2,148 words
The following was originally published in Polish in July 2023 in the Do Rzeczy weekly magazine. This translation was published at the English-language Polish conservative site Sovereignty.pl.
In 2002, Vladimir Putin was asked in an interview how the Russia he rules differs from the Soviet Union of Stalin’s time. The questioner’s intention was obviously to show that the times of bloody dictatorship in Russia were past, and that its present and future were times of freedom and democracy. In a conversation with the same reporter in 1991, Putin had warned with a sad face of a possible “return to totalitarianism.” 11 years later, when he had become the country’s President, he again put on a sad face, albeit for a completely different reason. He noted that compared to the Stalin era, Russia “has become much smaller, unfortunately.” Professor Andrzej Nowak’s latest book The Return of the “Evil Empire”: Ideologies of Modern Russia, Their Creators and Critics (1913–2023) (Powrót »Imperium Zła«. Ideologie współczesnej Rosji, ich twórcy i krytycy (1913‑2023)) begins with a reflection on those two revealing remarks.
Putin as a faithful disciple of Stalin
It was not sympathy for the Communist system, but indeed regret for Russia’s lost territories that led Putin to regard the collapse of the USSR as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the twentieth century. The invasion of Ukraine is an attempt to partially reverse this “disaster.” As Nowak notes, although Russia is the world’s largest country, Russians (and not just Putin himself) still want more and more land — not so much land to conquer as, according to the official narrative, land to “recapture” or “liberate.” This is traditional Russian rhetoric. After all, it is not only the Kremlin propagandists, but also seemingly serious historians from Pushkin’s homeland who argue that Russia has never invaded anyone. It has always only defended itself against external aggression, generally from the West. From the time of medieval Prince Alexander Nevsky, who fought German and Swedish knights, through the popular uprising against “Polish interlopers” in the early seventeenth century and two patriotic wars (first against Napoleon, then Hitler), to the clash with the “collective West” (the United States, NATO, the European Union) and its Ukrainian lackeys, Russia has only ever been taking back those territories that were “fairly” due, “liberating” the population living there. This is still the position after February 24, 2022.
Vladimir Putin and Sergei Shoigu at Navy Parade, Saint Petersburg, July 30, 2017 (Source: Kremlin.ru/Wikimedia Commons)
Andrzej Nowak recalls Putin’s famous July 2021 article outlining the ideological and historiographical justification for the invasion that was already under preparation at the time. “Russians and Ukrainians are one nation, a single whole,” the Kremlin ruler argued. This single whole was sanctified by Prince Vladimir of Kiev, when he was baptized in the Orthodox faith (in Crimea, according to legend). “Unfortunately,” in later times hostile forces tried every now and then to break up this unity. The Ukrainians’ separate national identity is an artificial product of anti-Russian propaganda spread by Poles and Austrians. What’s more, Ukraine, as a separate state within its 1991 borders, came into being thanks to the Bolsheviks, who first created the Ukrainian Soviet Republic. It is also the Bolsheviks who, after September 17, 1939, annexed to Ukraine lands previously belonging to Poland (albeit unduly, because they are, after all, ancient Russian lands). Russian tanks therefore moved into Ukraine to remind its citizens that they are, in fact, Russians — so far, with disastrous results.
Andrzej Nowak says that Russian imperialism in its modern version was born in 1913, when a certain “marvelous Georgian,” as Lenin called Stalin, developed the foundations of the Bolshevik policy on nationalities. That policy presupposed the creation of a state that, while honoring the ideals of Marxism, would at the same time be a highly centralized Russian state, offering at most autonomy to conquered peoples. Thus, four years before they seized power it was already quite clear that the Bolsheviks would continue the Tsar’s imperial mission, even if using different slogans. Hence the syncretic nature of Putin’s ideology. The Kremlin’s historical policy today combines the cult of the tsars and the Orthodox “Third Rome” with the cult of the Soviet victory over fascism. The common denominator is a love for the might of an internally strong and externally expansive superpower. Putin is a faithful disciple of Stalin in this regard, even if he shies away from direct paeans to the “Red Tsar.”
In his book, the Polish historian seeks an answer to the question: What is the true nature of Russian imperialism? In his opinion, an aggressive Russia has more in common (or would like to have more in common) with a peaceful, open, and tolerant West than one might think, especially considering the current situation in Ukraine. Those who believe that Moscow is exclusively the world capital of conservatism, the bulwark of Christianity and patriotism, and a force against globalists are mistaken. In fact, Russia is an implacable enemy of the very idea of the nation-state. This is by no means the result of ideological poisoning by the virus of Communism. Although Russian imperial ideology as we know it today was largely penned by Joseph Stalin, its roots go a long way back. In fact, they go back to the very beginnings of the Principality of Moscow, which later evolved into tsardom and then into an empire, also in name. The Soviet dictator merely updated the age-old tradition with new content.
Initially Moscow gathered only Rus lands, while building up its authority as the world center of Orthodoxy. However, in the sixteenth century it became a multinational power as a result of conquests in the east. Then, in the seventeenth century, a dilemma arose as to whether it should be open to the world (meaning whether it should conquer the world, pragmatically accepting some of its elements) or whether it should isolate itself from this “rotten world.” The first option prevailed. Russia was becoming a multinational empire, but with a strong Russian center that could not stand competition. The conquered peoples had to recognize Russia’s superiority, humble themselves before its ruler, and forget about their ambitions for national liberation. At most, they could count on the kind of status that Scotland has in the United Kingdom — that is, political dependence while maintaining some regional identity. According to leading Russian historian Alexei I. Miller, Ukraine was such a “Scotland” in nineteenth-century Russia. And it could have remained so in the late twentieth century, under the concept of a “triune Russian nation” uniting all three East Slavic nations that have their roots in ancient Rus. This concept, imperial in nature, denies the existence of Ukrainians and Belorussians as separate peoples. The Ukrainians, however, did not want to take this path. Inspired by the national liberation struggle of the Poles, they decided to take up the struggle for their independence.
After the collapse of the USSR, Russia had a chance to abandon its identity as an imperial “prison of nations” in favor of building its own separate nation-state. It was not going to take that opportunity, however. The most minimalist option for rebuilding the empire was the proposal to “reunite” the three East Slavic nations. A separate Ukraine did not fit in the minds of Russia’s greatest moral and intellectual authorities. That Moscow’s rule over the “triune Russian nation” was advocated by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, an anti-Communist who idealized tsardom, is understandable. However, even Joseph Brodsky, a dissident poet and champion of individual freedom, wrote to the Ukrainians as they gained independence: “Now let the Krauts and Lachs [Poles] / take you in a mud house from behind . . .”
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here
The Russian intelligentsia’s attitude toward the empire is also an important theme of Andrzej Nowak’s book. One does not need to consider whether Russia is the country of Pushkin or Putin, for Pushkin supported imperialism, just as a good portion of Russia’s great artists and authors did. Some researchers, moreover, point to the phenomenon of Russia’s imperialism being targeted against Russians themselves. The empire’s elites adopted Western culture in the eighteenth century, widening the gap between them and the people. This should provide food for thought regarding the ideological affinity between Russian and Western elites today . . .
The latest fashion
Imperialism and hatred of the concept of nation are almost in the Russians’ blood. Unfortunately, in this respect they share much in common with the West’s intellectual and political elites. And for Poland, this is perhaps the most disturbing reflection that can be gleaned from Nowak’s latest book. The Polish historian extensively examines the academic discussion concerning Russia and the USSR that has taken place over the years in Western countries. Ronald Reagan’s famous words about the “evil empire” were for a long time generally viewed as a hurtful, unfair assessment. When prominent historians such as Richard Pipes wrote about the Soviet Union’s imperial nature , a wave of criticism fell on them. It was alleged that their intentions were not scientific, but political, that they really just wanted the USSR to disintegrate along ethnic (national) lines like all other empires. It was only in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when indeed the red superpower was already teetering on its foundations, that “imperiology” became, as Andrzej Nowak puts it, “the latest fashion.” Finally, the imperial, aggressive nature of the Soviet Union was no longer a taboo subject.
Moscow Kremlin (Source: Pavel Kazachkov/Wikimedia Commons/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en)
Russian imperial ideology has been anti-Western for centuries. Moscow wants to be either the “third Rome,” i.e. the only true spiritual (and political) center of the world, or the “second Rome,” i.e. one of two such existing centers. And if neither succeeds, it will choose the path of “pluralism of civilizations” — that is, a “multipolar world” in which there is room for many regional powers with their spheres of influence. So there is room in the Kremlin’s thinking for coexistence with the West. However, it will always be coexistence at the expense of the “small nations” located between Russia and Germany. As the popular Russian imperialist historian Natalia Narochnitskaya puts it, Berlin and Moscow are the only “organizers of Eastern Europe.” Only they, as strong powers, have the right to decide the fate of the “statelets” lying between them.
Andrzej Nowak notes that the Communist legacy has significantly diversified the repertoire of Kremlin imperial propaganda. In parallel to brandishing its slogans about defending Orthodoxy and traditional values, Russia has taken on the mantle of the slayer of fascism, nationalism, and anti-Semitism. This in turn makes its rhetoric likely to appeal to a Western audience with Left-liberal views. In a sense, it is a continuation of old imperial traditions. After all, Catherine the Great was applauded in Western European salons with her pretense of introducing the “ideals of Enlightenment” with bayonets and sabers to a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth overwhelmed by “darkness and intolerance” . . . Unfortunately, the West still considers imperialism to be a lesser evil than nationalism. Thus, Moscow has up its sleeve the ace of progressive, anti-Nazi rhetoric, which is bolstered by its victory in the Second World War. Hence, it can “successfully convince millions of audiences outside Russia of the thesis that it is, in fact, now heroically trying to liberate Ukraine from the clutches of US imperialism, where it will remove the cancer of neo-fascism or anti-Semitism (also present in other countries that have escaped Soviet tutelage, such as the Baltic states and Poland).” These arguments, as the book’s author points out, find fertile ground mainly in countries of the Global South. And they may also convince “progressive” circles in Western Europe, where Washington is often treated as a rival more dangerous than Moscow.
War of civilizations
Russia as the third and last Rome of Christianity, and a refuge of sanity in the face of the moral and intellectual crisis submerging the West. Russia as a traditional great mediator, in harmony with other “traditional” powers, especially Germany and France, guaranteeing a just peace and global order in a time of storm and unrest. . . . Russia as the last hope for those fighting around the world against American hegemony and as an obstacle to the return of fascism and racism around its borders. . . . Russia defending civilizational pluralism against the unilateral . . . domination of the “Anglo-Americans.”
So writes the author, listing the wide range of propaganda narratives that Putin uses in his public reflections about history.
Reading Andrzej Nowak’s book may lead to a conclusion that will be surprising to many. There is a war of civilizations going on in Ukraine. However, contrary to the claims often made, this is not a clash between the liberal West and the conservative East. The front line runs almost in reverse. This war is between the idea of the nation-state that is allowed to choose its own path of development, and the concept of an empire claiming the right to impose its pattern of progress on others, cynically using slogans about the fight against “fascism.” Russia is aiming to build a world ruled by empires rather than nations.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
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:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
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.
34 comments
Ok, I get it that Putin is evil, but keep in mind that those media (‘Do Rzeczy’ and ‘Sovereignty’), are 100% race-blind, 100% kosher, mainstream cuckservative retards, similar to the american republicans.
Irrelevant well-poisoning.
OK, let’s say Ukraine wins, or Russia, who cares? Jews rule over Russia, as well as over Ukraine, and whoever wins, jew wins, and we lose. Geopolitics is irrelevant as long as we Whites don’t have our own racialist state, with whom I can solidarize. At least one, who stands openly for us, and ONLY for us, so that we can stand for it!
Spoken like an outsider and a monomaniac. Ukrainians have been struggling for centuries against Russian rule. It would sound insane to them to be indifferent to a foreign invasion because a Jewish comedian got elected. He’s not going to be president forever, but Ukrain can be forever.
It is grotesque when Westerners lose all perspective because someone says the trigger word “Jew”: grotesque for the people who act that way, despicable for the ones who manipulate them.
I would add here, that if even Ukrainians are ruled by Jews, then those Jews still are Ukrainian Jews. Why should they want to exchange them for RUSSIAN Jews? Nobody likes to be ruled by foreigners.
Ukraine has a corrupt liberal democracy. Russia has simply a farce. Ukrainians will have a chance to vote Zelensky out some day. They will have not even that power under Russian occupation.
@Kok
Ukrainian jews better than russian jews? Jews are jews, loyal only to themselves, hostile and destructive towards everyone else.
@Greg
I don’t think ‘our’ so called ‘liberal’ so called ‘democracies are better/much better than Putin’s regime, rather they are a farce too, but I get your point. Maybe we can really vote one day White Power to power, who knows, let us hope so!
This war is the US-China war by proxies. I do not think that Jews play any really important indepedent role in it. The keys to the war are anyway in Washington and Beijing, not in Tel-Aviv.
Some interesting material but the last paragraph purporting to paint the civil war taking place in Ukraine as a struggle between good and evil is too much. Perhaps for strategic reasons uncritical conservative Poles need to be galvanised to support NATO, but really? Ukraine has been an American-Israeli puppet since at least 2014.
It would be a civil war only if the Ukrainians don’t exist. Is that your thesis?
if the Ukrainians don’t exist
The German and French elites would certainly be sincerely pleased if it were so.
Then they could directly deal with Russia and receive oil and gas without annoying transit countries. I have suspicions that they would also like to rid of Poland, but this is a much more difficult task, which is (yet?) impossible to solve at this time.
@Greg Johnson
No. There is a civil war between Russian-aligned Ukrainians, some of whom are Russian migrants from the couple of hundred years of Russian rule and backed by Russia, and Poland-aligned Ukrainians, who are racially and often religiously different and perhaps hearken back to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, who are backed by the Liberal West.
The war is a disaster brought on Ukraine by brinksmanship encouraged by Nudelman et al, poking the bear once too often. Quite reminiscent of September ‘39.
It’s been suggested that the esoteric purpose of the war is depopulation so that Khazaria can be reconstituted. It’s only a theory but if Jews are guiding both sides of this debacle it ought at least to be borne in mind.
Yes, that is depopulation, but not for some Khazaria (what is this, by the way?), but for African and Levantine “refugees”, with whom Europe is now overcrowed and there is no more place for them in Europe. So the territory will be emptied for them on Ukrainian territories and they will be sent there by European globalistic bureaucrats. And Russia now try to resettle Northern Caucasians from the overpopulated Caucasus to Mariupol and other occuped lands of Ukraine, i.e. it does the same.
Khazaria was a Turkic kingdom during the Dark Ages. They began as Pagans but were under pressure to choose Christianity or Islam, so they decided instead that they’d be Jewish. There’s been speculation that they were the ancestors of the Ashkenazis, but the genetic evidence doesn’t support it. However, it’s possible that they’re partially related to the Karaites, a sola scriptura sect.
Anyway, I doubt that the present war has anything to do with wanting to restore their ancient kingdom. If they want an East Israel, there’s always Birobidjan.
@ Beau Albrecht
I am not wedded to the theory but Israel has been the primary intermediary in the conflict and both sides are heavily Jewish-influenced. Ukraine is a much nicer place to stay than outer Mongolia which the Jews never particularly took to and there is a narrative in place which can be promoted for Israel 2.0. It’s not as though they’ve ever let the truth get in the way of a good ( for the Jews ) story.
I had no idea Bill Kristol wrote for CC under his Polish pseudonym. Do Muslim terrorists “hate us for our freedom,” too?
Antipodean and Richard Chance, further to your excellent points I do have to wonder why the author didn’t deem it worthy to mention how utterly jewish the current government of the Ukraine is. I say “current” because hopefully, God willing, zelensky and the rest of his cabal of bloodsuckers won’t be around to encourage Slavs to keep murdering each other too much longer.
Hilarious how you omit the fact that Putin started this war.
Zelensky is hated by Israel State leaders, they see him as traitor to Jewish cause, and Netanyahu despise him profoundly. Of course, private persons there could have different opinions.
Where have you seen or heard that Israeli leaders hate Zelensky?
What exactly does that change about the facts in Ukraine?
And if Ukraine wins we will watch it become integrated into America’s broader neoliberal project. It will not be unlike Poland, actually.
Obviously a superior option to being ruled from Moscow by gangsters and being colonized by central Asians.
LOL, good one!
I take this as an admission of defeat.
As Nowak notes, although Russia is the world’s largest country, Russians (and not just Putin himself) still want more and more land — not so much land to conquer as, according to the official narrative, land to “recapture” or “liberate.”
Well, Russia is big, but only nominally. Indeed, the inhabitable lands are not so big part of it, and Russia is OVERPOPULATED, particularly in big cities and in the South (North Caucasus). Russia wants to have more WARM lands, partially to resettle there North Caucasians from Caucasus. And just this is now happening in Mariupol.
first against Napoleon, then Hitler
Pan Nowak schould know, that Russia in wars against Napoleon, Wilhelm II and Hitler was just cannon fodder of the British Empire, who financed and supported Russia/SU as its true bully in the war against the enemies of the UK.
To understand Russia, one should simply read the old Jewish legend of Golem. Because Russia is just that – Golem, the dumb robot, created by the West as its gendarme in Northern Eurasia, as the deliverer of cheap raw materials and cannon fodder for the West. Maybe Nowak did not know, that all military and industrial technologies of the Soviet Union were given to it by the UK, the US and other Western states. Or that the Soviet Union during all its history was supported by Western credites, technologies and grains. Or that even now, during “sanctions”, Russian missile have many electronic components made in the West, incl. in the US.
Yes, sometimes Russia/SU turned against its creator, just as the robot Golem did. But even then the West wanted only to discipline its creation, but not to destroy it. Because a good gendarme is always needed.
Inspired by the national liberation struggle of the Poles, they decided to take up the struggle for their independence.
Sorry, here Pan Nowak is wrong. The Ukrainian nationalists of 1930-1950’s were totally destroyed long before the collapse of the SU. The Ukrainian dissidents were mostly of very moderate views, thez did not wanted anything more than cultural autonomy, and even so they were marginal and did not have much influence on common people.
In fact, the Ukrainian independence, as the independence of all another post-Soviet states (only exceptions were Baltian states, and someways also Azeris and Georgians) was carried out by the party nomenclature of the Soviet Republics. And its goal was to obtain complete and uncontrolled power over the population of the republic without any control from the all-union center. From now on, the population of now “independent” states could be fearlessly exploited, since they could not even complain about their new leaders, all those Yeltsins, Kravchuks, Nazarbazevs, to somewhere higher, to the Kremlin, after Gorbachov, who could really democratize the SU, lost the power.
The empire’s elites adopted Western culture in the eighteenth century, widening the gap between them and the people.
That is correct. The Westernized elite in RU despised their own “subjects”, it spoke mostly French and German. Tsar Peter I, aka the Great (the Great Murderer) called Russians “half-animals”, and tsar Alexander I called them “aborigines”. That was not so much Russian elite (the “Russian” tsars could not write Russian correctly, because their native languages were Dutch or German or English), but some kind of a colonial administration.
By the way, Comrade Stalin called his citizens sheeps.
However, it will always be coexistence at the expense of the “small nations” located between Russia and Germany.
Yes, and that is correct too. It is not a secret, that some parts of German (or “German”?) elites hoped in February 2022, that the war would be soon over and without much bloodshed, Ukraine would be defeated and Russia “normalize” the situation, and would trade with DE and FR, as before, without some annoying “small” transit territories.
After all, Catherine the Great was applauded in Western European salons with her pretense of introducing the “ideals of Enlightenment” with bayonets and sabers to a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth overwhelmed by “darkness and intolerance”
Absolutely correct, because the West needs its gendarme on those territories. Maybe that’s why the West forbade Yeltsin to make political trial against Communism in 1992 (because the Communism was brought to Russia from the West and was supported by the Wall Street untill incl. 1991, when even George Bush Sr. and Margaret Thatcher appealed to Soviet Republics not to “destroy” Soviet Union).
Hence, it can “successfully convince millions of audiences outside Russia of the thesis that it is, in fact, now heroically trying to liberate Ukraine from the clutches of US imperialism, where it will remove the cancer of neo-fascism or anti-Semitism (also present in other countries that have escaped Soviet tutelage, such as the Baltic states and Poland).”
Yes, and this works perfectly for the Leftist and Liberal audiences in the US, West Europe (Central Europeans do not believe in such BS), and Israel. But here we should simply say that the today’s Leftists are idiots. But for the Rightists Russia has another propaganda tool. For them the Russians say that they are fighting against globalism, LGBT+++++, tolerance, democracy, wokism and other Western illnesses. It’s amazing, that some Rightists still believe in such lies.
Russia is now called an Evil Empire because it is switching its loyalty (vassality) from the West to China.
Andrzej Nowak says that Russian imperialism in its modern version was born in 1913, when a certain “marvelous Georgian,” as Lenin called Stalin, developed the foundations of the Bolshevik policy on nationalities.
Here I would note that Stalin wrote his article about “National question” in 1913 not in Russia, but in Wien, Österreich, in Schönbrunn, not far from Kaiser”s Palast. Both Russian imperialism and Russian communism were created not by Russians and not in Russia, but in the West by Westerners and their local collaborateurs.
Anyway Stalin is still popular in Russia. The sociological surveys of 2023 show that ca. 60% of Russians approve Stalin and have positive attitude to him. (To compare, only 4% of Ukrainians approve Stalin in 2023 (in 2012 28% did). In Qazaqstan in 2018 37% thought about Stalin positive, but 17% negative, I do not know the situation of today.
Imperialism and hatred of the concept of nation are almost in the Russians’ blood.
Russian anti-imperialistic nationalists are brutally persecuted in Putin’s Russia, as they were persecuted (someway softer) in the Breznev’s/Andropov’s/Gorbachov’s USSR. (Of course, non-Russian nationalists are oppressed too, but this is another story). Russian academics, writers, artists, who expressed Russian ethnic nationalism, were sent to camps or psychiatric hospitals in Soviet Union, and some like great Slav-pagan painter Konstantin Vasilyev, were secretely killed, camouflaged as accident. In the modern Russia Russian nationalist Professor Khomyakov was killed in Putin’s GULAG and Maxim “Tesak” Marcinkiewicz was killed in Russian prison (camouflaged as suicide). Many others had to go to exile. Some interesting Russian dissenter writers have mysteriously died in last five to ten years, allegedly because of illnesses.
Interesting article and comments. We as white preservationists should always be on the side of … whiteness. That means we stand with the whitest group that is also prowhite (or, these days, say, least antiwhite). It is despicable that the British – and the Tories, no less – have as their PM a Hindu Indian. But let us imagine that Sunak were committed to an immigration moratorium, and his white Labour opponent wanted to continue the Replacement campaign. WPs should provisionally support Sunak, even though he should not be a citizen of Britain at all. At some future date, Mr. Sunak should, of course, be repatriated to India, perhaps with a generous pension and a UK visa for him to visit whenever he liked.
It is likewise disgraceful and demoralizing that the Ukrainians have so little sense of blood loyalty that they’ve elected a Jew as their President. Ukraine isn’t Israel or even a New World nation like the US or Brazil. It is a true ethnostate, and as such, should be ruled by one of its own native people. But Zelensky’s ethnicity is not relevant to this situation. Ukraine is much whiter than Russia; therefore, and insofar as it is a) less antiwhite than most European nations, and b) clearly not the aggressor in this conflict, WPs should support it, including militarily, as a sovereign Ukraine has a greater chance to remain mostly white than a Russian-dominated one would.
Of course, if we had a prowhite President, he would have forced Zelensky publicly to denounce nonwhite immigration, and to promise never to introduce it to Ukraine (and perhaps to advocate other measures either overtly or at least covertly designed to ensure the perpetual whiteness of Ukraine) prior to the receipt of any US military aid. But that Biden is as antiwhite as they come doesn’t mean that military aid to Ukraine isn’t still justified from a WP perspective.
Zelensky is a very assimiliated Jew, and if I would define him culturally I would call him not a “Jewish” Jew, but a post-Soviet assimiliated Russo-Ukrainian Jew. And it should be noted, that he as an actor and comedian always was very critical to the West, to Ukrainian nationalism, to liberalism, etc. He was not a supporter of so-called Maydan and “Eurointegration”, and it seems that he was sincere then. And as a presidental candidate he won because was supported by Russian-speaking and anti-Western parts of Ukrainian population. When he now as a politician speaks about democracy, freedom, “Western values”, defence of Europe, and another BS, this is nothing more than a lip service. He says this because he has to.
However it does not matter much. Ukrainians are farmer people and they are fighting not for Zelensky, but simply for their lives and lands.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.