Geopolitics & Oligarchy in the Ukraine CrisisKerry Bolton
Czech translation here
The situation in the Ukraine follows the same scenario as sundry other states that have been brought into the globalist fold. The riots on the streets of Kiev and elsewhere amount to a “color revolution” of the sort that went like a dose of salts through the states of the former USSR, and recently through North Africa in the so-called “Arab Spring.” Interestingly, there are presently globalist sponsored revolts in three states simultaneously: Venezuela, Syria and Ukraine; all associated with Russian interests.
Ukraine: Target of Globalists
The “Cold War” against Russia as a world power since 1945, after Stalin scotched globalist plans for a world state under United Nations auspices, only had a brief respite during the Gorbachev and Yeltsin years, Gorbachev having since shown his true colors as a globalist. Hence the present crisis over the Ukraine does not represent a “return to the Cold War,” as foreign policy pundits have been claiming; the “Cold War” hardly stopped. The U.S. policy makers have stated plainly that post-Yeltsin Russia remains an enemy and that anyone who aims to reassert Russia as a world power – as Putin has – is a legitimate target of the USA.
As we might expect, the Ukraine has been one of the states that is of much interest to the National Endowment for Democracy. One might see from NED’s financial program that here again NED has been avidly sponsoring young cadres in various sectors of society, including “educating” electorates on how to vote in the October 2012 elections. This is flagrant interference in the political processes of what the globalists are now ranting in regard to the Ukraine sovereignty being under threat from Russia. The 2012 NED financial report (the latest published) lists the NGO’s in the Ukraine that received $3,380,834 during that year. The amount represents the upper end of funds sent by NED throughout the world.
Ukraine was among the states targeted for a “color revolution” in 2004; the “Orange Revolution.” Hence, ever since it has not been regarded as sufficiently “democratic,” a euphemism for not being sufficiently under the influence of US/globalist hegemony. A symposium on the Ukraine held by the NED-linked International Forum for Democratic Studies laments that “following its failure to consolidate the democratic gains of the much-celebrated 2004 ‘Orange Revolution,’ Ukraine under the rule of authoritarian President Viktor Yanukovych has suffered numerous setbacks in its struggle to achieve a more democratic system.”
Veteran globalist foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who continues to work at 86 for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, when interviewed by Ukrainian Pravda, a journal connected with NED, lauded the rioting youth that, as with other “color revolutions,” precipitated the present situation in the Ukraine. He has praised their sense of “nationhood,” as “an optimistic sign.” Brzezinski speaks of “independent nationhood.” This praise of Ukrainian nationalism by Brzezinski is odd coming from someone who has spent decades, since his days as a young academic, condemning nationalism and asserting that international capitalism, founded upon a globalist elite that transcends territorial borders, is the next phase of historical evolution in a dialectical process. Brzezinski does not even believe in “independent nationhood.” He believes that it is passé. However it is the line followed by all the other mouthpieces of globalization, including the USA and the E.U., and all the pontificators at the United Nations, who are condemning Russia and upholding this “Ukrainian nationhood.” None, of course, are champions of nationalism, which they regard as anathema. It is another means of undermining Russia as the primary state that remains in the way of the “brave new world,” or the “new world order” as it has been called. Hence, “nationalism” is only used as a dialectical strategy as part of a globalist agenda.
Brzezinski also alludes to what is the real bugbear of the globalists: the fear that Russia will lead a Eurasian bloc which, we might add, would also find allies across the world, from India, to Venezuela to Syria; hence the simultaneous actions against the latter two states, fomented by the same forces that are backing the situation in the Ukraine. Brzezinski, as a principal spokesman for the globalists, talks of an “expansion of Europe.” Brzezinski openly states that the globalists want the Ukraine to be part of the E.U. as the start of a process that will integrate Russia also. He states that this is the wave of the future, and that a Russia-led “Eurasian union” will fail. However, if the E.U. represented a truly independent third force, it would have been targeted as avidly by the globalists as Russia and the previous Soviet bloc. Unfortunately, the E.U. has not emerged as a third force, but as an appendage of U.S. foreign policy, and its position on the present Ukraine situation is yet another example of this.
From Brzezinski’s statements, we can see why the globalists were so eager to oust the Yanukovych regime, with the prospect of the Ukraine coming closer to Russia rather than opting for the E.U. The Ukraine is clearly an important part of the globalist agenda.
Brzezinski refers to Russia increasingly interfering in Ukrainian affairs, yet the interference of NED, funded by U.S. Congress, and other such agencies, is long and pervasive.
NED funding for a new “Orange Revolution” includes the rather obvious organization named Aplesin (meaning “Orange”), more formally entitled “Center of Progressive Young People, founded in 2001. Aplesin lists its “international financial partners” as the U.S. Embassy; NED; Freedom House; Polish-Ukrainian Cooperation Foundation; International Relief and Development, another U.S.-based globalist front; Princes Foundation Benefactors Ostrozki Ruslan Kraplych, a Ukrainian based organization receiving funding from Microsoft Ukraine and USAID; among others.
The George Soros network of globalist subverters operates in the Ukraine through the International Renaissance Foundation. The Foundation has been active is assisting rioters injured in fighting with authorities.
Oligarchs Given Fiefdoms
One of the first actions of the regime that ousted Yanukovych was to give Ukraine oligarchs their own fiefdoms. Suddenly, oligarchs have become “patriots” and “nationalists.” Rinat Akhmetov, the wealthiest of the oligarchs, head of the SCM group employing 300,000 people and spanning the entirety of the Ukraine, pledged to defend his homeland — although he had lived at One Hyde Park, London — in the event of a Russian invasion. The previous day two other oligarchs, Igor Kolomoisky and Serhiy Taruta, accepted governorships over two regions and responsibility for preparing defense against a Russian invasion. Kolomoisky, “a prominent member and supporter of the country’s Jewish community,” now heads the regional government of Dnipropetrovsk in eastern Ukraine. Taruta is governor of Donetsk, in the far east of the Ukraine. Another oligarch, Dmytro Firtash, rallied to the cause, “speaking on behalf of business circles.” Rabbi Shmuel Kaminezki, head of the Jewish community in Dnipropetrovsk, expressed his support for Kolomoisky, as the Jewish community likewise finds its Ukrainian nationalist voice.
As for Akhmetov, he is said to have had influence over a bloc of forty members of the Ukraine parliament, and one might wonder if it was this influence that was instrumental in the ouster of Yanukovych?
Petro Poroshenko, billionaire confectionery and automobile manufacturer, TV channel owner, and former Minister of Foreign Affairs and of Trade and Economic Development, also headed Ukraine’s National Bank (2007-2012). He was a major supporter of the 2004 “Orange Revolution,” and chief campaign manager for Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine Bloc. Forbes’ recent profile states of Poroshenko that he “was a major supporter of anti-government protesters in the Ukraine.” He is a member of parliament and is considered a likely presidential contender. His business focus is on external markets, particularly in E.U. states, having been excluded from Russia. Perhaps this explains his enthusiasm for Ukraine’s entry into the European market?
Victor Pinchuk is second wealthiest oligarch in the Ukraine, behind Akhmetov, and has impeccable globalist credentials. He is founder of EastOne LLC investment, London, a media magnate, and a proponent of Ukraine’s entry into the E.U. His international links include being an adviser for the Brookings Institution, and a friend of former U.S. president Bill Clinton, British prime minister Tony Blair, and globalist wire-puller George Soros. He founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) to promote Ukrainian entry into the E.U.
The stated aim of YES is to integrate the Ukraine into “key international systems.” The Pinchuk Foundation is associated with the Open Ukraine Foundation, which focuses on youth leaders. Open Ukraine was founded by Arseny Yatsenyuk, Minister of Economics (2005-2006), Minister of Foreign Affairs (2007), and chairman of the Supreme Council (2007-2008). He headed the Front for Change party (2009-2012), and during the last half of 2012 headed the “United Opposition, ” also known as the All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland.
Co-founder of Open Ukraine is Dzhymala Zbigniew, director of the financial and industrial group Inter-Groclin. Pinchuk is a member of the governing body of Open Ukraine. Other O.U. luminaries include corporate board directors such as Roman Speck, CEO of JSC Alfa-Bank. Association with the Front for Change party is continued through party leader Svetlana Wojciechowski. “Partners” of Open Ukraine include the Victor Pinchuk Foundation; the veteran globalist think tank Chatham House; Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation (BST), “a project of the German Marshall Fund,” a U.S. entity founded in 1972 to promote “Atlantic relationships,” “in the spirit of the Marshall Plan; NATO Information and Documentation Center; “Democracy, Public Affairs Section,” U.S. Embassy in the Ukraine; International Renaissance Foundation, the Soros Open Society front in the Ukraine; Embassy of Poland; Horizon Capital Advisers LLC, focusing on investments in Ukraine, Moldova and Belrus.
Open Ukraine has made its position unequivocal, proclaiming the “eternal memory and glory of the heroes” involved in the riots causing the present crisis.
The Front for Change, with its close relationship with the oligarchs and globalists, merged into the All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland in 2013. The Fatherland Union, or United Opposition, traces its origins to the 2004 “Orange Revolution.” What is being played out in the Ukraine now is the attempt to complete what was attempted in 2004.
IMF in Ukraine
Arseny Yatsenyuk has been appointed interim Prime Minister. An article in Forbes calls Yatsenyuk “Washington’s man.” Correspondent Kenneth Rapoza alludes to a leaked phone call where Victoria Nuland, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, told the Ukrainian ambassador that the USA wants “Yats” in. “Yats” was elected by the Ukraine parliament, with just one dissenting vote, despite previously being behind other opposition leaders as choice of prime minister, because he “had friends in high places and while he does not have strong support of the electorate, and would have no chance of winning an election, he is pro-IMF austerity and apparently the bulk of parliament is as well.”
Yatsenyuk’s most immediate measure is to secure loans from the IMF and U.S. and E.U. banks. Yanukovych resisted IMF demands to raise taxes and devalue the currency. Indeed, Yatsenyuk had stated that talks with the E.U. and the IMF are his top priorities. An IMF team arrived in the Ukraine on March 4, Yatsenyuk having stated just prior to the delegation, that Ukraine would meet all IMF requirements. The IMF had suspended loans to the Ukraine twice since 2008 because of the failure to carry out IMF policies. In December 2013 the IMF and the Ukraine failed to reach agreement in talks. The new government under the oligarchs has pledged to the IMF that it would undertake “wide ranging reforms,” according to the Fund’s spokesman Gerry Rice.
Yatsenyuk has stated he expects to be the most unpopular leader in Ukraine’s history, indicating that, in keeping with usual IMF demands, the first measures will include cuts in state subsidies, particularly for domestic energy consumption, and welfare. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry wants to rush through a U.S. guaranteed loan of $1 billion, with the E.U. likely to offer a similar amount. Russia had previously promised $15 billion, an offer that has now been withdrawn.
What the outcome will be is predictable: as in other states that have thrown themselves upon the IMF, Ukraine’s economy will be privatized; her resources thrown open to global predators, and the Ukrainian Nationalists, who are already at odds with the social democrats now running the Ukraine, will have provided some of the street fodder for a process that will see the Ukraine enslaved not to Russia, but to global plutocracy – unless Russia stands firm.
 K. R. Bolton, “Tunisian revolt, another Soros/NED jackup,” Foreign Policy Journal, January 18, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/18/tunisian-revolt-another-sorosned-jack-up/
 See for example, National Endowment for Democracy, “Venezuela,” 2012 annual report, http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/latin-america-and-caribbean/venezuela
 K. R. Bolton, “Attack on Syria planned nearly two decades ago,” Foreign Policy Journal, September 16, 2013, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/09/16/attack-on-syria-planned-nearly-two-decades-ago/
 K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012), 125-139.
 K. R. Bolton, “Mikhail Gorbachev, globalist superstar,” Foreign Policy Journal, April 3, 2011, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/04/03/mikhail-gorbachev-globalist-super-star/
 K. R. Bolton, Stalin, op. cit., 137-139.
 National Endowment for Democracy, NED 2012 Annual report, http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/eurasia/ukraine
 “Ukraine’s Lessons Learned: From the Orange Revolution to the Euromaidan,” National Endowment for Democracy, February 12, 2014, http://www.ned.org/events/ukraine-lessons-learned-from-the-orange-revolution-to-the-euromaidan
 Segei Leshchenko, “Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yanukovych understand that has no chance of fair elections. So went under the umbrella of Putin,” Ukrainian Pravda, January 15, 2014, http://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2014/01/15/7009577/
Note that Leshchenko, who conducted the Brzezinski interview, is a NED Fellow.
 Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s role in the technotronic era (New York: The Viking Press, 1970), 29.
 K. R. Bolton, Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific: emerging conflicts, new alliances (London: Black House Publishing, 2013), 174-180.
 In December 2013, the Foundation was calling on the USA and E.U. to freeze the bank accounts of the “Yanukovych regime.” The sponsors of the Foundation include the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, E.U., and NED, among others. The stated purpose of the Foundation, founded in 1999, is to make the Ukraine into a “market economy,” “to integrate the Ukraine into Euro-Atlantic structures,” based on the experiences of Poland, and to involved the Ukraine in fomenting regime change in Russia and former Soviet bloc states.
 See links at http://www.cpmapelsin.com.ua/partners?lang=en
 Open Society Foundations, http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/about/offices-foundations/international-renaissance-foundation
 Roman Olearchyk, “Akhmetov joins Ukraine oligarchs in pledging to protect homeland,” Financial Times, March 2, 2014, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a99fc964-a189-11e3-a29e-00144feab7de.html#axzz2uwAezm48
 Edward Malnick, “The Ukrainian oligarchs living it large in London,” The Telegraph, London, February 23, 2014, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10655081/The-Ukrainian-oligarchs-living-it-large-in-London.html
 “Petro Poroshenko,” Forbes, March 2014, http://www.forbes.com/profile/petro-poroshenko/
 See “About Victor Pinchuck,” Victor Pinchuck Foundation, http://pinchukfund.org/en/about_pinchuk/biography/
 Yalta European Strategy, http://pinchukfund.org/en/about_pinchuk/biography/
 Open Ukraine, “Founders,” http://openukraine.org/ua/about/founders
 Open Ukraine, “Governing bodies,” http://openukraine.org/ua/about/management
 “About the GMF,” http://www.gmfus.org/about-gmf/
 Co-founded in 2006 by Jeffrey C. Neal, formerly chairman of Merrill Lynch, and a board member of the Chicago Council of Global Affairs. Founding partner and CEO is Natalie A. Jaresko, who formerly worked for the U.S. State Department, and as chief economic adviser to the U.S. embassy in the Ukraine. See Horizon Capital, http://www.horizoncapital.com.ua/our-team
 Kenneth Rapoza, “Washington’s Man Yatsenyuk setting Ukraine up for ruin,” Forbes, February 27, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/02/27/washingtons-man-yatsenyuk-setting-ukraine-up-for-ruin/
 “Talks with E.U., IMF are new Ukrainian government’s top priorities,” ITAR/TASS, February 27, 2014, http://en.itar-tass.com/world/721208
 “IMF mission in Kiev to assess economic situation in Ukraine,” ITAR/TASS, March 4, 2014, http://en.itar-tass.com/world/721953
 Sandrine Rastello and Terry Atlas, “IMF history with Ukraine leaders may cloud aid negotiations,” Bloomberg News, March 1, 2014, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-28/imf-history-with-reneging-ukrainian-leaders-may-cloud-fresh-aid.html
The State of the Nation for White Advocates
John Fante’s Ask the Dust
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 525 On Capitalism, Socialism, & the Ethnostate
La Russie et l’Ukraine, à nouveau
Nothing Is True, Everything Is Possible
Zelensky’s Future as “Our Son of a Bitch”
Red Flags in Ukraine
On the Importance of Logical Consistency
Great stuff Mr. Bolton. Having read most of your books, analysis like the one presented here is sorely lacking even among the usual alternative channels, so I’m always happy to see it.
Thank you for this article. It’s exactly what I’m saying: for those who consider themselves opposed to Obama-type progressive imperialism and in support of traditional European civilization, Russia is the only choice. Ragtag bands of ‘nationalist’ street thugs have not been able to provide a serious alternative global system since 1939, and that will not suddenly change in the backwaters of Eastern Europe.
There are two major powers left on the planet: the United States and Russia. One of them has already indicated what its endgoals are, and they are anathema to everything we stand for. Russia, as America’s only natural opponent, has a huge incentive to oppose Washington at every turn, including ideologically. That is, predictably, exactly what it’s doing.
The idea that White Nationalists must choose either Russia or the US in this dispute is ludicrous. As I said, I admire Putin within limits. He is the best conventional politician out there today. But he is not a White Nationalist. He is a Russian imperialist, and imperialism is not what White Nationalists stand for. We stand for nationalism for all nations.
So when I see people in the Ukraine or elsewhere who are trying to create a genuine nationalist alternative to Russian or American imperialism, I naturally side with the nationalists.
There is something deeply silly about White Nationalists who are all a-tingle for Putin, who, for all his macho charm, does not stand for what we stand for. This silliness is strictly analogous to the White Nationalists who got excited about Ron Paul, or the Tea Party, or Rand Paul. These people are such born followers that they will jump on board a movement that is going in the wrong direction, just for the thrill of being part of something happening. They are so wrapped up the superficial that allow themselves to be cuckolded over and over again by politicians with fundamental ideological disagreements, who are all too willing to cash their checks but otherwise ignore them.
The idea that we have to choose Russia or the US in this crisis is strictly analogous to the claim that we have to choose between Democrats and Republicans, and the answer is the same: we reject both options and we are going to put all of our time and money and effort into creating a real third option that does advance our interests.
Forgive if I’m wrong, but I was of the understanding that V. Putin is concerned about the demographic challenges our people face.
None the less, I do see your point. There is a tendency amongst White nationalists to support public figures who aren’t committed to our people’s survival.
In America, you have Ron Paul.
Back here in England, some White nationalists support David Icke — even though he calls people Nazis and goes into convulsions when he mentions racial issues.
Both these guys, however, have something to offer our movement. Ron Paul is anti-Federal Reserve and David Icke (despite his ”lizard” nonsense) mentions the Frankfurt School and he had a 24-hour Internet TV station that tells the truth about Zio-America, etc.
Who are the good guys? Golden Dawn. Austrian Freedom Party. Swiss Freedom Party. Basically, any movement that is defined by its desire to secure the long-term survival of our people.
Putin is dealing with Russia’s demographic crisis, but at the same time, he is committed to retaining a multiracial, multiethnic empire, which is not in the long term genetic interests of the Russians either.
‘The idea that White Nationalists must choose either Russia or the US in this dispute is ludicrous. ‘
It is the opposite of ludicrous. It is an accurate recognition of reality. Until nationalists seize power in a major geopolitical area with leverage, experience and resources, nationalism for all nations will be a pipe dream. Germany, Italy and Japan were the last major powers with nationalist modus operandi. Since then, the United States and Russia have been the biggest power centers on the planet.
‘As I said, I admire Putin within limits. He is the best conventional politician out there today. But he is not a White Nationalist. He is a Russian imperialist, and imperialism is not what White Nationalists stand for. We stand for nationalism for all nations.’
Russian imperialism is beneficial to whites. I don’t know about you, but I stand for whatever is beneficial to whites and their civilization, not for nebulous universal ideas about nationhood.
‘So when I see people in the Ukraine or elsewhere who are trying to create a genuine nationalist alternative to Russian or American imperialism, I naturally side with the nationalists.’
First of all, what genuine alternative? Right Sector? Would you put street hooligans in charge of your country? Svoboda? They’re a marginal right-wing party in a country as poor as Kosovo. So what genuine alternative is there? The real power players in Ukraine are Russia and its conservatism, America and its progressivism and the EU and its soft Marxism, although the latter two could be easily taken as one and the same.
‘There is something deeply silly about White Nationalists who are all a-tingle for Putin, who, for all his macho charm, does not stand for what we stand for. ‘
Putin stands for order in Russia, rising birthrates, support of the Russian Orthodox Church, protection for Christians in Syria, suppression of Islamists in Russia, the enforcement of traditional morality in law, and, most of all, he stands against the progressive-imperialist power which creates the conditions that make something like white nationalism an ‘ideology’ instead of ‘common sense.’
‘This silliness is strictly analogous to the White Nationalists who got excited about Ron Paul, or the Tea Party, or Rand Paul. ‘
This is stunningly facetious. The Pauls and the Tea Party have no actual power. Vladimir Putin just invaded another country under Obama’s sniveling nose.
‘These people are such born followers that they will jump on board a movement that is going in the wrong direction, just for the thrill of being part of something happening. They are so wrapped up the superficial that allow themselves to be cuckolded over and over again by politicians with fundamental ideological disagreements, who are all too willing to cash their checks but otherwise ignore them.’
Thank you, Herr Psychologist. Now that you are done psychoanalyzing, could you address the points I’m making?
‘The idea that we have to choose Russia or the US in this crisis is strictly analogous to the claim that we have to choose between Democrats and Republicans, and the answer is the same: we reject both options and we are going to put all of our time and money and effort into creating a real third option that does advance our interests.’
Again, stunningly facetious. The Republicans and Democrats are the same party with the same policies and goals, who differ on minor passing social issues and cosmetics. Russia and the United States are massive world powers with geopolitical and ideological interests that are diametrically opposed. Building an alternative to Republicans and Democrats would mean dissociating from the modernist political sideshow, a worthy goal. Building an alternative to Russia or America would mean attempting a coup in France, Germany, Britain or some other European country that could be a world power once more. If you try anything else, you’re dissociating from reality.
‘Putin is dealing with Russia’s demographic crisis, but at the same time, he is committed to retaining a multiracial, multiethnic empire, which is not in the long term genetic interests of the Russians either.’
Completely untrue. Russia’s multiethnic empire is what makes the Russian people powerful. Russia has always dominated non-European minorities throughout Asia to gain access to natural resources and expand its geopolitical power. There is nothing about maintaining an empire harmful to Russian genetic interests. History itself disproves this notion. How did Russians become so populous across Asia and so powerful in the 20th century and today if not by expanding across Asia and building a massive empire as they went?
My point remains unaltered. Putin is doing good things, but he is not an ethnonationalist. If the values of White Nationalists are going to actually change the world, we need the intellectual clarity to reject any movement that does not advance our values and the maturity to build our own movement, rather than support our enemies, or the enemies of our enemies, who also happen to be our enemies.
The British and the French believed that their multiracial, multiethnic empires made them powerful too. Yet now they are being colonized by the fast-breeding blowback of their own imperial success.
How many tens of millions of white Russians lost their lives to Jews, Georgians, Latvians, Poles, and other subject peoples once they lost control of their empire in 1917? Was that good for the Slavic peoples?
How much has Russia spent on killing and bribing Chechens and other Muslims? Chechens who are fellow citizens, free to mingle among Russians (and stick their knives in). Wouldn’t Russia have been better off if all that money had been spent encouraging Russian women to have large families, for instance?
‘Wouldn’t Russia have been better off if all that money had been spent encouraging Russian women to have large families, for instance?’
This is the problem with ethnonationalism. If more people is all you care about, then why bother with morality, rationality, civilization, human achievement or anything that isn’t pure natalism? You question me if there is ever enough Empire, but I question you: are there ever enough white people? If all that matters is more white people, would you be alright with the present state of the world if all whites had fertility rates upwards of 2.1? I would not. A Russia that gives its existing whites power, purpose and religion will improve their lives and naturally incentivize them to have more children; much more than some nebulous natalist policy.
‘Yet now they are being colonized by the fast-breeding blowback of their own imperial success.’
The only relationship between the former colonial empires and current immigration is that the former are being used as an excuse by Marxists, Jews and other degenerates to import cheap labor and votes. Don’t be so obtuse.
‘How many tens of millions of white Russians lost their lives to Jews, Georgians, Latvians, Poles, and other subject peoples once they lost control of their empire in 1917? Was that good for the Slavic peoples?’
They lost control of their Empire after a world war, overthrow of the government and Communist revolution. Somehow, I would lay the blame for this at the feet of Communism and War, not Empire.
‘On your thinking, is there ever too much empire?’
Have you never heard of geopolitics? Russia’s natural limits are at the German, Turkish, Persian, Indian and Chinese borders. Only the future will tell to what extent exactly Russia will expand.
Your defense of empire boils down to presuming that your people will always be in charge and dismissing all examples to the contrary.
A people losing control of its empire is just as likely as a people losing control of its country. How are Sweden, Denmark and Norway doing with Muslim immigration? They didn’t have empires like Britain, France or Russia did they? In fact, they were homogeneous nations for all of history, until something happened in the last half-century and third-worlders began pouring in… almost as if empire isn’t the cause of immigration, but something else…
It’s ridiculous to say empire will lead to collapse. Empire will lead to collapse if you have bad leaders, bad people, bad goals and bad policies. Just like a purely ethnonationalist state will collapse with bad leaders, people, goals and policies. On the other hand, a well-run empire is much more beneficial than a well-run ethnonationalist state. By definition an ethnonationalist state restricts the territory and people that can contribute to the ruling government and people. If Russia could administer a vast empire across Eurasia, elevating the Russians to the most powerful position on the planet, why would it abandon the goal in favor of ‘ethnonationalism’? There’s no reason, and that’s why it never has, nor ever will.
Empire doesn’t preclude ethnonationalism, but ethnonationalism precludes empire. And, once more, it’s clear between the two which one is doing more good for Europeans and European civilization today. Putin’s imperialism is currently about to bring Russian morality to Crimea, decisively saving it from the type of progressive rot and immigration it would have experienced under the influence of the EU and the USA (even brought in by reckless and unthinking nationalists acting as street thugs for the liberal parties!).
So, again: Putin just spared 2 million people from the degeneracy of the West. Meanwhile, ‘ethnonationalists’ in Ukraine are actively working to bring the degeneracy of the West INTO the rest of Ukraine through EU/US diplomacy, loans, privatization and so forth, as they get co-opted by liberals and progressives.
So why on Earth should I support ethnonationalists against Putin, when one is actively doing good for Europeans, and the others are busy paving Ukraine’s road to hell with their good intentions?
Imperial blowback is not, of course, the only cause or excuse for non-white immigration/swamping. But just because it is not the only reason, does not mean that it is not one of the main ones.
The ultimate case for ethnonationalism is not “empires ultimately fall.” It is a moral case, built on the idea that peoples deserve homelands so they can pursue their own unique destinies.
As a defender of imperialism, you announce to your neighbors that you intend to be a murderer and a thief.
There is a problem with Russia’s race-blind imperialism, but it is only a problem for the Russians. It isn’t a problem for the Ukrainians, even if the Ukrainian government keeps doing business with Russia. At least, I hope Russia will not ask Ukraine to accept Chechen immigrants.
But EU countries actually have to take in violent Chechen “refugees”, together with the Africans. The EU administration wants to kill the White race. They want to send third-world immigrants to every member state. They want Turkey into the EU and complete freedom of movement. According to the Pravda, Yanukovych already had a deal with the EU to import EU gypsies to Ukraine. I expect the Gypsy population to explode in Europe thanks to the solicitude of the EU. For Ukraine, the racial danger comes from the EU, not from Russia.
I read an article by Matthew Raphael Johnson at the Occidental Observer about President Lukashenko in Bielorussia (2011), and it seems that Lukashenko is both an ally of Russia and a racially-aware nationalist. It seems to me like a good combination.
All the more reason to think that Yanokovych had to go.
As a matter of fact Ukraine already has its part of Chechen refugees, but also its current population of Crimean Tatars (deported by Stalin, they returned after the SU collapsed).
Russia had its part too, 192,000 Chechen refugees and while the EU 33,000.
Anyway, no one in Ukraine thinks that there will be an influx of foreign elements due to EU admission (which is still a remote possibility). Those foreign elements are heading to UK, France, or Germany, where there is a huge welfare system to sustain them. That will never happen in Ukraine.
Do not think that there will be too many Chinese or Africans to plow the potato fields of Ukraine and ready to enjoy -40 Celsius degrees in the winter.
They want much more to work anywhere in EU as the only chance to get rid of poverty – real or imagined poverty. This is another matter.
Have you never heard of geopolitics? Russia’s natural limits are at the German, Turkish, Persian, Indian and Chinese borders. Only the future will tell to what extent exactly Russia will expand.
Russia/Soviet Union did essentially have these borders for 50 years after World War II, and they weren’t really able to accomplish anything with it.
One reason I read Counter-Currents is that it is one of the few places you can get serious analysis of global events. Your articles covering the Ukraine crisis are the sort of things one might have seen once in more conventional rightist publications (say, James Burnham’s old column in the National Review). But today? As in the world of “Fight Club,” everything in the mainstream media is a copy of a copy of a copy…
The Ukrainian elite is jewish, they pulled this revolution against Russia with George Soros and the American Jewish establishment.
Russia isn’t ZOG free, the head of foreign intelligence is a jew: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fradkov
Look who are the leaders of the Ukrainian “revolution”:
A pair of oligarchs:
And the new Prime Minister, who claims to be Ukrainian Greek Catholic.
And a kicker: The mayor of Kharkov, too:
Who was for the Orange Revolution until he was against it, finding the way up the greasy pole easier by way of his pro-Russian, and Jewish, patron:
It’s like a trail of breadcrumbs.
As a reminder, the English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s “200 Years Together” remains partial samizdat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Hundred_Years_Together
Hoo boy, Theresa Heinz’s husband is travelling to Kiev Tuesday to nail US prestige to an independent Ukraine.
This was a very informative article: Dr. Bolton deserves credit for going into great depth and thus educating all his readers, particularly about the powerful figures behind the scenes, whilst maintaining the wider geopolitical context in view.
One point I’d like to note:
‘Unfortunately, the E.U. has not emerged as a third force, but as an appendage of U.S. foreign policy, and its position on the present Ukraine situation is yet another example of this.’
This is quite similar to what Alexander Dugin stated in his interview on countercurrents.com some weeks ago – and it brings to light the tragedy of the Europeans post-1945. One of the main motives behind European integration was to enable them to resist American and Russian influence and pressure – yet the enterprise has only ended up making them even more subservient to Washington D.C. This is quite clear over the Ukraine: there was no European position here – simply an ‘American’ (i.e. globalist) one and a Russian one.
By way of contrast, one need only compare the EU with China, which, whatever one may think of it, certainly has an independent policy with regard to its own backyard. Of course, China’s good fortune was to be united into a single country by the Ch’in over 2000 years ago – but then again, the Romans managed to unite much of western and southern Europe around the same time.
** Brzezinski (…) lauded the rioting youth that, as with other “color revolutions,” precipitated the present situation in the Ukraine **
I think what makes a coup possible is if the government loses the support of the administration, of the police and the army. The rioting youth is mainly a pretext. It should have been easy for the police or the army to stop the violent protests. I wonder what happened.
In the West, we have much stronger reasons to protest against the government. They are deliberately killing us. But I think the western governments are also much stronger and would kill a few hundred thousand people before they flee before the “rioting youth”. On the other hand, we do not really know. It hasn’t been tried. So far, we do not have enough White people ready to take to the streets in defense of our existence.
“I wonder what happened.”
Putin told his guy to hold back so as not to give the western media a propaganda coup.
“But I think the western governments are also much stronger and would kill a few hundred thousand people before they flee before the “rioting youth”. On the other hand, we do not really know. It hasn’t been tried.”
They’d create a reverse color revolution i.e. recruit and arm a lot of Somalis with machetes as a counter movement.
The Grand Chessboard: I read it tonight. Read this book everybody. It explains a lot. The author, that Polish aristocrat/NWO intellectual zbigniew brzezinski, doesn’t hold back. He explains it all. It contextualizes everything America has done since WW2. With these Ukraine developments running in the background, the book was (to me) a mesmerizing and eye-opening read, crisply writen, with interesting insights popping off every page. I can understand why the global elite give this guy a seat at the table.
The US government and its allies are applying the Eurasian strategy. A quick review of the map shows the US in control or de facto control of the periphery of the entire Eurasian land mass. Japan. The South China Sea. Afghanistan. The Persian Gulf. On around to Western Europe. The basic theory is control the Eurasian land mass, control the world. At this moment, Ukraine is the tip of the West’s spear. If Russia goes down, the Western elites will gain Eurasia and with it quite literally the world. As hard as it is to imagine the US becoming more powerful than it already is, that will be the outcome.
The dismaying part is that he puts forth a lot of evidence that credibly (IMO) challenges the rightist premise that the American system is exceedingly fragile and ripe for collapse. While he allows for the possibikity, he doesn’t seem to think America and globalism will succumb to the fissures and pressures we are always talking about.
In case you are not aware, look up the latest developments in Cyprus. As a condition of receiving “bailout” funds from the EU, Cyprus is being de facto compelled to “privatize” its public utilities for foreign investors.
Good analysis like always! Congrats!
I have just one critics
‘Unfortunately, the E.U. has not emerged as a third force, but as an appendage of U.S. foreign policy, and its position on the present Ukraine situation is yet another example of this.’
UE was from its beginning a creation of the “Bolchevism of Washington”.
Greg- in a response above re: ethnonationalism you wrote:
“It is a moral case, built on the idea that peoples deserve homelands so they can pursue their own unique destinies. ”
I completely agree, and would give anything if we could turn the clock back to an earlier era with its occupation of Europe by (mostly) distinct ethno-cultural groups of white genetic makeup.
I also agree that the Colonial/Empire models are problematic in turns of either results, moral implications, or both.
But, hypothetically, when population numbers press on the capacities of the original homeland, what is to be done? e.g., think of the German immigrants that poured into the U.S. in the 1700’s through the early 1900’s. They found opportunity here, and they greatly contributed to American industry, culture and growth.
Think of the British, sailing out from their small island nation. Of the French in North America. Aside from the sheer practicality of having a place to go in response to population, political, religious, or economic pressures, a very real instinct within the White race impelled it to explore, seek new frontiers, and conquer aboriginals encountered along the way.
My question is, how does the morality of ethno-nationalism co-exist with White history, and if we once again had native homelands and free cultures of our own, what would we “do” with our own tendencies to wander, explore, exploit and civilize?
Posted without comment since I know this readership can interpret this one without any comment from me.
George Soros Predicts Ukraine Could Ruin the EU
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment