The Ukrainian Conflict: A Ukrainian Nationalist View, Part 4: Russia as a Globalist, Liberal, Anti-Ethnic Nationalist Power

Pavlo Khomenko

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Why does the Russian Federation push and defend Western liberalism so much in Ukraine? The answer can be found by looking at modern Russia as a country.

The Russian Federation is, in essence, itself a liberal state. It is a typical liberal democracy that, in many ways, differs little from Western European countries. It is a country that attacks the culture of its founding people; a country where the youth could not care less about the traditions of their ancestors;  a country where MTV rules the airwaves and McDonalds is the most popular destination for those looking to dine out (indeed, the biggest McDonalds in Europe is in Moscow); a country that defines itself as a proposition nation with a political — not ethnic — understanding of the nation (“everyone who is a citizen is Russian”); a country that, on the state level, closely deals with the IMF and the UN; a country that even  is helping American and NATO forces in Afghanistan; a country where the most popular musicians, in addition to Western artists like Madonna or Lady Gaga, are non-ethnically Russian degenerates like Filipp Kirkorov and rapper Timati — exactly the types that the globalist media uses to brainwash the youth around the world to forget their ethnic heritage and traditions; a country where Chechnyan president Ramzan Kadyrov — whose father actively fought against Russian forces and was responsible for essentially ridding Chechnya of Russians — is officially a state hero.

In fact, the one and only way that the Russian Federation differs from Western Europe — and one of the only things that gives Western dissidents illusions — is the way it banned LGBT propaganda. Yet this has been grossly misinterpreted. It is a great law, of course, but it was passed with huge resistance even within the ruling party and pro-government media. Essentially, all it does is ban gay parades (in itself, of course, a good initiative). Yet pro-LGBT propaganda is increasingly present in all the media, and gay clubs flourish.

When looking at such cases, people forget that the destructive ideology of liberalism as it is now defined in the West appeared in the Russian Federation far later than in the West. In this sense Russia today is the same, in terms of the LGBT movement, as the West 30 or 40 years ago. Banning homosexual propaganda is merely a compromise — a tactic by the ruling elite that will satisfy the millions of Muslims in Russia and the millions of people from the older generation who grew up in the Soviet Union where it was a criminal violation. If the elite of the Russian Federation were truly sincere about this, they could do far more than essentially only ban gay parades for a while, without touching the immense presence of LGBT propaganda in the media. But it doesn’t.

Hardly better than Konchita or Lady Gaga: modern Russian show business

Hardly better than Konchita or Lady Gaga: modern Russian show business

In fact, the regime now in power in the Russian Federation has virtually completely uprooted any authentic pro-Russian opposition: far from being neo-Nazi clowns, truly nationalist and Orthodox, anti-Zionist Russian opposition leaders like General  Vladimir Kvachkov — a former SPETSNAZ (Special Forces) colonel and high-ranking official of the Russian army  who was implicated in an assassination attempt on Jewish oligarch and privitization czar Anatoly Chubays — have been completely humiliated, destroyed and thrown in prison.

Advertisement - We Need You

Besides the current Russian Federation government, there is the “legal” opposition, among which there are a great many open (not hidden) Western agents who are all ultra-liberal — such as Mikhail Prokhorov (billionaire of Jewish descent who owns the Brooklyn Nets, a U.S. professional basketball team) or parties like Yabloko. They are not touched and are allowed to openly function and given huge air time. Through Gazprom, the Russian state even funds the radio station Echo of Moscow — an ultra-liberal, anti-Christian, pro-globalist radio station that is hugely popular inside Russia and basically acts as the main news source for the legal opposition.

The face of the Russian Federation to Western dissidents, Alexander Dugin’s Eurasianist Movement (which likes to promote its own version of Eurasian integration based on a multicultural model as the only correct version) essentially exists only on the internet inside the Russian Federation itself. One will not find any rally conducted by this movement inside the Russian Federation with more than a few hundred people (and even that would be incredibly rare; in fact, most rallies of this movement can hardly gather a few dozen people).  This is at a time when liberal rallies regularly gather thousands of people in any city. The overwhelming majority of people in the Russian Federation have never even heard the name Alexander Dugin, nor of any of his theories.

Yes, Alexander Dugin claims to be close to the government. But far closer and with far more influence are ultra-liberal, ultra-capitalist globalists — figures like Mykhail Fradkov or Anatoliy Chubays, among many, many others. Essentially, inside the Russian Federation the rhetoric of Alexander Dugin to Russian patriots is “do not worry, do not create your own movements. Just trust in the Russian government.”

By the way, Chubays, who, unlike Fradkov, has not been open about his Jewish roots, has essentially been in power in the Russian Federation since 1991. He was a major figure in the privatization of the Russian economy which transferred the wealth of Russia to a few mainly Jewish oligarchs; he has held numerous positions both inside the government and as the owner of Russian state companies.  Recently he was appointed by Putin to be head of a nanotechnology company created and owned by the Russian government. He is an active member of the ultra-globalist Bilderberg Club (see also here).

Viewing the modern-day Russian Federation as a state run by Alexander Dugin is essentially like viewing the modern-day United States as a state run by David Duke.

The “conservatism” of the modern Russian Federation exists only because of a quite traditional trait of Russia: social trends in Russia happen only happen some time after they’ve already occurred in the West. For example, this is what happened with the use of the French language in the courts of Europe and then Russia (where it took longer to disappear). Another example is that Jewish power first arose in Western Europe and was resisted Russia until the Bolshevik Revolution. One might also mention the decline of serfdom and hereditary aristocracy occurring first in the West and then spreading to the East.

Russia today is the West 30 years ago. The exact same processes are taking place and the exact same rhetoric is used. There is absolutely no reason to believe Russia will differ from the West in 30 years. Russia should not be held up as a beacon of hope for Western nationalists. 

It’s important to understand that in today’s globalized world, geopolitical conflicts mean very little in determining how controlled this or that country is by global oligarchy. For instance, France under Chirac had numerous arguments with the US — so much so that inside the US, many “patriots” called on boycotting “French fries” as a way of showing their displeasure with France. These were establishment “patriots” who in many senses resemble the Eurasian establishment “patriots” in the Russian Federation doing everything for there to be an all out war with Ukraine. In many cases, these geopolitical conflicts were no less than anything the West has now with the Russian Federation. Does this mean all nationalists should have stopped building their own independent movements and unite around France and sing odes to Chirac?

What is much more important is the system inside each country; the “metapolitics” that runs each country — essentially who controls which questions are open for debate. Critically important are the financial and media elites and their ideological positions and world views. For instance, the Islamic Republic of Iran is viewed by all Western media as an archenemy not because of geopolitics — in fact, it doesn’t come close to challenging the West geopolitically. It is viewed as the enemy not only because of its hostility to Israel, but because it is governed by a completely alternative system to the West — not liberal democracy, but Islamic democracy or, in a sense, theocracy.

The questions posed for debate in Iran and the West are thus completely different because the financial, media and other elites have completely separate worldviews. (There is no media outlet inside Iran that resembles Western media; and in general the “project” that runs Iran and the West have completely alternative views for the future of the world.

As described above, the issue for the Russian Federation is that it generally differs little from the West. The elites of the West and the elites of the Russian Federation are largely the same — so much so, that Putin’s daughter, the children of the head of Russia’s secret service, and the children of Russia’s foreign minister all live in the West ;  so much so that billions of dollars controlled by “Russian” elites are safely stashed in Western and especially American banks.

When Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait, the entire “international community”© united against him. This was because Hussein was building a relatively independent, national system in Iraq based on Arabic national identity and contrary to the global consumer identity. When the Russian Federation annexed Crimea and started sending mercenaries to Eastern Ukraine, Western countries responded by freezing the bank accounts of Russian ministers in their country.


The only form of “patriotism” currently allowed in the Russian Federation is a staunch hate for anything Ukrainian under the guise of “anti-fascism.” Ukraine, as a monoreligious (over 90% eastern Christian) and homogeneous state (over 80% Ukrainian, around 97% Slavic) is a potential direct threat to the current project being conducted in the Russian Federation. (Belarus is also a potential threat, for similar reasons.) The war in Ukraine and the “patriotism” in the Russian Federation strongly resembles the “patriotism” one could and can find in America regarding the horrendous wars in Iraq or Afghanistan — or potentially in a war with Iran. Russian patriots ask why ethnic Russians should be defended in Ukraine, where they are treated no worse than ethnic Ukrainians — but not in Moscow, the Caucasus region, or the far east of the Russian Federation where they’re basically being replaced?

Pierre Narcisse

Pierre Narcisse and wife

The establishment patriotism in modern Russia is well represented by Pierre Narcisse, an African artist popular in Russia on a recent talk-show discussing events in Ukraine. While waving a Russian flag, he says “I’m from Cameroon, but my wife is Russian. My kids will be Russian … Russia will be put to its knees!” — after which the audience applauded loudly. Soon after, of course, he realized he made an error sand corrected himself. “I meant America will be put to its knees.”

The issue with this type of pseudo anti-Americanism is that this type of establishment patriotism is no threat to America — essentially, it as a mirror version of America, America lite, America 30 years ago, America 2.0. Only states with truly different systems have long-lasting conflicts.

Inside Crimea currently, locals report a huge influx of immigrants from Central Asia, especially at markets. This is being actively supported and promoted by the Russian government. The once homogeneous (even many Crimean Tatars were heavily assimilated by Slavs) region is turning into its own multicultural paradise. Of course, however, this is warmly welcomed by the Russian establishment because will defeat “fascism” and “neo-Nazism.” Much greater threats were the Ukrainian faculties at the two main Universities that were immediately closed after annexation and the monument to Ukrainian King Petro Sahaidachny that was immediately taken down; these occurred shortly after Ukrainian national symbols were taken off all administrative buildings.

Geopolitically, the function of the modern Russian Federation is to push independent states towards the West. The Russian Federation and the West are absolute allies. No single force discredits the idea of national independence in countries like Ukraine, Georgia, or even Finland more than the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation does absolutely nothing in any of these countries to counter the pro-EU, pro-NATO propaganda spread by the West throughout the media — whether through a conference or simply television ads.

Quite the opposite, actually. Their deeds serve as a direct reason for many in these countries to support membership in the EU and NATO. They act only when public opinion turns against joining such blocks and their actions turn public opinion again in favour of them. Russia is not losing some sort of conflict in these countries to the West — it is working with the West to push these countries closer to the West.

Indeed, it is not for nothing that one of the most influential Western nationalists and one of the most prominent figures of authority amongst Western nationalists, founder of the Third Positionist movement Gabriele Adinolfi said quite clearly: “Eurasia is a utopia. Moscow and Washington are the inheritors of Yalta.” In his view, the White House and the Kremlin are simply “pursuing their own interests in Ukraine”, just like they did earlier in Yalta, and are actively “implementing the strategy of (fake) tension”. For him, the conflict is merely a “continuation of the conflict between Trotskyites (Soros) and neo-Stalinists (Putin)”. He continues: “Moscow — a huge supporter of the WTO and IMF, as well as of globalization of energy companies; Moscow, the same Moscow that actively works with NATO in its “war with terrorism” — Moscow is not anti-globalist”. Mr. Adinolfi himself actively supports Ukrainian nationalists in the question of the Russian invasion.

Go to Part 5.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

16 Comments to "The Ukrainian Conflict: A Ukrainian Nationalist View, Part 4: Russia as a Globalist, Liberal, Anti-Ethnic Nationalist Power"

  1. ATBOTL's Gravatar ATBOTL
    June 19, 2014 - 5:26 pm | Permalink

    “These subject people are distinct from the mass-imported immigrants in most Western countries that the hosts cannot properly accommodate.”

    That’s a key point. Most of Russia’s minorities are like the Indians in America. Indigenous Siberian and mixed-Mongol peoples are northern latitude adapted types with similar intelligence and personality traits to Northern Europeans. They are not socially dysfunctional or subversive. The problems are with the people from the Caucasus and Central Asia, who skew genetically and culturally towards the Middle East.

    antiyuppie14, are you the Antiyuppie who posted on the Sam Francis forum back in the early 2000’s?

  2. Rosa's Gravatar Rosa
    June 12, 2014 - 6:04 pm | Permalink

    For antiyuppie:
    Either RT is a free TV, and Putin cannot impose his journalists, commenters, and so on – and therefore he is not a dictator- or RT is his TV, and he’s a perfiduous dictator.
    So, what’s you bet ?
    Rosa, italy

  3. Russian Correspondent's Gravatar Russian Correspondent
    June 12, 2014 - 4:06 am | Permalink

    Regarding the part 5 of this Ukrainian propaganda article series (to which comments are closed). The author lies blatantly that there are Russian mercenaries – he can provide no proof for that. Well, perhaps he means Russian mercenaries fighting on the Ukrainian side – like mercenaries from many other countries fighting alongside the Ukrainian Nazis. All Russians who fight there are volunteers who are paid nothing, and comprise no more than 10% of New Russia’s fighters.

    • June 12, 2014 - 4:16 pm | Permalink

      That’s my fault that the comments weren’t on. An oversight. Kevin M

  4. Slava's Gravatar Slava
    June 11, 2014 - 12:17 pm | Permalink

    You gathered on Maidan against the oligarchs and today one of them is your president .. The media, owned by the same oligarchs drummed into your head that you are better throughout your neighbors and brothers in blood. They did this to you using to capture even more power and to further strengthen its position. They will rip you off your own hands, and you will be at this time killing each other. You are no better than any other people, maybe even a little sillier some if you let yourself be deceived.

  5. RT's Gravatar RT
    June 11, 2014 - 11:16 am | Permalink


    Thank you for your response. This whole thing is complicated, and American WNs don’t really have any ability to influence things one way or another, even in the United States itself. But good luck in your struggles, I wish you the best.

  6. antiyuppie14's Gravatar antiyuppie14
    June 10, 2014 - 11:36 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for these articles, they are refreshing. I gathered the conflict between the so called “Putin traditionalism” vs. “Western Liberalism” was a sham. I am often watching Russia Today (Putin’s media outlet) as an antidote to the usual nauseating tripe the American Regime puts out through their media (both the “right wing” like Fox News and the “left wing” like PBS or CNN).
    I like some of the content RT puts out – it is focused on geopolitics and busting the mith of the so called “free market capitalism”, etc. However, I was flabbergasted by the huge number of American-accented liberal and sof-marxist comentators they have. This raised suspicion. If Putin was a real traditionalist/nationalist and wanted to fill a media vacuum in the West, he would have presented news and commentary from a traditionalist point of view, not from people who would feel at home on the NPR and who constantly harp how unfairly “gays” and “minorities” are treated. They even have Larry King.

    As for the Ukrainian Nationalists, I respect them, but I am afraid they have been duped into being the West’s “useful idiots”. They played a key role in overthrowing Yanukovich, but they didn’t get a nationalist president – they got Poroshenko who is a total Western stooge. Is he really that much better than Yanukovich? Now he seems to be using these same nationalists as cannon fodder against the Russians in the East. However – are you sure this guy will not start a ferocious anti-nationalist repression once all is said and done? I am not.

  7. Whites Unite's Gravatar Whites Unite
    June 10, 2014 - 11:06 pm | Permalink

    Hello Pavlo,

    Thank you for taking the time to explain the Ukrainian Nationalist point of view.

    These articles are much better than Eugene Girin’s hysterical, scatological anti-Galician screeds featured at Chronicles Magazine, and also much better than some of the ridiculous anti-Russian sentiments expressed in certain articles at Counter-Currents publishing.

  8. Pessimist's Gravatar Pessimist
    June 10, 2014 - 10:10 pm | Permalink

    I think we ought to be a bit more nuanced when we’re blasting Russia for her multikulturalist and eurasianist policies. Let us remember that minority groups in the federation have lived under Russia in various forms for centuries, and for these cultures to be treated with chauvinistic intolerance would be to undermine the Russian polity as it exists. These subject people are distinct from the mass-imported immigrants in most Western countries that the hosts cannot properly accommodate. It’s also worth remembering that many non-Russian republics are atop valuable mineral resources which are of benefit to the Russian nation and state, such as Chechnya. Lastly, since the Russian military is disproportionately Muslim, accommodation of their kinsmen is vital to Russian security. Granted it’s not an ideal situation but it would be a stretch to expect the heir of the Soviet Union to pursue genuinely nationalist policies given the confederate character of that entity.

  9. Askold's Gravatar Askold
    June 10, 2014 - 9:13 pm | Permalink

    40 days since “ukranian nationalists” action in Odessa. See it!

  10. Charles's Gravatar Charles
    June 10, 2014 - 8:48 pm | Permalink

    this is not Russia vs Ukraine, Russia bs NATO, Russia vs EU or France vs US, or Germany vs US.

    this is Judaism/Crypto-Judaism vs White People. Moscow, Washington DC, Brussels, London, Paris. All waging war on White people.

  11. Askold's Gravatar Askold
    June 10, 2014 - 6:16 pm | Permalink

    Sahaydachniy was never “king of ukraine”, indeed there never was any “king” becuase never exusted the “kingdom”! Indeed in 1991 when USSR was destroyed by means of information’s, organisational and economic warfare (so called “Harvard proyect” similar to “manhatten proyect”) Russia situation was similar to Ukranian one now-totally lost its soveregnity, CIA guys everywhere (now they even hold part of headquarters of SBU (ukranian security srrvice in Kiev), jews robbing all the assets (Larry Summers was organising this). Destruction of Russia and domination of jews were near total in 1990’s-similar to Ukraine now. This destructive influence is still present, speciLly in Moscow-city with heavy jewish presence since 1920’s, soecialky in mass media, show business, academia, finance-same as in other capitals of the worls from Mexico-city to London. However struggle in Russia is not over, Russia didnt capitulate and some areas lost in 1990’s were regained since 2000, when Putin became the President. It is true that Putin while eliminating jews from higher politics gave them many concessions on lower, mid and even high level of economic activities, with one condition-they dont challenge political sratus quo. It is completely false statments that Russuans hate Ukranians-completely false indeed! Unfortunately, ukranian ideology after 1981 is russophoby if different grades- less aggressive, more passive in periods of presidency Kuchma and Yanukovich (by the way only two presidents who won their elections by appealing to proRussian mayority of population, (promising closer ties with Russua and official status of Russian language-language of mayority of polulation) – they defrauded their voters later on, while moved in Kiev. Such “presidents” as kravchuk, yuschenko snd now poroshenko never won elections-kravchuk never has one and last two were installed be fruad and few thousand organised mob on central streets of Kiev). Putin really dont encourage ethnic nationalisms-he think this process is potentially destructive for such big country as Russian Federation, where more than 100 nationalities live. Dugin and “Eurasuans” is interesting, but far from mainstream in Russia, maybe not marginal, but not dominant. By the way author of this article make contradictory statements, when first he presented Dugin as influential Kremlin wizard and second tells that same Dugin doesnt have any influence except small internet auditory. But practically all his statements are full of noncenses lack of elementary logic, distorted facts and plain lies (I would prefer not to tell this, but it is true). kvachkov and some others Russian nationalists specially with radical ideas, are under pressure indeed-reason for that as I said already-attempt to control any situation that may produce internal ethnic conflicts in Russian Federation. Conflict between trotzkiyst and stalinists as between jews and aryans, international and national, speculative capital and industrial production is still going on in intellectual circles in Moscow and other big cities. In small towns and villages there are no trotzkiysts, of course. Similar to US, neotrotzkiysts prefer university of Chicago, wall street in new york and capitol hill in Washington rather than fields iowa and forests of Wyoming. One remark-western reader is seeng Stalin (and Hitler and other figures) through jewish spectacles. Figure of Stalin in Russia, in minds of many regular peoples is not always negative and for many people positive, even now 60 years after ( many people believe that he was killed by jews Kaganovitch and Beria on Purim 1953) and despite heavy antistalin propaganda during almost all these years. However this is another big topic.
    Russia indeed was mainly out of social and political developments in post soviet countries, like georgia and ukraine. US spent billions there to create anti-Russian generation and elites and Russia was doing nothing to counteract this via “softpower” means. That finally produced military conflict in 2008 when Georgia attacked Ossetia and now situation is very tense on Ukraine. Ukranian army is no match to Russian armed forces now, but they are building it fast with the help of US, Poland and NATO abd by the end of the year full armed conflict-war is very real. US is determined to create strong enough ukranian military to enter in war with Russia as soon as possible. War by proxy this is modern warfare tactics, and US will use ukranian nationalists for such a war agianst Russia and, personally Putin. Civil war is already in full force in Donbass, if Russia will stay aside, ukranian military will grow stronger and stronger, finally they smash local insurgents in Donbass and attack Crimea. Maybe next spring. This us scenario for full scale war between essentially same people, artificially divided, ideologically charged and provoked. Who will get profit? I am sure you know the answer. The same figures as always. International jewry that occupied Washington, Wall street and city of London. Clever tactics isnt it?

  12. June 10, 2014 - 6:09 pm | Permalink

    Hello RT,

    Actually, Ukrainian and Russian nationalists are together, against the regimes in Ukraine and the Russian Federation. The point of this article is not a competition between Ukrainian and Russian nationalists; and has nothing to to do with trying to get anyone to support the current Ukrainian government which is, and was of course prior to 2013-14 also, completely controlled by global oligarchy; it is only an illustration that the Russian Federation is no different from the west either (and thus the “battle between east and west”, “Russia against NATO”, “EU against Russia in Ukraine” etc is a completely false paradigm, as they are essentially one and the same). Furthermore, the liberal tendencies whitnessed in Ukraine are almost always sponsored not only from the west, but Russia as well (for instance, when people criticized Gaitana pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, like the Party of the Regions, staunchly supported her). Seeing such, supporting Putin is basically no different than supporting Poroshenko. Pro-Russian does not = Russian nationalists and more than pro-American = American patriots; Russian nationalists are against the Russian government.


  13. June 10, 2014 - 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for a very informative and balanced account of the current Ukrainian crisis, and the history behind it.
    I am quite embarrassed by the one-sided, pro-russian stance of many western nationalists.
    If Putin’s Russia would have really been opposed to the EU, IMF and all the other institutions of the NWO encroaching on Ukraine – why don’t they state so? Instead, Moscow shrieks about “fascists”, “neo-nazis”, “nationalists”, etc, like in the good old days.
    Quite a few leading Swedish nationalists, like ourselves at,

    have been sympathetic, openly supportive of the Ukrainian nationalist cause all along, whilst being wary of the efforts to hijack the revolution by the Nulands of this world.
    Most people are unable of making distinctions, however. Tragically enough,
    this is true also for many western nationalist dissidents.

  14. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    June 10, 2014 - 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Russia today is the West 30 years ago. The exact same processes are taking place and the exact same rhetoric is used.

    I agree with that. But it’s not the current Russian social attitudes (to homosexuality for instance) that are the cause of Russia refusing to accept Ukraine moving towards NATO. No, given the structure of the international system Russia has to oppose the West at all costs. Russia’s economy is not much bigger than Italy’s, and thus very vulnerable. Apart from sanctions , affluent Russians are very invested in foreign cities like London where they own houses and send their children to be educated. So the Russian ruling class is very vulnerable to denial of visas, which would not hurt Britain, and there are voices calling for that already. I see the Ukrainian policy of Russia as something that they only did because the West pushed then into a corner.

    So I don’t see that altering over the next 30 years because there is a natural conflict of interest between Russia and the West at the state level; namely each is a potential threat to the other. And no oligarch or venal elite can get away with consistently weakening the state by making concessions to such a rival. Most of the revolutions in history have occurred because the population felt the country was weakly led and not being effective in international politics.

    The status quo may not favour nationalism, but Putin may actually be creating the basis for nationalism through his gambit in Ukraine.

  15. RT's Gravatar RT
    June 10, 2014 - 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Don’t these back and forths between the pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian sides simply prove that both societies are healthier than the West, but that neither is what most readers of this site would desire? If you want examples of ethnonationalism, you can find it in Ukraine or Russia. But it’s the same with examples of multiculturalism and social liberalism.

    For example, the author points to the Cameroonian artist with the Russian wife. But there’s also Gaitana, a popular black singer from Ukraine. Sure, her selection for Eurovision was criticized by Svoboda. But, on the other hand, I read that Russian soccer teams can’t sign black players because the fans would go crazy. See the point? Russian and Ukrainian nationalists could argue along these lines for hours.

    On another matter, just because Russia is 30 years behind the West, doesn’t mean that the country is hopeless. It means that there’s still hope things can turn out differently.

Comments are closed.