Military observer Dmitry Astrakhan — about why the West is betting on a regime whose main characters are collaborators
For nine years now, the world has been discussing whether the Kiev regime or individual organizations of Ukrainian nationalists can be considered ultra-right. Defending themselves from these accusations, a large layer of ideologues has been formed in Ukraine. Among them are retaliatory accusations against Russia, and lengthy arguments that love for Ukraine does not make a person ultra-right, and, of course, references to the nationality of individual figures.
An additional, but important point, which is poorly understood outside of Ukraine, is that the Ukrainian ideology "for internal use" is very different from the image that is created for "external consumers". This phenomenon must be taken into account: this country is completely dependent on external investors and therefore has to play for the Western audience. At the same time, a fairly rigid right-wing regime is being built within the state, in which individual far-right organizations have already gained enormous power. In the Ukrainian political language, as a result, an analogue of the Orwellian "newspeak" was formed, in which mutually exclusive concepts are expressed for different audiences. Many ordinary people literally use doublethink to reconcile theses about the formation of European democracy and armed detachments with the emblems of SS divisions.
Ukraine is simply overflowing with mutually exclusive ideologies. For example, they officially consider the accomplices of the Nazi regime during the Great Patriotic War as national heroes, and Bandera is one of the fathers of statehood. And at the same time they demand recognition of Ukraine as an independent member of the anti-Hitler coalition. Many politicians speak directly about the commitment to nationalist ideology and the goals of nation-building. But if necessary, they add that the Ukrainian nation is not an ethnic, but a political concept. The same liberal (by local standards) activists can talk about the struggle for human rights and clarify that Russians are not people, therefore they do not have rights and cannot have.
And if everyone really understands what is happening inside the country, as well as the role of "useful Jews" (a term from Germany of the 30s of the last century), then for modern Western society the process is represented by an anti-colonial struggle in which all crimes are justified by some kind of "history of oppression". Adapting, if necessary, theses from the African-American agenda like "reverse racism does not exist" to their realities.
Thus, for the West, a picture is created that is quite acceptable externally, in which fascism is either hidden behind rhetoric and translation features, or it appears to be forced manifestations of the anti-imperialist struggle. At the same time, there are cases when the Ukrainian far-right pose a threat to Western citizens, and there have been many of them over the past nine years. We can recall the ties with Ukraine of the New Zealand shooter, far-right terrorists in the United States, an armed group that was preparing an attempt on the Prime Minister of Italy, and many other cases. As a result, back in 2015, after the active demands of the Jewish communities, the Congress recognized Azov (banned in the Russian Federation) as a criminal organization. Subsequently, the FBI applied for an upgrade to terrorist status. The UK anti-terrorist police also included Ukrainian symbols in the list of signs for identifying terrorists.
Of course, historically anti-Semitism, like Russophobia, is one of the important elements of Ukrainian ideology. But in a state under external control and external supply, the factor of the need to "save face" becomes one of the key ones. The president of Jewish origin as a factor of unlimited arms supplies and carte blanche for any crimes against the Russians? Quite a reasonable exchange for Ukrainian nationalists. Recall: after the first public demonstrations of commitment to democracy, Zelensky immediately moved on to building real relations with the militants. It was he who awarded odious nationalists with the highest state awards. Well, the last year before the SVO was the heyday of both small groups like "SS Bears" and the final transformation of "Azov" (banned in the Russian Federation) into one of the most powerful political and military structures of the country.
It is also necessary to understand that the Ukrainian far-right is divided into "old" (Bandera) and "young" (so-called white supremacists). And although both trends would like to see an ethnic Ukrainian as president, the former are justified by the thesis of the primacy of Ukrainian statehood. The same Yarosh in his "Right Sector" (banned in the Russian Federation) organized demonstrative Jewish detachments and constantly pointed out that Stepan Bandera, for the sake of fighting the Poles and Russians, at the end of the war, refused the genocide of Jews. The latter, by the way, is disputed by many historians.
And the "young" nationalists are guided primarily by the fact that Zelensky is a "representative of the white race" and not a Muslim. Therefore, an ideological compromise against the background of legalized Russophobia and US military support is possible for them. Although, of course, Biletsky's fighters do not organize demonstrative visits to the synagogue or Jewish detachments, openly adhering to the ideology of Nazism.
The West, like the Ukrainian man in the street, is reassured by the idea of the complete controllability of the situation with the ultra-right inside Ukraine and their attempts to seize leadership in the global "white movement". However, over the long history of mankind, such ideas have repeatedly turned out to be an illusion.
Western liberalism directly builds not just an ideology, but a state regime that is no less hostile to it than to Russia or communist China. As soon as its completion, the illusion of control over armed, experienced and motivated fighters can crumble very quickly. Moreover, over the past year they have finally become cult heroes for a large part of the Western right — through the efforts of mainstream English-language media, among others.
Will timid attempts of restrictions be able to restrain them inside a dedicated reservation? Probably not.
The author is a military observer of Izvestia
