The growth of fascism in Ukraine before and after Euromaidan,by Victor Shapinov, Borotba Jul 1 2015

Victor Shapinov
Report for the International Anti-EU Forum, Athens, 26-28 June 2015.
link: http://borotba.su/the_growth_of_fascism_in_ukraine_before_and_after_euromaidan.html#.VZKap_I3p0Y.facebook
Translated by Greg Butterfield

Ukrainian fascism, whose existence is hard for even the most ardent supporters of the Kiev regime to deny today, did not emerge in 2014. Ukrainian fascism did not arise suddenly. Its development, first slowly and then rapidly, can be traced to the turn of the 1980s-90s and reached its culmination during the so-called "revolution of dignity" last winter.

This gradual fascization of Ukrainian society, the peak of which naturally came at a time of economic crisis, has long been the subject of analysis by the Ukrainian left. In 2012, two years before the Maidan, our organization, Borotba, published a report entitled “Ukrainian oligarchy prepares a creeping fascist coup.” The report predicted the events of last winter with remarkable accuracy.

Here are some quotes from the document:

“Under cover of security agencies, and with funding from oligarchic groups, nationalist militias will be formed which will constitute the power for a future fascist coup. These units will carry out attacks on leftist and anti-nationalist forces and their headquarters, and carry out terror against individual politicians and social activists.

 “As the power of ethnocratic Ukrainian nationalists will inevitably lead to the growth of separatist movements in the southeast of the country, as well as in the Carpathians, the establishment of a dictatorship of the fascist type will be supported by international players who are interested in the disintegration of Ukraine and the destruction of the Ukrainian state.

“Leftist political organizations and social organizations opposed to nationalism, chauvinism and xenophobia will be banned. Criminal cases will be opened against their leaders. In parallel with persecution under the law, attacks will be carried out by the radical nationalists against left and progressive movements, ethnic and linguistic minorities.”

Dear listeners, you may think that this was written after the 2014 coup. But no, it was written two years earlier, when the government of President Yanukovych seemed unshakable, and our forecast was met with sneers from mainstream political figures. However, not only in 2012 but even earlier, a Marxist analysis allowed us to predict the dire threats associated with the rise of the extreme right and the possibility of big business betting on them in time of crisis.

What factors contributed to the fascization of Ukrainian society?

1. State anti-communism and nationalism. The Ukrainian bourgeois state arose on the ruins of the Soviet Union. Its architect was that section of the Ukrainian Soviet bureaucracy which sought to participate in the privatization of public property. This part of the bureaucracy sought to dispose of public property on the territory of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic without the control of the central apparatus of the USSR. Therefore, the union of former Soviet bureaucrats with  nationalist forces became the basis for the formation of the new ruling class of “independent” Ukraine.

It should be noted that nationalism was the main public educational policy beginning in 1991, and periodic changes of presidents and governments, some of which were considered “pro-Russian,” made little difference. The whole history of the Ukrainian people was taught in schools as the fight for an independent state, and the state which was created in 1991 was described as the implementation of an age-old dream of Ukrainians. In parallel, the same educational system was riddled with anti-communism and tried to portray the Soviet Union as an “empire” oppressing Ukrainians and seeking to destroy the Ukrainian nation.

Several generations of young Ukrainians have grown up in this context of anti-communist and nationalist propaganda, and many of them formed the human basis for the fascist organizations.

2. Failure of the "communist revenge" in 1999. The presidential candidate of the Communist Party of Ukraine, Petro Symonenko, could have won the 1999 elections against right-wing incumbent President Leonid Kuchma. However, the Communist Party failed to unite with other leftists to support a single candidate, and then did not dare to oppose the unfair and rigged election results. This indecision at the top of the Communist Party led to disillusionment in the left’s ability to take power and return the country to the socialist path of development. After 1999, the Communist Party lost support from election to election. After President Yanukovych came to power in 2010, the Communist Party became part of the ruling coalition, abandoning the role of critic of the authorities’ socio-economic policies to the ultra-right forces.

3. Support for nationalist and neo-fascist forces during the regime of Yanukovych. Yanukovych and his Party of Regions relied on the votes of the industrial and Russian-speaking eastern and southern regions of the country, lacking a growth of alternative political forces, especially the left. In turn, the political strategists of the regime sought to fragment the political field in the west and center of the country, supporting the nationalist forces with money and media.

4. The union of pro-Western neoliberals and Nazis against President Yanukovych became the nucleus of Euromaidan. Our organization wrote in winter 2014: “The undoubted success of the nationalists is that they, due to their high level of activity, have managed to impose their ideological leadership on the Euromaidan. This is evidenced by the slogans which have become a kind of ‘password’ for activists at mass gatherings on Maidan Square. The first is ‘Glory to Ukraine -- Glory to heroes!’, which, together with the raising of the right hand with straightened palm, was the salute of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in April 1941. Others include ‘Glory to the nation -- death to the enemy!’, ‘Ukraine above all’ (tracing back to the infamous German ‘Deutchland uber alles’), and ‘Whoever does not jump – is a Muscovite.’ The other opposition parties do not have a clear-cut ideological line or set of slogans, leading the liberal opposition to adopt  the nationalist slogans and nationalist agenda. " Thus, the alliance of neoliberals and Nazis took place. While the neoliberals adopted the political program of the Ukrainian fascists, the Nazis agreed with carrying out the neoliberal line in the economy. This alliance was “sanctified” by representatives of Western imperialism, such as Catherine Ashton, Victoria Nuland and John McCain.

5. Support of Ukrainian big capital for Euromaidan, including its Nazi side. The largest owners and oligarchs were customers, sponsors and the main “beneficiaries” of Euromaidan. The fact that oligarch-capitalists, such as Igor Kolomoisky, Petro Poroshenko, Dmitry Firtash, Sergei Taruta and, to a lesser extent, Rinat Akhmetov, allocated funding to Euromaidan, swept this movement into the media they control. When the Euromaidan triumphed, those who previously governed the country indirectly, through the administration of Yanukovych, received direct control, including as governors of key areas, and oligarch Petro Poroshenko became president.

Thus, the coming to power of openly fascist forces, as well as the transition of mainstream right-wingers (such as Poroshenko and Yatseniuk) to fascist positions, was predictable and to some extent natural in the developing global economic crisis.

While the fascist forces were prepared for the development of the Ukrainian crisis, our resistance forces were not. After the seizure of power by the right-wing coup in February 2014, a semi-haphazard protest movement began to emerge, mainly in the southeast of the country. At first, its slogans were very modest, demanding only a certain degree of autonomy from the central government in Kiev, which took on a more and more clearly fascist character. As soon as the regime consolidated its power, Kiev increased the pressure on the southeast with the help of paramilitary attacks by neo-Nazi groups, which radicalized the resistance. In the end, this resulted in a successful revolt in Donetsk and Lugansk and defeated uprisings in Odessa and Kharkov.

Due to the fragmentation of resistance forces, there was no coherent ideology or common goal in the uprisings. However, the general anti-fascist and anti-oligarchic orientation was healthy and clearly reflects the proletarian and semi-proletarian class composition of the resistance.

Today, the fascist regime in Kiev is greatly strengthened throughout the country, except for the territories controlled by the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. Terror and intimidation have extinguished active street resistance to the regime. Today there are probably several thousand political prisoners in Ukraine. There is de facto media censorship. “Communist propaganda" is officially banned. Ultra-right militant groups are legalized and integrated into the ranks of law enforcement agencies.

Under these conditions, the resistance groups, including our organization, are forced to work underground, as our comrades face not only charges of “propagating communism” (5 years or more in prison), but also “terrorism” (8 to 15 years in prison).

However, the resistance is alive. And not only in the People's Republics.
We believe that Ukraine will be free, will be socialist.

To beat ISIS, kick out US-led coalition! By Sharmine Narwani , RT. May 27, 2015

Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Middle East geopolitics. She tweets @snarwani
Published by rt.com/ May 27, 2015
source link: http://rt.com/op-edge/262393-isis-us-coalition-syria-iraq/




It’s been a bad time for foes of ISIS. Islamic State scored a neat hat-trick by invading strategic Ramadi in Iraq’s mainly Sunni Anbar province, occupying Syria’s historic gem Palmyra, and taking over Al-Tanf, the last remaining border crossing with Iraq.

The multinational, American-led ‘Coalition’ launched last August to thwart Islamic State’s (IS, formerly ISIS) march across Syria and Iraq…did nothing.

And so Baghdad and Washington are pointing fingers, each accusing the other of being asleep on the job.

US Defense Secretary Ash Carter struck a low blow on Sunday in a CNN interview: “What apparently happened was that the Iraqi forces just showed no will to fight. They vastly outnumbered the opposing force. That says to me… that we have an issue with the will of the Iraqis to fight and defend themselves.”

Carter must have forgotten that Iraqis staved off an ISIS occupation of Ramadi for almost 18 months. He also forgot that it was Iraqis who defended and/or recovered Amerli, Suleiman Beg, Tuz Khurmatu, Jurf al-Sakhar, Jalula, Saadiyah, Khanaqin, Muqdadiyah, Baquba, Udhaim Dam, Tharthar Dam, Habbaniyah, Haditha, Al-Baghdadi, Mosul Dam, Mount Sinjar, Zumar, Erbil, Gwer, Makhmur, dozens of Christian villages in the Nineveh Plains, Tikrit, Samarra, Balad, Dhuluiya, Dujail, Ishaqi, Al-Alam, Al-Dour, Albu Ajil, Awja, Al-Mutassim, Mukayshifa, Ajil and Alas oilfields, Hamrin mountains, Baiji oil refinery, scores of villages in the provinces of Salaheddine, Diyala, Kirkuk, Anbar, and Babil – and the capital city, Baghdad.

The Iraqis have shot back. Key MP Hakim al-Zamili blames Ramadi’s collapse on the US’s failure to provide “good equipment, weapons and aerial support” to troops.

Deputy Prime Minister Saleh Mutlaq, himself a Sunni from Anbar Province, concluded that the Americans were coming up short in all areas. "The Coalition airstrikes are not enough to eliminate IS." Furthermore, the US policy of recruiting Sunni tribes for the fight, he added, was “too late” – it is "important but not enough."

If ever there was an understatement, this is it.

Washington’s long-stated objective of rallying together a vetted Sunni fighting force - or its equivalent in the form of a National Guard – has always served as a placeholder to avoid facing realities.

One thing we have learned from IS gains in small and large Sunni towns alike, is that the extremist group prides itself on sleeper cells and alliances inside of these areas. Sunni tribes and families, both, are divided on their support of IS. And the militants ensure that everyone else falls in line through a brutal campaign of inflicting fear and pain indiscriminately. So the likelihood of a significant, anti-IS, well-trained and equipped Sunni fighting force emerging anytime soon is just about nil.

So too is the idea of a US-led Coalition air force that can cripple Islamic State. Washington has run fewer sorties over Syria and Iraq in the nine months since inception of its air campaign, than Israel ran in its entire three-week Gaza blitz in 2008-09.

Where were the American bombers when Ramadi and Palmyra were being taken? And why does the US Air Force only seem to engage in earnest when their Kurdish allies are being threatened – as in Kobani (Ain al-Arab), Syria, and Erbil in Iraq?


If actions speak louder than words, then Washington’s moves in the Mideast have been deafening.

Forget talk of a ‘unified Iraq’ with a ‘strong central government’. And definitely forget loudly-proclaimed objectives of ‘training moderate forces’ to ‘fight off IS’ across the Jordanian and Turkish borders in Syria. That’s just talk.

An objective look at US interests in the region paint an entirely different picture. The Americans seek to maintain absolute hegemony in the Mideast, even as they exit costly military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Their primary interests are 1) access to low cost oil and gas, 2) propping up Israel, and more recently, 3) undermining Russian (and Chinese) influence in the region.

Clinging on to hegemony would be a whole lot easier without the presence of a powerful, independent Islamic Republic of Iran, which continues to throw a wrench in many of Washington’s regional projects.

So hegemony is somewhat dependent on weakening Iran – and its supportive alliances.

With the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the US inadvertently extended Iran’s arc of influence in a direct geographic line to Palestine, leaving the Israeli colonial project vulnerable. Former President George W. Bush immediately took on the task of destroying this Resistance Axis by attempting to neuter Iranian allies Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas – and failed.

The Arab Spring presented a fresh opportunity to regroup: the US and its Turkish and Persian Gulf allies swung into action to create conditions for regime-change in Syria. The goal? To break this geographic line from Iran - through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon - to Palestine.

When regime-change failed, the goalpost moved to the next best plan: dividing Syria into several competing chunks, which would weaken the central state and create a pro-US ‘buffer’ along the border with Israel.

Weakening the central government in Iraq by dividing the state along Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite lines has also been a priority for the Americans.

You only have to look at recent US actions in Iraq to see this unspoken plan in action. Washington’s most intensive airstrikes to date were when Kurdish Erbil and its environs came under threat by ISIS. Congress has breached all international norms by ushering through legislation to directly arm Sunni and Kurdish militias and bypass the central government in Baghdad. And despite endless promises and commitments, the Americans have failed at every hurdle to train and equip the Iraqi Army and security forces to do anything useful.

A weak, divided Iraq can never become a regional powerhouse allied with Iran and the Resistance Axis. Likewise a weak, divided Syria. But without US control over these central governments, the only way to achieve this is 1) through the creation of sectarian and ethnic strife that could carve out pro-US buffers inside the ‘Resistance states’ and/or 2) through the creation of a hostile ‘Sunni buffer’ to break this line from Iran to Palestine.

General Walid Sukariyya, a Sunni, pro-resistance member of Lebanon’s parliament, agrees. “ISIS will be better for the US and Israel than having a strong Iran, Iraq and Syria…If they succeed at this, the Sunni state in Iraq will split the resistance from Palestine.”

While Washington has long sought to create a buffer in Iraq on the Syrian border, it has literally spent years trying – and failing – to find, then mold, representative Sunni Iraqi leaders who will comfortably toe a pro-American line.

An example of this is the Anbar delegation US General John Allen handpicked last December for a DC tour, which excluded representatives of the two most prominent Sunni tribes fighting IS in Iraq – the Albu Alwan and Albu Nimr. A spokesman for the tribes, speaking to Al-Jarida newspaper, objected at the time: "We are fighting ISIL and getting slaughtered, while suffering from a shortage of weapons. In the meantime, others are going to Washington to get funds and will later be assigned as our leaders."

But why ignore Sunni groups who are unreservedly opposed to IS? Aren’t they America’s natural constituents inside Iraq?

The Takfiri extremist groups serve a purpose for Washington. IS has had the ability - where competing Sunni factions, with their ever-growing lists of demands from Baghdad, have not – to transform the US’ ‘buffer’ project into a physical reality. And Washington has not needed to expend blood, treasure or manpower to get the job done.

Last week, the government watchdog group Judicial Watch published a secret (now declassified) 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document that sheds light on American calculations in Syria.

Written just 16 months into the 50-month-long Syrian conflict, the highly-redacted DIA document discloses the following key revelations:

"The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (Al-Qaeda in Iraq) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria."

"The West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition."

The Syrian government has focused its priorities on securing pro-government areas and major transportation routes, which means "the regime decreased its concentration in areas adjacent to the Iraqi borders (al Hasaka and Der Zor).”

"Opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to the western Iraqi borders (Mosul and Anbar)…Western countries, the Gulf and Turkey are supporting these efforts."

"The deterioration of the situation…creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi…"

"If the situation unravels there is the opportunity of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."

The DIA brief makes clear that the escalation of conflict in Syria will create further sectarianism and radicalization, which will increase the likelihood of an ‘Islamic State’ on the Syrian-Iraqi border, one that would likely be manned by the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).

So what did Washington do when it received this information? It lied.

Less than one month after the DIA report was published, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this about the Syrian opposition: "I just don't agree that a majority are Al-Qaeda and the bad guys. That's not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists ... Maybe 15 percent to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys…There is a real moderate opposition that exists.”

Using the fabricated storyline of ‘moderate rebels’ who need assistance to fight a ‘criminal Syrian regime’, the US government kept the Syrian conflict buzzing, knowing full well the outcome would mean the establishment of a Sunni extremist entity spanning the Syrian-Iraqi border…which could cripple, what the Americans call, “the strategic depth of the Shia expansion.”

As US Council on Foreign Relations member and terrorism analyst Max Abrahms conceded on Twitter: "The August 5, 2012 DIA report confirms much of what Assad has been saying all along about his opponents both inside & outside Syria."

Fakhreddin's Castle (top), is pictured in the historical city of Palmyra, Syria (Reuters / Nour Fourat)

Fakhreddin's Castle (top), is pictured in the historical city of Palmyra, Syria (Reuters / Nour Fourat)
How to fight this American “Frankenstein”

Since last year, numerous Iraqi officials have complained about the US airdropping weapons to IS - whether deliberately or inadvertently remains disputed. Military sources, on the other hand, have made clear that the US-led Coalition ignores many of the Iraqi requests for air cover during ground operations.

If the US isn't willing to play ball in Iraq's existential fight against IS, then why bother with the Americans at all?

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is viewed as a ‘weak’ head of state - a relatively pro-American official who will work diligently to keep a balance between US interests and those of Iraq's powerful neighbor, Iran.

But after the disastrous fall of Ramadi, and more bad news from inside Syria, Abadi has little choice but to mitigate these losses, and rapidly. The prime minister has now ordered the engagement of thousands of Hashd al-Shaabi (Shiite paramilitary groups, commonly known as the Popular Mobilization Forces) troops in the Anbar to wrest back control of Ramadi. And this - unusually - comes with the blessings of Anbar's Sunni tribes who voted overwhelmingly to appeal to the Hashd for military assistance.

Joining the Hashd are a few thousand Sunni fighters, making this a politically palatable response. If the Ramadi operation goes well, this joint Sunni-Shiite effort (which also proved successful in Tikrit) could provide Iraq with a model to emulate far and wide.

The recent losses in Syria and Iraq have galvanized IS' opponents from Lebanon to Iran to Russia, with commitments pouring in for weapons, manpower and funds. If Ramadi is recovered, this grouping is unlikely to halt its march, and will make a push to the Syrian border through IS-heavy territory. There is good reason for this: the militants who took Ramadi came across the Syrian border - in full sight of US reconnaissance capabilities.

A senior resistance state official told me earlier this year: “We will not allow the establishment of a big (extremist) demographic and geographic area between Syria and Iraq. We will work to push Syrian ISIS inside Syria and Iraqi ISIS inside Iraq.”

Right now, the key to pushing back Takfiri gains inside Syria's eastern and northwestern theaters lies in the strengthening of the Iraqi military landscape. And an absolute priority will be in clearing the IS ‘buffer’ between the two states.

Eighteen months ago, in an analysis about how to fight jihadist militants from the Levant to the Persian Gulf, I wrote that the solution for this battle will be found only within the region, specifically from within those states whose security is most compromised or under threat: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

I argued that these four states would be forced to increase their military cooperation as the battles intensified, and that they would provide the only 'boots on the ground' in this fight.

And they will. But air cover is a necessary component of successful offensive operations, even in situations of unconventional warfare. If the US and its flimsy Coalition are unable or unwilling to provide the required reconnaissance assistance and the desired aerial coverage, as guided by a central Iraqi military command, then Iraq should look elsewhere for help.

Iran and Russia come to mind - and we may yet get there.

Iraq and Syria need to merge their military strategies more effectively - again, an area where the Iranians and Russians can provide valuable expertise. Both states have hit a dangerous wall in the past few weeks, and the motivation for immediate and decisive action is high today.

Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah is coming into play increasingly as well - its Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah has recently promised that Hezbollah will no longer limit itself geographically, and will go where necessary to thwart this Takfiri enemy. The non-state actors that make up the jihadist and Takfiri core cannot be beaten by conventional armies, which is why local militias accustomed to asymmetric warfare are best suited for these battles.

Criticizing the US's utterly nonexistent response to the Ramadi debacle yesterday, Iran's elite Quds Force Commander Qassem Suleimani points out: "Today, there is nobody in confrontation with [IS] except the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as nations who are next to Iran or supported by Iran.” The Iranians have become central figures in the fight against terror, and are right next door to it - as opposed to Washington, over 6,000 miles away.

If the US has any real commitment to the War on Terror, it should focus on non-combat priorities that are also essential to undermine extremism: 1) securing the Turkish and Jordanian borders to prevent any further infiltration of jihadists into Syria and Iraq, 2) sanctioning countries and individuals who fund and weaponize the Takfiris, most of whom are staunch US allies, now ironically part of the ‘Coalition’ to fight IS, and 3) sharing critical intelligence about jihadist movements with those countries engaged in the battle.

It is time to cut these losses and bring some heavyweights into this battle against extremism. If the US-directed Coalition will not deliver airstrikes under the explicit command of sovereign states engaged at great risk in this fight, it may be time to clear Iraqi and Syrian airspace of coalition jets, and fill those skies with committed partners instead.

.............................................................................................................................