Not quite as clear-cut as this.

by Max Musson

In recent days I have published two articles attempting to explain what is going on in Ukraine and the implications for White nationalists worldwide.

Events have since appeared to be spiralling out of control and following the realisation that back in 1994, Britain and the USA had signed a treaty with Ukraine guaranteeing her territorial integrity, there was a period over last weekend during which we were possibly on the brink of World War Three.

Thankfully, it appears that despite the bombastic rhetoric not even Cameron and Obama are stupid enough to declare war on Russia and all they have so far threatened Russia with are trade sanctions and political isolation. This moderate line reflects two things: firstly, that Western leaders have no stomach for a war with a country as well armed and economically powerful as Russia; and secondly, in their hearts they know that Putin has acted in a measured way to the growing crisis, taking only the minimum steps necessary in order to protect Russia’s vital strategic interests.

Indeed, we in the West should give thanks to Vladimir Putin for acting in such a way that he has been able to allay his own countries concerns without delivering such an affront to the West that war would have been precipitated. Had streams of Russian tanks and infantry poured across the border with Ukraine proper, occupying large tracts of land to which Russia has less of a legitimate claim, the outcome might have been entirely different.

Therefore while Western leaders will not like what has happened and might ‘huff’ and ‘puff’ mightily, they have not suffered such a loss of face that they feel justified in throwing common sense to the wind.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the USA remained the sole world super-power and we saw former assets of the Soviet Union: East Germany; Yugoslavia; Poland; Czechoslovakia; Bulgaria; Rumania; Latvia; Lithuania; and Estonia assert their independence and move across from the old Soviet Bloc to align with the rapidly expanding New World Order built upon Zionist and American economic imperialism.

Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, the leaders of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine had signed a treaty establishing the ‘Commonwealth of Independent States’ (CIS) as a successor entity to the USSR. At the same time they announced that the new alliance would be open to all republics of the former Soviet Union, as well as other nations sharing the same goals. The CIS charter states that all the members are sovereign and independent nations and quite soon all of the former Soviet Bloc states with the exception of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had joined the CIS.

The vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union has allowed China to rise and assume superpower status and there have been a number of other new players, but in 2000, Vladimir Putin assumed the presidency of Russia and almost immediately set about halting and reversing the decline in power and influence of the Russo-sphere.

Khodorkovsky - oligarch behind bars  
Almost immediately Putin’s leadership was tested, as not content with the geopolitical gains already made, the NWO, invigorated by the arrival of a number exiled Russian, primarily Jewish, oligarchs fleeing Putin’s retribution for their shameless pillaging of the Soviet/Russian economy, continued their attempts to prise further former Soviet Bloc republics away from the Russo-sphere. They employed what have come to be known as ‘Colour Revolutions’, and created the supposedly ‘non-aligned’, ‘Eastern Partnership’ in 2009.

First in 2000 there was what became known as the ‘Bulldozer Revolution’ in Serbia, then the ‘Rose Revolution’ in Georgia in 2003′, the first ‘Orange Revolution’ in Ukraine in 2004 and the ‘Tulip Revolution’ in Kyrgyzstan in 2005.

The Eastern partnership comprises: Armenia; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Moldova; Georgia; Ukraine and the EU, and the EU provides the executive for this group, so no prizes for guessing which was the dominant partner and what the aims of this group are!

In Ukraine however the new government installed after the 'Orange Revolution' was fairly short lived and disputes over natural gas supplies from Russia soon led to a reversal of fortunes and a return to pro-Russian government under Viktor Yanukovych in 2010.

In my earlier article entitled Ukraine – The ‘Orange Revolution’ Turning White?, I explained how an assemblage of American based governmental and non-governmental agencies of the NWO have been active in Ukraine stirring up discontent within the Ukrainian population with a view to luring Ukraine away from the Russo-sphere and towards joining the European Union and NATO. Recent visitors to Ukraine have reported large billboards promoting EU membership and bearing slogans designed stir discontent among Ukrainians prior to the beginnings of the recent disturbances in Kiev.

The following video features a speech made by Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the US State Department, who is Jewish, at an International Business Conference on Ukraine in Washington on 13th December 2013, in which she makes evident the degree of commitment and activity behind NWO machinations in Ukraine and the fact that since 1991 the US government alone has spent over $5billion on political agitation in that country.

A further illustration of the degree of meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs can be gauged from the following video which features an alleged cellphone conversation between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Wyatt the US Ambassador to Kiev, in which they can clearly be heard discussing the tactical manipulation of key individuals involved in the All Ukrainian Union, the people who have now declared themselves the new government of Ukraine. Notice also Nuland’s insulting dismissal of EU concerns about what the US is doing, saying, “fuck the EU”. This recording was apparently leaked by the Russian authorities at the beginning of February and in a subsequent news conference Nuland did not deny the authenticity of the recording, commenting only on the fact that the leaking of it violated a private diplomatic conversation.

In view of the strategic importance to Russia of her Black Sea fleet and naval base at Sevastopol in the Crimea, it was inconceivable that Vladimir Putin would sit idly by and watch as Ukraine is pried away from the Russian Bloc, letting those vital security assets fall under the control of NATO. Therefore anyone planning to establish a position of greater independence for the Ukrainian government would have been wise to ease the way for their proposals by providing firm assurances to Russia that her strategic interests would not be threatened. However, the new self-proclaimed government of Ukraine did not do this and in fact did the opposite, giving every indication that Russia’s interests would be violated.

The 19th Century German statesman Prince Otto von Bismark is famous for having asserted that “politics is the art of the possible” and there was simply no possibility that Vladimir Putin’s Russia would not act to secure their interests in the Crimea.

The new government of Ukraine is therefore now faced with either the probability that Russia will annex Crimea and possibly other majority ethnic-Russian parts of East Ukraine, or with the prospect of going to war with Russia in a conflict they cannot possibly win. They gambled on receiving military support from NATO, but NATO countries are not in a position to go to war with Russia, not unless the security of the West is directly threatened such that there is no other course of action, and certainly not simply to uphold the territorial integrity of a nation whose new leaders have just made such a dangerous miscalculation, amounting to extreme provocation, in their relationship with Russia.

For reasons already discussed in my previous articles in this series, it is understandable that Ukrainian nationalists have wanted to reduce foreign influence over their country and more especially the influence of Russia, and they have my sincere sympathy in this respect. However, they must act in a manner that is cognisant of the geopolitical power politics that are at play in their region, which make their position very precarious, and they must tailor their nationalistic fervour and their political idealism to what Bismark would have regarded as politically possible.

Nationalist  hero?
Vladimer Putin does not appear to be a White nationalist in any ideological sense, but he is widely regarded among White nationalists and European nationalists as the most nationalistic of the current crop of White leaders. He is in my opinion a pragmatic nationalist, someone who is fundamentally nationalist at heart, but driven more by what is practically achievable than by what is ideologically desirable.

Putin’s Russia is often portrayed through the Western media as imperialistic, when fundamentally, Putin is simply attempting to re-unite the Russo-sphere, protecting the interests of Russia and also protecting the interests of ethnic Russians who have been left isolated, living as a minority within former Soviet buffer states that have now become independent republics.

While the newly created independent republics of the Russo-sphere may feel somewhat aggrieved by the former domination of their countries by the Soviet Union, it would be wrong to conflate Putin’s desire to re-establish the power and influence of the Russo-sphere through the creation of a Russian Bloc with the cruelly despotic and often genocidal rule over the Russo-sphere that was a feature of the Soviet Union.

It is undoubtedly true that corruption still exists within Russia and while the system of government is not as democratic as one might hope, Russia is in this respect no different to the EU, which is often characterized by nationalists as the ‘EUSSR’, reflecting the fact that the constitution of the EU is modeled on the constitution of the old Soviet Union.

The wider geopolitical consideration for any White nationalists within the Russo-sphere should therefore be one of seeking common cause with Putin’s Russia and while not necessarily wishing to be absorbed into a ‘greater Russia’, at least acting in co-operation and in support of common interests.

For any White nationalists within the Russo-sphere to claim that they wish their nation to distance itself from Russian influence and join the EU - as a means of getting rid of corruption - and as a means of enjoying greater democracy and self-determination - is quite frankly, laughably naïve. Such an action would if nothing else be to ‘jump out of the frying pan and into the fire’. The great advantage for White nationalists of the Russo-sphere in remaining loyal to, and in supporting the Russian Bloc, is that while some elements of corruption and bureaucratic tyranny may still accompany their association with Russia, the worst excesses of NWO rule are avoided: i.e. the export of jobs and manufacturing capacity; uncontrolled Third World immigration leading to displacement and race replacement; political correctness and enforced race mixing.

In short, while association with Russia may result in some degree of exploitation and oppression of one’s people, at least Putin’s Russia is not intent on the cultural and racial obliteration of one’s people as well.

It would appear that nationalists in Ukraine may have therefore made a major strategic blunder in facilitating a coup d’etat by pro-EU/US/NWO elements within the All Ukrainian Union.

Heroic and well intended though their actions have been, there is a real danger that Svoboda and Pravy Sector (Right Sector) have not only delivered their country into the hands of agents of the NWO, they have provoked a crisis in which Vladimir Putin must act to protect Russian interests in the Black Sea and the Crimea in such a way that it now looks certain that their country will be partitioned.

It is naïve and baised to describe what we have seen happen in Crimea as having been caused by ‘Russian imperialism’, when the ‘Colour Revolutions’ and the establishment of the Eastern Partnership and the obvious meddling by Western governmental and non-governmental organizations in the internal politics of various Eastern European states, including Ukraine, are clear evidence of imperialism by financial and economic means, by subversion and sedition.

Notwithstanding all of the above, I wish Pravy Sektor luck in their attempts to create an independent nationalist Ukraine. I would feel so much more confident of a successful outcome however, if the recent revolution against the Yanukovych government had been the result of extensive planning and preparation by Pravy Sektor and Svoboda. This does not appear to have been the case however, and I fear that in making a settlement with Russia, they will now have to accept the loss of Crimea, which was an autonomous region of Ukraine, and which is populated largely by ethnic Russians, and possibly the loss some of the other largely ethnic Russian provinces of East Ukraine as well.

Ceding these areas to Russia should provide the minimal assurances that Russia would want in order to leave the rest of Ukraine alone and in order for Russia to recognise the legitimacy of the new Ukrainian government, especially once new presidential elections have been held.

Furthermore the ceding of these territories plus the provision of assurances that Ukraine would want to maintain good relations with Russia and would not allow its territory to become a station for NATO troops and missiles, should be a price that any Ukrainian nationalist would be willing to pay. The Ukrainian people have not had an independent state throughout most of their history – at various times various parts of Ukraine have been incorporated into Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. A Ukrainian state has only existed for ninety-six years and for the first seventy-three of those years it was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, part of the Soviet Union, and as such did not include Crimea, which was part of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic and therefore true independence for the Ukrainian people with retention of 90% of the territory currently designated the Ukraine, would in my view be a very satisfactory outcome. Also, just as it would be iniquitous for the Russians to seek to dominate the predominantly ethnic-Ukrainian parts of Ukraine, so it should be deemed iniquitous for the Ukrainian people to seek to dominate the ethnic-Russian Crimea and the predominantly ethnic-Russian parts of what is nominally East Ukraine.

Let us hope that some kind of compromise arrangement of this sort can be achieved and that Pravy Sektor and Svoboda are able to extend their influence within the new independent Ukraine.

Originally published at Western Spring

No comments:

Post a Comment