Times are changing fast. The political and social climate in the West is proving to be auspicious for White Nationalists to come to power in the future. Indeed, this may happen sooner than we think. It has therefore to be insured that once White Nationalists come to power they espouse the world-view conducive to making decisions in the best interests of the white race.
However, observing how European nationalists naively pay homage to Vladimir Putin and fawn over Russia, one cannot help but wonder if the White Nationalist movement would really serve white interests if it ascended to power in its current form and if the hypothetical victory of European nationalist parties would actually be good for white Europeans.
There is, indeed, a lot to be corrected and reshaped in the current White Nationalist worldview before it becomes a coherent thought system not only ready to take power but more importantly to use that power to bring salvation to the white race. It seems that a crucial aspect of this reshaping process will have to be dispelling the illusions harbored by many White Nationalists about Russia and, in particular, about the intentions of its leader, Vladimir Putin.
Recently, the representatives of the Flemish Vlaams Belang, Hungarian Jobbik, and other nationalist parties in Europe participated as “international observers” voicing their support for the Russian annexation of Crimea during the referendum held on March 16, which was carried out at gunpoint under Russian occupation. Obviously, the authenticity of the results, like those of any election in Putin’s Russia, are highly doubtful, to say the least. Other European nationalist parties made official statements along the same lines, alluding to Crimea allegedly being a historical part of Russia and Russians comprising the majority of the population on the peninsula. I wish to argue, however, that White Nationalist support for the Russian annexation of Crimea amounts to a ratification of Stalin’s crimes.
Crimea and Eastern Ukraine Were Never Ethnically Russian Throughout History
Russians became the dominant majority in Crimea only after the ethnic cleansing of Crimean Tatars and other nationalities (i.e., Germans, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians) by Stalin, which culminated in hundreds of thousands of them being deported to Central Asia during WWII. Many of them died in exile from hunger and disease. Later, most of the survivors were forbidden to resettle in Crimea. Instead the peninsula was repopulated with Russian colonists from the central regions of Russia.
The same holds true for the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine, which today have a largely Russian-speaking population. Prior to the Holodomor, Ukrainians were by far the largest group in those regions. There were also large Greek and Tatar communities but not as populous as in Crimea. However, through the Holodomor an estimated 7 to 8 million Ukrainians were starved to death by the Soviet government in a deliberate attempt to eradicate the indigenous population and to thwart the rise of Ukrainian nationalism. And, as it always was, they were replaced by Russians. Thus Russians currently populating Kharkiv, Donetsk, and other eastern regions are mostly descendants of those who were settled there after 1933 following the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Ukrainian population.
Back in Western Europe, in certain parts of Paris and Berlin, Arabs and Turks respectively already constitute the majority of the population. With the logic applied to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, those districts then have to be ceded to Algeria and Turkey, with more parts of France, Germany, and other European countries being candidates for future secession. Have European nationalists thought about such a logical application of the “self-determination” principle?
Acknowledging the right of self-determination for every ethnic group is an important aspect of White Nationalism, no doubt about that. However, with their recognition of the sham referendum and Russian annexation of Crimea, European nationalists became complicit in the fraud and blatant violations committed by Russia. Do they really believe that a fair referendum can be carried out under gunpoint, within two weeks after the announcement of its date, in the absence of any prior campaigning, and without giving floor to the opposition? Moreover, White Nationalists apparently are not aware that Russians currently constitute 58% of the Crimean population, whereas according to the official results of the referendum 93% voted for Crimean “independence.” Do they seriously believe in the authenticity of this number? Last but not least, apparently they are also not aware that Crimean Tatars, who constitute 13% of the population, did not vote at all.
Finally, no sane person at least slightly familiar with Russia can believe that Russian government and officials, who commit blatant human rights violations in every sphere of life in their own country, will suddenly become interested in conducting a fair referendum, especially since Putin and his high-ranking officials were openly expressing their intentions to annex Crimea even before the announcement of the referendum date.
Russians Living in Post-Soviet Republics Serve as Pretexts for Russia’s Imperial Ambitions
If the Russian government was really concerned about the Russian speakers living in post-Soviet republics it would try to repatriate them back to Russia. That would have been the only honest and decent thing to do, since those lands populated by Russians were never ethnically, culturally, or linguistically Russian territories. This holds true not only for Ukraine, but also for Moldova and the Baltic States, which also have a large Russian population that was settled there during Soviet occupation after millions of indigenous inhabitants were either massacred or deported from their ancestral homelands.
The Russian government is not only unconcerned with repatriating ethnic Russians, its “concern” for their situation in those countries is also disingenuous. Russians living in Baltic countries enjoy all the fruits of civilized and prosperous societies created by smart, hard-working, and conscientious Balts, which they could not even dream of obtaining in the country of their ancestors – their “beloved” Russia. They can freely speak their native tongue everywhere and feel secure. They have their own Orthodox churches, built with taxes paid by the indigenous populations, and can freely profess their religion. When their countrymen were in power, they surely did not provide such opportunities to the indigenous population. In addition, there are also many former Soviet soldiers and partisans, so called “heroes of the Great Patriotic War,” who participated in mass killings and deportations of Baltic peoples, now living in those countries and getting pensions from their governments.
Nevertheless, it must be recognized that ethnic Russians living in European post-Soviet republics carry one “burden.” They are obliged to learn the official language of the country in order to be eligible for important posts in government, many other prestigious jobs, and to apply for citizenship. This, however, is enough for the Russian government and media sources to brand those countries “fascist” and rant hysterically about the “oppression of the Russian-speaking population.”
There are, however, other post-Soviet countries with a significant Russian population: the Central Asian states like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, etc. In those countries, Russians do indeed face real oppression, are deprived of many rights as human beings, and sometimes cannot even walk safely on the street. However, they are of no interest to the Putin government and its ideologues since the Central Asian states effectively remain Russian satellites, with analogous despotic and corrupt social structures.
Recently, after grabbing Crimea and poising to attack Eastern Ukraine, Russia became “interested” in the condition of Russians living in Estonia. Voices are being raised in Transnistria, a Russian enclave within Moldova which became “Russian” through the same process that took place in Ukraine and the Baltic States, for Russia to come and save them from the “Moldovan yoke.” Should that happen, will European nationalists also support Russian occupation of those territories on the same grounds as they supported the annexation of Crimea?
One can only wonder what will come next.