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

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.

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.

17 replies

Comments are closed.