Sunday, February 8, 2015

On Sergey Lavrov's Guarded and Late Munich Admission that the Kiev Regime is Nazi (But Where Else Ought This Recognition to Be Made than in Munich?)

In yesterday's speech, Lavrov made a significant progress and came very close to recognizing the Kiev junta as a Nazi regime. In particular, Lavrov boldly declared: "Regretfully, our western colleagues are apt to close their eyes to everything that is said and done by the Kiev authorities, including fanning xenophobic attitudes. Let me quote: “Ukrainian social-nationalism regards the Ukrainian nation as a blood-race community.” Which is followed by: “The issue of total Ukrainisation in the future social-nationalist state will be resolved within three to six months by a tough and balanced state policy.” The author of those words is Andrey Biletsky, the commander of the Azov regiment, which is actively engaged in the military activities in Donbass. Some other activists who gained a position in politics and power, including Dmitry Yarosh, Oleg Tyagnibok and the leader of the Radical Party in the Verkhovna Rada Oleg Lyashko, publicly called a number of times for an ethnically clean Ukraine, for the extermination of Russians and Jews. Those statements failed to evoke any reaction in the western capitals. I don’t think present-day Europe can afford to neglect the danger of the spread of the neo-Nazi virus. ... Yet regardless of all that, more loud calls are being made in some western countries to step up support of the Kiev authorities’ vector towards militarisation of society and the state ... "!OpenDocument

In this, it seems that the Russian Foreign Minister drew on the recent article by Eric Zeusse:

This truthfulness comes at a time when the new Minsk peace plan is being formulated in the form of the "implementation" of the previous Minsk Agreements, but now with talks about broader demilitarization and even a deployment of a peacekeeping force.

Although Lavrov did not use the term Nazism, he all but stated it with the help of such terms as "social nationalism," "Ukranization," "an ethnically clean Ukraine," "extermination of Russians and Jews," "the neo-Nazi virus," and "militarization of society and the state." He, however, stopped short of extending this Nazification to the regime or the junta as a whole. Yet, after a year (almost precisely), Russian diplomacy and official policy toward Ukraine all but broke its previous official taboo.

This step forward, however, only further underscores the problem of Russia's hitherto approach and policy. For, now it is all but official or almost official that the Kiev junta is Nazi, as far as Moscow is officially concerned. This means that conflict resolution is no longer merely a question of how to reconcile two parties in general, but two parties, one of which is self-consciously and decidedly not only or merely anti-Russian, but above all Nazi, in fact. And the other one is anti-Nazi resistance. In other words, the problem and question is how to settle a war, a fundamental conflict, with Nazism, but one which has the adamant and much unified support of the US, the EU, and NATO? In this regard, Lavrov repeated the old, previous mantra, which was used when Moscow did not dare to call the Nazis in Kiev Nazi.  Thus, in the same speech, Lavrov also said after he described the regime to a great extent as "national socialist" (or Nazi): "The Ukrainian crisis cannot be settled by military force. This was confirmed last summer when the situation on the battlefield forced the participants to sign the Minsk Accords. It is being confirmed now as well, when the next attempt to gain a military victory is failing."

Along the same lines, Lavrov also stated again that the conflict (with Ukrainian Nazism) ought to be settled through direct talks (with the Nazi regime) and constitutional reforms, which would also be acceptable to the same regime (and in which neither the junta nor the West is showing any  interest).

In this regard, Lavrov also stated again that the Russian government is calling for "practical steps [on the part of Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk] to restore the common economic, social and political space within the territorial integrity of Ukraine."

Here, as El Murid correctly pointed out (and as I was consistently and continuously arguing), the real and fundamental political (and also existential) problem of the conflict and the war in Ukraine is the Nazi  character of the junta and its regime. ( No ceasefire, "bad peace" or bending backwards in front of the Empire and the junta (see the recent article by Israel Shamir), no pacifying or appeasing Nazism is solving or even remotely addressing this fundamental problem.  One does not cure cancer by telling the cancerous tumors diplomatic lies or by disarming the body or putting off its resistance.

And so the question is, if the question is meant in earnest (and not just to placate the critics and put them asleep again) how do you construct a "common political space"--common both to Nazism and the antifascist forces with the Nazis to keep "state sovereignty" and to remain in control of the state and its security forces (and nearly all the media)?

No comments:

Post a Comment