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. . . .”
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.
. . . . 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. . . .”
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. . . .”
. . . . 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 Today, The Daily Beast, The 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 UK, Brazil, Sweden, 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 Nations, regularly 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 seminars, brochures, and board games, to the proliferation of plaques, statues, 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 centers, cemeteries, tombs, 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 media. That’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 Kerry, April 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.
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:
“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?
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:
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:
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:
“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:
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:
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.
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:
“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:
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:
“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:
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:
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.
@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