When it comes to politics, everyone is bicurious—that is another way to say politics makes strange bedfellows. So when we see the Ukraine’s Jewish president, Zelensky, defended by the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion it is politics as politics always was and will be—back in 1978 it was the Communists and Islamists sticky beneath Tehran sheets; probably sheer black polyester, given the decade. The common enemy, the Shah; and when he was gone it was a race to see who would slit the other’s throat first.
Doubtless Azov calculates that the major threat today is Russia, deal with her and then deal with the assorted degenerates in Kiev; and Zelensky—as he tearfully tweets about Russia almost-but-not-quite hitting a holocaust memorial with a bomb—can count on the relatively small Azov crew to help keep Putin from the door. When you are NATO’s friend suddenly journalists who could sniff out a solitary “fashy” haircut in a 20,000-strong MAGA rally just cannot see actual Black Suns, goose steps, and torchlit rallies.
Nominally, Putin has invaded the Ukraine to “deNazify” it—meanwhile the Western media alleges that Putin is “Hitler”, being nationalistic and irredentist. Factually you can make a case both ways, with the Azov Battalion on one hand and Putin’s admiration for the soi-fasciste philosopher Ivan Ilyn on the other. Functionally, both the West and Russia are fascist—economically “national socialist” regimes that rely on mass mobilisation, albeit without fascism’s subjective racial pride.
The post-war Western settlement and the Russian system partly stake their legitimacy on their anti-fascism, on their war with Hitler’s Germany. Opposition to “Nazism” really means opposition to anything that contradicts the democratic ethos, a category so wide in scope that it encompasses military parades, school uniforms, and traditional Christianity. There have already been “Nazi versus Nazi” wars—in proxy between the Soviets and America, then between Serbia and NATO; both cases where each side claimed to be “fighting fascism”. This is what you say in the democratic era, just as every prince in Christendom went to war against “Christ’s enemies”: the atheists say that in the past everyone thought God was on their side, they neglect to mention that today everyone says their opponent is “a Nazi”; our faith is touching—and NATO theologians will explain why, when correctly understood, Azov are not “Nazis” at all. “How many Azovites can dance on the head of a pin?”
Why is there war in the Ukraine? Hubris. There is a video in circulation that shows Biden in about 1995—an OAP even then—crowing about Russian complaints as regards NATO expansion into the Ukraine. The high-handed Biden seems smug as only an American official could be in the 1990s, being, as Stalin once was, “giddy with success”. NATO existed to fight the USSR, when the USSR fell she should have dissolved. State institutions rarely just dissolve themselves; so NATO hunted round for new roles, mainly in the Balkans—and then in Afghanistan. As Russia fell into a massive post-Communist hangover, NATO added more nations to her collection. In doing so, she finally butted against the Ukraine—a knife-to-the-throat strategic threat to Russia as regards missile deployment.
This might have been okay if America had not then become weak. Be assured, if Trump were in the Oval Office, Diet Coke in hand, Putin would not be in the Ukraine—the opposite picture to that painted by the deep state. Trump was strong; Putin knew it, Putin respected it. America pushed too far, then she elected a weak man—whose son compromised him in the Ukraine with various “doings”—and then lost in Afghanistan. Weakness is always punished.
Putin is many things, but he is a man—he has virtue, he is virile. The West’s champion, Zelensky, can be taken as an avatar for “clown world”: a literal comedian known for a skit where he played the piano with his dick—a lawyerly ethnic minority beta male who passive-aggressively tries to inveigle Western intervention with tweets; if the press is friendly to you these things have their own easy potency. Zelensky rarely appears in a suit, and his negotiation team that met the Russians turned up in t-shirts—yet I doubt it was that bad in Kiev. Team Zelensky is team sloppy, so irresponsible they would prefer to gamble on a world war rather than negotiate to end the bloodshed.
Weakness is always punished, deserves to be punished. Biden is perilously similar to poor old Tsar Nicholas II: a weak and ineffectual man who might have gotten away with it in more peaceful times, in 1995, but who was faced with a confluence of events that his character left him poorly equipped to meet. Do we risk World War III? The nuclear balance pertains; yet the balance was never foolproof, and the current dynamic tips scales. The American regime poisoned itself on four years of fantasies that Russia had brainwashed the Western world; hence why they were so swift to ban RT when this conflict started, at some level they believe their own bullshit—or like to act as if they do. If this were really so, should not have Putin used this potent “mind control network” on us before he started this war? Russian propaganda is risible—there was never any brainwash, just genuine opposition.
Current events have that eerie “sleepwalker” feel people speak about with regards to the outbreak of WWI: the “jingoistic” demands for no-fly zones, regardless of practicality; the rapid supply of arms and intelligence to the Ukraine; the harsh sanctions on Russia (war is mostly about economic coercion, these steps have their own logic); the cyber attacks on Russia (our intelligence services have already done so in a mild way); and the continual smugness among Western elites, our “donkeys”, who have not been held accountable for their defeat in Afghanistan. All these points recall the conditions whereby the trains were set a-rollin’ on their timetables before anyone had really thought what the consequences would be.