Print this post Print this post

The Ukraine Crisis

Kiev: Svoboda members march with picture of Ukrainian partisan and Third Reich ally Stepan Bandera

Kiev: Svoboda supporters march with picture of Ukrainian partisan and would-be Third Reich ally Stepan Bandera

1,465 words

Translations: Czech, Spanish

White Nationalists believe that multiculturalism—i.e., racial and ethnic diversity within the same state—leads inevitably to conflict and bloodshed. Therefore, the best way to insure peace and harmony is to replace multiculturalism with ethnonationalism, which is the principle that each distinct people should have its own homeland.

The strife in the Ukraine is not, at root, caused by Russian or “Western” intervention, for these would find no purchase if Ukraine were not already an ethnically divided nation. Although Ukraine is overwhelmingly ethnically Ukrainian, like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, it is still an artificial state containing a number of distinct national groups: Ukrainians, Russians, Tatars, Poles, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Romanians, Moldovans, Armenians, Jews, etc.

Moreover, the Ukrainian majority is divided between Eastern Ukrainians, who tend to speak Russian and see Russia as a natural ally and trading partner, and Western Ukrainians, who tend to speak Ukrainian and wish to maintain their independence from Russia. Some Western Ukrainians wish to cozy up with NATO and the EU. Others want to maintain independence from both Russia and the West.

The Crimean peninsula was part of Russia from when it was wrested from the Turks until Nikita Khrushchev attached it to Ukraine in the 1950s. The Crimea contains a large ethnic Russian population and Russia’s Black Sea naval base.

Even in the absence of outside intervention, the ethnic and linguistic diversity of Ukraine is a recipe for conflict. Such conflicts can be mitigated or postponed by such policies as federalism, decentralization, assimilationism, or granting quasi-autonomy to restive minorities. Such half-measures are perennial temptations, based on the hope that one can hold onto territory and resources by placating or corrupting or co-opting the leaders of other ethnic groups.

But the problem of ethnic or racial diversity can only be settled, once and for all, in two ways.

First, there is the Czechoslovakian model: like the Czechs and the Slovaks, the different peoples of the Ukraine could simply “divorce” and go their separate ways, partitioning the country between them. Once the country is partitioned, people would be free to move at their leisure to whichever nation they prefer. Crimea and other parts of Eastern Ukraine could, if they wished, join Russia.

Second, there is the Yugoslav model: through civil war and military intervention, Ukraine could be partitioned along ethnic lines, although at the cost of great suffering and bloodshed. Instead of peaceful, voluntary population transfers, there would be forced ethnic cleansing.

And, since neither Russia nor the United States can resist meddling in such conflicts, the stage would be set for a much wider conflict, even a Third World War. The First and Second World Wars started with small, regional disputes too.

Furthermore, even in the absence of outside influence, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had to go. Yanukovych is a crook who plundered his country and was essentially selling its geopolitical alignment to the highest bidder in order to retain his grip on power. Yanukovych was from Eastern Ukraine. He is of Russian, Polish, and Belarussian descent. His regime and his power base already leaned toward Russia. But what decided the matter is simply that Russia was the highest bidder. Thus, from an ethnonationalist point of view, Yanukovych had to go, not because he chose Russia over the West, but because no self-respecting people can tolerate its destiny being sold to the highest bidder merely to keep a criminal in office a little longer.

It does not matter if such a criminal regime was democratically elected. Legitimacy derives from serving the common good, not getting the most votes in an election. It does not, moreover, matter if such a regime is deposed by violence and lawlessness, since the good of the people is the supreme law, and Yanukovych left no other options.

One of the most remarkable features of the Ukrainian revolution is the open participation of far Right groups, most prominently Svoboda (Freedom) and Right Sector, which is a more radical, activist-oriented group that split off of Svoboda. These groups are being smeared as “neo-Nazis” by both the anti-American Left, which is always eager to paint US interventions in the worst possible light, and by the Russian regime, including its apostle and apologist to the Far Right, Alexander Dugin, whose credibility with ethnonationalists should be reduced to zero by now. Some Leftists are even deeming Yanukovych’s overthrow the “Brown Revolution.”

It is a lie, however, to label the Ukrainian revolution “neo-Nazi,” for two reasons. First, Right Sector and Svoboda were only part of the coalition that brought down Yanukovych, which also included centrists, Leftists, feminists, gay rights advocates, and ethnic minority agitators, including Jews, Tatars, and Armenians.

Svoboda was founded in 1991 and is one of the five leading parties in Ukraine. Its strength is based in Western Ukraine. Svoboda regards Russia as the chief enemy of Ukrainian sovereignty, which is obviously true, but Svoboda is not pro-EU or NATO. Svoboda is a nationalist populist party, which quite clearly draws inspiration from German National Socialism, but with a post-War, pan-European sensibility. Ukrainians are also well-aware that Hitler wanted to make Ukraine a German colony, not an independent nation. Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok has been widely criticized for his anti-Semitic statements, but he has never backed down. The World Jewish Congress has called for Svoboda to be banned. Svoboda members and sympathizers also draw inspiration from Traditionalism, the European New Right, and the writings of Kevin MacDonald. Svoboda members and sympathizers are, moreover, among Counter-Currents’ healthy Ukrainian readership.

Of all European nationalist parties, Svoboda is probably the most radical and consistent, yet it is also one of the most successful. It deserves to be studied and emulated. Unfortunately, despite an admirable political platform, Svoboda is at present committed to maintaining the artificial Ukrainian state.

That stance could change, however. Indeed, Svoboda is the only Ukrainian party that could appeal to its fundamental principles to ratify the loss of the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, should the widening Russian intervention make that a fait accompli. Furthermore, since Svoboda’s power base lies in Western Ukraine, the loss of the East would increase its percentage of the overall electorate.

The new interim government in Kiev appears to be as corrupt as the old one. Ukraine’s political culture as a whole is one of the most corrupt in Europe, which is the cause of widespread cynicism. As long as Svoboda represents the interests of the people and stays relatively aloof from corruption-as-usual, they will only gain in future elections.

Like many White Nationalists, I admire Vladimir Putin because he is an important geopolitical counterweight to the United States and Israel (blocking the road to war in Iran and Syria), he has sought to address Russia’s demographic crisis, and he looks and acts like a real-life James Bond. But Putin is not an ethnonationalist. Indeed, he imprisons Russian nationalists and is committed to maintaining Russia’s current borders, which include millions of restive Muslims in the Caucasus.

Putin’s interest in the Ukraine is purely geopolitical. He is playing chess with NATO. His only concern with Russians in the Crimea or pro-Russian Ukrainians in the East is the pretext they provide for interventions that might strengthen Russia’s geopolitical standing at the expense of NATO.

From a global White Nationalist perspective, anything that weakens NATO and the US is a good thing, but I cannot approve if it conflicts with the ultimate principle of ethnonationalism. If, however, Putin were to take back the Crimea, virtually ridding Ukraine of its Russian and Tatar minorities and leaving Ukraine smaller but more racially and culturally homogeneous, it might be a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

The one power that has absolutely no business in the Ukraine is the United States. The US has been pursuing a recklessly anti-Russian foreign policy since the collapse of the USSR, egged on largely by Jews consumed by a neurotic hatred of Russia. Americans need to wake up and speak out before the same people who sold us the ruinous Iraq and Afghan wars light the fuse of World War III.

Counter-Currents will continue to follow the Ukraine crisis. We will publish articles by and interviews with Ukrainian nationalists and others who are there on the ground. As a White Nationalist, I believe in nationalism for every nation, and I hope that the Ukrainian revolution leads, eventually, to national autonomy for all peoples within the current Ukrainian borders. I also wish the best for Svoboda and other Ukrainian racial nationalists, who might well bring about such a bright future and serve as models for other European nationalist movements. White Nationalists in North America will do whatever we can to lend moral support and fight against US intervention.




  1. Tim
    Posted March 3, 2014 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for this article Greg, it is the most articulate regarding the bigger picture of European Identitarian Nationalism I’ve read on any of the New Right websites. I especially like your description of Mr Putin and his regime. Although I personally don’t consider Russians part of the “White” world (I believe they don’t even consider themselves European) but west Asians, I do respect and admire Russia’s traditionalist principles, and respect their willingness to use force to protect their interests. I’m firmly supportive of the Ukrainian Nationalists who want to finally achieve self determination and end west Asian cultural and military oppression. Can we expect that those nationalists in Ukraine in desperation, may look for allies where ever they can find them to offset the overwhelming Russian force be that monetary, military, or culturally? Unfortunately, it seems the Ukrainians can’t look to Greece. From monitoring the Golden Dawn website Its obvious Golden Dawn has allied itself with their Theocratic brothers in Russia rather than their European brothers in Ukraine. We can only hope that other Nationalist movements won’t be self serving and think beyond themselves and embrace the bigger landscape of the White world.

    What about the possibility of a full Ukraine, poor and economically destitute as it is, admitted into the EU with a Nationalist government which could break the back of the EU and end the existence of the greatest of all impediments to European Ethno Nationalism? Perhaps a Grand Strategic move could end in our favor.

    Please try to have a Svoboda member interviewed, and even a Right Sector rep clarify their positions when ever that is possible. Thanks again.

    • Maaldweb
      Posted March 6, 2014 at 8:16 am | Permalink

      Tim wrote: “Unfortunately, it seems the Ukrainians can’t look to Greece. From monitoring the Golden Dawn website Its obvious Golden Dawn has allied itself with their Theocratic brothers in Russia rather than their European brothers in Ukraine”

      That is because the Greek community of Ukraine and Crimea which has been living there peacefully for hundreds of years started receiving death threats by people who identify themselves as Ukrainian nationalists…
      You can’t seriously expect Greek nationalists to support the people who threaten their co-nationals….

      Personally I am very sceptical of the vision Ukrainian nationalists have for Ukraine…If they threaten a small community as the Greek community of Crimea, which is pretty much inconspicuous and never did anything to provoke them, I wonder what are their plans for the ethnic Russians of Ukraine….

  2. eiszeit
    Posted March 3, 2014 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, but Svoboda is every bit as fake as Right Sector. Both groups are controlled opposition. What has either group actually done in this “revolution” aside from ally themselves with Jews at every opportunity?

    It’s this simple: any revolution where the Jews aren’t getting kicked out of the country is a fake revolution. If the Jewish media of the West supports it, WN’s should be against it, because Jews support everything that harms us.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 3, 2014 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

      This kind of reaction has “paranoid” and “kook” flashing over it in big neon letters. You really need to grow up.

      • Lance
        Posted March 3, 2014 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

        Greg. It’s you who needs to grow up and get a clue, because you have none.Your pathetic attempt to assess the situation brings only laughter just like the ones by Occidental Observer’s McDonald, and alt-rights idiot Colin Lidell.

        They are mostly pro-Western liblulz with their main moving force being supposedly “fascists”. The West in the future would recognize the liblulz and not the fascists. Without the help of the West the so-called fascist Ukraine, openly hostile to Russia is doomed to explode immediately. So we’re dealing not with the fascism in its pure form but with instrumentalized fascism. And that’s what is important: instrumentalized, manipulated, guided directly and essentially by liblulz. The fact that that Jew ass puppets like Macaine, Bernard Henri Levy and even Former IDF veternas suppored the supposedly “anti-semitic” uprising speaks volumes

        Here’s what true natonalists like Greece’s Golden Dawns have to say about it:

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted March 3, 2014 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

          See my reply to Stronza below.

          You can say what you want about me, but your remarks about Kevin MacDonald completely destroy your credibility.

      • eiszeit
        Posted March 3, 2014 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

        Whatever. My point still stands. These so-called “nationalists” have done nothing remotely pro-Ukrainian or anti-Semitic. All they’ve done is grovel before jews and anger the Russians. If you can’t see that this whole thing was a jewish machination to get Russia to invade Ukraine and start yet another war between goyim, you’re blind.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted March 3, 2014 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

          Your views are premised on the assumption that the only agents in this mess are your pin-up boy Putin and the all-powerful, all-knowing Jews.

  3. Carl
    Posted March 3, 2014 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    It seems that in Eastern Europe the ethno-nationalist ideas which we endorse in the West don’t necessarily apply. The situation’s complexities are arranged differently.

    In this case, pragmatic caution should be our motto.

  4. Stronza
    Posted March 3, 2014 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    Greg, you stated, “Legitimacy derives from serving the common good, not getting the most votes in an election. It does not, moreover, matter if such a regime is deposed by violence and lawlessness, since the good of the people is the supreme law, and Yanukovych left no other options.”

    Even if that deposing by violence could never have occurred without heavy input (including funding) by an avowed enemy of ours? Even if the rioters were a real mixed bag, some of whom are totally self serving and don’t give a hoot for the “common good”?

    Could your version of how bad (elected) presidents might be ousted not turn around to bite us in the rear? Not a good idea to lie down with dogs.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 3, 2014 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

      The US clearly handed out cookies in public and cash in backrooms to protesters, hoping that Yanukovych’s fall would redound to Western interests at the expense of Russia. They don’t care about Ukrainians any more than Putin does. Ukrainians are just “little people” to be used by big people for their advantage. But:

      1. Sometimes you can’t get what you want. The protesters clearly have their own agendas, and the nationalists clearly do not want to be a client of the US/EU/NATO or the Russians. I am hoping they triumph in the end. But to win the game, you have to play the game, and that means, in the end, projecting power and purpose in public, which is what the Ukrainian nationalists have done.

      And if they did accept cookies or cash from the US, what does that prove exactly? What does “following the money” tell you? That Uncle Sam is “really” calling the shots? Or that Uncle Sam is just wasting more American tax dollars in another reckless foreign adventure, hoping that it might turn out in his favor?

      Following the money proves nothing. I have no idea who many of my donors are or what their agenda is. Their agenda may be very different from mine. But I spend their dollars on advancing my agenda, and if they seek to deflect me from my course one iota — into philosemitism or conservatism or vulgar, paranoid, retarded trolling or hating our enemies more than I love my own race — then I tell them to drop dead.

      2. You don’t have to choose the US side or the Russian side in this conflict. White Nationalists should support the legitimate national interests of all white peoples, and the greater interests of the race. Frankly, the only forces in this whole mess that care about what I care about are Svobobda and other genuine Ukrainian White Nationalists and New Rightists.

      Putin is not a White Nationalist but a Russian imperialist. Dugin is not an ethnonationalist but a transparently dishonest apologist for Russian imperialism. The US is simply in the grip of Jewish psychosis. How any White Nationalist can in good conscience prefer Putin over those who are striving to build a genuinely nationalist alternative in Ukraine is beyond me.

      It is strictly analogous to those White Nationalists who are captive to the Republican vs. Democrat model and waste their time and money on Republican fantasy football rather than building a genuine nationalist alternative. It smacks of immaturity, the search for quick and easy solutions within the framework of the existing powers, rather than the long hard slog of building our own hegemony.

  5. Posted March 3, 2014 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

    The fuel for the conflict was already there but the spark was certainly Western/Jewish NGOs and intelligence. While it may feel good to see guys with rune armbands appearing to take power in a European country, in the bigger picture this wasn’t better for White interests. In the battle between the globalist elites and Russia, the globalist elites are the bigger danger. Putin isn’t going to demand that White countries be flooded with non-Whites. The globalist elites demand this at the get-go.

    Of course, American foreign policy history is full of “blow-back.” IOW, many times the people that America backed ended up being the enemy in the next war. My prediction is that most of the leadership of the Right-wing groups who did the fighting will get bought off and miraculously become happy-shinny mulitcults if they join the EU. If it looks like Ukraine is going to join the EU, look for Russia to take Eastern Ukraine. If the globalist elites allow a Nationalist Ukraine to develop, then plan on a limited war between Ukraine and Russia.

  6. yule
    Posted March 3, 2014 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

    Why not listen to Right Sector’s own words rather what others write about them? See here, their official “Who Are We” video:

    Right Sector calls for pan-European racial revival (“reconquista”, as translated). Their members, again in their official propaganda, hold Black Sun emblems and display the Celtic Cross. They are clearly pro-European racialists.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 3, 2014 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

      Interesting. I have also heard through email that Right Sector is not petty nationalist, philosemitic, etc. Either their leader Dmitry Yarosh is not fully in accord with his followers or his views are not being reported accurately. Naturally, I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

      • Posted March 7, 2014 at 6:50 am | Permalink

        One wonders if this isn’t a an attempt at Taqqiyah to power.

        Interestingly, as pointed out, the new Ukrainian government APPOINTED foreign Jews to governorships.

        Just playing fantasy political chess for a moment, suppose Pravyi Syektor is going along with letting Jews reign free for a while to steal everything in the country that’s not nailed down, which they will do given any chance, while the Pravyi Syektor works on the inside with them pretending to be friendly to them, then they turn around, and with ample first hand evidence, say, “the (Jewish Party) whatever Party ripped off Ukraine. Vote Pravyi Syektor” or something like that.

        We might as well discuss these fantasy possibilities, since we there isn’t a darn thing we can do about it in the first place.

        The fact that Golden Dawn doesn’t like PS is not a good sign, of course.

        Another possibility — PS pretends to be Jew friendly to get access to campaign funds, TV et cetera, so that it can build infrastructure and help build other nationalist parties around Europe.

        One thing I could see doing — tell the Jews you are Jew friendly, then do what you please, and whenever they object, “what are you talking about, we’re best buds, we don’t advocate violence against the Jewish community, we’re very much opposed to that!”

        And really, to do what we want to do, doesn’t entail or require physical violence against the Jews. We have to win the way they won. The Rothschilds didn’t shoot anybody to take over Europe. So to say “we oppose any violence or threatening against the Jewish community” is a freebie. It’s not part of a viable plan anyway.

        How did the Jews take over Europe? Business networking, in which I include banking/lending. We have to start at the bottom, so to speak. Even Nathan Rothschild was a textile merchant in England before he hooked up with Herries and became the banker to kings.

        Very good economic niches were handed over to non-whites and foreign aliens, including convenience stores, transportation, liquor stores, dry cleaners, and so on, becuase these are “easy money” so it’s a quick way to settle a gazillion Indians and Pakistanis and CHinese in the USA and “set them up.” Well, we have to go after these foreigner held economic niches, and take them back for ourselves.

        The fact is, the foreigners do a lot of bad service and sharp service. By sharp service, I mean they overcharge or rip people off. Not all by any stretch, but enough that there’s a wide opening for us to take back these businesses. Velly nice Koleyan Rady in town, but she tries to get outrageous prices for dry cleaning. Then there’s the subcontinentals, who buy groceries at Walmart and mark them up 60% for poor people on EBT who don’t want to bother going 2 miles down the road to Walmart.

        The foreign businesses rarely support local baseball teams, soccer leagues, or volunteer in the community or any of that. It just takes one white owned liquor store where the owner shows his face all over town, helping everybody with their cancer walk, the Little League, handing out t-shirts with his business name, and saying, “Support Joe’s Liquor Store because I support the community.”

        The White Business Network then pools money to start mortgage and business lending within it’s network, only very low risk loans that they themselves have a hand in managing to ensure success. The Muslims do it this way. Not single family home mortgages, but rental property — income producing property.

        Why is this so important? If we lend among ourselves, then we aren’t paying interest to banks. We want to become our own lenders. Billions in interest are siphoned off from us. Maybe trillions. We could recover some of that.

        Also, owning small businesses allows for affordable family formations. In which case you can home school, and hire elderly native speakers of target foreign languages to sit with your small children and make them fluent in their languages.

        When you raise children without TV and video games they end up being very curious about the world and very eager to do real thiungs. So many white American kids these days are not motivated to go do stuff in the real world because video game land is so alluring. I know of a 16 year old boy who doesn’t bother to learn to drive because WOW is too awesome.

        Merchant class people will almost never go for wage labor unless it’s very high paid IT or something like that; they will mostly do some business that they own or partly own. We have to think like that.

        Becoming merchants is what an exiled intellectual class does. I have always been an intellectual, and I used to consider commerce icky or “demonic” as some say. But you do what you got to do, and my intellectual training and charisma get to shine in ways that they would not have had I achieved my dream of being a professor of Slavic language and literature. Being a merchant class type is FUN! You aren’t chained to a cubicle, or subordinated to a boss, when you are the boss.

        So many merchants just blow their money on conspicuous consumption. They feel they have no meaning in life except showing off what wealth they have. We can be Warrior-Merchatns and Priest-Merchants. Being a merchant gives you the small degree of wealth and leisure necessary to study, and/or train at martial arts or foreign languages. Like the Lorde song, we don’t care about fancy cars or that stuff. We invest in things like is to know a foreign langauge, to be very fit from martial arts training, to be organizing a secret society Merchant-Warrior-Priest Mannerbund.

        We have to build infrastructure before anything else. We have no infrastructure, no means of supporting ourselves, nothing. We have to start from the beginning, from Vaishyas. Too many people want to skip to Kshatriya and Brahmin. Well, we’re too far behind the 8 ball for that. Time to move past denial and recognize this.

        Read how the Rothschilds did it — Niall Ferguson’s “The House of Rothschild, Volume 1.”

  7. Glen
    Posted March 3, 2014 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    Excellent article.

  8. Posted March 3, 2014 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Dear Greg !
    The first “free” government of Ukraine offered the occupied territory of Hungary to be returned . /Western Ukraine aka Karpatalja / The jew government of Hungary said “no thanks!” Later they outlawed the language , one could not speak it in public. This new judeo-nationalist ukranian government outlawed it again, as they elected or appointed a jew for a leader and other Israeli dual citizens as ministers . Like in former Yugoslavia, today the Hungarian kids are being drafted by force to serve in the army, now against the russians. You yourself also failed to mention my folks in this story, so pretty much we do not exist . Same time Hungary is flooded by jews from Israel, all the while they bitch that we are the most anti semitics in the world . Looks like they will make a full circle and get back to Galicia and Khazaria via Hungary and a “New Ukraine” . Who wants them ? No one !!! So when you call a comment “paranoid” that is about the truth, about the jews, how can you expect to be taken seriously ?
    Yes Greg, it IS the jew, always the jew ! Like the one you and I have seen last week Saturday night, that stand up stick of returned “denier”.
    Remember the protocols ?
    “we are going to be our own enemies”
    I hope Putin is going to fix this the old fashion way, like the media complains today that he is like Adolf Hitler was in the 30’s.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 3, 2014 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

      OK, I added Hungarians and Romanians/Moldovans to the list.

  9. Mark Yuray
    Posted March 3, 2014 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

    Ethnonationalism should not be the endgoal because ethnonationalism is not always what’s best. I agree with 95% of your article (quite literally, I was nodding in approval as I read it), but you make a big mistake here:

    “But Putin is not an ethnonationalist. Indeed, he imprisons Russian nationalists and is committed to maintaining Russia’s current borders, which include millions of restive Muslims in the Caucasus.”

    Putin is not an ethnonationalist, he is a conservative-authoritarian trying to keep together the multicultural Russian state. Why on Earth would he become an ethnonationalist and destabilize the entire country, or reduce its borders and cede control of Asia further to non-Europeans and eventually to progressive imperialists in America?

    Ethnonationalism would kill Russia.

    Russia’s ruling ideology is a type of conservative Eurasianism, and this is better than ethnonationalism. With this ‘operating system,’ Putin’s Russia is expanding its borders, enforcing moral standards (see: gay laws), building ties with the Orthodox Church (still the most traditional and reactionary major Church around), suppressing Chechen Islamists, attempting to stabilize and raise Russia’s birth rate, giving support to Christians in Syria (unlike Obama, who gives support to the Islamists!) and generally, as you mentioned, acting as a crucial geopolitical and ideological counterweight to the progressive might of the USA. Ethnonationalism would destroy all this good — for what?

    The answer is for nothing. Ethnonationalism as an ideology will deliver irrational goals just like any other ideology not tempered by reality. If ethnonationalism demands you oppose Putin’s Russia which is doing more good for European civilization than anyone else on the planet, you need to inject some Realpolitik into your thinking or switch ideologies.

    Pre-emptive: don’t tell me Putin could do all that and be explicitly ethnonationalist. He could not. Russia has been a multinational and multicultural empire for 1000 years and is still heavily mixed. Explicit Russian nationalism would exacerbate every kind of ethnic tension in the country and eventually cause it to collapse. This is why Putin jails nationalist extremists and their like in Russia; because they cause instability, not because Putin is an anti-racist or a progressive. The difference between Russia’s multiculturalism and America’s is that Russia’s does not demand the subservience of white Russians to non-whites! Russia doesn’t need ethnonationalism because Russia’s conservatism is genuine and benefits whites and white Civilization.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 3, 2014 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

      Sure, Russian imperialism is a great thing, right up until the next Chechen suicide bomber detonates, or the 3rd Chechen war starts, or maybe World War III. Russia would be a stronger, safer, richer country if it sloughed off every last Muslim in the Caucasus and focused on social justice at home and being a good neighbor abroad.

      • Mark Yuray
        Posted March 5, 2014 at 2:29 am | Permalink

        Sure, Russian imperialism is a great thing, right up until the next Chechen suicide bomber detonates, or the 3rd Chechen war starts, or maybe World War III. Russia would be a stronger, safer, richer country if it sloughed off every last Muslim in the Caucasus and focused on social justice at home and being a good neighbor abroad.


        If Russia shed its Muslim territories, you’d have a Caucuses Emirate within a month, and there’d be twice as much death, violence and instability as the self-styled holy warriors continue their endless jihad to bring the entire world into Dar al-Islam.

        Furthermore, this would give Washington another excuse to invade and occupy territories formerly in the Russian sphere of influence (see: Afghanistan, more peacefully: the Baltic States, Georgia, etc.). Before you know it, Russia would be surrounded by progressive nukes and would cave in as the last bastion of reactionary conservatism against the global onslaught of progressivism.

        Thanks ethnonationalism!

        Also, did you actually just recommend that Russia pursue ‘social justice’?

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted March 5, 2014 at 3:15 am | Permalink

          After the breakup of the USSR, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan, all of them substantially Muslim, became independent. Did they all become Islamist Emirates? Would Russia be better off or worse off if she had tried to hold onto those peoples as well for the past 20+ years?

          Yes, I just recommended Russia pursue social justice at home and being a good neighbor abroad.

          • Posted March 5, 2014 at 11:41 am | Permalink

            ‘After the breakup of the USSR, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan, all of them substantially Muslim, became independent. Did they all become Islamist Emirates? Would Russia be better off or worse off if she had tried to hold onto those peoples as well for the past 20+ years?

            Yes, I just recommended Russia pursue social justice at home and being a good neighbor abroad.’

            Russia would be far better off. Maintaining control over oil-rich Azerbaijan and Central Asia, wielding much greater geopolitical might over Asia and establishing greater trade routes to Turkey, Persia, India and China would all have been great things for Russia and its people.

            They didn’t become Islamist emirates because there exist no Chechen Islamist movements there. In Southern Russia, there do exist Islamist separatist movements, and it would be ridiculous to expect Russia to give independence to areas with them now.

            Furthermore, the Chechen separatists didn’t kick off their antics until they saw the other post-Soviet states gain independence, and they reasoned they wanted the same from Russia. There would have been no great incentive or expectation of separation if the whole USSR transitioned together into a ‘Greater Russia.’

            As for social justice, I wonder what you mean, because it can’t possibly be the ‘social justice’ that progressive Tumblr-warriors espouse, though it sounds equally nebulous.

            • Greg Johnson
              Posted March 5, 2014 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

              So, is there any part of the globe that Russia would not benefit from controlling? Why not take over turkey and restore the Byzantine Empire (without sovereignty, of course). I hear Bulgaria is nice this time of year. Iran has oil and gas. One can find all sorts of “geopolitical” reasons for taking over any spot on the globe. One will be “encircled” on the globe unless one encompasses the globe. China has lots of workers. North and South Korea would be just a side dish. On your thinking, is there ever too much empire?

  10. Lew
    Posted March 3, 2014 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    A shame about Dugin. A couple of years ago his work seemed fresh and exciting. Even though subsequent developments have shown he’s not on what I think of as our side, and in some ways even serves enemy interests, like Chomsky, Buchanan, Francis and others, he still sometimes has interesting and useful things to say. My own informal evaluation is that any given Dugin commentary will be about 50% penetrating analysis, 50% Russian Federation propaganda.

    I doubt Dugin believes these people are nazis. He’s too smart and advanced in his learning to make such a basic mistake even taking into account possible Russian chauvinism as a factor in his thinking. I think it plausible that backing the official Russian Federation line no matter what it is is the price Dugin has to pay to keep his visibility and get his ideas out all. And even if Dugin isn’t the right theorist to move the worldwide community forward, the community will eventually need someone like him to develop a comprehensive, forward-looking political theory.

  11. Lucian Tudor
    Posted March 3, 2014 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    In my opinion, this entire occurrence around Ukraine is a tragedy, despite the benefit of a more nationalistic government having been established now in western Ukraine. There is little good that could come from a war between Ukrainian nationalists and Russia, the latter being a state that is transitioning to being a key political representative of hard conservatism in the world (which is why I can sympathize with both sides). What we are looking at us a battle that could lead to a global conflict that could very well devastate the progress of Right-wing movements world-wide.

    That some people here can look at this conflict as being positive is suprising, and we should hope that this is resolved as peacefully as possible. The last thing we need right now is another conflict between European peoples (and I include Russia under the “European” category because although Russians generally don’t use that term because for them it means “Western”, for us it refers to a broader ethnic-cultural grouping that includes Eastern Slavs as well. I have commented about the confusion over the term “European” on Johnson’s article on “Stalin: The Enduring Legacy”).

    Now, considering that Dugin is a fequent topic on Counter-Currents when it comes to Russia, I am not surprised that comments on him have already begun. I have already made enough critical comments on this matter on several articles related to Dugin and “Eurasianism”/”Fourth Political Theory” (I think it will help some people to mention them: “North Americanism”, “Milestones of Eurasianism”, “The Eurasian Idea”, and “Alexander Dugin on “White Nationalism” & Other Potential Allies in the Global Revolution”). I will say here, however, that Mark Yuray’s commentary, while it brings up a few valid points on politics, has certain flaws. First of all, I do not think that Dugin’s “Eurasianism” can actually be perceived as the current official ideology of the Russian state. While Putin and his government has some agreements with Dugin and is tending towards a stronger conservatism over time, Putin cannot be regarded as a follower of Dugin’s ideology (and from what I know, Dugin is not a determining force in the rest of the Russian Right either).

    More importantly, it is rather absurd to assume that Russia has only two valid choices (from a right-wing perspective): “ethno-nationalism” in the historical sense, which involves giving a separate nation to each ethnicity, and “Eurasianism”, which involves a semi-“multiculturalist” and imperialist policy. Instead, there is a third, more realistic, and more agreeable policy offered by the New Right/Identitarian movement, represented in the thought of Benoist, Faye, and Krebs. This means respecting the territorial and living rights of all peoples, practicing separatism on ethno-cultural and racial bases, and where full state seperation is not desirable, practicing a federalism which grants autonomous regions to the various ethnic groups making up the federation (or better, confederation). This policy offers a concrete political method for helping the white populations and for peaceful relations between ethnic groups without relying on classical “nationalism”, and it is thus also much preferable to “Eurasianism” (which involves a false federalism [in reality, imperialism] that involves refusing to fully respect the rights of the peoples).

    The Russian state as it is now does not have a sense of justice; it does not speak to the world that it fights for justice, it simply fights for its own power. All successful nations in the past have been successful because they declared that their goals are morally righteous and just. Truly, the Russian government needs to leave behind imperialism and adopt an identitarianism (or “identitarian conservatism”, if you want) which presents itself as a power fighting for the right cause. As it is now, even the Russians’ argumentation for remaining a large imperial type of state that rules over multiple ethnic groups rests solely on “practical” political considerations, not on any deeper principles or any reasons for it being the right thing to do.

  12. Dan
    Posted March 3, 2014 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    This is an excellent article, Greg, and has painted this recent episode in a new light for me. The Ukraine may have to have common sense forced upon it by Russia in order for better borders to reappear. I believe the same goes for Israel, as was shown when it made lasting peace with Egypt after the Yom Kippur War.

    Your comment on Germany’s intentions in World War II for the Ukraine should make every pan-European reconsider any undue love for the Third Reich. I recall seeing a picture of a sign held by National Socialists at rally, reading “Der Russe muss sterben, damit wir leben.” “The Russian must die, that we might live.” This flies in the face of pan-Europeanism and white unity, and makes me wish fellow white nationalists would look to better models than such a divisive role model like Adolf Hitler.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 4, 2014 at 2:02 am | Permalink

      Hitler was right on almost everything, and if Ukrainians of all people can see past his errors and give him serious thought, what’s your excuse? What’s anybody’s excuse?

      • Dan
        Posted March 4, 2014 at 2:40 am | Permalink

        My excuse is that I value the nations of Europe, and don’t support subtracting from them due to petty nationalisms. You’ve observed yourself, within the comments of this very article, that some of us hate Jews more than they love their race. The same situation can happen within the Ukraine. The most anti-Jewish leader in modern history is inspiring them to forget that the same man would have erased the Ukrainian nation from the Earth. What did the Ukraine do to deserve this from Germany?

        Ukrainian nationalists who like Hitler can do so given the current pressurespostwar rael and Russia, and the failed attempt at German colonization is fading into memory. I do not have to take their lead on this anymore than I must listen to a hypotethical Greek nationalist who trumpets the Ottoman Empire.

        I am not saying we cannot give Hitler “serious thought,” but given his wishes to do away with whole European nations, Hitler does not deserve the reputation he holds among some white nationalists. Part of that serious thought is recognizing vital flaws in his designs for a post-war Europe.

        • Armor
          Posted March 4, 2014 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

          Dan: “the same man would have erased the Ukrainian nation from the Earth.”

          How do we know? We know what the communists in the eastern bloc did to the Germans at the end of the war. Where are the Germans who had been living in Ukraine for centuries ? But we don’t know what Hitler wanted to do in Eastern Europe. I doubt whether he knew that himself. I think he would have tried to strengthen the positions of the German minorities. He would have tried to reorganize the territory in a way beneficial to the ethnic Germans. And he would have stopped the immigration from Eastern Europe to Germany. What I know is that he would not have replaced the Ukrainians with Africans, as the EU intends to do. But in the end, many of the ethnic Germans were simply massacred, and many Ukrainians probably think it is all for the best. Even so, some people go on lamenting Hitler’s evil intentions. I think it makes more sense to lament the killing and ethnic cleansing that has actually taken place.

          The accusations against Hitler are usually made very casually. I read on this blog that the historian Stolfi, otherwise a defender of Hitler, accepted the claim that Hitler was responsible for “the massacre of 3.1 million Soviet POWs captured in the opening months of Barbarossa”. My guess is that Stolfi didn’t really believe that. Maybe he had to write that to get his book accepted? We know that Jews and communists will make those kinds of wild accusations. But if that particular accusation was true, you would expect to have heard more about it.

          I think the revisionists have been too busy with the Jews to spend much time investigating the genocide of the Slavs, of the Roms, of the handicapped, as well as Hitler’s plans for enslaving the whole planet, and maybe Mars too. In Western countries, it is certainly the Jews who make it impossible for historians to challenge the official narrative about the German policy in Eastern Europe, just as they make it difficult to revise the official narrative about French WWII “resistance”. It doesn’t exactly mean that the Jews like the Russians and the Ukrainians, but they would like us to think that Eastern Europe has fallen victim to Hitler rather than to Kaganovich. It is also a first line of defense to protect their holocaust story.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted March 4, 2014 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

            Hitler’s Table Talk contains ample evidence that Hitler envisioned reducing Russia and Ukraine to German colonies where the native Slavs would be helots. It is perfectly reasonable to reject General Plan East, the alleged plan to exterminate the Slavic peoples, as a post-War propaganda fabrication from the same source as the plan to exterminate every last Jew. And if Hitler had won the war, he might not have gotten his way in the East, for the simple reason that the millions of Germans on the ground, with direct experience of the Ukrainians and other Slavic peoples, had levels of cooperation and fraternization that would have produced a blended people in no time. I recall that Hitler was alarmed that vast numbers of children had been fathered by German soldiers and Slavic women by 1943, I believe. Of course even that outcome would have destroyed the German conquerors and the Ukrainians as distinct peoples.

        • wolf911
          Posted March 4, 2014 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

          Hitler did do what to Ukrainians?
          It seems to me he liberated them.
          From the soviet bolshevists, holodomor, tcheka & C°.
          He unfortunately rejected an active role for Ukranians in his war (well except for a full SS regiment Gallicia) but so he did for Dutch, Belgians, and Danes. They were all more or less ignored. Yes his early Blitz success gave him the free hand to have act Germany on its own, starting to find approval too later among other nations.
          Off coruse you wil find some statements in ‘nazi’ publications over the years against Russians or Slaves or even Ukrainians, but don’t forget what a mess Ukrainia was when the Wehrmacht drove in, NS thought they had the task to rebuild the country.
          The Ukrianians of today probably think who knows better than their ancestors in support of Hitler.

  13. Armor
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 12:03 am | Permalink

    “Yanukovych is a crook who plundered his country and was essentially selling its geopolitical alignment to the highest bidder in order to retain his grip on power.”

    But still, I would rather be plundered by a Yanukovych than race-replaced by an Obama, a Merkel, a Hollande… Western politicians keep their grip on power by going along with the race-replacement agenda.

    If I was a Ukrainian, I would worry that the country may be about to get a pro-EU regime who will bring the first Africans to the country, together with sexual propaganda in the schools. But on the other hand, the White Nationalists have to get out of the trench at some point, and try to get power. Maybe now was the right time to give it a try in Ukraine. Anyway, even if Yanukovych had remained until the end of his term, the EU danger would not have gone away. The EU would have kept trying to get his successors under its influence.

    In the West, White Nationalists hope they will start getting more support when White people become more race conscious as a result of having their backs against the wall. It is probably a good thing that the Ukrainian nationalists didn’t wait to be swamped by immigrants. There is now a crisis in Ukraine, and the nationalists do better in times of crisis. But if the situation calms down, it will be difficult for them to compete with pro-EU politicians who will get tons of money to do their political campaigning.

    Anyway, if it doesn’t work this time, there will be other opportunities later. When order breaks down in France and in the USA, I think the nationalists will start getting more votes again in Ukraine.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 4, 2014 at 2:00 am | Permalink

      The EU did not want in Ukraine enough to outbid Putin.

  14. Peltast
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 12:53 am | Permalink

    The Israeli lobby in the Duma is just as powerful as the one in the US Congress. No lie. Many powerful Israelis are ethnic Russians and have extreme influence within Russia. There’s absolutely no way Israel would allow Syria or Iran to get a Russian nuke. That’s precisely the same scenario for the western hemisphere which the US utterly dominates. There’s no way Cuba or Venezuela would get hands on Russian nukes.

    Watch this fantastic documentary to see what I mean.

    • Hoplite
      Posted March 5, 2014 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

      That fantastic documentary with comments like “Russia is the best! Love from Iran”?

  15. Antiochus
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 1:06 am | Permalink

    I can’t see how Moscow is going to abide, at a minimum, a sovereign Ukraine on the east side of the Dnepr.

    Can’t get through a article in the NYT, without tripping over some jews:

    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:

    Hoo boy, Theresa Heinz’s husband is travelling to Kiev Tuesday to nail US prestige to an independent Ukraine.

  16. Stephen N Green
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    I find this article unconvincing. Firstly, the argument that “it does not, moreover, matter if such a regime is deposed by violence and lawlessness, since the good of the people is the supreme law” is full of holes.

    Who determines such a people’s consensus or the right of agency of ‘the people’ in this circumstance? Do we applaud mobocracy, do we trust its instincts and perspicacity? Do we declare it correct from our distant vantage?

    This brings us to the earlier point “Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had to go” sure, maybe. But to be replaced by whom, how? After the last Orange Revolution the oligarchs and their Western business partners consolidated further control over Ukraine. This ‘revolution’ is shaping up no differently.

    “Svoboda is not pro-EU or NATO. Svoboda is a nationalist populist party” – Svoboda, feels comfortable publicizing countless meetings its leaders have with the OSCE, with NATO on its website: and it has voted for sending its President to the International Court of Justice in the Hague, rather than trying him domestically. If this is indicative of a truly nationalist organization, my name is George Soros.

    That said, Svoboda got a not unreasonable 10% of the vote in the national election two years ago. The election for President was up in February 2015, not a dramatic difference from the newly scheduled elections in May this year.

    A history of bloody assault and overthrow of government, twice within 8 years is not the recipe for a successful transition to a national revolutionary Ukraine. The actions of the various western governments working behind the scenes shows the result of this – money and soft power has its effects and the present Ukrainian caretaker government is looking like corruption will be bedded down further and Svoboda and Right Sector have been given the sop of the security services. They should instead be utilising the national media right now as much as possible.

    Apologies if this is a double post. I received a blank page after first attempt at comment.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 4, 2014 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

      1. The current interim government is just corruption as usual. The groups on the Right are not bedded down with it, but calling for a “lustration,” which is a nice Czech word for purge. If Svoboda and Right Sector manage to stay aloof from the corruption and keep calling for honest government, they will be well-positioned for the next elections.

      2. Proposing sending Yanukovych to the Hague sounds like a sense of humor to me. Besides, Ukraine is so corrupt that even if he got a fair trial, most people would think that he didn’t, so it would not matter. It is just a rhetorical gesture, of course, but one with both intelligence and panache.

  17. WG
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    I’m with Russia and will fight for her against the US/NATO/Jew-backed insurgents if given the opportunity.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 4, 2014 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

      Obviously you hate Jews and Americans more than you love white people and more than you care about white ethnonationalism.

  18. Jim
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Excellent and topical piece. I was just hoping for something on Ukraine when I logged on.

    One thing I am not sure I fully understand, is the desire to be a part of the EU on the part of *some* (mostly western) Ukranians….this was the beginning of the anti-Yanukovych protests. Are they mostly-anti-Russian, or are they desirous of EU cradle to grave social safety net economics? Or both? Is it a desire for glitzy Western “lifetyles”? Of course, the corruption of their former leader could also be a big motivator.

    It seems that even if Ukraine,or Western Ukraine gets free of Russia, they are going to have a lot of social and political differences to work out amongst themselves, not to mention remaining ethnic tensions, where they exist. To Ukrainians wanting in on the EU plan, I’d say be careful what you wish for…

    All this is complicated, and we are having to catch up on the fly here in the US, but a rule of thumb I have is, in the absence of a full grasp of a foreign situation, mistrust the USA and its machinations; you could do worse than simply knee-jerk react against whatever “our” government does.

    • NC
      Posted March 4, 2014 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

      «One thing I am not sure I fully understand, is the desire to be a part of the EU on the part of *some* (mostly western) Ukranians»

      Do you like to live in poverty? Most people don’t… Ukrainians are no exception.

      • Jim
        Posted March 4, 2014 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

        You wrote “Do you like to live in poverty? Most people don’t… Ukrainians are no exception.”

        What promises did the EU make, and at what level do the pro-EU Ukrainians buy into the whole EU social contract? Do they really know what they would be getting, both pro and con? Is your “anti-poverty” understanding of their desire for EU membership the whole story?

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted March 4, 2014 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

          IMF austerity and privatization are not roads to prosperity.

          • NC
            Posted March 5, 2014 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

            «IMF austerity and privatization are not roads to prosperity.»

            No, they are not. But most ukrainians don’t know that’s what they will get. At this point they think they will receive vast ammounts of money, so called “structural funds”, to modernize their country. And that’s very appealing.

        • NC
          Posted March 5, 2014 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

          “Do they really know what they would be getting, both pro and con?”

          Probably not. They only know what their media and their politicians tell them.

          They (media and politicians) probably sold them (ukrainians) the idea that the EU is a prosperous place, which it is, when compared to Ukraine. They probably led them to believe that by joining the EU they would automaticaly see their standard of living rise to german levels.

          Ukraine also seems to be a very corruption stricken country, and the EU is probably seen by many as a way to introduce some transparency standards into public life.

          I guess it is very difficult for an american or even for an european from one of the rich countries to understand the appeal of the EU, but for those in poor countries the EU is seen as a ticket to automatic prosperity.

  19. Arindam
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Whatever the faults of President Yanukovych, it should be rather evident that he was overthrown not because he failed to adhere to the common good, but because he did precisely that.

    If we look back to the origins of the crisis – it stems from Yanukovych’s rejection of an EU-IMF package that would have compelled him to take measures detrimental to the well-being of his people (such as raising gas prices) – in favour of Russian assistance (which did not entail such measures).


    The protests against President Yanukovych were incited not because of his faults, but because he did what a genuine nationalist leader would do: reject globalist pressure by getting a better deal for his country from a neighbouring power. All the media subterfuge covers up this point.

  20. Rodger
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    I am not sure about Right Sector, but I have an inkling that they may have a diverse breed of activists. Some of them White racialists, some of them anti-Russians, some of them thugish brutes — all sorts of people.

    Their leadership? The top guy, Yarosh, seems to look tough and his actions have helped put in a Jew Prime Minister. Like anything, we don’t know — or maybe I don’t know — what are his true beliefs.

    Also, he could be lying to the Jews when he tells them he is their friend and all that.

    Svaboda seem interesting. I have heard it said that WJC don’t like them, so that means they must be doing something right. If they read Kevin MacDonald then they must be way outside the petty nationalism that defines some White nations such as Scotland (trust me, they are unreal).

    Good article. It is times like these that I wish my ancestors had practiced eugenics, so I wouldn’t find it so difficult to come to these types of conclusions myself.

  21. WG
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    The Jews are already starting to accuse the Russian liberation forces of ‘anti-semitism’:

    I’m with the Russians.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 4, 2014 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

      Is that your only reason?

      Why not side with the Ukrainians who are being called neo-Nazis?

      Ironically, in both cases, you would be allowing Jewish attacks to determine your choices. That is doubly ironic, since you appear to be one of those people who hates Jews more than he loves whites. You care more about scoring merely rhetorical points in cyberspace against International Jewry and its tools (NATO, the EU, the US) than the real efforts of Ukrainian nationalists to create an alternative to Russia or the West.

      • eiszeit
        Posted March 4, 2014 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

        Because the so-called Ukrainian “Nazis” are fakes. There are probably dozens of articles on them over at The Daily Stormer. Israeli agents control them.

        The simple truth is, Whites are in a no-win situation right now, and have been for decades. Any attempt at White autonomy can be easily crushed; the best we can do is support the lesser of two evils, in this case, the Putin regime.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted March 4, 2014 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

          You’re a kook. I’m banning you. Good riddance.

          • Posted March 5, 2014 at 7:15 am | Permalink

            Former Israeli officer leads Ukraine protests.

            Damn Kook


            • Greg Johnson
              Posted March 5, 2014 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

              Oooh, an Israeli is leading 20 people in the Maidan protests. And other Jews were passing out cookies and cash. Yes, and now the new Jewish interim president is passing out governorships to Jewish oligarchs, which is just corruption as usual.

              Only a kook would leap from that to the conclusion that Jews were running the whole thing, that it is futile for nationalists to actually try to fight for their values, that the nationalists are really just Jew puppets, and that it is “game over” in Ukraine.

          • Stronza
            Posted March 6, 2014 at 10:27 am | Permalink

            I wish you had not done that.

  22. wobbly
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Good article.

    Ideal outcome from a nationalist point of view imo.

    1. Putin wins in Crimea and East Ukraine.
    2. Ukraine nationalists win in West Ukraine.

  23. Jim
    Posted March 4, 2014 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    I was just listening to NPR (I do on occasion to see what they’re saying and how they say it-sometimes when their guard is down some truth trickles through)- anyway, NPR is not a reliable source but they were saying that *Putin* was accusing the West of anti-Semitism in it’s dealings in the Ukraine controversy!

    Now, I guess if Putin said that, he had some strategic reason, and of course some are saying that “neo-Nazi” groups are involved in Ukranian politics, cf. above article and comments.

    But it sounds a cautionary note for would-be Putin acolytes if he is playing the “anti-Semitism” card himself.

  24. Maaldweb
    Posted March 5, 2014 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    The Right lost WWII due to ethnonationalism and petty state nationalism like the one those Ukrainians of the Right Sector, Trident and Svoboda represent. NS Germany invaded Poland which at the time had a right-wing government, Fascist Italy invaded Fascist Greece, Salazar supported the Brazilian troops who fought against the Axis forces in Italy etc etc

    The Ukrainian nationalists allowed themselves to be used as CANNONFODDER for the liberal/gay activist/jewish plutocrat/feminist/anti-slav/anti-white agenda. The revolution couldn’t have taken place without them because leftists cannot fight.

    They believe they fought for an independent Ukraine, while in reality they only thing they achieved was to put the jewish oligarchs in power. Were they that naive to think that at the end they would create a fascist Ukraine? Perhaps they were. I personally doubt it, I think their leaders are merely agents of the globalists.

    And keep in mind that the Jews have a special hatred for the Ukrainians, they have heard the stories of their grandfathers about Ukrainian militias executing jews en masse while Ukraine was under German control.
    Now they will take their revenge.

    Greg I think you have grossly missunderstood the whole Ukrainian crisis. You should really reread Bolton’s latest article on the subject, it puts things into perspective.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 5, 2014 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

      You’ve got quite some face there, considering that I published the Bolton article.

      Are you telling us that Ukrainian nationalists should not even try to fight for their values?

      Are you telling us that it is futile to even try to fight against Jewish power? That somehow Jews will always win?

      Are you saying that the only real historical actors in the world today are Jews, because apparently Putin isn’t free of them either?

      • Posted March 5, 2014 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

        “Are you telling us that Ukrainian nationalists should not even try to fight for their values?”(Greg Johnson)

        Of course they should fight for their values, but they should do so in an intelligent manner. Fighting for the globalist elites was not very intelligent. And because they did so, they will be worse off than they were before. Tim McVeigh fought for his values, but made his cause worse off by doing so. The NSM fight for their values and they make pro-Whites worse off. Doing nothing is better than doing something stupid. At this point it looks very clear that the Ukrainian Nationalists did something stupid. They were tools for the very forces that want to destroy them.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted March 5, 2014 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

          Well it’s not over yet. So it is too early to say who won or who was using whom, isn’t it?

          • Maaldweb
            Posted March 6, 2014 at 5:02 am | Permalink


            The new Ukrainian government has already started talks with NATO, the IMF and the EU. They have appointed jewish oligarchs to control the industrialised east.It looks pretty much over to me, at least for the western part of the Ukraine (which is of course the part of the country Ukrainian nationalists are interested the most).

            The only solution the Ukrainian nationalists have at the moment is to start rioting again in order to depose the current government which is selling Ukraine to the West.

            Moreover, it seems that several of the Ukrainian nationalists hate Russians to such an extent that is really contrary to any notion of slavic/white solidarity: It might be fake of course, but during the Chechen wars Russian troops did capture Ukrainian volunteers who fought with the Chechens.

            • Greg Johnson
              Posted March 6, 2014 at 5:18 am | Permalink

              There will be elections in May. Let’s see how Svoboda does then. A NATO-dominated Ukraine would be analogous to Communist Cuba parked on the doorstep of the US. I don’t think that the Cubans would have consented to that fate, if they had a choice, and I doubt that the Ukrainians will either, if they have a real choice.

              I already touched upon the problems with Right Sector in my original article. Russia Today hardly strikes me as a reliable source on this matter, and what I have been hearing from people who are close to Right Sector is simply that Yarosh expressed solidarity with Chechens who desire independence (a sentiment with which I agree on ethnonationalist grounds), or that Yarosh backtracked to that position. It is not really clear.

              It would be interesting to know if Ukrainian Slavs or Ukrainian Tatars volunteered to fight in Chechnya. Ukraine and Russia both would be well-rid of their Muslim minorities.

  25. Herman Mayakovsky
    Posted March 5, 2014 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    Interesting, here in Moscow, white nationalists see Maidan as fake. Too, if shit hits the fan and my peoplle are invaded by Ukrainians and Americans, Ill gladly protect my land.

    Posted March 5, 2014 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    Greg, you say Dugin is not an ethnonationalist but if Russian Slav ethnics are best served in a Russian imperialist system, it’s a distinction w/o a difference.
    Dugin obviously believes this.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 5, 2014 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

      How many tens of millions of white Russians died at the hands of disgruntled minorities — Jews, Georgians, Poles, Latvians, etc. — when they lost control of their empire in 1917?

  27. me
    Posted March 5, 2014 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    An article from David Duke site:

    “Neo-Nazi” coup in Ukraine installs Jewish Prime Minister, Israeli Governor

  28. Spaniard
    Posted March 6, 2014 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    I am fed up with these simpletons, low IQ guys and their obsession with jews…

    About the Holy Mother Russia and the Saint Putin:
    -His Government is full of jews, caucasians or the wife of his college Medvedev is jewish.
    -Moscow is absolutely full of Muslims (in larger numbers than Paris or London). Putin encourages continuously this mass migration. Even, HIS DAUGHTER WAS ON THE BRINK OF GETTING MARRIED WITH A KOREAN.

    Nationalists movements in Europe, with exception of NS, have not been so obsessed with jews (this is a trend which came from Hollywood movies and stereotypical skinheads and hatred to jews) althought there are always mistrust for them. In Mussolini’s Italy first Government was a jew as prime minister, for example. The fascist movement of my country, Falange, says that jews can be accepted only if they lose their identity as jews and become Spaniards (the same position as Jünger’s one).


    Even, if you wonder who is more “Jewish lover” , it is clear that Putin.

    If Right Sector was fake, they would be just liberals, anti-russian and in favor of ” liberal ways of life” . It’s ridiculous this Jew thing, and it seems more a Neurotic thing than a reality.

  29. Jim
    Posted March 6, 2014 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    I’m no expert on Ukraine, but I’m honestly attempting to understand what’s going on there.

    It seems to me that we (WN’s) are mostly overlaying a particular vision of what we believe is at stake ( or should be at stake) on a situation that is evolving according to entirely different goals.

    Ukrainians seem to be motivated by 1. Economic aspirations; 2. Disgust with”corrupt” leadership; 3. Anti-Russian sentiment/mistrust.

    Russia (Putin) seems to be motivated by 1.Military positioning (port); 2. Geo-political spheres of influence practicalities; 3. Imperial visions/Empire restoration plans.

    In other words, the best outcome for the White race isn’t what the parties involved are aiming at. We are certainly justified in asking how this affects our people, but should realize the protagonists themselves have other things on their minds.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 6, 2014 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

      In practically every political issue in our time, none of the parties have the interests of our race at heart or in mind. But Ukraine happens to be an exception, in which Svoboda and (perhaps) Right Sector do combine Ukrainian nationalism with a broader ethnonationalist sensibility. That’s why it is so interesting. Who knows what will happen in the end, but one thing is clear: you have to get in the game if you are going to win, and nationalists are doing just that.

  30. Lew
    Posted March 6, 2014 at 12:47 pm | Permalink
  31. Peter
    Posted March 6, 2014 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    More on the crisis and Israeli involvement. Israeli soldiers on the ground working for the opposition.

    In an intercepted phone call between Estonian Foreign Affairs Minister Urmas Paet and EU Foreign Affairs chief Catherine Ashton, Paet, who had just been in the Ukraine, can be heard telling Ashton that it was not Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich who was behind the sniper killings of people in the Maidan, “but it was somebody from the new coalition.” This exchange can be heard from about 8:15 to 9:15 in the video that contains the entire phone call between Paet and Ashton. – See more at:

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 6, 2014 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

      Either it is true or it isn’t. Reasonable people need to be skeptical of such claims and not jump to conclusions.

  32. reiner arischer Tor
    Posted March 6, 2014 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    I would be happy if Crimea joined Russia, the rest of the Ukraine would get Ukrainized (the Russian speaking population is genetically very close to Ukrainians, so that should be possible, and all the other minorities are unimportant), and then an independent and possibly nuclear Ukraine would ally with Russia, or at least stay independent and neutral between Russia and NATO/EU.

    A little bit OT, but I think Russian multiculturalism is much better than the Western one, for many reasons. First, they are culturally conservative, supporting traditional values, churches (the Russian Orthodox Church is quite nationalistic, unlike more universalist churches in the West), which makes them much more sustainable (for the majority Russians) than the Western one. Also it’s less asymmetrical, the government imprisons Russian ethnic nationalists but also disapproves of minority ethnic nationalism. (Obviously because it dislikes separatism.) The government also understands that the best constituency is Russian, because these are the most reliable as soldiers. (Interesting, but whereas under Yeltsin the largest oligarchs were nearly all Jews, under Putin the proportion of Russian billionaires increased greatly.) The government also understands that without a high Russian birthrate it cannot have enough Russians, because immigrants or minorities will not good Russians make. It understands people are not interchangeable. Hence pro-natalism.

    So in my ideal world Ukraine would lose the Crimea, it would become dominated by something like the Svoboda, whereas Russia would get the Crimea, keep dominating an alliance with Belarus and Kazakhstan, and stay a strong multicultural (but dominantly Russian) empire, all the while working against the Jewish-dominated “West”, eventually even supporting white nationalism in these countries. (The Hungarian Jobbik party was accused of being supported by Putin, and sure enough they seem to be somewhat pro-Russian already. However, their opinions might be colored by the fact that there’s a Hungarian minority in the Ukraine, because the Transcarpathian province of Ukraine used to be part of Hungary for a thousand years before Stalin annexed it in 1945, and Jobbik would be happy to get the territory or at least the part still inhabited by Hungarians back. Obviously after the Orange Revolution the anti-Russian measures also came down against the Hungarians, e.g. more and more education being switched from Hungarian to Ukrainian etc.)

  33. phil white
    Posted March 8, 2014 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Putin using ethnic Russians as a pretext for territorial re-acquisition does indeed sound very much like Hitler’s policy in the late 30’s.
    In the event of the Chittum “Civil War II” scenario, with the current U.S. geographically and racially divided, we could use the same rational of protecting white minorities as reason to re-acquire possible parts of the South and Southwest. CWII is a real possibility.
    The CWII scenario, although far more bloody, would make WN political problems virtually evaporate over night.
    The States Rights scenario would be more politically dangerous for us and quite possibly the more likely out come as opposed to CWII.
    So in planning for the States Rights out come, I suggest that we establish White Nationalist institutions now that can work slowly to push the surviving whites into a gradual accomplishment of the only workable long term goal, complete white political and geographical separation.
    Whites should then occupy roughly the upper 2/3 to 3/4 of the continental U.S.
    Perhaps the main reason WN did not take off 30 years ago was infiltration by Jews and Fed Gov operatives. They have consistently lead and mis-directed/discredited all WN movements.
    For one we need to establish a “Confederate Intelligence Agency”, which I’ve been pushing over on Storm Front these last months.
    Intel agencies as per x-KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov, put most of their efforts into propaganda.
    But beside propaganda our CIA would need to vet all WN leadership if not all WN activist.
    It’s not that hard to do, if you just learn and ruthlessly apply intel agency tactics and methods.
    But these last 30 years the ADL/SPLC/FBI have been eating our lunch.
    Heck, I’ve even outed three FBI agents on the internet, such as a certain “X” FBI Farsi translator. If we will just read up on what we need to do we can give ZOG agents a sever case of indigestion. FBI can be made to wish they’d never heard of WN.
    For heavens sake, go to your local library and look up the section on CIA/MI6/MOSAD/KGB/FBI.
    Then sit down, read, and make notes. Do not check the books out.
    You can learn virtually all we will need to do to vet our organizations. And NSA will not have your reading list on it’s hard drive.
    One last, DON”T TRUST ANYONE IN WN until you know enough about how to spot infiltrators and enough about the individual you are trying to vet.
    You can work at leafleting etc. with people you haven’t been able to vet yet, but just remember the NEED TO KNOW rule. If your new “WN” friend doesn’t need to know something to work with you, then don’t tell him.

Post a Comment

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.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace