Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Russia — Insider Astounding: Top Ukrainian Politician Explains his Nazi Beliefs


Full-on Nazi.

The interesting matter is that the Right Sektor won a relatively few seats in the recent election, but its leaders have been appointed to top government positions.

20 comments:

PeterP said...

What is "astounding" is the gullibility of those falling for this crude propaganda. Such idiot politicians exist in Russia, Hungary, France, Germany and the UK, just read about the wackos in the EU parliament. He is not "top politician", he is the Ukrainian Inhoffe or some other guy who thinks women cannot get pregnant from rape or that it is cool to call his ranch Niggerhead.

It is interesting how the left's present stupidity exactly follows the steps of 1937-1939. At the time people were also pissed with the shitty countries like Poland and Czech Republic who if only they rolled over, Hitler would be appeased and all would be well with the world. War is an ultimate evil and it destroys democracy at home plus it means a huge wealth transfer to the top. But sometimes it cannot be avoided when you face people like Hitler or Putin.

Ralph Musgrave said...

Peter P,

Quite agree. But there's an easy response to the "Ukranians are Nazis" line: "Putin is a Nazi, na, na, na-na, na".

Or if you prefer: "Angela Merkel is a Nazi, na, na, na-na, na".

Or "Obama is a Nazi". Whatever.

Tom Hickey said...

Ukrainian Government's Neo-Nazi Links

Foreign Policy-Democracy Lab — Yes, There Are Bad Guys in the Ukrainian Government

AlterNet / Max Blumenthal — How the Israel Lobby Protected Ukrainian Neo-Nazis

Fair Observer-Gordon Hahn — The Ukrainian Revolution’s Neo-Fascist Problem

Der Spiegel - Steffen Winter — Tight on the Right: Germany's NPD Maintains Close Ties to Svoboda

How the far-right took top posts in Ukraine's power vacuum

Tom Hickey said...

Stay Away From Kiev… Where the chief of police is an out-of-the-closet neo-Nazi by Justin Raimond

Formally inducted into Ukraine’s US-backed military machine, the Azov Battalion was organized by openly neo-Nazi groups, and has been such a success that their deputy commander, Vadim Troyan, has been appointed the city of Kiev’s chief of police. Troyan is a member of the "Patriot[s] of Ukraine," a paramilitary group associated with the Social-National Assembly – an umbrella group, founded in 2008, uniting a number of ultra-rightist and openly neo-Nazi Ukrainian organizations. The appointment was made by Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, a member of the "moderate" People’s Front party of Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

---

And if you’re a reporter covering the conflict in Ukraine, and you have any interaction with the Ukrainian government – specifically the Ukrainian intelligence service known as the SBU – be advised that you will be dealing with Yuri Michalchyshyn, formerly the chief ideologist of the neo-fascist Svoboda party, who has been appointed head of the SBU’s "Department of Propaganda."

Michalchyhyn is a real piece of work: as the former head of the "Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center," he isn’t shy about his advocacy of National Socialism. "We are against diversity," he told the Guardian. "Ukraine is for Ukrainians." Among his political activities: organizing a torchlight parade replete with Nazi symbolism. Michalhyhyn considers the Holoaust "a bright episode in European civilization."

Ralph Musgrave said...

At last - Tom has highlighted a very definitely Nazi characteristic in these Ukranians: Michalhyhyn’s claim that the Holoaust "a bright episode in European civilization." I certainly don’t agree with that.

On the other had what’s wrong with Michalhyhyn’s claim to be “against diversity”, or his claim that “Ukraine is for Ukranians”?

Israel restricts immigration to people of Jewish race or religion. Saudi Arabia is similarly restrictive when it comes to granting permanent citizenship. Tibetans also want to protect their culture and way of life against the incursions of the lowland Chinese. Are Tibetans, Isralis and Saudis all “Nazis”?

mikehall said...

What is astounding is the gullibility of people like PeterP and Ralph to crude western propaganda...

900 military bases in 153 countries & countless wars & coups begun or aided by the US for its geopolitical interests...

That is not 'defence' - it is an EMPIRE.

Mr. said...

Ralph,

"On the other had what’s wrong with Michalhyhyn’s claim to be “against diversity”, or his claim that “Ukraine is for Ukranians”?"


Let me rephrase your question:

"what's wrong with a guy who praises the holocaust claiming that he's 'against diversity', or claiming that 'Ukraine is for Ukrainians'? What's wrong with that?"

Yeah Ralph, people who describe the holocaust as "a bright episode in European civilization" are probably "Nazis".

Ryan Harris said...

We worked with Stalin to break Hitler. It worked quite well. No one particularly liked Stalin, he was probably responsible for as much killing as Hitler. But the Allied forces came together to save Europe from the a bout of German craziness.

Similarly Ukraine nationalists have enlisted the support of a group of unsavory characters.

In progressive circles, there is no point in engaging, they've adopted facts, like the US and Europe actually are responsible for complicated history of Ukraine in the past 40 years. In their minds the recent US and Europe behavior drove the revolutions, caused Crimean invasions, shot down airliners, caused Russia to take Donbass, in general, the "west" turned away from Russia. It wasn't economic despair, corruption or anything in Ukraine, Russian support for despotic regimes. They acknowledge that all sort of happened, but is not important.
According to Progressive warmongering, it was all part of an evil US-German-Nato scheme to overthrow a hapless Putin.

Best to simply ignore the posts and not to feed into the progressive wackiness and selective appetite for facts. Merkel met with Putin and asked him directly what Europe or the US could do to reduce tensions. He didn't want anything, he needs this divide for his own economic and development reasons. It allows Russia to be important and expand markets where neighbors don't trust each other. Once those agreements are in place, he can play nice again without being a pawn of the west.

The progressive yellow journalism runs the risk of people actually believing their non-sensical analysis and having Russia's game become permanent. People need to tirelessly point out the flaws in the progressive warmongering. Lest we end up with another progressive Spanish -American war based on their goofy rhetoric.

Matt Franko said...

Mike,

For "Empire" you have to implement taxes in the vassal states in your own currency....

So what the US is doing, though there are some similarities militarily, is not technically imposing "empire"...

Whatever is we are doing seems to be running solely off of a greed or zealousness for obtaining the USD balances on the part of the external states...

So no empire. rsp,

Tom Hickey said...

1. Israel restricts immigration to people of Jewish race or religion. Saudi Arabia is similarly restrictive when it comes to granting permanent citizenship.

Israel is a proto-ehtnocarcy, and the right want to make it a full ethnocracy instead of a liberal democracy.

Saudi Arabia is the poster child of totalitarian, dictatorial, repressive regimes that the US is supporting for political and economic reasons.

2. We worked with Stalin to break Hitler. It worked quite well. No one particularly liked Stalin, he was probably responsible for as much killing as Hitler. But the Allied forces came together to save Europe from the a bout of German craziness.

Similarly Ukraine nationalists have enlisted the support of a group of unsavory characters.


There was not coverup in the US about Stalin and the "free world" was fighting for its life. The same doesn't apply to Ukraine. The Ukraine is not vital to US security and the neo-Nazi connection is being minimized if even admitted by the US government, members of whom appear in public with recognized neo-Nazis. No comparison between the two cases.

In addition, there was serious talk after WWII about taking out both the USSR and Communist China before they got more powerful. The West just couldn't muster the effort so soon after the war though. Here the talk is of immediately accepting Ukraine into the EU and NATO.

Strategically it's a mess, too. People in that region are still fighting WWII and the Cold War never really ended for them. Europeans are cognizant of this, US and UK not so much and are walking into a hornets' nest, just like Afghanistan and Iraq. Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule still applies: You break, you pay for it.

Tom Hickey said...

Merkel met with Putin and asked him directly what Europe or the US could do to reduce tensions. He didn't want anything, he needs this divide for his own economic and development reasons. It allows Russia to be important and expand markets where neighbors don't trust each other. Once those agreements are in place, he can play nice again without being a pawn of the west.

I don't know how Putin could be more specific about what he wants. He is actually looking like the grownup in the room.

It's also that the neoliberals want a return of the Yeltsin years when they had the run of the place in Russia. Most of the Russian people have this figured out and that's why they are backing Putin isn such high numbers and treating this as a attack on Russia by its Cold War enemies.

Matt Franko said...

but Tom was it not Putin who renegged on the nat gas deal thru Ukraine because of the revised price he viewed the deal in in the new Euro currency terms? or USD terms for the real measures of the gas that the deal was originally priced in?

So Putin's indignation was calibrated in USD/Euro terms.... which how different is that from the Yeltsin people? Not much if any imo...

Same with that guy in Venezuela with the oil deals... once he saw the deal in revised USD terms he became indignant and renegged...

so to these people it is all about the USD terms.... AND we dont even have to implement the "hut tax" for them to desire the USD balances ....

so NOT an "empire"... its tortured logic to suggest otherwise imo...

rsp,

Tom Hickey said...

For "Empire" you have to implement taxes in the vassal states in your own currency....

That's a pretty narrow definition of empire.

Of course,the US is not an "empire" in the equivocal use of the term in historical context but rather analogously. That's why neoliberalism as the basis for globalization is called neo-imperialism (or super-imperialism - Hudson) and neocolonialism. In both historical empire and neo-imperialism the issue is real resources.

What's going on with the US and Russia now is that the US wants Russia to be a resource rather than a power, and Russia is telling the US to back off, it's an equal (nuclear) power.

The analogous concept of empire is also different because the beneficiaries are not the military or political cohorts of historical empire, but the oligarchs whose interests these other cohorts serve. Some of the oligarchs are natural persons (often dynastic families) and some legal persons (corporations) — Romney: "Corporations are persons, too."

The oligarchs select the political candidates that the people get to "choose" in elections, hire the corporate lobbyists that write the legislation and regulation, and control the revolving door that ensures corporations are represented at the highest levels of government.

I'll let Gen. Smedley Butler explain the military:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
— Socialist newspaper Common Sense, 1935


"My interest is, my one hobby is, maintaining a democracy. If you get these 500,000 soldiers advocating anything smelling of Fascism, I am going to get 500,000 more and lick the hell out of you, and we will have a real war right at home."
—Reply to Gerald MacGuire, after being asked to organize WWI veterans (for military support) in a fascist-coup of FDR, as related by Butler in testimony before Congress, 1934.[specific citation needed] A reporter (a Butler confidant) testified MacGuire said, "We might go along with Roosevelt and then do with him what Mussolini did with the King of Italy." Which was, made him a figure-head.

Wikiquote

Tom Hickey said...

so to these people it is all about the USD terms.... AND we dont even have to implement the "hut tax" for them to desire the USD balances ...

In the dollarized global economy this is the way it looks to them, and it's why many countries, specifically BRICS, want to escape what they perceive as dollar hegemony.

Of course, that is not the only hegemony. There is also infrastructure hegemony — Brazil is now building its own internet so it can avoid traffic though US controlled nodes.

Also financial hegemony — Russia and other are building an alternative to SWIFT.

Also military hegemony. Russia and China are forming a strategic alliance to counter Atlanticism.

There's a multipolar world forming on many different levels.

This did not need to be if the Atlanticists did not overreach. Without the push for globalization under neoliberalism, this could have been done in a more integrated way that took the needs of everyone into account. But that was not to be, and in the US it was bipartisan.

Ryan Harris said...

These are my facts/assumptions on Ukraine with as little framing/rhetoric as I can muster:

The US hasn't invaded territory.
The US hasn't provided any troops.
The US hasn't incited revolt.
The US hasn't installed or removed leaders.
The US hasn't provided any weapons.
Prior to Russian invasion of Donbass, the US had no Troops in any part of Eastern Europe or former Soviet territory.
The US has had diplomatic, economic, and possibly intelligence relations with Ukraine.
The US has provided non-lethal military and non-military aid to Ukraine.

Russia has invaded territory.
Russia has provided troops.
Russia incited revolt.
Russia installed and removed leaders.
Russia has provided weapons.
Russia was amassing troops and weapons along the borders of eastern Europe and the Balkans with periodic incursions.
Russia had diplomatic, economic, and possibly intelligence relations with Ukraine.
Russia has provided lethal and non-lethal military and non-military aid to Donbas.

So given all that? What is it that Putin is alleging that the US has done in Ukraine that threatens Russia? His state media reported today that the US has provided non-violent military aid of around $118 million. The Ukrainians asked for a variety of small weapons but were rebuffed.

All the stuff about being adults in the room, I don't know what qualifies as being adult in the room. I've seen no aggression from the United States with the exception of sanctions after Russia took Crimea and Donbas.

Tom Hickey said...

One of the problems in the debate is disputed facts. The two sides see the situation entirely differently.

I don't pretend to have the facts. I assume that most everyone here is up on the Western news. Another view is presented for consideration.

In my view, reality is much less influential than perception, except when it isn't. Most of the time, the process is largely perception driven. This was evident, for example, in the US rushing to get out ahead in the spinning of MH17 while providing zero evidence. Moreover, this is a well-known PR and propaganda m.o.

Obviously, all parties present (spin) the case to their own benefit. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle, but discerning what the truth may actually be based on definitive evidence and objective investigation is usually not possible often because no one that actually knows is telling.

A significant aspect of intelligence is sifting through reports coming from all directions, discounting biases, and attempting to come up with plausible accounts and assessing their probability.

The US has a very strong interest in public opinion being shielded from any Nazi-like or even extremist association, whereas Russian public opinion can be galvanized by playing up the role that neo-Nazis play in the unfolding events and the Ukraine government, so that Russians see this as a replay of WWII and react accordingly. The the US has an interest in demonizing "Putler," and Russia has an interest in using neo-Nazism to strengthen Russian resolve to resist Atlanticist pressure no matter what ("all options on the table"). So the upshot is that the West is convinced that the Russians will fight if pushed into a corner and no one but the US neocons and some Eastern European Russophobes want to risk WWIII over Ukraine.

In my view, reading pretty broadly, the evidence points more toward the Russian spin about conditions in the Ukraine than the US spin. Moreover, there is a growing perception in Europe, especially Germany that the neo-Nazi association is real, and this is affecting German public opinion in spite of the mainstream reporting.

NBC: German TV Shows Nazi Symbols on Helmets of Ukraine Soldiers

This reporting was minimized in the MSM:

In a remarkable feat of irrationality Sementchenko even admitted to his battalion wearing Nazi insignia: "Yes, we wear swastikas, but such symbols do not mean much anymore".

Although Nazi insignia are illegal in Germany, Die Zeit does not seem to understand that there is a reason this law exists - namely to prevent a repeat of history.


Top German Newspapers Whitewash Leading Ukrainian Neo-Nazis

The media fog doesn't mean that its not possible to form a reasonably well-informed viewpoint (and be willing to change it with new information). We can debate the merits of different points of view based on different assumptions and evidence, and perhaps come to a closer approximation of the actual facts. So far I am not convinced by counter-evidence to views that I have espoused, or I would change those views.

Bob said...

You break it, you pay for it.

I think the idea is to make Russia pay for it. They stirred up a hornets nest, but since it is in Russia's backyard, the Russians will have to own the mess. Toppling the regime in Kiev will be a propaganda coup for NATO boosters. The role of the Ukrainian people is to be martyrs.

This is my non-nuclear scenario.

Tom Hickey said...

Bob, my take is that the US m.o. is either regime change in favor of neoliberal control, or continuous destabilization. Now that regime change has happened in Ukraine without the desired result of resolving the situation in favor of neoliberalism, the neoliberals will keep the place in a state of destabilization like Iraq, where the US hasn't been able to install a neoliberal regime in control of the country post-Saddam.

The losers in Ukraine are the Ukrainians that have just lost their country. The US expected the Iraqis to greet their victorious army with flowers after ousting Saddam, with the immediate installation of (oligarchic) democracy — remember Ahmad Chalabi? He was the US choice then, and he still is, but the Iraqis aren't having it.

Similarly, the US expected the Ukraine to easily transit from the previous oligarchic regime to a US led one in which the new Ukraine would be given EU and NATO membership, NATO would take over the Russian naval base in Crimea giving it control of the Black Sea, and the neoliberal West and Ukrainian oligarchs would get Ukrainian resources just as the Western oil companies were slated for Iraqi oil. But the same thing happened in the Ukraine as happened in Iraq. Who could have known?

There is no foreseeable fix now other than the confederation that Russia has proposed and the US will never accept, especially Russian annexation of Crimea. Even then, the eastern Ukrainians just want out of Ukraine entirely rather than a confederation with sworn enemies that could never work or last.

As Putin famously put it, everything the US touches turns to shit.

PeterP said...

Bob,

You say "Russia will have to own the mess". This sentence already shows a deep cultural devide at work. To you, a western man, "mess" is bad. For Russia mess in Ukraine and other places near it is a perfectly good outcome! That's why most its neighbors are trying to extricate themselves from the influence of this "civilization" and they were willing to endure ravages of neoliberalism just to escape.

Bob said...

"Mess" includes civilian casualties, damage to infrastructure, hatred between ethnic groups and economic damage. These are bad things for the people living there.

Russian internal politics = US foreign policy? I won't disagree with that.

The Nazi elements of the Kiev regime want nothing to do with the EU. They experienced that kind of looting during the time of the Golden Horde.