Questions on NATO, Russia, & Ukraine

Posted By Greg Johnson On In North American New Right | Comments Disabled

[1]2,561 words

Author’s Note: On October 15, I debated Mark Collett on the Ukraine war. My opening statement is here [2]. After our opening statements, the format was to answer questions posed by the host/moderator Joel Davis. These are my answers to the first five questions. I appended my answer to the sixth and final question to my opening statement.

1. Was Russia justified in invading Ukraine? What responsibility does NATO have in creating the Ukraine crisis?

Russia’s invasion is pure imperialism. I would say naked imperialism, were it not for the tiny fig leaves of the “genocide” in Donbas and NATO encroachment.

I do think the US was stringing Zelensky along with the possibility of NATO membership to bait Putin into this war. I think the US had a very clear idea of how corrupt the Putin regime is and how weak the Russian military proved to be. I think they believe that a defeat for Putin could bring about regime change. I think that Putin was a fool to start this war. But baited or not, he was still the one to start it.

On a deeper level, though, NATO has no real responsibility for this war for the simple reason that Ukraine joining NATO was a disposable pretext. If NATO had given Zelensky a hard “no,” Putin would have invented another pretext, because I think he was hellbent on seizing Ukraine and thought it would be easy.

There’s a lot of disinformation about NATO in Russian propaganda.

NATO made no promise to Gorbachev not to expand eastward. They did promise not to put nuclear weapons in East Germany, a promise they kept. NATO expanded to the east because the countries there had legitimate security concerns vis-à-vis Russia. Unlike the Russian Empire or the Soviet bloc, NATO did not expand by conquest. NATO is a defensive alliance that countries ask to join.

Nor did NATO rebuff Russia. Putin asked why Russia was not invited into NATO. He was told that countries apply to join, and the members vote on it. Putin said that Russia would not wait in line behind insignificant countries, and that was the end of it.

Putin’s attitude, of course, is pure Russian imperial chauvinism. Under international law, all sovereign states are equal, hence equal treatment by NATO. Putin, however, thinks that you are only as sovereign as you are powerful. He does not fundamentally respect the sovereignty of smaller nations, which is why Russia’s former satellites wanted into NATO in the first place.

NATO’s member states are not “vassals” of America. What would happen if a NATO country tried to leave? Would there be regime change? Did America attack France in 1959 when she withdrew her Mediterranean naval fleet from NATO command? Did America attack when France refused to permit foreign nuclear weapons on its territory, forcing 200 US military aircraft out of France? Was France attacked in 1963 for withdrawing its Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command? Were there American tanks in the streets of Paris, as there were Soviet tanks in the streets of Budapest in 1956 and Prague in 1968? No; the other members of NATO respected France’s sovereign decisions.

Nor does NATO threaten Russia. NATO is a defensive alliance. It would not go to war with Russia unless Russia attacked one of its members. NATO, of course, has been used beyond its remit, for instance in Serbia and Libya. But that won’t happen to Russia because she has an enormous nuclear deterrent.

The idea that Russia cannot live behind its 2013 borders is nutty, yet we are told that this is an “existential” conflict. But the only thing existentially threatened by staying within its borders is Russia’s imperialist mentality.

NATO was built to contain Soviet imperialism. When the USSR was dissolved, it looked like NATO was obsolete. That impression was wrong. Russia’s post-Communist regime mourned the loss of their empire and immediately set to work subverting the newly-independent nations — which is why 15 of them applied to join NATO.

The only reason Ukraine was invaded is because it was not in NATO and did not enjoy its protection. This is why Sweden and Finland have now joined NATO. Armenia and Georgia should join as well. Putin’s war has strengthened NATO enormously.

2. What attitude should nationalists in the Anglosphere have towards NATO? Is NATO an anti-white geopolitical force?

Let’s not limit this to the Anglosphere. As a White Nationalist, I believe in white solidarity. When a white nation is attacked by a multiracial empire, I believe in coming to its defense. I think it is blatantly immoral to argue that we should be indifferent to the fate of other white nations because, somehow, the destruction of Ukraine would make it easier for us to fix our own governments at home. Even if that were true, it is at best petty nationalism, not White Nationalism.

If I believe in white solidarity, then I should also want organizations in place to defend white nations from aggressors. NATO happens to be performing that role right now, so I am happy with that.

Is NATO an anti-white geopolitical force as such? When NATO was founded, most of its signatories were deeply racist nations. The United States had immigration policies committed to maintaining a white supermajority. It had segregation in the South. It was a genuine white supremacist society. Germany based citizenship on German blood. NATO did not change all these things. The changes moved through different channels entirely. As my friend James A. argued recently in a piece I reprinted at Counter-Currents [3], NATO has not wrecked Poland, and not being in NATO has not saved Ireland.

Even though many NATO countries have insanely anti-white regimes, with the arguable exception of Turkey, NATO is a defensive alliance of white nations that are committed to mutual defense if any member is attacked. That makes NATO a de facto pro-white alliance, regardless of the politics of people like Biden or Macron.

3. Is the Russian Federation anti-white? Is the Russian Federation a threat to pro-white politics in Eastern Europe (and beyond)?

Yes, absolutely.

Russia is a multiracial empire in which the white majority has below replacement fertility, and the only growing populations are Chechens and Tuvans. Russia also has large numbers of non-white immigrants from the Stans who are more fertile than Russians. As White Nationalists, we all know what those trends mean in our own countries. They mean the same thing in Russia: Unless these trends change, in a couple of centuries the average Russian will be a Muslim with significant Mongoloid DNA. The only way to preserve the Russian people is to create a Russian ethnostate.

In the West, we are more or less free to advocate for ethnonationalism. We can even advocate ethnonationalism for Russians. But in Russia, that will get you gulaged as an advocate of “cave-man” nationalism. Russia is an authoritarian society with aggressively pro-multicultural, anti-nationalist propaganda — and short of revolution, there’s no way to change it. This makes Putin’s regime bad for whites in Russia — as bad as a Trump dictatorship would be for whites in America.

Putin’s express aim in invading Ukraine is de-Nazification, which does not refer simply to Azov. Russians use “Nazi” and “fascist” like Jews do in the West: to stigmatize any patriotism, national identity, or national self-determination other than their own. Russia also brands Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, and now even Sweden as “Nazi.”

Francis Parker Yockey described the Soviet Union as the leader of the outer revolt of the non-white world against the white world. Putin’s recent speech, which so many in our movement have lauded, is direct from the Soviet anti-white playbook. As Michael Tracey asked: Who wrote this, Noam Chomsky?

Finally, Putin’s regime has made a concerted effort to subvert ethnonationalist movements in the West. He has Western ethnonationalists ready to drop their principles on the spot to shill for Russian geopolitical interests. Some of the marks of this shilling are:

Such contradictions don’t help Russia, but they do undermine your credibility if you support them.

[5]

You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here [6]

I don’t know what the Russians or their Western supporters think they are getting out of this. I don’t think our opinions will affect the outcome of this war one way or another. I suppose it is flattering that the Russians think we are important enough to subvert, but they are doing terrible damage to our movement for no measurable benefit to themselves.

I don’t know what Western nationalists think they are gaining by supporting Russia. Some, surely, have fallen for a form of the QAnon delusion that they have powerful friends in high places. But we don’t. We have to fight this regime ourselves. Some, surely, play too many video games, where they enjoy real dopamine from imaginary agency and imaginary victories. Time to put away childish things. Some, surely, are paid agents of influence, although it is reckless to make such accusations based solely on circumstantial evidence.

But the accusation of selling out for money is actually the most charitable, because although it is dishonorable, it is at least “rational” in some sense, whereas “selling out” for no apparent benefit at all is baffling.

My mind is drawn to the grotesque image of a huge cuckoo chick being frantically fed by tiny birds who have been fooled into thinking this monstrous parasite is their own offspring. Such cuckoldry is all too common among humans. It is easy for us to see when it takes the form of whites adopting non-white babies or opening their borders to non-white migrants because their natural nurturing instincts have been hijacked by anti-white propaganda. We need to react with equal horror when we see mental cuckoldry in our own ranks. We are fighting the most evil establishment in history, with almost no resources but truth and courage. We can ill afford to pour our scarce credibility, time, and money into the bottomless gullet of Russian imperialism.

Our movement gets nothing from Russia apologetics, but it costs a great deal. In the short term, it causes polarization, ill will, and the breakdown of our ability to work together toward our true mission: saving our race. In the long run, it undermines our effectiveness as racial champions by making it unclear what we stand for. Championing contradictory ideas also undermines our credibility.

4. Does Ukraine’s right to national sovereignty necessarily trump nationalist concerns with US/NATO power projection?

Whose nationalist concerns are you talking about? Are you talking about “geopolitics” here? Because when I hear that word, I reach for my pistol, because I sense I am about to hear that I can somehow advance White Nationalism by giving verbal assent on the Internet to something blatantly immoral, anti-white, and anti-nationalist.

Yes, Ukraine’s national sovereignty trumps “geopolitical” concerns with US power projection, purely on principle, because the only geopolitics White Nationalists care about is creating a world of sovereign states.

But if such abstract principles leave you cold, still yes, because Ukraine is a very special country, where white ethnonationalism is very strong. Ukraine could be the first country in Europe to have a genuine ethnonationalist regime someday. If Ukraine became part of NATO and the European Union, it would be a natural ally of nations like Poland and Hungary against the worst influences of the West.

Russia’s apologists love to say that if a country joins NATO or the EU, it will be flooded with non-whites and trannies. Ukraine, they say, would be doomed. Well, if it really is their position that countries like Ukraine or Poland or Hungary, with their large nationalist movements and stubbornly sensible populations, are doomed by NATO and the EU, what hope do Western nationalists have? If Svoboda and Azov and the National Corps can’t beat back Western decadence, what chance does the National Justice Party have? If Orbán can’t win, then what chance does Patriotic Alternative have?

5. Can/should NATO be reformed? What would be the ideal Western security architecture?

I am a White Nationalist, which means I am a partisan of a political system that does not exist (yet), not a partisan of any existing political system. That said, from a White Nationalist point of view, some are better than others. Beyond that, I can understand why countries faced with the real-world choice between NATO membership or being a Belarus-style satellite of Russia are eager to join NATO, even though they are aware of all the problems with the West.

There are definitely bad things about NATO. NATO has encouraged the militaries and martial spirits of most of its members to atrophy. Finland and Sweden have excellent militaries and have a great deal to lose under NATO. Also, NATO has been used by the US as way to impose Jewish-penned free speech violations on new members. When Romania wanted to join NATO, for instance, they were told it was problematic to honor Marshal Antonescu. The United States would actually oppose the NATO membership of a country that adopted the US Bill of Rights. Obviously, those are bad things, but they are hardly the apocalyptic predictions of Russian propagandists and nothing compared to the tyranny exercised within the Warsaw Pact and the USSR proper, which is the main reason those countries find NATO membership so desirable.

But, for all that, yes, NATO can be reformed. NATO would be great if every NATO member country had pro-white leaders. That is up to every nationalist movement in every NATO country to accomplish. Obviously, that’s a long way off. And short of that, Central and Eastern Europe would probably be better off with the Intermarium alliance that has been widely discussed at CC since 2015 [7]. (See, for instance, Émile Durand’s article on Intermarium [8].) The Intermarium was an interwar Polish geopolitical idea to create a military alliance of nations between the Baltic and the Black Sea to serve as a cordon sanitaire, sealing off Europe from Russian Bolshevism. A modern Intermarium could embrace Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, Chechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and even the former Yugoslav republics. Together, these nations have the power to deter any Russian aggression short of nuclear warfare, but they would also protect the most racially and culturally healthy countries in Europe from Western decadence.

Southern Europe also needs a way to seal off the continent from Africa and the Near East.

*  *  *

Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.

To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:

Paywall Gift Subscriptions

[10]If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:

To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.