Dostoevsky wrote once that no enemy was more dangerous for Russia than another Slavic country allied with the West. After having witnessed how former Soviet Baltic countries welcomed NATO forces on their territory, Georgia attacked South Ossetia under the Saakashvili regime and Ukraine started a nationalist war against pro-Russian “sub-humans”, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Dostoevsky was right.
Since the end of the nineteenth century when Dostoevsky wrote that all Russia’s problems in Europe arose from being misunderstood and “our intentions are misinterpreted as aggressive”, little has changed. The Russian people, according to Dostoevsky, are at the head of the united Slavic populous, and “will speak their own new, wholesome, and as yet unheard of word… to the entire world”. Is this another prophecy that will soon come true? Have we finally reached the historic moment when Russia will save Europe from a “general, common and terrible fall”?
In order to respond to this question, it is crucial to fully understand the catalysts for the civil war in Ukraine and the origin of the bloodshed. Much of the responsibility must lie with the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which, since it was formed in 1928, has been an illegal secret group of anti-communist Ukrainian nationalists who during World War II collaborated with German Nazis and were later prosecuted for the massive ethnic cleansing that killed tens of thousands Jews and Poles in Poland in 1942-1944. The group was also involved in massive homicide on the territory of Eastern Ukraine. Most members are Galician Ukrainians who from 1920 to 1939 were Polish. That territory, Galicia, was later annexed to the Soviet Union by Stalin and became a part of Ukraine. Ever since Galicia was annexed, it has been a recipient region, existing only through the support of the Eastern regions. At the beginning of the last century the relationship between Russia and Ukraine was a strained one. Russians thought of Ukrainians as disloyal and unworthy of their trust and Ukrainians wanted to liberate themselves from Russian dominance and protection. Having identified the aspiration for independence and the anti-Russian sentiment, the Third Reich promised that the Ukrainians would be freed and become independent from the Soviet Union in return for support. The promises served Hitler for tactical reasons: a traitor in Soviet territory would simplify Germany’s attack and would bring closer the “Blitz Krieg” dream. Stepan Bandera, who was a leader of the OUN in the 1930s and 1940s, and Andrei Melnik, leader of the faction of the original OUN, and other Ukrainian nationalists knew perfectly well that German Nazis intended to exterminate half of the Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians and to send the other half to Siberia, so as to later populate the territory of Ukraine and the European part of Russia with Germans. Despite Nazi Germany’s close collaboration with members of the OUN and the UPA, in their private exchanges and correspondence, they referred to them as “Ukrainian gangsters”.
Why have the Galician nationalists of the OUN and the 1942 partisan army, the UPA, always fought so bitterly against Russia, Eastern Ukraine and Belorussia?
Galician Ukrainians are not ethnic Ukrainians. They are foreign to Slavic life and culture and are opposed to the Orthodox Church. After the end of the Second World War members of the OUN and the UPA engaged with Western secret agencies in the US and England. Dozens of OUN secret agents were sent to the former Soviet Union with a mission to ruin the USSR. They were later arrested on their home territory, Galicia. It can be argued that to this day, modern Ukrainian nationalists act in the interests of the United States of America.
Some deputies of the Ukrainian Supreme Council have made attempts to vote for the rehabilitation of Stepan Bandera, calling him a national hero, and rewarding the OUN and the UPA organizations with the title “Veterans of the Great Patriotic War.” Both organizations claim now during World War II they were engaged in the fight against two “evil regimes”: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The OUN and UPA “veterans” are thus recognized as a “resistance movement” and honoured as “fighters for the freedom and independence of Ukraine”. Needless to say, such statements are not accepted by Eastern Ukrainians, who felt deceived and terrified at the idea of an ever greater division of the country. The fear was that the terror against the Russian population of Ukraine and those who do not support the nationalists would grow, become more aggressive and subsequently become a civil war.
Despite their provenance, Galician “gangsters” present themselves as native Ukrainians, believing this gives them the right to destroy and demolish monuments and memorials dedicated to the Russian victory in World War II. Ukrainian nationalists openly express their anti-Russian moods to the point of absurdity, as, for example, when they demanded that the former Russian ambassador in Ukraine Viktor Chernomyrdin speak Ukrainian at international press conferences. Their main goal as stated by ex president Viktor Yushchenko in 2003, when he was the leader of “Our Ukraine”, was “to change the leading power in the country at all costs” shifting power to Galician nationalists “at all costs” (meaning at a cost of people’s lives too and intimidating the ordinary Ukrainian population, especially those living in the Eastern regions). In 2010 Yushchenko rehabilitated both fascist organizations OUN and UPA as “heroes of the War” and proclaimed OUN’s leader Stepan Bandera “a national hero”. This led to a bitter reaction from Poles, Jews and Eastern Ukrainians who still preserved the memory of their industrial scale homicide. Worryingly, newly-elected president Poroshenko has recently expressed the same views of how he understands their role in history. Despite their evident anti-Russian views and statements, the fact remains fact essentially Ukraine exists thanks to Russia and its close economic ties with the great “Slavic brother”.
Ukraine is re-writing centuries of history of co-existence and economic co-operation with the centre of Orthodox Christendom, namely Russia. All the traditional Orthodox values and traditions are being substituted with the faux liberalism of the West that (just like Nazi Germany did with OUN and UPA) has taken full advantage of people’s ignorance to alienate Russia and cut it off from the rest of the world.
It is interesting how the civil war in Ukraine came at the same time as China’s rapid economic growth and Russia’s strengthened geo-political position. China becoming the number one economic power in the world is just a question of time and Russia is strong and influential on the rest of the world politically. However, given its evident economic dominance in world markets, China remains only an economic power which, in order to further develop, chooses to remain politically silent. Thus, China is hardly likely to threaten global hegemony.
However that could change if Russia were to choose to ally itself with China on both political and economic grounds. In such a case the union would present a very real danger to the dominant Western cultural, economic and military coalition. Without Russia’s support, China’s dominance is unlikely. Following this logic the West might have tried to ally itself with Russia and thus become stronger politically and economically, but the picture we see now is completely different. The West is trying to weaken Russia’s political influence by isolating it.
But if the West fears China’s strength, why does it choose not to seek a ready ally in Russia? Pragmatically speaking, this would have been a wise decision and a great step forward to creating a new “world order” and a new (alternative to the dollar) world currency. However, as Dostoevsky wisely underlined, Russia and the West will never understand or like each other. So the reason for the failed companionship lies in cultural and moral principles rather than savvy political reasoning. What the West failed to comprehend was the Russian national character, their inherent unwillingness “to serve” or be “undermined” by another nation. Some experts offer a different explanation, saying that the West is simply afraid of losing its power if everyone sees the world as being in some sense ruled by Russia. Such a possibility strikes fear in those who fear it could prove attractive to non-aligned nations and lead to a dilution of western liberal ideas. America would instantly lose its self-defined raison d’etre if it was unable to “bring democracy” to the world anymore. American national identity, as summarized by the likes of Henry Kissinger, is principally based on the idea of their role as global policeman and the absolute right to get involved in all world affairs, whenever the affairs of “the rest of the world” concern them. In this light the article written by president Putin and published in the the NYT last year caused a harsh and severe reaction in the US. Putin underlined that “It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
The country is hanging by a thread given the latest wars created or financed by the White House in order to “liberate people and give them Western values”. What is going to happen to the world geoeconomic and geopolitical picture if Americans and Europeans, constantly fooled by the mainstream media, suddenly open their eyes and see that the principle building ingredient for their “new democracy” is human blood?
Dostoevsky didn’t write about America and so we are left to imagine what he would define as the greatest threat to the US and its way of life. Perhaps the answer lies deep within a psyche that defines itself as “the land of the free and the home of the brave” without ever defining freedom or questioning the wisdom of bravery.
