Ukraine – The ‘Orange Revolution’ Turning White?

By Max Musson:

Many people in Britain will have viewed events in Kiev over the last three months with a certain amount of confusion: we are after all a long way from Ukraine; government and politics operate rather differently there; and lines of communication between our two countries are such that most of us must rely on the mass media for news of what is actually taking place.

The confusion stems from the fact that rightly or wrongly Vladimir Putin is seen by many to be the most nationalistic of current White leaders and one has become used to feeling a degree of sympathy with his aims and actions, often opposed as he is to the machinations of the globalist New World Order (NWO) elite that dominate most Western governments.

It seems strange therefore that White nationalists in Ukraine should be found actively fomenting an uprising against the government of Viktor Yanukovych, until just recently, the pro-Russian president of Ukraine. It also seems incongruous that Ukrainian nationalists should have joined an alliance of opposition parties, the ‘All Ukrainian Union’ (AUU), which is campaigning for Ukrainian membership of the anti-national European Union (EU), especially when that alliance is funded primarily by Western government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and NWO oligarchs, most of whom are Jewish.

One might have expected Ukrainain nationalists to have adopted a more pragmatic approach and while not being greatly enamoured by the prospect of Ukrainian dependence upon Russia, might have adopted a ‘big picture’ perspective and expressed common cause with their former Soviet era partner, but this was not so.

Despite sharing much history, and many cultural and ethnic ties, the relationship between Ukraine and her largest neighbour, Russia, has been problematic throughout much of the last 100 years.

In the wake of the First World War and the Communist revolution that followed, and then again during and in the wake of the Second World War, Ukrainian national aspirations were crushed by the Communists and the country was incorporated into the Soviet Union as the ‘Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic’, and particularly during the Stalin years, the ‘Red Terror’ and the forced collectivisation of farms resulted in great hardship and poverty, and the deaths of several million Ukrainian people through mass starvation and politically motivated killings.

With all of the suffering that the Ukrainian people have endured, it is easy to see why, on an emotional level they would conflate ‘Russia’ with the ‘Soviet Union’, just as we tend to in the West, and fail to appreciate that the Russian people were just as much the victims of the Communists as the Ukrainian people were.

Thus emotional ‘scar tissue’ predicates the thinking of many Ukrainian nationalists, in which their understandable hatred of Communism is translated into a visceral opposition to Russian influence today.

Therefore, Ukrainian nationalism is overwhelmingly, narrowly ‘national’ rather than racial in its outlook and strong opposition to the subjugation of Ukraine within the EU is matched by strong opposition to the subjugation of Ukraine to Russian domination.

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, an intense geopolitical struggle has been taking place throughout many of the old Soviet Bloc countries and beginning with the presidential elections of late 2004, which heralded the much vaunted ‘Orange Revolution’, the people of Ukraine found themselves on the ‘front-line’ in that struggle, culminating in the seemingly chaotic events and scenes of violence that we have recently witnessed on our televisions.

Ukraine declared independence from the Soviet Union at about the same time as Russia and Belarus, and elected their first president, Leonid Kravchuk in December 1991. There followed a period of economic upheaval as the Ukrainian economy adjusted to its independence, which was accompanied by high inflation and a deep recession and this led to the election in 1994 of Ukraine’s second president, Leonid Kuchma.

Leonid Kuchma was initially rather more successful than Kravchuk and there was much co-operation between Ukraine, Belarus and Russia as they each struggled to come to terms with their newly independent status. Kravchuk was re-elected to a second term in office in 2000, but eventually suffered declining popularity, ostensibly being accused of authoritarianism, widespread cronyism and corruption. In reality, however, he was the first victim of a campaign waged by anti-national forces, who were setting the scene in propaganda terms for the ‘Colour Revolution’ that was to follow.

Prior to 2004 there had already been three ‘Colour Revolutions’ affecting old Soviet Bloc countries, with the ‘Velvet Revolution’ in Czechoslovakia in 1989, the ‘Bulldozer Revolution’ in Yugoslavia in 2000 and the ‘Rose Revolution’ in Georgia in 2003.

These ‘Colour Revolutions’ as they became known, are characterised by foreign interference mobilising otherwise disparate opposition groups in a united coalition in order to bring down regimes that are perceived by globalist oligarchs as obstructive to the NWO and which are invariably categorised as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘corrupt’ prior to their attempted removal. In reality, the shadowy groups who sponsor the ‘Colour Revolutions’ have no problem working closely with authoritarian and corrupt regimes, as long as those regimes are amenable to and supportive of the NWO.

A common feature of the ‘Colour Revolutions’ is that the political activists involved are funded and trained in the tactics of political agitation and revolutionary organisation by ‘Western’ pollsters and professional consultants, who are in turn funded and employed by a range of Western governmental and non-governmental agencies.

According to an article in The Guardian, the foreign donors funding the groups organizing the ‘Colour Revolutions’ have included the U.S. State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), along with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the NGO ‘Freedom House’ and George Soros’s ‘Open Society Institute’. Furthermore, The National Endowment for Democracy, a foundation supported by the U.S. government, is reported to have supported non-governmental ‘democracy-building’ efforts in Ukraine since 1988, teaching the tactics of nonviolent revolutionary struggle advocated by Gene Sharp, the founder of the Albert Einstein Foundation.

Following the presidential elections in Ukraine at the end of 2004, in which pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych was elected, opposition parties united in a campaign, together with student groups and both the Western and domestic mass media to denounce the election result, claiming widespread electoral fraud and intimidation on the part of Yanukovych supporters. Opposition protestors united under their orange banners, claimed that Yanukovych’s pro-EU, liberal rival Viktor Yushchenko should have been the rightful winner and demanded a re-run of the election.

Just as has happened recently in Kiev, demonstrators filled Independence Square in the city centre, the ‘Maidan’, expressing their dissatisfaction and eventually the Ukrainian parliament of the time caved in under pressure and was intimidated into calling for new elections.

Naturally, a call for new elections under those circumstances would be interpreted by the public as confirmation that electoral fraud had taken place initially and they ‘punished’ Yanukovych by switching their support to his rival Viktor Yushenko, thereby successfully completing the ‘Orange Revolution’.

The defeat of Yanukovych was a significant blow to Vladmir Putin and his attempts to rebuild the power and influence of the Russian Bloc, but he still had some cards up his sleeve and in 2006 and again in 2009, negotiations over natural gas supplies to the pro-Western government of Yushenko broke down leaving Ukraine with critical gas shortages and these issues were enough to undermine support for Yushenko, and he was replaced in the 2010 presidential elections by a resurgent Viktor Yanukovych. Ukraine was again securely back within the Russian sphere of influence and attempts by Western opponents of Putin to weaken the Russian Bloc had apparently failed, temporarily at least.

Fast forward now to November 2013, through a period during which the anti-national forces prepared for a renewed attempt to lure Ukraine back onto a pro-Western pro-EU track. Yanukovych decided at that time to reject a pending EU association agreement in favor of a Russian loan arrangement and closer ties with Russia. This led initially to peaceful protests and to the peaceful occupation of Kiev’s Independence Square reminiscent of the demonstrations that had taken place during the ‘Orange Revolution’ almost ten years earlier, but this time a new element had been introduced into the mix.

In preparation for the presidential elections in 2015 and under the influence of the foreign funded anti-national NGOs operating in Ukraine, the three largest opposition groups formed a united front against Yanukovych, the ‘All-Ukrainian Union’ (AUU). This united the liberal, pro-EU main opposition Batkivshchyna (Fatherland) Party of Yulia Tymoshenko and Vitali Klitschko’s conservative, pro-EU, Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform Party (UDAR), with the main Ukrainian nationalist political party, Svoboda.

As already stated, the inclusion of Svoboda, created a strange alliance in that Svoboda were both anti-Russian for the reasons explained earlier in this article, but also anti-EU, quite rightly viewing the EU as an anti-national entity. The inclusion of Svoboda in the ‘All Ukrainian Union’ also brought the anti-government faction the fanatical support of the ‘Pravy Sektor’ an assemblage of other hard-line nationalist groups under the leadership of lifelong nationalist campaigner, Dmitro Yarosh.

While the AUU and her Western, pro-EU sponsors may have hoped for a convenient replay of the 2004 ‘Orange Revolution’ and a peaceful transfer of power from Yanukovych to what they will perceived as moderates leaders such as Yulia Tymoshenko and Vitali Klitschko, the Yanukovych government did not respond as gently as the Ukrainian government had done a decade earlier. Yanukovych sent in specially trained ‘Berkut’ riot police to brutally disperse the demonstrators and in the violence that followed, the initiative among anti-government demonstrators gradually shifted from the likes of Vitali Klitschko’s UDAR, to Svoboda and the fanatical street fighters of Pravy Sektor.

Liberal-conservative leaders among the All Ukrainian Union who went to negotiate with Yanukovych during the course of the struggle knew that they had the political support of Western governments and the financial support of NWO oligarchs and they could afford to be modest in their demands. They had time on their side and if a low-key, relatively peaceful revolution dragged on until the presidential elections of 2015, it would not have been an insurmountable problem for them. Time and time again they returned from their negotiations having won small concessions from the government only to be derided as sell-outs by the militant activists of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor.

Following the first violent clashes with police towards the end of November last year, Pravy Sektor occupied the fifth floor of the House of Trade Unions adjoining the Maidan and it has been off-limits to anyone else ever since.

Large numbers of Pravy Sektor activists were arrested by the police during the earlier violent clashes and these captives will face harsh penalties if the revolution fails and there is not a significant shift in the power structure within Ukraine such that charges against them are quashed for political reasons.As a consequence, Dmitro Yarosh and his activists could not settle for anything less than the immediate resignation of Yanukovych as state president.

Just as in the rest of Europe, recent political trends have caused widespread disaffection with politics, politicians have come to be regarded as venal and corrupt and this has led to a polarisation of views with many young intellectuals turning to the political right and to nationalist groups for their inspiration. However, in Ukraine, not only is it becoming fashionable for young people to associate with nationalist groups and to espouse nationalist beliefs, this new wave of support has brought a level of electoral success that could only be dreamed of a decade ago.

Svoboda who began in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine, polled less than 1% of the popular vote during the parliamentary elections of 2007, but with growing support, initially at a local level, they managed to attract 10.44% of the popular vote in 2012 to secure 37 parliamentary seats and become Ukraine’s fourth largest political party.

Despite this success at the polls, it is unlikely that under normal circumstances, Svoboda on its own would have been able to prevent either a continuation of Russian dominance of Ukraine through the government of Yanukovych, or a switch to EU domination of Ukraine under new leadership from the UDAR and the liberal Batkivshchyna party of Yulia Tymoshenko, supported as they are by Western governments and the NWO oligarchs.

The participation of Svoboda in the AUU seems puzzling to most Western observers, until one realises that destabilising the Yanukovych government was a vital prerequisite if Svoboda and the Pravy Sektor were to push forward with their revolutionary agenda and succeed in installing a truly nationalist government any time soon. By participating in the AUU, Svoboda added weight to the pressure on Yanukovych, they could draw support from the anti-national NGOs sponsored by Western governments and could ride the propaganda onslaught directed at Yanukovych’s government from the Western and domestic mass media. Thus Svoboda and Pravy Sektor have benefited from support coming from people who are normally our implacable enemies and we have seen NWO media companies favourably reporting the gallant exploits of the nationalist activists as they have battled with the riot police. The public perception of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor now, is of their street activists as heroes of the revolution and as guardians of the nation’s interests in the period of negotiation and transition that lies ahead.

Svoboda and Pravy Sektor are now in an unprecedented position in which they could dominate a future Ukrainian government, and it is interesting to note that in an opinion poll conducted in December last year, the results showed that in a new presidential election, Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of Svoboda would win with the support of 28% of the electorate.

A massive gamble therefore appears to be paying off for Ukraine’s nationalists, in which they appear to have wrong footed and out manoeuvred both the pro-Russian government faction and the pro-EU liberal opposition faction, although the final outcome is by no means certain and the revolution could still be stolen from them. Indeed, now that the bloody street battles are for the time being over, and now that Yanukovych has been deposed, there are already efforts by Western media to tarnish the public perception of Pravy Sektor and Svoboda and to present them as too extreme to be included in negotiations regarding the political future of the country.

Dmitro Yarosh of Pravy Sektor has demanded a seat at the negotiating tables, but so far he has been refused. He has stated in interviews that the militia under his control have enough weapons to continue the revolutionary struggle if the outcome of the negotiations is not acceptable to him.

Very importantly, we have in the Ukraine witnessed the first time that nationalist activists have prevailed in a head-on, no holds barred conflict with the armed police of a modern European state. They have demonstrated that equipped with hard helmets, clubs and makeshift steel shields, determined street fighters can repel heavily armed and equipped riot police, using just bricks, petrol bombs and medieval catapults.

Having the support of Svoboda and the other AUU parties inside the Ukrainian parliament prevented the Yanukovych government from deploying the Ukrainian army against the demonstrators, but this does not detract from the immense feats of courage performed time and time again against a determined enemy with ostensibly superior equipment.

It would appear that the inclusion of Svoboda in the AUU was also something of a calculated gamble for the NWO strategists. They needed to include within the Union any party, which like Svoboda, had achieved a certain size and influence. Furthermore, if the opposition groups were to triumph in the street battles, they also needed the courage and fanaticism that only Svoboda and Pravy Sektor could provide. This calculated risk however, is in danger of back-firing as there is a very real possibility they may have facilitated a nationalist revolution and not the liberal, pro-EU revolution that they had hoped for.

The danger for Svoboda and Pravy Sektor is that ‘money’ may yet determine the eventual outcome of this revolution and with Russia on the back foot, the field is open for the pro-EU, NWO oligarchs to put their money behind the pro-EU elements. There is already talk of $35billion of aid being offered by US/EU governments and this ‘aid’ will come at a heavy price politically. These are ‘Golden hand-cuffs’ the fledgling Ukrainian government is being offered and they must be rejected, even though the alternative may be economic hardship in the short term. Better to be poor and free than live in a ‘Gilded cage’.

At present everything hangs in the balance, but the nationalists are in a strong position and if Pravy Sektor can maintain their domination of the street armies and maintain discipline within their street armies that guard and control access to all of the main governmental, commercial and administrative buildings within the centre of Kiev, and most importantly, prevent a complete ‘normalisation’ of the situation such that the police and the army retake control of the streets, they have the potential to pull-off an historic victory, not just for the Ukrainian people, but for White people the world over.

It may be that Svoboda and Pravy Sektor do have all possibilities covered and can cope without outside assistance, however by the same token it is possible they may need and appreciate support from young nationalist activists from all across our continent. If anyone has direct links to Svoboda and Privy Sektor then please let me know, it would be good to communicate directly with them and ascertain how we might provide support.

Many nationalists pray for the crisis moment that will plunge their nation into chaos and which may provide the opportunity to seize power, to such an extent that such a moment has become the object of a million fantasies. Against all the odds, such a moment has occurred in Ukraine and if they can secure victory and transfer learning to fellow European nationalists, the first ‘domino’ in a world-wide White nationalist revolution may be about to fall.

By Max Musson © 2014

# # # #