The Crimea Annexation: Who’s Side?

The Crimea Annexation:
Putin Profits from Stalin’s Crimes

1,307 words

[Editors Note: 
The Article posted below is, assurredly, a strong and personal view of the developments in the Ukraine. There are, seeminly, many disparate and compelling statements – some running counter-intuitive to the reasoning and world-view of American White Nationalists – as well as many in Europe.
Expressions of intent and information are always welcomed by reasonable people, when dealing with the individual and collective racial imperatives of our Euro-Folk.
With that said, the most telling aspects of this article was not the ‘meat and potatoes’, as it were, but the various ‘comments’, which have followed on the heels of the original article.
After the article, one is encouraged to read those comments, which brought a certain articulate and comprehensive (if not also brief) understanding of the issues, and more reasonably in line with traditional and the evolving White Nationalist (and Intra-natationalist) world view.
~ The Staff ~]

Times are changing fast. The political and social climate in the West is proving to bestalin_putin-204x300 auspicious for White Nationalists to come to power in the future. Indeed, this may happen sooner than we think. It has therefore to be insured that once White Nationalists come to power they espouse the world-view conducive to making decisions in the best interests of the white race.

However, observing how European nationalists naively pay homage to Vladimir Putin and fawn over Russia, one cannot help but wonder if the White Nationalist movement would really serve white interests if it ascended to power in its current form and if the hypothetical victory of European nationalist parties would actually be good for white Europeans.

There is, indeed, a lot to be corrected and reshaped in the current White Nationalist worldview before it becomes a coherent thought system not only ready to take power but more importantly to use that power to bring salvation to the white race. It seems that a crucial aspect of this reshaping process will have to be dispelling the illusions harbored by many White Nationalists about Russia and, in particular, about the intentions of its leader, Vladimir Putin.

Recently, the representatives of the Flemish Vlaams Belang, Hungarian Jobbik, and other nationalist parties in Europe participated as “international observers” voicing their support for the Russian annexation of Crimea during the referendum held on March 16, which was carried out at gunpoint under Russian occupation. Obviously, the authenticity of the results, like those of any election in Putin’s Russia, are highly doubtful, to say the least. Other European nationalist parties made official statements along the same lines, alluding to Crimea allegedly being a historical part of Russia and Russians comprising the majority of the population on the peninsula. I wish to argue, however, that White Nationalist support for the Russian annexation of Crimea amounts to a ratification of Stalin’s crimes.

Crimea and Eastern Ukraine Were Never Ethnically Russian Throughout History

Ethnic Russians became the majority in Crimea only after the ethnic cleansing of Crimean Tatars, Greeks, and Armenians by Stalin, which culminated in hundreds of thousands of them being deported to Central Asia during WWII. Prior to the mass deportations of 1944, Crimean Tatars and Greeks were the largest ethnic groups populating the peninsula. Many of them died in exile from hunger and disease. Later, most of the survivors were forbidden to resettle in Crimea. Instead the peninsula was repopulated with Russian colonists from the central regions of Russia.

The same holds true for the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine, which today have a largely Russian-speaking population. Prior to the Holodomor, Ukrainians were by far the largest group in those regions. There were also large Greek and Tatar communities but not as populous as in Crimea. However, through the Holodomor an estimated 7 to 8 million Ukrainians were starved to death by the Soviet government in a deliberate attempt to eradicate the indigenous population and to thwart the rise of Ukrainian nationalism. And, as it always was, they were replaced by Russians. Thus Russians currently populating Kharkiv, Donetsk, and other eastern regions are mostly descendants of those who were settled there after 1933 following the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Ukrainian population.

Back in Western Europe, in certain parts of Paris and Berlin, Arabs and Turks respectively already constitute the majority of the population. With the logic applied to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, those districts then have to be ceded to Algeria and Turkey, with more parts of France, Germany, and other European countries being candidates for future secession. Have European nationalists thought about such a logical application of the “self-determination” principle?

Acknowledging the right of self-determination for every ethnic group is an importantFoundations pic aspect of White Nationalism, no doubt about that. However, with their recognition of the sham referendum and Russian annexation of Crimea, European nationalists became complicit in the fraud and blatant violations committed by Russia. Do they really believe that a fair referendum can be carried out under gunpoint, within two weeks after the announcement of its date, in the absence of any prior campaigning, and without giving floor to the opposition? Moreover, White Nationalists apparently are not aware that Russians currently constitute 58% of the Crimean population, whereas according to the official results of the referendum 93% voted for Crimean “independence.” Do they seriously believe in the authenticity of this number? Last but not least, apparently they are also not aware that Crimean Tatars, who constitute 13% of the population, did not vote at all.

Finally, no sane person at least slightly familiar with Russia can believe that Russian government and officials, who commit blatant human rights violations in every sphere of life in their own country, will suddenly become interested in conducting a fair referendum, especially since Putin and his high-ranking officials were openly expressing their intentions to annex Crimea even before the announcement of the referendum date.

Russians Living in Post-Soviet Republics Serve as Pretexts for Russia’s Imperial Ambitions

If the Russian government was really concerned about the Russian speakers living inputin-stalin-2-260x262 post-Soviet republics it would try to repatriate them back to Russia. That would have been the only honest and decent thing to do, since those lands populated by Russians were never ethnically, culturally, or linguistically Russian territories. This holds true not only for Ukraine, but also for Moldova and the Baltic States, which also have a large Russian population that was settled there during Soviet occupation after millions of indigenous inhabitants were either massacred or deported from their ancestral homelands.

The Russian government is not only unconcerned with repatriating ethnic Russians, its “concern” for their situation in those countries is also disingenuous. Russians living in Baltic countries enjoy all the fruits of civilized and prosperous societies created by smart, hard-working, and conscientious Balts, which they could not even dream of obtaining in the country of their ancestors – their “beloved” Russia. They can freely speak their native tongue everywhere and feel secure. They have their own Orthodox churches, built with taxes paid by the indigenous populations, and can freely profess their religion. When their countrymen were in power, they surely did not provide such opportunities to the indigenous population. In addition, there are also many former Soviet soldiers and partisans, so called “heroes of the Great Patriotic War,” who participated in mass killings and deportations of Baltic peoples, now living in those countries and getting pensions from their governments.

Nevertheless, it must be recognized that ethnic Russians living in European post-Soviet republics carry one “burden.” They are obliged to learn the official language of the country in order to be eligible for important posts in government, many other prestigious jobs, and to apply for citizenship. This, however, is enough for the Russian government and media sources to brand those countries “fascist” and rant hysterically about the “oppression of the Russian-speaking population.”

There are, however, other post-Soviet countries with a significant Russian population: the Central Asian states like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, etc. In those countries, Russians do indeed face real oppression, are deprived of many rights as human beings, and sometimes cannot even walk safely on the street. However, they are of no interest to the Putin government and its ideologues since the Central Asian states effectively remain Russian satellites, with analogous despotic and corrupt social structures.

Recently, after grabbing Crimea and poising to attack Eastern Ukraine, Russia became “interested” in the condition of Russians living in Estonia. Voices are being raised in Transnystria, a Russian enclave within Moldova which became “Russian” through the same process that took place in Ukraine and the Baltic States, for Russia to come and save them from the “Moldovan yoke.” Should that happen, will European nationalists also support Russian occupation of those territories on the same grounds as they supported the annexation of Crimea?

One can only wonder what will come next.





Posted March 25, 2014 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

Whilst it’s refreshing to finally come across a view that falls short of forced veneration of the Russian bear, the angle of this article is somewhat unhelpful. Whilst it’s undoubtedly true that many nationalists incorrectly believe Moscow to be the antidote to the amoral and American-led West, and that Vladimir Putin will become something of an eager foster parent for European civilisation, vapid moralising is not the way to change their minds.

What the Crimean predicament really reveals is the level of infighting between European peoples and the moribund nature of nation states in post-modernity. Rather than callously writing off the Ukrainians in the name of childish conceptions of geopolitics, we should be discussing how to foster positive relations between these two proud, Slavic peoples whilst at the same term securing self-determination for the population of the Crimea.

As the European New Right suggests, we must pursue a policy of regionalisation and practice self-overcoming. Putin, and his gangster-like government, represent petit-bourgeois interests and the same irredentist tendencies that compelled tens of millions of Europeans to slaughter one and other in the early 20th century.

Thus, Russia is important, but not beyond criticism. Putin is far more desirable than Western leaders, but this doesn’t make him ‘us’ or in any form ‘ideal’. The Russians have dealt the liberal West a bloody nose, but this in of itself doesn’t offer our movement any tangible opportunities.


Slate Slabrock

Posted March 25, 2014 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

Nationalists who sided with the West and did the fighting on the Maidan are already being executed by their allies. So clearly that wasn’t the correct choice. They never had a chance, as we suspected all along.

Meanwhile, Crimean Russians have achieved their aims quickly and decisively, leaving a failed state where many people hate them to join a motherland that just happens to be much wealthier and more stable. The transition is going to be virtually seamless for them, they won’t even lose their government jobs.

So in this case, there was no choice at all. Putin worked to benefit a group of Russians and bring them back home. The West used some nationalists, betrayed them and murdered one of their leaders. I doubt he’ll be the last.

Additionally, mainstream sources agree that the police and the protestors on the Maidan were being shot by the same bullets in the same places, probably by the same mystery snipers. So the reaction of the Yanukovych government to the disturbances was relatively measured and some kind of outside force was stirring up the violence. Yanukovych was no doubt corrupt and weak, but it does change the narrative substantially. His response was probably a lot softer than the response you’d see to such a violent protest in the U.S..

Maybe Putin deployed the snipers to justify a Russian invasion of Crimea, but I doubt it. He had no need to do so because if Yanukovych held on to power the base in Crimea would have remained secure and Putin would not have had to take risky measures in defying the international community. The effect of the sniper attacks was to destroy the legitimacy of Yanukovych’s government and ultimately lead to his downfall. So if the snipers came from an outside force, it was probably the enemy or the opposition supported by the enemy. Putin might be ruthless enough to deploy them, but he was playing defense, so they didn’t work in his favor.

We should not trust Putin, but we were right to warn the Ukrainian nationalists to be very skeptical of their “allies” and there is nothing wrong with cheering for Putin when he foiled another enemy operation and improved the situation of a bunch of his countrymen, as long as we don’t get carried away and project our values onto him.

We should be ethno-nationalists, but not ethno-nationalist fundamentalists. The survival of Europeans as a genetically intact people is the most important goal, not the idealized vision of a pretty little map with each group in its own ethno-state. It may be that some individual ethno-states are too weak to stand alone in the current environment and that it is better to remain under the protection of a greater power, instead of risking everything on an incredibly low percentage shot at creating a nationalist Ukraine out of a coup orchestrated by the enemy.

Sad to say, but the bravery of Ukrainian Nationalists was used against them, better that they had stayed home. They were only disposable cannon fodder. The two forces at play here were Russia (defending its sphere of influence) and the enemy, trying to tighten the noose around Russia’s neck. They just didn’t figure Putin would be willing to change the rules of the game and grab Crimea outright. It’s hardly a great victory for him though, more of last gamble to avoid a very serious defeat. The rubicon has been crossed.


Greg Johnson

Posted March 26, 2014 at 2:18 am | Permalink

1. Virtually the entire map of Eastern and Central Europe is record of Stalin’s crimes, as well as those of Churchill and Roosevelt and before them the Treaty of Versailles and Treaty of Saint Germain. It is completely understandable why these nations should wish to right historical wrongs, rectify borders, and expel alien colonists. I just don’t see how that can be done without increasing ethic tensions between European groups, so from the perspective of long-term particular and pan-European genetic interests, I think it preferable to accept certain facts on the ground, no matter how unjust their origins, e.g., the present German-Polish border is a historical crime, but Germany and Poland are relatively ethnically homogeneous, and rolling back to pre-1939 borders would create real ethnic problems.

2. If Mother Russia wishes to gather her children home, then she needs to buy them train tickets to the motherland, not send troops into neighboring countries. I think it is insane that the United States is pledged to go to war to secure the borders of the Baltic states, but I completely understand why the Baltic countries want such guarantees, given their restive Russian colonists and past history of Russian subjugation. If I were Ukraine, I would be eager for such guarantees as well. If Russia does not want NATO at her doorstep, perhaps she should repatriate her nationals and stop verbally abusing her neighbors as fascists for the slightest acts of national self-assertion.

3. The Crimean annexation is a fait accompli, but yes, the referendum was almost certainly fraudulent and conducted in bad faith. Ukraine can at least take solace in the loss of a large number of Russians and virtually all of her Muslims. Sometimes one must subtract territory to add ethnic homogeneity. By this standard, Ukraine got the better end of the deal.

4. Post WWII non-European colonists in Europe proper must simply be deported. Humanely if possible, brutally if they force the matter, but they must all go. If we can’t stand for that, then we stand for nothing and deserve nothing. We owe non-Europeans less consideration than fellow Europeans in this regard. Poland can keep Silesia, but Turkey does not get one city block of Germany. I think that can be defended on solid ethnonationalist grounds.

One More:

Dr. James Saleam

Posted March 26, 2014 at 9:20 am | Permalink

I think this article has a dangereous component. I have noticed curiosities in a few places from Alternative Right advertising a Ukrainian blog that asserts that Golden Dawn is being paid with Russian money to favour Putin’s actions in Ukraine, through to some asserting Putin’s corruption, to a sub text in some publications about the plucky little Ukraine taking independence from the successor to Stalinism (with a few references to the good days of the Nazis coming to the Ukraine and their politics being revived in the Ukrainian nationaloists of today).

I would suspect that there are some who would have us mobilized against Putinism. It might be that just as the Us regime tolerates ‘fascists’ in its chosen governmnet for Ukraine, so the same forces would have us opposed to the ‘positive’ side of Putinism which is its challenge to New World Order politics.

I agree that Putin is not a nationalist as we would mean it and he has suppressed nationalist organisations; his Eurasian Union if perfected may have the impact of multiracializing Great Russia and other Slavic lands unless borders are closed; there is a case for a Ukrainian state. However, the subtle line of some would turn us back into Russophobes and that would be wrong too.

I think we need to be very direct.

It would seem that the patriots of Svoboda and Right Sector have been co-opted into supporting a liberal revolution in Ukraine. This too would bring disaster to the country. It has been the history of a lot of Ukrainian nationalist groups from the Cold War and beyond that they grasp at seeming ‘options’ and end up short changed.

Certainly, Ukraine should be independent. The sheer problems of winning independence are shown from the historical past when the country found itself the plaything of the two great powers of yesterday – Hitler;s Germany and Stalin’s USSR and torn between the two ideologies of fascism and communism.

It is difficult today as well. For us ‘independence’ should mean that won by true nationalists, not the fake nominal independence acquired by liberals who then immerse the country in the EU and NATO. That means the nationalists must have an independent line and win a genuine free Ukraine. How they deal later with (hopeful) a future new Europe of Peoples and perhaps some sort of Russian union would be a matter for them.

However, there is evidence that Right Sector is not the genuine article. Svoboda is a different thing because it has had contact with European nationalist organisations. I have taken some guide from the European nationalists.

I noted that, Forza Nuova and Fiamma Tricolore in Italy have warned Svoboda not to be taken in by joining Europe and so forth. They have suggested that Ukraine’s real enemy lies in the institutions of globalism. I would say that if these respected groups say ‘be cautious’, then I would too. The Germans in the NPD have said pretty much the same.

But most of the European nationalist ire was directed at the group called Right Sector. It talks ‘extreme right’ language but confers with Senator John McCain, denounces racism (and the obligatory anti Semitism), toasts the Israeli ambassador (with whom it now pledges to monitor racism in Ukraine) and so forth. I would say that if the communist theory of fascism was right, so I can pinch the language – these people would be the thug force of the capitalist regime. I think that this group came from virtually nowhere and was much more ideologically weaker than Svovoda and has just been swallowed. Once it has done its job, the system will discard it.

We have seen the capitalist IMF pledge loans in exchange for the usual pledges over the resources trade and the notorious oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky has been in Ukraine conferring with the new regime there. Undoubtedly, he is the vanguard of the traditional capitalists and possibly too – the Zionist fraction of capital. I believe he has met with all the minsters as a symbol of the stage-managed anti Russia aspect of the revolution.

If the genuine nationalists can break soon with the liberals, it would be to the good. If they cannot, then regardless of how they look and sound, they are co-opted vessels.

As that trite adage says: time will tell.

This entry was posted in Anti-Western Media, Civic Responsibility, Inter-Nationalism, Philosophy of White Nationalism, Spirituality, Traditions, Western Culture, White Nationalism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s