The Ukrainian Conflict: A Ukrainian Nationalist View, Part 3: The Conflict with Russia

/5 Comments/in , /by

p_666707

Part 1
Part 2

The Conflict with Russia

From the point of view of global oligarchy and all forces spreading cultural decay throughout the world, the Russian Federation could not have picked a better moment to start a conflict with Ukraine. To be quite honest, it is hard to think of something that would more effectively transfer the target of most people’s hate away from them and completely save their image in Ukraine.

The aggression commenced at the moment when the previous government fell, before the new government had appeared. It was essentially a moment of anarchy, a moment when well-trained nationalist street mobs ran things in the capital, a moment when key police stations and army bases were captured, when a complete nationalist coup d’état was within reach.

Everything started in Crimea. It is here where Russian troops first entered the country and overthrew a government — in this case, installing the only truly pro-Russian movement of Crimea in power, a movement that during previous elections in Crimea obtained only 4% of the vote and had never led any large protest. The “president” and member of this movement, Sergei Askonov, turned out to be a known figure in organized crime in Ukraine, known as “goblin” in the “salem” gang in Ukraine. Read more

Back with a Bangla: “Zionist Filth” vs a Tower of Power

/in /by

Peter Golds is a Conservative politician in London. He’s also gay and Jewish. So, given the positions of the Board of Deputies, you would expect him to be delighted with the racial and religious vibrancy in the borough of Tower Hamlets. Thanks to mass immigration, White Christians are no longer dominant there and have lost the power to persecute and oppress Jews and gays.

But alas, Mr Golds is not delighted at the fruits of vibrancy. A Bangladeshi Muslim called Lutfur Rahman has just won a second term as mayor of Tower Hamlets. Has he turned the borough into a shining beacon of tolerance, equality and Islamic probity? Sadly, it doesn’t seem so:

December 2010-February 2011: At council meetings, Shiraj Haque and a crowd of other Lutfur supporters shout homophobic abuse at the mayor’s opponents from the public gallery. They abuse Peter Golds, the Tory leader, as “Mrs Golds” and a “poofter” [= “faggot”]. They heckle another gay councillor, Labour’s Josh Peck, and a gay local resident speaking at the meeting with animal noises and cries of “Unnatural acts! Unnatural acts!”

January 27, 2011: An official Labour Party inquiry finds a “concerted effort” to add fake members to the party during the campaign to select Labour’s candidate for the Tower Hamlets mayoralty.

February 23: Lutfur’s voting bloc on the council passes a motion to “campaign against the pariah state of Israel.”

March 8: Lutfur gives a character reference on Town Hall notepaper for Zamal Uddin, a minicab driver who had six weeks earlier pleaded guilty to a serious sexual assault on a woman passenger. When the press finds out, he claims that he did not know the nature of Uddin’s crime before agreeing to provide the reference.

March: Shiraj Haque is appointed chair of the advisory board for a major council-subsidised festival, the Baishakhi Mela. The council had previously removed him from all involvement with the festival and severed relations after allegations, which he denies, of massive financial irregularities and immigration fraud, with the Mela used as a front to bring in illegal immigrants under the guise of performers. (Lutfur Rahman: some facts the Guardian forgot to mention, The Daily Telegraph, 27th January 2013)

As Francis Carr Begbie has pointed out on TOO, modern Britain faces a baffling question: Why are Muslims behaving like Muslims? Peter Golds has said that Tower Hamlets is a stage for “third-world village politics” (see here). Mary Dejevsky, a journalist at The Independent, thinks that the recent elections there reflect the “worst of Bangladesh,” not the “best of British” (see here). Read more

The Ukrainian Conflict: A Ukrainian Nationalist View, Part 2: The Maidan and Yanukovych

/20 Comments/in , /by

maidan

Part 1

The Maidan and Yanukovych

In February 2010, Viktor Yanukovych became the president of Ukraine after defeating Yulia Tymoshenko in the second round of elections. (In Ukraine, if no candidate gains over 50% of the vote in the first round, the two leaders go into a one-on-one second round). Yanukovych obtained 48% of the vote, versus 45% for Tymoshenko.

The close relations of Tymoshenko and Vladimir Putin are well known in Ukraine. In fact, Tymoshenko’s imprisonment — which was one of the few deeds of the Yanukovych regime that the vast majority of Ukrainians, and especially Ukrainian nationalists supported — was vehemently opposed by not only the West, but Russia as well. It was Tymoshenko that essentially sold out Ukraine to Russia with highly corrupt gas-deals while she was prime-minister — actually one of the reasons she was sent to prison. It was because of these deals that nationalists urged voting against both candidates leading up to the elections in 2010.

Overall, the most influential oligarchs in Ukraine supported Yanukovych — often the deciding factor in Ukrainian elections. It’s worth also noting that, indeed, Eastern Ukraine gave Yanukovych an absolute majority, whereas Tymoshenko gained the support of the vast majority of western Ukraine (despite being herself a Russian-speaker from Eastern Ukraine). This is largely due not to separate views on Ukraine but internal battles between oligarchs, who largely control media and business in their respective regions. In both regions, the oligarchs are usually not ethnic Ukrainian, nor ethnic Russian, and quite often switch sides, but that is another topic for another day.

Indeed, on the most important internal questions that the Western and Russian media claim “divide” Ukraine, we see strong national unity. Read more

The Ukrainian Conflict: A Ukrainian Nationalist View, Part 1

/36 Comments/in , /by

 1398623371-9123-ss-galichina-marsh-zikua

Editor’s note: This series of articles on the current upheavals in Ukraine is written from the perspective of a Ukrainian nationalist. It also provides a nationalist perspective on Ukrainian history leading up to the present. It is of interest to TOO readers for many reasons. In particular, there are detailed comments on the conflict with Russia — a textbook case of competing nationalisms as described by Tom Sunic in several places (e.g., “Which way White Man?”). 

Comments are open for this article.

Over the past few months, there has been an enormous amount of analysis done in Western nationalist circles on the conflict in Ukraine. This analysis was, quite naturally, originally focused on the protests against the now overthrown Yanukovych government — and has since transferred towards the conflict between Ukraine and anti-state protesters inside the country. The events have been analyzed from an array of different perspectives: everyone from Eurasianists (or perhaps, I should call them “Duginists”) to Third Positionists and everything in between.

Although each respective analysis has come from a different angle, virtually every single piece of information on Ukraine on Western nationalist websites shares one key trait:  a complete lack of anything even remotely close to the Ukrainian nationalist view. This complete lack of presence of the Ukrainian nationalist view has given rise to numerous myths and quite strange theories. It can be compared to a modern, informational  Iron Curtain. Western nationalists and Ukrainian nationalists currently live in separate universes in terms of their information, and this has lead to numerous, unfortunate misunderstandings. In this article, I hope to finally give the Ukrainian nationalist view. Read more

“You Can’t Embarrass An Israeli”: Spying, Lying and Shameless Effrontery

/in /by

To understand an animal, you have to see it in its natural habitat. This also applies to words. The Yiddish word chutzpah  means “shameless effrontery.” But to understand it properly, you have to see it in its natural habitat:

Israel’s Aggressive Spying in the U.S. Mostly Hushed Up

… Despite strident denials this week by Israeli officials, Israel has been caught carrying out aggressive espionage operations against American targets for decades, according to U.S. intelligence officials and congressional sources. And they still do it. They just don’t get arrested very often.

As Newsweek reported on Tuesday, American counter-intelligence officials told members of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees at the end of January that Israel’s current espionage activities in America are “unrivaled and unseemly,” going far beyond the activities of other close allies, such as Germany, France, the U.K. and Japan.

“It has been extensive for years,” a former top U.S. security official told Newsweek Wednesday after Israeli Intelligence Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, among other top Israeli officials, “unequivocally” denied the Newsweek report, saying Israel stopped all spying operations in the U.S. after Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying for Israel in 1987. One anonymous official was quoted in the Israeli media as saying Newsweek’s account “had the whiff of anti-Semitism in it.”

But a former U.S. intelligence operative intimately familiar with Israeli espionage rejected the anti-Semitism charge. “There is a small community of ex-CIA, FBI and military people who have worked this account who are absolutely cheering on [the Newsweek] story,” he said. “Not one of them is anti-Semitic. In fact, it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It has only to do with why [Israel] gets kid-glove treatment when, if it was Japan doing it or India doing it at this level, it would be outrageous.”

Beginning in the mid-1990s, well after Israel promised to stop spying in the U.S. in the wake of the Pollard affair, the FBI regularly felt compelled to summon Israeli diplomats in D.C. for a scolding, two former top counterintelligence officials told Newsweek. During the decade following 9/11, one said, the Israelis were summoned “dozens” of times and told to “cut the shit,” as one, a former top FBI official, put it. But as an “ally,” the Israelis almost always got off with only a warning.

But no matter how stern the FBI’s lecture – usually delivered personally to the embassy’s senior intelligence representative – the Israelis were unmoved, another former top intelligence official said. “You can’t embarrass an Israeli,” he said. “It’s just impossible to embarrass them. You catch them red-handed, and they shrug and say, ‘Okay now, anything else?’” … (Israel’s Aggressive Spying in the U.S. Mostly Hushed Up, Newsweek, 8th May 2014)

Now that’s chutzpah. And if Israel can spy on America with impunity, is it any wonder that they have nothing  but contempt for American pressure to make peace with the Palestinians? Read more