Quote: Originally Posted by petros
He isn't old enough to understand Soviets and a lot have forgotten who they are but the Soviet "rebels" are Russian Soviets not rebels. Bolshevik cocksuckers.
It's true. I'm not old enough to know the hate, maybe you grew up hearing about it. I'm stuck with reading about it. The Romans never came back and neither are the Soviets. Time has moved along.Eurasia Movement Interviews Boris Nad on Novorossiya (external - login to view)
How do you assess the current events in the east of Ukraine? What is the meaning of the current geopolitical conflict?
On the face of it this is a conflict between two nations – Ukrainian and Russian. At least that’s how it’s represented in the Western media. And that is, of course, deeply wrong. Western media have kept silent about, or are hiding the fact that “the Ukrainian nation” and “the Ukrainian state” actually has never really existed in history. It is no doubt a cheap media trick and ruthless manipulation.
The “Majdan” movement in Kiev showed the true face of the so-called Ukrainian national revolution: one in which pro-American and pro-NATO liberals are united with Ukrainian neo-Nazis, followers of Bandera. All this was made possible with the generous assistance from and organizing of the United States. After the coup in Kiev, quite expectedly, was followed by a campaign of terror against a large portion of the population of Ukraine.
In the former Ukraine today it is not a conflict between two nations, but titanic clash of two geopolitical poles (two, not three). These two poles are America, with its satellites, and Russia. There is no third party. The first force is on the side of the uniform, the liberal, and the totalitarian unipolar world, overt American hegemony; while the other – Russia, represents a multipolar world, with their very different
traditions; a multipolar world that is still in the making. In the conflict in Novorossia it is therefore possible to see its many dimensions: geopolitical, ideological, historical, ethnic, religious … but, in its deepest essence, it is an age-old conflict of the earth and the sea, land and ocean, of course in a new form. It’s just a new form of the ancient continents of the Great War, of which Alexander Dugin has spoken inspiringly.
How important is the conflict in Novorossia for Europe? Is there a single position of European countries in relation to this conflict?
The war in Ukraine is of crucial importance for Europe. That is the war in Europe, for the real continental Europe, and not that liberal creation in Brussels, Maastricht and Lisbon, which is in reality a zone of US occupation in the territory of Eurasia. Unfortunately many Europeans are not aware of that. Those who are aware come to the forefront in defense Novorossia and support its heroic struggle, because it is not just a fight for freedom of Novorossia, but also the struggle for the freedom of Europe; for the freedom of diversity, for the continent, for the tradition, and against American liberal totalitarianism.
A single and clear position of European countries regarding the conflict in the former Ukraine does not exist for one obvious reason: The European Union is neither a sovereign nor an independent force, it is not an independent geopolitical factor, but only branches of the United States, and quite second-rate at that. All that the EU has done so far during on the crisis of the former Ukraine was to the detriment of Europe and Russia.
Because today the struggle of the Novorossian heroes is for all true Europeans, or at least those who do not want to be slaves to the “new world order” in the American way; it provides an example that should be followed.
What are the interests of Europe with regard to Ukraine? What would be the most acceptable geopolitical reconfiguration of the space to Europe?
As we have already said, there is no such thing that could be called the “geopolitics of the European Union.” The European Union has failed to establish itself as a separate geopolitical factor, with their own interests that are different from the interests of the United States. We believe that this will change for the better in the future, but a necessary precondition for it is the further decline of American hegemony. Until then, the EU remains only as an American bridgehead on the ground of Eurasia, in fact it is the American occupation zone. This EU everywhere and always acts against the interests of Europe.
It is therefore not only necessary for there to be a geopolitical reconfiguration of the former Soviet space, but also geopolitical reconfiguration of the whole of Europe, including the European Union. In other words, the EU itself should begin with deep structural reform and questioning their own geopolitical role. It is necessary immediately but at present the European political elite, or rather pseudo-elite, is simply not capable. Just look at the role of Germany, which behaves as an American vassal. Germany today, however, is an occupied country.
As a first step, it is necessary to recognize the statehood of Novorossia, something which the West, for now, stubbornly refuses. The entire Ukraine is, after all, historically undoubtedly part of the “Russian world”, and so should remain so. Except maybe its western part, having primarily the mentality of Uniatic Galicia, which is a kind of transitional area towards Central Europe.
The future free continental Europe will have an overriding interest in a free and powerful Russia, and with an agreement with Russia. And that is the key to Europe’s future.
Bovdunov: Is Europe ready for a war in the case of more open Russian involvement in the military conflict?
Nad: Not even NATO is prepared to enter into an open war with Russia over Ukraine. Engagement of the North Atlantic alliance therefore boils down to supplying the Kiev Junta with arms, mercenaries and military advisers; but as you can see it is not enough to decide the outcome of the war. They failed to break Novorossian desire for freedom.
The American position is much clearer: they are willing to take the war to the last Ukrainian, and the last European. And both of them here are intended to be “cannon fodder”.
What is the impact of the war on relations between Russia and Europe? – How can we evaluate the ideological component of a new war in Europe? Why do you think in the case of the Ukrainian side there are battalions of National Socialists sponsored by Jewish oligarchs, and in the case of the rebels are fighting alongside each other nationalists, Orthodox traditionalists and people nostalgic for the Soviet Union?
America’s interest is to provoke and deepen the rift between Europe and Russia, and that from an American perspective, is one of the main goals of the war which is now dominant in the former Ukraine. A balanced position from the Kremlin has contributed to the fact that the split does not become insurmountable, of course provided that the EU does not follow unquestioningly in its the future course the dictates of Washington. EU would have to take a much more independent position.
The alliance of Ukrainian Nazis and Ukrainian oligarchs is an obvious fact. On the other hand, the uprising that began in eastern Ukraine has an obvious social dimension: it is among other things, the uprising of the people against the oligarchs, against a deep social injustice and corruption, which embodies the Kievan junta. In our opinion, an alliance of traditionalists and nationalists with the Communists, or those who harbor nostalgia for the USSR, ostensibly left and ostensibly right is natural and desirable. In a sense, that is the concretization of Eurasianism, the embodiment of the “fourth theory,” the “fourth way”.
It is interesting that something similar is happening in Europe, where there is a very broad, ideologically and politically diverse front supporting Russia and Novorossia. In short, all those today who are opposed to American, Western hegemony, NATO, liberalism, etc., naturally supports the Novorossia fight for freedom. Those who are on the side of the Kiev junta are fighting for the United States and its planetary hegemony.
Why in the case of Ukraine was the idea of a “third way” used as a tool of global hegemony? Do you share this position? Is it possible to carry out some historical analogy to the current conflict?
First, the position of the ideologues of “Right sector” is openly racist: a commonplace scheme of “The right sector” and its followers. “Ukrainians” are civilized “Europeans”, “white”; Russians are “Asians”, “yellow”, “barbarians”, or simply “subhuman”. And there can be found many historical analogies. Basically, though in a veiled way, that’s the official position of America and the European Union, which now as before marks a profound and pathological Russophobia.
The idea of a “third way” of Ukraine, Ukraine aside from the “West” – America, and the “East” – Russia, is just as meaningless. See what it leads to in practice. Kiev Junta, subjecting/subordinating to Washington, alone abolished the Ukrainian sovereignty and destroyed the Ukrainian statehood. The authorities in Kiev and the so-called “Ukrainian nationalists” are merely “useful idiots” of the West.
So there is no “third way” or “third pole” in the modern geopolitical conflict, nor can there be. There are only two: the Land and Sea, and Russia an