign can­non fod­der. That does appear to be how the Ukrain­ian For­eign Legion is being treat­ed. A cou­ple days of min­i­mal train­ing with a weapon and it’s off to the front lines. Giv­en the urgency of the cir­cum­stances it’s under­stand­able, but the attack on this base points towards how lit­tle safe space there is inside the coun­try for these kinds of train­ing oper­a­tions to be con­duct­ed. It rais­es the ques­tion of how long before this Ukrain­ian For­eign Legion is forced to relo­cate to for­eign lands for its base of oper­a­tions:

    ...
    Füch­sel and Andreas liked life on the base. The fight­ers came from lots of dif­fer­ent coun­tries; they all got on well, and the food was good. Only 50 or so mem­bers of the unit had pre­vi­ous­ly served in the mil­i­tary. Both Füch­sel and Andreas, how­ev­er, were crit­i­cal of the train­ing they received: At first, the Ukrain­ian offi­cers on the base seemed to dis­agree on how to train the vol­un­teers. “There was no com­par­i­son to the Ger­man army,” Füch­sel said. “There you are in a prop­er unit. You train togeth­er.” They said their train­ing con­sist­ed of a day of the­o­ry when they were shown Youtube clips of how to use a Kalash­nikov, and then two days of weapons prac­tice with min­i­mal instruc­tion. Füch­sel said that after the attack the vol­un­teers were told they would go on to fight at the front with­in a week.
    ...

    And note how sen­si­tive this attack appears to be be, with the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment deny­ing any for­eign fight­ers were killed at all, despite this appear­ing to be a strike tar­get­ing exact­ly those oper­a­tions:

    ...
    The Ukraini­ans have vehe­ment­ly denied the Russ­ian reports that for­eign fight­ers were killed. At a press brief­ing in the city of Lviv on Mon­day, Maksym Kozyt­skyy, the gov­er­nor of the region, said, “There are no casu­al­ties among for­eign fight­ers. These are fakes prop­a­gat­ed by the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment.” Accord­ing to him, Russ­ian planes over the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov fired some 30 rock­ets at the base, and Ukraine’s air defens­es inter­cept­ed all but eight.

    But new state­ments from fight­ers present dur­ing the strike call into ques­tion this account of the attack. Two Ger­man vol­un­teer fight­ers said many of their fel­low for­eign legion­naires, cross­ing the Ukrain­ian bor­der into Poland in a tight­ly packed queue on Mon­day evening, had been killed in the strike, and esti­mat­ed the death toll at over 200. “It was real­ly hard, tru­ly hard,” Peter Füch­sel told me. He said got­ten to know sev­er­al of the dead in the two weeks or so before the attack. On Tues­day morn­ing, the Dai­ly Mir­ror of Britain report­ed that three for­mer mem­bers of the British spe­cial forces were among the dead.

    ...

    In the ear­ly hours of Sun­day morn­ing, an alarm rang out in the bar­racks that the men were sleep­ing in, and then anoth­er. The sec­ond alarm stopped sound­ing, and then there was silence. The men at the bar­racks went back to bed. Short­ly there­after, around 6 am, a series of explo­sions tore through the two bar­racks next door. “There were two min­utes between explo­sions,” Füch­sel said. (Dou­ble-tap airstrikes, which kill first respon­ders, are wide­ly con­sid­ered war crimes.) The men streamed into the cold air. “The Rus­sians knew exact­ly where to shoot,” Füch­sel said. Footage post­ed to Telegram from after the attacks showed piles of rub­ble and craters around the base. The fight­ers were instruct­ed to go into woods and to not light fires. “Some of the men were only in their under­wear,” he con­tin­ued. “It was minus 15 degrees Celsius”—almost minus 10 Fahrenheit—“in the woods. There was no plan, noth­ing.”
    ...

    Will this attack end up stem­ming the flow of for­eign fight­ers into Ukraine? It will give give some pause, at a min­i­mum. But it’s also hard to see the flow of fight­ers tru­ly end­ing until the con­flict is over. If any­thing, we should expect the flow to pick up as the pro­pa­gan­da and recruit­ing efforts become more refined and tar­get audi­ences are iden­ti­fied. Tar­get audi­ences that the Azov Move­ment and the rest of Ukraine’s Nazi bat­tal­ions have been reach­ing out to for years.

    So as the nego­ti­a­tions con­tin­ue to play out, it’s going to be worth keep­ing in mind that any peace plan involv­ing the denounce­ment of Ukraine’s pow­er­ful Nazi mili­tias is recipe for a renewed civ­il war. The Ukrain­ian war between eth­nic Rus­sians and eth­nic Ukraini­ans will be over. A war between Ukrain­ian Nazis and every­one left in the coun­try. It’s the kind of loom­ing peace-trig­gered war that is no doubt com­pli­cat­ing the peace talks. Nazis tend to com­pli­cate peace.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | March 18, 2022, 3:41 pm
  3. @Pterrafractyl–

    While your obser­va­tions about the very real pos­si­bil­i­ty of a civ­il war in Ukraine, which I (per­son­al­ly) think the Nazi com­bat­ants might well win, the ease of “De-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion” is illu­so­ry.

    It is not just, or even pri­mar­i­ly, the Azov Bat­tal­ion.

    The Ukrain­ian Insti­tute of Nation­al Mem­o­ry, the Police, much of the mil­i­tary, pow­er­ful polit­i­cal fig­ures like Yaroslav Stet­sko’s for­mer per­son­al sec­re­tary Roman Svarych (three-time Min­is­ter of Justice–the equiv­a­lent of Attor­ney Gen­er­al) would all have to be “De-Naz­i­fied.”

    Good luck with that!

    Keep up the great work!

    Best,

    Dave

    Posted by Dave Emory | March 18, 2022, 4:03 pm

Post a comment