US/NATO War on Russia

[Magda Hassan]

READ YOUR CONSTITUTION
The situation in Ukraine
Introductory note:
The Bandera OUN-B legacy is critical to understanding the nature of the armed insurrection now unfolding in Ukraine. OUN (the right-wing bourgeois-nationalist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) was founded in 1929, to fight against Poland after it had seized western Ukraine from the infant Soviet Union. Within four years, Stepan Bandera was its head. In 1934, Bandera and other OUN leaders were arrested for the assassination of Bronislaw Pieracki, the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs. Sentenced to life imprisonment he was sought out by the Nazis as a future Quisling (just as they sought out disaffected nationalists in various countries who they thought could be potential "leaders" of puppet states for them) and freed from prison after the German invasion of Poland.


Bandera immediately entered into negotiations with the German Occupation Headquarters, receiving funds and arranging Abwehr training for 800 of his paramilitary commandos.
























Bandera received 2.5 million German marks to conduct subversive operations inside the Soviet Union. In 1940, the OUN split into two factions; Bandera became the leader of OUN-B, the more radical (ie more violent) faction. By the time of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, Bandera's forces consisted of at least 7,000 fighters, organized into "mobile groups" that coordinated with German forces.


On 30 June 1941, eight days after Germany's attack on the Soviet Union, Bandera in Lviv proclaimed an independent Ukrainian state. His militant branch of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) thought that, in their struggle against the Soviet Union, they had a powerful ally in Nazi Germany. But Bandera quickly fell out with his new "allies" (his followers' dreams of a "Greater Ukraine" incorporating Polish and Soviet territory did not coincide with Nazi plans for a Greater Germany) and the Germans arrested the newly formed "Ukrainian government" and sent them to Berlin.

Bandera (centre) in Nazi uniform.

But Bandera maintained his Nazi ties and funding, and his "mobile groups" were supplied and given air cover by the Germans throughout the war.


In 1943, Bandera's OUN-B carried out a mass extermination campaign of Poles and Jews, killing an estimated 70,000 civilians during the summer of that year alone. Although Bandera was still running the OUN-B operations out of Berlin, the ethnic cleansing program was run by Mykola Lebed, the chief of the Sluzhba Bespeki, OUN-B's secret police organization. In May 1941, at an OUN plenary in Krakow, the organization issued a document, "Struggle and Action of OUN During the War," which stated, in part, "Moskali, Poles, Jews are hostile to us and must be exterminated in this struggle." ("Moskal" is derogatory Ukrainian slang for "Muscovites," or Russians.)


In September 1944, with the war going very badly against Germany, Bandera and his group were reorganised into the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, so that they could fight the advancing Soviet forces. He received German financial, materiel, and personnel support and his pro-Nazi force fought against the Red Army for the rest of the War (and was noted for its atrocities) and then continued to do so in the chaotic post-war conditions, killing Communists, Jews, ethnic Russians among the population, collective farm secretaries, civil officials, in fact anyone who might contribute to a non-racially "pure" Ukraine or to rebuilding socialism in the country. After the ultimate defeat of his forces, Bandera fled to Germany where he was treated not as a Nazi war criminal but as an honoured anti-Soviet fighter.


According to Stephen Dorrill in his authoritative history of MI6, MI6: Inside the Covert World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service, Bandera was recruited to work for MI6 in April 1948. The link to the British was arranged by Gerhard von Mende, a former top Nazi who had headed the Caucasus Division of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories (Ostministerium). Von Mende recruited Muslims from the Caucasus and Central Asia to fight with the Nazis during the invasion of the Soviet Union [the Chechens were some of these]. At the close of World War II, he worked for the British through a front company, Research Service on Eastern Europe, which was a recruiting agency for principally Muslim insurgents operating inside the Soviet Union. Von Mende was instrumental in establishing a major hub of Muslim Brotherhood operations in Munich and Geneva.
Through von Mende, MI6 trained agents from the OUN-B and dropped them inside the Soviet Union to carry out sabotage and assassination operations between 1949 and 1950. A 1954 MI6 report praised Bandera as "a professional underground worker with a terrorist background and ruthless notions about the rules of the game."


In March 1956, Bandera went to work for the German equivalent of the CIA, the BND, then headed by Gen. Reinhardt Gehlen, the head of German military intelligence on the Eastern Front during World War II. Again, von Mende was one of his sponsors and protectors. In 1959, Bandera was assassinated by the KGB in West Germany.


Mykola Lebed, the on-site commander of Bandera's secret police, fared even better at the close of World War II. Lebed was recruited by the U.S. Army's Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) in December 1946, and by 1948, was on the CIA payroll. Lebed recruited those OUN-B agents who did not go with Bandera and MI6, and participated in a number of sabotage programs behind the Iron Curtain. Lebed was brought to New York City, where he established a CIA front company, Prolog Research Corporation, under the control of Frank Wisner, who was the head of the CIA s Directorate of Plans during the 1950s. Prolog operated well into the 1990s, getting a big boost when Zbigniew Brzezinski was President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor.


In 1985, the U.S. Department of Justice launched an investigation into Lebed's role in the wartime genocide in Poland and Western Ukraine, but the CIA blocked the probe and it was eventually dropped. Nevertheless, in 2010, after the release of thousands of pages of wartime records, the National Archives published a documentary report, Hitler's Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U.S. Intelligence, and the Cold War, by Richard Breitman and Norman Goda, which included a detailed account of Bandera's and Lebed's wartime Nazi collusion and involvement in mass executions of Jews and Poles.


It is this Bandera-Lebed legacy, and the networks spawned in the postwar period, which are at the centre of imperialism's current schemes in Ukraine.


On 22 January 2010, the outgoing President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko awarded Bandera the posthumous title of Hero of Ukraine. The award was condemned by anti-fascists everywhere and by Russian, Polish and Jewish organizations as well as the European Parliament and was declared illegal by the following Ukrainian government and by a court decision in April 2010. In January 2011, the award was officially annulled.


While Western news accounts promoted this year's orchestrated demonstrations in Kiev's Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnesti, or Euromaidan as it is now called), as initially peaceful, the fact is that, from the outset, the protests included hardcore avowed neo-Nazis, right-wing "soccer hooligans" and "Afghansy" combat veterans of the wars in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Georgia. According to Ukrainian parliamentarian Oleh Tsaryov, 350 Ukrainians returned to the country from Syria in January 2014, after fighting with the Syrian rebels, including al-Qaeda-linked groups such as the al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).


Protesters from the opposition Svoboda Party, formerly called the Socialist-Nationalists, marched under the red and black flag of Stepan Bandera's Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B), and prominently displayed a large photo of Bandera on the steps of the Square's main building, to arrogantly confirm their fascist allegiance.


The following Statement by Gennady Zyuganov, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), "On the situation in Ukraine", traces the roots of extreme Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism, the economic basis of its pro-fascist nature and the nature of the present struggle in Eastern Ukraine.


Today, war is raging in the vast territories of the Lugansk and Donetsk people's republics. For the first time since Ukraine's liberation from the Nazis 70 years ago, civilian towns and villages are shelled and bombed. The dead and wounded number thousands and the refugees tens of thousands. Entire residential neighbourhoods, orphanages and schools, outpatient clinics and hospitals, power generation and water supply facilities have been destroyed. A number of cities, where hundreds of thousands of people live, are being strangled by the blockade.


The Banderaists at power, their patrons in the West and yes-men in the Russian liberal camp openly hush up the war crimes that are being committed in Novorossiya / New Russia. This is because the ongoing destruction of towns and villages is in direct violation of international norms and customs of war. The 1949 Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit the use of artillery and combat aircraft against undefended populated areas. Meanwhile, the junta that seized power in a coup in Kiev is pursuing a most vile and cowardly strategy for its death squads are invariable losers in direct combat with the Self-Defence Forces of Novorossiya/New Russia.


Forces and private armies of the oligarchs are deliberately destroying the civilian population. This is ethnic cleansing. The Russian-speaking population is being squeezed out of their historic homeland. That is a grave crime against humanity.






The historical roots of recent developments
Russia's attention to the Ukrainian developments and the anguish that we feel in connection with the war blazing there are natural. Ukraine is not just a part of the Slavic world. The Ukrainian land and its people are integral part of the Russian consciousness, of Russian history. The thing at point is the deepest spiritual and cultural bond between our peoples, their historical inalienability from each other. When attempts are made to set us at loggerheads for the sake of the interests of the West, it is like cutting us to the quick, causing a deep wound both to Russian society and to all the citizens of Ukraine, including those who are befuddled by anti-Russian propaganda. For it is only in alliance with Russia that Ukraine can reach the heights of prosperity which many people in Ukraine have considered possible only in alliance with Europe. An alliance that has eternally brought about trouble.


It has always been so. Both in the 12ththrough the 14thcenturies when the Chermnaya (Red) Rus' nestled around Lvov was severed from the historic core of Russia and was torn to pieces by her western neighbours and in the16th and the 17th centuries, when the Polish gentry sought to wipe out by fire and sword from the Ukrainian soil the very spirit of freedom and Orthodox Christianity along with the memory of the great all-Russia unity. It also happened in the 18th century, when a handful of traitors gathered around Mazepa (to whom Peter the Great seriously intended to award a two-stone "Medal of Judah" to wear on his neck as a sort of reward for betrayal). At the beginning of the 20th century, during the Civil War, the local samostiitsy (Ukrainian separatists) relied on German bayonets. All this turned the Ukrainian land into a scene of gory battles. The rescue came solely with Russia's help.


The current terrific developments have borne out V.I. Lenin's statement that a free Ukraine was only possible if Great Russia's and Ukraine's proletarians joined in action and it was out of the question without such unity. It is appropriate to recall here that all of the major high-tech industries in Ukraine, not only in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, but also in the Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhe, and other regions, were built in the Soviet era at the expense of the Union budget, of which 70% came from Russia, i.e. from Russian people.


So a fraternal alliance with the Ukrainian people at the time of terrible trials is our common cause and our common duty.


It might seem that a civil war broke out in Ukraine overnight. Six months ago, the country was one of the many states experiencing difficult economic and social problems but preserving its political stability. The people's discontent was accumulating. However, there were no signs of heavy shocks coming. It would, however, be ill-advised to assume that a social explosion occurred all of a sudden, like a bolt from the blue.


The Russian leadership, admittedly, responded to this threat quite adequately by bringing the Crimea back into Russia in time for the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the peninsula from the Nazis and preventing, in fact, an outbreak of a major war.


To better understand the origins of the tragedy of Ukraine, it is necessary to see the historical roots in their development, to understand the mechanisms of the severe crisis originating in the brotherly country. It is necessary to see the recent external symptoms of a bloody fratricidal war surfacing in Ukraine, as well as the deeper historical, economic, class, ethnic, cultural, religious and other prerequisites of these developments. Only an integrated analysis will enable correct identification of the driving forces in the crisis in Ukraine, prediction of the further course of events and elaboration of strategies and tactics for the resolution of this dire conflict.


For us Communists, what is happening in the sister republic is not of a mere theoretical interest. We are not political scientists, who impassively watch any developments. We have an obligation to draw lessons from the most severe social confrontation into which the neighbouring country has plunged. It is therefore necessary to analyze the events in Ukraine, bearing in mind that similar events could also be repeated in one form or another in Russia.


Of course, our attention and sympathy focus primarily on Novorossiya that is emerging in the struggle. However, it is equally important to understand the sources and driving forces of the opposing side - the resurgent Neo-Nazism. For this purpose it is necessary to analyze the historical origins and formation of the Bandera movement as a form of Ukrainian ethnic nationalism in its most extreme forms. It is necessary to understand on what ideological foundation the movement rested and in what way nationalism coupled with Russophobia is being fuelled in Ukraine today.
The origins of radical nationalism
It is crucial to understand that Ukraine, with the exception of the Soviet period, never had its own statehood and no other periods in history that were identical for the entire Ukrainian people. Over the centuries, when European powers were emerging, Ukraine was never once an independent state, nor a unified whole entity in the structure of other states. What is modern-day Ukrainian territory was always divided between different European powers. In the middle of the 17th century, as a result of a voluntary union with Russia, its eastern half found itself under Russia's wing, wherein a history of Malorossiya or Rus' Minor (Lesser Russia) began to take form, while the western Ukrainian territories were under the rule of Poland and then Austro-Hungary.


Poland's policy towards the Ukrainian population was extremely cruel, often sadistic. Western Ukrainians, as a part of the Polish state population, were second-class citizens. That was the key reason why a radical Ukrainian nationalism began to emerge in western Ukraine; it was in part similar to the ideas of racial exclusiveness, enshrined in the "Third Reich."


The then Bandera followers did not just enter into a strategic coalition with the German occupiers, but participated most actively in their punitive actions, including against the native Ukrainian population. They carried on the same practice in western Ukraine after the war upon going underground. Not only more than 25 thousand Soviet soldiers and security officers but also more than 30 thousand innocent Ukrainians were killed in the battles with Bandera followers lasting until the mid-1950s. Those clashes came at a high cost to the Banderovites, too: they lost more than 60 thousand men dead over the years.


The Bandera-style nationalism did not evolve into a national liberation idea but into a totalitarian sect of crazed fanatics who killed primarily native Ukrainians. Characteristics of an analogous totalitarian sect are inherent in West Ukrainian Uniate church, which is formally in communion with Rome. Sticking with it were the Bandera followers who did not want to take into account the fact that the vast majority of Ukrainians embraced Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The ideology of the Uniates (Eastern Rite Roman Catholics) has in fact very little to do with Catholicism. It is rather an extreme, sectarian form of Protestantism mixed with Baptism. Not accidental are the relations to the sectarians of the key top figures in Kiev - Baptist Turchinov and Yatseniuk who is friends with scientologists.


Every victory scored by extremist, low zoological-scale nationalists has resulted from a deep crisis of the government, whose hostility society is increasingly aware of and reacting radically to its ugly manifestations. The only way for the forces at power to keep afloat is through an alliance with the radical nationalist ideology, thanks to which the former top heads are reportedly retaining their posts, already under new banners.
The new "elite", wholly emerging from the previous series, enjoys the use of Banderaite instruments and of Bandera followers as "cannon fodder" in order to once again fool the millions of people after performing a clan castling within the power circles. As a result, the oligarchs have not only maintained but also strengthened their positions. They will now carry out the same or even more brutal economic policies under the Banderaite banners with a harsh tutelage from the West and in the same "alliance with the devil" against Moscow, that will bring no relief from Ukraine's troubles and problems but certainly their aggravation.


An unbiased, scientific approach guides one to a conclusion that both the Western policy-makers and the current Kiev rulers, who are seeking to cut the age-old ties with Russia, have shunned in every way. This conclusion is that the people of Central and Eastern Ukraine are, in fact, connected with Russia in a much stronger way than with West Ukraine. Any attempts to steer Ukraine into a pro-Western, anti-Russia channel are directed not only against Russia, but against most of the Ukrainian people. They are inherently anti-Ukrainian, anti-national actions cloaked in nationalist demagogy.


Objectively, everything is just so, even though not all the residents of the central and western regions of Ukraine are yet aware of it. History of the Bandera movement has already revealed the tragic paradox, which is now being played out again through the fault of the new Banderovites who seized power. While allegedly upholding the interests of the Ukrainian people, these figures are infringing on the interests of the greater part of Ukrainians, the interests which cannot be implemented outside of close ties with Russia. It is what Bandera and his associates did not want to understand and what Ukraine's current "elite", which is under the auspices of Washington, does not want to hear about.


The Bandera-style nationalism as an extreme manifestation of Russophobia
The Ukrainian radical nationalists' choice in favour of the fight against "Soviet occupation" was neither their fault, nor forced, nor a temporary tactical move. It was natural and inevitable, and for Ukrainian nationalists it still remains as such today. For them, the only possible choice is in favor of an anti-Russia alliance with any, even the worst enemy of Ukraine. Without such an unnatural union no "independent" Ukraine is possible in isolation from Russia.


Of course, in the past there occurred political and cultural imbalances in the actions of Russia's central authorities in the Ukrainian territories as parts of the Russian Empire. But the original language and cultural closeness of our peoples, the similarity of their thinking, traditions and customs mitigated that problem. It is impossible to describe that period of history as occupation of Ukraine. Descriptions of that sort are rooted in ignorance and vile speculation. It is right to speak about a centuries-long common history of Russia, Eastern and Central Ukraine and say that, as a result of our union, a uniform political nation was formed.


But Bandera and his followers transferred their hatred of the former oppressors on to the Soviet regime after it began to assert itself in West Ukraine. They did not want to see that the principles of Soviet government had nothing to do with the colonial order imposed by Polish pans/lords. They did not want to see that within the structure of the Soviet state East and Central Ukraine were already receiving more de facto independence than in the Russian Empire and the advent of the Soviet regime in the western part of Ukraine was not a sort of new colonization but liberation from colonization.


But why do the ideologues of Russophobia manage, even nowadays, to fool a large part of society? The explanation lies in the fact that many Ukrainians repeatedly see radical nationalism as a panacea for their ills, an alternative to what oppressed and humiliated them in the past. But their troubles and humiliation are now associated with a new reality. It is not tantamount to the violent Polish outrage of the past centuries. Now it is the tyranny of the oligarchs and highhandedness of gangster capitalists.


Arising upon the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a permanent economic and moral crisis arose in Ukraine bringing along with it cases of deepening social injustice and inequality that became a catalyst for radical nationalist sentiments which splashed out first in 2004 and then at the turn from 2013 to 2014. Without these factors, no sentiments of the kind would have found fertile soil in Ukraine, just as they lacked it during the heyday of the Soviet country, within whose structure the interests of the Ukrainians were being implemented to the maximum extent. Suffice it to say that for most of the second half of the twentieth century, the Soviet Union was led by figures that were closely linked with Ukraine: Nikita S. Khrushchev and Leonid I. Brezhnev.


However, the Russophobes in the West, the anti-Soviet liberals in Russia and the new Ukrainian nationalism ideologists put forth a false thesis insisting that even though the Soviet government gave more freedom to the Ukrainian people, it still was, in fact, an occupational force, as Ukraine remained under the control of an empire this time the Soviet empire.


Consequently, the struggle of Bandera and his associates against the Soviet authorities was to them still the same struggle for liberation. Nowadays, in trying to finally break free from the Russian influence, the new Ukrainian nationalists allegedly follow the same principles of the struggle for independence and are driven by a desire to consolidate independence within the framework of a Ukraine that has achieved statehood.


The fundamental falsity of this thesis is made clear by history and today's developments in which history is largely repeated. The fact is that radical nationalists have never acted as an independent national political force. Liberation of Western Ukraine from Polish oppression was not an achievement of theirs, but that of the Soviet government. The struggle against it guided the Ukrainian nationalists straight to a direct alliance with the Nazi occupiers.


But as soon as the idea of Ukrainian statehood was paired with an orientation to the West and estrangement from Russia, that sort of statehood turned out to be a fiction and the shaky unity begot unrest. The reason for this is that Ukraine has had little experience of independent statehood. Nowadays, it is simply unable to exist outside the area of influence from more powerful states.


Meanwhile, in an anti-Russia alliance with Ukraine's outright enemies, who are capable of concealing their true hostile intentions only for a short while, the Ukrainian people have no chance of true independence. "The National Movement" in Ukraine is a path leading to no liberation but in the opposite direction. It is an anti-nation way.


This is felt today by millions of Ukrainians, many of whom have risen up in arms against the new Bandera-style nationalism. Their struggle is a genuine national resistance movement because they said a resounding "no" to the intent to break the age-old ties with Russia, with the Russian people. In response they got aerial bombings and artillery shelling of residential neighbourhoods. The Banderovites acted similarly in the 1930-1950 period against the Ukrainians who had become aware of the destructive nature of their "nationalism". They who are moved by a truly national idea and really care for their people cannot do that with their compatriots.


The immediate causes of the coup in Ukraine
The watershed that split Ukraine's contemporary history came with President Yanukovich's decision last autumn to give up associate membership in the European Union and move in the direction of the Customs Union with Russia and other countries. The decision was quite justified from an economic point of view. The Russian negotiators with the Ukrainian side argued for many months but failed to convince their partners in Kiev that the drive toward the West is fraught with a complete breakdown of the Ukrainian economy that is still closely linked with the Russian economy.


However, the ruling circles in Kiev kept sticking to a purely pro-Western ideological course. It was only at the last moment, when the final decision was to be determined, that the Ukrainian leadership recognized the economic realities and announced their intention to join the Customs Union. By that moment public opinion had, through the efforts of numerous "social organizations" and the media outlets created by the West and under its control, already been steered to a pro-European direction. The people did not have reliable information about the inevitable hardest consequences of a second-class membership in the European Union. But the dream of "reunification with Europe" had long been befuddling the brains of intellectuals and ordinary people who passionately and fondly hoped that the associated membership in the E.U. would automatically take the Ukrainians to the European level of well-being.


The decision to join the Customs Union with Russia, semi-despicable in the eyes of "zapadenskoi"/West Ukrainian/intelligentsia, was seen by many in Ukraine as shattering their crystal dreams. Mass irritation spilled out on the streets of the capital, which had long fallen under the influence of vociferous activists from West Ukraine.


However, the Maidan that flared up last November wilted gradually. By January of this year, two or three hundred fanatics and homeless tramps were still there in scattered groups, having found a way of self expression and a source of free mess of pottage in the centre of the capital. Meanwhile, any reduction in the level of opposition heat was clearly not in the plans of those who actually ran the developments in Ukraine. Western politicians and agents of intelligence services began to hurl sizable amounts of combustible material into the fading fire of public discontent and create an incendiary mix for flares of radicalism, skilfully directed against Russia.


But it would be wrong to see the situation at a narrow angle as resulting only from the machinations of Western politicians and intelligence agencies. Mr. Yanukovich and his team are to take a considerable part of the blame for the fire breaking out. Upon rising to power that "team", or rather the family of the former president began aggressively to convert political power into money. Greed of the "Donetskites", as they were nicknamed by many people, had no limits. A huge number of small and large businesses were squeezed for tributes. Business take-overs became commonplace. So the popular discontent over the steadily worsening economic situation merged with sharp resentment on the part of a very active population segment - small and medium-sized businesses - in connection with the "grabilovka" (plundering) by Yanukovich's friends and relatives.


Meanwhile, Mr. Yanukovich for tactical purposes diligently portrayed himself as a supporter of rapprochement with Russia, although his real stance was openly pro-Western. In public opinion Yanukovich was therefore, associated with Russia. Hence the Maidan anti-Russian overtones. But do we have the moral right to condemn the Ukrainian people for its majority lacking the awareness of the need to revive a fraternal union with Russia? We might have such a right, if the RF were setting an example of a welfare state, if it had eradicated oligarchy, total corruption and the gangster capitalism principles. That's when the Ukrainian people would have stood up without hesitation under the same banners with Russia the banners that had led to salvation in the past.


The explosive mix, which led to a social explosion in Ukraine, included several basic elements: the legitimate grievances of the bulk of the people due to the steady deterioration of their financial positions; resentment of small and medium-sized businesses over the raids by Yanukovich's team; the desire of "zapadenskiye" (Western Ukrainian) intellectuals to ride public opinion still harder, along with the intrigues of pro-American politicians and secret services aiming to enhance the split between Ukraine and Russia


Meanwhile, Russia's ruling group saw and still sees Ukraine primarily as a territory in which a gas pipeline is laid. Therefore, the policy of the upper RF authorities focused almost exclusively on ensuring a smooth flow of gas to Europe. Public sentiments in Ukraine were not only a mere subject of interest and influence for the Russian "elite", but were completely ignored as a factor fully irrelevant against the background of intrigues around the gas pipeline at the "top" of the authorities of the two countries, for which the peoples of the fraternal republics subsequently had to pay a heavy price.


The coup and its aftermath
The attempts of the Ukrainian leadership to restore basic order in the streets of the capital, including through negotiations, met with fierce resistance from the well-trained fighters who had been recruited in the western regions. In mid-February, the American technology of pseudo-popular revolutions began to be used in Kiev, including, the seizure of power by street crowds with massive external support, tested during the coups in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine (2004), and in Libya, as well as during the "Arab Spring" events in a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa.


Simultaneously, the Ukrainian leadership became an object of outright pressure from the West. The European Union threatened the creation of a "black list" of officials, against whom a variety of sanctions would be imposed. The Yanukovich clan members were thinking primarily about their own accounts in Western banks and offshore funds. That made the Ukrainian leadership particularly vulnerable to the West's blackmail. The head of state's faintness resulted in a paralysis of the law enforcement agencies and the betrayal of the political elite, who failed to fulfil their constitutional obligations.


Meanwhile, representatives of the opposition, supposedly fighting for democracy against an authoritarian regime and for a bright future for Ukraine under the auspices of the European Union, demonstrated, in fact, habits of their Banderaite, fascist predecessors. "Peaceful" protesters seized government buildings and attacked police forces, pelting them with Molotov cocktails. President Yanukovich kept shying away from decisive action and was handing power, step by step, to the neo-Nazi elements. The process culminated in a coup d'état. Genuine battles with the use of firearms began on the streets of Kiev February 18. In three days the death toll had reached 100 casualties and more than 600 were hospitalized. On February 23, Yanukovich fled from Kiev.


The heirs of the Nazi henchman Bandera seized power and immediately launched a campaign of suppression against their political opponents and the Russian-speaking population. The intimidated deputies of the Verkhovna Rada passed a decision repealing the law allowing the use of Russian as the second state language in a number of regions of Ukraine. Pogroms started against the premises of the Communist Party of Ukraine, and the Communist Party was banned in some regions. Members of Parliament from the Communist Party and the Party of Regions were physically abused along with the policemen who remained faithful to the oath.


The Banderovites started attacks on historical memory with widespread destruction of monuments to Lenin and Soviet soldiers who fell during the liberation of Ukraine from Nazi occupation. By toppling monuments to Lenin, the rioters were destroying not only the historical heritage, but also the symbols of Ukrainian statehood, because the Decree on the establishment of the Ukrainian Republic was signed by Lenin. That orgy of destruction resulted in the rise of the resistance movement in the south-east of the country and, ultimately, in the Civil War.


The Class-related nature of the conflict in Ukraine
The inherent nature of the events in Ukraine is difficult to understand without an analysis of the alignment of its class forces. It must first of all be noted that as a result of the 1990 - 2000 wild, destructive privatization of the economy of Ukraine in the interests of the oligarchs and the newly-minted deindustrialization in the interests of Western competitors, the industrial proletariat numbers declined sharply. Accordingly, the level of its organization was reduced. With the destruction of collective and state farms the rural proletariat was virtually eradicated. This changed the balance of class forces.


However, the pro-western top authorities of Ukraine failed to completely destroy the working class, especially in the most industrialized south-east regions. It is therefore no accident that the Bandera-style junta received the most powerful rebuff in those regions. The industrial proletarians of Novorossiya are well aware of the fact that the cut of historical ties with Russia, to which products of their enterprises were oriented, must inevitably lead to mass unemployment and poverty. Not only the national feelings, but also the class consciousness of millions of people in Novorossiya, though not expressed in relief, formed the basis for resistance to oligarchic usurpation of power.


An important feature of the popular revolutionary actions in south-east Ukraine, and earlier in Crimea, is that they were directed against the neo-fascist usurpers of power in Kiev, who were closely related to the global transnational capital, and against the "Donetsk" oligarchic clan, which established their political and economic dictatorship in these regions. Incidentally, the "early" independence Maidan (November - December 2013) was, in this sense, not so much anti-Russia as anti-oligarchy in character.


However, as the protest sentiments of the masses had not got the class character, they were used in the battle of the two clans of the big-time bourgeoisie. That clash was won by the group which had brought together the pro-Western, nationalist and extreme right-wing forces, who benefited from the people's discontent in the coup.


Usually the big-time capital controls countries through their hired servants - state officials. In Russia in the 1990s, oligarchs initially dominated the bureaucrats. Then the top government officials took precedence, but later the higher bureaucracy and oligarchy merged.


In Ukraine, too, there was a struggle between two related class groups - the state bureaucracy and oligarchy. And there, as in Russia, there emerged a symbiosis of these two class groups. But after the February 2014 revolution, the oligarchs effected the subjugation of the bureaucrats. Faced with tough resistance of the people in Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kharkov, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk and other cities, the ruling elite in Kiev went straight to the introduction of the big-time capital dictatorship.


Oligarchs, previously hiding in the shadow of hired politicians from various "bat'kivshchinas", "udars" and "regions" were appointed governors of several regions. Then the direct roguish dictatorship of the oligarchy not cloaked with any "democratic" trinkets came to reign supreme in Ukraine.


The billionaires Poroshenko, Kolomoysky and their ilk did not only immediately take over the governing functions, but also created their own private armies and secret police forces engaged in kidnapping and torturing people. Ukraine was becoming an "in war as in war" banana republic, ruled not by law but by complete arbitrariness of a politically temporary "president" relying on "death squads", as well as on the political and military support from the United States. The peoples of Latin America shed their banana republic labels as a result of persistent struggle. Unfortunately, that kind of "state governance" came to reign in Ukrai...