In recent decades it is always noisy for the Intercession of the Theotokos in Kiev on October 14th. Nazis walk. Burn torches, shout chants, celebrate the Birthday of UPA (October 14th 1942). Since 2014, thanks to Poroshenko, it is also Day of the Defender of Ukraine. This Monday didn’t become an exception.
The same Nazis, with the marginals and lumpen intelligentsia who joined them, act in the form of “heroes of the ATO and OUF“, “saving the nation” from “Putin’s aggression” by opening fire from large-caliber artillery (and at first aerial bombings) at the Ukrainian cities of Ukrainian Donbass.
However, Donbass has long been Ukrainian purely nominally. Our European partners, and even the half of the American elite who relied on Trump, have come to terms with the fact that Ukraine will have to be disconnected from the artificial lung ventilation apparatus, artificial kidney, and artificial heart. Because it didn’t manage to implant an artificial brain, and without a brain there can only be zombies there — extremely unpleasant creations. In general, everyone around them already understands that no matter how much one tries, the Nazi state will have to be put to sleep, after which Donbass will have no choice but to join Russia. No one knows how much more time and blood must pass before this reality materialises, but judging by the nervous twitching of Europe, they also want the inevitable to happen quickly.
Among other things, the rate of the disappearance of Ukraine from the political map directly depended and still depends on the Nazi militants marching on October 14th on the streets of Kiev. By proclaiming themselves uber-patriots of Ukraine, they, in practice, don’t understand that they are the grave-diggers of the Ukrainian state. Nazism places a stake on marginality, the lumpens, and the pauperised strata of society. The classical Nazi is inclined to simplification. He isn’t capable of understanding a too complex system, and he especially isn’t capable of controlling it. Nazis always simplify the state and reduce it to their own level of perception. That’s why Nazi states, being externally monolithic, are extremely loose and unstable structures. The Nazi is a bandit by nature. Simplifying the state to his level, he tries to turn it into a gang. The gang is capable of parasitising the state for some time (to the extent that it won’t be destroyed), is capable of living off the corpse of the state (as long as there are enough resources left after the death of the state), but it isn’t capable of either reviving or preserving the state independently. If the state turns into a gang — it is doomed.
Ukrainian Nazis, opposing Yanukovych under nationalist and pro-European slogans, didn’t hide their intention to destroy not only regionals, but also the entire oligarchical ruling class of Ukraine. Even an oligarchic republic, which was as close as possible to a gang in terms of its structure, was a too complicated institution for the Nazis, and they wanted to liquidate it and expropriate the oligarchs in their favour.
However in 2014 the US and the EU had other plans for Ukraine. Washington and Brussels didn’t go down the logical and most advantageous route for them, and didn’t allow Ukraine to turn into a crumbling Nazi reserve in which there is a war of all against all. They then still expected that the Ukrainian oligarchy with their help will manage to create a more or less steady state and will thus cause greater damage to Russia than the bandit outlaws swaggering on the Russian border and fishing for “aggression” would be capable of inflicting on it.
As a result, instead of uniting on anti-oligarchical ground, the Ukrainian Nazis dispersed to different oligarchical groups, agreeing to work as private armies and death squads. In Ukraine a bastard Nazi-oligarchic hybrid arose in which the Nazis (who were the driving force of the Nazi coup) voluntarily ceded their leading position to the oligarchy conserving the existing system. After the Americans and Europeans lost interest in Ukraine, the situation didn’t change. The Nazi gangs of Ukraine remained oligarchical “squads” and also made up the backbone of law enforcement. A division of labour took place: the oligarchs rule (lately hiding behind clowns from their servants), and the Nazis work as a suppression mechanism, without which the oligarchs are unable to govern. The degradation of the Ukrainian government reached that stage when control can be exercised only manually and through terrorist methods. The system doesn’t work in another mode.
That’s why when the Nazis said that they would gather on October 14th, in addition to the traditional marches through the city, and also oppose the intention of Zelensky to start the implementation of the Minsk Agreements and against the adoption by Kiev of the “Steinmeier formula” (which they called capitulation to Russia), it looked grotesque. It is approximately as if a hammer in the right hand of the master would start to frighten the puppet in the left hand of the same master.
There is nothing surprising in the fact that the power component of the Ukrainian government opposed the political component. This has happened more than once in history and in more prosperous states than Ukraine. Surprisingly, the Nazis seriously decided to oppose puppets imitating political activity at the behest of the puppeteer. Moreover, the decision on the appropriateness of these or those political steps is not made by Zelensky or his team, but by the owner of the Ukrainian political puppet theater Kolomoisky. At the same time, strangely enough, Kolomoisky’s media appeared on the same side of the barricade as the Nazis. In fact, the common master of the Nazis and the Ukrainian authorities first forced his puppets to perform the play “in the Normandy format”, and then set his own Nazis on them with the help of his own media.
In Kiev there are different rumours about this. Some say that oligarchs (Akhmetov, Pinchuk, Poroshenko) dissatisfied with the concentration of all power in the hands at Kolomoisky used the story of the “Steinmeier formula” as a reason for the organisation of an anti-Zelensky in form but anti-Kolomoisky in content Maidan. Kolomoisky, having found out about the preparation of a coup in time, decided to lead a protest in order to steer it to a rather peaceful course.
Others claim that the protest was instigated by the American democrats because Kolomoisky started to sing with Trump on an anti-Biden basis.
And there are some that claim that a split between supporters of the Democrats and supporters of Trump happened throughout Zelensky’s team. And that Zelensky and Kolomoisky allegedly found themselves on one side of the barricade, and the governments and parliamentary faction “Servant of the People” consisting of Soros grant-eaters on the other side.
And lastly, some, without bothering, just explain all of this by talking about the traditional desire of Kolomoisky (like, however, any other Ukrainian oligarch) to put his eggs in different baskets.
None of these explanations can be accepted. And none explain all the facts known to us. For example:
- Why did the Nazis get agitated only now if the Minsk Agreements were signed by Poroshenko in September 2014 and February 2015? During Poroshenko’s tenure there were disengagements of troops in Zolotoye and Petrovskoye (which the Nazis are now so annoyed about). During Poroshenko’s tenure the law “On the Special Status of Certain Districts of the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions” was adopted. Poroshenko constantly rattled about the need to implement the Minsk Agreements. Lastly, the “Steinmeier formula” was proposed during Poroshenko’s tenure and originally provoked a positive reaction in Kiev.
- If anti-Kolomoisky oligarchs placed a stake on the Democrats, why was the information from the “Biden file” leaked to journalists by Andrey Derkach, a man closer to Akhmetov than to Kolomoisky?
- Why did the Prosecutor General Ryaboshapka, appointed by Zelensky with Kolomoisky’s approval, resume the case against Lukash, who doesn’t hide that she is a member of the team of Portnov working for the benefit of Kolomoisky and Zelensky?
None of the above-stated options, neither collectively or separately, can consistently explain even these three points, and it is possible to list a dozen of even two-dozen of such “why?” questions. The most important thing is that they don’t explain why the Nazis, divided between various oligarchical groups previously always supported the different sides of the oligarchic standoff, now found themselves all in the same pack? Why did the Prime Minister suddenly rush to ingratiate himself with the Nazis, singing along with their rock group “Sokyra Peruna”? Was it by chance that Portnov’s group – working for representatives of the old government, including Poroshenko, who clearly stated his claim to leadership in the systemic (parliamentary) segment of the Nazi movement – came under attack? Why did Avakov, who returned control over the National Guard and border guards (i.e., the misunderstanding between him and Zelensky was resolved), clearly allow the Nazis to organise sabbaths on the perimeter of the defenceless building of the Presidential Administration? After all, every time there is a danger of events spiralling out of control and the presidential office being captured.
By observing the events in Kiev it is possible to make one observation. This time (for the first time in all the post-Maidan time) the Nazis are in coherence, act as a united force, work in coordination, make common demands, proclaim common slogans, and use common fighting methods. Obviously someone is standing behind them. Until now, these guys, even sincerely trying to unite, have regularly demonstrated an inability to negotiate with each other. But they have always been able to obey both their oligarchs and Americans. However, according to the reaction of Ukrainian oligarchs towards the Nazi performances, it seems that they were completely unprepared for them. The cleverest of them (Kolomoisky) and the riskiest (Poroshenko) try to ride the wave, and others sit in the shadows.
If the Nazi performances were organised by the Democrats (as revenge for the cooperation of the Ukrainian government with Trump), then the White House, which now does not miss a single opportunity to demonstrate the danger posed by the Democrats to American society and values, wouldn’t fail to expose them and support the duly elected Ukrainian government. But Washington is clearly not worried about the gradually worsening political crisis in Ukraine.
And yet, besides the Americans, there was nobody to coordinate the Nazis (unless they themselves sharply raised their political level, but this is almost impossible). Only this, it seems, was not the action of one of the political parties, but the work of the so-called “bipartisan consensus” drawn up against Trump by the left-liberal Democrats (whose leaders were Obama, Clinton, Biden) and the right-conservative Republicans (leaders Bolton, Tillerson, the late McCain).
By making Bolton resign and hitting Biden (who is capable of knocking him out of the presidential race), Trump has effectively started a war against both camps. And it started successfully. Biden is quickly losing his approval rating, and the withdrawal of troops from Syria and refusal to quickly support Ukrainian ambitions can quickly put US foreign policy in line with the concept of Trump and really allow the latter to “get along with Russia”. Republican and Democrat hawks, supporters of a tough offensive policy concerning Moscow, understand that Trump has quite a good chance of being re-elected. In this case, he will have four years to turn the US towards the ideals of Trumpism, after which it will be extremely difficult to wrest power from the hands of the Trumpists.
The weak link where it is easiest to undermine Trump’s position is Ukraine. Here it is enough to organise another mutiny, so that the fragile statehood finally shatters into small pieces. Another coup in Kiev will hit the interests of Russia and the EU very hard, and the US’ fingerprints will (deliberately) be so visible on it that it will be extremely difficult for Trump to get along not only with Moscow, but also with Brussels. It is possible that in order to stabilise the situation and restore elementary order, the neighbouring countries will have to send troops to Ukraine (with the sanction of the UN and/or OSCE). The globalist press will present it to Americans as Trump colluding with the enemies of America at the expense of destroying the “Ally’s democratic state”.
The mutiny against the “Steinmeier formula” can dashingly strike Trump and his prospect of a second term. Zelensky obviously rushes around, tries to show to Nazis that he has no contradictions with them, makes more and more harsh statements in relation to Donbass, practically blocking for himself the possibility of holding a “Normandy format” in the near future, and urges the Nazis to negotiate.
At the same time, the Nazis quietly ignore Zelensky’s attempts to somehow reach an agreement and put forward to him ultimatums that in principle can’t be executed both because of a lack of time and in connection with the general impracticability of the demands. So far, events are developing in a regime of the traditional Maidan. We are dealing with the second (organisational) stage, when preparation for a mutiny is already carried out openly, but a permanent tent camp has not yet been organised, a set of demands is still being formed, and the rocking of society only begins.
So far the Ukrainian government behaves absolutely inadequately towards the situation, trying to explain to the mutineers that it hasn’t done anything wrong, that it is fighting for the same thing, that there will be no concessions for Russia or Donbass. This is senseless. Opponents will still complain regardless. Their business is not to find a compromise, but to aggravate the crisis by making the authorities guilty of it. The only way to deal with the mutiny at this stage is to hit its headquarters. Only the arrest of real and potential protest leaders and their internment for an indefinite period of time can scatter the structure of the developing insurgency, depriving the infantry of commanders and cutting ties with sponsors and clients.
The Ukrainian government, like Yanukovych before it, works in the regime “it will fizzle out”. This is unlikely. Currently no one is in a hurry. Negotiations over a contract for the transit of Russian gas to Europe are still ahead, the legal authority should be present there, because otherwise even the most inveterate Russophobes in the EU will remark that there isn’t and won’t be an alternative to the Trans-Baltic gas pipelines (Nord Streams) and that the gas transport system of Ukraine can no longer be taken into account.
In general, the Nazis have time to buildup, to complete the affair after New Year (it is possible before the summer, before the start of the primaries in the US). Therefore, they are not in a hurry and don’t yet look too dangerous (although Zelensky is clearly afraid and worried). They can finish again what wasn’t done in 2014-2015 and to take power into their own hands, having taken it away from oligarchs. And then Ukraine will again be in the condition of the patient who was deprived of their ambu bag, in the same condition it stayed in until the second Minsk Agreement (concluded in February 2015), and rather even before the failed Kolomoisky mutiny (blocked by the Americans) in March of that year. Great terror and rapid disintegration will again become relevant.
But the final result of this stage of the Ukrainian crisis will nevertheless depend on the course of the standoff among the American elite. If Trump supporters notice the danger coming from this side, they can quickly stabilise the situation, having let out Nazi steam from the pot. But will they notice, will they be able to intervene, and will they want to intervene?
Rostislav Ishchenko
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.