Fog of Deceit: Debunking False Narratives on Russia & Putin at War
Editor’s Note: A listener submitted this thorough argument against the most common Russophobic narratives expressed in the dissident sphere. Agree or disagree, you can’t say he didn’t make a strong case.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the biggest geopolitical event since 9/11, and likely since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Severe divisions appeared immediately within the western dissident movement, between those who find Putin’s actions justified and a welcome development for our cause, and those who sympathize with Ukrainian nationalists and view Russia as just the flip side of the same shekel.
All of us observing this unfolding conflict with imperfect information encounter a tangle of false narratives and propaganda that is intentionally deployed – by all sides – to manipulate public opinion. So thick is this fog of deceit that determining the truth is a near impossible task, and even the most well-intentioned dissidents are at risk of supporting the same globalist power structures they previously vowed to oppose at all costs. But we’re going to try to decipher the truth here regardless.
The barrage of wartime information, analysis, censorship, and ensuing debate in a 24/7 social media feeding frenzy creates a fertile environment for the uninformed, the misinformed, the conspiracy theorists, and the bad actors to totally confuse our guys trying to analyze a complex issue with many moving parts. Yet the arguments rooted in anti-Russian sentiment (or skepticism) in nationalist circles appear to be increasingly falsifiable as the conflict drags on, even as the most vehement partisans dig in their heels and double down.
I am not a Russian, and I am not a Ukrainian. I am a White man in an occupied and crumbling civilization trying to make the most sense of the situation. So let’s break down the topics which have been the sources of most debate.
Issue 1: “Putin means exactly what he says about his goal to denazify Ukraine.”
Those triggered by this wording are experiencing a knee-jerk reaction to something that shouldn’t be taken at face-value in the Russian context, at least not as we would understand it in the West. My suspicion is first that Putin (whose older brother died of diphtheria under the German siege of Leningrad) was understandably propagandizing his domestic Russian audience with no love for Operation Barbarossa. Further, it would be unreasonable for the head of state of a country that – rightly or wrongly – suffered tens of millions of deaths from a literal Nazi invasion to be anything but hostile to “Nazism” as such with that epic bloody struggle still in living memory. Putin surely also knew well in advance how fierce the Western reaction to his military intervention would be, and the “denazification” phrasing was also likely a naive attempt to neutralize the Western media’s predictable onslaught of hysterical WW2 narratives comparing him to Hitler invading Poland. And finally, let’s be honest: actual self-avowed Nazis in Ukraine have oppressed and terrorized ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine and elsewhere since the Maidan Coup in 2014 at least. Targeting those who have been harming your own people is not exactly irrational or anti-White.
For those of us in the West quite accustomed to being called Nazis (regardless of whether we are White Nationalists, National Socialists, or just generally dissidents), it was undoubtedly a cringe comment by Putin, who, lest we forget, is a Russian boomer. And it ultimately didn’t jam the Western narrative in the slightest.
But while it’s true that “anti-Nazism” is still a significant component of Russia’s historical national identity, it’s also true that Russian ethno-nationalist political parties have existed and still exist within Putin’s Russia.
The Russian Imperial Movement is Russia’s primary NS paramilitary organization based in St. Petersburg, and has also been designated a “terrorist organization” by the United States and Canada for ties to the Nordic Resistance Movement.
From VOA News:
RIM allegedly established contacts with NRM during a right-wing conference called the International Russian Conservative Forum in March 2015 in St. Petersburg. Rodina, a Russian political party, organized the conference.
“At the conference, there was a resolution to try to coordinate Russian and European conservative elements,” Magnus Ranstorp, a research director at the Swedish Defense University, told VOA.
“Later, Stanislav Anatolyevich Vorobyev, one of the leaders of the RIM, came to one of the social gatherings organized by the Nordic Resistance Movement called Nordic Days, and he spoke there. Also, he donated a sum of money to the Nordic Resistance Movement,” Ranstorp said.
There are also Russian separatist forces in the Donbass regions of Donetsk and Lugansk that have explicit white nationalist paramilitary divisions who have been fighting under the Union of Novorussia against the NATO-backed Ukrainian forces since 2014:
“Far-right nationalist groups have played an important role among the pro-Russian separatists, more so than on the Ukrainian side. Leaders of the Donetsk People’s Militia are closely linked to the neo-Nazi party Russian National Unity (RNU) led by Alexander Barkashov, which has recruited many fighters.
A ex-member of RNU (2002), Pavel Gubarev was founder of the Donbas People’s Militia and first governor of the Donetsk People’s Republic. RNU is particularly linked to the Russian Orthodox Army, a religious ultranationalist unit which is part of the Russian separatist forces.
Other neo-Nazi units within the Russian separatist forces include the ‘Rusich’, ‘Svarozhich’ and ‘Ratibor’ battalions, which have Slavic swastikas on their badges.
Some of the most influential far-right activists among the Russian separatists are neo-imperialists, who seek to revive the Russian Empire. This includes Igor Girkin, the first ‘minister of defence’ of the Donetsk People’s Republic.
The Russian Imperial Movement has recruited thousands of volunteers to join the separatists. Some separatists have flown the black-yellow-white Russian imperial flag, such as the Sparta Battalion. In 2014, volunteers from the National Liberation Movement joined the Donetsk People’s Militia bearing portraits of Tsar Nicholas II.
Sparta Battalion: “In March 2022, the group’s commander Colonel Vladimir Zhoga was killed at Volnovakha in the course of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He was posthumously awarded the title of “Hero of the Russian Federation” by Russian president Vladimir Putin.”
And The National Sovereignty Party of Russia. Fun fact: In 2002, the World Jewish Congress accused this party of “inciting hatred of the peoples living in Russia, primarily the Jews.” In response, representatives of the National Sovereignty Party filed a lawsuit for libel and demanded to recover from 1.3 million rubles from their accuser…a Hasidic Jewish rabbi by the name of Berel Lazar. In 2004 the court ordered Lazar to apologize and pay damages of 100 rubles. In other words, an influential rabbi lost in court to antisemitic Russian politicians, and was forced to pay them in damages for slandering them.
So if Putin’s driving ambition is supposedly to “denazify” Ukraine and then the world, wouldn’t he have liquidated them all at home and in the Donbass first?
Our guys are under the impression that simply being a nationalist in Russia will “get you imprisoned like Tesak,” (a prominent Russian Nazi who was likely tortured to death in prison) or that the edgy content we barely get away with in the West would be a death sentence in Russia. But the evidence suggests that the only NS (and other radical) groups and figures who get severely repressed in Russia are the ones who either flagrantly commit violent crime or agitate to depose Putin or overthrow the government.
Put yourself in Putin’s shoes: wouldn’t you also crack down on openly hostile or violent groups knowing that the entirety of the West was dead-set destabilizing Russia and ultimately pulling off the “color revolution” to end all color revolutions? If not, you probably wouldn’t be a very competent or serious statesman.
For context, Russia suffered many thousands of casualties at the hands of the Chechen jihadists throughout the 1990s, but after the Russians crushed them in the second Chechen war, they didn’t “de-Islamify” Chechnya or forcibly convert them all to Christianity. Instead, Putin installed a pro-Russian, anti-Western leader (Ramzan Kadyrov), who made a policy of criminalizing Wahhabism, which included imprisoning or killing those who practiced it. This forceful deradicalization strategy proved to be successful in eliminating jihadist terror cells within their republic, and it at least quelled the centuries-long hostility that many Chechens harbored for the Russian people. To this day, Chechens still practice Islam, but those who bear radical anti-Russian sentiments are punished.
Speaking of Chechens, let’s segue to the next point of contention.
Issue 2: “Putin sent Chechens into Ukraine as mercenaries to commit war crimes.”
Many dissidents claim Putin is “unleashing” Chechen hordes in Ukraine to “rape and pillage” the women and innocent civilians across that fair land. This accusation can be easily dismissed, because if Putin encouraged barbarism of that nature to manifest, it would both intensify Ukrainian resistance while gifting the West a huge propaganda victory. If any Chechen war crimes were remotely occurring, we certainly would’ve heard about them by now from the Ukrainian media. Chechens were also deployed in the 2014 Russian reclamation of Crimea, yet oddly there were zero reports of them committing any crimes, let alone atrocities.
To add insult to injury, Ukrainian “Nat Socs” have been accepting the military assistance of thousands of Chechen jihadists to help fight the Russians since 2014.
From the NY Times: “Even for Ukrainians hardened by more than a year of war here against Russian-backed separatists, the appearance of Islamic combatants, mostly Chechens, in towns near the front lines comes as something of a surprise — and for many of the Ukrainians, a welcome one.
‘We like to fight the Russians,’ said the Chechen, who refused to give his real name. ‘We always fight the Russians.’
He commands one of three volunteer Islamic battalions out of about 30 volunteer units in total fighting now in eastern Ukraine. Islamic battalions are deployed to the hottest zones, which is why the Chechen was here.
The Chechen commands the Sheikh Mansur group, named for an 18th-century Chechen resistance figure. It is subordinate to the nationalist Right Sector, a Ukrainian militia.
Without addressing the issue of the Nazi symbol, the Chechen said he got along well with the nationalists because, like him, they love their homeland and hate the Russians.”
If you’re going to condemn Putin for using Chechens as fighters, you’ll also have to condemn Ukrainians for employing the exact same tactic. You’ll also have to equally condemn Adolf Hitler for enlisting Turkish and Arab Muslims under his Axis to fight against the Allies.
Issue 3: “Putin is a neo-Bolshevik Eurasianist who invaded Ukraine to orchestrate another Holodomor.”
Yes, there are actually people who loudly proclaim this to be the case.
From all accounts, Putin can most accurately be described as an “authoritarian Russian civic nationalist” (although one who appears to be evolving into a blood and soil Slavic nationalist) who constantly compromises to manage the numerous opposing interest groups within the diverse state he inherited twenty-two years ago. It should go without saying that his casus belli for invading Ukraine was obviously to prevent more collateral damage from mounting in the Russian-speaking Donbass region, and to “de-Americanize” eastern Ukraine of Western influence as a means of preventing the Washington Empire from establishing a permanent anti-Russian, neoliberal colony on its borders.
A week prior to the invasion, Ukrainian President Zelensky even went as far as to voice his desire to scrap the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which would open the door to Ukraine obtaining nuclear weapons right in Russia’s soft underbelly, and closer to Moscow than Cuban missiles were to Washington in 1962. No responsible leader could accept such a scenario.
For at least half a century, America has knowingly exported its poisonous, materialist, deracinated culture across the globe to detach populations from their organic cultures and reduce them to economic slave units in order to boost profits for the financial elites. However, over the past decade or so, America slightly updated its strategy for world domination by exporting its own “woke” neoliberal culture on an international scale to weaken and subjugate independent peoples until they became stricken with the exact same social ailments that currently plague the United States.
Many nationalists (myself included) don’t approve of the internal governance of Russia as a model for the governments we would prefer to live under; yet Russia is Russia, not Western Europe, North America, or Australia. And this is why it’s essential to distinguish between the domestic policy and the foreign policy of the nation one analyzes as it relates to its international worldview. Despite Russia being a multi-ethnic federation, Putin hasn’t displayed the ambition to fanatically export his domestic civic nationalist reality to other countries within the Russian sphere of influence. Belarus, for example, has been independent yet within the Russian sphere for over three decades, yet it remains one of the most racially and ethnically homogeneous countries in Europe (97% white). So if Putin is the “malevolent Eurasian extremist” that his detractors claim, wouldn’t he have started long ago to flood Belarus with Asiatic hordes?
I’d like to see Russia detractors give so much as one example of Putin scolding European countries for being “too white,” and demanding they open their borders to millions of central Asians, in remotely the same spirit that Western nations deliberately destroy their own white populations with nonwhite invaders. It was the likes of Angela Merkel, not Vladimir Putin, who ushered in the great African and Muslim invasion of Europe last decade.
Russophobes also inevitably point and sputter about the infamous Aleksandr Dugin, a relatively obscure philosophical academic who has developed various arcane political constructs, none of which has gained any mainstream popularity in Russia. This includes the failed “National Bolshevik Party” and the failed “Eurasia Party” – and neither of which managed to score electoral success in Russian politics. After a five-year stint as the head professor of the sociology department at Moscow State University, he also managed to get fired in 2014 for his inflammatory comments about Ukrainian combatants. Dugin also briefly served as an advisor to the head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergey Naryshkin; this seems to be the evidence that gives credence to suspicions of Dugin’s influence in the Russian government, but it also worth mentioning that he no longer serves in that capacity. One would assume that “the brains behind Putin” would maintain that position for as long as possible, or at least seek a position with equal or greater accessibility to the president to maximize his influence. This 2014 article details Dugin’s disappointment in Putin after he decided to negotiate with the West instead of taking control over larger swathes of eastern Ukraine after the Maidan coup:
From The Wall Street Journal:
“The disappointment isn’t only mine. It is shared by many people,’ he said. Mr. Putin has vowed to protect Russian compatriots abroad, opening the door to a possible invasion. But the threat of Western economic sanctions—and the burden the separatist regions, with 6.5 million people, would pose for Russia’s already-sluggish economy—have made a repeat of the Crimea scenario a far more problematic and costly proposition. At the moment, a full-scale invasion looks unlikely.
That has raised worries among hard-liners such as Mr. Dugin that the Russian president doesn’t fully support their vision of a reconstituted Eurasian empire rising up to counter the West and to seize Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine.
‘Before, we could have an illusion that Putin himself is a Eurasian patriot, a defender of Orthodox identity,’ Mr. Dugin said.
In Mr. Dugin’s view, Mr. Putin for the first time risks losing the support of the patriotic hard-liners who have stood by him at critical moments.”
In the second quote of this excerpt, you can clearly see Dugin himself beginning to seriously question his initial hopes of Putin being a likeminded, hardline Eurasianist ideologue. Further, in the 2005 article, “Is Putin Pursuing a Policy of Eurasianism?”, Matthew Schmidt analyzes the plausibility of Putin’s alignment with Dugin’s Eurasianist worldview, and after citing numerous examples, he concluded that all signs point to Putin endorsing only the economic partnerships that the ideology entails.
From Schmidt’s article:
“The article argues that Russian policy is dualistic, having been effectively separated into two distinct arenas: the economic and the political-philosophical. Although Putin uses the pseudo-philosophical rhetoric of the Eurasianists, the author argues that the policy prescriptions of Dugin’s movement are not likely to be implemented by the current government. A year earlier President Putin, in Brunei for a summit of the Asian-Pacific Economic Consortium (APEC), and attempting to build stronger economic ties with China and the rest of the region, declared that ‘Russia always felt itself an Eurasian country.’ Dugin, writing annotations to sections of this speech as it appeared in the press, responded to Putin’s statement as though it were a declaration of a new avowedly Eurasianist policy:
‘Just economic growth? There are more interesting processes yet—the aspiration of the countries of the Pacific region to put forward their own geopolitical decision for restructuring their space. . . . to become a fully valuable geopolitical subject, to defend its civilisational identity at all levels, and that our country— Russia—very much sympathizes with this and is ready to participate.’
Of course, Putin’s commitment to the exclusivist, anti-Western, antimodern Eurasianism of Dugin and Panarin is questionable. As Hahn points out, the Eurasianist policy outlined by Putin has largely been economic in nature. Indeed, “just economic growth.” The available evidence suggests that Putin is largely interested in making Russia an energy and transportation bridge between Asia and Europe. It was in this almost wholly economic context that he spoke of Russia as a Eurasian nation at the APEC summit.”
While Dugin’s anti-western liberal stance is admirable, the majority of the people who closely follow geopolitics (Putin included) seems to acknowledge that the ambition of erecting an authoritarian Russo-Eurasian empire is not only risky, but also unfeasible. I highly doubt that Russians, Central Asians, or East Asians have any desire to erase their own borders in the hopes of merging into one amorphous geographic/economic block, where the respective national sovereignty of each country ceases to exist. Most of the people that I’ve spoken to who are old enough to remember life under the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia didn’t appreciate the aspects of governance whereby citizens were encouraged to prioritize their artificial identity as a mere “socialist” while relegating their natural ethnic tribalism as secondary. The bottom line is that if conspiracy theorists are going to insist that someone like Dugin still holds sway within the Kremlin, they’ll have to come up with the evidence to prove that Dugin’s literature and his convoluted ideology are the basis of the Russian government’s foreign policy agenda.
When it comes to geopolitics, Putin has a track record of patient, cautious rationality and respect for the national sovereignty of foreign countries, whereas the American-led ZOG apparatus has a multi-decade track record of fanatically undermining every society they come into contact with before they eventually destroy them with social degeneracy, market liberalism, debt slavery, mass immigration, and/or war. Does it really make sense for Ukrainians to fight as proxies of a wildly belligerent superpower whose number one international policy is to ensure the enslavement or annihilation of the white race?
Putin rightly interpreted the 2014 Maidan coup as an act of Western aggression against his people, and his military incursion into Ukraine should be correctly perceived as a “counter invasion” to combat the stealthier ZOG invasion that Western powers have been waging in Ukraine’s institutions since the “Orange Revolution” of 2004.
In the end, I don’t see Putin’s course of military action in Ukraine as part of a “grand Eurasianist plot to genocide the Ukrainians again” as some have suggested. Hundreds if not thousands of Ukrainian combatants have already surrendered to the Russian armed forces, and there’s no indication that they’re being “rounded up and executed.” As Russia expands its military operations into Mariupol and other militia strongholds, will the captured leaders of Azov and National Corps be put on trial and imprisoned? Almost certainly. Will those groups also be forced to disband, with their flags and symbols also banned? Also likely, but again, the type of NS that is allowed to exist in the Russian sphere of influence is not one that’s Russophobic. Ukrainian nationalists will likely be permitted to continue being racial nationalists, so long as they don’t threaten Russian interests by inviting the Western camel’s nose under their tent, knowingly or unknowingly.
Issue 4: “Putin is on the side of Antifa.”
I hate to burst this bubble, but during Putin’s tenure as president, he’s developed quite a lengthy reputation for being a competent statist who is serious about maintaining a high degree of civil order, while violently cracking down on figures and organizations who are intent on creating civil disorder (both leftists and nationalists alike). In particular, over the past several years, he directed his domestic intelligence agencies (FSB) to surveil anarchists, arrest them, torture them, and had Russian courts deliver them long prison sentences, which effectively debunks the bizarre conspiracy narrative of Putin being some sort of crypto-anarchist-neo bolshevik.
The Open Democracy article states:
“Viktor Filinkov, a computer programmer and anti-fascist, was arrested on 23 January 2018 at Petersburg Pulkovo airport. He was about to fly to Kiev, with a layover in Minsk, to see his wife. Unlike in Penza, the security service officers in Petersburg tortured activists ‘on the go’.
They beat up Filinkov in a bark blue minivan, shocked him through his handcuffs, on the back of his head, on his back, and on his groin (rights advocates verified that he had been tortured). Afterwards: a search of his home and memorised confession at the FSB headquarters.”
From The Guardian article:
“A Russian court has issued harsh sentences to seven antifascist and anarchist activists in a controversial domestic terrorism case marred by claims that investigators tortured the defendants to elicit confessions.
The court in Penza, a city about 390 miles (630km) south-east of Moscow, sentenced the men to terms of six to 18 years in penal colonies for allegedly forming an organisation called Set, which translates as the Network, which prosecutors said planned to carry out future attacks inside Russia to overthrow the government. The men were also charged with an assortment of weapons and drugs charges.
Influential human rights groups have called the case fabricated and said the men may have been targeted for their political activism. Four of the men on trial said they had been tortured with beatings and electrocution during the investigation. In December, Memorial human rights centre, one of Russia’s oldest civil rights organisations, had called for the charges to be dropped.”
Additionally, Antifa groups in the US and Europe have been engaging in anti-Putin protests around the world ever since he launched the counter-invasion into Ukraine.
From Freedom News:
“Over the past few days, dozens of anti-war protests have been held in various cities of Russia – mostly in the form of single pickets. And although under Russian law this form of action does not require notification, most of the picketers who came out were detained.
Yesterday, 23rd February, pickets were held with the participation of anarchists in Moscow, Irkutsk and Perm. Anarchist anti-war graffiti appeared in St. Petersburg, and feminists from the 8th Initiative group held their own in action. Some more actions are taking place in Irkutsk and Novosibirsk.
Yesterday, thirteen people with anti-war posters were detained in various places in Moscow. There were also picketers with signs commemorating the next anniversary of Stalin’s deportation of Chechens and Ingush. Despite the obstacles that the police put in place for the participants in the anti-war actions, the Moscow anarchists managed to distribute anti-war leaflets in the center of Moscow.
Some of yesterday’s detainees were kept in the Arbat police station for more than 5 hours. According to the practice already established in the Moscow police departments, their right to legal defence was restricted and they were allowed to see a solicitor for a 30 minutes only.”
Putin isn’t ideologically adjacent to anarchists or communists. If this were the case, he would never have encouraged Orthodox Christianity to reblossom, or encourage extensive Western investment. In the same vein, he obviously isn’t a fascist or national socialist, and he doesn’t exactly strike me as the “Islamo-Duginist” that many accuse him of being. Putin is a civic nationalist who tries to appease multiple factions within the realm, with the sole condition being to not destabilize Russia. Strong rulers enforcing stability – even if this does not perfectly align with your ideological worldview! – are essentially mandated by Russia’s bloody and chaotic history.
There’s a wide variety of ideologies that are allowed to exist within Russia, including communists, anarchists, fascists, national socialists, Christian traditionalists, Orthodox Jews, and Islamists — but there are red lines that, if any of these factions cross them, could subject them to persecution. Such is life. The red lines are:
1) If they openly advocate animosity towards the existing Russian political order.
2) If they spread favorable views of the western powers who seek to destroy Russian sovereignty.
And yes, these rules even apply to powerful Jews such as Boris Spiegel, a billionaire pharmaceutical tycoon, who was arrested in Moscow last year by Russian intelligence services and charged with political bribery.
Despite seemingly being on good terms with the Russian government, Putin apparently still considered Boris to be enough of a threat to neutralize him.
“Spiegel, who has donated substantial time and effort to various Jewish community projects and the World Without Nazism anti-racism organization that he founded, was charged with offering a local politician the equivalent of about $400,000 in bribes, RIA Novosti reported Monday. Russian President Vladimir Putin has been accused of weaponizing the judiciary to neutralize critics. Spiegel, however, has not clashed with Putin and is considered friendly to the president.”
Issue 5: “Putin is a puppet of Jewish oligarchs.”
Although it’s true that Jewish oligarchs figure prominently in Putin’s rise in politics throughout the 1990s, his actions over the last twenty years reveal far more personal autonomy than most nationalists are willing to admit. And despite oligarchs having a certain degree of influence over Russia, let’s not forget that Putin ordered the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky (a Jew), who was considered to be the richest man in Russia during the early 2000s. His wealth was seized, his assets were frozen, and his oil company’s stock plummeted upon his detainment in 2003.
We can also turn our attention to Boris Berezovsky — a longtime Jewish industrialist who exploited the liberalization of Russia’s economy during perestroika reforms to further enrich himself through hyperinflation schemes. He encouraged Boris Yeltsin to endorse Vladimir Putin as his presidential successor in the late 1990s, but shortly after Putin took office in 2000, the two had a falling out because Berezovsky was under the impression that Putin would maintain the Russian economy on a course of westernized market liberalism and egregious free trade deals, which would allow oligarchs like him to continue plundering the economy through stock manipulation at the expense of the Russian people.
After staunchly opposing Putin’s constitutional reforms, he resigned from the government, stating his distaste in “state authoritarianism” whilst favoring a liberal democratic form of government in which Berezovsky himself could ascend in power as a Russian plutocrat to attain similar status as Larry Summers and George Soros in the United States. He shortly fled in exile to the United Kingdom as a political asylum seeker in 2003, where he began to conspire Russian regime-change strategies with “liberal rights activist” George Soros his confidant, Alex Goldfarb.
With the help of U.S. intelligence, they all made Ukraine the regional base for anti-Russian activities, in which Berezovsky supported Viktor Yushchenko as the anti-Putin, pro-western candidate in the 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections — a stage that also spawned the CIA-backed color revolution known as the “Orange Revolution”, partly funded by Berezovsky himself to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
To this day, his 2013 death is widely speculated to be the result of an assassination carried out by the Russian government.
Now let’s skip ahead to the current year to see exactly how the remaining oligarchs have been holding up in the wake of Putin’s military counter-invasion in Ukraine.
We can all agree that these are some of the most egregious criminals in the world today, but few people have paid the price for Russia’s military incursion more than they have. If these oligarchs are supposedly “Putin’s puppeteers,” I find it very hard to believe that their being financially deplatformed from the international monetary system is somehow part of an elaborate partnership scheme between “ZOG East and ZOG West to dominate the world.”
A far more plausible explanation of what we’re seeing is Western international power structures attempting to economically and militarily isolate Russia because Putin has crossed their red line by refusing total capitulation to Washington’s geopolitical ambitions, and the Western elites believe that if they can put the screws to the oligarchs, that’ll help increase the likelihood of an oligarch-led coup. And so far, we’ve seen quite a bit of dissent from several Russian business tycoons, and four oligarchs in particular: Roman Abramovich, Oleg Deripaska, along with bankers Mikhail Fridman and Oleg Tinkov — all of whom have been criticizing the invasion of Ukraine.
From the Bloomberg article:
“Currently the U.K. hasn’t gone as far as the EU, which penalized a handful of the wealthiest oligarchs with assets outside Russia. They include metals tycoon Alisher Usmanov, banking billionaires Mikhail Fridman and Petr Alexi, and steel magnate Alexei Mordashov.
In a statement to Bloomberg News, Fridman and Aven called on Russia to end the war immediately but stopped short of criticizing Putin directly. Billionaire Oleg Deripaska, the founder of aluminum giant United Co. Rusal International PSCJ, who’s been under US sanctions since 2018, called for peace talks on Telegram without mentioning Putin.
On March 2, Roman Abramovich said he’s selling the Chelsea Football Club, which he’s owned for almost two decades. It’s expected to go for as much as £3 billion ($4 billion), and he said he’ll set up a charitable foundation with the net proceeds from the sale to benefit victims of the war. He’s also selling his London properties, according to British MP Chris Bryant. Abramovich, who hasn’t been sanctioned, is trying to broker peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv after being contacted by Ukrainian officials, his spokesman said.”
From the Inquirer article:
“President Joe Biden told oligarchs in Tuesday’s State of the Union address that ‘we are joining with our European allies to find and seize your yachts, your luxury apartments, your private jets. We are coming for your ill-begotten gains.’
As violence escalated, and as the U.S., Britain and other countries announced plans to seize assets and limit their ability to stow money in Western banks, some wealthy Russians earlier this week began voicing opposition to war.
Three other Russian business tycoons — metals magnate Oleg Deripaska, Alfa Bank founder Mikhail Fridman and banker Oleg Tinkov — also urged an end to the war.
Deripaska, who founded the Rusal aluminum company and is considered an ally of Putin, wrote on the Telegram messaging service that ‘peace is very important’ and talks to end the war should begin ‘as soon as possible.’
Tinkov, founder of Tinkoff Bank, on Monday posted on Instagram: ‘Innocent people are dying in Ukraine now, every day, this is unthinkable and unacceptable.’
Neither mentioned Putin directly.
Nor did London-based billionaire banker Fridman, who this week was placed on a European Union sanctions list. Fridman, who was born in the Ukrainian city of Lviv, called the war a ‘tragedy’ that ‘should be stopped as soon as possible.’ But he grew visibly uncomfortable when asked to criticize Putin.”
To reiterate, Russia is a multi-ethnic empire composed of various power centers that form a collective hierarchy with the challenging goal of maintaining order and domestic stability within the Russian Federation. What I appreciate most about being an observer to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is that we as dissidents get to see the limits of power that these different factions encounter when push comes to shove. The fact that these oligarchs are facing such severe economic punishments from the West, thus causing them to plead for an end to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, exposes two key revelations that debunk the conspiracy theories that some dissidents have perpetuated.
1) The concept of “ZOG East & ZOG West” forming a monolithic syndicate of similar interests has been proven false since Russian Jewish oligarchs are facing unprecedented persecution by Western governments. These figures being sanctioned and their properties being confiscated is not an example of “kabuki theater” – it’s the western elite’s declaration that there are consequences to being an ally of world leaders who don’t succumb to the authority of neoliberal hegemony.
2) The oligarchs are not the sovereign power of Russia, nor are they “the handlers” of Vladimir Putin. If they were, Russia wouldn’t have initiated a full-scale military campaign into Ukrainian territory in the first place, and Putin certainly would be calling off his counter-invasion at the first sight of oligarch disapproval. Those who claim otherwise are either being willfully ignorant or can’t conceive of a reality in which a powerful Jew doesn’t have control over a powerful Gentile.
Not only do actions speak louder than words, but actions also speak louder than the pictures of however many Jews Putin shook hands with in the past. When we observe the series of events over the last two decades from a macro perspective, you’ll find that Putin has a history of:
• imprisoning powerful Jewish oligarchs
• exiling them from Russia
• tanking their businesses
• maintaining a hardline stance against neoliberal power
• suppressing LGBT degeneracy
• militarily and logistically supporting anti-Zionist nations like Syria and Iran
• protecting the Russian economy from Wall Street vulture capitalists
• not sending white Russian soldiers to die on behalf of Israeli foreign policy
I think we can safely conclude that Putin has a high degree of governmental authority that supersedes Jewish interests in Russia.
Issue 7: “Putin meeting with Jews and appearing at WEF conferences is proof that he’s a globalist.”
The most outspoken critics of Putin in the dissident sphere often insist that he’s a “puppet of Jewish power” because photos exist of him shaking the hands of rabbis, appearing at World Economic Forum conferences, and meeting with Israeli politicians over the years. While these entities are undoubtedly the enemies of ethno-nationalists, I would like to suggest a more rational explanation of Putin’s associations with globalist and Zionist elites.
It’s not an indication that he’s simply “in their pocket,” but rather that he’s willing to engage with the influential figures on the world stage in the hopes of finding common ground and points of mutual benefit (such as the conception of the Nordstream pipeline projects being brokered between the Germany and Russia, despite the two powers being ideological rivals). This, however, sometimes gets falsely interpreted as “Putin is selling out his own people to globalism and international finance!” by many in our circles, which is a spontaneous reaction that lacks any pragmatism or critical thought.
As a world leader, shaking the hand of an adversary, and being a guest who attends their international events is not an automatic endorsement of their political, social, or economic ambitions — it’s a practical realization that purposely isolating yourself on the world stage is not an appropriate method for conducting realpolitik on an international level, and for the world leader of a superpower to have a global impact, they need to be willing to have good faith discussions with other heads of state to let them know exactly where they stand, which also includes establishing red lines that you don’t want to be crossed under any circumstances.
And if you’re still convinced that Putin is Klaus Schwab’s water boy, keep in mind that Putin apparently crossed the red lines of the financial elite when he decided to launch his militarily intervention, which resulted in him and his close officials being cut off from the SWIFT system, and being disowned by the World Economic Forum.
From the Gazette:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin and his oligarch associates are personae non gratae as far as the controversial World Economic Forum is concerned, due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The forum, which hosts its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, announced this week that Russia and Russian officials will no longer be tied to the group because of the war. The news comes as a litany of other organizations and businesses also severed ties with Russia.
‘We are not engaging with any sanctioned individual and have frozen all relations with Russian entities,’ Amanda Russo, a spokeswoman for the nongovernmental lobbying group, told Politico.
Schwab and Borge Brende, the group’s president, said in a statement that the forum deeply condemns the ‘attacks and atrocities’ committed by Russia against Ukraine.
‘Our full solidarity is with Ukraine’s people and all those who are suffering innocently from this totally unacceptable war,’ the two said. ‘We will do whatever is possible to help and actively support humanitarian and diplomatic efforts. We only hope that — in the longer-term — reason will prevail and that the space for bridge-building and reconciliation once more emerges.’
Private companies such as Starbucks, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, BP, Shell, McDonald’s, and many more have also shut down business operations in Russia as a result of the war.”
Issue 7: “Ukrainians aren’t ZOG proxies. They’re fighting for the independence of their homeland!”
Claiming that NATO-adjacent Ukrainian nationalists are “defending their homeland against the big, bad Russian bullies” is analogous to normies claiming that US & UK soldiers fought in WW2 to “prevent genocidal German lunatics from enslaving the world”, or that US veterans fought in Iraq to “bring Saddam to justice and to spread freedom and democracy.” Any dissident with half a brain knows those soldiers were merely deceived by bald-faced western lies to become cannon fodder in conflicts to advance the anti-White agenda of international finance.
Lo and behold, the same globalist powers that triumphed in 1945 are now cynically manipulating nationalist sentiments in Ukrainians to engineer yet another proxy war against an overwhelmingly White reemerging superpower. Let’s make something very clear: Ukrainian nationalists are not ultimately the “shot callers” in this conflict between two opposing systems. They no doubt exert influence in the country, but whether Ukraine wins or loses this war, groups like Azov certainly won’t be dictating the future policies of their country – either Washington or Moscow will be.
The reality is that Ukrainian nationalists who are fighting against Russia have naively wandered into the type of fork-in-the road that should be apparent to everyone.
Scenario 1: The Russian military incursion succeeds in provoking an official surrender from the Ukrainian government, which results in Russia starting the process of enveloping eastern Ukraine into their empire by installing their own puppet government to combat U.S. hegemonic influence — in this scenario, all Ukrainian nationalist battalions would be dissolved and the hopes of a “free and independent Ukraine” would become null and void. Ukrainian nationalist battalion leaders will be imprisoned, and Russophobia will be punished. Remember that NS groups in Russia are allowed to exist so long as they’re not radically opposed to Putin or seek to overthrow the Russian government. This is obviously not an ideal scenario for Ukrainian nationalists, but the second scenario is far more dire.
Scenario 2: The Russian military offensive is effectively thwarted, resulting in the reclamation of lost Ukrainian territories and the expulsion of the Russian government’s assets — in this scenario, Ukraine would remain an abject puppet-state of the Washington Empire and a permanent colony of judeo-liberalism, which will rapidly erode the remains of Ukraine’s cultural, religious and traditional values. Ukrainian nationalist battalions will have zero capacity to prevent their country’s declining birthrates or the fact that the each upcoming generation of their country are becoming more liberal than the last. And in the unlikely event that Azov tries to wage guerilla warfare against their own state, Zelensky will be more than happy to begin the real “de-nazification” of Ukraine, which would consist of:
1) Their designation as “terrorists”
2) Mass censorship of nationalist websites/apps/social media
3) Western operators called in to wipe them out
4) Rapid dissolution of Ukrainian ultra-nationalist battalions
5) Imprisonment of those who support Ukrainian ultra-nationalist movements
6) Nonwhite immigration, faggotry, trannies, and pedophilia will become the new moral imperative to “cleanse Ukraine of its hateful past”
7) Dystopian anti-white “hate speech” legislation to permanently stamp out any legitimate nationalist political dissent
If this all sounds familiar, it’s because every country that embraces the toxicity of American influence has or will become an exact mirror image of it through the same social engineering policies that Americans suffer under, and the results will be so horrifying that Ukrainians will be wishing they were under the paw of Russian power in the long run.
Will Russia ever allow an “independent NS Ukraine” to exist on their border? Of course not, but there’s the possibility of they’ll at least try to protect them from the American Empire’s efforts of turning their sons and daughters into the most sexually confused, miscegenated, sodomite abominations in Europe.
Issue 8: “Russia invaded Ukraine because Putin is a tyrant who doesn’t respect Ukraine’s national sovereignty”
This is analogous to the historical canard that “Hitler invaded Poland because he was a tyrant who saw Slavs as subhumans.”
For the last 18 years at least, the Washington Empire has been covertly invading Ukraine with soft power liberalism for the purpose of cynically weaponizing the Ukrainian people’s historical grievances in a proxy war against the Russian people — no different than the 2014 CIA/Mossad operation to weaponize ISIS militants against Syria in the effort to overthrow Bashar Al Assad. Let’s stop pretending that Russia’s military intervention is some random act of aggression, or that Ukraine is anything other than a colony for judeo-America’s rampant perversity, negrophilia, and the transgender industrial complex — all of which serve as a battering ram to destroy Russia and any other holdouts.
Current-day Ukraine is not much different than 1990’s Kosovo becoming a NATO puppet-state to weaken Serbia’s geopolitical sovereignty, and Putin himself is most appropriately comparable to Slobodan Milosevic, who was relentlessly maligned and unfairly demonized as a “genocidal maniac” by the entirety of the Western media apparatus. The Ukrainians’ shortsighted, reactionary hatred of the Russians will cloud their judgement to the point of blinding them to the consequences of aligning with the Washington Empire.
Ukraine lacks the capacity in a tough neighborhood to ever assert itself as a truly independent nation-state, and Ukrainians themselves need to accept that their country will for the foreseeable future fall under the sphere of influence of one or another great power. The only question is: should it be Moscow or Washington? The answer seems like a rather easy judgement call.
Ukraine devolved into such a corrupt, dysfunctional oligarchy that the population decided to elect the Ukrainian-equivalent of Jerry Seinfeld as their president (only far more degenerate), who now thinks he has the moral authority to ban gentiles aged 18-60 from leaving the country, so they can fight and die for Washington’s geopolitical agenda. This is essentially a Jewish terrorist strategy of holding the people of Kiev hostage as meat shields, in the hopes that the Russian forces accidentally cause mass civilian casualties so that Western media can then produce a steady supply of anti-Russian atrocity propaganda for the world to consume.
If Zelensky were actually a responsible leader who had the best interest of the Ukrainian people in mind, he would tell them to put down their arms, surrender to the Russians, denounce American imperialism, and declare himself too illegitimate too hold public office, so he can go back to being the cross-dressing, homosexual Jewish pervert that he was before ZOG decided to install him as the president of a Slavic country.
The Ukrainian citizenry not only tolerates tens of thousands of nonwhite students and workers in their country already, but they also tolerate massive LGBT marches in their capital cities, which is basically the equivalent of state-approved sodomy and pedophilia. The further their country gets absorbed into the Washington apparatus, the more common these symptoms of judeo-liberal decay will become, and Ukrainian nationalists have shown no capacity to stop it because they’re too blinded by their reactionary hatred of the Russian government.
There’s plenty of valid criticism of Putin and how he runs his country (e.g. civic nationalism, pro-oligarchy, wealth inequality, decadence), but it’s safe to say the manner of subhuman Jewish degeneracy infecting Ukraine likely wouldn’t be allowed to exist under him, and he sure as hell wouldn’t be sending Ukrainians to fight and die on the behalf of Israeli foreign policy. Choosing to ally with the gay-transsexual-mulatto ZOG empire as the superpower to “liberate” their country from Russian hegemony doesn’t give Ukrainian nationalists any moral high ground — it actually guarantees their total destruction.
This’ll be a hard pill to swallow for Ukrainian nationalists, but they lost control of their nation when their regime became subservient to the Washington Empire, and as a result, social liberalism, race-mixing, and LGBT propaganda has permeated throughout Ukrainian society without any resistance from their political elites or the oligarchs who are controlling them behind the scenes (Igor Kolomoisky & Serhiy Taruta). If Ukrainians fought as hard against America’s cultural-liberal invasion of their country, Russia’s military counter-invasion never would’ve happened in the first place.
I’ve been a staunch proponent for the phrase “no more brother wars” for years now, and I think I speak for all nationalists when I say that I want to see a resolution to this bloody eight-year conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of white lives. But, for this scenario to become a reality, Ukrainians need to tune-out the NATO devil on their shoulder and come to the table so they can accept Moscow’s fair demands, which consists of Ukraine:
1. Ceasing its military activities and demilitarizing.
2. Changing its constitution to declare neutrality.
3. Rightfully acknowledging Crimea as Russian territory.
4. Recognizing the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.
“Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states. Peskov told Reuters in a telephone interview that Ukraine was aware of the conditions. ‘And they were told that all this can be stopped in a moment.’
On the issue of neutrality, Peskov said: ‘They should make amendments to the constitution according to which Ukraine would reject any aims to enter any bloc.’
He added: ‘We have also spoken about how they should recognise that Crimea is Russian territory and that they need to recognise that Donetsk and Lugansk are independent states. And that’s it. It will stop in a moment.’
Russia had been forced into taking decisive actions to force the demilitarisation of Ukraine, he said, rather than just recognising the independence of the breakaway regions.
This was in order to protect the 3 million Russian-speaking population in these republics, who he said were being threatened by 100,000 Ukrainian troops.”
A golden opportunity to de-escalate and end the war has been presented to the Ukrainians, so for their sake, and for the wellbeing of their future generations, I sincerely hope they take it. But they probably won’t, because they were already occupied by a far more sinister force.