The Crimean Way
by Alexander Dugin
One can highlight four main streams of events that happened in the last week in the Ukrainian drama:
– The start of the presidential campaign and the attempt of Kiev to present “the beginning of the election cycle,” which was marked by a clash of the Poroshenko’s group against the group of Timoshenko;
– The attempt of the illegitimate pro-American grouping, which controls power in Kiev, to find a solution of the issue with neo-Nazi formations (“Right sector”, the trial of Goran);
– Diplomatic battle of Russia on international arena concerning the defense of its position in the Crimea and the idea of federalization;
– Revolutionary events on the South East which happened this weekend and preceding it uncertain repression of the civil society activists from South East who obey the illegitimate “power” in Kiev.
Imitation of the “Election” and its Boycott in South East
Kiev has struggled to show that nothing special is happening now, and, regardless of the total victory of the “revolution” on Euromaidan and the overthrow of Yanukovich, the country can joyfully enter into the spring election cycle. At least, according to the Ukrainian media, it seems to be the truth. However, there is no grounds to believe it, because the so-called “election” takes place in a country, where not only a unconstitutional coup just occurred several months ago, but which also lost the huge territory of Crimea, and has to do with massive wave of protests in the South-East.
In this situation the West has the following intention: to attract attention to the competition between two equally pro-American candidates, Poroshenko and Tymoshenko, and (even relatively) to “legitimize” the May election by involving to it the so-called “Candidates of the East” (Tsarev, Dobkin, Tigipko ). Since the election is held in extreme circumstances, even in the hypothetical case of revolution, victory will be awarded to a western candidate (because the West indeed, – the US. / NATO and the western regions of Ukraine – staged the March coup of Euromaidan in Kiev). Afterwards the new government will organize fully fledged repressions in the South and the East which may further escalate the conflict with Russia. This is the plan of both the US and illegitimate grouping which controls Kiev that is executing their plan. This performance will unfold by its own logic until May and its objective is not the result, but the process itself. The existing system, both indirectly and unconsciously, is already legitimatized by involving people in the theme of “elections”. It also strengthens in the mind of civil society the idea of an irreversible coup. However, this “ruse” is transparent for all observant people who follow the situation in the Ukraine.
Firstly, Russia has clearly announced that it does not recognize in advance the results of the May election. According to the Russia’s point of view, it does not matter whether the May election will be conducted or not and who will win. In this context, the fact that Tsarev will be one of the candidates should not be overestimated. Moscow sympathizes with this anti-Western politician, but does not bet on him: his chances are slim and his participation plays into the hands of illegal groupings. Moscow has positive attitudes towards Tsarev, but his nomination as a candidate for President is not welcome. If Moscow does not recognize the election, illegitimate governors will not be able to establish diplomatic relations with Moscow even after May. Given, of course, that this general election takes place at all in such circumstances.
Secondly, Russia insists on holding a referendum about the status of the areas of the South East of Ukraine and its federalization (or confederation). Russia believes that Ukraine should be “created” first and then holds the election. Moscow understands the situation in the following way: there are two nations, two societies in Ukraine. The West and Kiev relate to zapadentsi (a pejorative term for western Ukrainians), the South and the East relate to Russia (and it is history, culture, language, religion, identity and social characteristics). They always vote in the opposite way: the former for a Western (pro-American, pro-European) candidate and the latter vote for a pro-Russian candidate. Yushchenko was zapadenets. Yanukovych relied on the South East. Euromaidan overthrew eastern Yanukovych, and as result of a coup brought legitimate zapadentsi to power.
The united nation of Ukraine could be created only with the consideration of both identities, but nobody could do that, neither Western candidates nor Eastern. Today in Kiev zapadentsi are relying on neo-Nazis and have proclaimed a policy which should turn all Ukraine (excluding the Crimea) to the “Zapadenia” (the country specifically for zapadentsi). One proof of this is the abolition of the Russian language and the general russophobia of the regime. Radical zapadentsi control Kiev and therefore the South East of Ukraine, which means that at least half of the population will become victims of inevitable cultural and ethnic genocide. Russia will not allow it that is why it requires federalization at first and election after that. If there is no federalization and referendum about the status of areas, there will be no Ukraine in its current borders. This is what Moscow and Minister Of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov mean.
Federalisation is the Kremlin’s Ultimatum to Washington
Federalization is the only condition upon which Russia will recognize any future Ukrainian authorities. Even if Washington is willing to go for it, in order to at least pacify Moscow infuriated by the overthrow of Yanukovych, in the current situation Kiev will not agree with the federalization in any case. The regime took the power under extreme nationalist slogans in a Russophobic chauvinistic frenzy.
Therefore, Kiev will persist with election without referendum or federalization. And what will Moscow do in this case? As its ultimatum will be rejected.
We will see it later, but we need to note the important fact: in the view of Moscow there is no election. This means that there is none for south eastern regions of Ukraine either, which are guided by Moscow, and after the reunification of the Crimea, not just guided, but setting hopes upon, and for the first time in 23 years really trusting it. Moscow firmly asserts that there is no election. There is no way the South East of Ukraine cannot hear Putin who said that election before referendum and without federalization is effectively a treason. Therefore, the May election will be radically boycotted by the South East. This is just a part of Moscow’s ultimatum, but not all there is to it.
Atlanto-Fascism : Paradoxes of Network Warfare and the Laws of Geopolitics
The second theme of the last week is the intrigue around the “Right Sector”, the rumors about joining it by Kolomoyskiy, trial and acquittal of the murderers from “White Hammer” in Kiev , pro-NATO and the liberal program of “presidential candidate” Yarosh , his recognition in collaboration with the CIA, etc.
“Right Sector” and radical Ukrainian ultra-nationalism in general (sometimes a direct neo-Nazism) is the intrigue of Euromaidan. Usually, in American “color revolutions” liberals and anarchists play the main roles. This time the ultra-nationalists with a Russophobic direction appearing under the banner of UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) and with portraits of Hitler’s toadies Bandera and Shukhevych were in the foreground. Such a daring political-technological solution of the CIA is a repetition of similar schemes in the Islamic world, where the United States has traditionally supported the Wahhabi and Salafi radical groups that stage different coups beneficial to Washington, terrorist attacks, and other extreme operations. Wahhabism and Salafism are the core of Atlanticism’s proxy in the Islamic world, and we can see it in Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc. Some time ago, the United States began to test instrumentalisation of extreme right-wing movements in Europe, as well as in Ukraine and even in Russia; exemplified by the cases of Breivik, Russian national-democrats, etc.
Liberals increased the flow of migrants with one hand, and with the other hand began to support radical neo-Nazi groups which were organized to fight against the same immigration. The aim is to destabilize society and create the conditions for the “color revolutions”. On Euromaidan, the United States tried the new network strategy of using neo-Nazi groups to stage coups on such a scale for the first time, and it also may be considered as the origin of the “Right Sector” phenomenon.
This is the theory and the practice of the new Western tendency of network warfare. Of course, not all ultra-nationalists can count on support from Washington, the CIA and tycoons integrated into the international financial oligarchy (often of Jewish origin, such as roguish billionaire Igor Kolomoiskiy, who was assigned by the Kiev illegitimate grouping as a “governor” of Dnepropetrovsk, while he is the head of both the European Jewish Congress and the “Right Sector”), but only those who oppose the enemies of the US and NATO or loyal to them both. Now the U.S is fighting to keep the unipolar model of the world. At the same time, Russia more and more successfully defends the multipolar model of the world.
Therefore, those neo-Nazis who oppose Russia are in a privileged situation and are actively involved in the U.S strategies. Similarly, Bjezinskiy used al-Qaeda and Bin Laden in Afghanistan among Muslims to promote resistance to the pro-Soviet forces. In order to secure the loyalty to their owners, the neo-Nazis, such as Goran or Yarosh, emphasize their support for NATO, visit the Israeli embassy in a pointed manner and vow fidelity to liberal values.
It is a secret of this week: after an activist of the “Right Sector” fired three bullets into the Defense of the Maidan member, the headquarters of the “Right Sector” just quietly changed its location. A blood-stained Goran who killed representatives of traffic police was safely released.
We are dealing with the phenomenon of atlanto-fascism, the liberal version of Nazism, which is covered by the US and oligarchic forces of globalism. At first glance, this is a paradox and an anomaly. But for those who are familiar with the rules of conduct of the network war and the laws of geopolitics, it is, on the contrary, quite logical . The network, which was organized in the postmodernist way, involves the use of characters free from any ideology, but who can be easily manipulated and be beneficial during network operations. Geopolitics divides representatives of any ideology into two camps: for the U.S, NATO, European Union, a unipolar world (atlantists) and for Russia, multipolarity, BRICS (Eurasians). Whatever views Atlanticists have, they will be supported by the liberals and financial oligarchy dominant in Atlanticism.
And it does not matter which views are professed by the supporters of multipolarity and Eurasians, they will be discredited and accused of all mortal sins.
In this context, the situation with the “Right Sector” is a simply brilliant illustration. If a frank Nazi killer stands for the U.S and NATO against Russia, he is not a Nazi, not a fascist and not a killer. But if a democrat or a person without any ideology is on the side of Russia, he is automatically accused of “fascism”, “Nazism”, “Stalinism”, etc. Many observers of events in Ukraine have had quite a shock because of these double standards. They are shown the thugs holding portraits of Hitler’s henchman Bandera and are told that those are “peaceful liberals”. The thugs show a Russian girl-skater, and the inscription reads: “This is a cynical and deceitful face of Putin’s fascism”. There is a reason to go crazy. Especially if you watch shows on Ukrainian TV. But it is not only about the Ukrainians. It is just the new rules of network operations according to the laws of geopolitics.
Russia vs USA: Two Types of Brutality
At the international level, Russia has entered into a diplomatic battle with the United States. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the debate is being waged between two nuclear powers. And thus, the responsibility on both sides is huge.
Russia defends the position: Crimea is a Russian territory, Ukraine-federalization, the May elections are invalid, Yanukovych is the president. U.S parries: the referendum in Crimea is invalid, Ukraine is a Unitary State, the May elections are legitimate, and the current Kiev authorities represent the country legitimately. None of the parties can come to a consensus on any issue.
The only difference is that the U.S pressures Russia regarding its vital interests, and Russia does not allow the U.S to do this. In other words, America is essentially committed an act of aggression against Russia by supporting the coup in Kiev. And Washington’s support for Kiev groups is in effect an attack. Meanwhile, Russia is defending and is doing it in pretty tough way.
A cruelty of both the U.S and Russia is fundamentally different: for America the fate of Ukraine plays a secondary role, it is not included in the area of vital U.S interests, as it is geographically far and the US has many challenges besides Russia. So the Americans put the pressure just in case, probing Russia by the use of direct contact. Even if the U.S steps back or gives Ukraine to Moscow, even in this case it does not lose much because Ukraine was anyway completely neutral before and out of its control. In this situation neither the U.S nor NATO will fight under any circumstances. And hypothetically they can easily move back to the starting position.
However, Russia is risking everything. The cruelty of Moscow is forced, in this situation; Russia cannot generally concede any points, risking to qualitatively impairing the level of security, because even if NATO enters the Western Ukraine and moves to the Eastern border, the loss of the Crimea and the South East will be a strategic suicide for Russia. So Moscow fights for its ideas so desperately; we simply have no opportunity to take any steps back. Strategically we would lose, even if we reunited with the South East and the border was on the cutting line of the Dnieper from the North East (Sumy-Chernigov) to the South West (Odessa). Therefore, Lavrov and Putin have chosen the softest platform for a confrontation with the West. Federalization is a chance for Kiev to maintain control over the entire territory (excluding the Crimea). The US cruelty is quite predictable. The cruelty of Moscow impresses and inspires a horror to the fifth column and hope to patriots. But this Russia-USA game has just begun.
South-East of Ukraine: The Crimean Way
The most important things that have been done: the revolt of the South-East this weekend, the capturing of Regional City administration in Donetsk, Luhansk , Kharkiv and Mariupol, the impressive mobilisation in Odessa, the proclamation of the republic in Donetsk. In fact, one thing is clear: the South-East has risen. This is the second wave of the Ukrainian revolution, the Russian Spring.
During Euromaidan against Yanukovych (a president from the East) not only Kiev rebelled, but the whole Western Ukraine. The wave of the capturings of Regional City administrations was only in the West. Everywhere there the power was captured by nationalist and ultra-nationalist forces that are in sympathy with Euromaidan. They also supplied provincial crowd scene in Kiev. It was a revolt of the Ukrainian west against the Russian east. And at the first stage it ended with a victory of the west of Ukraine.
Until the coup the balance of forces were: the West advocated for rebellion and mass unrest, the East advocated for constitutional and general order. The West was synonymous with revolution, the East – with peace and reaction. Today roles have radically changed. The West defeated the East in Kiev and is trying to declare it as a victory of the whole Ukraine. But there is no united Ukraine and it has not been created over 23 years. Therefore, there is only the West and Kiev occupied by the West (geopolitically it generally refers to the Right Bank) and the South-East. Now when the revolution of the West has turned into (albeit illegal and illegitimate but) order, there is a revolutionary response – the revolution of the East. Everything has become the opposite. From Kiev, from the pro-American lackey Nalivaychenko, proceed orders about reprisals, arrests of activists, suppression of civil uprisings, and the people of South-East decisively take their fate into their own hands. Western Ukraine currently has the role of a repressive regime stronghold, meanwhile the South- East rebelled, is organizing Veche (national assembly), requiring independence, capturing Regional City administrations, announcing the general strike and refusing to obey Kiev. This is the second part of the Ukrainian revolution, but now South East is a symbol of rebellion, and Kiev and the West is the bulwark of reaction.
What is the cause of the South East rebellion? It is easy to answer. It rebelled against zapadentsy radical nationalism, Russophobia and reckless targeting on the U.S and the EU thereby hurting Russia. If one thinks about it carefully, the South East opposed all this before, supporting those candidates who promised rapprochement with Russia, the status of Russian language as a state language, non-aligned status of Ukraine, etc. But while democratic law and procedures were in place, the South East was in the legal field. After the stage of the western coup, legality was abolished. It took the South-East some time to realize this fact, and since April 6th, we may say that this realization has finally come. The South East rejects Kiev, as it is now, refuses to obey and has taken the path of rebellion. This rebellion is against Kiev and the zapadentsi’s Ukraine, which Kiev tries to “legitimize”. The election in May is the most important step in this effort. Therefore, the South East rebelled against it.
If the power in Kiev was different, the requirements of the South-East would be relatively moderate. There would be just as before, such as, the rapprochement with Russia, official status of the Russian language, refusal of accelerated European integration and NATO, etc. And even without federalization. But radicalism and illegal nature of the Kiev authorities after Euromaidan left the South East no chance for hope of the peaceful fulfillment of these demands. It is impossible, and people from the South East have realized it. Now there are only three ways: the soft one is federalism, the medium is an independent state (New Russia) and the extreme one is reunification with Russia.
But in order to achieve any of the three solutions, the South East must defend its complete political and military independence. Kiev, in its ultra-nationalist euphoria, will definitely begin reprisals against “southeastern separatists instigated by Moscow”. It means that the South East will repel these attacks, release their community leaders from custody (such as People’s Donetsk Governor Paul Gubarev and others), and create independent authorities and self-defense units. Without this action Kiev does not want to hear about federalism. The South East can force Kiev to federalism only using power. And this power should be solid, persistent and well-organized. But Kiev is supported by the US and the European Union – financially and politically right up to military trainers and private armies. Therefore, the fight will be unequal.
The direct assistance of Moscow is necessary to even the odds. And Moscow will grant this assistance. And here we are facing a paradox: in order to achieve the realization of even the minimum program (federalization), the South East would need a direct assistance of Moscow, almost to the same extent as for the program maximum (complete reunification) and the medium program (independent State of Novorossia). And it is clearly understood by the rebels themselves: hence Russian flags prevail on all mass demonstrations, rallies, and seizures. It is definitely a Russian Revolution and it is openly conducted under the Russian banner: the South East keenly sees itself with Russia, and feels that Kiev and western Ukraine, presented by Bandera, Shukhevych, Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the “Right Sector” and by the oligarchs ( Poroshenko Tymoshenko Kolomojsky Taruta etc.), is completely alien, hostile, dangerous and hateful.
Therefore, it is possible to make a conclusion: despite the moderate position of the official Moscow (Putin, Lavrov), Russian Revolution of the South East of Ukraine is aimed not only at federalization. The aim is clear: the Crimean scenario. And for that it is acceptable and necessary to pay any price.
Alexander Dugin (b. 1962) is one of the best-known writers and political commentators in post-Soviet Russia. In addition to the many books he has authored on political, philosophical and spiritual topics, he currently serves on the staff of Moscow State University, and is the intellectual leader of the Eurasia Movement. For more than a decade, he has also been an adviser to Vladimir Putin and others in the Kremlin on geopolitical matters.
His first English language book, the Fourth Political Theory, is available here.
Edited by James Porrazzo for Open Revolt