Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard
With the worsening of Ukraine’s relations with its “fraternal” Eastern European neighbors, with the IMF, with EU leaders, and even with the United States of America itself, the regime inside the country becomes tougher. In the last week alone the following happened:
- the fleeing to Austria (with a request for political asylum) of the editor-in-chief of “Strana.ua” Igor Guzhva;
- an information attack on the rather “nationally conscious” TV channel ZIK;
- nazi attack from “National Druzhina” on the Cherkassy City Council;
- the assaulting of the Communist Aleksandr Kononovich (for the distribution of party propaganda materials) by “activists” of the “Azov” civil corps “patrolling” Kiev;
- the “mask-show” of law enforcement bodies at the “Vesti” newspaper.
And these are only incidents that were noticed and noted by the media. And it’s possible to make another two pages of text featuring similar kinds of events. For example, traditionally servile towards the oligarchs, the Patriarch of the Nazi movement of Ukraine Dmitry Korchinsky live on air suddenly staged anti-Semitic hysteria in regards to the inveterate Maidanist, the ally of Yushchenko, and, concurrently, the controller of the market of automobile cargo transportation of Ukraine Evgeny Chervonenko. Chervonenko just tried to convey to the audience (and most likely to the authorities) a rather sound idea about the economic unprofitability of Ukrainian Nazism, which transforms the transit intersection [Ukraine – ed] into a political-economic autarky in the center of Europe.
It should be noted that Evgeny Chervonenko is not the most intelligent of Ukrainian oligarchs. The situation is so obvious that even his remains of common sense was enough to give the only diagnosis possible — with such a (ideologically driven) policy, Ukraine can’t remain alive. Moreover, it will definitively turn into the undead in the near future.
Disturbing news also comes from the foreign policy front. Eastern Europeans in the form of Poles and Hungarians, tired of diplomatic ambiguity, began to openly demand from Ukraine to abandon Banderism as the State ideology. Nazism in Ukraine started to be noticed not only in Russia. Moreover, the public part of the reaction from “friendly” Europe appeared to be much tougher than the rhetoric of Moscow. For example, German deputies explained to the Ambassador of Ukraine who he is and where he belongs. While the Ambassador, according to ingrained habits, tried to explain to the “presumptuous” members of the “Alternative for Germany” who visited Crimea how real European politicians should behave. And he suddenly found out that it isn’t him, the foreigner [Crimea isn’t Ukrainian anymore – ed], who can allow himself to teach life to the white masters.
All of this is not a coincidence.
It is absolutely obvious that the further Nazification of the Kiev regime and its transition to an open terror policy were a response to the weakening of its foreign policy position. So far, only international “successes” like the “visa-free regime” and “European integration” served as evidence that Maidan “was not in vain” and that a bright European future is not far off. The bubble of the Ukrainian political pyramid was inflated only by these expectations. The people agreed to endure a little bit more civil war and the collapse of the standard of living in the hope that very soon, literally tomorrow, “Europe will come and bring order”.
And here it became clear that Ukraine not only won’t get into Europe, and not only will European experts not arrive in a country of permanent Maidan in order to provide for the population’s needs, but even the individual integration into Europe of millions of Ukrainian gastarbeiters can be put to bed because of Banderism being adopted as a State ideology. How should the Ukrainian people react to this?
It’s not for nothing that I remembered about the debate between Chervonenko and Korchinsky live on the air. In this debate two ways that theoretically remain open for Kiev were very clearly outlined. And it immediately became clear which one would be chosen.
Chervonenko is able to earn and count money. He, like other Ukrainian oligarchs, never cared for the State ideology. Kuchma’s “multi-vector” policy worked for his wallet, so he was multi-vectored. When Yushchenko’s “Euro-integration” entered into force, he became a European integrator, taking an active part in the preparation and staging of the first Maidan. He also wasn’t a stranger to the second Maidan — he wasn’t able to be among the leaders, but behaved with sympathy and supported it. The mass murders in Kiev (on Institutskaya street) and in Odessa (House of Trade Unions), the punitive expedition in Donbass, nor the bringing of armed Nazis – turned from marginal to mainstream – to the streets of Ukrainian cities didn’t bring him to his senses. Like it didn’t bring the rest of the oligarchs to their senses, who naively hoped that everything will settle down and it will be possible to do what they love to do — looting the country and redistributing in their favor property stolen from the people.
At this time Chervonenko is open and extremely naive — he said out loud what the rest of his brothers in class (oligarchs) silently think.
The position of the oligarchy expressed by Chervonenko is that Banderism, having provided them with a breakthrough to power and having completely neutralised any opposition, not only played its role to the end, but also became a brake that prevents the oligarchy from earning money. Having established its monopoly over the milking of Ukraine, the ruling class is interested in normalising relations with everyone, including with Russia, in giving the cannibalistic Kiev regime a human face, in its respectability, in the restoration of transit, in a return to the Russian market, etc. Since Banderism objectively prevents this (Chervonenko may not understand why the Poles remember the Volyn massacre, but he knows that because of this, they closed the border to his trucks, depriving him of his usual income), Banderism should be reduced to zero, after Yanukovych and the Communists.
It’s a very logical and pragmatic position. But the position not of a politician, but a businessman. But even though Korchinsky is a hired political clown who managed to serve almost all Ukrainian oligarchs for peanuts, unlike Chervonenko, he understands how political mechanisms work and where the boundaries of what’s possible lie.
After the Nazis in general, and Banderists in particular, were used as the main striking force of the February, 2014 coup, a return to the pre-Banderist format of Ukrainian statehood became impossible. Before the last Maidan, oligarchs dominated in politics, relying on ideologically unbiased State structures. The attempt at their ideologisation and Nazification under Yushchenko led to a considerable decrease in the professionalism of bureaucracy, a decrease in the efficiency and adequacy of reactions to events, and an increase in corruption. But it did not negate the main thing — the State apparatus served not ideology, but the political force that won at the time. It is precisely for this reason that in the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine under Tabachnyk the de-Banderisation of education was carried out with initiative and enthusiasm by the same people who before and after Tabachnyk were proactively involved in its (education) Banderisation.
The coup dealt a fatal blow to the State apparatus. The condition for the success of the coup was the paralysis and decomposition of this same apparatus. And it was paralysed and decomposed. The remnants of professionals were dispersed and intimidated during the post-coup lustration campaign. In the end, not only law enforcement structures, but also the rest of the State apparatus lost the ability to perform their functions. Nazi militants became the mainstay of the country, integrated into law enforcement bodies, the units of wild (unorganised) Nazis making “Ukrainian order” in the streets and Nazi commissars in State structures (those who were sent their officially, as well as volunteers) implementing “revolutionary politics”, to the best of their understanding.
The more degraded the State apparatus, the higher the role of the Nazis was and the more in demand a single powerful organised Nazi structure under the leadership of a national Führer became. It is Biletsky who, earlier than all Nazi leaders and little chiefs, understood this, and started to build on the basis of the “Azov” regiment and the Ukrainian version of NSDAP under the cover of the Minister of Internal Affairs Avakov.
Thus, the Nazis gained virtually complete control over domestic politics. Their influence in Ukraine was limited exclusively by European illusions. The State had to at least pretend that it corresponds to the norms of civilised European coexistence. The military, political, economic, financial, and diplomatic support of the West was ensuring the survival of Ukraine — a State that already by 2015 turned out to be politically and financially bankrupt. Since Ukrainian Nazis without Ukraine is nonsense, whilst the West helped and offered encouragement the former were obliged to be reconciled with the fact that the oligarchy – being the “human face” of the Kiev regime – continues to play a leading role in Ukrainian politics, after having giving them only the functions of ensuring the implementation of decisions. However, oligarchs traditionally did not interfere in the sphere of ideology. In this way, the Nazi-oligarchic consensus that suited all participants was preserved.
But when the West, mired in its own problems and disappointed in the ability of the Ukrainian elite to stabilise the situation in the country and turn it into a powerful Russophobic bastion, stopped all kinds of support for Ukraine, the aforementioned consensus collapsed. The oligarchy (whose views were expressed by Chervonenko) came to the conclusion that for at least a partial recovery of the controllability of the State, there is a need to obtain external support and to secure external financing, and since the Nazis hamper the normalisation of relations with the West and Russia, it is necessary to return to a pre-coup scheme by restoring the monopoly of power over State structures and by again marginalising Nazi groups that became inadmissibly stronger.
The idea is correct, but unrealisable. And it is precisely this that the Nazis said to the oligarchy via the mouth of Korchinsky. The fact is that in the conditions of economic collapse, it’s not only external trade and economic relations that appear to be broken. The unity of the internal Ukrainian economic space has suffered to a much greater extent. It was segmented into enclaves that aren’t dependent on each other and involved in simplified-to-the-limit management activity. In these conditions the economic need for the existence of a single central government and a single Ukrainian political space disappeared. On the contrary, the fragmentation into “separate principalities” became economically more justified. Given the collapse of the State apparatus, there was no one to also ensure the administrative-political unity of the country.
Only the Nazis, who relied on violence and terror, were interested in preserving the unity of the Ukrainian State. Because, as was mentioned above, a Ukrainian Nazi without a Ukrainian State is nonsense.
Of course, no one has ever managed to maintain political unity using force alone. Sooner or later the steam, being unable to force off the tightly screwed lid, explodes the pot. But the Nazis believe that via terror they will be able to circumvent the laws of politics (I would even say the laws of nature). That’s why they will increase the terror, substituting with themselves the structures of an impotent State, and will gradually become a State.
Because they have no opportunity not only to restore the economy, but even just to slow down the decline, eventually their pressure and terror only transfers the process of decay from the phase of purification to the phase of explosion. But during the first stage their “methods” can give a short-term effect. The opposition, or even a hint of such a thing, will be simply terrified, and very active persons will be eliminated
Nazi terror has only started to escalate. It is still far from the peak, although the Nazis will run across this distance very quickly. They are still working in an alliance with some oligarchic groups against others. But a choice was made by both the Nazis and oligarchs. A clash between them is inevitable, and it will end not in favor of the oligarchs.
Ahead of us is the short, but dynamic and bloody process of establishing an open Nazi dictatorship in Ukraine, which will come under the slogan of rescuing the country plundered by oligarchs and will finish off the country during a short but bloody rule.
Since it is unlikely that Ukraine will abandon the slogan “European integration” (even contrary to Europe’s desires; it is too firmly hammered into the consciousness of the population of Ukraine), the further nazification of the country will be presented to the population as the introduction of European values. Therefore, it is hoped that by the time everything is finished, the surviving citizens of Ukraine will be so revolted by these values that the path to the West will become taboo for several generations of Ukrainians. At least the first Ruin [destroyed Ukraine – ed] cleaned the brains for 300 years.
Copyright © 2018 СТАЛКЕР/ZONE. All Rights Reserved.