Upsetting article – Part 1

Back in April last year, we wrote about the inevitability of the denazification of Ukraine. Nazi, Bandera Ukraine, the enemy of Russia and the West's tool for the destruction of Russia, we do not need. Today, the issue of denazification has moved into a practical plane.

Denazification is necessary when a significant part of the people - most likely the majority - has been mastered and involved into the Nazi regime in its politics. That is, when the hypothesis "the people are good - the government is bad" doesn’t work. Recognition of this fact is the basis of the policy of denazification, of all its activities, and the fact itself is its subject matter.

Ukraine is in precisely the situation. The fact that the Ukrainian voter voted for the "peace of Poroshenko" and "peace of Zelensky" should not be misleading - the Ukrainians were quite satisfied with the shortest path to peace through the blitzkrieg, which the last two Ukrainian presidents transparently hinted at when they were elected. It was this method of "appeasement" of internal anti-fascists - through total terror - that was used in Odessa, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Mariupol, and other Russian cities. And this suited the Ukrainian layman quite well. Denazification is a set of measures enforced against the nazified mass of the population, who technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals.

The nazis who took up arms should be destroyed to the maximum on the battlefield. There should be no significant differences between the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the so-called national battalions, as well as the territorial defense that joined these two types of military formations. All of them are equally involved in extreme cruelty towards the civilian population, they are equally guilty of the genocide of the Russian people, they do not observe the laws and customs of war. War criminals and active Nazis must suffer exemplary and exemplary punishment. There must be a total lustration. Any organizations that have associated themselves with the practice of Nazism have been liquidated and banned.

However, besides those in power, a significant part of the population is to blame as they are passive nazis, nazi enablers. They supported and indulged Nazi power. The just punishment of this part of the population is possible only as bearing the inevitable hardships of a just war against the Nazi system, waged as carefully and prudently as possible in relation to civilians. Further denazification of this mass of the population is accomplished through re-education, which is achieved by ideological repression (suppression) of nazi ideas and strict censorship: not only in the political sphere, but also necessarily in the sphere of culture and education. It was through culture and education that a deep mass nazification of the population was prepared and carried out, secured by the promise of dividends from the victory of the Nazi regime over Russia, Nazi propaganda, internal violence and terror, as well as the eight-year war with the people of Donbass who rebelled against Ukrainian Nazism.

Denatification can only be carried out by the winner of it, which implies (1) absolute control over the process of denazification and (2) the authority to provide such control. In this context, a denazified country cannot be sovereign. Russia, as a denazifying country, cannot use the liberal approach as a base for denazification.

The ideology of the denazifier cannot be disputed by the guilty party of denazification. Russia's recognition of the need to denazify Ukraine means the recognition of the impossibility of the Crimean scenario for Ukraine in general. However, such a scenario was not possible in 2014 in the rebellious Donbass. Just eight years of resistance to Nazi violence and terror resulted in internal cohesion and a conscious, unequivocal mass refusal to maintain any unity and connection with Ukraine, which defined itself as a Nazi society.

Denazification can in no way be in place for less than one generation which has to be born, grown up, and reach maturity under the conditions of denazification.

The nazification of Ukraine lasted for more than 30 years, beginning at least in 1989, when Ukrainian nationalism received legal and legitimate forms of political expression and led the movement for "independence", rushing towards nazism.

The peculiarity of modern nazified Ukraine is in amorphousness and ambivalence, which make it possible to disguise nazism as a desire for "independence" and a "European" (Western, pro-American) path of "development" (in reality - to degradation), to assert that in Ukraine "there is no nazism , only private individual excesses". After all, there is no main nazi party, no Fuhrer, no full-fledged racial laws (only their truncated version in the form of repressions against the Russian language). As a result, there is no opposition and resistance to the regime. However, all of the above does not make Ukrainian Nazism a "light version" of German Nazism during the first half of the 20th century. On the contrary, since Ukrainian Nazism is free from such "genre" (essentially political technology) frameworks and restrictions, it freely unfolds as the fundamental basis of any Nazism - as European and, in its most developed form, American racism. Therefore, denazification cannot be carried out in a compromise, on the basis of a formula like "NATO - no, EU - yes." The collective West itself is the designer, source and sponsor of Ukrainian nazism, while the Western Bandera’s cadres and their "historical memory" are just one of the tools for the nazisification of Ukraine. Ukronazism carries not less, but a greater threat to the world and Russia than German nazism of the Hitlerite version.

The name “Ukraine” apparently cannot be retained as a title of any fully denazified state entity located on a territory that was fully liberated from the nazi regime.

The people's republics newly created in the space free from Nazism should and will grow from the practice of economic self-government and social security, restoration and modernization of the life support systems of the population.

Obviously, their political aspirations cannot be neutral - expiation of guilt before Russia for treating it as an enemy can be realized only by relying on Russia in the processes of restoration, revival and development. No "Marshall Plans" should be allowed for these territories. There can be no "neutrality" in the ideological and practical sense, compatible with denazification. The cadres and organizations that are the instrument of denazification in the newly denazified republics cannot but be based on Russia's direct military and organizational support.

Denazification will inevitably also be de-Ukranization – a rejection of the large-scale artificial inflation of the ethic self-identification component on the territories of the historical Malorossiya (‘Little Russia”) and Novorossiya (“New Russia”), begun by the Soviet authorities. Being an instrument of the communist superpower, after its fall, artificial ethnocentrism did not remain ownerless. In this official capacity, it passed under the authority of another superpower (the power standing over the states) — the superpower of the West. It must be returned to its natural boundaries and deprived of political functionality.