Thursday, October 30, 2014

Igor Strelkov's interview for Neiromir-TV, October 30

Igor Strelkov's interview for Neiromir-TV, October 30:
1. Strelkov went to Crimea on his own, not as part of any Moscow's operations.
2. Strelkov is planning a marriage.
3. Even now he cannot say everything about his removal from Novorossiya. But, yes, it was involuntary. If it were up to him, he would have remained at his post.
4. His return to Novorosssiya today is not reasonable. He does not have the necessary experience and skills for commanding a large army.
5. At times, Strelkov's views differ from those of El Munir or Boris Rozhin, who, in turn, are fully responsible for their own views, which they are not coordinating with Strelkov. However, they are among those information sources, which assisted Novorossiya and which Strelkov trusts. Others are the Voice of Sevastopol, ...
6. This is a real war, not a toy war. It has to be approached seriously and pursued seriously. Otherwise, this will become an endless war.
7. At the moment of Slavyansk's total encirclement, Strelkov's battalion had very little ammunition left. Food supplies were enough only for 2 more days.
8. When Strelkov came to Donetsk from Slavyansk, he found a city doing nothing to defend itself. Neither militarily nor psychologically was Donetsk ready for defense. The police in Donetsk was managed from Kiev; the mayor was Kiev's too. Young adults were doing sports, jogging, riding bikes and fishing without giving a thought to what was coming.
9. He is a monarchist. Russia is still a quasi-monarchy in any case. Russian president is a sort of monarch, though not recognized as such by others.
10. Going back to the pre-1917 czarism is impossible. To govern should not be seen as a blank check, but as a duty.
11. Lenin and Trotsky were essentially usurpers who behaved irresponsibly towards the nation and the country.
12.  Novorossiya should not be in any way part of Ukraine. Ukraine itself is a project created some time ago by the Austrian and German intelligence service.
13. At present, the globalists are directing their main strike against Russia.
14. The makers of this New World Order want to break up Russia and the Russian nation.
15. His view of the Minsk agreements is "very skeptical," but he would not say more about it now.

Igor Strelkov's press conference, October 30, 2014

Igor Strelkov's press conference, October 30, 2014:
1. The war in Ukraine is a war of two civilizations, one of the two is essentially anti-Christian.  This is its most adequate and precise characterization.
2. The new humanitarian, social organization, Novorossiya, is to serve as logistics support for Novorossiya.
3. The true terrorists are the government in Kiev.
4. The war against Russia is already going on. Its main current form is a subversive war, information war, and economic war. Large scale hostilities cannot be excluded.
5. The Minsk agreements were advantageous exclusively to Kiev.
6. What is lacking most is Russia's recognition of Novorossiya.
7. Strelkov's reappearance in Novorossiya could have negative effects, therefore, his return is under existing conditions completely out of question.
8. However, Strelkov would like to see his place among the defenders of Novorossiya at some point in the future.
9. There are no contacts between Strelkov and Putin.
10. Unification of Novorossiya with Russia would be the best course.
11. Currently, Novorossiya does not have even adequate information support.
12. Bureaucratic indifference and inertia is as bad as the fifth column.
<iframe src="" width="607" height="360" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Briefly on the meaning of Ukraine's "pro-European choice"

Here is the essence and meaning of Ukraine's "pro-European" choice: the US, NATO, and the EU managed to find enough "naive," that is, greedy Ukrainians who are or were willing to adopt and embrace hate of Russia and the Russians for an illusion of being paid for it by the West so that, by betraying their heritage, roots, and their ancestors, they would get richer and have no-visa regime with the EU, neither of which is true. Indeed, there was not much else, which the Ukrainians had or were able to offer to the greedy West--only their possible hate for Russia, the Russians (and thus also for themselves), which the West does, indeed, demand from them and makes them demonstrate in practice. This is the essence and meaning of Ukraine's "pro-European choice" sealed by Ukrainian thieving oligarchs and their zealous Nazis. A union made somewhere in Hell.

Sunday, October 26, 2014

On Alexey Mozgovoy

Mozgovoy has now established himself as the Novorosssiya political and military leader. No other leader currently in Novorosssiya has his caliber, mind, spirit, and personality. If the Russian media would have their own brains, instead of sitting in the box on orders, they would not have tried to pretend that they no longer know Strelkov's name and they would also give Mozgovoy space on their portals as well.

Right now only Strelkov and Kadyrov have similar qualities.

Moreover, I would even say that, in the Soviet Union itself, no leader of such quality existed since the 1950s.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Why Are Nazis and Powers that Be Flipping out over Novorossiya?

According to McLuhan, his “The Medium is the Message” and its Tetrad “renders obsolete all groundless dialectical and systematic Marxist approaches to interpretation of social processes and technological transformations of culture by flipping the discussion into a kind of linguistic of real words”[1]—what we might call today postmodernism. Here McLuhan is declaring nothing less than it is his Tetrad (and not, for example, Heidegger’s Nazi-friendly existentialism) that had finished off all the hitherto philosophical and political thought with a notable emphasis on singled-out dialectical philosophy (which would be first and foremost Platonism) and Marxism.

The funny or ironic thing is that, should McLuhan have applied his own tetrad and its laws to himself, he should have foreseen a retrieving reverse back into dialectical thought, perhaps renewed Platonism itself, at the end point or dead end of the existing system. As we have seen in the case of Ukraine that marks the system’s frontier, limit, and fissure, people of Novorossiya are now on their own spontaneously retrieving their spirit and souls, socialist ideals, the ideal of justice, the idea of honor, and political understanding of oligarchy and slavery, which are now united in returned, retrieved Nazism. Retrieval as well as revolutionary reversal of the dominant and otherwise advancing reaction is becoming a possibility again, and millions of people in Novorossiya are inspired by it and are fighting for it against the powers that be.

[1] McLuhan, The Laws of Media, op. cit., p. 126.

On the "Elections" in Ukraine on October 26: The Choice: Which Nazi Group Will Best Represent the Interests of US Drank nach Osten?

A reliable source informs that Ukraine receives new batches of war planes from Poland, a NATO member. The junta's plan is to go in all guns blazing.

For the "elections" tomorrow, the question that needs to be asked is the guaranteed elections fraud by the junta, which consistently lies about matters both big and smalls. From the big matters: 1. Maidan sniper fire;  2) the Odessa massacre of May 2; 3) tortures and executions at Maidan in KIev, 4) the Mariupol massacre on May 9; 5) elections of May 25, which "gave" Poroshenko over 54%; 6) the shelling of the cities of Donbass; 7) the downing of MH 17; 8) the massive disappearances, killings, and tortures of many anti-junta activists and POWs; 9) the true character of the Nazi oligarchy ruling in Ukraine now.

In these new parliamentary elections, only pro-junta and pro-Nazi groups and their quislings are allowed to run.

As in the May 25 elections, the West and Kiev succeeded in getting out of the Russian government support for and acquiescence in these fraudulent elections that serve 1) to legitimize the Nazi regime; 2) to further Nazify the country, and 3) to continue expanding and intensifying the campaign and war against Russia.

So Ukrainians will "decide" which joint enterprise of oligarchs and Nazis got to falsify their will in order to turn the population enslaved not only by thieving oligarchs, but now also by murderous oligarchs, into cannon fodder and meat for the Grim Reaper.  Of course, while declaring a new "democratic" victory for Nazism, which has come back from the dead and is now raping, ruining, and killing a nation, which lost over 5 million to Nazism in World War II, but now is made to shout "Geroyam Slava"--"honor" to the same murderers and their zombies of today. For the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Nazis decided that as part of the ultimate perversion, which they represent, Ukrainians now need to glorify, worship and salute Nazi murder. And, lo and behold, many, many Ukrainians do just that.

Friday, October 24, 2014

President Putin's Speech at the Valdai Forum: Putin's Munich 2007 Speech No. 2

Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the Valdai Forum, which brings together nearly all notable (and state-sponsored) "Sovietologues," I mean,  experts on Russia from the West. Or, to express myself differently, for several years now, the Russian government has been inviting and hosting at a nice resort a select group of people most of whom are paid both for analyzing all things Russia and being Russia's professional enemies. The forum allows for socializing and direct access to Russian leaders in a relatively open forum.

Putin himself announced his speech as almost undiplomatically sincere, direct, and open. Judging from the reactions, US guests see the speech as confrontational and anti-American. Europeans were eager to offer more "mediation" toward ensuring Russia's pacification and de facto capitulation.

Speaking of the speech itself, what stood out in it for me are these points:
1. the US wants to finish off Russia. Not it is the time and opportunity to do it.
2. as a result, we might be on the threshold of a collapse of the world order
3. in this regard, Putin being apparently a meticulous person kept calling for establishing clear and precise rules, expressing a regret that, when the Soviet Union was defeated in the Cold War, no peace treaty (officially) was developed, signed, or imposed.
4. Putin would like to have rules ... hopefully based on mutual respect and equality, which, of course, is the last thought on the mind of the US
5. Putin's wish is to see a world in which the Empire (the US) and Russia would have "common goals, would act on the basis of the same criteria, and would strive for making real achievements together"
6. my comment: no formal rules can be a substitute for persistent, continuous political work and political, economic, information or military victories though
7. Putin absolutely supports the "complete fulfillment of the Minsk Agreements, but by BOTH sides"
8. His take on the resolution of the crisis in Ukraine is thus a full realization of the Minsk accords with disengagement of the troops followed by re-establishing economic relations between Kiev and Donbass
9. the "elections" in Donetsk and Lugans are, indeed, an idea or demand made in Minsk; but the West's and Kiev's idea was that these elections would be more controlled by Kiev; that's what Merkel also demanded in her call to Putin yesterday
10. As a result of the actions undertaken by the Kiev regime (and the NAF), "the [Minsk] agreements happened so that one can say that they did not happen"
11. Russia is like a "bear who rules in taiga and is not going to take commands from those who declared themselves the judges of the world" (close paraphrase combining two Putin's thoughts)
12. the West keeps discarding and violating international rules and norms whenever it feels like, while "forbidding Russia to defend vital interests of Russian and Russian-speaking people in Crimea--no way"

The Russian bear passage:
"Знаете, меня всегда очень радует в этом случае, и я вспоминаю все время то, что говорили по этому поводу древние. Помните замечательную фразу: «Что позволено Юпитеру, не дозволено быку». Мы не можем согласиться с такими формулировками. Может быть, быку не позволено, но хочу вам сказать, что медведь ни у кого разрешения спрашивать не будет. Вообще, он считается у нас хозяином тайги, и не собирается, я знаю это точно, куда-то переезжать в другие климатические зоны, ему там неуютно. Но тайги он своей никому не отдаст. Я думаю, что это должно быть понятно."

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Nazi Aesthetics from Ukraine: Butchered Meat of Female Bodies

Here is something what Western democrats and liberals, whether soft-hearted lovers or cold-blooded realist undertakers of the "Maidan revolt of dignity" against "Russian barbarism and tyranny," have helped come true: genuine, real, in-your-face Nazi "aesthetics."

Ukrainian Nazi show-business organized a round of beauty pageant "Super-model the Ukrainian Way." The creation of the new Nazi "ideal of female beauty" took place on October 3.

The show and photo-session took place in the bastion of Ukraine's Nazi Banderism in Lvov.

Selected TOP-10 beauties were asked to present their almost naked bodies as butchered, bloodied animal meet.

Pure de Sade and new Nazi aesthetics. Gore, sex, morbidity, necrophilia. The new "European values" as understood and promoted by Ukrainian oligarchs led by Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, Tymoshenko, Kolomeisky, and Avakov and their Nazi butchers.

These are the mindset, psyche/psycho, "values," and dignity which the US under Obama, the EU and NATO support in its so-called "civilizational crusade" against "Russian barbarism."

It perfectly fits with the Odessa massacre and the mass graves discovered in Donbass.

Europe! It's your time to rise up against the outrage, the rotten perversity of the Empire whose ugliness is now barely concealed under the rags of supposed "democracy" and "freedom."

The original report is here:

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Why has Novorossiya risen?

In what deservedly characterized as a “Poem of Courage and Love,” Risa Jabar, an orphan from Afghanistan who joined the Novorossiya militia, explains the cause of Novorossiya as follows:

I’m not here for the Russian government or for any other government. I’m here for the Slavs, for these people, the friendliest people—a people who are nevertheless targeted for extermination. …
My comrades fighting at my side: they’re Ossetians, Russians, Cossacks, Kalmyks, Yakuts—an entire family of the Soviet Union’s fighting alongside me! We’re the union of tribes, as it used to be, understand? And Ukrainians are here with us too! You can’t split people like that! … These Ukrainians who forgot their roots, they no longer consider themselves to be Slavs. But even they’ll have no place here! The need slaves here! … The Slavs, they’re that layer which carries its own civilization, its own civilizational imperative. And at its root, [this imperative] is contrary to all this business, contrary to all this world domination. They don’t want the Slavs, understand? They don’t want their spirit. …
It’s written in the Qur’an that one should never act for money—yeah, one’s allowed to trade. One can trade, buy and sell, but only within permitted limits. One’s forbidden from doing low, disgusting things—like the things they do. And that’s why I’m here. … There’s in principle nothing surprising in the fact—that certain Muslims are taking the side of the Slavs now. That’s because the world’s split into two camps, and small countries, small states—they can’t live on their own any longer. … I’d like to say this: “Don’t worry, we’re all with you, you have all of us—Russians, Ossetians, Chechens, Afghans—we’re all here, right beside you, like one big family.[1]

[1] An Afghan Freedom Fighter in Donbass: a Poem of Love and Courage,”, July 13, 2014, <> Accessed on October 22, 2014.

To fight against Nazism is just. There is no dignity on the side of the junta

Having followed the Ukrainian crisis on a daily basis from the beginning of 2014, I can attest that, if the Russian people spontaneously reintroduced (to the great chagrin of the oligarchs and standard/liberal political science) the term oligarchy and oligarchs back into common usage, many people and members of the militia in Novorosssiya have been also spontaneously defining their struggle from the very beginning as a struggle against oligarchy and against fascism. Furthermore, in the same spirit, they have also continued to define the threat presented to them by the combined forces of old new oligarchy and new Nazism as that of slavery. Such is also the existing political consensus and prevalent view among the people in Novorossiya, which is also widely shared among the people in Russia as well as those who are sympathetic to Novorossiya’s cause.
Alexander Zakharchenko, Prime Minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic, sees the situation in the same way. For him too, Nazism is either slavery or death:
In the Soviet Union … we were confident, proud, and we could look into each other’s eyes. We did not feel to be degraded or oppressed. Then they changed our psychology and made of us, proud Slavs, slaves. …The first time I felt that I a slave was when a man in front of me beat up another, and I went through all the institutions, and there was no justice. He was excused. Then, I understood that the system sees me as a slave. … We are looked down upon as people who took up arms because of poverty and hunger. But the fact is that Donbass is one of the richest regions in Ukraine.[1]
A member of the Novorosssiya militia under the name de guerre Parpor, who fought together with Igor Strelkov from the very beginning in Slavyansk, explained the main reason why people volunteer to fight against fascism and oligarchy not merely in terms of Russian patriotism, but by defining such Russian patriotism by the revolt of the spirit against enslavement:
Yes, these are Russian people. The volunteers are Russian people, with Russian mentality. The [powers that be] attempted to turn them into slaves. I wouldn’t say that about the Soviet system. That system did not make slaves, but it did need somewhat passive people who would be receptive. But the work [that changes people into slaves] certainly reached its apogee after the territory which is now called Ukraine was separated during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In [post-1991] this production [of slaves] has reached its apogee because people were zombified day and night, day and night, to make them feel to be slaves, that they are vatniki [slur to call Russians or anyone who does not support West-supported oligarchs] and so on and so on. They were insulting them everyday. The slogan “Kill the Moscowite [Russian]” has been a leitmotif of such propaganda for twenty three years of existence of this Ukraine. And people were becoming much upset about it, but they also kept tolerating it. But then change happens quickly. … Information accumulates and grows; one hears this, sees something else, something is said, and it all gathers. And then something switches inside, and a man who used to be completely politically passive yesterday wakes up the next morning and realizes that he must do something to change such life so that he does not just die in vain, that he must act, that he must change something in this life and not just die in bed.[2]

[1] Марина Ахмедова, “Начальник  Донбасса,”  Русский репортер, No. 9 (367), October 9, 2014
<> Accessed on October 15, 2014.
[2]Interview with NAF battalion commander Prapor,” October 12, 2014 <> Accessed on October 22, 2014.

[1] Марина Ахмедова, “Начальник  Донбасса,”  Русский репортер, No. 9 (367), October 9, 2014
<> Accessed on October 15, 2014.

[2]Interview with NAF battalion commander Prapor,” October 12, 2014 <> Accessed on October 22, 2014.

The Meaning of Novorossiya Has Been In Front of Our Eyes: The Sign of Spirit and Times on the Statue of Lenin in Donetsk

On the political symbolism of Novorossiya. Ekaterina Kornienko, Press-Secretary of the Voice of Sevastopol and Colonel Cassad, visited Donetsk and posted a picture taken in front of the "protected" ("oberagaemogo"--literally, building berega/defenses around) the statue of Lenin in Donetsk. The junta tries to destroy these monuments together with the Russians and any antifascists whom they can get into their hands. Even a statue of Lenin is for these new Nazis like waving the red in front of a bull.

However, I would like to make here thanks to Ekaterina another point. Looking at the picture, I was immediately struck by one thing, in particular. As you can see, the traditional communist symbol, which looks (to me) like recently added to the monument, appears to be modified in some not unimportant, significant ways. The hammer looks now much as a capital letter T. The sickle is also modified or simplified and thus, not really "reduced," but rather elevated to a new idea and new austere beauty.

So what a person sensitive to the language of symbols, the language of the spirit ("the language of the animals" in fairy tales) make of this?

If the hammer is no longer an instrument of brute force, but a letter, one can surmise that force has become a word, a logos. If the "hammer" is a letter, what about the sickle? Can that be now a letter too? Indeed, it can. But to see it one would need to rotate oneself--to look at the symbolism ad if from a 360 degree perspective; both from one end and the other. The sickle (except for what is supposed to be its handle) then makes a nice letter C, which, in Cyrillic, is an S. If we take the handle too, then the sickle (an old moon symbol, by the way) starts to look as a globe with an axis or  apart of the globe with its axis (which is tilted). The lifeless moon is thus becoming earth, the place of (human) life, or, if you want, with an emphasis on the East (Eastern Hemisphere); the other  "half" is lost in the dark.

But what about the letters then? We have received through the act of an unknown hand, C and T. As I said before, if there are suddenly letters in the place of tools, we can surmise that an outline of a word is being formed here. What word or words could it be?

The most natural way of proceeding would be to infer that the two letters ought to be the first and the last letters or syllables in the word. Its beginning and end. Are there meaningful and symbolic words that would fit--that would perfectly capture the spirit of Novorossiya, this spiritual and political renaissance and rebirth?

As a matter of fact, there is such a word. In fact, two very good, excellent words that fit the letters like a hand that perfectly snugs into a glove made just right.

The two words are SOVEST and SPRAVEDLIVOST. Conscience and Justice.

Coincidentally, while I noticed before that Alexey Mozgovoy already particularly emphasized the two fundamental ideas as the principles on which Novorosiya is built, I read today his new statement, in which he again emphasized one of these principals together with Svoboda (Freedom).

Indeed, considering conscience (sovest), isn't really a realization of what is just within one's spirit and thus realizing the spirit itself? And isn't then justice (spravedlivost) a realization of conscience--extended and spread through our joint thought, speech, and action? Moreover, etymologically, sovest is not just common, shared knowing; it could also be understood as "good idea" or the idea (realization) of the good. In Slavic, spravedlivost also includes a sense of "getting it right," "rectifying," "repairing," and even "leading to."

Thus, we have in front of us not only a paradox, but also a new realization. The fact is that people spontaneously decided to call their new republics "people's republics" and narodovlastie as the new constitutional foundation. And they did so-without most of them being communists. They also stood up in defense of the monuments of Lenin left over as if on the territory of the former Ukraine from the old Soviet times.

And thanks to the choice, determination, and spirit of the people of Novorossiya, old dead communism is now giving birth to a new spiritual and political revolution. Communism came, was crucified, and died. It is now a new living spirit whose conscience and sense of justice made them to rise up against oligarchs and new Nazism in defense of the motherland, justice, and their own souls.

Strelkov knows this. Mozgovoy knows this too. People know this too. And the spirit itself put its own message and signature--right there on the monument of Lenin in the center of Donetsk.

And what was needed was a woman, Ekaterina, and his pilgrimage to her native city, that allowed us to see it too. At last.

Man ceases to be a tool. In the beginning there was a Word. And the word was Logos. And Logos is Conscience and Justice that rise again together with people of Nova Russ, Novorossiya. Man has a soul again.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Asking the Kiev Junta to Make Laws for Novorossiya: "A Step in the Right Direction"?

On September 17, 2014, Putin said that the "law on special order of particular regions" in Donbass is a "step in the right direction on which he counts for a final solution." Ever since from the Geneva Agreement of April 17, Lavrov, in particular, has been insisting that the crisis ought to be solved by asking the junta to take it upon itself to change the Ukrainian constitution.

Here are some people who are in charge and in command on the part of the Kiev regime and who have been asked to make laws for Donbass in order to resolve the situation--together with their views about the people of Novorossiya:

Not only Right Sector militants or Maidan activists consider Russians barbarian subhumans and slaves, Maidan and the Kiev regime’s leaders are on record saying the same. As already noted above, in his speech to Congress, Poroshenko explicitly and repeatedly attributed “barbarism” to Russia as opposed to the “civilized” character of the Kiev regime:
Neither is it a choice between different kinds of civilizations. It is a choice between civilization and barbarism.  Human dignity is the one thing we have to oppose to the barbarism of those attacking us.[1]

In the official press release at the official site of the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, Kiev Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s call to arms against Russia rendered Russians as “subhumans.”[2] Subhumans not only denote creatures who are, according to Aristotle, deprived of logos, the rational soul, and a full mind, they are for Aristotle also deprived of politea, that is, of basic political and human rights (as we call it today). The term subhumans is also the English equivalent of German Untermensch, a term used by the Nazis to describe “inferior people” often referred to as “the masses from the East,” that is Slavs, Jews, and Gypsies who were either to be ethnically cleansed and exterminated (Hitler’s plan was to kill some 30 million Russians) or to use as forced slave labor.

Andrei Biletsky, a leader of both the Azov battalion, sporting the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol, and the far-right Patriots of Ukraine (which has joined Prime Minister Yatsenyuk’s newly formed People’s Front coalition), defined the program of the Maidan “revolution” and post-coup Ukraine in the same terms: “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival…a crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”[3]

Just after the Minsk Accord was signed on September 5, 2014, coming from a late night meerting of the Ukrainian Security Council, Arsen Avakov, the Kiev regime’s Minister of Interior who also commands the National Guard, gave a pre-election interview in which, with a condescending smirk, he explained how he sees the people in Donbass. For him they are slaves (that’s how he defines here vatniki, a term derogatively usued for Russians); they are slaves who, in his view, foolishly decided to revolt. This is how Avakov describes the local people in Donbass:

Who are vatniki, can you tell me? … It is regrettably a very unrich, poor man who has a low paid job, who has a low level of education, who has in this life a little prospect for development or change, who cannot grasp the gifts of civilization, which provides the European choice. It is a man who is completely in the thrall of propaganda and disinformation. It is a man who has been exploited for a long time as a slave by the Donetsk oligarchic regime of Yanukovich and his comrades in every region, and he liked that. And suddenly came a resolution, a great change in his life, and the slave started playing his own Robin Hood. He decided to try an adventure—to play war. … I grant that [some of them] are led by ideas … for example, they made up for themselves an idea of a “Great Russia”or Belarus or something like that. That’s their super-idea. None of them would be able to survive a real debate … [in this new government] I am a representative of eastern Ukraine. I am from Kharkov.[4]

A normal person might think that asking a Nazi to undertake a change of the country's constitution in order to solve the problem, which he himself represents and causes, is ludicrous. But, as we have seen over the last several months, the same madness may also be presented as part of the secret "cunning plan," the existence of which needs to be propagated, but the content of which has to remain utterly secret. What kind of man would believe that he is going to be saved if he handles back sovereignty over his life to the one who sees him as a slave? What would one think of a man who argues that a people will be saved if they let those who think of them as slaves legislate for them?

[1] Petro Poroshenko,  ”Address by the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko to the Joint Session of the United States Congress,” September 18, 2014, Press office of Ukrainian President, <> Accessed on October 19, 2014.
[2] “Subhumans” was the exact term, which was originally used. After the statement became a global scandal, the Ukrainian Embassy changed “subhumans” into a supposedly politically more correct term “inhumans.” “Ukraine’s Prime Minister Yatsenyuk: We will commemorate the heroes by cleaning our land from the evil,” Embassy of Ukraine in the USA, June 15, 2014<>; Tony Cartallucci, “America’s Nazis in Kiev: ‘Russians are Subhuman,’”
Global Research, <> “Ukraine: Echoes of the Third Reich - Yatsenyuk's ‘Subhumans’,” Moon of Alabama, June 15, 2014 <> Accessed on October 21, 2014.
[3] James W. Carden, “The False Promise of Petro Poroshenko,” The National Interest,  September 24, 2014, <> Accessed on October 21, 2014.
[4]Interview with Arsen Avakov,” First Ukrainian TV Channel, September 5, 2014, <> Accessed on October 19, 2014.

Slavery and death: Maidan's message to Russians

This Nazi character of Maidan and its desire to treat the other (i.e., the Russians) as slaves or/and as someone made to be killed comes out audibly from the video “poem” by Anastasiya Dmytruk, which went viral after it was posted on March 19, 2014. The original video collected views over 2,200,000 views (as of October 21,2014), and a song later made with its lyrics reached by October 2014 almost 4 million views.[1]  Next to the video “I am Ukrainian” made in English for the global audience by Yulia Marushevska and Graham Mitchell with over 8,250,000\ million views as of October 21, 2014), [2] Dmytruk’s video (in Russian) became the second best known PR stunt of Maidan. In accordance with the imperative “The Medium is the Message,” which emphasizes form and the medium over content, many people became captivated by the appearance of the speaker and by the fact that she is a young female and paid little attention to the content of her message besides its heading “We will never be brothers”:
You have no spirit to be free. … You are many, but without a personality (character). Volia [a perfectly Russian word for freedom] is the word, which you don’t know about. From childhood, you are all held in bonds. For you silence at home is gold, but, in our hands, Molotov cocktails are set to go, our blood is afire and our eyes are fearless. … Rats [you] are hiding and praying in vain, they will wash themselves in their own blood.[3]
Dmytruk’s message, once one starts listening to its content, becomes clear. For her, Russians are slaves and “rats” deprived of speech and individuality. Moreover, if Maidan used Molotov cocktails as a weapon of choice against the unarmed police, then less than two months after the poem was posted, the Kiev junta did use Molotov cocktails praised by Dmytruk as a main instrument of murder of the antifascists during the Odessa massacre on May 2, 2014.

[1]Никогда мы не будем братьями (песня),”
<> Accessed on October 21, 2014.
[2] Yulia Marushevska filmed by Graham Mitchell in Kyiv, “I am a Ukrainian,” February 10, 2014 <> Accessed on October 21, 2014.
[3]Никогда мы не будем братьями! (стих Анастасии Дмитрук),”
<> Accessed on October 21, 2014.

Ukrainian Nazism Spun as a "Revolution of Dignity"

In its Machiavellian, PR spin, the oligarchic-fascist regime change is presented and hailed as “a revolution of dignity.” [1] Štefan Füle, my former Czech co-patriot and MGIMO classmate, but now the EU Commissioner for Enlargement who helped negotiate with Yanukovich the EU Association Agreement much as a unilateral dictate, claimed:
If you ask me what Maidan means, I would say it was first of all about dignity. Lack of accountability and accumulation of wealth in the hands of few at the expense of the prosperity of the whole country made people to show massive support for reform and modernisation. They demonstrated for a better future for their own country, a future free of corruption and where rule of law and human rights are respected. For many, this corresponded with a future based on European values, which as Europeans themselves, they share. ...  We in the European Union do not run revolutions. ... Maidan itself will be remembered as one of Europe’s defining moments.[2]
            Of course, there has been no sign of the old new oligarchic regime in Kiev to allow for more accountability and less corruption, not to mention spreading the “wealth accumulated in the hands of few at the expanse of the whole country.” All this decay and corruption has only been aggressively intensified with IFM-imposed “reforms”—austerity or oligarchs’ massive attack on social payments and supports, pensions, and salaries, while raising living costs and taxes.

            In his speech to US Congress on September 18, 2014, Petro Poroshenko, Ukrainian President, praised Maidan 2014, which he helped to finance like the one back in 2004, in the same rosy colors:

Human dignity was the driving force that took people to the streets. This revolution must result in an education of dignity, an economy of dignity, and a society of dignity. Human dignity is what makes Ukraine’s heart beat and Ukraine’s mind look toward a new and better version of itself. Human dignity is the one thing we have to oppose to the barbarism of those attacking us.[3]

            The use of the snipers at Maidan, the killings, torture, and disappearances of the people at the seized House of the Labor Unions in Kiev, the Odessa massacre, the blatant lies about deliberate, systemic shelling of civilians, hailing Bandera and Shukhevich as Ukraine’s national hero, etc. are an inversion of dignity and a negation of “a new and better version of itself.”

            On his part, Areseniy Yatsenyuk assured his host, the US Council on Foreign Relations, that the regime “did everything to restore law and order” in thename of dignity : “Let me remind you that just less than seven months ago, Ukraine passed the second revolution in the newest Ukrainian history. It was the revolution of dignity, when people did everything to restore law and order in Ukraine ....”[4]

The choice of dignity as a label and value for Maidan might seem strange. However, if we recall McLuhan’s “fourth law” of the media (“The Medium is the Message”), which is a flip, a reversal, then this strategy starts to make more sense, and even more so, once we realize that Maidan brought about a “revolution” in which Ukrainian oligarchy and Ukrainian Nazism (in its Banderite form) took over the state apparatus and its instruments of violence and control. As argued above, the political “secret” of Nazism is its will to treat others as slaves. In this regard, Aristotle had some interesting thoughts on slavery and the topic of dignity:
The tasks of the various slaves differ  … But the use of slaves is not a form of knowledge that has any great importance or dignity, since it consists in knowing how to direct slaves to the tasks which they ought to know how to do.Hence those masters whose means are sufficient to exempt them from the bother employ an overseer to take on this duty, while they devote themselves to statecraft or philosophy. The knowledge of how to acquire slaves is different … being a kind of military or hunting skill. (Aristotle, Politics 1255b30)

[1] Vladimir Suchan, ”Štefan Füle: How Does One Get from MGIMO to Spawning ‘Beautiful’ Lies for Banderite, Nazi Oligarchs in Kiev and Saying It Is All for Dignity's Sake?” Logos Politicus, September 12, 2014 <> Accessed on October 21, 2014.
[2] Štefan Füle , “What does Maidan mean?” European Commission, September 11, 2014
 <> Accessed on October 21, 2014.
[3] Petro Poroshenko,  ”Address by the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko to the Joint Session of the United States Congress,” September 18, 2014, Press office of Ukrainian President, <> Accessed on October 19, 2014.
[4] Arseniy Yatsenyuk, “Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk on Ukraine’s Challenges: A Conversation With Arseniy Yatsenyuk, “Council on Foreign Relations, September 24, 2014 <> Accessed on October 21, 2014.

Ukraine, the Frontier of the New World Order, and the Meaning of Nazism

In Ukraine, the West, modernity, and the New World Order have found its peras—its defining line, its frontier. It is also where Nazism as the most radical modern expression of the spirit of man’s abyss, destruction and chaos (aperion) is being unleashed from its bonds again and is now fighting for its second life.
The unleashing of such a destructive force, that is, a combination of destructive forces in the form of Banderite fascism, thieving oligarchs, and an anti-Russian geopolitical project or war by proxy is also the main reason why Ukraine is now being destroyed. As Lada Ray put it, Ukraine is the geopolitical fault line between the two worlds. It's the ground zero of the struggle between the old and the new. A lot is being decided there.”[1]
In Ukraine, the ground of the new order of human things is now being forged and fought over. The issue and its antagonism is fundamental. It goes down to the very root of the question about what it means to be human. The question has been posed again with a great urgency and it has to be answered. If Nazism is back, then also man’s very best needs to be called up to fight it as well.
To advance toward a better understanding of such re-ordering and re-orientation, it is also necessary to look deeper into the specifically political and othetwise concealed meaning of the “principle at issue,” to use Marx’s expression. Conversely put, what is required is exposing the otherwise buried non-standard, that is, critical political controversy—the great political question—otherwise lost and buried behind our abstract clichés. Specifically, here, it means to raise the almost taboo question of Nazism, and, further specifically, the question of slavery or enslavement (as a process of transformation and deformation) as it helps expose the political and cultural mission of Nazism itself.
To get to the root of Nazism and tyranny, requires that one grasp its political meaning. In its essence, politics represents an antithesis to living all by oneself. Man is by nature a political being, as Aristotle famously said. But, again in this case too, one cannot just stop at what became a lifeless, hollow cliché, but one also need to look at what comes after and thus follow the word up or down into the actual thought hidden behind (which is, by the way, also “the method” pursued here with respect to McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message” and the meaning of the war at the Ukrainian frontier):
Man is by nature a political animal. Anyone who by his nature and not simply by ill luck has no politea [political order in him] is either too bad or too good; either subhuman or superman—he is like the war-mad man condemned in Homer’s words as having mo family, no law, no home; for who is such by nature is mad on war: he is a non-cooperator like an isolated piece in a game of draughts. But obviously man is a political animal in a sense in which a bee is not, or any other gregarious animal. Nature, as we say, does nothing without some purpose, and she has endowed man alone among the animals with the power of logos. Logos is something different from voice … Logos serves to indicate … what is just and what is not just. For the real difference between man and other animals is that humans alone have aesthesis [thorough mindfulness, an integrated common sense][2] … Whatever is incapable of participating in the association [i.e., logos and aesthesis] which we call politea, a dumb animal for example, and equally whatever is perfectly self-sufficient and has no need to (e.g. a god), is not a part of politea at all. … [Man] is worst of all when divorced from law and justice. Injustice armed is hardest to deal with. … Hence man without virtue is the most savage, the most unrighteous, and the worst in regard to sexual license and gluttony. (Aristotle, Politics I.ii, 1253a1-1253a29)
Man is by nature not a lonely Robinson Crusoe who treats all other human beings as a good Hobbesian would in his “state of nature”—either as enemies to be destroyed or as slaves. Politics is about how we live together and along with others. Nature and the meaning of given politics is thus determined chiefly by how one treats and wants to treat others.
Thus, in order to understand the political meaning of Nazism, therefore, means asking (specifically and directly) how exactly Nazism wants to treat other people. In this regard, Nazism’s answer is unequivocal: if liberalism treats others (other than oneself) as a commodity, then Nazism’s answer to how others ought to be treated as twofold: either extermination or enslavement. Either death or turning others into helots or slave labor, with bestiality added to it. In this twofold treatment, enslavement is the use of the other merely as a provisional and temporary exchange for life and death.
In Ukraine, such Nazism—the radical meaning of the so-called Maidan Revolution or “Revolution of Dignity”—was expressed by Tamara Farion, a member of Ukrainian parliament, who delivered a keynote speech in the front of the Verkhovna Rada in Kiev during the official, state-organized celebrations of  the 2014 anniversary of the creation of the pro-Nazi UPA (the Ukrainian Insurgent Army).  Her program message is a collective execution of all who have a different mindset: “The ideals of WWII Ukrainian nationalists who resisted Moscow should become universal for Ukraine… everyone in Ukraine who lacks Ukrainian soul should be executed… and Moscow has to be erased, for remaining irredeemable black hole European security.”[3] The Ukrainian Maisan “Revolution” is one in which its participants were massively and with a gusto shouting death to a whole nation—the Russians: “Moskaliaku na giliaku”—“Ruskies on gallows!”[4] On this openly genocidal slogan, Y.K. Cherson dryly commented: “The famous slogan “moskaliaku na giliaku”- hang Russians on a tree- can sound like a joke, but among the Ukrainian youth of 15-23 years of age from the Western parts of the country, it is no joke; they take it quite seriously, and the Ukrainian social forums and media are full of calls to kill Russians …”[5]

[1] Lada Ray, ”Is Putin part of New World Order?  Signs of the Times, August 15, 2014 <> Accessedon October 21, 2014.
[2] To translate aisthesis, the key term here, merely as perception is inadquate and misleading. A beter, more complete sense of the term is ”perception by the intellect as well as the senses,” “discernment,”  “clear realization” or “having full possession of one’s faculties.” αἴσθησις (aithesis) is from the verb αἰσθάνομαι from a Indo-European compounded root *hewis (clearly, manifestly) and *dʰh-ye/o- (to render); cognate with Sanskrit आविस् (āvís, openly, manifestly, evidently). Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), Perseus Project, <> Accessed on October 21, 2014.
[3] Quoted in Vladimir Golstein, ” Ukraine's Descent into Fascism and How the West Turns a Blind Eye,” Russia Insider, October 21, 2014 <> Accessed on October 21, 2014.
[4] A video from a youth nationalist gathering in Lvov; the slogan ”Ruskies on gallows!” starts at 0:10. ”Москаляку на гіляку -Русского на ветку,” <> Accessed on October 21, 2014.
[5] Y.K. Cherson, ” How the USA Started a Civil War in Ukraine,” Cherson and Molschky <> Accessed on October 21, 2014.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Ukraine, the limit of the New World Order: What is at stake? What is the principle at issue?

As long as one does not understand the true character of what is at stake, one is bound to fight wrong battles in wrong ways, for wrong motives, with inadequate determination and misplaced strategies and likely even on the wrong side. Inversely, this also means that one of the most fundamental war strategies is to sell the enemy a wrong idea about the nature of the conflict and what is at stake—for example, by trivializing “the principle at issue.”

The trivialization of the principle at issue is well visible on the part of Russian diplomacy (as the Russian government treats the crisis as a matter of foreign, external policy). The basis for this was laid down in the Geneva Agreement signed Russia, US, Ukrainian, and EU foreign ministers on April 17, 2014, which, bracketing the anti-Russian oligarchic coup (presented by its Western and Ukrainian organizers as a democratic revolution), were reducing the deep geopolitical stand-off and fundamental political controversy to two problems: 1) “disarming of the illegal groups,” and 2) “returning all illegally seized buildings to legitimate owners” and “vacating all illegally occupied streets, squares and other public places in Ukrainian cities and towns.”[1]
            On the occasion of signing the Geneva Agreement, Lavrov introduced Moscow’s official line, which has been then repeated with minor variations for months to come. According to Lavrov, it was the new Nazi junta who should “show the initiative,” be more friendly, sit down and just listen more and talk more: “Those who took power in Kiev as a result of a coup—if they consider themselves as representing the interests of all the Ukrainians—must show the initiative, extend a friendly hand to the regions, listen to their concerns, and sit down with them at the negotiation table.” The fact that the Russian government did not dare to even formulate the nature and cause of the conflict was presented as an act of statesmanship. For Lavrov, it was actually the junta itself that ought to be from now on “responsible for the stability in the country” and to sort out demands for language rights: “We did not use any terms… [our goal is only] to send a signal to the Ukrainians that they are responsible for stability in the country and must ensure that each region can protect its history and language.” Lavrov also expressed his confidence that the US and the EU which just installed in Ukraine an openly and aggressively anti-Russian regime as a foil for regime change in Russia, if not for her destruction, are “genuinely interested in a trilateral cooperation with Russia aimed at convincing the Ukrainian to sit down at the negotiation table.”  The fact that the new regime in Kiev was a US proxy and thus also controlled by the US in implementing a long geopolitical strategy against Russia should, according to Lavrov, help resolve the crisis: the Americans now have a “decisive influence” on the Kiev authorities, and that should be used for resolving the crisis. In this connection, Lavrov still called Ukraine—now under a Nazi oligarchic regime—“a friendly state.”[2] Similarly, on September 13, Lavrov claimed that “Poroshenko is interested in a peace deal and needs support, primarily from the West,” since the Russian government already supports him.[3]
In the similar vein, Evgeny Primakov, a former member of Gobarchev’s Presidential Council, a Russian foreign minister (1996-98) and Prime Minister (1998-1999) and Putin’s personal mentor, argued that the early mandate for President Putin to use military force in Ukraine, if necessary, was exclusively tied to Crimea only. Russia “has to do all that is needed to absorb Crimea.” According to Primakov, the Kiev regime knew all along that Russia would not use its troops in south-east Ukraine and thus Russia’s military force was never a means of pressure against Kiev. Russia’s more decisive help to the people in Donetsk “would lead to a dead end” and would also “completely abrogate those good tendencies, which are now developing in the West, tendencies of some withdrawal from the line pursued by the United States.” Primakov is convinced that the Russian media and propaganda exaggerated the nature of the conflict. According to Primakov, “the main task for Russia is to create all conditions for technological development in the country where Russia is lagging behind.” Other issues have to be evidently subordinated to this. Primakov believes that the relations between Russia and Ukrainian would be soon normalized (the interview was given on June 25, 2014) by meeting some economic and cultural demands of the people in Donetsk, but within one state under the preserved rule of the current regime. This foreseen “normalization” would “certainly not satisfy those who would want to create their own state within the state or to separate one part from Ukraine.” In Primakov’s view, the junta would and could resolve the crisis “constitutionally.”[4]
In his interview, Primakov made sure that he avoided all fundamental political, geopolitical, or even ideological issues. What he emphasized instead were issues of technology and trade. Alxeander Dugin appraised Primakov’s take on the crisis—the greatest geopolitical threat to Russia since the end of the Cold War—in the following way:

The speech by Primakov on Ukraine was completely false, invalid and shallow. These are the words of a traitor. Thank God that this man is old and he does not influence any decisions. But he sharply stinks with the era of Gorbachev and Yeltsin: under such talking points [which he used yesterday] Gorbachev and Yeltsin were dismantling the country. The current fifth and sixth columns appeared in the USSR as early as the 80s. And clearly Primakov like Shevardnadze, Yakovlev and others were all accomplices in this in those distant years. In comparison with the excesses of the oligarchs and Yeltsin in the 90s, Primakov still seemed to have a "grand style". But this too was, as it gradually became clear, but an optical illusion.[5]
            Primakov’s position, which he himself sees as being largely shared by the highest Russian leadership, was foreshadowed already in his early March 2014 response to a letter by Ukraine's former National Defense and Security Council Secretary Volodymyr Horbulin. Primakov first emphasized that he does not want to “consider the events in Ukraine from the point of view of average people, but [in] the way [of] those who dedicated many years of their lives to politics.” According to Primakov, “Moscow was sincerely hoping that [the February 21] agreement would defuse the tension in Kiev.” The agreement, as recognized by Primakov himself and similarly by President Putin, was practically Yanukovich’s capitulation act in the face of the joint pressure from the Nazi-allied oligarchs, the putschists, and the West. Primakov then assured Horbulin, a high ranking intelligence officer representing the new regime in Kiev, that he was, indeed, in close contact with Putin, and concluded  ”Putin will do whatever it takes to find political means to resolve this grave crisis”—by means of ”a compromise.”[6]
            Such Lavrov’s and Primakov’s mediating messages do, however, severely contradict other assessments, as voiced, for example, by Sergey Glazyev, an adviser to Russian president Vladimir Putin. Glazyev’s portfolio includes Ukraine. On, on March 17, 2014, the next day after the Crimean status referendum, Glazyev was one of the first seven persons placed by President Obama under executive sanctions over Ukraine. Back on March 24, 2014, Glazyev characterized the conflict in these stark, but honest terms:
Our feeling of danger for U.S.-Russian relations is based on more than business relations and sanctions. … The thing is, the entire crisis in Ukraine was orchestrated, provoked, and financed by American institutions in cooperation with their European partners. They financed neo-Nazis. For fifteen years, the U.S. and Europeans financed neo-Nazis’ training, their camps, and preparation. … This work led to the sad situation that now in Ukraine neo-Nazi and neo-fascists ideas prevail, as does admiration for, more than anything, Stepan Bandera’s associates who in their time murdered Jews, Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, and whomever they wanted, burning or otherwise killing them under Nazi leadership. This is very dangerous. We do not understand why the U.S. and the American ambassador for many years and months systematically supported those neo-Nazi ideologies and even methodically trained their followers. … That neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine now is impossible to work with. What we presently see in Ukraine is a symbiosis of neo-fascist groups on the one hand and pro-Western ones on the other … In this way, America created the symbiotic relationship between neo-fascists and pro-Western leaders that make up the basis of the current regime, supported an illegal power take-over—a coup, and is further prodding this regime to go to war with Russia. … So, while they blame us that we have taken over Crimea, where a referendum took place that showed virtually unanimous support for the restoration of sovereignty and joining Russia, at the same time what the EU and U.S. are doing is perpetrating an economic and military-political annexation of the entire Ukraine by imposing on it a treaty that sacrifices its sovereignty and mandates that it follow European policy in foreign and military policy, as well as obey all European directives on trade, the economy, and technical regulations. And actually, the signing of such a partnership from a legal point of view would necessitate changes to the Ukrainian constitution in at least five articles; the current constitution does not allow it. We are watching how our Western and American partners are wittingly forcing on Ukraine illegitimate decisions, signing illegitimate agreements, supporting an illegitimate government, while law violations, violence and terror sweep over the country.[7] 

Just two days before Primakov tried to announce a coming “normalization” or appeacement with Ukraine, Glazyev noted something very different:  
All in all, any our attempts to come to a mutually acceptable agreement with the current Kiev regime ... turn out not only completely unsuccessful, but they are also perceived as a demonstration of weakness and lead to more inadequate demands, unacceptable ultimatums, and furher  growth and escalation of the conflict potential. … The fighters in the people’s militia of Donbass are defenders of the Russian Mir who have been forced to stand on the frontline of the new world war. … People are dying there not only for Donbass—they are also dying for the whole Russian Mir, for the whole mankind, truing to save us from a new worldwar. We should not assume that, if Russia betrays Donbass, she would thus obtain peace at her borders and tranquility inside the country. … We [therefore] need to act decisively, strongly, and precisely.[8]
            While Moscow’s official leadership tried to downplay and dodge the seriousness and meaning of the direct geopolitical threat to Russia by the joint campaign mounted by NATO and new Nazi oligarchy led by the US, Poroshenko, the new president of the Kiev regime on whom the Russian government has been relying for some way-out (scripted by the US anyway), continues to make calls for a Western joint war on Russia. Thus, during his visit to the US, Poroshenko exhorted a mightily applauding U.S. Congress to wage a war of Western civilization against Russian “barbarism.” In doing so, he succeeded to mention the war twenty seven times:
Make no mistake: Europe’s, and the world’s, choice right now is not a choice between a uni-polar and a multi-polar order. Neither is it a choice between different kinds of civilizations. It is a choice between civilization and barbarism. And while standing at this juncture, before this great trial – the democratic world cannot shrink or hesitate! We do not want to see all the democratic accomplishments of the last decades to be erased and to have been for nothing. The free world must stand its ground. And with America’s help – it will! …
The post-war international system of checks and balances was effectively ruined [by Russian’s actions]. The world was plunged into the worst security crisis since the US-USSR stand-off of 1962. Today, we are witnessing another attempt at dividing the world, and Ukraine stands at the center of this attempt. … These Ukrainian army, these young boys (underequipped, and often unappreciated by the world) are the only thing that now stands between the reality of peaceful coexistence and the nightmare of a full relapse into the previous century and a new cold war. And should that happen, then this would neither be the end of it, nor the worst of it. …[This] is Europe’s, and it is America’s war, too. It is a war of the free world – and for a free world! … Human dignity is the one thing we have to oppose to the barbarism of those attacking us.[9]
            On May 4, 2014, the Kiev regime’s Prime Minister Arsenyi Yatsenyuk paid a visit to Odessa just barely one day after the Odessa massacre, when hundreds of Nazi paramilitaries in coordination with the junta’s police and secret service first trapped around three hundred antifacist activists and then burned and beat to death over one hundred of them (officially just over 40). In the wake of the massacre, Yatsenyuk declared that there is a state of war between Ukraine and Russia and he called this war “a hybrid war.” In his interview to Sky News, Yatsenyuk furher stated that “Russia was waging a real war against Kiev.” The massacre of the unarmed civilians by the Kiev regime was ostensibly part of Russia’s aggression, which was “well planned and plotted.” Sky News did not fail to mention though that, in the immediate aftermath of the myahem, the junta’s police detained and charged the surviving victims (at least 67 of them) with violence. No one from the hundreds of the Nazi troopers who carried out the killings were detained or charged. Yatsenyuk used the massacre carried out by his own regime and its very place for making this message to the world: “This is the war [with Russia]. And we are the wartime cabinet. This is the truth.”[10] Yatsenyuk’s statement was carried around the world via Western media, which made sure that they did not talk to any of the survivors.
Christopher R. Hill, whose career includes positions of a former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, US Ambassador to Iraq, South Korea, Macedonia, and Poland, a US special envoy for Kosovo, a negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords, and the chief US negotiator with North Korea from 2005-2009, described the geopolitical stand-off over Ukraine nothing less than “the end of the New World Order.”[11] For Hill, this means that the 25-year long post-Cold War period is over. It was an era of “Russia’s acquiescence and commitment to the ‘new world order’ …” In this New New Order, as in the previous “New Order,”
Americans would be hard pressed to find Ukraine on a map, [but] they don’t need to.  Americans do need to understand the challenge they are facing from a Russia that no longer seems interested in what the West has been offering for the last 25 years: special status with NATO, a privileged relationship with the European Union, and partnership in international diplomatic endeavors.  … Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to be settling in for a long diplomatic winter. The US needs to prepare for it, especially in shoring up partners and allies, and ensuring as best it can that Ukraine is Russia’s last victim, not its first.[12]
            In its analysis, Lignet (“Langley Intelligence Group Network”) also asserts that,  Crimea’s reunification with Russia and Russia’s resistance to the US transformation of Ukraine into its bridgehead (as Brzezinski defined it in his Grand Chessboard plan) signifies “a rejection by Russian President Vladimir Putin of the Western conception of world order since the end of the Cold War.”[13] Thus, according to a solid consensus of Western strategists and analysts, the war in Ukraine is not only a rejection of the New World Order by Russia and/or by far the greatest and most direct challege to it so far, it is also (because of that) today’s key “battle for the New World Order.”[14]
While many pro-Novorossiya supporters and analysts do also see the war as a defense of Russian civilization as such, Stephen Cohen, a well known expert and authority on Russia in the US foreign policy establishment, also believes what is being fought over is “absolutely essential in Moscow's view to its national security and even to its civilization.” From this he also infers that the “the kinds of miscalculations, mishaps and provocations the world witnessed decades ago will be even more fraught with danger.”[15]
Fom behind the media clichés, what we see as an emerging realization what is happening in Ukraine concerns the very foundations of the world order and its possible fundamental change. Ukraine does mean a frontier, and the world order is not here at its limit and breaking point.  The crisis challenges the “order and orientation” of the existing geopolitical system. The hitherto existing system is being unhinged, and one of the reasons is the strange comeback of fascism as a potent political force standing at the edge of the evolution of the post-Soviet oligarchic regime. 
The battle for Ukraine is a battle for a new world order in which the continuous existence of existing truths (or clichés) is no longer guaranteed, and neither is the existing system (or the existence of some of today’s states). Ukraine plunged through Maidan (and maidanschik means swindler and thief) into apeiron (or chaos and war) and, at the same time, in Ukraine, the existing order has run into its critical limit, perhaps even into its end (peras). According to McLuhan himself, a moment of such a character means reversal. That is to say, certainly no trivial reversal. It can be thus argued that, with Ukraine, the ground is moving, opening not only a possible abyss, but also opening and revealing the hitherto obscured meanings of Russia, Ukraine, Europe, the EU, the US, but also of capitalism, oligarchy, Nazism, enslavement, and the ambiguous relations in which the media relate either to our political awakening or deeper and deeper slumber. 
In Ukraine, the ground of the new order of human things is now being forged and fought over. The issue and its antagonism is fundamental. It goes down to the very root of the question about what it means to be human. The question has been posed again with a great urgency and it has to be answered. If Nazism is back, then also man’s very best needs to be called up to fight it as well.

[1] “Text of Joint Diplomatic Statement on Ukraine,” The New York Times,  April 17, 2014, <> Accessed on October 19, 2014.
[2] Lavrov: Russia, US, EU, Ukraine agree on de-escalation roadmap,” RT, April 17, 2014, <> Accessed on October 19, 2014.
[3] ”Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with the Right to Know programme on TV Centre,” The Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the European Union, September 13, 2014, <> Accessed on October 19,2014.
[4] Interview with Evgeny Primakov, “"Мнение": Евгений Примаков об украинском кризисе,” Rossiya 24, June 25, 2014 <> Accessed on October 19, 2014.
[5] ”А. Дугин о выступлении Примакова,”  <> Accessed on October 19, 2014.
[6] ”Yevgeniy Primakov: Events in Ukraine are driven by extreme nationalists,” Kiev Post, March 16, 2014, <> Accessed on October 19, 2014.


[7]”An Interview with Sergey Glazyev,” National Interest, March 24, 2014 <> Accessed on October 20, 2014. On Glazyev’s concept of ”Euro-fascism,” the ”bureaucratic empire” of the EU and their roles in the current crisis in Ukraine see also Sergey Glazyev, ЕВРОФАШИЗМ,” May 19, 2014, Sergey Glazyev’s page <> Accessed on October 20, 2014.
[8]РЕШИТЕЛЬНО, ЖЕСТКО И ТОЧНО,” June 23, Sergey Glazyev’s page, <> Accessed on October 20, 2014.
[9] Petro Poroshenko,  ”Address by the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko to the Joint Session of the United States Congress,” September 18, 2014, Press office of Ukrainian President, <> Accessed on October 19, 2014.

[10] Arsenyi Yatsenyuk, “Ukraine PM: We are at War with Russia, a new kind of War,” Sky News, May 4, 2014 <> Accessed on October 20, 2014.
[11] Christopher R. Hill, “The end of the New World Order,”  Project Syndicate, April 21, 2014 <> Accessed on October 20, 2014.
[12] Ibid.
[13] ”Putin Mocks World Order With Ukraine Cease-Fire,” LIGNET, September 8, 2014, <> Accessed on October 20, 2014.
[14] Pavel Felgenhauer, ”Putin: Ukraine is a Battlefield for the New World Order,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, Volume 11, Issue 121, The Jamestown Foundation,  July 3, 2014, <> Accessed on October 20, 2014.
[15] Stephen F. Cohen, “The New Cold War and the Necessity of Patriotic Heresy,The Nation, August 12, 2014 <> Accessed on October 20, 2014.