How the EU makes Apologetics for Naziism

The EU decided to use my taxes to save me and my fellow Europeans from nefarious disinformation, and fails…

I have come across an online project called “EU vs. Disinfo” of the European External Action Service East Stratcom Task Force. I was very much interested in what they have to say. I found there a collection of fabrications that put Russian media to shame but I also found a curious urge to protect the post-Maidan regime from accusations that are essentially true.

The project wants to claim the accusation that the slogan: “Slava Ukrayini! Heroyim Slava!”, that is “Glory to Ukraine! Glory to Heroes!” has Nazi origins is wrong…

Screenshot 2019-01-08 at 19.30.39.png

They say the origin of the “disinformation” is the Russian evening news programme “Vesti”, on the First Channel…

Screenshot 2019-01-08 at 19.32.46.png

They continue to give some lame arguments as to why Vesti is wrong. I discuss everything below…

Screenshot 2019-01-08 at 19.32.22.png

The slogan appeared in the 1930’s and was modelled on the German slogan: “Heil Hitler! Sieg Heil!” that is: “Hail Hitler! Hail Victory!”. In 1939, OUN made it official at a conference in Rome. It should be noted that the Italians, and the Croatians had similar slogans. The OUN were seeing themselves as a part of the fascist international. They were literally fascist and proud of it.

The “historian” from the Catholic University in Lvov makes an absolutely lame attempt to divorce the slogan from its origins. Imagine the Germans would stage a protest against the Christian and Social Democrat regime, and in the process would resurrect the “Heil Hitler! Sieg Heil!”, and then they would seize power and make it an official slogan of the military. This is essentially what happened in Ukraine. The slogan was introduced on the Maidan by the nationalists. Andreas Umland mentions the slogan began actively being used in Ukraine by Oleh Tyahnybok of the Svoboda Party.

So, the Slogan was created by Nazis, and introduced to Ukraine by Nazis, introduced to the Maidan by the Nazis. The EU hacks want to tell me everyone needs to be goose stepping, or what?

I have discussed the “poor ratings” on this blog before. The argument is easily dismissed by the following argument. Ukraine is a large country, and you need a lot of money to achieve electoral success. This causes the political landscape to be dominated by oligarch run political projects. If you want to win in elections, you need to join one of these groups. Boryslav Bereza is a good example of a person from “Right Sector” who is now a parliamentarian. The current Rada is swarming with people, who have more or less adopted the nationalist ideology.

Russia has a right to be concerned about a radical nationalist regime on her border, so I don’t get what these EU hacks are moaning about?

Poroshenko et al. rub Shoulders with a Nazi Leader in Istanbul

Poroshenko seems to not mind posing with Nazis, and so he doesn’t have a problem rubbing shoulders with them in a church. That’s because the post-Maidan regime actively encourages Naziism… 

The post-Maidan regime, with a silent support of its Western backers, promotes historical revisionism, and Nazi collaborators, and uses contemporary fans of Hitler as a force to harass the genuine opposition. A white version of the tonton macoutes of Papa Doc Duvalier in Haiti.

The C14 is Ukrainian neo-nazi gang likely named after the British C18, an abbreviation meaning: “Combat”, and the number 18 stands for the first and the eighth letter of the alphabet, the initials of Adolf Hitler. Number 14 is a no less significant cypher in the neo-nazi scene, and it stands for the 14 words of the late American neo-nazi terrorist David Lane: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

Evhen “Zheka” Karas’ is the leader of C14, probably by virtue of being the tallest and strongest of his gang of troglodytes. Below you can see a video of his gang attacking the defence lawyer of Vasyl’ Muravitsky, a journalist from Zhytomyr, who is being tried for treason. Apparently he did not love the Maidan enough in his publications. But he also wrote about local mafia which illegally mines amber and this may have irked some authorities even more.

In any normal country, Zheka and his gang would be sitting in jail now awaiting a trial for disrupting the court, and perhaps other offences. But this is post-Maidan Ukraine, and Zheka likely has powerful friends. On the photo below is he in Istanbul at the ceremony of Ukraine becoming a metropolia of the Ecumenical Patriarchate right next to Lutsenko and Poroshenko.

DwVsC4fXQAAxCPZ.jpg

Poroshenko will lead Ukraine into the Promised Land

A friend of mine has shown me a forum of Porokhobots, which is what supporters of Poroshenko are derogatively  called in Ukraine by Poroshenko’s opponents, and I found this poster:

Screenshot 2019-01-05 at 17.01.10.png
With Petro Poroshenko, NATO and the EU are the future of Ukraine.

I pity those Ukrainians who are gullible enough to believe this. Somebody should tell them Ukraine is too large and too poor to join the EU. And currently Ukraine is not even a candidate for membership in that organisation. The EU is gripped by internal problems, and not in the mood to expand. Furthermore, Ukraine is gripped by internal problems, and thus ineligible for membership in the NATO.

I guess I like repeating myself, however Ukraine is destined to remain a grey Zone between hostile Russia, and outside the periphery of the EU. It is actually an unenviable position that the current rulers have gotten Ukraine into.

It should be added that the poster used a recent photo of Poroshenko which became famous for one of the paratroopers behind him wearing a symbol of the SS, as this site reported.

Slowly The Hacks Realise Sanctions Don’t Work

It must now be blatantly apparent that the anti-Russian sanctions the West enacted haven’t had any effect on changing Russia’s behaviour “for the better” from the Western point of view, which after all was their purpose…

I doubt the European Commission will admit they have made a mistake but others, with more freedom, would be ignorant not to see the failure of the sanctions policy. There are those that get it however. One of those is Michael Carpenter writing for the American Interest. His prescribed way to remedy this situation is more sanctions, better sanctions, and that warrants my reaction. I quote:

Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukrainian ships in the Black Sea in late November underscores this fact and belies the notion that the Putin regime is worn down by sanctions and looking for an “off ramp.” If anything, President Putin seems to be doubling down on confrontation with the West.

It is debatable whether the Russian seizure of Ukrainian ships was unprovoked or an escalation of Russia’s actions against Ukraine and the West but I guess this statement is necessary for Carpenter to justify his argument.

Some have argued that while sanctions have not reversed Putin’s aggressive policies, they have at least deterred him from pursuing more ambitious aims, such as the creation of a new state of “Novorossiya” in eastern Ukraine or a land bridge between Crimea and Russian troops stationed in eastern Moldova. This too is wishful thinking. During the peak fighting in Ukraine in the summer of 2014, Russian forces certainly could have tried to occupy more territory, but it seems highly unlikely that the threat of sanctions stopped them cold in their tracks and no hard evidence supports this view.

A far more compelling argument is that the Russian advance was stopped when Ukrainian society mobilized against it by helping law enforcement root out Russian provocateurs and by forming volunteer battalions to fight back against invading Russian forces.

This is a relatively sober view for a Westerner of why Russia didn’t go ahead with the creation of Novorossiya in 2014. But the issue is rather complex. Supporters of the sanctions however must come up with justifications for their policy and Russia’s reluctance to completely obliterate Ukraine comes in hand.

Over time, it is even possible that the Kremlin might come to see the cost of sanctions as greater than the perceived benefits of its aggressive policies. But we have not reached that tipping point yet, and with current sanctions alone we may never reach it.

Time works for the Kremlin. Although, I have no illusions about the ability of the Russian state to react to sanctions, the Kremlin nevertheless can use the time available to build ways around the sanctions.

Carpenter goes into lengthy discussion about why the current sanctions are not working, and that America needs to actually make sanctions hurt…

Consider the difference between sanctions on Russia and Iran. To bring Iran to the negotiating table, the Obama Administration imposed powerful economic sanctions. During their peak strength from 2012-2015, Iran’s GDP declined by 9 percent annually, crude oil exports shrank from 2.5 to 1.1 million barrels per day, and $120 billion in Iranian reserves were frozen abroad. This was accomplished by sanctioning Iran’s oil exports and by freezing transactions by Iranian financial institutions.

With Russia, the United States has adopted a far more timid approach. In the energy sector, only upstream and unconventional energy projects—deepwater, Arctic offshore, and shale—were sanctioned. Unlike sanctions on Iranian oil exports, these measures affect revenue streams that are only years, if not decades, away. Furthermore, they lead to deferred investments and unrealized opportunities, which rarely motivate political leaders to act.

Russia, unfortunately for the Carpenters of this World, is a slightly different format of a country than Iran. I am not certain America has the wherewithal to punish Russia the way Iran was punished.

Subjecting energy projects to sanctions presupposes the West is essential for their realisation. But Russia can obtain the financing, and the technology through other means. Ultimately, the West will simply lose out on business which would have benefited Europe.

Carpenter proposes asset freezes on Russian banks but even he realises this would be playing with fire.

…an incentive structure would need to be created to compel the Kremlin to re-evaluate its policy. One option would be to prohibit financing of Russia’s sovereign debt. An even better option that allows for calibrating costs would impose asset freezes on Russian banks. Freezing bank assets allows for calibration because it can be done iteratively, starting with some of the smaller banks and moving towards progressively larger targets (e.g. VTB, Gazprombank, Sberbank) over a period of time. Every set period—for example, every three or six months—a new bank would be designated by the Treasury Department until Russia was finally compelled to negotiate in good faith or cease and desist from its aggressive behavior.

To be sure, freezing the assets of all of Russia’s banks would carry significant risks of financial spillover. However, an iterative approach helps mitigate against this risk because the initial asset freezes on smaller banks would be unlikely to roil European financial markets on their own. This would put the ball squarely in Russia’s court and all stakeholders would understand what would happen and when it would happen.

If the Russians are not able to do business with Europe, they will simply not do it, and the Kremlin wouldn’t care much about those Russians hurt by this. It needs to be understood that Russia cannot be starved out, blockaded, deprived of fancy papers issued by the European Central Bank, or the Federal Reserve. Russia has oil, gas, timber, fresh water, produces large amounts of grain, and can feed herself. It is the Europeans, who need these resources, not the other way around.

One of the advantages of financial sanctions is that the Kremlin lacks a symmetric countermove. Certainly, Russia could respond by freezing the assets of U.S. companies in Russia, but this would likely hurt Russia as much as it would hurt the United States. Russia is the 30th-largest trading partner of the United States, and Russia depends on U.S. foreign investments to sustain jobs. Shutting down U.S. companies would also be a surefire way to kill off any future Western investment in Russia for a long time to come.

Ultimately, targeting Russian banks would mean depriving Russians of money. No money, no business. That’s exactly why we do not see much of it.

In terms of asymmetric retaliation, Russia could of course do any number of things. Few would have predicted that in response to the Magnitsky Act the Kremlin would halt the adoption of Russian orphans by American citizens. There is obviously little the United States can do if Russia decides on a course of action that hurts its own citizens.

This is a matter of perspective which depends on the feelings of superiority of an ignorant American. I do not think Russian citizens are being hurt by the inability of some American idiots to adopt Russian children. All remember the Dima Yakovlev case (still lacks an English language wikipedia entry)? Russian children are best served by being taken care of by Russian foster parents, in Russian homes, in Russian society. Russian citizens are further being helped by the fact that Russian orphanages cannot trade with children now.

My Maps Show the Enthusiasm for Ukraine is Waning Globally

I like to create maps visualising United Nations General Assembly votes. 

The one below visualises a vote condemning Russia for the annexation of Crimea in 2014:3e9ad67b-9c75-451f-9b93-dee1091e027c.png

 

And the one below visualises yesterday’s vote condemning the alleged militarisation of Crimea by the Russian Federation:

9bAvJ+va.png

You can see that while the European Union, and the core Anglosphere countries, plus few vassals in other parts of the World, seem eager to support Ukraine. They were the biggest sponsors of the mess the country finds itself in after all. Russia on the other hand seems to have gained more countries willing to support her this time. Many countries decided to abstain from the vote.

Lavrov Confirms Kremlin’s Commitment to Pederalizatsiya

I have written about the official position of the Russian government vis-a-vis the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. I have called it: “Pederalizatsiya“, which basically is an attempt to return the Donbass people’s republics back into Ukraine on a federative basis, and in this way create a pro-Russian bantustan within Ukraine. This “clever plan” is supposed to keep Ukraine from slipping out of the Russian sphere of influence. But does the Kremlin retain any hope of restoring its influence in Ukraine?

Tass reports: 

Lavrov: Russia will lose the rest of Ukraine if the DNR and LNR are recognised

The Minister of Foreign Affairs also mentioned that the Ukrainian regime has all the traits of being neonazi.

Having recognised DNR and LNR, Russia will lose relations with the rest of Ukraine, which will remain within the hands of a nazi regime. This was said by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a live interview to the radio station Komsomolskaya Pravda, while answering why Russia does not recognise the DNR and LNR. (watch the video below if you understand Russian)

“You want to recognise LNR and DNR? And then what? Lose the rest of Ukraine, and leave her to neonazis?” -said Lavrov.

The problems of Ukraine are wider than Donbass

The head of the Foreign Ministry of Russian Federation said, the Ukrainian regime has all the traits of being neonazi. “We are not at war with the Ukrainian regime. Who fights against the Ukrainian regime, which has all the traits of being nazi and neonazi, are citizens of Ukraine, who live in Donbass.” -said Lavrov.

Answering a question as to why Russia does not break relations with Kiev, Lavrov said: “We have relations with the Ukrainian state, the Ukrainian state is far more and far more important for us than the regime which came to power because of the betrayal of international law and international etiquette by the West.”

The head of the Foreign Affairs Ministry pointed out: “The Ukrainian people are not guilty, and I believe the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian people want to peace in their country, and hopes to get rid of this shameful regime and wants to return to normal relations with the RF.” (It really begs a question, which mechanisms does Russia have to support this segment of Ukrainian society in order to influence Ukrainian politics?) According to him: “internal issues of Ukraine will have to be solved.” “They are far wider and far deeper than just simply DNR and LNR.” -Lavrov added.

About the Minsk Accords

The Minsk Accords are the only way to overcome the crisis in the Donbass, said Lavrov.

“The Minsk Accords do not have an alternative, I have said this already two years ago” -the minister has underscored.

Answering the journalist’s statement that the Minsk Accords are said to be unworkable, he said: “The UN charter is also being transgressed frequently, and it doesn’t often work. But we should not allow panicked emotions.” (The reality is that Ukraine does not want the Donbass back, and doesn’t do anything to implement the Minsk Accords.)