Names of “friends of Putin” will make you consider very carefully who should be called a fascist. / REUTERS
Posted on 04/27/2014 12:24:21 PM PDT by annalex
26.04.2014 | 22:33
S.Parkhomenko, T.Stezhar
Back in early March of 2014, two weeks ahead of the pseudo-referendum and annexation of Ukrainian Crimea, in one of the Russian newspapers, a prominent historian and religious studies specialist Andrey Zubov published an article in which he criticized the policy of Kremlin towards Ukraine, comparing actions of Russian government to ones of the Nazi Germany. This, in fact, cost the professor his job at MGIMO (Moscow State Institute of Foreign Relations).
The US Senator Hillary Clinton drew an analogy between Putin and Hitler, “Now if this sounds familiar… All the Germans that were ... the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they're not being treated right.” And the day before the Crimean pseudo-referendum, a Latvian MP Kārlis Seržants placed Putin on a par with such notorious dictators as Hitler and Mussolini.
Putin’s address to a State Duma on the annexation of Crimea has confirmed that such opinions are not at all unfounded. One could pretend that there were no standing ovations from MP’s who saluted the annexation of Crimea in unison. One could forget that just two weeks prior, Putin rejected a possibility of Crimea’s annexation to Russia. One could turn a blind eye to the fact how Putin described Ukraine’s new government – “anti-Semites”, “fascists”, “Russophobes” – allegedly exercising “terror, murders and pogroms” upon Russian-speaking Crimeans, considering that none of this had taken place.
But the whole world has understood that Putin will not stop with just Crimea – just as Hitler with the Sudetenland (a German-populated region in Czech Republic; Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia using the guise of protecting the rights of the native Germans). In late March, “The Daily Mail” mentioned, Hitler also claimed that his ambitions don’t go further the Sudetenland: “I declare that the border between France and Germany is final. The West does not interest Germany”. Five months later he occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia. 14 months later he invaded France. And in early April, “green men”, whose presence in Crimea was denied by Putin until lately, were spotted in the Eastern Ukraine.
On April 17, by the way, the Russian “Führer” stated that a civil war is now breaking up in Ukraine, as armed fascists and Nazis from its western parts rampant in the country’s South-East. “Where nationalism blossoms and even neo-Nazism is being reborn – these are the western parts of Ukraine. Partly they used to be under Czechoslovakia, partly under Poland, Hungary. And nowhere were they full-fledged citizens of these countries… It is kind of forgotten that they were second-class citizens there. But it is buried somewhere deep inside, in historical memory. These are the origins of this nationalism,” said Russian President.
“To love one’s own country and to fight for it is not fascism and it is not neo-Nazism, as V. Putin claims. Fascism and neo-Nazism is the attempt to conquer, subjugate and humiliate another nation, another independent state. This is exactly what, with great treachery, Russia is doing in Ukraine today... Ukrainians have always supported and continue to support friendly and equal relations with the Russian people that are based on principles of mutual respect. However, it is this very “pseudo-brotherly” attitude on the part of the Russian powers throughout many centuries that have forced Ukrainians to fight for their rights, for their independence, for their national dignity,” Ukrainian Foreign Office retorted the statements of Russian President.
Who is Fascist to Whom?
Furthermore, Ukrainian diplomats have published information on European political forces, representatives of which back Russia’s aggressive stance toward Ukraine. The list of “foreign observers” at the “referendum” in Crimea is quite impressive, as there is a number of ultra-right and neo-nazi politicians among “Putin’s friends”. UNIAN has already partly covered the story on”achievements” of most of them in their home countries, disguised with the ideas of nationalism.
A more detailed document is available now. The main behavioral model of European ultra-right political forces is defending an indigenous nation and searching for enemies. Such enemies are often found assigned amongst migrants or national minorities. The party “Jobbik” - Kremlin’s satellite in Hungary – uses anti-immigrant, anti-Roma and anti-Semite rhetoric on regular basis. For instance, the party leader Gábor Vona calls for restricting birthrate for Gypsies, taking gypsy children away forcefully from their “lazy parents” and placing these children in social facilities.
Among party supporters there are many young men, dressing up in pseudo-Nazi uniform, who are seriously concerned with the “Jewish colonization of Hungary”. Gábor Vona repudiated anti-Semitism and tried to prove that "Jobbik" has nothing to do with this idea. But in 2012, one of the members of the party called to make a list of Jews who pose a threat to the security of Hungary, thus provoking a huge scandal. As a result, at the European Jewish Congress "Jobbik" was referred to as the neo-Nazi party.
Actually, modern neo-Nazis in Hungary have claims to all the neighboring countries. In particular, they do not mind "chopping off" Transylvania from Romania and Transcarpathia from Ukraine. Naturally, using the guise of protecting ethnic Hungarians. Sounds familiar? World War II also began with the return of "ancestral lands" and, unfortunately, has not limited to the restoration of historical "justice". In this respect, it is not surprising that “Jobbik” backed Putin in his implementation of a plan of Crimea’s annexation. Even more, it is believed that Kremlin has been quite generous in financing its Hungarian “friends”.
Crimean Lessons for Spain and Belgium
Apparently, in anticipation of Russian support in their issue, representatives of Spanish right-wing parties “Catalan Platform” and “People's Party” have recognized a pseudo-referendum in Crimea. “Catalon Platform” in particular, speaks against “Muslim invaders” and seeks independence for Catalonia. In this regard, the example of the “referendum” in Crimea can be very useful for them. It is even more interesting for the People’s Party. While in opposition, it approved the actions of the Spanish government in its fight against terrorism, especially regarding suppressing the extremist ETA, which spoke for the independence of the Basque country. Now, while in power, the People's Party does not support the referendum in Catalonia. In this regard, it is surprising that its representatives believe Crimean referendum to be legitimate and justified. But they explain this illogical move quite simply. They say that Crimea has not voted for independence but for reunification with Russia (especially since half a century ago it used to be one country). While Catalonia wants to completely break away from Spain.
Members of the Belgian far-right-wing separatist party “Vlaams Belang”, represented in Crimea by three “observers”, also advocate the independence of Flanders from Belgium. This is political force was earlier noted for its xenophobia and discrimination of Belgians who, in its opinion, do not adhere to "traditional Flemish values". It even reached the point when the Belgian Court of Appeal condemned Vlaams Belang for discrimination against immigrants. In fact, after that, the party was even forced to review its political program.
Alone among other Putin’s Belgian satellites stands a founder and leader of the Universal National European Party Luc Michel, the follower of the prominent Belgian Nazi Jean-François Thiriart. Michel is known in Belgium and France as an ardent anti-Zionist and Holocaust denier. Earlier, this “activist” was a member of the Federation of National and European Action, which was disbanded by decision of the French government for justifying the actions of the Third Reich.
The party currently headed by Michel advocates the establishment of “a great European empire” with the participation of European and ... countries of former USSR. The participation of non-European countries in the empire is not excluded (probably because the European part of Russia, and, especially, the former Soviet Union, is not so vast).
Luc Michel’s National European Party regularly supports nationalist regimes – like ones of Milosevic in Yugoslavia and of Gaddafi in Libya.
Separatism and Double Standards
Actions of Putin in Crimea are also not condemned by prominent separatists in Italy, where, by the way, neo-fascism was born. In particular, we are talking about right-wing parties “Tricolor Flame "," Forza Italia" and "The Northern League" that provided their "observers" for a pseudo-referendum in Crimea. "Tricolor flame", does not hesitate to indicate neo-fascism as its official ideology and has become famous in Italy for its promise to pay monetary compensation to parents who would name their children in honor of the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and his wife.
In its turn, the Northern League stands for independence of Northern Italy and the formation of an independent state Padania . In addition to extreme nationalism, there are some frank slips of racism in the ideology of the party. In particular, the League believes, there are drastic differences between "Northern Italians, adherents of Celtic- Germanic traditions”, and the “lazy Southern-Romans”. Ideas of separatism have been promoted by “The Northern League” since 1980. And in 1996, it even declared “independence of Padania”. However, Italy's authorities simply ignored this decision, and there were no supporters of the idea to defend the "independence" of the country’s North.
Later, having made their way to the government of Vladimir Putin's longtime friend Silvio Berlusconi (leader of Forza Italia), Northern League, straddled the idea “federalization”, to which it still adheres, instead of separatism.
French neo-Nazis from the party “National Front” are just as ardent supporters of Kremlin regarding the annexation of Ukrainian territory. Like the Hungarians, they have their “enemies” – Muslims. National Front and its leaders were several times in the center of scandals when they were accused of anti-Semitism and racism. For example, the National Front favors a ban for special menus at schools for Muslim students. They also compare Muslims who perform namaz on French streets with the German occupiers during the Second World War. By the way, the National Front candidate himself has called the victory of the party in the recent local elections in the Var department of the town Brignoles “the Nazi occupation”. After this, he was suspended from participation in municipal elections by his party.
However, it is not the first time that the National Front uses double standards in its policies. For instance, the party’s spokeswoman to the National Assembly of France Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, earlier criticized the supply of weapons to Syria, saying that the country should decide the fate of the Syrian people on its own. At the same time, she would not recognize that Assad, whose overthrow the Syrian people is trying to achieve, receives weapons from Iran and Russia.
But the main foreign policy objective of the National Front is the demise of the EU and NATO, as well as replacement of these entities with the “partnership of independent states”. However, the members of the National Front see such independence as a rather conventional one. For this partnership, in their opinion, should include Russia and be controlled by the Central Powers in Berlin, Paris and Moscow. Now wonder, the local media called the party's founder Jean-Marie Le Pen (now the party is run by his daughter party Marine Le Pen) a French fascist.
Serbian and Bulgarian nationalists, in their turn, are united with love for Russia and Putin by a combination of several common ideas, the main of which is religion. And the Bulgarian "Ataka" and Serbian "Dveri" are deeply religious, therefore the Orthodox faith is often more important for members of these parties than ethnic issues. Hence, there is an attraction to the Russian Orthodox Church and, as a consequence, to the Kremlin. In addition, they are united by two ideas: anti-immigration policy and the opposition to the issue of European integration.
Both ideas, in fact, are inherent to Putin’s Austrian allies, representing right-wing alliance “For the Future of Austria” and the ultra-right “Freedom Party”. Both political forces favor tighter control on the issues of immigration and family support. It is noteworthy that a Freedom Party was originally founded by retired officers of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS.
In general, the ultra-right ideology always includes authoritarianism and one of the forms of xenophobia - hatred toward anything foreign, in addition to nationalism. That is why one can often hear such mottos as “France for the French” or “Hungary for the Hungarians” in the rhetoric of “Putin’s friends” And it is surprisingly echoes traditional motto of “Russian marches” – “Russia for Russians”.
Fascism in the Guise of Communism
Not only the right-wing but also the left-wing political forces in Europe show tangible support for Putin in Europe have not only the right but also the left-wing political movements. Such include members of the Communist Party of Greece or a pro-Russian party “For Human Rights in United Latvia”. Russian movement in Latvia, in particular, is an advocate for the rights of national minorities. So, basically, it calls for recognition of Russian language in Latvia as a second state language, as well as for a free choice of language in public schools. Besides, the movement wants the Orthodox religious holidays to be recognized by the state, just as the Catholic holidays.
In Germany, Russia is actively supported only by the Left Party, full of contradictions. Despite the fact that the "left" welcome the European integration process, oppose militarism and call for strengthening the role of the UN in international politics, they see Communists as their political partner in Russia. At the same time, the most members of the Left Party are staunch anti-Stalinists and opponents of the “nationalist accents”. So, on the one hand, Germans are disgusted by Russian Imperial rhetoric and nostalgia for the Soviet era, on the other hand they support annexation of Ukrainian Crimea by Russia. They also call the EU sanctions imposed on Kremlin a policy of double standards and pandering to the radical politicians in Kiev.
One more political force, full of controversies, that backs Russia, is the Anti-Fascist Committee of Finland. In particular, its members deny the right of Estonia and Latvia to exist as sovereign states, they resent the fact that the authorities of the Baltic States equate Communism and Fascism, considering it a “Holocaust denial”, and they also strongly justify Stalinism. For example, they consider Soviet deportations in Estonia as "anti-fascist" as "beneficial".
Just Five Nationalists in Power
Considering the above-mentioned, it is amazing how Vladimir Putin, on the one hand, has been supporting representatives of the ultra-right European parties and drawing them on his side, and on the other hand encouraging for more than a month to clear the Ukrainian authorities from "fascists". But are there even any within current Ukrainian authorities or do they only exist in the imagination of the Kremlin’s chief?
Nationalist movements, organizations, political parties and individual activists were important "cogs in a wheel" in the process of obtaining Ukrainian independence in 2004, during the Orange Revolution, and from the beginning of Euro Maydan in November 2013. But Ukrainian nationalism is not a key factor in these processes, and the image of the "Bandera" nationalist with a bloody trident could only have been born in the mind of our “neighbors” deluded by propaganda-stained journalism (referred to as “kiselyovschina”).
This is evidenced by the fact that until today nationalists could not get the real political power, neither in 90s nor during the “rabid” nationalist Viktor Yushchenko, nor today. For example, the UNA-UNSO, leading nationalist force in the 90s, only managed then to obtain four seats in Parliament. In 2002, for the first time the leader of the radical nationalist party “Svoboda” Oleh Tyahnybok became an MP. In 2010, he was running for president, but he only took the 8th place with 1.43% of votes. By the way, the leader of the Right Sector Dmitro Yarosh may show just a bit better result at the current presidential elections (according to opinion polls - 1.6 %).
As for the party “Svoboda”, it only became an independent player in the parliament in 2012, getting just 37 seats out of 450. For the comparison, at that moment, a pro-president Party of Regions had 187 seats in Verkhovna Rada.
Even when new people came to power (after ex-president Viktor Yanukovich disgracefully fled the country), less than ten people, that more or less declare to have some connection to nationalist circles, have achieved top positions in new Ukrainian power. For example, one can name Andriy Parubiy, current head of National Security and Defense Council (SNBO). Back in the 90s he organized young nationalists. One can also name a member of “Svoboda” Oleg Makhnitskiy, once an MP and Parliamentary Commissioner for the Supervision of the Prosecutor’s Office, who now holds a position of the acting Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
In regard to the nationalists in Ukrainian Government, only three members of “Svoboda” represent this political force in the Cabinet of Ministers. Alexandr Sych is now a Vice-Prime-Minister, Ihor Shvayka is a Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food (whose credibility was recently impeached by agrarians), and Andriy Mokhnyk is a Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources.
Can it be that Putin considers just three of them (among other 18 Cabinet members), the head of SNBO and acting Prosecutor General as the only new Ukrainian authorities?
Serhiy Parhomenko, Tetyana Stezhar
Translation by Yevgeny Matyushenko
Good survey article. Thanks for posting.
I recommend ‘Victims of Yalta’ by Tolstoi and ‘The Nation Killers’ by Conquest to appreciate the sensibilities of Eastern Europeans regarding noble Wilsonian aspirations from abroad.
Victims of Yalta/ The secret betrayal
Also see this Wikipedia article for an overview: Victims of Yalta
Of course, the betrayal victimized many more people that the Russians caught up in the war. The division of zones of influence, agreed upon in Yalta, sold all countries of East Europe into 40 years of slavery.
The problem with this is that in the minds of the Eurocrats in Brussels, anyone who opposes them is a “fascist” or a “Nazi”. Geert Wilders and his VVP, Liberty GB, and Ukip all get accused of being “fascist”, even though the first is classically liberal on economic issues and liberal in the American sense on social issues but strays from the fold in having the clarity of vision to see Islam as threat to Western civilization whether Christian or secularist, and the latter two are British analogues of the Tea Party and fully in the tradition of Edmund Burke, Lord Acton and Winston Churchill. Any nationalism which opposed subordination of national culture to pan-European regulation from Brussels, including the delusional acceptance of Islam as an ordinary religion and the promotion of homosexuality, is “fascist” even when it isn’t, and any nationalism which embraces Brussels (e.g. the Ukrainian variety) isn’t “fascist” even when it’s fascist.
But EU was quite gracious with Ukraine; at least for now they do not see a problem with Ukrainian nationalism driving the revolution. It is the Russians that go banana with “Banderovzi! Fascists!”.
But not all of us!
It fits in so many ways wouldn’t you agree?
If EU had been that gracious to the Ukraine, they’d have offered a bailout package with sweeter terms than the one Yanukovych accepted from Russia, thereby triggering this crisis, and there wouldn’t be a crisis.
I don’t think so. It is not an economic matter in its basis; it is a cultural matter. Ukraine want to join Europe because of the civilizational values of modern Europe: inviolability of borders, democratic tradition, diplomacy and trade preferred to threats and war, individual freedoms, two thousand year-old culture, co-existence of religions. Twenty years ago Russia could be a European country. It is now clear that Russia is pulling back to its Soviet and Asian cultural choice and it wants to drag its neighbors with it. That is what is at stake in Ukraine.
Worth repeating.
Yup. Inviolability of borders, except when the country in question is called Yugoslavia or Serbia, in which case NATO shows up to violate the borders and carve out new countries; diplomacy and trade preferred for the last 78 or so of those 2000 years you tout, not a long track record that; individual freedoms (unless you’re criticizing Islam, which case you get charged one or another “hate” crime); co-existence of religions, since the Peace of Westphalia, well, most of the time, Jews had a bit of radical non-coexistence thrust on them not that long ago, religions don’t coexist in, say Malmö, Sweden, some neighborhoods of London and many Paris banlieux (I leave you to guess which one is dominant), Scientologists don’t have a very nice time in Germany, and woe to the protestant Christian who thinks the state schools are too secular and wants to homeschool, but pretty much, as long as the religion stays out of the public eye and doesn’t get in the way of the secular elite’s rule from Brussels.
As for a 2000 year old culture, I think the Russians at this point have a better claim to being the legitimate heirs of Christendom than does post-Christian Western Europe.
As I wrote when this first started: unfortunately Ukraine doesn’t have freedom as a choice. It can chose to be a vassal state to the EU or a vassal state to Russia.
I can understand why Latins and Uniates, and maybe even Orthodox who lean toward Constantinople rather than Moscow in our light-duty ecclesiastical power struggles might prefer the former. I’m not sure they are right.
In Yugoslavia, the partition of Kosovo was not done in 1 week by Russian well armed bandits without insignia, but over years , in a negotiated settlement; and certainly, the level of violence in Former Yugoslavia was high, whereas in Crimea — non-existent. I am not defending American involvement in Yugoslavia, but it cannot compare with naked aggression and self-dealing of the Russian Federation.
The European freedoms are indeed eroding, but they have a long way to go before they resemble Putin’s Russia.
The thing is, there is one civilization, not several. That the European Civilization is ill, there is no doubt, — but that does not alter the fact that it is The Civilization, and the rest is barbarity. The Ukies made a good choice.
Actually the NATO intervention in Kosovo can be compared with the Russian seizure of the Crimea, unfavorably.
There were armed bandits without insignia (or uniform) there too: the KLA, who, until Clinton’s State Department adopted a policy of Serbophobia had been classified as a terrorist organization and had some ties with Al Qaeda. And they engaged in banditry for a lot longer than a week.
And the province forcibly detached was the spiritual heartland of the country it was removed from — most of the Serbian Orthodox Church’s monasteries are in Kosovo and have been since the Middle Ages, and the Battle of Kosovo Polje, in which the Serbs saved civilization by sacrificing themselves to stop the advance of Islam, and event key to Serb historical consciousness took place there — and was never part of any other country except when Serbia was part of the Roman or Ottoman Empires, while the Crimea has no great significance to Ukrainian national consciousness — hardly surprising since it had been part of Russia until Khrushchev detached it from Russia and gave it to the Ukrainian SSR a mere 60 years ago.
Yes, but still the autonomy for Kosovo was not decided unilaterally or hastily. Nor was the KLA the only combatant.
That the violence was far worse in Yugoslavia than in Crimea (there simply wasn’t any) is an argument FOR separation of Kosovo and other provinces.
That Albanians now predominate demographically in the historical cradle of Serbia is not exactly EU’s or NATO’s fault.
The Kosovo precedent is baleful enough without deciding on the basis of it that sustained banditry and military responses to put it down form a sound basis for partitioning countries. By that reasoning the Russophile Eastern Ukrainians just need to sustain guerrilla action against Kiev for a few years have Kiev try to restore order militarily and hey-presto there's an argument FOR their secession. (Repeat in Catalonia, Scotland, the Veneto, Sardinia . . .)
Well, sustained violence is indeed one factor, but balancing it should be another: the party with a grievance must have also leadership that restrains violence rather than seeks to profit from it. And there are others: a referendum conducted without haste, with impartial international observers, and an agreement from all the parties concerned to respect its outcome. In Kosovo, — I am not defending Kosovo independence by the way, — we have at least an effort to adhere to the above principles; in Crimea all we have is farce and intimidation.
I had heard that Jobbik was a front for the Iranian government. Interesting that Putin is a supporter as well.
With all these reminders of European neo-Nazi invocation of oppressed "indigenous" ethnic minorities who need to be annexed by their countries of origin, I wonder if I'm the only person thinking of the so-called "left wing" Mexican irridentists in the Southwest?
In its turn, the Northern League stands for independence of Northern Italy and the formation of an independent state Padania . In addition to extreme nationalism, there are some frank slips of racism in the ideology of the party. In particular, the League believes, there are drastic differences between "Northern Italians, adherents of Celtic- Germanic traditions”, and the “lazy Southern-Romans”
This is most interesting. The Northern League is the model for the so-called "League of the South," a neo-Confederate organization whose call for an independent South is based on the alleged "Celtic" identity of Southerners. And if Celts are so great, why are all their nationalist movements left wing?
This is what makes true, capital-F Fascism the most alien of all ideologies in America. While both racism and Marxism are as American as apple pie, the medieval guild rooted ideology of Italian Fascism is simply incomprehensible to most Americans.
However, Italian Fascism was also highly-centralized and totalitarian--in fact, it was Mussolini who coined the term "totalitarian" to describe his Fascist State--though he meant something more along the lines of "we're all in this together" rather than the modern meaning of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and un-escapable government.
While Mussolini was no Hitler (and it can be argued that his switch from an anti-German to a pro-German position was one of the defining moments of the last century), neither was he a hero. He was an atheist and totally amoral. He basically stole the idea of Fascism from d'Annunzio (taking all the credit) and took more twists and turns in positions than the Comintern. First he was anti-clerical and republican, then he was royalist and Catholic . . . and then he was republican again during the Salo Republic and basically admitted that his royalism had been nothing but a ruse all along. Furthermore, his ideology placed the State (again, not necessarily understood as the government) above all things, including religion. To him (as to most "palaeos") religion is primarily a civilizational achievement and something to be used for purely utilitarian ends. And while he wasn't obsessed with Jews (and even had an all-Jewish military academy at one time) he was certainly not their friend. In June 1919 he published a virulently anti-Semitic screed in Il Popolo d'Italia which he actually had to back away from after being lambasted by hostile blowback from within the Fascist movement! Then in 1938 he officially adopted the whole anti-Semitic, "Aryan" ideology (unfortunately, it is this latter anti-Semitic fascism that is subscribed to by Italian neo-fascist organizations).
Parenthetically, the topic of Jews and Italian Fascism is quite interesting. While there were always anti-Semites in the Fascist Party (such as Roberto Farinacci), there were also philo-Semites such as Italo Balbo, and there were many Jewish members of the Fascist Party--until 1938, that is. While his sincerity was obviously lacking, Mussolini did at one time actually advocate a Jewish state in Israel and was supported by some Zionists (most prominently 'Abba' 'Achime'ir). Then at other times he would warn "Zionists" not to stir up anti-Semitism in Italy by "agitating" for a Jewish state.
Anyway, annalex, I would think that Antonio Oliveira de Salazar would be a more appropriate model for right wing corporatists to follow than Mussolini's Fascism. And Salazar banned fascist parties in Portugal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.