Lavrov’s interview for Zvezda network

April 22, 2019

Lavrov’s interview for Zvezda network

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview for Glavnoye with Olga Belova programme on Zvezda network, Moscow, April 21, 2019

http://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/3622162?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_cKNonkJE02Bw&_101_INSTANCE_cKNonkJE02Bw_languageId=en_GB

Olga Belova: Mr Lavrov, thank you so much for agreeing to this interview today. Thank you for your time. We are recording this interview on the eve of the second round of Ukraine’s presidential election, so if you would allow me, we will begin with this subject, since it is currently making headlines. Against this backdrop we cannot fail but to recall the events that took place five years ago during the 2014 election in Ukraine. Since then the question of whether Russia had to recognise the outcome of the 2014 election resurfaces from time to time in the public space. What will happen this time around? Does recognising this election make any sense? We understand all too well that Russia has many formal and moral reasons to break up all contacts with the Ukrainian authorities.

Sergey Lavrov: Five years ago when the presidential election was called in Ukraine, it happened in the aftermath of an armed and anti-constitutional government coup that, for some reason, was carried out within a day after the signing of an agreement between the opposition and President Viktor Yanukovich. Moreover, foreign ministers of Germany, Poland and France assumed the role of guarantors under this agreement that was also proactively backed by the US. But the next morning the opposition announced on Maidan Square that they had seized power and had formed a government of victors. This is when they began splitting their people apart. This agreement was signed on February 21, 2014, and if we recall its text, the first paragraph sets forth the need to form a “national unity government.” Instead, they established a government of victors, and started treating everyone else like losers. They put forward multiple requirements that ran counter to the interests of a significant part of people in Ukraine, including minorities such as Russians and Russian speakers. All this brought about serious problems and triggered a referendum in Crimea as a response to the threats made by nationalists to expel Russians from the peninsula and attempts to take over the Supreme Council building by force.

Let me mention one more event. In mid-April, that is before the election was called, but after the referendum in Crimea, Geneva hosted a meeting attended by US Secretary of State John Kerry, yours truly, EU High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, and then acting Foreign Minister of Ukraine Andrey Deshitsa. At this meeting we agreed on a one-page declaration, and its key provision consisted of supporting the intention of the Ukrainian authorities to implement federalisation, that is to decentralise the country with the involvement of all regions. A representative of the new Ukrainian government that came to power in Kiev following a coup signed this document, guaranteeing federalisation with the involvement of all regions of the country.

But this commitment was instantly forgotten. Against this backdrop, when people started to state their intention to run for president, President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko was saying on every street corner that he was a “president of peace” and would settle the conflict in a matter of two or three weeks. It is for this reason that Western capitals, Paris and Berlin, urged Russia to refrain from making a statement rejecting the election outcome. We did refrain in order to give them a chance.

In early June 2014, President-elect Petr Poroshenko met with President of France Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President of Russia Vladimir Putin, when they all attended celebrations of the allied Normandy landings. The very fact that Vladimir Putin took part in this meeting, proposed by France and Germany, attested to Russia’s commitment to peace in Donbass and protecting the rights of those who were firm in their refusal to accept an armed coup. We proceeded from the premise that Petro Poroshenko was primarily elected for this promise to resolve the problem peacefully. With this in mind, I would refrain from stirring up the past on this particular matter.

By the way, during the Normandy format meetings that followed, Petr Poroshenko proved that he was not a “president of the peace,” and was forced by the developments on the ground to sign the Minsk Agreements. Russia also believed that it was unacceptable for him to consistently fool his people, while also lying to his curators abroad, since they were irritated by Poroshenko “getting out of hand.” I am talking about the Europeans represented within the Normandy Format, namely France and Germany. When the Minsk Agreements were signed everyone let out a sigh of relief, considering that this created a clear path to peace, especially since the UN Security Council approved the Minsk Agreements, thus implementing them into international law. However, in this sphere as well Petr Poroshenko proved to be very apt in dodging responsibility, turning for protection to the US administration which does not encourage Ukraine to abide by the Minsk Agreements. The Europeans found themselves in an awkward situation.

This was a look at the past, but coming back to your question, we have seen electoral programmes released by Petr Poroshenko and Vladimir Zelensky. We see how they approached the run-off. I have the impression that what matters the most for them at this point is to attract voters by some kind of a constructive agenda in order to secure victory. This is what their efforts are all about. I would rather not draw any final conclusions on what Vladimir Zelensky’s policy will look like if he is elected president, which is a done deal as far as observers are concerned. I would refrain from paying too much attention to declarations coming from his campaign. We have to wait for the second round results when they will have to deal with real things instead of campaign slogans and propaganda. Only then will we understand what this person as president thinks about the millions of his compatriots who speak Russian, love the Russian language and culture and want to live according to their values and the values of the winners in the Great Patriotic War, instead of being guided by values that extoll Roman Shukhevich, Stepan Bandera and other Petlyuras.

Olga Belova: You said we need to wait for the president-elect to take actual steps. Everyone realises that it is imperative to sit down and talk no matter what happens. What should Kiev’s first actions, statements and steps be so that, to use your words, Moscow “gives them another chance” to a peaceful resolution of the situation?

Sergey Lavrov: Most importantly, the new or old government should be able to talk and reach agreements and to respect international law and Ukraine’s international obligations. Such obligations include an international legal instrument which is the UN Security Council resolution, which approved the Minsk Agreements. A direct dialogue between Kiev, on the one hand, and Donetsk and Lugansk, on the other hand, lies at the core of these agreements. This will be the key to success. To reiterate, we heard about the plans to continue the settlement in the election statements, in particular, on the part of Mr Zelensky and his staff, but this time with the involvement of the United States and Great Britain and without direct dialogue with the proclaimed republics − DPR and LPR.

When contenders for a post make such statements, they will then be somehow tied in with such a position in the future. I hope that life will make them realise that there’s no alternative to implementing the Minsk Agreements and, in any case, that there’s no alternative to direct dialogue with the people who represent an enormous part of your nation, if you still consider them to be such, of course.

Olga Belova: We see that so far no one has been talking to them, and there’s no direct dialogue with the republics. Recently, the DPR published the foreign policy concept which shows a certain dualism: on the one hand, there’s a commitment to the Minsk Agreements and, on the other hand, the Republic of Donbass recognises itself as an independent state. What does Moscow think about the dualism of this document? What is your vision of the future of that region following the elections?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t see anything unusual here, because these republics proclaimed sovereignty five years ago, in May 2014, responding to what we just talked about, namely, radical nationalists who came out with strong anti-Russian statements and launched an attack on the language, cultural and religious rights of ethnic minorities. It started a long time ago. These republics responded by declaring independence. Let’s remind our Western colleagues, if they ever take any interest in these unpleasant facts from recent history, that these republics did not attack the rest of Ukraine. The rest of Ukraine declared them terrorists. This, of course, is a stunning phenomenon in modern diplomacy and politics.

The rest of Ukraine was represented by the putschists who seized power in Kiev and launched an attack on millions of their fellow citizens demanding that they submit to illegal authorities. So, as I understand it, independence was simply reaffirmed in these doctrinal documents adopted in Donbass. But after this independence was declared five years ago in May − returning to what we think about the then elections and the election of Poroshenko solely because he proclaimed that his goal was immediate peace and an immediate agreement on resolving the Donbass problem by way of talks, Russia talked these republics into agreeing to a political process.

Political and diplomatic efforts were interrupted by the military actions of Kiev, which did not respect the truce and ceasefire agreement. There was the August offensive which ended badly for the Ukrainian armed forces and, most importantly, claimed a huge number of human lives, followed by the January offensive in Debaltsevo. Only after receiving a rebuff, did Petr Poroshenko sit down at the negotiating table. That’s how the Minsk Agreements were signed.

I was in Minsk and saw how the leaders of the four countries spent 17 hours at the negotiating table taking short breaks, mostly talking between themselves, and sometimes inviting us as experts to clarify certain fine points. It took considerable effort to convince the leaders of the DPR and LPR who were present in Minsk to give the go-ahead to the Minsk Agreements. We did it. We convinced them to once again demonstrate their willingness, even determination, if you will, to achieve peace with the rest of Ukraine.

Unfortunately, the way the current Ukrainian authorities see our efforts is disappointing. Despite provocations, we will push for these agreements to be implemented. We are a country that is capable of reaching agreements.

Olga Belova: That is, if I understood you correctly, Moscow is still capable and willing to continue to influence the leadership of these republics? Are we going to push them to sit down and talk as best we can, or not? I’m asking this because the leaders of the republics have made it clear that they have parted ways with Kiev.

Sergey Lavrov: You said there was a dual decision to reaffirm independence and commitment to the Minsk Agreements. To a certain extent (I will not frame it in terms of a percentage), this is the result of our influence on them and our call for them not to follow the example of the Ukrainian authorities which break down and trample upon their own promises. We will continue to exert this influence. We have long been calling, above all, the Germans and the French, to realise their responsibility for Kiev’s behaviour, because the Minsk Agreements involve, above all, proactive steps on the part of the Ukrainian authorities. The Contact Group is the only format where Donetsk, Lugansk and Kiev sit down at one table with the representatives of the OSCE and Russia. It took an inordinate amount of effort to create it, primarily because Mr Poroshenko began to back pedal shortly after the Minsk Agreements had been signed, and refused to maintain direct dialogue with the republics. But we forced our Ukrainian colleagues do that. Although in practical work − the Contact Group meets every month −  and even more often than that the Ukrainian government outwardly sabotages everything that was agreed upon, be it security, separating forces and means, the political process, coordinating the formula for conducting elections or providing this region with a special status in accordance with the Minsk Agreements. There is an open and blatant sabotage. We need to understand how the election results will affect the Ukrainian delegation’s activities in the Contact Group, and what kind of people will be delegated there.

Olga Belova: Indeed, now everything depends on how the presidential election will end, including the situation in the Kerch Strait, which was endlessly brought up in the first part of the campaign, before the first round. How harshly are we ready to respond if another provocation is made, especially considering that NATO has declared its readiness to support Ukrainian warships if they undertake another breakthrough?

Sergey Lavrov: Morally and politically – maybe they will support it. But I do not see a situation where NATO ships will join these adventurers for a military provocation. I do not foresee such a situation, and, considering the information that we have, I have reason to believe that this has already been decided at NATO.

Olga Belova: So all the support they will be getting is just words?

Sergey Lavrov: Probably, as it was the last time, a condemnation, and once again they will come up with some new sanctions. As we have said many times, we have no problem with Ukrainian warships passing from the Black Sea to their ports in the Sea of ​​Azov. The only condition is to comply with the safety requirement for navigation along the Kerch Strait. It is a complex stretch of water, which is quite shallow and doesn’t go in a straight line and requires compulsory pilotage as well as coordination when it comes to the weather conditions. All ships — and there are thousands of them — stop at the entrance to the Kerch Strait, report to the channel operators, pilotage, recommendations, and, depending on the weather forecast, move on to the Sea of ​​Azov, as was done before Ukraine’s warships last November. They passed smoothly without any incidents.

In November 2018, Petr Poroshenko, obviously during the election heat, tried to create a scandal to have reason to appeal to the West again, complaining of Russia harassing him, and insisting on more sanctions. He is better at it than many others. So the warships tried to secretly pass through the Kerch Strait, trespassing into our territorial waters – the part that was Russia’s territorial waters even before the referendum in Crimea. What they did actually boiled down to probing the limits of those who ensure the security of the Kerch Strait and the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

I must note that among the numerous arguments our opponents seem to forget is the fact that the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea actually implies a so-called unimpeded passage through the territorial waters of a foreign state, including military vessels, subject to several conditions. One of them is the mandatory fulfillment of security requirements, which in this case was grossly violated. The second is that a coastal state cannot allow military ships to maneuver through its territorial waters. That is, you either pass complying with the rules or you violate the Convention. What they did was military maneuvers, trying to hide from our border guards. This much is clear to all without exception. I have no doubt about it.

That we have nothing to hide can be confirmed by a very simple fact.

In mid-December, German Chancellor Angela Merkel asked President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin to allow German specialists to observe the process to better understand what the hitch was and to study the conditions for passing through the Kerch Strait. Vladimir Putin immediately agreed. We reaffirmed the agreement and asked for their names and dates that would suit them. They made a pause, and then suddenly my colleague, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, said at a meeting in January when I reminded him of this that they wanted to bring French experts along.

I said that was new, but I was confident that our President would also agree to French specialists being on this study tour. But after some time, the Germans sent us the concept of their visit, which was not a single visit at all but involved establishing a kind of permanent observation mission, which would be associated with the OSCE mission in Donbass, and would also include Ukrainians. All of them would be staying in our territory doing I do not know what.

Olga Belova: You mean they actually wanted to come and stay there?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, they certainly wanted to stay. The Germans are usually very punctual and precise people. When Angela Merkel asked Vladimir Putin whether their experts could come and see, he said yes… Apparently, after that, they consulted with their big brothers.

Olga Belova: So they just thought it would be a good reason to enter and station their ships there?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, but this is an absolutely hopeless story. At the same time, I can assure with all responsibility that if the Germans and the French still have an interest in visiting and seeing it firsthand, so as not to rely on the gossip that the Ukrainian side spreads, they are very welcome.

Olga Belova: You believe that Russia will not directly clash with NATO ships in the Kerch Strait because NATO will not have the courage to sail there.

But there is another place where Russian interests clash with those of its Western partners, which is Venezuela. Will Washington decide to stage a military intervention there? What do you think of this? If yes, how far is Russia ready to go in this region? Are we prepared for a direct and tough stand-off in the region that would culminate in a peace enforcement operation against those who don’t want this, provided that all legal formalities are complied with?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t want to bring up this scenario. I am convinced that Washington does not yet completely understand that its line regarding Venezuela has become deadlocked. They believed that the people of Venezuela would rebel against the incumbent government from the very outset, that they would be disappointed with the government’s inability to ensure the normal operation of the socioeconomic sector. Our Western colleagues took care of this: The United States froze the Venezuelan oil company’s accounts, and the United Kingdom impounded the country’s gold reserves. They hoped to stifle Venezuela using economic methods. When the crisis was in its early stage, they also organised humanitarian relief aid deliveries and tried to cross the Venezuelan border. Obviously, that was a very cheap show. Yes, they said all the options were on the table, but they obviously expected a blitzkrieg. However, they admit that no blitzkrieg took place. Indeed, the country faces a very complicated economic situation which was complicated and continued to deteriorate even before all this began. We repeatedly advised the government of Venezuela, at its request, how to launch economic reforms. Quite possibly, someone did not like this, and they also decided to halt this process, so as to prevent the situation from working in favour of the Maduro government. They decided to further stifle Venezuela by economic and financial methods. When the blitzkrieg petered out, when it became clear that the people of Venezuela had their own pride and a feeling of national dignity, when they became obviously insulted by a situation when, speaking from abroad, US Vice President Mike Pence noted that he was appointing Juan Guaido as Acting President, one should be very far from historical experience while hoping that the people of Venezuela would “swallow” this.

Today, when the Americans continue to say that all options are on the table, I don’t doubt the fact that they are assessing the consequences of an audacious military undertaking. It is highly unlikely that anyone in Latin America will support them. To the best of my knowledge, they are counting on one or two countries. I have no doubts, and I know that the Latin Americans have a great feeling of personal dignity. This would pose a challenge to all of them, all the more so as a righteous rejection of such a dictate has been accumulating for several months already, especially when the Americans de-mothballed the Monroe Doctrine and said it was quite appropriate to use this doctrine in the current situation.

On April 17, US National Security Adviser John Bolton said the United States was bringing its own version of freedom to the region. And what version of freedom does the region prefer? Would you like to ask them how they perceive their own freedom?

I hope very much that a line which stipulates talks and which is conducted by Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay and the Caribbean Community will prevail. President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro is ready for such talks, and he has repeatedly confirmed this in public. Juan Guaido emphatically and ostentatiously refuses, comprehending Washington’s support and counting on this support alone. It appears that he has copied the bad example of President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko who also behaved in the same way with regard to the need for conducting a national dialogue that would involve all political forces, and he hoped that Washington would shield him whatever the situation.

Olga Belova: Washington says it is bringing freedom to the region. But what is it that we are bringing to the region?

Sergey Lavrov: We want international law to be respected in the region as well as in the world at large. This means that states build their relations via dialogue and a balance of interests takes shape. This also means that we listen to each other and want to negotiate mutually beneficial security, economic and humanitarian projects as well as projects in any other spheres, where countries and peoples operate. Our relations with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) rest precisely on this basis. We are finalising talks with the South American Common Market (MERCOSUR). There is an agreement with the Central American Integration System (CAIS) and a number of other sub-regional organisations.

We have even-handed and good relations with practically all the Latin American countries. We don’t force anyone to do things we would like to get as unilateral advantages. The entire US policy towards Russia comes down to the US ambassador in any country visiting, with envious regularity, government agencies and demanding that they don’t receive Russian delegations, nor send delegations to Russia, nor trade with Russia, nor buy anything from Russia, particularly military products, and the like.

You can’t conceal information in today’s world. We learn this the moment these “visits” occur, the more so that the Americans are not particularly hiding the fact. They publicly say: Don’t communicate with Russia. It is Russia along with Iran and Cuba that are to blame for what is going on in Venezuela. They demand that not a single Russian soldier be found in Venezuela because the US wants it this way: no one located outside of the Western Hemisphere has the right to be there at all. Our explanation that the Russian military are performing contractual obligations servicing military equipment that was supplied on fully legitimate terms way back in the 2000s are simply disregarded. The fact that the US military and other NATO personnel – Britons and Canadians – have filled Ukraine is not mentioned. It looks like they proceed from logic suggested by the saying “What is allowed to Jupiter, is not allowed to the bull.” This is rotten logic, very much so, and it will not help our US colleagues. I am quite hopeful that they will come to understand this. Yes, within some historically very brief period preceding the next electoral cycles in the US, they are likely to reap certain benefits because they are brazenly putting pressure on countries that are unable to resist them. But in the long term, increasingly more countries will proceed from the assumption that America is just an unreliable and impolite partner that is abusing its influence in the world. The UN Charter insists on sovereign equality of states. We build our relations precisely in this way.

I cannot refrain from mentioning the fact that the United States has recently added a frontal attack on Orthodox Christianity to the arsenal of its policy towards Russia. Given that the Russian Orthodox Church was a world Orthodoxy leader, the crazy gamble involving the conferral of autocephality on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, known today as the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, a gamble undertaken by the Istanbul Patriarch Bartholomew, has been – we have enough facts to claim this – inspired and supported by Washington. Today Washington is engaged in tough diplomatic action as it works with other Orthodox Churches that have refused to support the Istanbul Patriarch’s self-willed decision. Its aim is to somehow make them recognise what has happened. This unceremonious and gross interference in church affairs is at odds with all diplomatic norms and international law in general. And this is deplorable.

We would like the United States to be a decent member of the world community. We are open to dialogue but their approach to relations is highly utilitarian and selfish.

They suggest that we and the Chinese cooperate with them when it comes to Afghanistan and North Korea because they are unable to operate successfully on their own there. And we accept this because a settlement in Afghanistan, on the Korean Peninsula and in Syria, on which we can communicate usefully, is also in our interests. We don’t dig in our heels and say that we will not negotiate on these issues if they don’t want to discuss other ones. Our position is more pragmatic. Russia is ready to work with all influential parties who see eye to eye with us and can help to achieve a settlement.

But generally their policy towards Russia is based solely on the wish to make us accept their unilateral domination and renounce international law. This is deplorable and cannot last ad infinitum. The Americans will be unable to sustain this course for long. They are antagonising a huge number of countries. So, it is in their best interests to come back to square one and start talking to all countries respectfully. Currently, they are doing this arrogantly, something that cannot help their interests.    

Olga Belova: We do need to talk, but so far talking to these Western partners of ours has been quite challenging. There is a saying: Those who do not want to talk with Sergey Lavrov will have to deal with Sergey Shoigu. This echoes what you have been saying. In your opinion, who is the main guardian of peace now, the military or the diplomats? What enables Russia to maintain parity: state-of-the-art armaments or the power of words? Who has priority at present?

Sergey Lavrov: When the Soviet Union was being dissolved, pro-democracy forces both here in Russia and in the West were ecstatic. There was a theory whereby the factor of strength in international relations was no longer relevant now that the bipolar world order was no more, the Cold War became a thing of the past, ideological differences faded away and we all came together on a strong democratic footing. This euphoric state persisted for several years. The situation was far from rosy of course, but as you may remember, in the 1990s Russia was young and proactive in its commitment to working with the US and NATO, all but deciding to join the alliance. However, disillusionment came very quickly. It dawned on everyone that behind the veil of these beautiful words the West meant only one thing: Russia was to give up on using the factor of strength in its policy, while the West would continue relying on it. Why was NATO still around after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved? How come we did not come together within the OSCE to transform it into a pan-European, Euro-Atlantic organisation without any western or eastern variants in order to address all questions without exception based on consensus? It did not happen. Of course, the plan they nurtured was to use Russia’s weakness in the first years after the collapse of the Soviet Union in order to achieve an overwhelming military and strategic advantage.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has talked about this on numerous occasions. It became clear to us that our positive attitude towards the West was not reciprocal. The West continued to push NATO further east in violation of all possible promises, moving its military infrastructure to our borders, and there was no end in sight, especially when the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty. At this point, everything was clear. Decisions were taken, paving the way to the development of the weapons the President presented during his address last year to the Federal Assembly. Of course, it is highly regrettable that in today’s world no one will talk to you, unless you have a strong army and cutting-edge weapons.

Olga Belova: Has it become easier to talk?

Sergey Lavrov: When I was appointed to this post, the situation was already beginning to change. However, I would not say that talking was a challenge before, and that now things are easier. Unfortunately, the US, as our main partner, labelled Russia its “high-priority adversary,” as you have said. Later the US backtracked, and propelled China to this position. Later Russia was again on the list, and after that we were accompanied by China and Iran. They want to set their policy straight. They want to be in total control, but have yet to understand how this can be done. Sanctions work in some cases, but definitely not with Russia. They will not work with other countries that respect their history and identity.

We have no problems talking with the Europeans when it comes to relations with each specific country. There are challenges in our dialogue with NATO, since the US decided to convene meetings of the Russia-NATO Council with the sole purpose of lecturing us on Ukraine and other matters or criticising us for allegedly violating and dismantling the Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. We do not intend to attend any meetings of this kind in the future. If they want to have a serious conversation, they have to convene a Russia-NATO Council meeting at the military level. The outgoing Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO Allied Command Operations, General Curtis Scaparrotti, recently voiced regret over the lack of military-to-military interaction with Russia that existed even during the Cold War. Better late than never. Let us hope that his successor in this position is receptive to this advice. This is what we hope for.

We have a very good dialogue with each country of the European Union. Yes, we sometimes happen to disagree. We have problems with the Baltic countries, with Poland, but we are ready to talk about them. Especially because the Baltic states are our neighbours, and we have good trade and investment cooperation in business. There are also security issues, because NATO is pushing its units into Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It is too close to our borders. At the same time, NATO is moving away from implementing the understandings we reached following the initiative of President of Finland Sauli Niinisto concerning flight safety over the Baltic. We responded to it; our military proposed ideas that would help allay concerns. It is possible to talk with everyone. On a bilateral basis, even the Baltic countries show interest: President of Estonia Kersti Kaljulaid has visited Moscow. We are talking in a neighbourly way about what we can do so that people can live comfortably and there would be no security concerns. But the collective platforms – NATO and the EU – are dominated by mutual responsibility: the Russophobic minority in the EU imposed sanctions on Russia, punishing us for supporting the will of the people of Crimea. This position of the European Union is now extended every six months, and no one can do anything, although individually, they assure us that the majority already understands that this is a dead end and something needs to be done. We are patient people, but as long as the EU as an organisation is not ready to restore all the mechanisms of our strategic partnership – we used to have summits twice a year, a ministerial council that oversaw more than 20 sectoral dialogues, four common spaces … All that was frozen because someone decided to try to “punish” us. Funny, honestly.

We are always open to honest, equal and respectful dialogue both through the military and through diplomatic channels. We have a very good tradition with a number of countries, in particular, with Italy and Japan, the 2 + 2 format, when Sergey Shoigu and I meet with our colleagues, the four of us. This is a very interesting format. It enables us to consider security issues through the prism of diplomacy and vice versa – purely military issues in foreign policy. We had such formats with the Americans and the British – but they froze them on their own initiative. But with the Italians and the Japanese, we continue these processes.

Olga Belova: I seem to understand why they froze them. Because when you two come to the negotiations, it’s simply impossible to resist you in such a duo.

Sergey Lavrov: Oh, don’t say that. We are modest people. Modest and polite.

Olga Belova: You’re modest and polite – but are you ready to give everyone a second chance, as with Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov: Some do not need to be given a chance – they already rely on their national interests, not on what some foreign brother tells them. But if someone digs in their heels and expects an apology from us – well, we have nothing to apologise for. Our actions are guided by international law, and the UN Charter. We respect the right of any nation to determine its own future. This also applies to the rights of national minorities, in Crimea or anywhere else. We are always ready for dialogue.

Advertisements

The Ukrainian elections – a short preview of the coming attraction

The Ukrainian elections – a short preview of the coming attraction

The Saker

April 19, 2019

Mommy! Daddy!  Look at the circus that came to town! 🙂

Well, it sure looks like the Ukrainian elections will be very interesting after all.  No, they probably won’t change anything truly important, but what is taking place is most interesting indeed.  I just want to mention a few things bullet-point style, not a real analysis (that will be for after the election), but maybe somewhat of a preview.  So, here’s what’s on my list:

Gone with the wind…

The total collapse of Poroshenko:  I just don’t have the time to go into all the (admittedly sexy) details, but I can tell you that Poroshenko’s campaign is in total disarray, every move he has made so far has been stupid and even counter-productive and after each one of this moves, his popularity score went even further down, without Zelenskii having to say a single word.  At this point, the supporters of Poro (they are called the “Porokhobots” in Russian) are desperate and most of them are switching sides as fast as they can (betraying just at the right moment, not too early and not too late, is a Ukrainian specialty and a skillset which Ukie political leaders have honed to perfection over the centuries!). Another very worrying development for Poro is that his political opponents (including the quite charismatic, if rather brutish, Nadezhna Savchenko) are being let go free from the jails they were being held in.  Furthermore, there are rumors (unconfirmed so far) that the Ukrainian State Bureau of Investigations is prosecuting pretty much the entire Urkonazi regime for various crimes, which is also a pretty good indicator that the ship is sinking and the rats running for their lives…

Frankly, at this point I don’t even think that Poro has the resources to pull off something significant as even his allies and aides are now abandoning him and refusing to carry out this orders.  He had a chance to try to pull-off some false flag or provocation, and he missed it.  Now it appears to be too late even for that.

A very merry puppet indeed!

Zelenskii sitting very pretty: amazing, Zelenskii is both 1) doing great and 2) doing nothing.  How is that for a winning strategy?!  Really, I am not kidding, Poro’s Ukronazis are so busy committing political seppuku that all Zelenskii has to do is watch, laugh and wait.  It is quite an amazing sight to hear Zelenskii limit himself to short telephone calls, short video messages and a few off the cuff comments.  The guy is not even really campaigning at all!  Yet, barring the unthinkable, he will win with a huge margin on Sunday.  You can credit Kolomoiskii’s money and advisors if you want, but the truth is that Zelenskii’s “non-campaign” has been a devastatingly effective (not to mention cheap and easy) way to campaign.

Considering how clueless and non-presidential Zelenskii looks (and sounds every time he opens his mouth), I think that keeping him basically silent was not only the most effective technique, it was the only possible one.

The hotly debated question: which outcome is better for Russia? Well, Poroshenko is not only an Ukronazi, alcoholic and war criminal, he is also the Uber-loser guy who  literally FUBARed everything he ever did, at least since he is in politics (Roshen chocolates are actually pretty good!).  If Poro steals the election, which is the ONLY way he is going to stay in power, then Russia will have a perfect pretext to 1) not recognize the outcome of this election and 2) the opportunity to have the Ukies further destroy what is left of their sorry Banderastan without Russia having to do anything at all.  Zelenskii is far more intelligent (not to mention sober) and he is much less likely to be an easy opponent.  Furthermore, Zelenskii is Kolomoiskii’s puppet, and the latter is both VERY evil and VERY smart.  A most dangerous opponent for Russia.  And then, we can be sure the the Zelenskii-Kolomoiskii duo will have the full support of the Zionists (thanks to Kolomoiskii’s very close ties to Israel).

So while many in the Ukraine and Russia understandably hate Poroshenko with all their souls, I am not at all so sure that Zelenskii will be better for the Ukraine or for Russia.  Somewhere, Poro would definitely be easier to handle.

This being said, I also understand that for the people of the Ukraine there is only one way to express their hatred and contempt for that Uber-loser Poroshenko.  Voting Zelenskii in the presidential election followed by a vote for pro-Zelenskii parties in the Rada might be just what is needed to begin jailing various Nazis and other nutcases (I don’t expect either Zelenskii or Kolomoiskii to have any patience with the Ukronazis, especially now that they have become a much bigger problem for the Ukraine than they have ever been for Russia).

As I said before, choosing between Zelenskii and Poro is about as meaningful as choosing between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola.  Having said that, Poro is the weaker, dumber, more isolated and more inept of the two, so he is probably a lesser evil for Russia.

What about the Donbass and the DNR/LNR People’s Republics – what outcome is better for them? For the same reasons, I think that Poroshenko is probably the lesser evil for the Novorussians.  Again, Poro and Zelenskii are both equally bad and even evil (Zelenskii has openly supported the Nazi death-squads and called the Novorussians “scum” – so have NO illusions on this account!) but Zelenskii and his backers are the more dangerous and sophisticated actors.  The truth is that the Novorussians must first and foremost count on their own courage and military acumen, then they can count on Russia not only to stop any (theoretically possible) Ukronazi offensive, but also to keep these two republics alive economically and politically.  Russia has done a lot, but not nearly enough and much more aid (both military and civilian) is needed by the suffering people of the Donbass.

The show *will* go on, and the “Ukie Queen” Oleg Liashko will be part of it

So could *anything* good come from the election of Zelenskii? Yes, but it is not very likely.  First, history is full of puppets who have broken away from their puppet masters.  Don’t necessarily think Obama or Trump here – these were both weak and cowardly people!  Think Putin, for example.  The US has a long and distinguished experience is losing control of its own puppets (Bin Laden, Saddam, Noriega, etc. etc. etc).  So I would never say never.  Especially since Zelenskii is young, clearly smart, and possibly courageous (dunno, too early to tell). In theory, Zelenskii could begin purging the most notorious Ukronazis.  He could also pardon the thousands of Ukrainian political prisoners who are kept incommunicado and who are held in secret jails all over the country.  By freeing them he could even make space for a lot of armed and dangerous Ukronazis nutcases who are roaming around the country freely and who represent a very real danger to Zelenskii (a group of west Ukrainian terrorists was recently caught near one of Zelenskii’s residences; they had guns and even a DShK heavy machine gun mounted inside a car!).  Again, in theory, Zelenskii might agree to some form of decentralization/federation which, by now, even the western Ukrainians want in increasing numbers.  Finally, he might decide to cut his losses and make some kind of deal with Putin directly.  Obviously, this would not be “Zelenskii’s deal” with Putin, but the entire AngloZionist Hegemony telling Kolomoiskii what he can allow Zelenskii to say or do.  How likely is that to produce any meaningful results?

After all, any Ukrainian politician in touch with reality will understand that making the Ukraine a monolithic state is a dead end, especially after many years of bloody civil war.  As for any discussions about the future of Crimea – they are a total waste of time.  Finally, I bet you that deep inside themselves the Ukrainian politicians understand that the Donbass, the LDNR, Novorussia – call it what you want – is gone forever and will never return under the control of Kiev (unless the regime in power in Kiev is one put into power by the Novorussians themselves).

Conclusion: it will be pretty easy to tell what will happen next

How long will it take until they all get it?!

If Poro steals the election, Russia will not recognize this election and the Ukraine will sink further into chaos, misery and violence.

Furthermore, Russia has (finally!) introduced some meaningful economic sanctions against the Ukraine, including a ban on the export of Russian oil and oil derivatives (a special government authorization can be requested for specific, special, cases).

If Zelenskii gets elected, one of two things will happen:

Option A: Zelenskii will rapidly and energetically resume all the rabid russophobic policies of his predecessor.  The topics of the Donbass and Crimea will be front and center of Ukie propaganda.  At this point, Russia might as well recognize the outcome of the election (I don’t see a point in pretending that Zelenskii did not “kinda” get a popular mandate) and, in the same breath, recognize the two Novorussian Republics and let them conduct a referendum on their future.

Option B: Zelenskii will rapidly and energetically try to stop (or, at least, “freeze”) the conflict with Russia and with the Donbass.  If he does that, the Kremlin will see that Zelenskii is trying to cut  his losses and gain political credibility by stopping the war in the Donbass and the (utterly stupid and self-defeating) confrontation with Russia.  At this point, Russia is likely not only to recognize the outcome of the election, but also serve as a mediator between the Novorussians and the Zelenskii government in Kiev to offer some kind of compromise centered around a de factoindependence of the two republics combined with some kind of de jure (only!) Ukrainian sovereignty over these republics, even if only symbolical.

At least so far, all the signs are that Zelenskii will go with Option A and resume Poro’s antirussian policies which, considering that Zelenskii is a puppet of Kolomoiskii, who himself is a puppet of the AngloZionist Empire (with, in his case, the stress of the “Zionist” part of the name) certainly makes sense.

Last minute updates:

Thursday April 18th: Poroshenko recorded an address to the Ukrainian people in which he 1) apologizes for this mistakes and 2) blames all his mistakes on Putin.  Go figure Ukronazi “logic”….

Projection by the latest (semi-credible) poll

Thursday April 18th: Zelenskii did end up giving one real interview, in which he said that Putin was an enemy and that the Donbass should not have any special status. He also said that the fact that Stepan Bandera is a hero for many Ukrainians is “awesome/cool” (класно).  Having a Russian-speaking Jew say this about a guy who pledged allegiance to Hitler and who massacred scores of Jews is rather amazing, especially on the eve of the Jewish Passover is quite a sight.  But then again, the Nazi-occupied Ukraine is the kind of Banderastan were you find Nazis and Jews happily joining forces against their common foe: Russia in general and Orthodox Russia especially.  So forget the (comparatively nicer looking) Zelenskii and think Kolomoiskii.  In other words, lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate…

Friday April 19th:  (1300 UTC) a debate between Poroshenko and Zelenskii is supposed to take place in a soccer stadium in Kiev.  There will be two stages, one for each candidate – this makes it easier to kill one and not the other; that, at least, is the explanations given by many in Kiev.  Rumors about some kind of bomb, or sniper attack, or riots are circulating in the Ukrainian social media and tensions are very high.  One of the main Ukronazi journalists has even begged Zelenskii not to go to this debate and asked him “do you want to be killed”?  These rumors are all helping Zelenskii who is presenting himself like the young, innocent and sincere candidate facing the evil and corrupt state machine controlled by Poroshenko.

The separate “for TV kneeling” of the candidates

Friday April 19th: (1600 UTC) the much expected debate has begun.  First surprise, Poro walked over to the Zelenskii stage.  First Zelenskii spoke pretty poorly.  Then Poro took the floor and immediately jumped on his favorite horse: Putin and Russia.  He also pointed out that he is experienced whereas Zelenskii is a noob.  After that, the debate became outright boring and of very low quality: the two candidates did not answer each other’s question, Zelenskii offered Poro to together stand on their knees before all the suffering Ukrainians, which Zelenskii himself proceeded to immediately do; Poro instead turned his back and kissed the Ukie flag (see screenshot of that bizarre moment on the right)

Friday April 19th: (1700 UTC) the debate is over.  Frankly, both Poroshenko and Zelenskii did very poorly.  Both tried a few cheap tricks, which mostly failed to elicit any major reaction, and now the “democratic charade” is over.

Barring something truly major and earth-shattering, Zelenskii will win.  After that, we can expect Kolomoiskii to take control of most of the government within 30 days or less.  Thus the AngloZionist Empire will re-take control of a FUBARed country the control of which it has been slowly but inexorably losing.  I don’t expect the elections to the Rada to change much to the new power configuration in the Ukraine.

Political debate Ukronazi style: in a stadium with folks in battle fatigues on the stage

It is high time now for Russia to pull the plug on this Ukronazi experiment in “russophobic independence”.  That does not necessarily mean rejecting the outcome of the election, but it does mean that it is high time for Russia to recognize the two republics.  I don’t hold much hope for negotiations with Zelenskii because such negotiations are essentially negotiations with the Zelenskii’s AngloZionist puppet masters with whom negotiations have been made impossible since early 2014.  Simply put: there is no point in negotiating anything with anybody for Russia as long as there are no halfway “agreement capable” partners to negotiate with.  As of now, I see no such partners.  Hence, Russia must embark on policy of unilateral actions.  If the 5th columnists don’t prevail, I expect that that is exactly what Russia will do from now on.

So who will win on Sunday?  Will it be the Big Crook or the Little Crook?

Nobody know, but I can give a a firm prediction: it will be a crook.

The Saker

The Saker interviews Dmitry Orlov

April 16, 2019

The Saker interviews Dmitry Orlov

[This interview was originally made for the Unz Review]

“I think that the American empire is very much over already, but it hasn’t been put to any sort of serious stress test yet, and so nobody realizes that this is the case”

If I had to characterize the current international situation using only one word, the word “chaos” would be a pretty decent choice (albeit not the only one).  Chaos in the Ukraine, chaos in Venezuela, chaos everywhere the Empire is involved in any capacity and, of course, chaos inside the USA.  But you wouldn’t know that listening to the talking heads and other “experts” who serve roughly the same function for the Empire as the orchestra did on the Titanic: to distract from the developing disaster(s) for a long as possible.

I decided to turn to the undisputed expert on social and political collapse, Dmitry Orlov whom I have always admired for his very logical, non-ideological, comparative analyses of the collapse of the USSR and the USA.  The fact that his detractors have to resort to crude and, frankly, stupid ad hominems further convinces me that Dmitry’s views need to be widely shared.  Dmitry very kindly agreed to reply to my questions in some detail, for which I am most grateful.  I hope that you will find this interview as interesting as I did.

The Saker
——-

The Saker: How would you assess the current situation in the Ukraine in terms of social, economic and political collapse?

Dmitry Orlov: The Ukraine has never been viable as an independent, sovereign state and so its ongoing disintegration is to be expected. The applicability of the concept of collapse is predicated on the existence of an intact, stand-alone entity capable of collapse, and with the Ukraine this is definitely not the case. Never in its history has it been able to stand alone as a stable, self-sufficient, sovereign entity. As soon as it gained independence, it just fell over. Just as the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), it had reached its peak of economic and social development just as the USSR was about to collapse, and it has been degenerating and losing population ever since. Thus, the right model for discussing it is not one of sudden collapse but of steady degeneration and decay.

The Ukraine’s territory was stuck together by the Bolsheviks—first by Lenin, then by Stalin, then by Khrushchev. It was Lenin who lumped in its eastern regions (Donetsk and Lugansk specifically) who previously were part of Russia proper. Stalin then added eastern lands, which were at various times Polish, Austro-Hungarian or Romanian. Finally, Khrushchev tossed in Russian Crimea in a move that was unconstitutional at the time, since no public referendum had been held in Crimea to decide this question as was required by the Soviet constitution.

Prior to this Bolshevik effort, “Ukraina” was not used as a proper political or geographic designation. The territory was considered part of Russia, distinguished from the rest by a prefix “Malo-” (small) and called “Malorossiya. The word “ukraina” is simply an archaic form of the Russian word “okraina” (outskirts, border land). This is why the definite article “the” is required: the Ukraine is literally “the outskirts of Russia.” The Soviets endowed this border land with a make-believe identity and forced many of its inhabitants to officially deckare their ethnicity as “Ukrainian” in a successful bid to gain an additional seat a the UN.

This political concoction was supposedly held together by a Ukrainian ethnic identity, which is itself a concoction. The Ukrainian language is some combination of southern Russian village dialects with a bit of Polish thrown in as flavoring. It has a lilt to it that Russians find enchanting, making it well suited for folk songs. But it never had much practical merit, and the working language of the Ukrainians was always Russian. Even today Ukrainian nationalists switch to Russian if the subject matter is demanding enough. Religiously, most of the population has been for many centuries and still is Russian Orthodox.

In my conversations about the Ukraine with many Ukrainians over the years I discovered a shocking truth: unlike the Russians, the Ukrainians seem to have exactly zero ethnic solidarity. What binds them together is their commonality of historical experience as part of the Russian Empire, then the USSR, but this historical legacy is being actively erased. After the Soviet collapse and Ukrainian independence there followed a campaign to de-Sovietize and de-Russianize the Ukraine, deprecating this common historical legacy and replacing it with a synthetic Ukrainian identity based on a falsified history that is alien to most of the population. This fake history lionizes Nazi collaborators and attempts to rub out entirely all memory of the Ukraine’s once very active role in the larger Russian world.

Thus we have a mostly Russian-speaking, historically mostly Russian territory where most of the people speak either Russian (some of them with an accent) or a sort of Ukrainian patois called Surzhik, which is Ukrainian-sounding but with mostly Russian words (the overlap between the two languages is so great that it is difficult to draw the line between them). Supposedly proper Ukrainian is spoken in the west of the country, which had never been part of the Russian Empire, but it’s a dialect that is mostly unintelligible in the rest of the country.

In spite of this confused linguistic situation, Ukrainian was imposed as the language of instruction throughout the country. Lack of textbooks in Ukrainian and lack of teachers qualified to teach in Ukrainian caused the quality of public education to plummet, giving rise to several generations of Ukrainians who don’t really know Ukrainian, have had little formal instruction in Russian, and speak a sort of informal half-language. More recently, laws have been passed that severely restrict the use of Russian. For example, people who have never spoken a word of Ukrainian are now forced to use it in order to shop or to obtain government services.

The artificial, synthetic Ukrainian identity is too thin to give the country a sense of self or a sense of direction. It is a purely negative identity: Ukraine is that which is not Russia. The resulting hole in public consciousness was plugged by making a cargo cult of European integration: it was announced that the Ukraine was leaving the Russian world behind and joining the European Union and NATO. Most recently the intent to join the EU and NATO was written directly into the Ukrainian constitution. In the meantime, it has become abundantly clear that neither EU nor NATO membership is the least bit likely, or necessary: the EU got everything it wanted from the Ukraine by forcing it to sign the Association Agreement while giving nothing of value in return; and Ukrainian territory already serves as a playground for NATO training exercises.

Thus, with regard to social collapse, there really isn’t much to discuss, because the term “Ukrainian society” has very little basis in reality. If we drop the conceit that the Ukraine is a country that can be viable if separated from Russia, what can we say about its chances as part of a Greater Russia?

Here I have to digress to explain the difference between a proper empire and the USSR. A proper empire functions as a wealth pump that sucks wealth out of its imperial possessions, be they overseas, as in the case of the British Empire, or part of the periphery, as in the case of the Russian Empire. The latter inherited the traditions of the Mongol Empire that predated it. The Mongol term “tamga” was often used to indicate the annual tribute to be collected from newly conquered tribes as the Russian Empire expanded east. (Many of these tribes were previously Mongol subjects who understood the meaning of the term.)

Here is the key point: the USSR was not a normal empire at all. Instead of functioning as a wealth pump that pumped wealth from the periphery to the imperial center, it functioned as a revolutionary incubator, exploiting the resources of the core (Russia) and exporting them to the periphery to build socialism, with the further goal of fomenting global communist revolution. The various ethnic groups that were grossly over represented among the Bolsheviks were all from the periphery—the Jewish Pale, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, the Caucasus and the Baltics—and they thought nothing of sacrificing Mother Russia on the altar of world revolution.

Their revolutionary zeal was hindered by its utter lack of practical merit. As this came to be recognized, Leon Trotsky—the great exponent of world revolution—was first exiled, then assassinated. Later, when it became clear that without appealing to Russian patriotic sentiments the task of prevailing against Nazi Germany was unlikely to succeed, Stalin brought back the Russian Orthodox Church and made other efforts toward the restoration of Russian ethnic identity that were previously decried as retrograde and chauvinistic. There were significant setbacks to this process as well: in the 1940s a group of communist leaders from Leningrad attempted to promote Russian interests through regional cooperation. They were purged and suffered political repression in what became known as the “Leningrad affair.”

Luckily, the idea of Russia as a disposable staging ground for world communist revolution was never fully implemented. However, the tendency to exploit Russia for the benefit of its Soviet periphery remained intact. The USSR’s most significant leaders—Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev—were not Russian; Stalin was a Georgian while the latter two were Ukrainian. All the other Soviet republics had their own communist party organizations that developed cadres to send to Moscow, while Russia itself lacked such an organization. The inevitable result was that most of the other Soviet republics were able to suck resources out of Russia, making them far more prosperous than Russia itself.

Thus, the image of the USSR as a typical empire is simply wrong. The right mental image of the USSR is that of a prostrate, emaciated sow (Russia) being suckled by 14 fat, greedy piglets (the other Soviet Socialist Republics). For all his numerous failings, Boris Yeltsin did one thing right: he dismantled the USSR (although the way he went about it was beyond incompetent and verged on treason).

If you are in need of an explanation for why Russia is now resurgent, increasingly prosperous and able to invest vast sums in hypersonic weapons systems and in modernized infrastructure for its people, this is it: the 14 piglets had been sent off to root for themselves. This bit of perspective, by the way, puts paid to the rank idiocy of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard”: his theory that Russia wants to be an empire but cannot do so without the Ukraine shatters on contact with the realization that Russia hasn’t been an empire for over a century now and has no need or desire to become one again.

In any case, these days empires are a bit retro, you know, and not at all useful except as a way for silly Americans to finish bankrupting themselves. Russia needs reliable trading partners who can pay their own way, not ungrateful dependents clamoring for handouts. Just bringing Crimea up to Russia’s contemporary standards after 30 years of Ukrainian neglect has turned out to be a monumental task; as far as doing that for the rest of the Ukraine—forget it!

So, armed with this perspective, what can we say about the Ukraine from the contemporary Russian perspective?

First and foremost, it is a freak show, as attested by the content of Russian talk shows on which Ukrainian experts appear as clownish, indestructible cartoon characters: whenever their risible arguments on behalf of the Ukraine blow up in their faces, for a moment they stand there charred and furious, then brush themselves off and appear in the next segment fresh as daisies. This freak show has certain didactic merit: it helps the Russian body politic develop powerful antibodies against Western hypocrisy, because it was Western meddling that has made contemporary Ukraine into the horrible mess it is. But this was, in a sense, inevitable: deprived of the Soviet teat, the Ukraine has been attempting to suckle up to the US and EU for 30 years now and, failing that, has been carving up and roasting its own loins.

Second, the Ukraine is a rich source of immigrants, having lost around a third of its population since independence. Much of its population qualifies as Russian: linguistically, culturally and religiously they are perfectly compatible with the Russian population. Ukrainians are already the third most populous ethnic group within Russia (after Russians and Tatars) and Russia has been able to absorb the Ukrainians that have been fleeing to Russia in recent years. As the Ukraine’s population dwindles, a natural sorting-out is taking place. Those who are most compatible with the Russian world tend to move to Russia while the rest go to Poland and other EU countries.

Lastly, there is a significant amount of fatigue in Russia with the Ukrainian subject. It is currently a major topic of discussion because of the farcical presidential elections currently taking place there, but more and more one hears the question: “Must we continue talking about this?” There just isn’t anything positive to say about the Ukraine, and people tend to just shake their heads and switch to another channel. Thus, the final element of the Russian perspective on the Ukraine is that it’s painful to look at and they would rather go look at something else.

However, this is not to be. For ample historical reasons, Russia remains the Ukraine’s largest trade partner. Russian and Ukrainian economies were conceived of as a unit, based on the same set of plans, standards and regulations. In spite of concerted politically motivated efforts by Ukrainian leaders to sever these links, many of them have stubbornly remained in place, for lack of alternatives. Meanwhile, the Ukraine makes very little that the European Union or the rest of the world would want, and very little of it complies with EU’s voluminous standards and regulations. Specifically, the EU has no use at all for Ukrainian manufactured goods, and primarily sees the Ukraine as a source of cheap raw materials and labor.

It is Russia that supplies the nuclear fuel for the Ukraine’s aging nuclear power plants which provide well over half of all the electricity there, while Russian coal (anthracite, specifically) supplies much of the rest. But, for political reasons, Ukrainian officials are loath to admit the fact that the umbilical cord that connects the Ukraine to Russia cannot be severed. For example, they do not buy Russian natural gas directly but through intermediaries in the EU and at a mark-up (part of which they pocket). On paper, the Ukraine imports gas from the EU; physically, the methane molecules piped in from Russia never leave Ukrainian territory; they are simply diverted for local use.

By the time the USSR collapsed, the Ukraine was its most highly developed and possibly its richest part, and some people expected that, having thrown off the Soviet yoke, its future would be too bright to look at without goggles. It had abundant natural resources (fertile land, coal) and an educated labor force. It manufactured numerous high-tech products such as jet aircraft, marine diesels, helicopter engines, rocket engines and much else that was the best in the world. Instead, what has occurred is several decades of thievery, stagnation and decay. By now the Ukraine has lost most of its industry and the Soviet-era infrastructure has decayed to the point where much of it is worn out and on the verge of collapse. Industry has shut down and the specialists it once employed have either retired or have gone off to work in Russia, in the EU or in the US. (Some Ukrainian rocket scientists have apparently gone off to work in North Korea, and this explains the DPRK’s recent stunning successes in rocketry as well as its unlikely, exotic choice of rocket fuel: unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine.)

The Saker: What about the Donbas republics? How would you compare the situation in Novorussia with what is taking place in the Ukraine?

Dmitry Orlov: The term “Novorossiya” (New Russia) goes back several centuries, to the time Catherine the Great expanded the Russian Empire to include Crimea and other southern possessions. What Lenin reassigned to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic were Russian lands, Donetsk and Lugansk regions among them.

There are several other Ukrainian regions that are almost entirely Russian—Kharkov and Odessa specifically—but Donetsk and Lugansk are not Ukrainian in the least. This is why, after the government overthrow of 2014, when it became clear that the intentions of the Ukrainian nationalists who seized power in Kiev were to oppress the Russian part of the population, these two regions decided to strike out on their own. The Ukrainian nationalists reacted by launching a civil war, which started exactly five years ago, and which they have lost. To save face, they have declared their defeat the result of a “Russian invasion” but have been unable to present any evidence of it. Had the Russians invaded, the result would have been a replay of Russia’s action in Georgia in August of 2008, which lasted about a week.

The Ukrainians are continuing to lob missiles into the territories of Donetsk and Lugansk, causing sporadic civilian casualties. Once in a while they stage minor skirmishes, suffer casualties and pull back. But mostly their “Anti-Terrorist Operation,” which is what they are calling this civil war, has turned into a propaganda initiative, with the mythical “Russian invaders” invoked at every turn to explain their otherwise inexplicable string of defeats.

After some amount of effort by NATO instructors to train the Ukrainians, the instructors gave up. The Ukrainians simply laughed in their faces because it was clear to them that the instructors did not know how to fight at all. It was then decided that the “road map” for Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO should be set aside because the Ukrainians are just too crazy for sedate and sedentary NATO. The trainers were then replaced with CIA types who simply collected intelligence on how to fight a high-intensity ground war without air support—something that no NATO force would ever consider doing. Under such conditions NATO forces would automatically retreat or, failing that, surrender.

Meanwhile, the two eastern regions, which are highly developed economically and have a lot of industry, have been integrating ever more closely into the Russian economy. Their universities and institutes are now fully accredited within the Russian system of higher education, their currency is the ruble, and although in terms of international recognition they remain part of the Ukraine, it is very important to note that the Ukraine does not treat them as such.

The Ukrainian government does not treat the citizens of Donetsk and Lugansk as its citizens: it does not pay their pensions, it does not recognize their right to vote and it does not provide them with passports. It lays claim to the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk but not to the people who reside there. Now, genocide and ethnic cleansing are generally frowned upon by the international community, but an exception is being made in this case because of Russophobia: the Russian people living in Donetsk and Lugansk have been labeled as “pro-Russian” and are therefore legitimate targets.

Russia has been resisting calls to grant official recognition to these two People’s Republics or to provide overt military support (weapons and volunteers do filter through from the Russian side without any hindrance, although the flow of volunteers has been slowing down of late). From a purely cynical perspective, this little war is useful for Russia. If in the future the Ukraine fails completely and fractures into pieces, as appears likely, and if some of these pieces (which might theoretically include not just Donetsk and Lugansk regions but also Kharkov, Odessa and Dnepropetrovsk) clamor to join Russia, then Russia would face a serious problem.

You see, over the past 30 years most Ukrainians have been content to sit around drinking beer and watching television as their country got looted. They saw no problem with going out to demonstrate and protest provided they were paid to do it. They voted the way they were paid to vote. They didn’t take an issue with Ukrainian industry shutting down as long as they could work abroad and send money back. They aren’t enraged or even embarrassed by the fact that their country is pretty much run from the US embassy in Kiev. About the only ones with any passion among them are the Nazis who march around with torches and sport Nazi insignia. In short, these aren’t the sort of people that any self-respecting country would want to have anything to do with, never mind absorb them into its population en masse, because the effect would be to demoralize its entire population.

But the people of Donetsk and Lugansk are not like that at all. These coal miners, factory workers and cab drivers have been spending days and nights in the trenches for years now, holding back one of Europe’s larger militaries, and fighting for every square meter of their soil. If the Ukraine is ever to be reborn as something that Russia would find acceptable, it is these people who can provide the starter culture. They have to win, and they have to win without any help from the Russian military, which can squash the Ukrainian military like a bug, but what would be the point of doing that? Thus, Russia provides humanitarian aid, business opportunities, some weapons and some volunteers, and bides its time, because creating a viable new Ukraine out of a defunct one is a process that will take considerable time.

The Saker: What is your take on the first round of Presidential elections in the Ukraine?

Dmitry Orlov: The first round of the elections was an outright fraud. The object of the exercise was to somehow allow president Poroshenko to make it into the second round. This was done by falsifying as many votes as was necessary. In a significant number of precincts the turnout was exactly 100% instead of the usual 60% or so and counted votes from people who had moved, died or emigrated. All of these fake votes went to Poroshenko, allowing him to slither through to the second round.

Now the fight is between Poroshenko and a comedian named Vladimir Zelensky. The only difference between Poroshenko and Zelensky, or any of the other 30+ people who appeared on the ballot, is that Poroshenko has already stolen his billions while his contestants have not had a chance to do so yet, the only reason to run for president, or any elected office, in the Ukraine, being to put oneself in a position to do some major thieving.

Thus, there is an objective reason to prefer Zelensky over Poroshenko, which is that Poroshenko is a major thief while Zelensky isn’t one yet, but it must be understood that this difference will begin to equalize the moment after Zelensky’s inauguration. In fact, the elites in Kiev are currently all aquiver over their ingenious plan to sell off all of Ukraine’s land to foreign investors (no doubt pocketing a hefty “fee”).

The platforms of all the 30+ candidates were identical, but this makes no difference in a country that has surrendered its sovereignty. In terms of foreign relations and strategic considerations, the Ukraine is run from the US embassy in Kiev. In terms of its internal functioning, the main prerogative of everyone in power, the president included, is thievery. Their idea is to get their cut and flee the country before the whole thing blows up.

It remains to be seen whether the second round of elections will also be an outright fraud and what happens as a result. There are many alternatives, but none of them resemble any sort of exercise in democracy. To be sure, what is meant by “democracy” in this case is simply the ability to execute orders issued from Washington; inability to do so would make Ukraine an “authoritarian regime” or a “dictatorship” and subject to “regime change.” But short of that, nothing matters.

The machinations of Ukraine’s “democrats” are about as interesting to me as the sex lives of sewer rats, but for the sake of completeness, let me flowchart it out for you. Poroshenko got into second round by outright fraud, because the loss of this election would, within the Ukrainian political food chain, instantly convert him from predator to prey. However, he was none too subtle about it, there is ample proof of his cheating, and the contender he squeezed out—Yulia Timoshenko—could theoretically contest the result in court and win. This would invalidate the entire election and leave Poroshenko in charge until the next one. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Another option would be for Poroshenko to cheat his way past the second round (in an even more heavy-handed manner, since this time he is behind by over 30%), in which case Zelensky could theoretically contest the result in court in win. This would invalidate the entire election and leave Poroshenko in charge until the next one. Lather, rinse, repeat. Are you excited yet?

None of this matters, because we don’t know which of the two is the US State Department’s pick. Depending on which one it is, and regardless of the results of any elections or lawsuits, a giant foot will come out of the sky and stomp on the head of the other one. Of course, it will all be made to look highly democratic for the sake of appearances. The leadership of the EU will oblige with some golf claps while choking back vomit and the world will move on.

The Saker: Where is, in your opinion, the Ukraine heading?  What is your best “guesstimate” of what will happen in the short-to-medium term future?

Dmitry Orlov: I believe that we will be subjected to more of the same, although some things can’t go on forever, and therefore won’t. Most worryingly, the Soviet-era nuclear power plants that currently provide most of the electricity in the Ukraine are nearing the end of their service life and there is no money to replace them. Therefore, we should expect most of the country to go dark over time. Likewise, the natural gas pipeline that currently supplies Russian gas to both the Ukraine and much of the EU is worn out and ready to be decommissioned, while new pipelines being laid across the Baltic and the Black Sea are about to replace it. After that point the Ukraine will lose access to Russian natural gas as well.

If the Ukrainians continue to surrender unconditionally while placating themselves with pipe dreams of EU/NATO membership, the country will depopulate, the land will be sold off to Western agribusiness, and it will become a sort of agricultural no man’s land guarded by NATO troops. But that sort of smooth transition may be hard for the EU and the Americans to orchestrate. The Ukraine is rather highly militarized, is awash with weapons, full of people who have been circulated through the frontlines in Donbas and know how to fight, and they may decide to put up a fight at some point. It must be remembered that the Ukrainians, in spite of the decay of the last 30 years, still have something of the Russian fighting spirit in them, and will fight like Russians—until victory or until death. NATO’s gender-ambivalent military technicians would not want to get in their way at all.

Also the dream of a depopulated Ukraine to be turned into a playground for Western agribusiness may be hindered somewhat by the fact that the Russians take a very dim view of Western GMOs and wouldn’t like to see GMO-contaminated pollen blowing across their border from the West. They would no doubt find some least-effort way to make the attempt at Western agribusiness in the Ukraine unprofitable. Orchestrating a smallish but highly publicized radiation leak from one of the ancient Ukrainian nuke plants would probably work. Rather weirdly, Westerners think nothing of poisoning themselves with glyphosphate but are deathly afraid of even a little bit of ionizing radiation.

The Saker: What about the EU and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? Where is the EU heading in your opinion?

Dmitry Orlov: The EU has a number of major problems. It isn’t fiscally or monetarily healthy. As a whole, or as its constituent nations, it is no longer capable of the exercise of its full sovereignty, having surrendered it to the US. But the US is no longer able to maintain control, because it is internally conflicted to the point of becoming incoherent in its pronouncements. Overall, the structure looks like a matryoshka doll. You have the US, as a sort of cracked outer shell. Inside of it is NATO, which is an occupying force across most of Europe right up to the Russian border. It would be useless against Russia, but it can pose a credible threat of violence against the occupied populations. Inside of NATO is the EU—a political talking shop plus a sprawling bureaucracy that spews forth reams upon reams of rules and regulations.

Since none of this military/political superstructure is actually structural without the key ingredient of US hegemony, we shouldn’t expect it to perform particularly well. It will continue as a talking shop while various national governments attempt to reclaim their sovereignty. British referendum voters have certainly tried to prod their government in that direction, and in response their government has been experimenting with various methods of rolling over and playing dead, but a different government might actually try to execute the will of the people. On the other hand, the governments of Hungary and Italy have made some headway in the direction of reasserting their sovereignty, with public support.

But nothing has really happened yet. Once the political elite of any nation has been thoroughly emasculated by the surrender of its national sovereignty, it takes a while for it to grow back its chest hair and to start posing a credible threat to transnational interests. Even in Russia it took close to a decade to thwart the political power and influence of the oligarchy. We can see that the empire is weakening and that some countries are starting to balk at being vassals, but nothing definitive has happened yet.

What may speed things up is that Europe, along with the US, appear to be heading into a recession/depression. One effect of that will be that all the East European guest workers working in the west will be forced to head back home. Another will be that EU’s subsidies to its recent eastern acquisitions—Poland and the Baltics especially—are likely to be reduced substantially or to go away altogether. The influx of returning economic migrants combined with the lack of financial support are likely to spell the demise of certain national elites which have been feasting on Western largesse in return for a bit of Russophobia.

We can imagine that this swirling tide of humanity, ejected from Western Europe, will head east, slosh against the Great Wall of Russia, and flood back into the west, but now armed with Ukrainian weapons and knowhow and entertaining thoughts of plunder rather than employment. There they will fight it out with newcomers from Middle East and Africa while the natives take to their beds, hope for the best and think good thoughts about gender neutrality and other such worthy causes.

These old European nations are all aging out, not just in terms of demographics but in terms of the maximum age allotted by nature to any given ethnos. Ethnoi (plural of “ethnos”) generally only last about a thousand years, and at the end of their lifecycle they tend to exhibit certain telltale trends: they stop breeding well and they become sexually depraved and generally decadent in their tastes. These trends are on full display already. Here’s a particularly absurd example: French birth certificates no longer contain entries for father and mother but for parent1 and parent2. Perhaps the invading barbarians will see this and die laughing; but what if they don’t?

No longer able to put up much of a fight, such depleted ethnoi tend to be easily overrun by barbarians, at which point they beg for mercy. In turn, based on the example of the late Roman Empire as well as similar ones from Chinese and Persian history, granting them mercy is one of the worst mistakes a barbarian can make: the result is a bunch of sexually depraved and generally decadent barbarians… to be easily overrun and slaughtered by the next bunch of barbarians to happen along.

What will spark the next round of Western European ethnogenesis is impossible to predict, but we can be sure that at some point a mutant strain of zealots will arrive on the scene, with a dampened instinct for self-preservation but an unslakable thirst for mayhem, glory and death, and then it will be off to the races again.

The Saker: What will happen once Nord Stream II is finished? Where is Europe heading next, especially in its relationship with the USA and Russia?

Dmitry Orlov: The new pipelines under the Baltic and the Black Sea will be completed, along with the second LNG installation at Sabetta, and Russia will go on supplying natural gas to Europe and Asia. I suspect that the fracking extravaganza in the US is entering its end game and that the dream of large-scale LNG exports to Europe will never materialize.

The nations of Europe will gradually realize that its relationship with Russia is mostly beneficial while its relationship with the US is mostly harmful, and will make certain adjustments. The Ukraine, its natural gas pipeline system decrepit and beyond repair, will continue to import natural gas from Europe, only now the methane molecules will actually flow to it from the west rather from the east.

The Saker: How do you see the political climate in Russia? I hear very often that while Putin personally and the Kremlin’s foreign policy enjoy a great deal of support, the pension reform really hurt Putin and that there is now an internal “patriotic opposition” (as opposed to paid and purchased for by the CIA & Co,. which is becoming more vocal. Is that true?

It is true that there isn’t much debate within Russia about foreign policy. Putin’s popularity has waned somewhat, although he is still far more popular than any national leader in the West. The pension reform did hurt him somewhat, but he recovered by pushing through a raft of measures designed to ease the transition. In particular, all the benefits currently enjoyed by retirees, such as reduced public transit fees and reduced property taxes, will be extended to those nearing retirement age.

It is becoming clear that Putin, although he is still very active in both domestic and international politics, is coasting toward retirement. His major thrust in domestic politics seems to be in maintaining very strict discipline within the government in pushing through his list of priorities. How he intends to effect the transition to the post-Putin era remains a mystery, but what recently took place in Kazakhstan may offer some clues. If so, we should expect a strong emphasis on continuity, with Putin maintaining some measure of control over national politics as a senior statesman.

But by far the most significant change in Russian politics is that a new generation of regional leaders has been put into place. A great many governorships have been granted to ambitious young managers with potential for national office. They are of a new breed of thoroughly professional career politicians with up-to-date managerial skills. Meanwhile, a thorough cleaning out of the ranks has taken place, with some high-ranking officials doing jail time for corruption. What’s particularly notable is that some of these new regional leaders are now as popular or more popular than Putin. The curse of gerontocracy, which doomed the Soviet experiment, and which now afflicts the establishment in the US, no longer threatens Russia.

The Saker: You recently wrote an article titled “Is the USS Ship of Fools Taking on Water?” in which you discuss the high level of stupidity in modern US politics?  I have a simple question for you: do you think the Empire can survive Trump and, if so, for how long?

Dmitry Orlov: I think that the American empire is very much over already, but it hasn’t been put to any sort of serious stress test yet, and so nobody realizes that this is the case. Some event will come along which will leave the power center utterly humiliated and unable to countenance this humiliation and make adjustments. Things will go downhill from there as everyone in government in media does their best to pretend that the problem doesn’t exist. My hope is that the US military personnel currently scattered throughout the planet will not be simply abandoned once the money runs out, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if that is what happens.

The Saker: Lastly, a similar but fundamentally different question: can the USA (as opposed to the Empire) survive Trump and, if so, how? Will there be a civil war? A military coup? Insurrection? Strikes? A US version of the Yellow Vests?

Dmitry Orlov: The USA, as some set of institutions that serves the interests of some dwindling number of people, is likely to continue functioning for quite some time. The question is: who is going to be included and who isn’t? There is little doubt that retirees, as a category, have nothing to look forward to from the USA: their retirements, whether public or private, have already been spent. There is little doubt that young people, who have already been bled dry by poor job prospects and ridiculous student loans, have nothing to look forward to either.

But, as I’ve said before, the USA isn’t so much a country as a country club. Membership has its privileges, and members don’t care at all what life is like for those who are in the country but aren’t members of the club. The recent initiatives to let everyone in and to let non-citizens vote amply demonstrates that US citizenship, by itself, counts for absolutely nothing. The only birthright of a US citizen is to live as a bum on the street, surrounded by other bums, many of them foreigners from what Trump has termed “shithole countries.”

It will be interesting to see how public and government workers, as a group, react to the realization that the retirements they have been promised no longer exist; perhaps that will tip the entire system into a defunct state. And once the fracking bubble is over and another third of the population finds that it can no longer afford to drive, that might force through some sort of reset as well. But then the entire system of militarized police is designed to crush any sort of rebellion, and most people know that. Given the choice between certain death and just sitting on the sidewalk doing drugs, most people will choose the latter.

And so, Trump or no Trump, we are going to have more of the same: shiny young IT specialists skipping and whistling on the way to work past piles of human near-corpses and their excrement; Botoxed housewives shopping for fake organic produce while hungry people in the back of the store are digging around in dumpsters; concerned citizens demanding that migrants be allowed in, then calling the cops as soon as these migrants set up tents on their front lawn or ring their doorbell and ask to use the bathroom; well-to-do older couples dreaming of bugging out to some tropical gringo compound in a mangrove swamp where they would be chopped up with machetes and fed to the fish; and all of them believing that things are great because the stock market is doing so well.

At this rate, when the end of the USA finally arrives, most of the people won’t be in a position to notice while the rest won’t be capable of absorbing that sort of upsetting information and will choose to ignore it. Everybody wants to know how the story ends, but that sort of information probably isn’t good for anyone’s sanity. The mental climate in the US is already sick enough; why should we want to make it even sicker?

The Saker: Dmitry, thank you so much for your time and for a most interesting interview!

The Ukies come to Paris to meet with their bosses

The Ukies come to Paris to meet with their bosses

April 13, 2019

by Le Saker Francophone for the Saker blog

Macron, the French president, always eager to take the center stage to show his dynamism, has received the two outsiders of the presidential election of Ukraine, Zelenski and Poroshenko, on the same day with 3 hours interval. On april 12th Zelinski is convened at L’Elysée at 3 pm then Poroshenko at 6 pm.

Le Monde, one of the few French newspaper to speak about that visit says: “It is Zelenski team who took the initiative for the meeting. For the young candidate, who see himself as an ‘Ukrainian Macron’ the interest is clear : to show its closeness with a president that is appreciated by the people of Ukraine, to show its international stature, and after being described as a puppet manipulated by the Russian, to show that his loyalty goes for the West… Mr Poroshenko has requested too an invitation and l’Elysée accepted it not to look as favoring one upon the other”.

The other media speaking about that visit is Sputnik France.

The French presidency said that the talks will be about bilateral relations and the cooperation in the frame of the Normandy agreement. No more details has been added. This vague declaration may hide some kind of “talks” that could be not politically correct enough to be publicly announced. One could think that the anglosionist system, whose Macron is a slavish representative, wants to “suggest” its instructions and conditions to the future Ukrainian president, especially Zelinski who got 30% of the votes for the first round while Poroshenko got only 16%.

Zelenski did not say anything about that planned meeting. Porochenko said that «the fate of the State, of security in Ukraine and in Europe too, in the whole continent, are at stake…and it is necessary to consider for some more sanctions against Russia”. Before coming to France, Poroshenko paid a visit to Merkel. But the spoke person of the German chancelier took the precaution to precise that it should not be seen as a support for the Ukrainian candidate.

The Western backers of Poroshenko looked puzzled by the high score of Zelenski, a guy they did not choose.

Johann Wadephul, vice president of the main party at the German parliament said “Ukraine cannot afford to bend on an unexperienced government, especially because of its conflict with Russia and difficult economic and social situation”.

After first saying that the USA will not interfere in Ukrainian election, Kurt Volker, the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine, said “today the people of Ukraine has to choose. Do they want somebody who just oppose the system and promise huge reforms or somebody who may have disappoint them but who has done more reforms for Ukraine than anybody else since 20 years, and is able to face Poutine”.

Even with this backing, the chance for Poroshenko to win look weak and “the West could insist for the two contender to get an agreement. If Poroshenko falsify the results, Zelenski will have to stay quiet. It is one of the option. But if they consider that Zelenski could make a suitable president for Ukraine they could try to convince him to give a good political position to Poroshenko” thinks Rostislav Ichtchenko, president of a Russian think tank.

“Macron want to evaluate Zelenski and the potential consequences if he becomes president. Especially for his relation with Russia. Poroshenkko has been invited only to be polite with him as the European Union has been backing him those last years”, says Bogdan Bezpalko another Russian expert.

After the meeting, Zelenski declared to the Ukrainian media «What pleased me with Macron, what characterize him on the contrary of many politicians is that he has an excellent sense of humor. Then I am now not the only one”. And that they talked about “the most important problems in Ukraine, especially how to stop the war with Donbass”.

Of course The Kremlin reacted with irony to that convocation. Dmitri Peskov is curious to know how Arsen Avakov will denounce that French interference in an Ukrainian election with the same virulence as he denounces Russian interference. On her side, Maria Zakharova reminded that French and Western interference are not new in Ukraine, and that “…foreign ministers, including the French one, personally gave support to the Maidan demonstrators, in the very centre of Kiev». Then, to tease Macron she added “For some months we observe the Yellow Vets movement. Did you see Foreign ministers of other countries – europeans, arabs or americans – coming in the middle of the crowds to push them to take over the Elysée palace or to ask for the destitution of the government?”

Coincidentally, Hubert Fayard, the Donbass representative in France, has been arrested and put in custody for “procurement”. The story is unclear as “an Ukrainian woman he just met proposed to lend him some money”. The day after police searched his house and arrested him for procurement.

Why 2019 Ukraine Imports Terrorists and Exports Terror 1992-2019

April 10, 2019

by George Eliason, Special Correspondent for the Saker Blog in Novorussia

OUNb tymoshenko.PNG

The shame of post 2014 Ukraine is that the only equivalent situation that could exist is putting the Ukrainian SS death camp guards, their families, and officers’ in charge of Israel. Would giving death camp torturers and lever pullers free reign to do what they want to an entire people have been the thing to do during or after WWII? As you’ll soon see, the Israeli’s and some stellar international Jewish leaders think so as long as it ain’t them.

In 2014, Israel’s Ambassador to Ukraine Reuven Din El and the ADL’s Abe Foxman met with Pravy Sektor leader Dimitry Yarosh. Even though Yarosh is a disciple of the WWII criminal Bandera and the Israelis know the OUNb murdered 900,000 Ukrainian Jews in Ukraine, they decided they believed Yarosh that the OUN is not anti-Semitic.

What Yarosh may not have told them but they knew anyway, is that prior to Pravy Sektor, he was the leader of Trizub Bandery. It was the militant arm of Slava Stetsko’s new political party in Ukraine called CUN (Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists). Yarosh was the WWII murderess’ bodyguard. In his eyes, he was the heir apparent and incarnation of what Nazi sycophant Stepan Bandera would hope for to lead Ukrainian nationalists in 2014.

So, of course Jewish leaders had every right to give Yarosh a clean bill of political health to the rest of the world. Sure. That was the only reasonable and responsible thing for them to do. Ukraine still denies any responsibility for the millions of lives their progenitors took or the lives they are taking today.

Slava Stetsko’s OUNb (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists –Bandera faction) made a triumphant entry into Ukraine and cemented the dominance Diaspora nationalists would have in the region. When she came in June 1991, part of celebrating her husband’s work was commemorating the June 1941 Lviv Pogrom her husband started. He was celebrating his declaration of the Ukrainian state which never came into being.

Why is this relevant to the events of 2014 through the 2019 Ukrainian election? What does it have to do with exporting terrorism?

Back in 1991, the Ukrainian nationalists OUNb were at a loss at how to proceed. “It had great ideological difficulties, however, because of its confrontation with Western democracy, its inability to deal fully with the question of the political beliefs of Ukrainians in Ukraine, and its lack of contact with political processes there.” Encyclopedia of Ukraine- Nationalism article.

Since their side (Nazi) lost the war, the Ukrainians were never able to set up a state. 1991 provided the perfect opportunity and let’s face it that only comes around once. The nationalists, now based in the Ukrainian Diaspora thought they would inherit Bukovina and Galicia. Instead, they hit the jackpot with all of Soviet Ukraine.

The Ukrainian nationalists were given the lands they couldn’t conquer or coax into line. The problem they faced was over 80% of those lands were never nationalist and hated OUNb fascism. Diaspora Ukrainian nationalists thought people in Ukraine were too Sovietized and could not be remade into nationalists.

The Ukrainian nationalists started a slow process of genocide through Ecocide across Ukraine and especially in Donbass. The Ukrainians suppressed the economy in areas not hospitable to their politics and moved the money and resources toward western Ukraine. The thought was and is if you can’t convert them, kill them or move them out of the way.

The Diaspora and OUN leadership started handpicking politicians in Ukraine based on these objectives.

poroshenko stetsko.jpg This is the Ukrainian OUNb (Bandera) leader Slava Stetsko with Petr Poroshenko in 2003, before she died.Poroshenko is up for reelection in 2019.
Lviv_pogrom_(June_-_July_1941).jpg This image is from the Lviv Pogrom that followed OUNb leader Yaroslav Stetsko’s Ukraine Proclamation. The caption reads that the Ukrainian nationalist death dealer is right behind her.So we know 3 things.

  1. This woman is Jewish.
  2. Slava Stetsko never lost a night’s sleep over this woman being bludgeoned to death.
  3. Stetsko and all the Ukrainian nationalists celebrated doing this in 1991.
  4. Slava Stetsko is the political and spiritual mother of Ukraine. She is a hero with monuments dedicated to her in Ukraine.

“Although I consider Moscow, which in fact held Ukraine in captivity, and not Jewry, to be the main and decisive enemy, I nonetheless fully appreciate the undeniably harmful and hostile role of the Jews, who are helping Moscow to enslave Ukraine. I therefore support the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine, barring their assimilation and the like. –Yaroslav Stetsko Carynnyk, ‘A Knife in the Back of Our Revolution’

How both Stetsko’s viewed Jews in 1941 is how Ukrainian nationalists see today’s Donbass and the way they want to resolve the situation for posterity. Why does post Soviet Ukraine and especially Donbass Russians have less value than animals to the Ukrainian government?

For any of this to be current and threatening, reality dictates the World War II relic OUNb has to exist today, doesn’t it? For there to be a Nazi threat, there has to be Nazis. Is it possible Ukraine could find people so filled with hate; they fill those shoes in 2019?

Imagine finding out real political Nazis not only exist, you subsidize them. Do you think your WWII era grandparents would talk to you after finding out you supported this “democracy?”

Since 1992, different factions of the OUN have control of Ukraine. When it looked like that grip might weaken, Yanukovych was kicked to the curb in 2014.

According to the Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, “Other statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for the release of Ms. Tymoshenko and Mr. Lutsenko, and demanded judicial proceedings based on democratic … the correct response on the part of both the diaspora and Ukrainians in the homeland would be a boycott of representatives of Ukraine’s authorities.”

Now we have 2019 Ukrainian presidential candidate #2, Yulia Tymoshenko and her lieutenant Lutsenko firmly ensconced in and protected by the OUNb. This Nazi group predates Adolf Hitler and has never changed politic or policy.

By turning a blind eye to the Ukrainian nationalism’s fascist policies against post Soviet Ukrainians, the West doomed the country to eventual failure. Ukrainian citizens are not going to stay under the boot of fascist leaning politicians and political activists forever.

What happens when Ukrainians fully realize their country’s policies hurting them and their children originate in cities like Boston, Edmonton, Geelong, Bound Brook, or Kersonkson NY as long as they support a Poroshenko, Tymoshenko, or Zelensky?

And after normal people and journalists in the US, EU, AU, or Canada figure it out, how many western country politicians are going to sit back and allow Ukraine to export terrorists under various nationalisms back into their own borders?

None of this could have happened if the Ukrainian Diaspora were kept out of Ukraine post 1991. This is a look at the continuity of violence and genocide Ukraine and its Diaspora export. Post 1991 Ukraine joined the Diaspora ranks of “the Ukraine” in the worldwide propagation of nationalist uprisings, assassination, and murder.

The monster the western world has for so long chosen to ignore isn’t on its way home. It’s already coming out of the closet and eating the children.

The rest of the article won’t be about what Donbass and what’s left of Ukraine face after Ukraine’s 2019 election. Regardless of which nationalist wins, that result is already clear. Instead, it’s about what’s happened, what’s happening, and what may happen in your world.

“Stetsko argued that Fascism, National Socialism, and the coming Ukrainian uprising were links in the chain of a single world revolution. Ukrainian nationalism would bring down Russia and open a new chapter in the history of Eastern Europe.‘The tasks of Ukrainian nationalism’, he wrote, ‘begin where the tasks of Fascism and National Socialism end.” Carynnyk, ‘A Knife in the Back of Our Revolution’

Slava Stetsko believed this until she died and worked to achieve it for over 60 years. By combining all the little statelets that had no power, she created a lobby bloc and voting bloc in the US that determined election outcomes. Congressmen and national candidates needed her money to be in the game. Her goal wasn’t Democracy, not as you think of it. Nationalists in general view Democracy as a form of Socialism or Internationalism. They are all fascists whether they realize it or not.

Rolling all the ethnic nationalist groups into “the Ukrainians” to gain power and influence foreign policy was the only thing that made sense.- Madison, Wilson, and East Central European Federalism- A Dissertation submitted to The Division of Research and Advanced Studies Of the University of Cincinnati DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.) in the Department of Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences 2006 by Jonathan H. Levy

“This might appear confusing or even contradictory, but it is necessary in order to demonstrate the complexity of the meaning of “fascism” in the ideology of the Ukrainian nationalists, who called themselves “nationalists” but emphasized that they belonged to the family of European fascist movements and were closely related to the Italian Fascists, German National Socialists, British Fascists, Croatian Ustaša, and other similar movements. By examining Ukrainian radical nationalism in the context of fascist studies.” – The Fascist Kernel of Ukrainian Nationalism

Before you roll your eyes and yawn, let’s look at how a letter to Congress is signed from this kind of nationalist group asserting its power. Better yet, the following link contains an actual letter and email addresses of leaders in case you need to clarify anything in this article.

As the leaders of more than two dozen American ethnic organizations, representing tens of millions of voters across the United States, we call on you to provide vital support to Ukraine by immediately passing Senate Bill 2124.

Respectfully yours,

Naci Tozer President American Association of Crimean Turks, Sean Pender President New Jersey Chapter Ancient Order of Hibernians in America Inc., Dan Dennehy Chairman National & NYS Immigration Ancient Order of Hibernians in America Inc., Darek Barcikowski Secretary & Executive Board Member American Polish Advisory Council, Marilyn Piurek Co-Founder & Advisor American Polish Advisory Council, James J. Zogby President Arab American Institute, Mehmet Celebi President Assembly of Turkish American Associations, Javid Huseynov General Director Azerbaijan-American Council, Tomris Azeri President Azerbaijan-American Society, Walter Zaryckyj Executive Director Center for US-Ukrainian Relations, Marju Rink-Abel President Estonian American National Council, Atilla Pak President Federation of Turkish American Associations, Maximilian N. Teleki President Hungarian American Coalition, Karl Altau Managing Director Joint Baltic American National Committee Inc., Marta Farion President Kyiv Mohyla Foundation of America, Lyuba Shipovich President RAZOM, Ayla Bakkalli USA Representative The Crimean Tatar Mejlis, Julian Kulas President The Heritage Foundation, Maria Shust Director The Ukrainian Museum, Andrew Bihun President The Washington Group, Ukrainian-American Assoc. of Professionals,US UNITED WITH UKRAINE COALITION, Petro Kostiv President Ukrainian American Bar Association, Ihor Gawdiak President Ukrainian American Coordinating Council, Most. Rev. Stefan Soroka Metropolitan Ukrainian Catholic Church in USA, Archbishop of Philadelphia for Ukrainians, Alex Strilchuk President Illinois Division Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, Ihor Kusznir President Philadelphia Chapter Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, Ulana Mazurkevich President Ukrainian Human Rights Committee, Andrew Fedynsky Director Ukrainian Museum-Archives, Stefan Kaczaraj President Ukrainian National Association, Inc., Marianna Zajac President Ukrainian National Women’s League of America (UNWLA), His Eminence Antony Metropolitan and Prime Hierarch Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, His Grace Bishop Daniel President of the Consistory Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, Marta Liscynesky Kelleher President United American Organizations of Ohio, Meto Koloski President United Macedonian Diaspora, Larissa Kyj President United Ukrainian American Relief Committee, Alexandra Chalupa Founder & Acting President US United With Ukraine”

The nationalists started spreading their wings again and under the Ukrainian banner teach the world’s disgruntled how to be better at terror. And they started spending hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of doing it. Those signatures represent a fraction of signatory groups.

From 1991 onward, the Ukrainian nationalists have been tied to the major terrorist groups plaguing the West. They train them, train with them, and fight with them.

The Ukrainian nationalists fought alongside Chechen rebels that earlier went to Afghanistan and fought for the Taliban.

Oleksandr Muzychko.jpg Sasha Biliy, an insane Ukrainian nationalist fought for the Chechen rebels.According to Wikipedia, he was accused of murdering 20 Russian prisoners during the 1st Chechen war.

Biliy was a coordinator for Pravy Sektor during the 2014 coup and proved so out of control he had to be put down outside a restaurant.

The official story is Biliy shot himself in the head 3 times.

Biliy was one of many Ukrainian nationalists on the terrorism learning curve in Chechnya.

This would become important after 2014 when the Chechens returned the favor by providing brigades of ISIS fighters to the frontline in Donbass.

According to EA Daily, former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk was involved in torture and executions of Russian POWs in the Chechen War. Yatsenyuk was a member of the Ukrainian nationalist UNA-UNSO whose leader Yuriy Shukhevych whose father was the leader of the WWII UPA and a Waffen SS officer.

Yatsenyuk was awarded the Chechen rebels Dzhokhar Dudayev’s military decoration “Dignity of the Nation.” The importance of this is when the Chechen rebel Dzhokhar Dudayev battalion leaves Syria and bring ISIS/IGIL to the battlefields of Donbass. Ukraine works directly with ISIS/IGIL.

According to the EA Daily article, the list of current Ukrainian politicians involved includes Dmitry Korchinsky, the head of UNA-UNSO, Dmitry Yarosh, deputy of the Supreme Rada, Valery Bobrovych, the commander of the punitive battalion “Argo,” Oleh Tyahnybok, deputy of the Supreme Rada and his brother Andrey Tyahnybok.

 

schuster with taliban afghanistan alqueda.jpg Ukrainian nationalists in AfghanistanSimon Schuster fighting for Al Qaeda in the 1980s.

Schuster went on to become a TV presenter in Ukraine.

Schuster became famous during the Odessa Pogrom in 2014 when his studio audience applauded the murder going on in front of them through live camera feeds and interviews.

In the spring of 2014, ISIS officially entered the service of the Ukrainian government as it was gearing up to slaughter the citizens in Donbass at the invitation of then Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, interim president Olexandr Turchynov,  and future President of Ukraine, Petr Poroshenko.

When and where did “the Ukrainians” get involved with Islamic terrorists?

In the late 1920s, Islamic political radicals in Egypt formed a group called the Muslim Brotherhood. The group “Young Egyptians” followed.  Members of these groups intertwined and were part of or in step with the Promethean Project and were part of “the Ukrainians.”Their ties to Ukraine originally were membership in an exclusive group called the Nazi Axis by every country fighting Adolf Hitler.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its subsequent terrorist groups is the product of Western philosophy, not the religion of Islam.

The funny thing about these terrorists they can quote fascist philosophers like Julius Evola a lot easier than they can quote their own supposed holy book.

The Brotherhood with regard to their religious and mystical leanings are Sufi or more specifically Qutbist, for those who follow Sayyid Qutb. This is the philosophy of the Muslim Brotherhood which is essentially NeoPlatonic and does not distinguish between matters of belief, so long as people adhere to their movement. This is why the outwardly Shia al Zawaheri and the outwardly Sunni bin Laden can be comrades and brothers.

In an article titled “Terror, Islam and Democracy,” Ladan and Roya Boroumand correctly state that “Most young Islamist cadres today are the direct intellectual and spiritual heirs of the Qutbist wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.” And further, “When the authoritarian regime of President Gamel Abdel Nasser suppressed the Muslim Brothers in 1954 (it would eventually get around to hanging Qutb in 1966), many went into exile in Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Morocco. From there, they spread their revolutionary Islamist ideas – including the organizational and ideological tools borrowed from European totalitarianism.”
The Independent’s John Gray argues in an article entitled “How Marx turned Muslim” that Qutbism is not rooted in the Islamic tradition, but rather, is very much a Western-based ideology. 

Shaykh Rabee’ ibn Hadi al-Madkhali, the renowned Salafi scholar who has written several books refuting the mistakes of Sayyid Qutb, concludes the following about Qutbism: “The Qutbists are the followers of Sayyid Qutb… everything you see of the tribulations, the shedding of blood and the problems in the Islamic world today arise from the methodology (of this man).”

This is what is behind Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, ISIS/IGIL in the Middle East. Their central and eastern European counterparts are found in the old Hapsberg Empire holdings. This is why ISIS came to Ukraine and fought for the nationalists in Donbass. They have been connected to Bandera since the 1930s.

Now, this is a huge allegation for the average reader even knowing how large the Ukrainian lobby is in the US. And, yes Virginia there is a worldwide conspiracy going on, but it’s a lot simpler than you think.

In an article aptly titled Democrat Says Americans Owe Nazis for Suffering and Gives ISIS Eulogy on C-SPAN, it’s made hurtfully clear that a progressive Congressional rep with a stellar record in her district can be a vehement supporter of ISIS/IGIL and genocide at the same time. She can support the murder and torture of people she hates because her ethnic community fought against them and lost in WWII. Marcy Kaptur is a Ukrainian nationalist and this political disease infects both parties today.

When a Congressional Rep gives a eulogy for killed ISIS head-choppers in Congress, on C-SPAN; sorry kids, it’s past time to slam the brakes on this train.

It was the Ukrainians that infected the 2016 US election with their brand of hate and we’ll be revisiting this later. Next, we’ll dive into the first round of the Ukrainian election and what it means there. Following shortly after that, we’ll look at what happened in Charleston in light of where the real provocations are coming from. Care to guess?

For more than 100 years, Ukrainian nationalism has brought nothing but hate, pain, and suffering to the world. The 2019 election in Ukraine isn’t going to change that unless the international community decides they’ve had enough terrorism in this decade.

Force Ukraine to fulfill the Minsk Agreement. Make Ukraine obligated to social and economic reform in Ukraine. Stop the civil war and provocations with Russia.

Former SBU employee revealed information about secret prisons in Donbass and Kiev’s involvement in downing MH17

March 26, 2019

Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard for The Saker Blog

Source: https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/6255327 

Former employee of the SBU Vasily Prozorov in 2014 assisted the Russian security services

A former employee of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) Vasily Prozorov held a press conference in Moscow. He reported that from April 2014 he rendered assistance to the special services of Russia.

“From April 2014 I absolutely voluntarily, for ideological reasons, assisted the special services of the Russian Federation in obtaining information about the activities of the Ukrainian law enforcement, in particular in the area of the ATO (Kiev’s military operation in the Donbass),” he stressed. According to Prozorov, he decided to do this after the events on “Maidan”.

TASS gives the main points from the story of the former employee of the Security Service of Ukraine.

  • Vasily Prozorov informed Russia about the whereabouts of Russian “Life News” journalists detained in May 2014 by Ukrainian military personnel. He described that back then he worked in the team of the Security Service of Ukraine in one of the villages near Slavyansk, where these journalists were detained. He immediately reported where they were, “because there were many who wanted to introduce your colleagues as military personnel and start their interrogations.”
  • In the area of conducting military operations in Donbass there are secret SBU prisons. One of them is located at the airport of Mariupol. The object is called “the library, and its prisoners are called books”. According to him, it was possible to end up in such a prison for anything, including on suspicion of working for the Russian Federation, DPR, and LPR.
  • The leaders of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics became victims of special operations, and not internal conflicts. “I am not omniscient, but concerning Motorola and Givi I am 100% sure that it was an operation of the special fifth department of the SBU and the special operations forces (SOF) of the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” he specified. According to him, employees of the SOF are constantly trained under the guidance of instructors from the UK and other countries. Their specialties are acts of terrorism and the deployment of a partisan movement.
  • Fascist and Nazi views are widespread in Ukrainian law enforcement structures. Prozorov noted that this concerns not only voluntary battalions, where this phenomenon is rampant, but also about linear units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and National Guard.
  • The “Azov” formation is a non-controlled paramilitary formation that is subordinated only to its leader and the Interior Minister Arsen Avakov. Prozorov recalled that in May 2017 another truce was concluded between the parties to the conflict. However, on May 9th-10th the artillerists of “Azov” shelled the DPR and Mariupol. The former SBU officer noted that this is how the battalion carried out the orders of their superior, without informing the leadership of the ATO and the National Guard.
  • The Ukrainian side is involved in the destruction of the Malaysian Boeing over Donbass. “My personal belief, and it is being backed up by… information, is that the Ukrainian side is involved in the crash of the Boeing,” he said. According to Prozorov, two people are responsible for it – the present Deputy Head of the Administration of Poroshenko Valery Kondratyuk, and the present Head of the Main Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Defence Vasily Burba. He noticed that all attempts to find out the circumstances of the catastrophe, for example, in a conversation with the officers of the General Staff, received the answer: “Do not get into this topic if you do not want trouble.”
  • The Deputy of the Verkhovna Rada Vladimir Parasyuk personally participated in shooting during the events on “Maidan” in the center of Kiev in February 2014. Parasyuk told me that helped with the supply of weapons to “Maidan”, and that there is the “blood of many dead” on his hands. According to the former employee of the SBU, Parasyuk also, being intoxicated, expressed his discontent since allegedly he did so much for “Maidan”, but was compelled to fight in the East of Ukraine.
  • The SBU is fully under the control of Poroshenko and prepares rigging in the presidential election. Under his control is also the state automated voting system named “Vybory”, and in every territorial election commission there will be members of the special services. They will guard the final election results and ballots and accompany them to the Central Election Commission. Prozorov said that the SBU and its Chairman Vasily Gritsak are a structure that is absolutely under Poroshenko’s control.
  • The Ukrainian special services created and control the Russian opposition Telegram channel “Stalingulag”, as well as a number of media outlets. Thus, Prozorov said that “InformNapalm” is a media outlet that is controlled by the Ministry of Defence and Main Intelligence Department. He also mentioned “Censor.net”. “Among the new [media] there is, for example, the Telegram channel “Stalingulag”. According to Prozorov, it was organized, created, and controlled by the Security Service of Ukraine.
  • The SBU could be involved in punishing the opponents of “Maidan” in Odessa on May 2nd 2014, because it knew in advance about the preparation of the attack. Prozorov named “ultras” and nationalist organisations as the driving force behind this crime.
  • British and American intelligence officers help the SBU plan covert operations and train personnel for their execution. Ukrainian law enforcement bodies also have many representatives from foreign non-governmental organizations. Foreigners work as instructors in “volunteer battalions”.
  • The former employee of the SBU noted that what was said by him is a small part of what he would like to report. Prozorov recently finished writing about the events of 2014, the book should be released soon. He summed up by saying that there will be a lot of things that he didn’t manage to speak about yet.

Why 2019 Ukraine Imports Terrorists and Exports Terror 1933-1991

March 23, 2019

by GH Eliason for The Saker Blog

Why 2019 Ukraine Imports Terrorists and Exports Terror 1933-1991

For the last 5 years, the world has gotten a glimpse of what Ukrainian nationalism is. “The Ukrainians” are never shy about claiming the right to murder their enemies. Since 2014, we’ve watched the entire government of Ukraine publically call for the murder of civilians in Donbass and Crimea as easily as the neo-nazi jackboots working for them murdered all those people in the May 2nd Odessa massacre of 2014.

Why are the US and EU supporting such a deviant political group? Why don’t they demand Ukraine act like it belongs to the community of nations?

The questions are tough ones considering the billions of dollars the US alone pumped into post-Maidan Ukraine. For its part, “the Ukrainians” are doing exactly what they have done since the end of WWII. The post-Maidan (revolution of dignity- their term) Ukrainian nationalists have gladly taken every penny offered and like their WWII political progenitors, they promptly stole most of it.

In the spring of 2014, following Ukraine’s coup of indecency, the first 3 billion dollars of US aid disappeared into a fund called Grandma’s Cookie Recipes and was never seen again. This was about the time coup activist Arseny Yatzenyuk and Peter Poroshenko’s wealth spiked. This level of corruption has been the norm for the last 5 years in Ukraine.

At the expense of the world, the Ukrainians have spent the last one hundred years trying to invent themselves.

The “Ukraine” was previously all the borderland between two competing empires. The Russian Empire to the east called their Ukrainian (means borderland) people “little Russians.”

The Holy Roman, Hapsburg, or Austro-Hungarian Empire to the west called their Ukrainian border people “little Austrians.”

This included over 18 nationalities that Ukrainian Diaspora leaders and historians called ethnic “Ukrainian” for the first time in Canada during the 1930’s through 1950s. Being Ukrainian was very much like being American in the sense it is not an ethnicity.

The 1930’s prewar and wartime Ukrainians were a political movement that started in eastern Poland’s Galician province and went to every extreme unsuccessfully trying to set up their own nationalist statelet under the supervision of Adolf Hitler’s 3rd Reich.

Of consequence, during WWII, all of the “little Austrian” regional nationalities congealed under the leadership of the Nazi, Stepan Bandera’s OUN. From that point, until they received their own states in the ’80s through the ’90s, they were under the direct oversight of Bandera OUN Nazis. Afterward, most of the established states like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia never left the fold. In the West, the OUN Ukrainian lobbies gained too much power to walk away from.

“The Ukrainians” as a group quickly encompassed every nationalist group in Central and Eastern Europe. After WWII, with OUNb (ultranationalists/Nazis) taking the lead, diverse nationalist groups in Europe, Asia, the Levant, Far East, and Central and South America joined ranks under Stepan Bandera nationalists.

Following WWII, “the Ukrainians” set up governments in exile through their Diasporas with the help of western countries just as fast as the Cold War started. Until that point, the west including the US and Europe had no interest in Eastern European Nazis other than to try them for war crimes.

“The Ukrainians” gained notoriety during the Cold War as rabid anti-communists.  During the war, the Ukrainians developed their own assassination and torture group called the SB OUN. This group gained the OUN worldwide influence because of their brutal terrorist methods. In postwar Spain, they were trainers for Franco’s nationalists.

Most nationalist groups worldwide including Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese nationalists joined the “Ukrainian” OUN(Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) group called the ABN (Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations). The Ukrainians tried ineffectively to get the US involved in the Chinese civil war. The Ukrainians vowed to never fail again.

The Ukrainians acted unsuccessfully for the benefit of their Chinese nationalist group leader Chiang Kai-shek in the late 1940s and 50’s. Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists can literally be labeled as part of “the Ukrainians.” This was known as the World Anti-Communist League (WACL) which was started by Yaroslav Stetsko.

After his death, Slava Stetsko took over the ABN and leadership of WACL until after 1991 which signified Ukraine’s independence. WACL leadership fell to Chiang Kai-shek nationalist groups and after a generous renaming to World League for Freedom and Democracy (WLFD), they write human rights reports for the United Nations.

In the 1950s “the Ukrainians” organized a million man march on Washington. They were able to force then President Eisenhower to not recognize China and that remained the US policy until Richard Nixon changed it in the early 1970s..

Not bad work when you consider most of “the Ukrainian” Diaspora activists weren’t citizens, couldn’t vote yet, and the leaders were stateless Nazi leftovers like Yaroslav Stetsko who should have been tried for his people’s (OUNb, UPA, Waffen SS)conduct at all the death camps in Europe.

In the 1950’s they lobbied the US government into the Korean War to support Korean nationalist aspirations. In the 1960s, “the Ukrainians” were the reason the US jumped into the Vietnam War for the S. Vietnamese nationalist groups.

Going into the 1980s, the extreme nationalist governments in South and Central America joined the ABN. They became “the Ukraine” in the larger sense because they directly followed Stepan Bandera’s 2nd in command, Yaroslav Stetsko’s directives and started anti-communist revolutions as members of the ABN. Mass murder and torture followed them. This was what “the Ukrainians” brought to the table.

Throughout the Cold War, the various groups under the heading of “the Ukrainians” were tolerated by Intel Agencies because they had assets in communist countries that were supposedly working with the West.

The reality is that across the spectrum of the FOIA document releases about “the Ukrainians” under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, the consensus of the CIA, FBI, and US State Dept. is “the Ukrainians” were liars throughout the Cold War, could not be trusted, and only provided real Intel if it helped provoke a war with the Soviet Union, China or a proxy state.

During the post-war period from 1946 to the end of the Cold War, “the Ukrainians” were directly responsible for setting up and carrying out the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people worldwide. The innocents only crime was not agreeing with” the Ukraine” (ABN) member’s nationalist/fascist state building political program.

Historically, the highpoint in ABN (OUN) Ukrainian history came just before Iran-Contra happened. “The Ukrainians,” thought they succeeded in buying the American Presidency. The Nazi Ukrainian leaders Slava and Yaroslav Stetsko brokered a deal financing Reagan’s presidential aspirations.

The Cold War ended. The Soviet Union split up. The value of generations of “Ukrainian” political Nazis dropped through the floor.

The speech then-President George H. W. Bush gave in Kiev August 1st, 1991 made that clear and can be put into context against this backdrop. Dubbed the “Chicken Kiev” speech, these small sections of the speech make it almost seem likely he was looking at Stetsko when he spoke it.

Because of his position in the CIA and the Reagan Administration, George HW Bush knew both Stetskos and all the Ukrainian nationalist leaders for over 30 years.

This speech outlining American policy is probably the only thing that kept a fully Nationalist Ukraine(OUNb fascist/Nazi) from being realized through the Diaspora before 2014.

“In Moscow, I outlined our approach: We will support those in the center and the Republics who pursue freedom, democracy, and economic liberty. We will determine our support not on the basis of personalities but on the basis of principles. We cannot tell you how to reform your society. We will not try to pick winners and losers in political competitions between Republics or between Republics and the center. That is your business; that’s not the business of the United States of America…

…But freedom cannot survive if we let despots flourish or permit seemingly minor restrictions to multiply until they form chains until they form shackles. Later today, I’ll visit the monument at Babi Yar — a somber reminder, a solemn reminder, of what happens when people fail to hold back the horrible tide of intolerance and tyranny.

Yet freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.” – George HW Bush August 1991

Slava Stetsko, wife of Yaroslav Stetsko was the only post-WWII Nazi leader to take an MP position in a post-war government. Her people were at Babi Yar too. They were there committing the atrocities in September 1941. The surviving members of her OUN and UPA along with their children, the 2nd generation of Ukrainian nationalists were at Babi Yar with President Bush commemorating their own work 50 years later.

Slava Stetsko was in Ukraine SSR on June 30, 1991, to celebrate her late Ukrainian nationalist husband Yaroslav’s speech and action “declaring” a free Ukraine 50 years before. Yaroslav Stetsko celebrated by starting the Lviv Pogroms on June 30, 1941.

Apparently, Stetsko thought to murder innocent Jews was great fun and the Ukrainian nationalists had 2 more pogroms within the next month. They even dedicated one of them at the end of July to the last nationalist leader who murdered 100,000 Jews during the 1917-18 pogroms and failed to establish a state. The late July pogroms were called “Petliura Days.”

She came back in July when it became clear Ukraine would secede from the Soviet Union. Her husband Yaroslav Stetsko was 2nd in command of Stepan Bandera’s OUNb until his death. Babi Yar was the first act of the Holocaust in WWII at a large scale. Over 36,000 Jews were killed by OUN members of the auxiliary police in only a few short days.

There is little doubt she attended the Bush speech. And if there was an incarnation of the evil he spoke against gaining power or office, it was her and her Ukrainian nationalists.

The irony is that this Nazi leader took a Senate position the very next year in a post-Soviet government ruling the very people both she and Adolf Hitler were intent on wiping out 45 years before. In 1945, even as the 3rd Reich was falling, she was in Berlin begging Adolf Hitler for more armies.

In an interview, Stetsko made it clear Slava Stetsko never felt bad enough to lose a night’s sleep over anything she or her Ukrainians had ever done. As the leader of the OUNb from the mid-’80s until her death, she was the worldwide leader of “the Ukrainians” and their various Diasporas currently totaling over 20 million voters in the US alone and have a profound effect on US elections.

Most of the WWII death camps in Europe were staffed mainly by “the Ukrainians.” In the Diaspora Slava Stetsko was still leading “those Ukrainians” spread across the globe in 2002. The nationalist groups that still existed in Ukraine and the Diaspora were never even made to apologize for the murder of millions. Let that sink in for a moment.

In a landmark work , Genocide Committed by Ukrainian Nationalists on the Polish Population During World War II, Ryszard Szawlowski characterizes it this way:

“the Germans have long admitted to their crimes, and have apologized for them publicly …. [The] president of the Federal Republic of Germany, Roman Herzog, [said] in his speech in Warsaw on August 1, 1994 … ‘I bow before the fighters of the Warsaw Uprising, and before all the Polish war victims. I beg forgiveness for what the Germans did.’ Russian president Boris Yeltsin, when he kissed monsignor Zdzislaw Peszkowski on the hand, whispered the words ‘I apologize’ ….

Ukrainian genocide committed against the Poles during World War II surpassed German and Soviet genocide …. [It] was marked by the utmost ruthlessness and barbarity, and … up until the present day, it has been denied or, at best, presented with reminders that all is “relative’ or other such evasions.”

Should “the Ukrainians” have been educated in how to act civilly before being handed a state in 1991? One month before an independent Ukraine joined the community of nations, “the Ukrainians” celebrated pledging their honor and loyalty to Hitler and Nazism forever as well as the beginning of the 1941 Lviv pogroms. This was part and parcel with commemorating the 1941 declaration. The festivities were grand marshaled by Slava Stetsko.

From the 1940s through the fall of the Soviet Union, the CIA made it clear every time they wrote about the Stetskos that the only time these people or their groups told the truth was when it got them something. The Stetskos were and Ukrainian nationalists are liars.

According to the Ukrainian Encyclopedia written by former SS officers, “The Ukrainians” nationalist political program demands that they can never change direction. They lie and betray as a matter of course. Whether or not lying was necessary to attain their goals is a different subject. The CIA files make it clear, lies were the preferred method of communication for Ukrainian nationalists.

After 1991 and before the nationalist revival, nationalists in Ukraine were rewriting their history, and the monsters of the world from WWII became heroes.

Szawlowski’s work on the genocide committed by Ukrainian nationalists during World War II is brought up to date by the recent observations of Ukrainian Wiktor Poliszczuk. “… he condemns the dangerous activities of the post-UPA [Ukrainian Insurgent Army] nationalists in present-day Ukraine, taking place not only in Lvov, but even in Kiev, ‘Galician Fundamentalism,’ and other such phenomena. Also criticized by him are the promoting of the totalitarian and genocidal doctrines of the Ukrainian Dmytro Dontsov, the erecting of monuments to the SS-men of the 14th Ukrainian SS Division “Galizien” (“Halychyna”), the OUN [Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists] and UPA leaders: Yevhen Konovalets, Andryi Melnyk, Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych and others, and the glorifying of the murderers of Poles, Jews, Russians and Ukrainians as national heroes of the Ukraine, after whom streets and squares are named, awaking the spirit of the Dontsov and Bandera era, so much hated by people.”  This was written only a few years ago.- The July 1943 genocidal operations of the OUN UPA in Volhynia

The shame of post 2014 Ukraine is that its only equivalent would be the civilized world giving “the Ukrainian” Waffen SS death camp guards and officers charge of Israel. Giving them free reign to do as they will, then turning a blind eye to the fact they still practiced NAZI politics and the final solution was what they were determined to attain.

If this seems unlikely, we know that 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust.

Hitler and “the Ukrainians” (nationalists from outside the Soviet Ukraine) murdered at least 8 million inside the borders of today’s Ukraine. And since 2014 “the Ukrainians” are finally in charge of the families of people they murdered in the Great War.

Part 2 will examine the role “the Ukrainians” played in the rise of Al Qaeda and ISIS as well as how they support them. We’ll also look at the barbaric role “the Ukrainians had in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, and other countries in the run-up to the 2019 Ukrainian election.

%d bloggers like this: