Luce nelle tenebre.

[- SAVONAROLA -]

E qui c'è la riprova del delirio. Dicesi delirio una percezione totalmente altra dalla realtà...

Tipo quelli che credono che sostenere la Russia possa giovare a qualcosa?
Sono d'accordo con te.

[samuel cramer]

Tipo quelli che credono che sostenere la Russia possa giovare a qualcosa?
Sono d'accordo con te.

Si ora giova perché serve da utilizzare come simbolo contro la società multiculturale e ugualitaria. Le ideologia a volte le devi vedere come un supermercato, entri e prendi quello che ti piace mentre quello che detesti lo lasci a scaffale.

[- SAVONAROLA -]

Si ora giova perché serve da utilizzare come simbolo contro la società multiculturale e ugualitaria.

Avresti la gentilezza di spiegare per quale motivo concretamente Putin sarebbe una seria minaccia per la società multiculturale e ugualitaria?

[samuel cramer]

Avresti la gentilezza di spiegare per quale motivo concretamente Putin sarebbe una seria minaccia per la società multiculturale e ugualitaria?

Concretamente in quel senso si può nelle discussioni personali indicare che non tutto il mondo procede in un unica direzione, concretamente persone con un pensiero multiculturale ma anche antiamericano finendo per simpatizzare per il Putin nemico di Obama diventano meno compiacenti alla società ugualitaria.

[- SAVONAROLA -]

Concretamente in quel senso si può nelle discussioni personali indicare che non tutto il mondo procede in un unica direzione, concretamente persone con un pensiero multiculturale ma anche antiamericano finendo per simpatizzare per il Putin nemico di Obama diventano meno compiacenti alla società ugualitaria.

Mi pare molto astratto e vago, nonché piuttosto infondato, come ragionamento.

[samuel cramer]

Mi pare molto astratto e vago, nonché piuttosto infondato, come ragionamento.

No, in forma macro sociale ti hanno già risposto abbondantemente e io ti aggiungo che nelle discussioni nella sfera sociale fa bene uscire ogni tanto col "ma c'è Putin a pensarla diversa" quando si discute di omo e immigrati. Pensa se ci fosse in Russia un filo immigrati e omo che dicesse che l'Europa deve "aprirsi". Poi chiaro si che economicamente e su altre faccende è da oscurare.

[Canaglia]

Le condanne ad Israele se le può mettere in quel posto, se al contempo commemora la vittoria nella IIGM delle forze al soldo della finanza sionista ogni 9 maggio e condanna i nazionalismi con i già citati simpatici rabbini.

Ah quindi la UE tanto cara ad Adinolfi che invece si astiene cosa è?

[Defender]

Che PS sia fascista, ok. Che difenda un governo al soldo della NATO, altrettanto ok. Che Putin sia russo e quindi imperiale (e quindi nemico dei nazionalismi, per forza), ok. Che non sia fascista, ok. Che ci siano antifascisti (meglio: retoriche antifasciste) sul campo tra i novorussi, ok.
Che si oppongano a un nazionalismo ucraino sbandierato e destinato a fare da paravento a una svendita dello Stato (Stato etnicamente composito), è altrettanto vero.
Quindi? In nome del patriottardismo (e sottolineo patriottardismo) giustifichiamo la resa a USA e il peggiore occidente?

E tu sei schierato dalla stessa parte degli antifascisti.

Io però non ho mai millantato che la parte per cui simpatizzo direttamente abbia un'influenza decisiva sulla conduzione politica della nazione, venendo smentito dalla realtà dei fatti. Allora: il piano di privatizzazioni succitato (roba che al confronto gli anni Novanta in Italia erano pappetta per bambini) è parte o non è parte del programma e della visione del mondo di Praviy Sektor o degli altri Socialisti nazionali?
O lo è o non lo è, non è che ci sia da far tanta filosofia sopra.

[Nicolas Eymerich]

Allora: il piano di privatizzazioni succitato (roba che al confronto gli anni Novanta in Italia erano pappetta per bambini) è parte o non è parte del programma e della visione del mondo di Praviy Sektor o degli altri Socialisti nazionali?
O lo è o non lo è, non è che ci sia da far tanta filosofia sopra.

P. S. si richiama al "nazionalismo economico" e sostiene la necessità della proprietà statale dei settori strategici dell'economia, sia sul sito dei banderisti (http://banderivets.org.ua e sito precedente http://banderivec.org.ua/index.php?p...mist4/zmist409) mentre l'assemblea social-nazionale si distingue per un maggior radicalismo anticapitalista(??????-??????????? ???????? - ????! ???????! ????????!), sia nel programma politico generale(http://pravyysektor.info/articles/pr...havotvorennya/). Nei punti programmatici stilati in vista delle elezioni presidenziali, viene indicata l'esigenza di de-oligarchizzare alcuni settori privati al fine di aprire il mercato ad una pluralità di operatori economici e si auspica un minore intervento dello Stato nell'economia (http://pravyysektor.info/prohrama-ka...natolijovycha/).
Mi sembra nettamente distinto(come per il resto, d'altronde) dalle idee economiche del governo ucraino attuale, che invece si ispirano al neoliberismo selvaggio ed alle politiche del Fmi

[Nicolas Eymerich]

Sulle prospettive di Ps in generale, è recentemente uscita un'intervista ad Olena Semenyaka, una giovane intellettuale tradizionalista che cura i rapporti con l'estero del Movimento:
Tratto da https://www.traditionalright.com/an-...-right-sector/
An Interview With Right Sector

July 23, 2014 James Harmon
Editor’s note: tR contributor James Harmon sent the following interview to Olena Semenyaka, Press Secretary for Ukrainian political party Right Sector in May 2014. Due to her position and the ongoing conflict, Mr. Harmon only just now received her responses. Edits for readability’s sake were the only alterations made to the conversation. Mr. Harmon has been supportive of the Ukrainian cause, but for the record, tR remains an objective outside observer of the conflict, if leaning ever so slightly to the East. In the wake of the very recent downing of Malaysia Airlines flight 17, we feel it is especially important to get an insider’s perspective on what is motivating the conflict in Ukraine that has now had an effect on the entire world.

Hi Olena, before we start I wanted to congratulate you on your appointment to the position of Press Secretary for Right Sector. We have talked for some time now, and given your very capable writing skills, intellect, and vibrant personality, I think they could not have picked a better choice. I also wanted to congratulate you on the victory of the Ukrainian people over the corrupt regime of Yanukovitch. It is a truly inspiring thing to see.
Hi James, firstly, thank you for your congratulations! Although it was an overthrow rather than accomplished national revolution, the spirit of the latter has been awoken, and the massive patriotic consolidation in our country, not mentioning ascension of the Ukrainian Right, surprises us even more than this miraculous victory.
Secondly, many thanks for your high assessment of my intellectual abilities that (I hope) will be put into service of our cause to a full extent! Perhaps the term “Press Secretary” is not a very precise description of my duties, for even though I took responsibility for the relations of Right Sector with the foreign nationalist movements and organizations, I set a more complex goal for myself that requires strategic thinking, indeed. Thus regular updates in social networks that inform our supporters (and enemies) about the advancement of the Ukrainian Right and patriots in general, as well as interviews that mostly serve the goal of dispelling the myths of both the Kremlin’s and the West’s propaganda are not an end in itself and were my main concern only after the outbreak of information warfare on Ukraine and Right Sector in particular, as wells as before the recent presidential elections.
At first I was among the few Ukrainian patriots who constantly defended Ukrainians from a nationalist point of view in English, apart from Ukrainian and Russian, which during the Maidan revolution automatically meant protection of Right Sector’s cause, since this movement and later organization took the brunt of the Russian propagandistic machine. In fact, I’ve chosen the role of Right Sector’s advocate both inside and outside our country. Also informational support of Right Sector was necessary as a part of promoting the Third Way among ordinary Ukrainians who initially had too high expectations of the West. Luckily, few Ukrainians still have illusions about the Western omnipotence or “paradise,” and although they mostly voted for pro-Western Poroshenko instead of Yarosh, Right Sector’s calls for self-organization, fighting against the inner traitors and developing our own powerful Army completely prevailed over the “peaceful” defeatist moods and waiting for a rescue from the West, which was helpful yet not decisive. So this persistent and exhausting work was not fruitless, but now it’s time to change our strategy.
In other words, war interrupted our revolution, which we hoped would become the beginning of the promised “European Reconquista,” which, as you may guess, is a much more rewarding task than disproving repetitive accusations of willful or blind “serving the interests of Western imperialism to start war on Russia” while our own interests are completely ignored. On the other hand, war has allowed nationalists have gained power they could never have dreamed of before. They form and guide the volunteer battalions consisting of right-wingers, and our foreign comrades join them not because they were persuaded by some interviews, but because they see that they can do something real in Ukraine, as opposed to their homelands. This is not yet a “European Reconquista,” but it’s the birth of the subject that will be able to fulfill it.
Therefore, it goes without saying that I’m extremely grateful for your informational support, and I am honored to answer your questions for traditionalRIGHT.
When I saw that Yanukovitch was deposed on television, I was inside a bar and I jumped up nearly knocking over my drink. When I saw on CNN that the nationalists had him on the run, I cheered loudly and everyone was staring at me like I was insane. That was one of those moments I will always remember.
It was a huge inspiration for me and all the Ukrainians to see such a sincere support of our Western sympathizers, particularly Americans, even if they were not strictly “right-wing.” Thank you for sharing our joy and triumphing over the system along with us! It shows better than anything else that good old values of freedom and the right to self-determination and the revolt against injustice are still alive in the modern world in spite of the attempts to view Maidan solely through the prism of “war of the continents,” the geopolitical idolatry and other conspiracy theories.
Undeniably, this revolution has its ideological, cultural-civilizational and geopolitical meanings, but much simpler underlying factors make it understandable for everyone. Although the corrupt post-Soviet oligarchy headed by Putin got revenge on Ukraine by annexing Crimea and unleashing war in East Ukraine, it does not cancel the precedent of successful revolution in Eastern Europe and does not restore Yanukovich’s legitimacy. Moreover, it’s obvious that Russian imperialists overreacted not only out of a sense of resentment, but because they realized that Maidan was a direct threat to the Kremlin, the beginning of its end, a glimpse into the future of the Russian Federation.
Can you explain the origins of Right Sector and the contrast between Svoboda, the nationalist party that was well known prior to Right Sector? Is Svoboda still around, or have they merged into Right Sector?
Right Sector was formed in November, 2013 during the beginning of mass, back then simply pro-EU, protests at Maidan. One of its ideologists Ihor Zahrebelnyi jokes that we should install a plaque near the table in the small café at Maidan at which sat nationalists from “Tryzub” (Trident) who invented this title. At first Right Sector was represented by a small tent at Maidan, but already on December 30 – the day when the regime of Yanukovych forcefully dispersed Maidan and beat the students – they formed a circle of the fighters who protected people around Independence Stella from the attack of special police unit “Berkut.” After the violent clashes with police on Hrushevsky St., Right Sector united the radical protesters of all ages and professions, as well as such nationalist organizations as Tryzub, Patriot of Ukraine, Social-National Assembly, UNA-UNSO (Ukrainian National Assembly-Ukrainian National Self-Defense), and White Hammer (later expelled due to inner conflicts). On March 27 Dmytro Yarosh, one of the leaders of “Tryzub,” who predicted revolutionary events at Maidan in his book and started training Ukrainian nationalists during Yanukovych’s reign, was elected at the council as the head of the political party “Right Sector” and announced his intent to run for president.
“Svoboda” led by Oleg Tiagnybok, has been taking an active part in the political life of Ukraine since the ’90s, but only after the elections in autumn 2012 has it become a serious parliamentary force, the success of which was immediately labeled as “back to 1933” in the left-liberal media. It has quite a radical nationalist and socialist platform (at first it was called SNPU, that is “Social-National Party of Ukraine”), although the pro-Western populist segment of this political party might create an impression that it’s almost a centrist force. It’s not so, though, and “Svoboda” has its military wing represented by the nationalist organization C14, which is led by Eugen Karas and is well-known in Europe.
After the beginning of Maidan protests Svoboda entered a coalition with liberal political parties “Bat’kivshchyna” (Fatherland) led by Arseniy Yatseniuk as a deputy of Yulia Tymoshenko and “UDAR” (Strike) headed by Vitaliy Klytchko. Since the latter tried to negotiate and constantly called for “peaceful protests,” which resulted in the death of Celestial Hundred, if not several such hundreds of Maidan activists, Svoboda partially also gained a reputation of a populist and oddly moderate force that can’t cope with the situation. As a result, some joined Right Sector instead. However, a lot of members of Svoboda were activists of Maidan, seized administrative buildings, financed the struggle, fought in Hrushevsky St., caught hired-by-the-regime thugs (“titushki”) and, eventually, have become a part of the Heavenly Hundred. On the other hand, namely owing to this coalition Svoboda is widely represented in the parliament and can resist the anti-Ukrainian forces at a legal level.
Both Svoboda and Right Sector gained not so much votes during the presidential elections, because many people, even those who were in favor of Svoboda or Right Sector, in order to hasten the elections and finish the process in one round voted for Petro Poroshenko as the most probable winner who has resources and will be able to change the situation in the East (this explains the paradox of the oligarch elected after the anti-oligarchic revolution). Low results and falsifications made many members of both political parties think about the prospect of creating an alliance, especially taking into account Maidan’s demand to dissolve the parliament elected under the former regime and hold extraordinary parliamentary elections in autumn. Yet it’s hard to say that one of these forces can become a part of another; since Svoboda is more experienced and developed in the parliamentary field, it is possible to argue about Right Sector’s merging with Svoboda as its substructure. However, both political parties have their specific audience (which reflects difference of their ideological priorities), welcome a variety of right-wing forces in Ukraine, and have so far decided to stay apart.
In a military sense, though, Svoboda would rather become and indeed partially became a part of Right Sector. Specificity of both parties has become clear during the first month of anti-terrorist operation. Right Sector instead of pre-election agitation has helped to form battalions “Dnipro-1” and “Dnipro-2”; Social-National Assembly as a division of Right Sector has created the battalion “Azov” out of the “Black Men” that appeared in response to anonymous Russian “Green Men.” Dmytro Yarosh personally takes part in the ATO as a military, as a commander of the volunteer defense force that is situated on the border between Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk regions. Svoboda as the parliamentary force only now finished creation of the first company of its battalion “Sich,” although the aforementioned military wing of Svoboda C14 started trainings much earlier. Likewise, some members of Svoboda recently joined Right Sector’s battalion “Azov” (formally all the volunteer battalions are subordinate to Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine), which is a good sign of close cooperation of these two parties that is born in common experience.
Can you describe for us where the current stage of the conflict between separatists and Ukrainian patriots is right now, and any plans that Ukraine has to stop the Russian threats? Will ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians be able to live next to one another after the conflict or is the conflict primarily a question of national loyality?
First of all, we have to distinguish terrorists from Russia (including Chechens, Dagestani, Ossetians, Abkhazians, etc.), local separatists, and a small percentage of residents of East Ukraine fooled by the Kremlin’s propaganda. As Semen Semenchenko explained (the leader of the volunteer defense force “Donbas”), after the victory of Maidan local members of the Party of Regions, communists, oligarchs, Mayors of the cities, driven by the passion for revenge, started gathering in this area all kinds of thugs, criminals, pro-Russian elements, and former workers of “Berkut” who shot people at Maidan that altogether created an illusion that Donbas turned pro-Russian and took up arms against the Ukrainian state. In reality, Semenchenko asserts that this region stands for Ukraine. That’s why we should not repeat the Russian propaganda that this region is “problematic,” that its residents are “alcoholics and drug addicts,” and that “it’s easier to let it separate,” for they will say next the same about Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk, and other Ukrainian cities. Semenchenko contends that we should not give away a single square foot of our land.
Thus at first I answered your second question: nothing has ever threatened Russians or Russian speaking people in Ukraine; 40% of Right Sector speaks Russian; there are more than 15 Russian volunteers in the battalion “Azov”; we’re actively supported by the Russian right-wing organization “Wotan Jugend,” etc. Even in Crimea Russian has never been a second state language; it only had “a special status,” so recognition of Ukrainian language the only state language that is used in governmental institutions changes nothing at the cultural or colloquial level of communication. Likewise, war both divided and united Ukrainians and Russians, and we know that our triumph over the separatist fiction of “Novorossiya” will say more than any amount of news stories by Russia Today.
The anti-terrorist operation in East Ukraine had several phases, including “the final” ones. Initially we liquidated the separatist threat in the biggest Eastern Ukrainian cities (Odessa, Kharkiv), so the center of conflict shifted to the capitals of corresponding pseudo-republics – Donetsk and Lugansk. Release of the city of Mariupol by the battalion “Azov” led by Andriy Biletskyi was the exemplary military operation of the whole ATO. Many losses were connected with the treason of pro-Russian officials who stole the funds for Army, delayed or complicated delivery of equipment for Ukrainian soldiers and the contrabandists who let through the border Russian vehicles, mercenaries, and weapons. The latter constantly used peaceful residents as a living shield and then accused the Ukrainian army of committing atrocities, often due to an inability to use highly specialized Russian military equipment. That was the time when the hashtags appeared, “#SaveDonbas(s) from the Ukrainian army,” in response to which we started our own flash-mob in social networks “#SaveDonbas(s) from Russian saboteurs” or “…from Dumbass people.” When terrorists shot down a plane with 50 Ukrainian military personnel on board, it had become quite obvious who’s a genuine extremist. At first Poroshenko justified hopes of his voters when he said that ATO should last for hours, not months, and at the same time was severely criticized for the recent proclamation of the truce or the unilateral ceasefire in order to show the EU during the signing of the EU association agreement that we’re “civilized,” not aggressors, and are ready to “hear” the residents of Donbas. This demoralizing decision cost us 20 more soldiers’ lives, initiative, and new equipment from Russia, which almost led to a new Maidan, this time headed by the militaries, but restoration of ATO also caused its powerful psychological effect and a successful counter-attack by the Ukrainian Army. Terrorists flee or take the Ukrainian side, Slovyansk – symbolic center of the separatists is free, and now we can anticipate fast release of the big Eastern Ukrainian cities and an end of “Novorossiya.”
One of the most notable things I have read about Right Sector is their support for people’s right to keep and bear arms, and the party’s support for a relatively republican form of government despite the slander we hear calling the party “fascist” from pro-Kremlin groups. In America we find those characteristics to be quintessential parts of our national character. What makes Ukrainian Nationalism unique, and does it have similarities to American nationalism whatsoever?
This analogy makes sense, indeed. Dmytro Yarosh has always favored and proposed as a part of his political program legalization of weapons. The head of the Legislative Office of Social-National Assembly Yaroslav Babych elaborated corresponding project for Ukrainian Parliament. American and Swiss models are understood by Right Sector as a basis for personal freedom, a guarantee of human dignity and the right of self-defense, especially when the state does not fulfill its function or the government and the police are corrupt and protect each other instead of the people, which was widely discussed during and after Maidan. It goes without saying that freedom-loving Ukrainians respect this early American tradition; in turn, it’s deeply rooted in Ukrainian national history and our system of government. Ukrainian nationalism is both conservative and national-revolutionary, which is quite a unique combination for the ideologies of the European third way where these trends were separated.
One thing I have read is that the legacy of Ukraine comes originally from the republic of Novgorod, which was largely settled by northern Europeans (Nords/Vikings). This would mean that Ukraine’s roots are more distinctly European than Russia’s, as it owes much of its history and ancestry to Europe, whereas much of Russia has Asiatic ancestry. With this rationale I feel it’s a duty for those of us in countries with European history to help one another. What are your thoughts on this?
The hypothesis of Norman theory of origins of Kyivan Rus’ is quite substantiated and popular, indeed. Old Scandinavian chronicles called this area “Garðaríki”; a lot of Old Norse terms have become a part of our legacy. Novgorod is important in another context, too. The Viking influence within the Norman hypothesis mostly exists in the establishment of the state, primarily after the conquest of Kyiv by the Novgorod Kniaz Oleg, supposedly a relative of Scandinavian Rurik, and establishing there the dynasty of Rurik Kyiv which became the capital of Kyivan Rus’ that united different Slavic tribes.
Undoubtedly, Ukraine is a traditional European country, whereas Russia embodies largely an Asiatic (absolutist, even despotic, bureaucratic and technocratic) model of government, indeed. The Muscovite State (Peter I renamed Muscovy to Russia only in 1721), appeared much later than Kyiv and had been a tributary to the Tatar Golden Horde until 1480. This explains the failure of modern fetishists of pseudo-geopolitics who claim that Russia is an opponent of American Atlantism and the representative of the European “Nomos of the Earth,” in Carl Schmitt’s sense, as opposed to Western “Nomos of the Sea,” as Alexander Dugin claims. It’s obvious that Russia does not embody a specifically European principle of spacial and property relations: individual space, ownership, and rights have never been cultivated in Russia, and Russian people often were nomads rather than peasants who have direct ties with the land. That’s why, for instance, “guests” from Russia in East Ukraine can never be considered “partisans” who defend their own land – only aggressors and invaders. All this is widely discussed in the article by Harun Sidorov “Russian State as Nomad, Natural Anarchist and Technocrat.”
In the historical retrospective, as opposed to Moscow where the supreme power belonged to the tsar, where even aristocracy was subordinate to total bureaucratic control and where serfdom existed until the very outbreak of revolution, Ukraine inherited the truly European model of government. Ukrainian society had quite high vertical mobility (those who proved themselves brave fighters in war received land; even today the authorities promised land the participants of ATO) and organically combined the powerful aristocratic estate with democratic initiatives from below (as it was in Zaporozhian Sich where military leaders were elected through voting). Even though Right Sector considers itself an heir of the last Ukrainian Hetman Pavlo Skoropadsky, (our “Hetman” is the equivalent of “Prince”) rather than Ukrainian Republic, the latter was also important part of developing Ukrainian state elements, which, again, represent fundamental values of Ukrainian mentality and culture.
That’s why it’s not a matter of the pro-EU or anti-EU position – a false dichotomy that was imposed on us by the Kremlin: both EU and the Kremlin are anti-European and globalist entities. Our right-wing supporters from Russia (aforementioned “Wotan Jugend”) openly explain that they took the side of the heirs of Kyivan Rus’ that keep its legacy alive, as opposed to current anti-national Russian government.
Do you welcome U.S. aid? Considering Russia’s increasingly belligerent behavior, what are your thoughts on NATO, the association agreement, and possible U.S. assistance?
Officially Right Sector stands for the non-aligned status of Ukraine, that is against EU and NATO membership, but is not against Western help as such. This is in the state interests of Ukraine. Recently Dmytro Yarosh wrote a short appeal on occasion of the birthday of the commander of UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) Roman Shukhevych (June 30), in which he underlined that signing the EU association agreement, which happened on June 27, has never been the final aim of Maidan and that the struggle for the real revolutionary changes (interrupted by war with Russia) only began.
The Ukrainian Army accepts American help (food, bulletproof vests, although funds, as before, mostly do not reach ordinary soldiers). I’ve also already received several requests from American volunteers who were interested in joining the battalion “Azov.” Russian fantasies about American mercenaries and money do not prevent us from real cooperation with American supporters. It’s a great chance to strengthen political, ideological, and military relations with our American comrades. Overall, Dmytro Yarosh since the very beginning believed that the most valuable help of the West would be weapons and modernization of Ukrainian Army, and the Social-National Assembly pushes forward the idea that we need to create our own military-geopolitical block.
I have read about the plans for the Baltic Union as a third choice to the EU or Russia, how plausible is this and is there a realistic plan in the works to make it happen? Have other countries agreed to work with Ukraine to form a third option?
Yes, the idea of the geopolitical third way, which represents our choice of the genuine Europe beyond the globalist monsters from both sides, was actively popularized by Dmytro Yarosh. Countries that are naturally predisposed towards the third way are the countries that are geographically situated in the median zone, have had past conflicts with Russia and communism, and were the parts of the greater historical projects in this area like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. No wonder that our passionate supporters mostly come namely from these countries. Even if development of a third positionist project demands years of preliminary work in this direction, it’s not unrealistic. The fighters from Belarus and Russia who serve in the battalion “Azov” have already expressed their wish to create something like a manifesto of the new Kyivan Rus’. By the way, many of my colleagues support the idea of restoring Ukraine’s original name – Rus’. We cooperate with our comrades from Belarus, Scandinavia, and Poland and discuss the prospects of creating the common geopolitical space as an alternative of both EU and Russia. Russian opposition leaders and nationalists also consider Kyiv a center of anti-Kremlin activity.
I have heard various sources say Right Sector is demanding resignation of the interim prime minister and other officials. If this is true, does this include the deputy prime minister who is a member of Svoboda? Is it all of the current government they wish to resign?
Right Sector was quite critical of the interim government, whose indecision cost us Crimea, and demanded resignation of MIA Avakov after the murder of Oleksandr Muzychko (Sashko Bilyi). From time to time Right Sector requires resignation of local corrupt politicians, its subdivision Social-National Assembly, and different regional branches in particular, but mostly avoids conflicts with the members of Svoboda, which would undermine the unity of right-wing forces in Ukraine. After the end of war, Right Sector’s political struggles will surely become more active.
Lastly, I know Mr. Yarosh is running for President. How popular is he right now in Ukraine? His business card campaign seems to be popular and catchy and has spawned a well known meme. He has a lot of charisma. Do you think Mr. Yarosh has a strong chance of winning, and if not, do you think Right Sector will gain a sizable portion of the parliament and therefore be able to have a strong influence on policy?
Dmytro Yarosh has wide support among the population – he achieved good results during the presidential elections in Kyiv, which is a very good sign. However, neither Right Sector, nor Svoboda were successful in the elections. It’s no wonder that nationalist forces were not so popular as Russian TV predicted, because people wanted to finish the elections in one round and finally focus on the war in the East, without fear that Putin could invade or that Ukraine would remain without a legitimate president in a state of civil war. Thus many voted for Poroshenko for purely pragmatic and strategic reasons, although the possibility of falsification is not excluded. Anyway, we continue developing our political party and know that after the end of war, our revolutionary activism (the need of which has become clear for the whole Ukrainian society) will be necessary as never before. Devoted and experienced volunteer defense forces guided by the members of Right Sector will play an important role in this process, too.
Thank you for answering my questions Olena. We wish a blessing to be upon you and your people as you face the threat from Russia. Your cause is noble, and for those of us in America particularly, it strikes a chord as we too struggled to break free from an imperial force. The mainstream media in the U.S.A. has supported Ukraine, and the American people despite being weary from war, seem to be supporting Ukraine in the struggle.
We’re very grateful for American support, information in particular, and in turn, wish all the best to those who stayed with us side by side in this struggle!
James Harmon is a college level instructor who teaches fine arts and film and holds and MFA in painting. His blog analyizes films and artwork and can be located at Lugubrious Living