174 words / 1:45:39
Following up on Part I, which was a talk with the Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin, in this episode, Fróði Midjord is joined by the Ukrainian nationalist activist and intellectual Olena Semenyaka in the latest episode of Guide to Kulchur to discuss the ongoing crisis. Topics discussed include the historical relationship between Ukraine and Russia, the elements of Ukrainian identity compared to Russian identity, the causes of the 2013-14 Maidan revolution, the influence of the American establishment and Jewish oligarchs on the revolution, and the nature of Putin’s government in Russia, as well as the goals of the Ukrainian nationalist movement and their idea for Intermarium, which would be a geopolitical restructuring of the Baltic region. (The producers apologize for the poor sound quality, which was caused by Ms. Semenyaka’s microphone; however, we were able to improve the volume somewhat in the mp3, as compared to the video.) A text summary of the points discussed is also available here.
5 Comments
European nationalists have been spending the last 30 years defending the idea of geopolitical viability of Roosveltian Europe, and woken up to the reality that meanwhile in Moscow, they have been working relentlessly on building power and security (nature of which a career politician in Warsaw who tries to wrap his head around GDP growth levels, can hardly even grasp). Tribal narratives and grievances are going to do little to remedy that, and Ukrainians ought to be aware of that. This is no longer the age of winged Hussars and Cossack rebellions.
I’m sure this was super interesting, but I just gave up after 5 minutes. Perhaps she could be asked to write a summary of her points in an essay or article? Google didn’t bring up anything substantial.
Since the audio problems made parts of the conversation difficult to understand, Ms Semenyaka has written this summary of her main statements from the interview:
https://interregnum-intermarium.tumblr.com/post/181741671994/olena-semenyaka-on-the-ukrainian-crisis-part-ii
I read the article. Why not just do something like a Schleswig-Holstein 1920 vote in the Ukraine? It seems to me the problem is that the Ukraine became independent with the borders of the Ukrainian SSR. Those borders don’t correspond to the ethnic realities. Plebiscite!
It’s in the article:
“Peace Minsk agreements, pushed forward by the EU, are extremely harmful to the Ukrainian statehood, and only interference of National Corps in 2016 prevented the Ukrainian authorities from adopting the so-called Morel’s Plan which was advocated by Victoria Nuland. This plan allowed holding elections in the occupied zones of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions without the restoration of the Ukrainian-Russian border, which meant the continuation of the Crimean scenario as the illusion of a democratic referendum on joining Russia. Luckily, in contrast with Girkin’s solitary protests against the state treason, National Corps could afford gathering 10,000 activists who came to the Ukrainian Parliament and threatened the MPs to take them out of the building by force if they dare to vote in favor of Morel’s plan (which, of course, was not accepted).”