The following is a Guest Commentary to EIR by Sergei
Glazyev, on the return of fascism in Europe, as seen in the Ukraine
coup by neo-nazi organizations backed by the US and NATO. Mr. Glazyev
is a leading advisor to President Putin. We strongly encourage you to
reprint this commentary wherever possible.
Mr. Glazyev's book on the
destruction of Russia during the 1990s by the western financial oligarchy,
creating Russia's own "oligarchs" and looting the nation before Putin's rise to
the presidency, titled "Genocide - Russia and the New World
Order," was translated into English by EIR and is available on the
EIR website (see http://store.larouchepub.com/product-p/eirbk-1999-2-0-0-pdf.htm ).
Russian Academician Sergei Glazyev
was Minister of Foreign Economic Relations in Boris Yeltsin's first
cabinet, but became the only member of the government to resign in protest of
the economic looting of Russia in the name of "reform," and Yeltsin's abolition
of the Parliament and the Constitution in 1993. Sergei Glazyev went on to head
the State Duma Economic Policy Committee for Economic Policy, ran for President
in 2004, and works as Secretary of the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus, and
Kazakstan. Today he is an adviser to President Vladimir Putin on Eurasian
economic integration.
Following the commentary is a
greeting sent by Mr. Glazyev to the Conference sponsored by the Schiller
Institute on June 15, 2014, in New York City - the full conference can be seen
at
Mike Billington
GUEST
COMMENTARY
On
Eurofascism
by Sergei
Glazyev
Sergei
Glazyev is an Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and Advisor to the
President of the Russian Federation.
This
guest commentary was written and made available to publications in the USA and
Europe, before the June 7, 2014 inauguration of Petro Poroshenko as President of
Ukraine. The version printed here incorporates, with the author’s permission,
passages from his March 21, 2014 interview with Radio Radonezh, a Russian
station. It is dated March 21-June 7, 2014. Subheads have been
added.
Current
events in Ukraine are guided by the evil spirit of fascism and Nazism, though it
seemed to have dissipated long ago, after World War II. Seventy years after the
war, the genie has escaped from the bottle once again, posing a threat not
merely in the form of the insignia and rhetoric of Hitler’s henchmen, but also
through an obsessive Drang nach Osten [drive toward the East—ed.]
policy. The bottle has been uncorked, this time, by the Americans. Just as 76
years ago at Munich, when the British and the French gave Hitler their blessing
for his eastward march, so in Kiev today, Washington, London, and Brussels are
inciting Yarosh, Tyahnybok, and other Ukrainian Nazis to war with Russia. One is
forced to ask, why do this in the 21st Century? And why is Europe, now united in
the European Union, taking part in kindling a new war, as if suffering from a
total lapse of historical memory?
Answering
these questions requires, first of all, an accurate definition of what is
happening. This, in turn, must start with identifying the key components of the
events, based on facts. The facts are generally known: [former Ukrainian
President Viktor] Yanukovych refused to sign the Association Agreement with the
EU, which Ukraine had been under pressure to accept. After that, the United
States and its NATO allies physically removed him from power by organizing a
violent coup d’état in Kiev, and bringing to power a government that was
illegitimate, but fully obedient to them. In this article, it will be called
“the junta.”
The goal of
this aggression was to gain acceptance of the Association Agreement, as is
evidenced by the fact it was indeed, prematurely, signed by the EU leaders and
the junta only a month after the latter had seized power. They reported (the
document bearing their signatures has not yet been made public!) that only the
political part of the agreement has been signed, the part that obligates Ukraine
to follow the foreign and defense policy of the EU and to participate, under EU
direction, in settling regional civil and military conflicts. With this step,
adoption of the Agreement as a whole has become a mere technicality.
The
‘Euro-Occupation’ of Ukraine
In essence,
the events in Ukraine mark the country’s forcible subordination to the European
Union—what may be called “Euro-occupation.” The EU leaders, who insistently
lecture us on obedience to the law and the principles of a law-based state, have
themselves flouted the rule of law in this case, by signing an illegitimate
treaty with an illegitimate government. Yanukovych was ousted because he refused
to sign it. This refusal, moreover, needs to be understood in terms, not only of
the Agreement’s content, but also the fact that he had no legal right to accept
it, because the Association Agreement violates the Ukrainian Constitution, which
makes no provision for the transfer of state sovereignty to another
party.
According to
the Ukrainian Constitution, an international agreement that conflicts with the
Constitution may be signed only if the Constitution is amended beforehand. The
U.S.- and EU-installed junta ignored this requirement. It follows that the U.S.
and EU organized the overthrow of Ukraine’s legitimate government, in order to
deprive the country of its political independence. The next step will be to
impose their preferred economic and trade policies on Ukraine, through its
accession to the economic part of the Agreement.
Furthermore,
although the current Euro-occupation differs from the occupation of Ukraine in
1941, in that, so far, it has occurred without an invasion by foreign armies,
its coercive nature is beyond any doubt. Just as the fascists stripped the
population of occupied Ukraine of all civil rights, the modern junta and its
American and European backers treat the opponents of Euro-integration as
criminals, groundlessly accusing them of separatism and terrorism, imprisoning
them, or even deploying Nazi guerrillas to shoot them.
As long as
President Yanukovych was on track to sign the Association Agreement with the EU,
he was the recipient of all kinds of praise and coaxing from high-ranking EU
officials and politicians. The minute he refused, however, American agents of
influence (as well as official U.S. representatives, such as the Ambassador to
Ukraine, the Assistant Secretary of State, and representatives of the
intelligence agencies), together with European politicians, began to castigate
him and extol his political opponents. They provided massive informational,
political, and financial aid to the Euromaidan protests, turning them into the
staging ground for the coup d’état. Many of the protest actions, including
criminal attacks against law enforcement personnel and government building
seizures, accompanied by murders and beatings of a large number of people, were
supported, organized, and planned with the participation of the American Embassy
and European officials and politicians, who not only “interfered” in Ukraine’s
domestic affairs, but carried out aggression against the country via the Nazi
guerrillas they had cultivated.
The use of
Nazis and religious fanatics to undermine political stability in various regions
of the world is a favorite method of the American intelligence agencies. It has
been employed against Russia in the Caucasus, in Central Asia, and now even in
Eastern Europe. The Eastern Partnership program, which the U.S. encouraged the
Poles and EU officials to initiate, was aimed against Russia from the outset,
with the objective of breaking the former Soviet republics’ relations with
Russia. This break was supposed to be finalized by contracting legal Association
Agreements between each of these countries and the EU.
The ‘European
Choice’
In order to
provide political grounds for these agreements, a campaign was launched to fan
Russophobia and spread a myth called “the European choice.” This mythical
“European choice” was then artificially counterposed to the Eurasian integration
process, with Western politicians and the media falsely depicting the latter as
an attempt to restore the USSR.
The Eastern
Partnership program has failed in every single former Soviet republic. Belarus
had already made its own choice, creating a Union State with Russia. Kazakhstan,
another key Eurasian country (though not formally an Eastern Partnership
target), likewise chose its own path, forming the Customs Union with Russia and
Belarus. Armenia and Kyrgyzstan have decided to join this process. The province
of Gagauzia has spurned the adoption of Russophobia as a cornerstone of Moldovan
policy; the Gagauz referendum, rejecting European integration in favor of the
Customs Union, challenged the legitimacy of Chisinau’s “European choice.”
Georgia, the only republic to have made a relatively legitimate decision in
favor of Association with the EU, paid for its “European choice” with the loss
of control over a part of its territory, where people did not want to live under
Euro-occupation. The same scenario is now being imposed on Ukraine—loss of a
part of its territory, where the citizens do not accept the leadership’s
“European choice.”
The coercion
of Ukraine to sign the EU Association Agreement became entangled with
Russophobia, as a reaction of the Ukrainian public conscience, wounded by the
decision of the people of Crimea to join the Russian Federation. Since the
majority of Ukrainians still do not automatically think of themselves as divided
from Russia, there has been a strong push to inculcate a perception of this
episode as Russian aggression and the annexation of part of their territory.
This is why Brzezinski talks about the “Finlandization” of Ukraine, as a way to
anesthetize the brains of our political elite during the American operation to
sever Ukraine’s ties with historical Russia. While under anesthesia, we Russians
are supposed to accept a feeling of guilt for our mythical oppression of the
Ukrainian people, while the latter are force-fed loathing for Russia, with which
they have allegedly battled for ages over Little Russia and Novorossiya
(Figure 1).[1]
Only a
superficial observer, however, would see the current anti-Russian hysteria in
the Ukrainian media, so striking in its frenzied Russophobia, as a spontaneous
reaction to the Crimean drama. In reality, it is a piece of evidence that the
war being waged against Russia is now entering an overt phase. For two decades,
we were fairly tolerant of the manifestations of Nazi ideology in Ukraine, not
taking it too seriously, in view of the apparent absence of clear preconditions
for Nazism. The lack of such preconditions, however, was completely compensated
by the persistent sowing of Russophobia through support for numerous nationalist
organizations. The discrepancy between their ideology and historical accuracy
does not bother the führers of these organizations. In return for a pittance
from NATO member countries, they are completely unrestrained in painting Russia
as the enemy image. The result is unconvincing, because of our common history,
language and culture: Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities, the
Kiev-Pechersk Lavra is a major holy site of the Orthodox world, and it was at
the Kiev-Mohyla Academy that the modern Russian language took shape.
We cannot
forget the historical importance of Little Russia (Ukraine) for us. We have
never divided Russia and Ukraine, in our minds. I myself grew up in Ukraine; we
never felt differentiated by ethnic origin, not at school, or in our
neighborhood, or at work. We were together as one people, speaking the same
language, sharing the same faith and understanding of the meaning of life. And
all of us—Russians, Ukrainians, Jews, and other ethnic groups living in
Zaporozhye and throughout most of Ukraine, with the exception of the far western
part—knew that we were one people, although we were aware there were some Nazis
out there in the forests of western Ukraine, who still didn’t understand that
the war was over. Even in Soviet times, when I happened to visit Lviv, I was
struck by people’s hostility to speaking in Russian. Since I am fluent in
Ukrainian, it wasn’t a problem for me, but I couldn’t fail to notice: As long as
you spoke with them in Ukrainian, that was all right, but if you switched to
Russian, the tension was palpable.
Wild lies
have been employed, playing on tragic episodes in our common history, such as
the Revolution and the Civil War, as well as the Holodomor famine of the 1930s,
which are falsely attributed solely to Russian tyranny. Russophobia, based on
Nazism, is being made the cornerstone of Ukraine’s national identity.
‘Ukrainian
Nazism’
This article
is not concerned with exposing the objective absurdity of the Ukrainian Nazis’
hysterical Russophobia, but rather with establishing the reasons for its
re-emergence in the 21st Century. This requires an awareness that such
“Ukrainian Nazism” is an artificial construct, created by the age-old enemies of
the Russian world. Ukrainian exclusionary nationalism and fascism, cultivated
from abroad, has always been aimed at Moscow. At first it was promoted by
Poland, which viewed Ukraine as its own borderland, and established its own
vertical power structure to administer it. Then came Austria-Hungary, which
invested large amounts of money over a long period of time, to encourage
Ukrainian separatism.
During the
German fascist occupation, these separatist tendencies were the ground in which
the Bandera movement and the Polizei sprang up, aiding the German
fascists in establishing their order in Ukraine, including though punitive
operations and enslavement of the population. Their modern followers are now
doing likewise: Under the guidance of their American instructors, guerrillas of
the Banderite Right Sector are conducting punitive operations against the
population in the Donbass, helping the U.S.-installed junta “cleanse” cities of
supporters of greater integration with Russia, and assuming police functions for
the establishment of a pro-American, anti-Russian order.
It is obvious
that without steady American and European support, neither the coup d’état nor
the existence of the Kiev junta would have been possible. Unfortunately, as the
famous dictum goes, “history teaches us, that history teaches us nothing.” This
is a catastrophe for Europe, which has more than once had to deal with instances
of the proto-fascist model of government that has now taken shape in Ukraine. It
involves, essentially, a symbiotic relationship between the fascists and big
capital. A symbiosis of this type gave rise to Hitler, who was supported by
major German capitalists, seduced by the opportunity, under the cover of
national-socialist rhetoric, to make money from government orders and the
militarization of the economy. This applied not only to German capitalists, but
also Europeans and Americans. There were collaborators with the Hitler regime in
practically all the European countries and the United States.
Few people
realized that the torch marches would be followed by the ovens at Auschwitz, and
that tens of millions of people would die in the fires of World War II. The same
dynamic is playing out in Kiev now, except that the shout of “Heil Hitler!” has
been replaced by “Glory to the heroes!”—heroes whose great feat was to execute
defenseless Jews at Babi Yar. Moreover, the Ukrainian oligarchy—including the
leaders of some Jewish organizations—is financing the anti-Semites and Nazis of
Right Sector, who are the armed bulwark of the current regime in Ukraine. The
Maidan sponsors have forgotten that, in the symbiotic relationship between Nazis
and big capital, the Nazis always get the upper hand over the liberal
businessmen. The latter are forced either to become Nazis themselves, or to
leave the country. This is already happening in Ukraine: The oligarchs who
remain in the country are competing with the petty führers of Right Sector in
the domain of Russophobic and anti-Muscovite rhetoric, as well as in grabbing
the property of those of their fellow businessmen who have fled the
country.
The current
rulers in Kiev count on protection from their American and European patrons,
pledging to them daily that they will fight the “Russian occupation” to the last
standing “Muscovite.”[2] They
obviously underestimate how dangerous Nazis are, because Nazis truly believe
they are a “superior race,” while all others, including the businessmen who
sponsor them, are viewed as “sub-human” creatures, against whom violence of all
sorts is permissible. That is why Nazis always prevail, within their symbiotic
relationship with the bourgeoisie, who are then forced either to submit, or flee
the country. There is no doubt that if the Bandera followers are not forcibly
stopped, the Nazi regime in Ukraine will develop, expand, and penetrate more
deeply. The only thing still in doubt will be Ukraine’s “European choice,” as
the country reeks more and more of the fascism of 80 years ago.
The
Eurobureaucracy
Of course,
Eurofascism today is very different from its 20th-Century German, Italian, and
Spanish versions. European national states have receded into the past, entering
the European Union and submitting to the Eurobureaucracy. The latter has become
the leading political power in Europe, easily quashing any bids for sovereignty
by individual European countries. The bureaucracy’s power is based not on an
army, but on its monopoly over the issuance of currency, over the mass media,
and over the regulation of trade, all of which are managed by the bureaucracy in
the interests of European big capital. In every conflict with national
governments during the past decade, the Eurobureaucracy has invariably
prevailed, forcing European nations to accept its technocrat governments and its
policies. Those policies are based on the consistent rejection of all national
traditions, from Christian moral standards to how sausages are
produced.
The
cookie-cutter, gender-neutral, and idea-free Europoliticians little resemble the
raving führers of the Third Reich. What they have in common is a maniacal
confidence that they are in the right, and readiness to force people to obey.
Although the Eurofascists’ forms of compulsion are far softer, it is still a
harsh approach. Dissent is not tolerated, and violence is allowed, up to and
including the physical extermination of those who disagree with Brussels’
policies. Of course, the thousands who have died during the drive to instill
“European values” in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Moldova, and now Ukraine, do not
compare with the millions of victims of the German fascist invaders during World
War II. But who has tallied up the indirect human casualties from the promotion
of homosexuality and drugs, the ruin of national manufacturing sectors, or the
degradation of culture? Entire European nations are disappearing in the crucible
of European integration.
The Italian
word fascio, from which “fascism” derives, denotes a union, or
something bound together. In its current understanding, it refers to unification
without preservation of the identity of what is integrated—whether people,
social groups, or countries. Today’s Eurofascists are trying to erase not only
national economic and cultural differences, but also the diversity of human
individuals, including differentiation by sex and age. What’s more, the
aggressiveness with which the Eurofascists are fighting to expand their area of
influence sometimes reminds us of the paranoia of Hitler’s supporters, who were
preoccupied with the conquest of Lebensraum for the superior Aryan
race. Suffice it to recall the hysteria of the European politicians who appeared
at the Maidan and in the Ukrainian media. They justified the crimes of the
proponents of Eurointegration and groundlessly denounced those who disagreed
with Ukraine’s “European choice,” taking the Goebbels approach that the more
monstrous a lie is, the more it resembles the truth.
Today the
driver of Eurofascism is the Eurobureaucracy, which gets its directions from
Washington. The United States supports the eastward expansion of the EU and NATO
in every way possible, viewing these organizations as important components of
its global empire. The U.S. exercises control over the EU through supranational
institutions, which have crushed the nation-states that joined the EU. Deprived
of economic, financial, foreign-policy and military sovereignty, they submit to
the directives of the European Commission, which are adopted under intense
pressure from the U.S.
In essence,
the EU is a bureaucratic empire that arranges things within its economic space
in the interests of European and American capital, under U.S. control. Like any
empire, it strives to expand, and does so by drawing neighboring countries into
Association Agreements, under which they hand their sovereignty over to the
European Commission. In order to make these countries accept becoming EU
colonies, fear-mongering about an external threat is employed, with the
U.S.-guided media portraying Russia as aggressive and bellicose, for this
purpose. Under this pretext, the EU and NATO moved quickly to occupy the
countries of Eastern Europe after the Soviet Union collapsed; the war in the
Balkans was organized for this purpose. The next victims of Eurofascism were the
Baltic republics, which Russophobic Nazis forced to join the EU and NATO. Then
Eurofascism reached Georgia, where Nazis under American guidance unleashed civil
war. Today, the Eurofascists are using the Georgian model in Ukraine, in order
to force it sign the Association Agreement with the EU, as a subservient
territory and a bridgehead for attacking Russia.
Eurasian
Integration
The U.S. sees
the principal threat to its plans for putting the Eurobureaucracy in charge of
the post-Soviet area, as being the Eurasian integration process, which is
developing successfully around the Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan Customs Union. The
EU and the U.S. have invested at least $10 billion in building up anti-Russian
networks, in order to prevent Ukraine from taking part in that process. In
parallel, using the support of Polish and Baltic Russophobes, as well as media
under the control of American media moguls, the United States is inciting
European officials against Russia, with the goal of isolating the former Soviet
republics from the Eurasian integration process. The Eastern Partnership
program, which they inspired, is a cover for aggression against Russia in the
former Soviet area. This aggression takes the form of forcing former Soviet
republics to enter EU Association Agreements, under which they transfer their
sovereign economic, trade, foreign-policy and defense functions to the European
Commission.
For Ukraine,
the Association Agreement with the European Union means transferring to Brussels
its sovereign functions of regulating trade and other foreign economic
relations, technical standards, and veterinary, sanitary, and pest inspections,
as well as opening its market to European goods. The agreement contains a
thousand pages of EU directives that Ukraine would be required to follow. Every
section mandates that Ukrainian legislation be brought into compliance with the
requirements of Brussels. Moreover, Ukraine would assume the obligation to
comply not only with current Brussels directives, but also future ones, in the
drafting of which Ukraine will have no part.
Plainly put,
after signing the Agreement, Ukraine is to become a colony of the European
Union, blindly obeying its demands. These include requirements which Ukrainian
industry is unable to carry out, and which will harm the Ukrainian economy.
Ukraine is to completely open its market to European goods, which will lead to a
$4 billion increase in Ukraine’s imports and drive uncompetitive Ukrainian
industrial products out of the market. Ukraine will be obliged to meet European
standards, which would take EU150 billion of investment in economic
modernization. There are no sources for such amounts of money.
According to
estimates by Ukrainian and Russian economists, Ukraine, after signing the
Agreement, can look forward to a deterioration of its already negative balance
of trade and balance of payments, and, as a consequence, default. This year,
Ukraine has a projected balance of payments deficit of approximately $50
billion. Its currency reserves suffice for only three months—one quarter. Even
if the full amounts of assistance mentioned in various talks were to
materialize, they would win only one or two additional months. Thus, Ukraine
under its current regime can expect to experience a drop in the standard of
living not by 15 or 20 percent, but by half or two-thirds, with the residents of
southeastern Ukraine, who are employed in major industrial plants, being the
hardest hit.
The EU would
achieve certain advantages from an Association Agreement with Ukraine, by way of
an expanded market for its products and the opportunity to acquire devalued
Ukrainian assets. U.S. corporations, for their part, would gain access to shale
gas deposits, which they would like to supplement with pipeline infrastructure
and a market for nuclear fuel elements for power plants. The main goal, however,
is geopolitical: After signing the Association Agreement, Ukraine would not be
able to participate in the Customs Union with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.
It is for this outcome that the U.S. and the EU resorted to aggression against
Ukraine, organizing an armed seizure of power by their protégés. While they
accuse Russia of annexing Crimea, they themselves have taken over Ukraine as a
whole, by installing a junta under their control. The junta’s mission is to
strip Ukraine of its sovereignty and put it under the EU, through signing the
Association Agreement.
The disaster
in Ukraine may be termed aggression against Russia by the U.S. and its NATO
allies. This is a contemporary version of Eurofascism, which differs from the
previous face of fascism during World War II in that it employs “soft” power
with just some elements of armed action in cases of extreme necessity, as well
as the use of Nazi ideology as a supplementary rather than an absolute ideology.
One of the main defining elements of Eurofascism has been preserved, however,
and that is the division of citizens into superior ones (those who support the
“European choice”) and inferior ones, who have no right to their own opinions
and toward whom all is permitted. Another feature is the readiness to use
violence and commit crimes in dealing with political opponents. The final aspect
that needs to be understood, is what drives the rebirth of fascism in Europe;
without grasping this, it is impossible to develop a resistance plan and save
the Russian world from this latest threat of Euro-occupation.
Neocons: Maniacal
Misantropes
The theory of
long-term economic development recognizes an interrelationship between long
waves of economic activity and long waves of military and political tension.
Periodic shifts from one dominant technological mode to the next alternate with
economic depressions, wherein increased government spending is used as an
incentive for overcoming the crisis. The spending is concentrated in the
military-industrial complex, because the liberal economic ideology allows
enhancement of the role of the state only for national security objectives.
Therefore, military and political tension is promoted and international
conflicts provoked, to justify increased defense spending.
This is what
is happening at present: The U.S. is attempting to resolve its accumulated
economic, financial, and industrial imbalances at other countries’ expense, by
escalating international conflicts that will allow it to write off debts,
appropriate assets belonging to others, and weaken its geopolitical rivals. When
this was done during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the result was World War
II. The American aggression against Ukraine pursues all of the above-mentioned
goals. First, economic sanctions against Russia are intended to wipe out
billions of dollars of U.S. debt to Russia. A second objective is to take over
Ukrainian state assets, including the natural gas transport system, mineral
deposits, the country’s gold reserves, and valuable art and cultural objects.
Third, to capture Ukrainian markets of importance to American companies, such as
nuclear fuel, aircraft, energy sources, and others. Fourth, to weaken not only
Russia, but also the European Union, whose economy will sustain an estimated
trillion-dollar loss from economic sanctions against Russia. Fifth, to attract
capital flight from instability in Europe, to the USA.
Thus, war in
Ukraine is just business for the United States. Judging by reports in the media,
the U.S. has already recouped its spending on the Orange Revolution and the
Maidan by carrying off treasures from the ransacked National Museum of Russian
Art and National Historical Museum, taking over potential gas fields, and
forcing the Ukrainian government to switch from Russian to American nuclear fuel
supplies for its power plants. In addition, the Americans have moved ahead on
their long-term objective of splitting Ukraine from Russia, turning what used to
be “Little Russia” into a state hostile to Russia, in order to prevent it from
joining the Eurasian integration process.
This analysis
leaves no room for doubt about the long-term and consistent nature of the
American aggression against Russia in Ukraine. If we analyze who is influencing
U.S. policy, it is not difficult to see that the ones responsible for these
decisions are a handful of deranged radical extremists, the so-called Neocons,
who see the entire world through the lens of their war to assert world rule.
This is a small group of the American oligarchy. And it is also fascism, is in
its own way, based not on radical nationalism, but on global hegemonism. These
Neocons are real misanthropes and Satanists, who are even prepared to drop the
atomic bomb!
At the same
time, if we study the situation in the USA, there are plenty of sober-thinking
people. American business is unenthusiastic about sanctions against Russia; I
mean normal business, which seeks a return on investment through production and
cooperation, rather than through financial speculation and the destruction of
other countries. The majority of American citizens, as well, do not understand
the point of fomenting a war in the middle of Europe. Therefore, another factor
in determining the further course of events will be the extent to which sanity
prevails in Washington.
What we are
facing today is not America, not the American people, but the organizers of a
string of wars, beginning with Iraq, then Yugoslavia, then Libya, the rest of
North Africa, Syria, and on to Ukraine. This grouping of maniacal misanthropes,
the Neocons, are prepared to plunge the entire world into chaos, in order to
affirm their world dominance.
War Against
Russia
To this end,
Washington is directing its Kiev puppets to escalate the conflict, rather than
the reverse. They are also inciting the Ukrainian military against Russia,
aiming to drag Russian ground forces into a war against Ukraine. They are
encouraging the Nazis there to initiate new combat operations. This is a real
war, organized by the United States and its NATO allies. What has occurred is
not merely a coup d’état, and not merely some unexpected outbreak of
anti-Russian Nazism. It is a war. It is a war we didn’t notice for a long time,
but it was prepared gradually, and then moved into its overt phase several
months ago. It is not even a war for Ukraine, but a war against us: against
Russia. Those are the goals of the forces guiding the Nazi guerrillas. And this
well-prepared, paid for, and organized war represents aggression against Ukraine
and against Russia by the relevant circles in the United States, Great Britain,
the EU, and NATO. The goal of this war is to defeat, dismember, and annihilate
Russia. Just like 75 years ago, it is being waged by Eurofascists against
Russia, with the use of Ukrainian Nazis cultivated for this purpose.
We should not
mince words. The people who have signed Ukraine’s Association Agreement with the
EU, signed it with this Nazi government that rests on its machine guns and
shoots people, are Eurofascists. Unfortunately, the European Commission has
become a “Eurofascist Commission.” I insist on this definition, which is
historically and conceptually accurate. And it is strange and sad to see our
European partners descend to the level of fascists in the 21st
Century.
It is
surprising, this position of the European countries that are tailing the U.S.
and doing nothing to prevent a further escalation of the crisis. They should
understand better than anyone, that Nazis can only be stopped with force. The
sooner this is done, the fewer victims and less destruction there will be in
Europe. That avalanche of wars across North Africa, the Middle East, the
Balkans, and now Ukraine, incited by people in the U.S. in their own interests,
threatens Europe most of all; and it was the devastation of Europe in two world
wars that gave rise to the American economic miracle in the 20th Century. But
the Old World will not survive a Third World War. To prevent such a war means
that there must be international acknowledgement that the actions of the U.S.
constitute aggression, and that the EU and U.S. officials carrying them out are
war criminals. It is important to accord this aggression the legal definition of
“Eurofascism” and to condemn the actions of the European politicians and
officials who are party to the revival of Nazism under cover of the Eastern
Partnership.
[1]
Malorossiya (“Little Russia” or “Lesser Russia”) is a term dating back to Greek
place-names for the areas populated by eastern Slavs, nearer (“Lesser Russia”)
and farther north (“Greater Russia”) of the Black Sea. It has been used at
various times to denote all of modern Ukraine or, chiefly, northeastern Ukraine
or the left bank of the Dnieper River. Novorossiya (“New Russia”) was introduced
in the 18th Century for lands acquired by the Russian Empire under Catherine II
in wars with the Ottoman Empire. These included the Black Sea littoral from the
Dniester River to Crimea, the Sea of Azov littoral eastward nearly to the mouth
of the Don River, and lands along the lower Dnieper.
[2]
Moskal, or “Muscovite,” is a derogatory Ukrainian term for a Russian.
Sergei Glazyev's Message to Schiller Institute
Conference
2001: At the invitation of Dr. Sergei Glazyev (right),
Duma chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee, Helga and Lyndon LaRouche
revisit Moscow. At a hearing before the Duma Economic Affairs Committee on
June 29, 2001, LaRouche explained his policy to reorganize the world
financial system and a global economic recovery in the context of Eurasian
cooperation, in front of 150 members and government
advisors.
|
Greetings to the Conference
Sergei Glazyev, Russian
Federation
Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation
It is a great honor for me to greet and congratulate you on the occasion of
the 30th anniversary of the Schiller Institute!
Dear colleagues! The Institute has been and will always be a unique platform
for dialogue and for the development of important solutions to various aspects
of contemporary social, political, and economic development and humanitarian
cooperation in the world!
Many of your ideas, proposals, and thoughts have found demand, in the
development of valuable initiatives of practical significance, in the areas of
social justice, the global order, and the prevention of regional conflicts.
Besides the solution of strictly practical tasks related to current,
day-to-day problems of our mutual development, you also make, on a daily basis,
a weighty contribution to the conceptualization and solution of urgent issues of
geopolitics and public life.
I am certain that your conference today will provide an important impetus to
discussions concerning the equality of peoples, regardless of where they live,
the sovereign right of peoples to self-determination, and the choice of methods
for building a harmonious future, based on peace, cooperation and
good-neighborly relations!
I wish you fruitful work, dear colleagues, and peace to your houses!
Sergei Glazyev
Moscow, June 13, 2014
