Nationalism och geopolitik - en paradox.

Meanwhile Nato defence ministers warned that they considered Ukraine’s future to be “key to Euro-Atlantic security” and assured the new government in Kiev that the alliance would back its “sovereignty, independence [and] territorial integrity.”

“A sovereign, independent and stable Ukraine, firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, is key to Euro-Atlantic security,” they said in a statement.

I continue to see people in nationalist circles posting about the great victory of nationalism in the Ukraine, and continue to be shocked. Surely these people are seeing my articles. I guess people like being sucked into a fantasy. It makes them feel good about themselves, perhaps.

It is nauseating. And highly telling about the actual consciousness of this movement. What does it mean, to say “yeah, everyone running the entire thing is a Jew, and the first thing they did when they took over the government was call for loans from the IMF to push the Ukraine into Jewish debt, but it is good because I saw some nationalist symbols, and one of the guys said in 2007 that he didn’t like Jews”?

How can people be so irresponsible to openly voice support for a Jewish coup?

It is not as though your support for these Jews matters, but it surely demonstrates a total lack of discernment.

Younger Jews are more integrated into Ukrainian life and culture. They yearn to see the country become a modern European democracy, and many of them participated in the demonstrations at Independence Square. One Jewish newspaper in Kiev published an interview with a young Modern Orthodox man who joined the opposition’s paramilitary organization. He considered his activity in defense of the demonstrators a sanctification of God’s name. The young man reported that his unit had four other Jews in it, all with Israeli military training, and that he had experienced no anti-Semitism in his dealings with fellow fighters.

The most ardent Jewish supporter of Maidan has been Joseph Zissels, chairman of the Va’ad—Association of Jewish Organizations and Communities in Ukraine. Since his days as a young dissident in the 1960s, Zissels has worked to bring together the Ukrainian and Jewish movements. He spent six years in the Soviet Gulag, and went on to found the Va’ad in 1989. Zissels argues that Jews and Ukrainians need to turn a new page in their relations, and overcome old grudges, suspicions, and stereotypes. Maidan represents integration with Europe, he says. That is good for Ukraine, and is especially good for its Jews.

“I’m really happy that the government changed in Ukraine,” said Arsenyi Finberg, a Ukrainian Jew who took part in the Euromaidan protests. “I don’t think that the threat to Jews increased with the change in government.”

Finberg said that he didn’t see the presence of Svoboda, a far right nationalist party that has been accused of anti-Semitism, as an overwhelming one on the Maidan. And he didn’t see ultra-nationalist groups playing a big role in the remaking of the country.
...
Zissels said it was not unreasonable to think that groups like the titushki were responsible for this attack, using it to spread fear that the new Euromaidan-backed government will allow a new wave of anti-Semitism to hit Ukraine. “Mainstream events that are going on in Ukraine don’t involve anti-Semitism in any way,” he said.

“All of the NATO infrastructure and military elements have nothing to do with democracy or with some struggle against organized international crime. All of the bases, warships, aircraft, nuclear missiles and anti-ballistic missile systems in Germany, Poland, Romania, Spain and elsewhere are all part of a new ‘Drang Nach Osten Doctrine’ (the German Imperial and nazi [sic] ‘Drive to the East’),” Jovanovic said.

“In June, 1999, after NATO aggression was ended, then I can recall that soon after that there was a reconstruction and construction of four new American military bases in Bulgaria, and after that four new American bases in Romania. And how many they have in Czech or Slovak Republic, in Poland, in Baltic Republics and so on, it is not really so important, but what is important that after military aggression on Yugoslavia in 1999 and after establishment of the Bondsteel military base, American military bases in eastern part of the continent were mushrooming like after rain.

And now I would like to ask question: how to explain the fact that in Europe today there are much more foreign military bases than at the time of the peak of Cold War era? Why they are needed? Is democracy in danger? Who is endangering democracy? Or what are the reasons? Can we believe that these bases are to fight terrorism, or what? It is really what is never recognized,” he added.

“These bases to my sincere belief are directed against Russia, against Eurasia. And they have nothing to do with democracy, with struggle against organized international crime, with struggling against cyber dangers or anything else. We should be extremely naive to believe that these anti-ballistic systems in Poland, in Romania and elsewhere, in Spain, in Germany, that they are to relieve Europe of the dangers from Iran or from North Korea and so on and so forth. I would only recall that this is new edition of a Drang nach Osten, and it really deserves high attention and very serious approaches. How to discourage, how to stop this extremely dangerous development?” Jovanovic said.
...
“In Libya you recall that they said that civilians were in danger and that they needed protection, in Mali they also said that terrorists were endangering stability and civil life in general. In Syria they say sarin gas was used by the government forces while the UN observers never indicated such a thing. They said only that there were proofs of sarin having been used but they could not state who used the sarin gas, while later on it was linked to the opposition forces and to Saudi Arabia, and whomever else. In various other places this was also formula: protect civilians, protect human rights, and when such a signal comes from Washington then the whole network of so-called NGO, financed from Washington, from Soros Foundation, from Norway, from Great Britain, from Germany – they accelerate such an accusation and they make atmosphere of transforming lie into truth. Because mass media would accept such directives, and like CNN and some other networks of global nature would be disseminating such accusation. And they would at the same time later, at a later stage that were parallel with this, they finance opposition, inside opposition of targeted country,” Jovanovic said.

“They finance so-called democracy, democratization apparently to counter or to remove the totalitarian regimes. Then they would arm them. Next stage they would finance armament and train them in many directions for military actions: how to write paroles and symbols like symbol of OTPOR or the other symbols that we have seen in Maidan in Ukraine, in Kiev or in Cairo or in many other places, in South America and so on and so forth. So they then would provoke a staged event which should be signal that there is no other solution than to use military force. In case of Yugoslavia that was Racak case, in Bosnia and Herzegovina that was Markale Incident, we know the places in Syrian and other countries,” he added.
...
Asked to comment on what is going on now in Ukraine, Jovanovic said “As far as I’m concerned I think it is a repetition of the colored revolutions, so-called colored revolutions, and some of the elements of the pattern that I have previously elaborating are being clearly seen in developments in Ukraine. But perhaps I would like first of all to say that it is part of the western strategy of expansion toward East. It is indeed to my profound belief the part of strategy to reach Russian borders and, well, they are abusing social, economic and other problems which partly resulted from their strategies and their policies of crediting or not crediting, policies implemented through IMF and World Bank, through European banks and so on. Sometimes I believe that they make people hungry in order to finish their strategy.”

Det som händer i Ukraina är, jävligt förenklat förvisso, men dock, att judiska intressen (ZOG) utnyttjar folkligt missnöje för att instigera en revolution som ska koppla Ukraina från Ryssland och göra landet till en lydig NWO-stat. Några nationalister, motiverade av berättigat etablissemangshat men också av rysshat, hjälper liberalerna och judarna med nödvändigt våldskapital. Nu ska SvP åka ner och hjälpa till.

Att människor offrar sina liv utan att förstå vad de egentligen offrar det för har hänt miljontals gånger genom historien. Det är tragiskt.

Det är inte jag som har hittat på att det första "revolutionärerna" gör efter att de tar över är att begära miljardlån från EU och IMF.

Nationalismer ser olika ut. Om den enskilda nationalismen mer utgår från hat utan förståelse för världen kan den inte samverka med en nationalism som utgår från förståelse. Det är två helt olika saker.

We are going to get into the business of destroying states.
- Paul Wolfowitz


I Ukraina har konflikten eskalerat, och presidenten har avsatts. Konflikten har flera dimensioner. Geopolitiskt rör det sig om ett försök av det så kallade ”Väst”, USA och EU, att flytta fram sina positioner i det eurasiska hjärtlandet, och ryska försök att motarbeta detta. Eftersom Ukraina är ett ryskt grannland kan konflikten bli extra explosiv, inte minst då det finns en reell risk för inbördeskrig. Etniskt och kulturellt är konfliktens kärna det faktum att dagens Ukraina är en artificiell stat – den västra och norra delen är etniskt ukrainsk, den östra och södra delen har historiskt starkare band till Ryssland. En sådan stat bör organiseras efter schweiziska former, med långtgående autonomi för de olika delarna, om den inte rentav bör delas. Istället har Ukraina en modell präglad av det engelska talesättet ”the winner takes it all”, något den nya regeringen också demonstrerat. Det finns idag en risk för ett europeiskt brödrakrig i Ukraina, mellan landets västra och östra delar.

Under konflikten har det varit tydligt att den hårdföra delen av demonstranterna i Kiev är radikala nationalister, landets motståndstradition har en stark koppling till grupper som var allierade med axelmakterna och Ukraina led också svårt under den tidiga bolsjevismen. Utan de radikala nationalisterna hade protesterna förövrigt inte kunnat bli framgångsrika. Symboliken har varit uppenbar i flera av bilderna från gatustriderna, med bland annat varghakar och svarta solar. Det är här vi kan tala om en antifascismens intellektuella konkurs, grundad i dess kooptering och intima relation till etablissemanget. För å ena sidan har vi i Ukraina haft en konflikt där etablissemanget helhjärtat stått på den ena sidan, och fört fram den enligt den numera klassiska ”frihetstörstande Folk mot våldsam Regim”-modellen i media (den som följt alternativa medier har känt till flera av bristerna i denna modell). Å andra sidan har detta frihetstörstande folk i ovanligt hög grad företrätts av grupper som i Västeuropa skulle fylla ovan nämnda ”antifascism” med både skräck och avsky. Men man biter inte den hand som föder en, och detta har man därför sett mellan fingrarna med. Realpolitik, verklighet, trumfar kort sagt symbolpolitik, politiskt korrekt tjatter.

Samtidigt är detta en på flera vis intressant situation. De blandade reaktionerna på diverse ukrainska politikers utspel och den inte alldeles positiva inställningen till EU låter oss ana att ”Högersektorn” och andra radikala nationalisgrupper inte har för avsikt att reduceras till nyttiga idioter som först vågar sina liv för en revolution och därefter åker hem igen. Deras popularitet och sex appeal har också blivit avsevärd i västra Ukraina. Om inbördeskrig kan undvikas kan man därför hysa vissa förhoppningar att Ukraina faktiskt blir en del av EU. När ukrainska nationalister konfronteras med realiteterna hos EU, snarare än ett idealiserat ”Europa”, kan följderna bli intressanta.


Samtidigt låter detta oss ana något om de dilemman som EU och USA måste brottas med. Man eftersträvar regimskifte i Ukraina, men tvingas då ge grupper man vill undvika på hemmaplan en framträdande position. För om det är något både Grekland och Ukraina visar är det att de människor som idag är beredda att dö för en idé i Europa främst återfinns inom radikal nationalism. Ofta med en betydande överlappning med ideologier som uppstod under 1930-talet.

Man kan notera att samma modell för regimskifte som använts i Ukraina just nu också används i Venezuela, återigen med amerikanska intressen tydliga i bakgrunden och med ett våldsammare tillvägagångssätt än de tidigare ”färgrevolutionerna”.