683 Cancelled Conferences - in Tehran & Budapest; Dugin denied a visa

Cancelled Conferences - in Tehran & Budapest; Dugin denied a visa

Dugin explains that his Eurasia philosophy is embraced by many Slavs,
Turks and other peoples of the Russian Republic. In my view, it's
civilizational rather than race-based. American "patriots" should learn
from him.

Newsletter published on 8 October 2014

(1) "Anti-Semitic" conference in Tehran on Zionism & US imperialism
(2) Another conference that nearly got cancelled - in Hungary
(3) Another conference that nearly got cancelled - Report from Budapest
(4) Alexander Dugin's speech intended for Budapest conference
(5) Alexander Dugin: Orthodox Eurasianism
(6) Alexander Dugin: Letter to the American People on Ukraine
(7) Gennady Zyuganov: The Crisis in Ukraine and its Deep Roots

(1) "Anti-Semitic" conference in Tehran on Zionism & US imperialism

From: "Israel Shamir adam@israelshamir.net [shamireaders]"
<shamireaders@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 03:31:24 +0200
Subject: [shamireaders] Eric Walberg's report from Tehran conference of
free thinkers [8 Attachments]

New Horizon Conference: Meeting of minds in Tehran

Written by Eric Walberg

Tuesday, 07 October 2014 10:08

http://www.crescent-online.net/2014/10/meeting-of-minds-in-tehran-eric-walberg-4674-articles.html

DELEGATES O'KEEFE, ESCOBAR, OLIVIER

The 2nd conference "New Horizon: the International Conference of
Independent Thinkers" was held in Tehran, September 29--October 1 2014,
including over 30 journalists, writers and academics from around the
world presenting papers and arguing issues of world geopolitics, with a
focus on the Middle East. I represented Canada, along with University of
Lethbridge Globalization Studies Professor Anthony Hall, author of/Earth
into Property: Colonization, Decolonization, and Capitalism/(2010). It
was greeted in western media by hysterical denunciations, in the first
place by the American Jewish Committee which accused it of "promoting
hatred of Jews and Israel" and the Anti-Defamation League which accused
it of "promoting anti-Semitic propaganda".

The conference almost didn't take place at all, having been officially
cancelled, supposedly as a gesture to the West, after the new Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani was elected last year. But after a flood of
criticism at Iranian websites sympathetic to the organizers, the Iranian
Foreign Ministry reversed itself. Nader Talebzadeh, the principal
organizer, had had to lobby hard to reinstate the conference, calling
the cancellation of the conference "a major mistake on the part of our
government". "Have our leaders given in so much to the world that they
are even afraid of a conference that might hurt Mr Obama's feelings?"
asked one blogger sarcastically.

The 1st New Horizon Conference in September 2012 was denounced in the
West when it was addressed by the previous president Mahmoud
Ahmedinejad, probably best remembered in the West for his 2005 soundbyte
that Israel should be "wiped off the map", referring to Ayatollah
Khomeini's prediction that "the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish
from the page of time." The translation of the Persian text was later
corrected but this was ignored in the West, where Ahmedinejad was
further accused of "holocaust denial" for suggesting the figure of six
million as the number of Jews who died in the holocaust was exaggerated,
and mocked for suggesting that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

Indeed, most Iranians see 9/11 as involving some degree of conspiracy by
the US and/or Israel, but then so do, for instance, 55% of Egyptians.
So, not surprisingly, prominent at the New Horizon Conference this year
was the world's leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist, France's Theirry
Meyssan, who in 2002 published what is still considered the classic work
on the topic,/9/11: The Big Lie (L'Effroyable imposture),/translated
into 28 languages, arguing that the//attacks were organized by a faction
of "the US military industrial complex in order to impose a military
regime." Meyssan also argues that the attack against the Pentagon was
not carried out by a commercial airliner but by a missile. Also present
was American filmmaker Art Olivier, who produced the feature film
"Operation Terror" (2012), whose scenario followed Meyssan's.

In a YouGov poll last year, 60% of Americans rejected the official
explanation as published in the/9/11 Commission Report/(2004), so
Meyssan's call for a UN investigation of 9/11 and the recent petition
signed by 100,000 New Yorkers for an investigation of the collapse of
World Trade Center building 7 are surely legitimate, though they have
been blocked by politicians as "absolutely ridiculous" and "wild fantasies".

  Iran's current President Rouhani was not associated directly with this
year's conference, instead embroiled in a controversy with UK Prime
Minister David Cameron, who both extended his hand in friendship to
Rouhani at the UN General Assembly in a "historic meeting", and then
slapped him in the face from the UN General Assembly podium, attacking
Iran for its "support for terrorist organizations, its nuclear program,
its treatment of its people", called it "part of the problem in the
Middle East".

"On the contrary," said a peeved Rouhani in his address to the UN,
blaming the West and Saudi Arabia for sowing the seeds of extremism in
the Middle East with "strategic blunders" that have given rise to the
Islamic State and other violent jihadist groups. He also criticized the
West's sanctions on Iran's nuclear program and reiterated his
government's desire to resolve the dispute, stating that no cooperation
with the West against ISIS is possible until the sanctions are lifted.
He called Cameron's comments at the UN "wrong and unacceptable."

Appropriately, the New Horizon Conference opened with the book launch of
the Persian edition of US journalist Gareth Porter's/Manufactured
Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare/(2014). Porter told
me, "Through painstaking checking with experts and an IAEA official, I
discovered that the documents submitted to the IAEA, which supposed
showed Iranian plans to put nuclear warheads on their missiles, were
fabricated by the terrorist group People's Mojahedin of Iran and were
passed on the IAEA by Mossad. They were contradictory---clearly doctored
blueprints for an obsolete missile system." Porter was awarded the UK
Gellhorn Prize for investigative journalism in 2012 for exposing
official lies concerning US policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. With
this latest expose, Porter did for the Iranian nuclear dossier what he
and others did after 2003 in exposing the lies that prompted the US
invasion of Iraq.

The sessions were varied. "The Gaza War and the BDS Movement Strategies"
was addressed by Code Pink activist Medea Benjamin, who has been
arrested dozens of time for her plucky protests at Congressional
hearings against the war in Iraq, and who famously interrupted a speech
by President Barack Obama in May 2013 protesting his continued use of
drones against civilians. (She is barred from entering Canada.) Benjamin
suggested a new project to highlight illegal Israeli settlements:
activists hope to target one of the largest US-based real estate firms,
RE/MAX, which "operates in over 90 countries, including Israel, where it
sells homes complete with swimming pools in the West Bank to Israeli
settlers in defiance of international law." Every Sunday tens of
thousands of "open houses" are held by RE/MAX around the world. Benjamin
hopes activists will picket these open houses to embarrass RE/MAX into
ceasing their West Bank activities.

A session on Islam and the West, "Postsecularism and its Discontents",
emphasized the importance of ethics in Islamic civilization which makes
subservience to market diktat unacceptable, and is a major stumbling
block to understanding between the West and the Muslim world. "There is
no teleology in western society, no guiding morality, only an obsession
with materialism, with logos," argued organizer Arash Darya-Bandari. "We
believe it is necessary to control the negative tendencies in culture,
such as pornography, alcohol, drugs, prostitution, to strive towards a
more moral and justice society."

"The 'Islamic' State Meme, its Precursors, and the US-Israel-Saudi
Triangle" heard frontline reports from Meyssan and others about the
intentional destruction of the Iraqi and Syrian states by the invasion
of Iraq and ongoing western and Israeli support for insurgents in Syria,
directly resulting in ISIS's phenomenal success. "The West has abetted
Sunni-Shia differences in the process to keep Muslims divided and allow
continued western penetration and control of the growing chaos there,"
charged Meyssan. Rouhani's comment at the UN---"Certain intelligence
agencies [who] have put blades in the hands of madmen, who now spare no
one,"---is hard to argue with.

In the session "The Israeli Lobby in England", Stephen Sizer, Anglican
vicar and author of/Christian Zionism---Road Map to Armageddon?/(2004),
explained that the vast majority of Zionists are not Jewish, but
Christian. This prompted him in 2006 to draft what became known as the
Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism signed by four of the Heads
of Churches declaring Christian Zionism a heretical belief, both immoral
and a contradiction of faith. The rector of the University of Middlesex
was pressured to rescind Sizer's PhD but the examination committee
wouldn't budge. Nor has Sizer been cowed by constant harassment,
including a break-in and the theft of his computer. At the same time, on
his visits to Tehran, Sizer lobbies on behalf of Iranian religious
minorities and always brings Persian-language New Testaments as "gifts".
"My intent is to show the Iranians that genuine Christians are not a
threat to anyone, but bring the message of peace and love."

Contrary to the shrill cries in the western media that the conference
was anti-Semitic, it was unique in my experience in addressing Zionism
and US imperialism forthrightly and intelligently, without a hint of
racism. The issue of anti-Semitism was addressed and dismissed, as
"There is no issue with Jewish people or the Jewish religion," explained
Darya-Bandari, "but rather with Zionism, that secular distortion of
Judaism that itself is racist, and has been used as a pretext to
dispossess  and kill Palestinians."

The American Defense League loudly attacked the conference for focusing
on Zionist control of western media and the outsize influence of the
Zionist Lobby in the US and around the world. So what's wrong with that?
There is more than enough documented proof of this, as I discover when I
researched/Postmodern Imperialism/. The ADL labelled several of the
delegates as anti-Semitic, including ex-US Marine Ken O'Keefe, who has
led several relief convoys to Gaza, has appeared several times on BBC's
Hardtalk in support of Gaza, and famously renounced his US citizenship
in view of US crimes around the world. It should be remembered that the
ADL was successfully sued in the 1990s for false accusations of
anti-Semitism.

The conference issued a resolution condemning ISIS, Zionism, US
unconditional support of Israel, Islamophobia, and calling for
activismlocally to boycott Israeli goods and to promote understanding
between the West and the Muslim world, and to fight sectarianism. "This
was a great opportunity to meet anti-imperialist activists from around
the world, to bring Russians, Poles, western Europeans, North Americans
together with Iranians and other Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, in a
forum without sectarianism, truly supporting peace and understanding,"
said delegate Mateusz Piskorski, director of the European Centre of
Geopolitical Analysis in Warsaw and former MP in the Polish Sejm.

(2) Another conference that nearly got cancelled - in Hungary

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 00:33:11 -0700
From: Archer Frey <archerc@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Fw: Tom Sunic Reporting briefly : Concerning Budapest Congress

Hi all,

By now I am sure you have heard about the disruption of the conference
in Budapest. Tom Sunic it appears is now back in Croatia. We await his
report

For those interested in more information go to Dr. Kevin MacDonald's site

The Silencing of the NPI in Budapest, Kevin MacDonald on October 4, 2014
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/10/the-silencing-of-the-npi-in-budapest/

and

The Silencing of the NPI in Budapest: Update, Kevin MacDonald on October
5, 2014
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/10/the-silencing-of-the-npi-in-budapest-updated/

Archer

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Stan Hess <eamerica123@roadrunner.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2014 9:39 PM
Subject: Tom Sunic Reporting briefly : Concerning Budapest Congress

All,

I’ve just made it safely back to Croatia in my rented car  -- across
Slovenia from Hungary.Long trip. I wanted to avoid questioning at the
much closer  Hung-Cro border crossing --  as a safe measure and just  in
case.
I must tell you I had been worried sick prior to my departure for
Hungary on Oct 3, and especially after the arrest of Richard NPI  on Oct
3. And even this morning when driving back from Budapest to Croatia. The
whole atmosphere reminded me of the communist Yugoslav times, or worse,
of the Bella Kuhn recap softer version.

But it was worth a shot. I am sure it will send a clear signal to all
white US -European would- be nationalists that fighting solely behind
the computer keyboards is another form of self-delusion. We have to be
physically present.
I am sure you heard comments about the good dinner talks  (70 guests )(
by T Sunic, Jared Taylor)  from different European sources. Also our
interviews to the BBC and mine in German with  Die Welt.
Richard can henceforth serve as a role model for similar conference set
ups in the EU and the USA.
I guess the Budapest event, however curtailed, was a historic meeting.

In my capacity as US citizen and former professor and former diplomat I
will send a short note to the US Ambassador in Hungary and the Hungarian
ambassador in Zagreb, complaining about the  repression of free speech.
I will consult about the wording with friends, prof.  Kevin McDonald and
W. Johnson.esq.

I am trying now to put my thoughts together.

Regards
Tom

keep in touch

(3) Another conference that nearly got cancelled - Report from Budapest

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:22:51 -0700
From: Archer Frey <archerc@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, Report from Budapest

Report from Budapest

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, October 5, 2014

http://www.amren.com/news/2014/10/report-from-budapest/

A full report on the "forbidden" NPI conference.

It was a bold idea from the beginning. The National Policy Institute
(NPI), an American organization, was to hold a conference in Budapest on
“The Future of Europe.” In addition to well-known identitarians such as
Philippe Vardon of France, Markus Willinger of Germany, and myself, the
controversial Russian academic Alexander Dugin, was to take part.
Hungary’s Jobbik party would would provide essential support on the
ground, and one of its elected representatives was to address the meeting.

However, about two weeks before the conference, Prime Minister Victor
Orban came under pressure from the Hungarian Socialist Party and
condemned the conference. His statement mentioned Prof. Dugin by name,
and characterized NPI as a “xenophobic and exclusionary” organization.
Those of us scheduled to take part began to worry that pressure would
build on the Larus Event Center to cancel its contract to host the
conference.

Things got worse. A little more than a week before the conference, the
Interior Ministry issued a statement forbidding the meeting, and warning
that all speakers would be stopped at the border or deported if found
within Hungary. Again, Prof. Dugin was cited as a particularly offensive
speaker, but others were cited as “racists” who might violate the
Hungarian fundamental law that forbids “violating the human dignity of
others.”

I arrived on September 29, the Monday before the weekend of the
conference, and had no trouble with border control. Others were not so
lucky. William Regnery, the NPI board chairman, was scheduled to fly in
for a Tuesday meeting with the general manager of the Novotel City
Center hotel, where a number of conference events were planned. Mr.
Regnery had asked me to attend the meeting with him, but when I got to
the hotel, I was dismayed to learn that Mr. Regnery had not arrived. The
hotel manager confirmed that the Larus Center had canceled its contract.
He also said that many people attending the conference were booked at
the hotel and that since the meeting was now forbidden, he had to make a
decision about whether to hold the rooms.

Later that day I later learned that Mr. Regnery had been stopped at the
Hungarian border by the police,  put in a detention cell overnight, and
deported to London. That same day, the hotel manager unilaterally
canceled all the room reservations and planned events.

Likewise on Tuesday, I was shocked to learn that Jobbik support had
completely melted away, and that no one was looking for an alternate
venue. I knew that Jobbik representative Marton Gyongyosi, who had been
scheduled to speak, had withdrawn, accusing the organizers of “racism,”
but I assumed we still had some local Hungarian support. I was wrong. We
had no one. Mr. Regnery telephoned from London and asked me to find a
suitable venue. We were also in contact with Richard Spencer, the
director of NPI, who asked me to find a private room in a restaurant for
a dinner–for an estimated 70 people.

The forbidden conference was now big news. The press was full of stories
about Russian extremists and American “racists” about to converge in
Budapest. I was afraid it would arouse suspicions if an American phoned
up restaurants trying to book a last-minute dinner for 70. I decided to
wait until the next day, when I knew a Hungarian-American would be
arriving, who could make calls in Hungarian.

We finally got to work on Wednesday, and found a charming, traditional
restaurant that was willing to serve as many as 100 people in a private
room. We took a taxi to the restaurant, worked up a menu, and made a
down payment. We had a venue!–so long as we could keep it secret. We
scouted the neighborhood and established a redirection point nearby so
that we could tell people to meet there and be taken to the restaurant
rather than reveal its name and address in advance. Mr. Spencer was thus
able to send e-mail messages to everyone registered for the conference,
telling them that the event was still on, and that they were to meet
Saturday evening at the redirection point.

Mr. Spencer was to arrive the next day, and we were all worried he would
get the same treatment as Mr. Regnery, but he slipped across the
Austrian-Hungarian border by train without attracting attention. He gave
a number of interviews to the press, and he and I met Thursday evening
to toast to the success of the conference.

Disaster struck the next day. Mr. Spencer had sent a message to a number
of supporters inviting them to meet him informally at the Clock Café in
Budapest that evening. Late that night, an estimated 40 police officers
descended on the café and locked it down for two hours, while they asked
for identification papers and grilled people.

Some 20 people who did not have papers were taken outside for
interrogation. Mr. Spencer, who did not have his passport with him, was
arrested and asked police to let everyone else go. He was detained along
with French-American journalist James Willy, whom the authorities appear
to have thought had some role in organizing the conference. We have
since heard from Mr. Spencer that he is safe and unhurt, but is likely
to be in detention until Monday, when he will be deported. Fortunately,
I was not at that gathering; otherwise, I suspect I would be sharing a
cell with Mr. Spencer.

The arrest was a terrible blow. We don’t know how the police knew to go
to the Clock Café, so we didn’t know how much our security was breached.
I felt sure the police did not know about the restaurant, but did they
know about the redirection point? This was a forbidden meeting. Would
they arrest everyone who showed up?

Mr. Regnery had planned to come back to Hungary at the last minute for
the dinner but after Mr. Spencer’s arrest, he decided that would be
foolish. On Saturday morning we consulted by phone and had to make some
hard decisions. Cancel for fear the police would break up the meeting?
Tell only trusted people the name of the restaurant and tell everyone
else the dinner was off?

I met with a trusted associate of Richard Spencer. We looked over the
list of 65 or so people who said they planned to come to the redirection
point and recognized only about 20 names. It didn’t make sense to have a
small dinner for people we already knew. We sent them a message with the
name and address of the restaurant, but told everyone else to go to the
redirection point. I went directly to the restaurant, and another man
went to the redirection point early, to keep an eye out for the police.
If there were no police, he was to bring people to the restaurant. How
much did the police know? I packed a change of clothes and a toothbrush
in my briefcase in case I had to spend a night in a cell.

As it happened, there were no police at the redirection point, and
people were skillfully in groups to the restaurant. Before long, we had
76 people in all–more than half the original number of
registrants–including guests from Sweden, Germany, Austria, Holland,
Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, Australia, Slovakia, Britain, Ireland,
Croatia, the United States, Spain, Canada, Russia, and even Mexico and
Japan. To my disappointment there was only one Hungarian. He explained
that the conference had been virtually unknown in Hungary until the
scandal broke, and that a few others who had registered dropped out when
the police prohibited the meeting.

We admitted three journalists who had been cleared in advance by Mr.
Spencer, but kept out half a dozen more who showed up but had not been
cleared. I stepped outside and answered their questions for 20 minutes,
but decided not to let them cover the event.

(4) Alexander Dugin's speech intended for Budapest conference

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1067408/

Alexander Dugin released the speech he intended to deliver at the NPI's
European Congress conference.

Comment (Peter M.):
The speech is a Youtube at the above link. It was a bit too
existentialist for me;
I watched about half of it. It was not at all racist - why was this man
denied a visa by the Hubgarian government?

(5) Alexander Dugin: Orthodox Eurasianism

http://openrevolt.info/2014/09/01/alexander-dugin-orthodox-eurasianism/

Posted on September 1, 2014 by AnonAF

Translated for Open Revolt by Venator

1 – The term “Orthodox Eurasianism” is increasingly used by the junta in
Kiev to describe the worldview of the Republic of Novorossia. While it
is clear that this element of language was designed in Washington, it is
however, in my view, quite correct.

2 – Almost all historical Eurasists were Orthodox Russian patriots.
However,unlike Slavophiles and Leontiev, they were skeptical about the
possibility of uniting all Slavs because they felt that cultural,
religious and historical differences between them were more important
than their ethno-linguistic proximity. At the same time, they emphasized
that Russian civilization had integrated into a unity of destiny a
number of non-Slavic peoples (Turks, Caucasians, people of Siberia)
which were in geographical contact us.

3 – As early as the 1990s, under our influence, Eurasianism integrated
into its corpus geopolitics (thalassocracy against tellurocracy, Eurasia
against the Atlantic world, Eurasians against Atlanticist) and
traditionalism (Tradition against the modern and postmodern world).

4 – All of this is in fact the ideological foundation of the Republic of
Novorossia. First, it is at the forefront of the Orthodox religious
identity in a cultural sense (against Ukrainian nationalism and the
Uniate Church and against liberal theory of human rights and protection
of sexual minorities) . Secondly, there is an opposition in the
geopolitical choice, Euromaïdan being purely Atlanticist. Thirdly, the
Republic of Novorossia is following an anti-liberal and social
orientation, and in favor of traditional values. Fourthly, the symbolic
presence in the ranks of it’s army of Ossetians or Chechens volunteers,
corresponds to the unity of destiny cited above.

5 – More interestingly, in the current acute civilizational
confrontation causing tens of thousands of deaths, air strikes and
artillery fire against the civilian population are ordered by the
Atlanticist junta in Kiev in order to punish the Republic of Novorossia
seen as a bastion of Orthodoxy and Eurasia opposing Atlanticism,
liberalism and Nazism, while in the minds of the leaders of the Republic
of Novorossia and its citizens the same pattern prevails: they are at
the front line of a battle between Russia and the West, Orthodoxy and
the anti-religious modernity, Eurasia and the Atlantic world.

Is there the same understanding of the situation In Russia? Yes, for the
grassroot patriots, but not in the elite. A considerable part of it is
liberal, Atlanticist and postmodernist. Its members do not think of
themselves as citizens of a great nation, but as the inhabitants of a
small country, and they are not a fifth column that would act in secret,
but a sixth, openly integrated into the global network of Atlanticism,
liberalism, capitalism and postmodernity. They no longer think as
members of a people but only as members of this network.

6 – In Russia, Orthodox Eurasianism remains in a passive and implicit
state, it does not become conscious because it does not face a direct
existential and straightforward enemy. Russia is a huge country and the
daily lives of Russians is filled with a myriad of technical details
that do not allow most to have an overall view of the situation. Trying
to raise awareness, even approximately, is as difficult as explaining a
koan. But when, as in the Republic of Novorossia, citizens are faced
with a will to destroy their culture, religion and ethnicity, it becomes
urgent to establish their own identity. That is why othodoxe Eurasianism
has grown from an implicit to explicit state. There, it is no longer a
matter of words, but of war, it is a vital issue.

7 -Thus was born the dissonance between modern Russian elite and the
Republic of Novorossia. There are more and more conflict between them,
hence the delays and failures of concrete assistance from Russia to the
Republic of Novorossia and the explanation of precedents like the failed
action spin doctors (since fired ) in the Kremlin, who began to
marginalize those who were conservative, patriotic, Orthodox or
Eurasisans. Thus, the contradiction between the ideology of the elite of
the Russian world and that of the majority of the inhabitants of
Novorossia and Russia is becoming more and more apparent. The sixth
column has particularly revealed itself in it’s hysterical hostility
towards the volunteer army of the Republic of Novorossia, it can be
clearly defined ideologically (ie by it’s cultural and geopolitical
religious positions) as a rejection of Orthodox Eurasianism.

8 – Now, it is inevitable that the Orthodox Eurasianism becomes the
ideological paradigm of the Republic of Novorossia. Orthodoxy is the
spiritual core of identity, Eurasianism it’s geopolitical, cultural and
civilizational marker. Since Novorossia, this ideology will only grow
and widen the scope of it’s struggle. Accordingly, facing the Republic
of Novorossia, Moscow will have to deal with the Orthodox eurasians of
the Russian state. The volunteers of the Russian Federation fighting in
the militia of the Republic of Novorossia, by confronting their true
spiritual and geopolitical enemy, discovered that identity and they go
back home with it. Now the words of the priests who officiate in Russian
Orthodox churches, history and geopolitical books will be perceived
differently: both as an existential issue that involves life, death and
blood, and as a backbone. Thanks to those who will be engaged in the
defense of the Republic of Novorossia and who experience this particular
Eurasian Orthodox identity, the rest of the Russian population will
learn more about its ideological identity. At the same time, the
achievements of the Soviet Union will not be excluded but included in a
broader context rid of orthodox Marxism, materialism and atheism. That
is the Eurasian ideology: it mainly includes the legacy of orthodoxy of
the Byzantine monarchy and Russian nationalism, not to mention the
Russian interpretation of Soviet history as briefly expressed in
National Bolshevism. Orthodox Eurasianism incorporates the theories of
Ustrialov’s review “Change of direction” and integrates them in a
general paradigm opposing Atlanticism, the West, liberalism and
postmodernism. We can write that it is the “natural organic ideology” of
the great Russian nation. Fighting every day, even in Russia, for the
Republic of Novorossia, strengthens eurasian orthodox positions.

9 – This analysis explains why the sixth column in Russia is so alarmed
and tries to discredit all patriotic political initiatives in favor of
the Republic of Novorossia. If they fail to eradicate the new stream of
Orthodox Eurasianism, it will increase its influence in Russian society
and become a serious threat to the entire liberal and Atlanticist
network of the Russian elite. This explains everything, including my
recent exclusion from the university. We are dealing with symbolic acts
that are of great importance: hitting Orthodox Eurasians is beneficial
to the Liberal Atlanticists.

10 – Where is the place of Putin in this ideological pattern? He always
preferred to be above the fray of liberals and conservatives,
Atlanticist and Eurasists, agents of the enemy and patriots. This is his
mysterious tactics. Usually Putin himself speaks ambiguously, so that
his words can be interpreted either as Eurasian or as Atlanticist.
Similarly, the support or opposition to Putin are not structured
ideologically : his supporters and opponents are indiscriminately
Eurasists, Orthodox, liberal and Atlanticist. However, the vast majority
of Orthodox Eurasians are in favor of Putin and the vast majority of
Atlanticist liberals are hostile to him. Putin is not fundamentally
opposed to Orthodox Eurasianism as, alas, he has no objection to liberal
Atlanticism. He does not reveal his own ideology. He makes evasive
statements that are immediately interpreted in one way or another. Putin
does not follow a straight line and it does not make sense to ask who he
supports, Atlanticists or Eurasians. He is above the fray. He is now
familiar in the role of the mysterious and unpredictable ruler, whose
speeches are like contradictory koans, but when the time comes to act,
he does what needs to be done and, in critical situations, it is always
the right thing in terms of Orthodox Eurasianism.

Until recently, in the the elite, the Atlanticist liberals dominated the
ideological and technological fields, and they had the media monopoly of
the interpretation of the presidential speech. Now, that monopoly is in
danger because of the events in Ukraine and the time has come for the
Orthodox Eurasian interpretation.

(6) Alexander Dugin: Letter to the American People on Ukraine

http://openrevolt.info/2014/03/08/alexander-dugin-letter-to-the-american-people-on-ukraine/

Letter to the American People on Ukraine

by Alexander Dugin

Posted on March 8, 2014 by AnonAF

In this difficult hour of serious trouble on our Western borders, I
would like to address the American people in order to help you
understand better the positions of our Russian patriots which are shared
by the majority of our society.

Difference Between the two Meanings of Being American (In the Russian View)

1. We distinguish between two different things: the American people and
the American political elite. We sincerely love the first and we
profoundly hate the second.

2. The American people has its own traditions, habits, values, ideals,
options and beliefs that are their own. These grant to everybody the
right to be different, to choose freely, to be what one wants to be and
can be or become. It is wonderful feature. It gives strength and pride,
self-esteem and assurance. We Russians admire that.

3. But the American political elite, above all on an international
level, are and act quite contrary to these values. They insist on
conformity and regard the American way of life as something universal
and obligatory. They deny other people the right to difference, they
impose on everybody the standards of so called “democracy”,
“liberalism”, “human rights” and so on that have in many cases nothing
to do with the set of values shared by the non-Western or simply not
North-American society. It is an obvious contradiction with inner ideals
and standards of America. Nationally the right to difference is assured,
internationally it is denied. So we think that something is wrong with
the American political elite and their double standards. Where habits
became the norms and contradictions are taken for logic. We cannot
understand it, nor can we accept it: it seems that the American
political elite is not American at all.

4. So here is the contradiction: the American people are essentially
good, but the American elite is essentially bad. What we feel regarding
the American elite should not be applied to the American people and vise
versa.

5. Because of this paradox it is not so easy for a Russian to express
correctly his attitude towards the USA. We can say we love it, we can
say we hate it – because both are true. But it is not easy to always
express this distinction clearly. It creates many misunderstandings. But
if you want to know what Russians really think about the USA you should
always keep in mind this remark. It is easy to manipulate this semantic
duality and interpret anti-Americanism of Russians in an improper sense.
But with these clarifications in mind all that you hear from us will be
much better understood.

A Short Survey of Russian History

1. The American Nation was born with capitalism. It didn’t exist in the
Middle Ages. The ancestors of Americans had not experienced an American
Middle Age, but a European one. So that is a feature of America. Maybe
that’s the reason why Americans sincerely think that Russian Nation was
born with communism, with the Soviet Union. But that is a total
misconception. We are much older than that. The Soviet period was just a
short epoch in our long history. We existed before the Soviet Union and
we are existing after the Soviet Union. So in order to understand
Russians (and Ukrainians as well) you should take into consideration our
past.

2. Russians consider Ukraine as being part of the Greater Russia. That
was historically so – not by the conquest, but by the genesis of Russian
Statehood that started precisely in Kiev. Around Kiev our people and our
State were constructed in the IX century. It is our center, our first
beloved capital. Later in the XII-XIII centuries different parts of
Kievian Russia were more or less independent with two main rivals – the
Western principalities Galitsia and Wolyn and the Eastern principality
of Vladimir (which later became Moscow) existing. All of these areas
were populated by the same nation, Eastern Slavs, all of whom were
Orthodox Christian. But the princes of the West were more engaged in
European politics and they had more direct contact with Western
Christianity and relatively less with the Eastern branches. The title of
Great Princes was held in the East by royalty who were considered the
masters of the whole of Russia (not always de facto but de jure). In the
Mongol period the West as well as the East of our Russian principalities
were held under the Golden Horde. Eastern Russia was more or less solid
and its power grew around the new capital Moscow. After the fall of the
Tartars the rule of the Moscow principality affirmed itself as a
regional hegemon that was confirmed by the fall of Byzantine Empire.
Hence the doctrine of Moscow as the Third Rome.

The destiny of the Western area was quite different. It was incorporated
first in a Lithuanian State that later became Polish. The Orthodox
western Russians we put under Catholic rule. The earlier main
principalities – Galitsia and Wolyn were fragmented and have lost any
trace of independence. Some parts were under Lithuania, others under
Austria and Hungary, a third belonged to Romania. But all that concerns
us now is only the Right-Bank of modern Ukraine. The Left Bank was
peopled by Cossacks – the nomad population common to the all lands of
Novorossia, space that include Eastern and South-Eastern Ukraine and
South Western Russia. Crimea was at that time under Ottoman rule.

3. The growth of the Moscowit Empire integrated first all the Cossack
lands (Novorossia) and little by little other territories peopled by
Western Russians liberating them from the Poles and Germans. The
Moscowit princes believed that they were restoring Old Russia, Kievan
Russia uniting all Orthodox Slavs – Eastern and Western in this unique
Kingdom.

4. During the XVIII – XIX century the unification of the Western Russian
lands was accomplished and in many battles the Moscowit Emperors had
finally taken Crimea from the Ottoman Turks.

5. In WWI the Germans conquered the Western Russian lands. It didn’t
last long. After that came the October Revolution and the Empire was
split into many parts with new nations being born into existence. There
was an attempt to construct a Ukrainian nation by different people –
Petlyura, Makhno and Levitsky who tried to found three ephemeral States.
These States were attacked by Whites and Reds and fought among
themselves. Finally the Bolsheviks restored the lands of the Tsarist
Empire and proclaimed the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union then
artificially created the Ukrainian Republic consisting of Western Russia
(Galitsia, Wolyn) and Southern Russia (Novorossia). Later in the 1960’s
to that the Republic of Crimea was added. So in this Republic were
united three main ethnic groups: Western Russians, the descendants of
the Galitsia / Wolyn principalities; the Cossacks / Great Russian
population of Novorossia; the Crimea peopled by Great Russians and the
rest of the pre-Russian Tartars. This Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic was created by the Bolsheviks and was the origin of modern
Ukraine. This Ukraine declared independence in 1991 after the split of
the USSR. More than that the declaration of independence provoked this
split.

6. So modern Ukrainians have three lines of descent – Western Russian,
Cossacks, Great Russian and a small Tartar minority in the Crimea.

Ukrainian Identity and the two Geopolitical Options

1. The contradiction of Ukraine consists in the multiplicity of
identities. Just after the declaration of the new state – the modern
Ukraine in 1991 – the question of pan-Ukrainian identity arose. Such a
State and nation never existed in history. So the nation had to be
constructed. But the three main identities were very different. Crimea
populated by Greater Russians along with most parts of Novorossia which
were clearly attracted to the Russian Federation. The Western Russians
claimed to be the core of a very specific “Ukrainian nation” that they
imagined in order to serve their cause. The Western Russians who partly
supported Hitler in WWII (Bandera, Shukhevich) possessed and still
possess strong ethnic identity where the hatred toward Great Russians
(as well as toward Poles to a lesser scale) plays a central role in this
identity. This can be traced to the past rivalry of the two Russian
feudal principalities projected onto imperial times and followed by
Stalin’s purges. These purges were directed against all ethnic groups,
but Western Russians read it as the revenge of the Great Russians on
them (Stalin was Georgian and the Bolsheviks were internationalists). So
the chosen identity of the newly created State of Ukraine was
exclusively Western Russian (purely Galitsia / Wolyn style) with no
place for a Novorossia and Great Russian identity.

2. This particularity was expressed in two opposite geopolitical
options: Western or Eastern, Europe or Russia. The Western lands of
Ukraine were in favor of European integration, the Eastern and Crimea in
favor of strengthening relations with Russia. The men from Galtsya were
dominant in the political elite presenting a Ukraine with only one
identity – a Western one – and denying any attempt of the South and East
to express their own vision. In the Western Ukraine anti-sovietism was
deeply rooted as well as certain complaisance with the ideas of Bandera
and Shukhevich who were considered as national heroes of a new Ukraine.
The hatred toward Great Russians was dominant and all anti-Russian
xenophobic rhetoric hailed.

3. In the East and South soviet values were still solid and Great
Russian identity was in turn the overwhelming feeling. But the East and
South were passive and their political power was limited. Still the
population regularly expressed their choice giving their votes to
pro-Russian or at least not so openly Russo-phobic or pro-Western
politicians.

4. The challenge for Ukrainian politicians therefore was how to keep
this contradictory society together always balancing between these two
opposite parts. Each part demanded completely irreconcilable choices.
The Westerners insisted on a European direction, Easterners and
Southerners on a Russian one. All of the Presidents of the new Ukraine
were unpopular, almost to the point of being hated precisely because
they were absolutely unable to resolve this problem that had no solution
at all. If you please one half of the population immediately you are
hated by the other half. In this situation Westerners were more active
and vigorous and partly succeeded in imposing their version of a
pan-Ukrainian identity on all of the political space of the country –
with the considerable help of Western Europe and above all the USA.

Events and Their Meaning

1. Now we have approached the present crisis. The Orange revolution of
2004 was made by Westerners who challenged the legal victory of Victor
Yanukovitch who was considered the candidate of the East. A Third round
of elections (against all democratic norms) was revolutionary imposed in
order to give the power to the Western candidate (Yustchenko). Four
years later new elections gave the Western President only 4% of the
votes and the Eastern candidate Yanukovitch was elected. This time his
victory was so obvious that nobody could challenge it.

2. Yanukovitch led the politics of balance. He was not really
pro-Russian but didn’t respond to all demands of the West either. He was
not very lucky and effective, trying to trick Putin and Obama,
disappointing both as well as Ukrainians of any side. He was an
opportunist without a real integral strategy, which was almost
impossible to develop in a society with a split personality and a split
identity. He reacted more than acted.

3. Next, when he made a hesitating and reluctant step toward Russia,
abstaining from signing the preparation Treaty of a distant entrance in
EU, the opposition (Westerns) revolted. That was the reason Maidan was
founded. The revolt was initially that of the West against the East and
South. So its russophobic and Nazi nostalgic features are essential to
its existence.

4. The opposition received huge support from the Western countries –
above all from the USA. The role of America in all these events was
decisive and the will to overthrow a pro-Russian President was shown by
American representatives to be firm and strong. Now the fact that
snipers who killed most of victims in the rioting were not those of
Yanukovitch is exposed. It is clear that they were part of the USA’s
plan for revolution in the Ukraine and part of a plot to escalate the
conflict.

5. The Maidan opposition waged revolution, overthrew Yanukovitch who ran
from the country to Russia, and quite illegally seized power in Kiev.
There was an illegal putsch that brought the completely illegal junta to
power.

6. The first steps of the Westerns after seizure of power were:

*  declaration of wishing entrance into NATO

*  attacks on the use of the Russian language

*  a plea to be accepted in the EU

*  a refusal for Russia to continue to have a Navy base in Sebastopol
(Crimea)

*  the appointment of corrupted tycoons as governors in the East and
South Ukraine.

7. In response to these things Putin took control over Crimea based on
on the decrees of the only legal President of the Ukraine, Yankovitch.
He also received from the Russian Parliament the right to deploy in
Ukraine the Russian army. Crimean authorities were recognized by Moscow
as the representatives of their land and Putin has plainly refused any
relations with the Kiev junta.

8. So now we are here.

Short Prognosis

1. Where will this lead? Logically Ukraine as it was during the 23 years
of its history has ceased to exist. It is irreversible. Russia has
integrated Crimea and declared herself the guarantor of the liberty of
the freedom of choice of the East and South of Ukraine (Novorossia).

2. So in the near future there will be the creation of two (at least)
independent political entities corresponding to the two identities
mentioned earlier. The Western Ukraine with their pro-NATO position and
at the same time a ultra-nationalist ideology and Novorossia with a
pro-Russian (and pro-Eurasian) orientation (apparently without any
ideology, just like Russia herself). The West of Ukraine will protest
trying to keep hold over the East and South. It is impossible by
democratic means so the nationalists will try to use violence. After a
certain time the resistance of the East and South will grow and / or
Russia will intervene.

3. The USA and NATO countries will support by all means the Westerns and
the Kiev junta. But in reality this strategy will only worsen the
situation. The essence of the problem lays here: if Russia intervenes in
the affairs of the State whose population (the majority) regard this
intervention as illegitimate, the position of the USA and NATO States
would be natural and well founded. But in this situation the population
of the East and South of Ukraine welcomes Russia, waits for it, pleads
for Russia to come. There is a kind of civil war in Ukraine now. Russia
openly supports the East and South. The USA and NATO back the West. The
Westerns are trying to get all Ukraine to affirm that not all the
population of the East and South is happy with Russia. This is quite
true. Also true is that not all of the population of the West is happy
with Right Sector, Bandera, Shukhevich and the rule of tycoons. So if
Russia would invade the Western parts of Ukraine or Kiev that could be
considered as a kind of illegitimate aggression. But the same aggression
is in present circumstances the position of the USA that strives to help
the Kiev junta take the control of the East and South. It is perceived
as an illegitimate act of aggression and it will provoke fierce resistance.

Conclusion

1. Now here is what I would say to the American people. The American
political elite has tried in this situation as well as in many others to
make the Russians hate Americans. But it has failed. We hate the
American political elite that brings death, terror, lies and bloodshed
everywhere – in Serbia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria –
and now in Ukraine. We hate the global oligarchy that has usurped
America and uses her as its tool. We hate the double standard of their
politics where they call “fascist” innocent citizens without any feature
resembling fascist ideology and in the same breath deny the open
Hitlerists and Bandera admirers the qualification of “Nazi” in the
Ukraine. All that the American political elite speaks or creates (with
small exceptions) is one big lie. And we hate that lie because the
victims of this lie are not only ourselves, but also you the American
people. You believe them, you vote for them. You have confidence in
them. But they deceive and betray you.

2. We have no thoughts of or desire to hurt America. We are far from
you. America is for Americans as President Monroe used to say. For
Americans interests and not for others. Not for Russians. Yes, this is
quite reasonable. You want to be free. You and all others deserve it.
But what the hell you are doing in the capital of ancient Russia,
Victoria Nuland? Why do you intervene in our domestic affairs? We follow
law and logic, lines of history and respect identities, differences. It
is not an American affair. Is it?

3. I am sure that the separation line between Americans and the American
political elite is very deep. Any honest American calmly studying the
case will arrive to the conclusion: “let them decide for themselves. We
are not similar to these strange and wild Russians, but let them go
their own way. And we are going to go our own way.” But the American
political elite has another agenda: to provoke wars, to mix in regional
conflicts, to incite the hatred of different ethnic groups. The American
political elites sacrifice American people to causes that are far from
you, vague, uncertain and finally very very bad.

4. The American people should not choose to be with Ukrainians (Western
Russians – Galitsya,Wolyn) or with Russians (Great Russians). That is
not the case. Be with America, with real America, with your values and
your people. Help yourselves and let us be what we are. But the American
political elite makes the decisions instead of You. It lies to you, it
dis-informs you. It shows faked pictures and falsely stages events with
completely imagined explanations and idiotic commentary. They lie about
us. And they lie about you. They give you a distorted image of yourself.
The American political elite has stolen, perverted and counterfeited the
American identity. And they make us hate you and they make you hate us.

5. This is my idea and suggestion: let us hate the American political
elite together. Let us fight them for our identities – you for the
American, us for the Russian, but the enemy is in both cases the same –
the global oligarchy who rules the word using you and smashing us. Let
us revolt. Let us resist. Together. Russians and Americans. We are the
people. We are not their puppets.


Alexander Dugin (b. 1962) is one of the best-known writers and political
commentators in post-Soviet Russia. In addition to the many books he has
authored on political, philosophical and spiritual topics, he currently
serves on the staff of Moscow State University, and is the intellectual
leader of the Eurasia Movement. For more than a decade, he has also been
an adviser to Vladimir Putin and others in the Kremlin on geopolitical
matters.

His first English language book, the Fourth Political Theory, is
available here.

(7) Gennady Zyuganov: The Crisis in Ukraine and its Deep Roots

http://openrevolt.info/2014/09/10/gennady-zyuganov-the-crisis-in-ukraine-and-its-deep-roots/

Posted on September 10, 2014 by AnonAF

Gennady Zyuganov, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF)

Today, war is raging in the vast territories of the Lugansk and Donetsk
people’s republics. For the first time since Ukraine’s liberation from
the Nazis 70 years ago, civilian towns and villages are shelled and
bombed. The dead and wounded number thousands and the refugees tens of
thousands. Entire residential neighbourhoods, orphanages and schools,
outpatient clinics and hospitals, power generation and water supply
facilities have been destroyed. A number of cities, where hundreds of
thousands of people live, are being strangled by the blockade.

The Banderaists at power, their patrons in the West and yes-men in the
Russian liberal camp openly hush up the war crimes that are being
committed in Novorossiya / New Russia. This is because the ongoing
destruction of towns and villages is in direct violation of
international norms and customs of war. The 1949 Geneva Conventions
specifically prohibit the use of artillery and combat aircraft against
undefended populated areas. Meanwhile, the junta that seized power in a
coup in Kiev is pursuing a most vile and cowardly strategy for its death
squads are invariable losers in direct combat with the Self-Defence
Forces of Novorossiya/New Russia.

Forces and private armies of the oligarchs are deliberately destroying
the civilian population. This is ethnic cleansing. The Russian-speaking
population is being squeezed out of their historic homeland. That is a
grave crime against humanity.

The historical roots of recent developments

Russia’s attention to the Ukrainian developments and the anguish that we
feel in connection with the war blazing there are natural. Ukraine is
not just a part of the Slavic world. The Ukrainian land and its people
are integral part of the Russian consciousness, of Russian history. The
thing at point is the deepest spiritual and cultural bond between our
peoples, their historical inalienability from each other. When attempts
are made to set us at loggerheads for the sake of the interests of the
West, it is like cutting us to the quick, causing a deep wound both to
Russian society and to all the citizens of Ukraine, including those who
are befuddled by anti-Russian propaganda. For it is only in alliance
with Russia that Ukraine can reach the heights of prosperity which many
people in Ukraine have considered possible only in alliance with Europe.
An alliance that has eternally brought about trouble.

It has always been so. Both in the 12ththrough the 14th centuries when
the Chermnaya (Red) Rus’ nestled around Lvov was severed from the
historic core of Russia and was torn to pieces by her western neighbours
and in the16th and the 17th centuries, when the Polish gentry sought to
wipe out by fire and sword from the Ukrainian soil the very spirit of
freedom and Orthodox Christianity along with the memory of the great
all-Russia unity. It also happened in the 18th century, when a handful
of traitors gathered around Mazepa (to whom Peter the Great seriously
intended to award a two-stone “Medal of Judah” to wear on his neck as a
sort of reward for betrayal). At the beginning of the 20th century,
during the Civil War, the local samostiitsy (Ukrainian separatists)
relied on German bayonets. All this turned the Ukrainian land into a
scene of gory battles. The rescue came solely with Russia’s help.


The current terrific developments have borne out V.I. Lenin’s statement
that a free Ukraine was only possible if Great Russia’s and Ukraine’s
proletarians joined in action and it was out of the question without
such unity. It is appropriate to recall here that all of the major
high-tech industries in Ukraine, not only in the Donetsk and Lugansk
regions, but also in the Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhe, and other
regions, were built in the Soviet era at the expense of the Union
budget, of which 70% came from Russia, i.e. from Russian people.

So a fraternal alliance with the Ukrainian people at the time of
terrible trials is our common cause and our common duty.

It might seem that a civil war broke out in Ukraine overnight. Six
months ago, the country was one of the many states experiencing
difficult economic and social problems but preserving its political
stability. The people’s discontent was accumulating. However, there were
no signs of heavy shocks coming. It would, however, be ill-advised to
assume that a social explosion occurred all of a sudden, like a bolt
from the blue.

The Russian leadership, admittedly, responded to this threat quite
adequately by bringing the Crimea back into Russia in time for the 70th
anniversary of the liberation of the peninsula from the Nazis and
preventing, in fact, an outbreak of a major war.

To better understand the origins of the tragedy of Ukraine, it is
necessary to see the historical roots in their development, to
understand the mechanisms of the severe crisis originating in the
brotherly country. It is necessary to see the recent external symptoms
of a bloody fratricidal war surfacing in Ukraine, as well as the deeper
historical, economic, class, ethnic, cultural, religious and other
prerequisites of these developments. Only an integrated analysis will
enable correct identification of the driving forces in the crisis in
Ukraine, prediction of the further course of events and elaboration of
strategies and tactics for the resolution of this dire conflict.

For us Communists, what is happening in the sister republic is not of a
mere theoretical interest. We are not political scientists, who
impassively watch any developments. We have an obligation to draw
lessons from the most severe social confrontation into which the
neighbouring country has plunged. It is therefore necessary to analyze
the events in Ukraine, bearing in mind that similar events could also be
repeated in one form or another in Russia.

Of course, our attention and sympathy focus primarily on Novorossiya
that is emerging in the struggle. However, it is equally important to
understand the sources and driving forces of the opposing side – the
resurgent Neo-Nazism. For this purpose it is necessary to analyze the
historical origins and formation of the Bandera movement as a form of
Ukrainian ethnic nationalism in its most extreme forms. It is necessary
to understand on what ideological foundation the movement rested and in
what way nationalism coupled with Russophobia is being fuelled in
Ukraine today.

The origins of radical nationalism

It is crucial to understand that Ukraine, with the exception of the
Soviet period, never had its own statehood and no other periods in
history that were identical for the entire Ukrainian people. Over the
centuries, when European powers were emerging, Ukraine was never once an
independent state, nor a unified whole entity in the structure of other
states. What is modern-day Ukrainian territory was always divided
between different European powers. In the middle of the 17th century, as
a result of a voluntary union with Russia, its eastern half found itself
under Russia’s wing, wherein a history of Malorossiya or Rus’ Minor
(Lesser Russia) began to take form, while the western Ukrainian
territories were under the rule of Poland and then Austro-Hungary.

Poland’s policy towards the Ukrainian population was extremely cruel,
often sadistic. Western Ukrainians, as a part of the Polish state
population, were second-class citizens. That was the key reason why a
radical Ukrainian nationalism began to emerge in western Ukraine; it was
in part similar to the ideas of racial exclusiveness, enshrined in the
“Third Reich.”

The then Bandera followers did not just enter into a strategic coalition
with the German occupiers, but participated most actively in their
punitive actions, including against the native Ukrainian population.
They carried on the same practice in western Ukraine after the war upon
going underground. Not only more than 25 thousand Soviet soldiers and
security officers but also more than 30 thousand innocent Ukrainians
were killed in the battles with Bandera followers lasting until the
mid-1950s. Those clashes came at a high cost to the Banderovites, too:
they lost more than 60 thousand men dead over the years.

The Bandera-style nationalism did not evolve into a national liberation
idea but into a totalitarian sect of crazed fanatics who killed
primarily native Ukrainians. Characteristics of an analogous
totalitarian sect are inherent in West Ukrainian Uniate church, which is
formally in communion with Rome. Sticking with it were the Bandera
followers who did not want to take into account the fact that the vast
majority of Ukrainians embraced Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The
ideology of the Uniates (Eastern Rite Roman Catholics) has in fact very
little to do with Catholicism. It is rather an extreme, sectarian form
of Protestantism mixed with Baptism. Not accidental are the relations to
the sectarians of the key top figures in Kiev – Baptist Turchinov and
Yatseniuk who is friends with scientologists.

Every victory scored by extremist, low zoological-scale nationalists has
resulted from a deep crisis of the government, whose hostility society
is increasingly aware of and reacting radically to its ugly
manifestations. The only way for the forces at power to keep afloat is
through an alliance with the radical nationalist ideology, thanks to
which the former top heads are reportedly retaining their posts, already
under new banners.

The new “elite”, wholly emerging from the previous series, enjoys the
use of Banderaite instruments and of Bandera followers as “cannon
fodder” in order to once again fool the millions of people after
performing a clan castling within the power circles. As a result, the
oligarchs have not only maintained but also strengthened their
positions. They will now carry out the same or even more brutal economic
policies under the Banderaite banners with a harsh tutelage from the
West and in the same “alliance with the devil” against Moscow, that will
bring no relief from Ukraine’s troubles and problems but certainly their
aggravation.

An unbiased, scientific approach guides one to a conclusion that both
the Western policy-makers and the current Kiev rulers, who are seeking
to cut the age-old ties with Russia, have shunned in every way. This
conclusion is that the people of Central and Eastern Ukraine are, in
fact, connected with Russia in a much stronger way than with West
Ukraine. Any attempts to steer Ukraine into a pro-Western, anti-Russia
channel are directed not only against Russia, but against most of the
Ukrainian people. They are inherently anti-Ukrainian, anti-national
actions cloaked in nationalist demagogy.

Objectively, everything is just so, even though not all the residents of
the central and western regions of Ukraine are yet aware of it. History
of the Bandera movement has already revealed the tragic paradox, which
is now being played out again through the fault of the new Banderovites
who seized power. While allegedly upholding the interests of the
Ukrainian people, these figures are infringing on the interests of the
greater part of Ukrainians, the interests which cannot be implemented
outside of close ties with Russia. It is what Bandera and his associates
did not want to understand and what Ukraine’s current “elite”, which is
under the auspices of Washington, does not want to hear about.

The Bandera-style nationalism as an extreme manifestation of Russophobia

The Ukrainian radical nationalists’ choice in favour of the fight
against “Soviet occupation” was neither their fault, nor forced, nor a
temporary tactical move. It was natural and inevitable, and for
Ukrainian nationalists it still remains as such today. For them, the
only possible choice is in favor of an anti-Russia alliance with any,
even the worst enemy of Ukraine. Without such an unnatural union no
“independent” Ukraine is possible in isolation from Russia.

Of course, in the past there occurred political and cultural imbalances
in the actions of Russia’s central authorities in the Ukrainian
territories as parts of the Russian Empire. But the original language
and cultural closeness of our peoples, the similarity of their thinking,
traditions and customs mitigated that problem. It is impossible to
describe that period of history as occupation of Ukraine. Descriptions
of that sort are rooted in ignorance and vile speculation. It is right
to speak about a centuries-long common history of Russia, Eastern and
Central Ukraine and say that, as a result of our union, a uniform
political nation was formed.

But Bandera and his followers transferred their hatred of the former
oppressors on to the Soviet regime after it began to assert itself in
West Ukraine. They did not want to see that the principles of Soviet
government had nothing to do with the colonial order imposed by Polish
pans/lords. They did not want to see that within the structure of the
Soviet state East and Central Ukraine were already receiving more de
facto independence than in the Russian Empire and the advent of the
Soviet regime in the western part of Ukraine was not a sort of new
colonization but liberation from colonization.

But why do the ideologues of Russophobia manage, even nowadays, to fool
a large part of society? The explanation lies in the fact that many
Ukrainians repeatedly see radical nationalism as a panacea for their
ills, an alternative to what oppressed and humiliated them in the past.
But their troubles and humiliation are now associated with a new
reality. It is not tantamount to the violent Polish outrage of the past
centuries. Now it is the tyranny of the oligarchs and highhandedness of
gangster capitalists.

Arising upon the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a permanent
economic and moral crisis arose in Ukraine bringing along with it cases
of deepening social injustice and inequality that became a catalyst for
radical nationalist sentiments which splashed out first in 2004 and then
at the turn from 2013 to 2014. Without these factors, no sentiments of
the kind would have found fertile soil in Ukraine, just as they lacked
it during the heyday of the Soviet country, within whose structure the
interests of the Ukrainians were being implemented to the maximum
extent. Suffice it to say that for most of the second half of the
twentieth century, the Soviet Union was led by figures that were closely
linked with Ukraine: Nikita S. Khrushchev and Leonid I. Brezhnev.

However, the Russophobes in the West, the anti-Soviet liberals in Russia
and the new Ukrainian nationalism ideologists put forth a false thesis
insisting that even though the Soviet government gave more freedom to
the Ukrainian people, it still was, in fact, an occupational force, as
Ukraine remained under the control of an empire – this time the Soviet
empire.

Consequently, the struggle of Bandera and his associates against the
Soviet authorities was to them still the same struggle for liberation.
Nowadays, in trying to finally break free from the Russian influence,
the new Ukrainian nationalists allegedly follow the same principles of
the struggle for independence and are driven by a desire to consolidate
independence within the framework of a Ukraine that has achieved statehood.

The fundamental falsity of this thesis is made clear by history and
today’s developments in which history is largely repeated. The fact is
that radical nationalists have never acted as an independent national
political force. Liberation of Western Ukraine from Polish oppression
was not an achievement of theirs, but that of the Soviet government. The
struggle against it guided the Ukrainian nationalists straight to a
direct alliance with the Nazi occupiers.

But as soon as the idea of Ukrainian statehood was paired with an
orientation to the West and estrangement from Russia, that sort of
statehood turned out to be a fiction and the shaky unity begot unrest.
The reason for this is that Ukraine has had little experience of
independent statehood. Nowadays, it is simply unable to exist outside
the area of influence from more powerful states.

Meanwhile, in an anti-Russia alliance with Ukraine’s outright enemies,
who are capable of concealing their true hostile intentions only for a
short while, the Ukrainian people have no chance of true independence.
“The National Movement” in Ukraine is a path leading to no liberation
but in the opposite direction. It is an anti-nation way.

This is felt today by millions of Ukrainians, many of whom have risen up
in arms against the new Bandera-style nationalism. Their struggle is a
genuine national resistance movement because they said a resounding “no”
to the intent to break the age-old ties with Russia, with the Russian
people. In response they got aerial bombings and artillery shelling of
residential neighbourhoods. The Banderovites acted similarly in the
1930-1950 period against the Ukrainians who had become aware of the
destructive nature of their “nationalism”. They who are moved by a truly
national idea and really care for their people cannot do that with their
compatriots.

The immediate causes of the coup in Ukraine

Thewatershed that split Ukraine’s contemporary history came with
President Yanukovich’s decision last autumn to give up associate
membership in the European Union and move in the direction of the
Customs Union with Russia and other countries. The decision was quite
justified from an economic point of view. The Russian negotiators with
the Ukrainian side argued for many months but failed to convince their
partners in Kiev that the drive toward the West is fraught with a
complete breakdown of the Ukrainian economy that is still closely linked
with the Russian economy.

However, the ruling circles in Kiev kept sticking to a purely
pro-Western ideological course. It was only at the last moment, when the
final decision was to be determined, that the Ukrainian leadership
recognized the economic realities and announced their intention to join
the Customs Union. By that moment public opinion had, through the
efforts of numerous “social organizations” and the media outlets created
by the West and under its control, already been steered to a
pro-European direction. The people did not have reliable information
about the inevitable hardest consequences of a second-class membership
in the European Union. But the dream of “reunification with Europe” had
long been befuddling the brains of intellectuals and ordinary people who
passionately and fondly hoped that the associated membership in the E.U.
would automatically take the Ukrainians to the European level of well-being.

The decision to join the Customs Union with Russia, semi-despicable in
the eyes of “zapadenskoi”/West Ukrainian/intelligentsia, was seen by
many in Ukraine as shattering their crystal dreams. Mass irritation
spilled out on the streets of the capital, which had long fallen under
the influence of vociferous activists from West Ukraine.

However, the Maidan that flared up last November wilted gradually. By
January of this year, two or three hundred fanatics and homeless tramps
were still there in scattered groups, having found a way of self
expression and a source of free mess of pottage in the centre of the
capital. Meanwhile, any reduction in the level of opposition heat was
clearly not in the plans of those who actually ran the developments in
Ukraine. Western politicians and agents of intelligence services began
to hurl sizable amounts of combustible material into the fading fire of
public discontent and create an incendiary mix for flares of radicalism,
skilfully directed against Russia.

But it would be wrong to see the situation at a narrow angle as
resulting only from the machinations of Western politicians and
intelligence agencies. Mr. Yanukovich and his team are to take a
considerable part of the blame for the fire breaking out. Upon rising to
power that “team”, or rather the family of the former president began
aggressively to convert political power into money. Greed of the
“Donetskites”, as they were nicknamed by many people, had no limits. A
huge number of small and large businesses were squeezed for tributes.
Business take-overs became commonplace. So the popular discontent over
the steadily worsening economic situation merged with sharp resentment
on the part of a very active population segment – small and medium-sized
businesses – in connection with the “grabilovka” (plundering) by
Yanukovich’s friends and relatives.

Meanwhile, Mr. Yanukovich for tactical purposes diligently portrayed
himself as a supporter of rapprochement with Russia, although his real
stance was openly pro-Western. In public opinion Yanukovich was
therefore, associated with Russia. Hence the Maidan anti-Russian
overtones. But do we have the moral right to condemn the Ukrainian
people for its majority lacking the awareness of the need to revive a
fraternal union with Russia? We might have such a right, if the RF were
setting an example of a welfare state, if it had eradicated oligarchy,
total corruption and the gangster capitalism principles. That’s when the
Ukrainian people would have stood up without hesitation under the same
banners with Russia – the banners that had led to salvation in the past.

The explosive mix, which led to a social explosion in Ukraine, included
several basic elements: the legitimate grievances of the bulk of the
people due to the steady deterioration of their financial positions;
resentment of small and medium-sized businesses over the raids by
Yanukovich’s team; the desire of “zapadenskiye” (Western Ukrainian)
intellectuals to ride public opinion still harder, along with the
intrigues of pro-American politicians and secret services aiming to
enhance the split between Ukraine and Russia

Meanwhile, Russia’s ruling group saw and still sees Ukraine primarily as
a territory in which a gas pipeline is laid. Therefore, the policy of
the upper RF authorities focused almost exclusively on ensuring a smooth
flow of gas to Europe. Public sentiments in Ukraine were not only a mere
subject of interest and influence for the Russian “elite”, but were
completely ignored as a factor fully irrelevant against the background
of intrigues around the gas pipeline at the “top” of the authorities of
the two countries, for which the peoples of the fraternal republics
subsequently had to pay a heavy price.

The coup and its aftermath

The attempts of the Ukrainian leadership to restore basic order in the
streets of the capital, including through negotiations, met with fierce
resistance from the well-trained fighters who had been recruited in the
western regions. In mid-February, the American technology of
pseudo-popular revolutions began to be used in Kiev, including, the
seizure of power by street crowds with massive external support, tested
during the coups in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine (2004), and in Libya,
as well as during the “Arab Spring” events in a number of countries in
the Middle East and North Africa.

Simultaneously, the Ukrainian leadership became an object of outright
pressure from the West. The European Union threatened the creation of a
“black list” of officials, against whom a variety of sanctions would be
imposed. The Yanukovich clan members were thinking primarily about their
own accounts in Western banks and offshore funds. That made the
Ukrainian leadership particularly vulnerable to the West’s blackmail.
The head of state’s faintness resulted in a paralysis of the law
enforcement agencies and the betrayal of the political elite, who failed
to fulfil their constitutional obligations.

Meanwhile, representatives of the opposition, supposedly fighting for
democracy against an authoritarian regime and for a bright future for
Ukraine under the auspices of the European Union, demonstrated, in fact,
habits of their Banderaite, fascist predecessors. “Peaceful” protesters
seized government buildings and attacked police forces, pelting them
with Molotov cocktails. President Yanukovich kept shying away from
decisive action and was handing power, step by step, to the neo-Nazi
elements. The process culminated in a coup d’état. Genuine battles with
the use of firearms began on the streets of Kiev February 18. In three
days the death toll had reached 100 casualties and more than 600 were
hospitalized. On February 23, Yanukovich fled from Kiev.

The heirs of the Nazi henchman Bandera seized power and immediately
launched a campaign of suppression against their political opponents and
the Russian-speaking population. The intimidated deputies of the
Verkhovna Rada passed a decision repealing the law allowing the use of
Russian as the second state language in a number of regions of Ukraine.
Pogroms started against the premises of the Communist Party of Ukraine,
and the Communist Party was banned in some regions. Members of
Parliament from the Communist Party and the Party of Regions were
physically abused along with the policemen who remained faithful to the
oath.

The Banderovites started attacks on historical memory with widespread
destruction of monuments to Lenin and Soviet soldiers who fell during
the liberation of Ukraine from Nazi occupation. By toppling monuments to
Lenin, the rioters were destroying not only the historical heritage, but
also the symbols of Ukrainian statehood, because the Decree on the
establishment of the Ukrainian Republic was signed by Lenin. That orgy
of destruction resulted in the rise of the resistance movement in the
south-east of the country and, ultimately, in the Civil War.

The Class-related nature of the conflict in Ukraine

The inherent nature of the events in Ukraine is difficult to understand
without an analysis of the alignment of its class forces. It must first
of all be noted that as a result of the 1990 – 2000 wild, destructive
privatization of the economy of Ukraine in the interests of the
oligarchs and the newly-minted deindustrialization in the interests of
Western competitors, the industrial proletariat numbers declined
sharply. Accordingly, the level of its organization was reduced. With
the destruction of collective and state farms the rural proletariat was
virtually eradicated. This changed the balance of class forces.

However, the pro-western top authorities of Ukraine failed to completely
destroy the working class, especially in the most industrialized
south-east regions. It is therefore no accident that the Bandera-style
junta received the most powerful rebuff in those regions. The industrial
proletarians of Novorossiya are well aware of the fact that the cut of
historical ties with Russia, to which products of their enterprises were
oriented, must inevitably lead to mass unemployment and poverty. Not
only the national feelings, but also the class consciousness of millions
of people in Novorossiya, though not expressed in relief, formed the
basis for resistance to oligarchic usurpation of power.

An important feature of the popular revolutionary actions in south-east
Ukraine, and earlier in Crimea, is that they were directed against the
neo-fascist usurpers of power in Kiev, who were closely related to the
global transnational capital, and against the “Donetsk” oligarchic clan,
which established their political and economic dictatorship in these
regions. Incidentally, the “early” independence Maidan (November –
December 2013) was, in this sense, not so much anti-Russia as
anti-oligarchy in character.

However, as the protest sentiments of the masses had not got the class
character, they were used in the battle of the two clans of the big-time
bourgeoisie. That clash was won by the group which had brought together
the pro-Western, nationalist and extreme right-wing forces, who
benefited from the people’s discontent in the coup.

Usually the big-time capital controls countries through their hired
servants – state officials. In Russia in the 1990s, oligarchs initially
dominated the bureaucrats. Then the top government officials took
precedence, but later the higher bureaucracy and oligarchy merged.

In Ukraine, too, there was a struggle between two related class groups –
the state bureaucracy and oligarchy. And there, as in Russia, there
emerged a symbiosis of these two class groups. But after the February
2014 revolution, the oligarchs effected the subjugation of the
bureaucrats. Faced with tough resistance of the people in Crimea,
Lugansk, Donetsk, Kharkov, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk and other cities, the
ruling elite in Kiev went straight to the introduction of the big-time
capital dictatorship.

Oligarchs, previously hiding in the shadow of hired politicians from
various “bat’kivshchinas”, “udars” and “regions” were appointed
governors of several regions. Then the direct roguish dictatorship of
the oligarchy not cloaked with any “democratic” trinkets came to reign
supreme in Ukraine.

The billionaires Poroshenko, Kolomoysky and their ilk did not only
immediately take over the governing functions, but also created their
own private armies and secret police forces engaged in kidnapping and
torturing people. Ukraine was becoming an “in war as in war” banana
republic, ruled not by law but by complete arbitrariness of a
politically temporary “president” relying on “death squads”, as well as
on the political and military support from the United States. The
peoples of Latin America shed their banana republic labels as a result
of persistent struggle. Unfortunately, that kind of “state governance”
came to reign in Ukraine.

The class character of the new government in Ukraine was attested to, in
particular, by I. Kolomoysky providing funds, according to the press, to
the pro-fascist, anti-Semitic “Svoboda” party. That fact confirms the
global oligarchy’s readiness, as it has happened many times in European
history, to rely on the most diehard Nazis to suppress the people’s
desire for social justice.

A very active role was played at Maidan by the petty bourgeoisie,
particularly affected by the excesses of the Yanukovych clan outrages
and the lumpen elements which appeared in Ukraine in large quantities as
a result of impoverishment caused by the economic policies of the
bourgeois regime.

Let us remember that, historically, the petty bourgeoisie and the
“lumpen-proletariat” represent the most mobile part of society. History
shows that, under certain circumstances, namely like those that recently
developed in Ukraine, the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen elements can
become a key mass support of fascism. So it was in Germany in the 30s of
the last century, and could happen in Ukraine at the beginning of this
century. The lumpen elements recently formed the basis of a variety of
private armies of Bandera-style oligarchs.

The attack on the Communists as a sign of revival of Nazism

The class-related content of the present-day government is confirmed by
the fact that the Communist Party of Ukraine was selected as the first
target for persecution. The Communists were blamed for the participation
of CPU members in protest actions in the south-eastern regions. It was
also alleged that the leadership of the Communist Party was engaged in
discrediting Ukraine within the country’s borders and abroad through the
Russian media outlets. On that basis, the demand was put forward to ban
the Communist Party as allegedly posing a national security threat. It
was particularly striking that the charges of violating the Constitution
appeared from the mouths of those who had seized power in a coup d’état.
By the same token, the government accusing the Communist Party of
violation of the current legislation is, by all measures, illegitimate.

There is no reason whatever to ban one of the oldest political parties
in Ukraine. The programme of the Communist Party contains no provisions
aimed at violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
country. The Communist Party is not involved in any attempts to seize
power. No one has provided data on financing it by foreign countries.
The CPU is a parliamentary party voted in by about three million voters.
Party representatives were part of the government. Its members are
involved in the work of international parliamentary associations. So
that attempts to represent the Communist Party as an extremist
organization are unlikely to be understood by the world community.

In fact, the purpose of the efforts to ban the Communist Party is to
ensure the suppression of dissent in Ukraine, for the CPU is the only
political force which openly declared its opposition to the rigid policy
drive of the current ruling group. The preparations for ousting the
Communist Party is nothing else but an attempt to deprive Ukrainian
citizens of their constitutional right to enjoy freedom of speech,
demonstrations and meetings. Behind these moves is the intention to
silence any political and social forces that do not agree with the
political course of the ruling group. It dramatically complicates the
possibility of an all-Ukraine dialogue, which is the only way to pull
out of the crisis and restore peace and harmony.

The ban on one of the oldest and most influential political
organizations in Ukraine can only mark a step towards the strengthening
of totalitarianism. Any ban on a Communist Party in Europe’s history has
always witnessed the coming of fascism.

Western politics

There is no doubt that the crisis that caused the civil war in Ukraine
had been largely provoked by the United States and its allies. Western
policy towards Ukraine had the character of blatant interference in the
internal affairs of a sovereign state ever since “Maidan-1?(2004). That
policy has since changed, not much at all, only in the direction of more
arrogance. A few months ago, the United States Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland said in a burst of candour or rather desiring to
show off the real strength of American influence, that the United States
spent no less than five billion dollars on creating Ukrainian domestic
support for U.S. political moves in Ukraine.

Those enormous (by any measure) amounts of money went to set up a
powerful system of “social organizations” and “independent” media
outlets. According to some estimates, the system created by the American
authorities for public opinion manipulations involves about 150 thousand
people, who – in one way or another –receive Western grants and allowances.

There is no doubt that the aggressive policy of the Bandera-style
authorities not only enjoys the full support of the United States. The
current junta has become a direct tool of America, seeking to break the
centuries-old ties between our peoples and to draw Ukraine into its
military-political orbit.

The main objective of the foreign puppeteers is not to make Ukraine
democratic and prosperous, but to capture its natural resources: coal,
iron ore, newly discovered shale gas deposits, as well as getting
control of its markets. A revolution in Ukraine was vital for the United
States. America’s colossal debt of $17 trillion is pressing its leaders
ever harder to search for a way out of the disastrous economic
situation. The leadership of the United States sees a way out through
either conquering the European markets or fuelling a war, for which the
conflict in Ukraine can serve as a sort of fuse wire. It is clear that
this kind of policy will result in the eventual collapse of the
Ukrainian economy. It has already triggered an outflow of nearly one
million refugees. Ukraine will cease to be a friendly state of Russia’s
and get squeezed into the NATO gun clip strip, bringing its missile
defence installations and first-strike weapons much closer to Russia’s
borders.

The hypocrisy of the West is made clear in that, on the one hand, it
forcibly detached the Serbian districts-of Kosovo and Metohija through
direct aggression and ethnic cleansing from Serbia as a whole. On the
other hand, it is cynical in not recognizing the expression of the will
of the citizens of Crimea and Novorossiya to reunite with Russia.
Indeed, the West has stubbornly turned a blind eye to the atrocious war
crimes committed by the Kiev junta’s gangs who destroyed cities and
towns by artillery fire. According to the United Nations, they killed
over 2,200 civilians in Novorossiya. In actual fact, the number of
victims is much higher. But Western “humanists” and the media controlled
by them stubbornly try to conceal the humanitarian disaster in the once
prospering areas.

It is significant that the outburst of indignation in the West upon the
crash of the Malaysian “Boeing” with hundreds of passengers on board
faded away very quickly, when news began to break that the plane had
been obviously shot down by Ukraine’s air defences. The crash
investigation was curtailed under the pretext of danger for the life of
experts. Everything was done in order to leave unscathed the true
culprits, who are likely to be found in Washington and Kiev.

America’s foreign policy is still dominated by the so-called
neo-conservatives, who, while completely ignoring the new realities in
the world, seek the achievement of global domination for the United
States. They have not been stopped by either American foreign policy’s
heavy failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the failure of US policy in
Syria. Meanwhile, it would be wrong not to notice some obvious
differences in the Western camp on the “Ukrainian issue”. Europe,
already in the grip of an ever-deepening political and economic crisis,
takes a much less active stand on Ukraine than the United States.

Moreover, Western politicians and businessmen opposed the imposition of
sanctions against Russia, knowing that they were a double edged sword
and that sanctions, particularly economic, could have a very negative
impact on the state of Europe, which has already been suffering from
chronic diseases.

There are people in Europe who also understand that the Americans are
not averse to driving their European partners and rivals into another
crisis, as was the case in the Balkans in the 1990s, in order to weaken
the European Union and to preserve the EU’s dependence on America.
Hence, a more realistic policy of the European Union with regard to
Ukraine. On the other hand, we must not delude ourselves and think that
the conflict of interests between the United States and the EU will
result in a weakening of the anti-Russia policies of the West.
Ultimately, the world oligarchs made European politicians comply with
America’s most aggressive ambitions.

The CPRF and the Russian policy

The coup d’état in Ukraine and the subsequent punitive operations
against the population of Novorossiya are serious signals for Russia’s
foreign policy-makers, for our government. The CPRF has long been
pointing out that the priority relations with the West at the expense of
the development of relations with the fraternal peoples of the USSR
contradicted Russia’s long-term interests. The Russian Federation’s
policies with regard to Ukraine have for many years been aimed solely at
ensuring the transit of natural gas to Europe. The Communist Party has
repeatedly warned the government about the dangers of having Ukraine on
the periphery of our foreign policy concerns and about appointing Mr.
Zurabov, who previously failed in the Russian ministerial post, Russia’s
ambassador there.

The developments in Crimea and Novorossiya are a specific example of how
a liberal course is disastrous for Russia. With the public sector
reduced to a mere 10 percent of the whole in the wake of the total
privatization drive, our country has found it extremely difficult to
counter the challenges of the time. Its economic potential, for example,
is hardly sufficient for integrating the Crimea. Dominance of private
capital in the financial sector leaves the country without the necessary
funds at the very moment when it is necessary to mobilize resources. It
has to take money from private pension funds and it takes great efforts
to form an armed fist required under the current circumstances, because
the army has been reduced almost to paralysis by the liberal gentlemen.
When one hears about the problems that arose with the ferry crossings to
the Crimea during the 2014 holiday season, it is sad to recall, for
example, the mighty Soviet- era army construction units which were
almost fully written off “as unnecessary” by the government liberals.
But we, the communists, were for years not just warning about the costs
that the liberal breaking of everything would entail but also put
forward our concrete and multilateral programme of urgent measures to
strengthen the might of the state. The authorities’ Indifference and
even hostility towards our proposals largely predetermined the range of
today’s troubles.

Recently, the Russian federal leadership has taken a position that is
much more consistent with the country’s strategic national interests.
The foundation was laid by a much firmer stand in relation to the events
in Syria, where Russia did not let the NATO member-countries to
intervene and overthrow the friendly Bashar al-Assad government. The
next step was Moscow’s decisive action on the issue of reintegration of
Crimea into Russia. The Communist Party supported all these actions.

We believe that the hard repulse to the Western economic sanctions is an
important sign that the Russian leadership continues to follow the
course of realism, the course of protecting the country’s national
interests. Of course, we know that it is counteracted by the liberals
who control the economic bloc in the government. But the threats
emanating from the West are so strong and obvious that the country’s top
leaders simply have to follow the course which the Communist Party has
been strongly suggesting for many years. For example, the authorities
have finally realized how dangerous is the situation in which 60% of the
Russian food market is taken by imported products. And they have started
saying that discontinuing agricultural produce supplies from the
European Union will benefit domestic producers, as they alone are
capable of feeding the country under the external sanctions.

We proceed from the fact that the developments in Ukraine pose an
objective threat to the security of the Russian Federation. One cannot
passively watch the way a neo-Nazi regime with a Russophobic and
anti-Semitic ideology is being formed with the support of the West close
to our borders. Even in the United States, the analysts who know, for
example, Steve Cohen and Katrina vanden Heuvel, both well-known in our
country, are today warning right from the pages of the famous American
magazine “The Nation” that things unthinkable can now happen quickly in
Ukraine: not just a new “cold war “, which has already begun, but a real
war between the NATO forces led by the United States and Russia.”

What is needed is a drastic revision of Russia’s Ukraine policy.
Required is giving a much more complex character to our relations with
the brotherly people, so as to strengthen cooperation in the fields of
economy, science, culture and education.

The situation requires a stronger support of the political forces and
non-governmental associations advocating historical friendship between
our peoples. We must give the green light to all endeavours to support
our compatriots in Ukraine. Communists from the outset have helped and
will continue to help Novorossiya in its struggle. To date, we have sent
there more than 1,200 tons of humanitarian aid goods alone. And it is
just the beginning. The Communist party of the Russian Federation is
actively involved in what can be called political and diplomatic work.
We are doing our best to draw the attention of the European governments
to the threat of a new world war. I warned about the threat, in
particular, in a letter to the leaders of France, Germany and Italy –
the nations most affected by the horrors of fascism and World War II.

The CPRF is actively supporting the idea ofholding a meeting of the
heads of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in Minsk. This step is
very significant on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the Great Victory
that seemingly buried fascism forever.
***

The Communist Party of the Russian Federation expresses solidarity with
all participants in popular resistance – Russians, Ukrainians and people
of all nationalities who are bravely and vigorously opposing the
neo-Nazi Banderovites. We express solidarity with the Communists of
Ukraine who are subjected to violence by extremists.

One of the most important features of the Ukrainian citizens is their
unwillingness to put up with the thieving authorities, their constant
internal focus on the protest, their willingness to throw off the
pedestal the leaders who have lost trust. These features of the
Ukrainian people made it much easier for the puppeteers to organize
“maidans” and “orange revolutions”, i.e. fictitious protest actions
pursuing other objectives than those inscribed on the slogans and
declared at the meetings.

But these features of Ukrainians also suggest that the current regime
upheld by Kiev will not be long-living and that the fierce resistance to
it from the Donbas area and Lugansk will spread to most of Ukraine and
lead to its downfall. But there is a danger that as a result of the
“parliamentary elections” in October of this year the present-day
Ukrainian “elite” will be displaced by even tougher radical guys
professing Nazism and overt Russophobia. Then a Bandera-style
nationalism will be established in Ukraine as a ruling ideology. And
Ukrainian society, eventually split into irreconcilable camps, will
plunge into an even more violent civil conflict than at present.

A complete change of the socio-economic system in Ukraine and return to
the principles of the welfare state, in which Ukraine achieved
prosperity in the Soviet times, can be the sole salvation-bringing
alternative to the current situation. We are convinced that the healthy
forces of the Ukrainian society will prevail and drive the Bandera
successors back into the cave from which they have crawled out.