The story of humanity is mostly related between conquests and victims. In this division of events, victims of wrongdoing are often perceived to have elevated moral character compared to non-victims and especially to their “oppressors”.  There has been quite a few psychological experiments about how victims also disclose their narratives in regard to "justice restoration” which often is abuse of status designed to blame others. 

At the level of ethnic groups, and entire population having been victimised and being victimised, we can see how the narratives have been distorted to apportion blame to what or whom led to the victimisation. One of the groups that has managed the “victim status” with brilliance has been the Jews. 

As we blame Russia for the predicament of the Ukrainians, we can see by emphasis of the knowledge that Zelensky-y is Jewish an extra dimension of victimhood to the people of Ukraine when they have played with the major fascist card all along. 

The "Ukrainians" have brought their own victimisation upon themselves by being ambiguously part of greater game — that of the conquest of Russia by the Anglo-Saxon, from the land of eternal “freedom”, the USA. 

Here as well, we need to note that not the entirety of a people play the game knowingly, as most decent people only want to live as if happy ever after in a fairy tale, but still end up — willingly or brainwashed — as participants in the greater game of conquest. 

Not all Americans know the power at play. I would suggest that only a few do, but their loaded influence through media and information manipulation is paramount. The trend is that many Americans (and their allies) are on the bandwagon of destroying Russia because of a well-cultivated Russophobia. 

In many ways, Russia has been the “victim” in this story, but the narrative of the West has reverse the reality and described them as the ever nasty aggressors, even if the Russians, self-immolated when the USSR was disbanded. The West abused the situation beyond belief. We know.

This is a difficult article to write without being labelled as anti-semitic. In many ways, the Jews have been caught between Russia and the West by the Russian intervention in Ukraine. The history of the Zionists, but more precisely the jews since their expulsion out of the promise land and exile from Egypt have been adept at “playing the field”. The bible is the adulterated record of their victimhood, even from god who as a benevolent father would punish them juste-fully.

On this site, we have studied Martin Luther, Hitler, etc with chosen details about their relationship with the Jewry… Now we need to explore the more recent development in the victimisation of the Jews, and the deceitful management of “anti-semitism” feelings leading to their victimhood… 

Some people saw through this fog of deceit, and yet became ambivalent:

De Gaulle : “The Jews, a People Sure of Itself and Domineering”

June 1967, an Endless Six-Day War · From the very start of the June 1967 war, French President General Charles de Gaulle condemned Israel for having started it. This position, in contradiction with that of most political leaders, the media and public opinion earned de Gaulle many criticisms, including that of antisemitism.

A ceremony ? A “high mass” ? A theatrical performance ? The general’s press conferences had a solemn, ritual character which can only be understood in terms of the stature of the protagonist. On 27 November 1967, over a thousand French and foreign reporters gathered in the Elysée to hear the President of the Republic. His tone of voice was solemn, even lyrical at times as he set forth his perception of the reforms France had accomplished under his leadership, far-reaching changes he had brought about and declared that the Fifth Republic was destined to become “a political second nature.” Much time was devoted to foreign affairs in a world divided by the cold war and by various crises. The most dangerous threat to world peace was the war in Vietnam where already 4 000 000 American soldiers were involved. De Gaulle spoke of his trip to Québec and explained his famous “Vive le Québec libre !”(Long live free Quebec!) ; he announced his refusal to let the United Kingdom join the European Economic Community (EEC) ; he expressed his worries about the international financial system.

“WE WILL NOT LET YOU BE DESTROYED”

Six months after the Arab-Israeli war of June 1967, he could hardly ignore the situation in the Middle East.

On 22 May, the Aqaba incident, regrettably caused by Egypt, provided an excuse for those who were spoiling for a fight. (. . .) On 2 June, the French government officially declared that in the event of hostilities it would lay the blame on whomever fired the first shots. And this was repeated unambiguously to all governments involved. This was what I myself, on 24 May, told Mr. Ebban, the Israeli foreign minister whom I met in Paris. ‘If Israel is attacked, I said in essence, we will not allow it to be destroyed, but if you attack, we will condemn your initiative. Of course, in spite of your smaller population, and considering you are better organized, much more closely knit, and much better armed than the Arabs, I have no doubt that in the event you will prevail in military terms. However, you will then find yourselves increasingly mired in difficulties, both on the ground and internationally, all the more so as a war in the Middle East cannot fail to increase deplorable tensions across the world and have unfortunate consequences for many lands. And little by little you, as the victors, will be held responsible for all the harms caused.’ As we know, the voice of France was ignored and Israel did attack and in six days achieved all of its objectives.

After having repeated his condemnation of that attack, de Gaulle reminded his listeners of the French position:

Any settlement must be based on the evacuation of all the territories conquered by force and the recognition by all the States involved of all the others. After which, through the decisions taken by the UN and with the presence and guarantee of their forces, it should probably be possible to arrive at a precise definition of borders, living conditions and security on both sides, the situation of refugees and minorities and the terms governing the freedom of navigation in the Aqaba Gulf and the Suez Canal.

None of this was new and the next day the press merely mentioned the Middle East as one item among others, devoting its main headlines to different subjects. France-Soir titled, across five columns : “General de Gaulle: gold should replace a dollar threatened by international trade”; Le Figaro: “General de Gaulle confirms his hostility to England’s entering the Common Market”; L’Aurore: “De Gaulle: No to England!” while Combat, violently anti-Gaullist, is particularly insistent: “De Gaulle, the crisis monger!” With as a subtitle: “Yesterday he exaggerated all the aspects of his foreign policy to the point of provocation.”

EXTRAVAGANCE AND EXCESS

And yet, twenty-four hours later a controversy erupted, fueled at first by Tel Aviv’s reaction to one section of the conference which had gone unnoticed. De Gaulle spoke of the creation of Israel and the fear, in some quarters that

the Jews, hitherto widely dispersed and who had remained what they had always been, in other words, an elite people, sure of itself and domineering, once they were together again in the lands of their former grandeur might transform into a burning, conquering ambition the heart-moving wishes voiced over nineteen long centuries: “next year in Jerusalem.”

Hubert Beuve-Méry, editor of Le Monde (issue dated 29 November, published Tuesday the 29 in the afternoon) wrote of “whiffs of antisemitism”; Jean Daniel in Le Nouvel Observateur denounced “the ghost of Maurras” haunting de Gaulle; Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber wondered in his editorial for L’Express: “How far will he carry extravagance and excess?” and went on to demand nothing less than his “deposition.”

1

In his Memoirs, written two years later, de Gaulle regretted having let himself be carried away: “Even at that moment, I should have kept a cool head. . . I am by nature emotive, impassioned!”Indeed the wording was clumsy, to say the least, especially his depiction of the Jews as a uniform group, a depiction which is paradoxically identical with that of Zionism. But the accusation of antisemitism? It was refuted by David Ben Gourion, founder of the State of Israel, in a letter dated 6 December 1967:

I have refrained from joining in the chorus of unjust criticisms expressed by many in France, in Israel and in other countries because they do not have, I believe, considered your remarks with the serious attention they require. (. . .) As prime minister at the time of the Fourth Republic, I know that our friendly relations with France, since the rebirth of the State of Israel were carried on even under the Fifth Republic, and I had no need to expect any friendship more faithful and sincere than yours.

Nor was de Gaulle an anti-Zionist. In that same press conference, he restated his admiration for the creation of Israel:

Which is why, quite apart from the massive support, in money, influence, and propaganda which the Israelis received from Jewish circles in America and Europe, many countries, France among them, were happy to see their country established on the territory which the world had recognized as theirs, while hoping they would exercise some restraint in their quest for a peaceful modus vivendi with their neighbors.

De Gaulle’s admiration went way back, as the Israeli ambassador in France, who visited him in Paris on 28 April 1955, attested: “De Gaulle told me he considered the creation of Israel to be a historical necessity. The Jewish people have every right to expect redress for the injustices they have suffered for so many centuries.” And he went on to express his respect for “the talents of the Jews, their clear-headed logic and energy.”

2

SPARE PARTS FOR THE MIRAGE FIGHTERS

Actually, this controversy over the alleged antisemitism of the man who made the famous call to resistance from London in June 1940, was a pretext for attacking once again the positions set forth in June 1967. The least one can say is that these were not self-evident. During the fifties, France had been Israel’s most steadfast ally, equipping its army with sophisticated weaponry, particularly the Mirage fighter aircraft, helping it to develop military nuclear technology. France had also participated in the pathetic Suez expedition of 1956 which de Gaulle had approved at the time. It was true that since the end of the Algerian war in 1962, France had withdrawn, as the General observed in his press conference, from “certain special and very close ties” which the Fourth Republic had established with Israel. After Algeria had won its independence in 1962,

we have resumed the policies of friendship and cooperation which France had maintained for centuries with that part of the world and strongly feel today that these must be among the main foundations of our external action.

But he added: “Needless to say, we made sure the Arabs knew that for us, the existence of the State of Israel is a fait accompli and we will not stand by and let it be destroyed.”

ALAIN GRESH > 5 SEPTEMBER 2017

Publication director of Orient XXI. A specialist in the Near East, he is the author of several books, including De quoi la Palestine est-elle le nom ?, Les Liens qui libèrent, 2010 and et Un chant d’amour. Israël-Palestine, une histoire française, with Hélène Aldeguer, éditions La Découverte, 2017.

https://orientxxi.info/magazine/de-gaulle-the-jews-a-people-sure-of-itself-and-domineering,1984

————————

Presently, the Ukrainian situation is highly related to the “Jewish question… Some ambiguity has arisen. 

Why is Israel so Soft on Moscow?

Among the “Western” nations, Israel’s voice is not heard on the Ukrainian crisis. And the leaders of this country do not want to oppose head-on Vladimir Putin to whom they are linked by strategic and economic interests. At the risk of angering the American ally.

Since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, Israel took up a one-of-a-kind political position in what is generally called the “western camp”. Although with some hesitation it voted on 2 March for the resolution adopted by 141 countries condemning the war launched by Russia and demanding it withdraws its troops immediately, Israel refused to join the economic sanctions imposed on Moscow and some of its leaders, and refuses to give the Ukrainians military supplies, even those of a supposedly defensive nature. Thus, it is, for example, that Israel has so far refused to supply Kiev with its Iron Dome air defence system used to counter rockets launched against its territory from Gaza or south Lebanon, confining itself to offering the Ukrainians only some deliveries of clothing and a field hospital. What is more, from the beginning of the war Israel refused to allow Ukrainian refugees to enter its territory. At the same time, it seeks to pose on the international stage as a “mediator” between Moscow and Kiev. Its Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, was one of the very few international figures received at length (on 5 March) by Vladimir Putin in Moscow. On 16 March, The Financial Times reported that Israel had put a 15-point peace plan to the Russians and Ukrainians.

1

AIRSTRIKES ON SYRIA

There is no doubt that Russia’s posture in the Middle East since 2015 has a huge effect on the attitude adopted by Israel. As its current foreign minister (and future prime minister according to a coalition agreement), Yair Lapid, put it, since that year, which saw Moscow stage a massive intervention in Syria’s internal conflict, “Israel has had a common border with Russia”, a country whose political clout it could scarcely ignore. Accordingly, Israel negotiated a tacit agreement with Moscow allowing it to strike Iranian military sites in Syria and convoys transporting Iranian arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon. With a few minor hitches, that agreement has survived until now, allowing Israel to launch hundreds of air strikes in Syria in the past five years, and recently, for example, to destroy hundreds of Iranian drones there.

First, it is this agreement that the Israel government is trying to preserve by refusing to join international sanctions against Moscow. Because “if the Russians decide to cut that red phone, we’ll have to debate how much we continue to strike in Syria,”

2

 Giora Eiland, retired general and former director of the Israeli National Security Council, explained. A row with Moscow could have a serious impact if, for example, Russia decided to retaliate by scrambling navigation signals for military aircraft and, even worse, for civilian air traffic. According to Israeli security circles, if Israel were no longer able to continue its air strikes on Iran in Syria, it would result in a “victory for Hezbollah” in Lebanon which would see its Iranian arms deliveries reach unprecedented levels. In short, Israel now cannot afford to anger the Russian bear unduly.

THE POWER OF OLIGARCHS

But there is another motive that explains Israel’s lenient attitude towards Moscow. Between 8 and 11 March, a discreet aerial dance took place in Israeli skies. At least 14 private jets, maybe more, landed at Ben Gurion airport near Tel Aviv, disgorging numerous Russian oligarchs and their families, companions and no doubt quantities of liquid assets stowed in their baggage. Among these fat cats was Roman Abramovich, the famous owner of Chelsea football club, who had managed, just before leaving, to obtain a Portuguese passport – enabling him to become European and thus have a hope of dodging sanctions imposed by the US and Europe. In the meantime, Abramovich had deemed it wise to quit the European continent and take refuge in his Israeli home. An investigation has been launched in Portugal on the suspicion that the oligarch had obtained his passport based on a false deposition.

There were two reasons why these oligarchs, several of them very close to Putin, were received seamlessly in Israel. Firstly, unlike most Russian oligarchs, they are Jewish and thus benefitted from Israel’s so-called Law of Return which stipulates that any Jew taking up residence in Israel immediately receives citizenship. The second reason is more prosaic: since the UN General Assembly resolution and the American and European decisions to impose unprecedented sanctions on Russia, including some directed specifically at its oligarchs, Israel is among the very few supposedly “western” states which have not complied.

POLITICAL CONNECTIONS

There is an easy explanation as to why Israeli leaders should protect the fate and assets of “its” oligarchs. Coming mainly from Moscow or Leningrad, but also Kiev, Tashkent and elsewhere following the breakup of the Soviet Union, some of these Jewish oligarchs set up in Israel but retained significant assets in and around Russia, while others, like Abramovich, simply kept Israeli citizenship and investments without living there regularly. These new billionaires, numbering several dozen, also established business relationships with many Israeli politicians. They saw this as an additional layer of protection, while for the Israelis it offered generously rewarded friendship. Avigdor Liebermann, for example, leader of the extreme-right secular settlement movement, currently finance minister and formerly defence minister, is known for his very many acquaintances with Russian oligarchs. Likewise, the current minister of housing, Zeev Elkin. The former chief of staff, Benny Gantz, enjoyed the help of the oligarch Viktor Vekselberg when he launched his security start-up Fifth Dimension.

Like Vekselberg, most of the Russian-turned-Israeli oligarchs invested in local companies. But very many Israeli politicians also benefitted from their generosity, either by being taken onto company boards or by having their electoral campaigns financed, or both. Today, according to the Israeli business lawyer Ram Gamliel, these oligarchs are operating in “a climate of panic».

3

 And those who signed up with them have a lot to lose. Because it is estimated that over the past 30 years, the financial clout of these oligarchs had reached between 5% and 10% of Israel’s GDP. Hence the desire to limit to the max the effect of the sanctions to which they are exposed. Just two days before Putin’s attack on Ukraine, the magnate Abramovich had offered a donation of $3m to Yad Vashem, the Israeli holocaust museum.”The timing,“wrote the Israeli journalist Anshel Pfeffer,”could hardly be coincidental».

4

 The museum began by pressing American officials to exempt from sanctions a man who had proven so useful to Jewish memory but thought again and decided to decline Abramovich’s gift.

MORAL AND HISTORICAL BLINDNESS

The Israeli government’s attitude to sanctions stirred little reaction in the country. The journalist Anshell Pfeffer was outraged. “The shameful posture of Israel’s leaders in the face of another invasion by a dictator of an independent nation, the way Bennett has avoided in all his speeches even mentioning the word ’Russia’ in relation to the war, and his partner foreign minister Yair Lapid’s all-too-measured statements of mild condemnation are signs of moral and historical blindness”,

5

 he wrote. This shameful position and moral blindness were exemplified even more by Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked (secular extreme right) who constantly advocated refusing to take in Ukrainian refugees, especially those who failed to meet the strictest interpretation of Jewishness. She began by refusing to receive any refugees, then changed tack and proposed that any such non-Jewish refugees should only be taken in if they had an Israeli host family ready to post a guarantee of 10,000 shekels (2 820 euros) against their not leaving within three months. She also refused refugees access to health care except for “emergencies”. As an outcry began – Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz (Zionist left) spoke of “shame” – some 12,600 refugees were finally taken in, two thirds of them non-Jewish, with a further 1,000 turned back.

Only a few political figures criticised the government’s conciliatory position towards Putin, and political debate in Israel remained very low-key. Former Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon (Likud) held that the government was exaggerating the risks involved in supporting Ukraine, and that Israel had more means at its disposal than generally believed to enable it to do without Russian approval for its strikes in Syria. The former foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, challenged the official position which portrayed Israel’s dilemma as a fateful choice between the country’s “security interests” and its “democratic values”. “We have to get on the right side of history, and that is not Putin’s,” she declared. How strong is the opposition to Bennett? At the political level, it was barely audible.

“PEACE PLAN” OR SURRENDER

So, the Israeli prime minister was able to develop and put forward his “peace plan” on 16 March. Without going into detail, it proposed that Ukraine should renounce any affiliation to NATO and any NATObases on its soil, and in return it would be assured protection by allies such as the US, Britain or Turkey, all NATO members. What guarantees Ukraine would be offered was not clear, and the issue of the Ukrainian territories already annexed by Moscow (Crimea and Donbas) was not addressed. Russia’s reaction to the plan was favourable, if not warm. But a source close to the Ukrainian president Zelensky told the Financial Times that no agreement would be signed without the total withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. A few days earlier, Naftali Bennett had advised the Ukrainian president to accept a Russian ceasefire proposal. The Ukrainians saw it as a “capitulation demand”

6

, signalling to Israel that they saw its mediation as useless.

For its part, Washington appears at times appalled, even exasperated, by the way its “best ally” has distanced itself over the Ukraine war. Three Democratic members of Congress, Steve Cohen, Maria Elvira Sanchez and Tom Malinovski, wrote to the White House saying that “sanctioning Abramovich is an urgent matter”, urging the administration to “mobilise all its capabilities” to seize the funds that the oligarch puts at Putin’s disposal “so that it might be used for the defence of Ukraine, repatriation [of the refugees] and reconstruction” of the country. But the most virulent criticism came from Victoria Nuland, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Questioned by Israel’s Channel 12, she had harsh words: “We have to pressure the regime [of Putin], deny him the funds he needs, and pressure the oligarchs around him,” adding that Israel would surely not want to become “the last refuge for the dirty money that fuels Putin’s wars”. She concluded that Israel’s compliance with international sanctions is in Washington’s view more important than its prime minister’s attempts at mediation. Aaron David Miller, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that Nuland’s comments, “marked the toughest battering of [any] Israeli policy in a very long time.”

7

https://orientxxi.info/magazine/why-is-israel-so-soft-on-moscow,5472

—————————————

Well, not really… There has been far more “Jewish” dirty money in Ukraine… Thus the situation of Ukraine is quite complex and the Zionists are caught between two devils. As usual, they have weaved around the various events for their own benefits. In Ukraine, the president is “Jewish”, but his defence support base is Nazi. This makes life complicated for Israel…

—————————

How Ukraine’s Jewish President Made Peace With Neo-Nazi Paramilitaries

While Western media deploys Volodymyr Zelensky’s Jewish heritage to refute accusations of Nazi influence in Ukraine, the president has ceded to neo-Nazi forces and now depends on them as front line fighters.

by  Alexander Rubinstein  and  Max Blumenthal

KIEV, UKRAINE (THE GRAYZONE) — Back in October 2019, as the war in eastern Ukraine dragged on, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky traveled to Zolote, a town situated firmly in the “gray zone” of Donbas, where over 14,000 had been killed, mostly on the pro-Russian side. There, the president encountered the hardened veterans of extreme right paramilitary units keeping up the fight against separatists just a few miles away.

Elected on a platform of de-escalation of hostilities with Russia, Zelensky was determined to enforce the so-called Steinmeier Formula conceived by then-German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier which called for elections in the Russian-speaking regions of Donetsk and Lugansk.

In a face-to-face confrontation with militants from the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion who had launched a campaign to sabotage the peace initiative called “No to Capitulation,” Zelensky encountered a wall of obstinacy.

With appeals for disengagement from the frontlines firmly rejected, Zelensky melted down on camera. “I’m the president of this country. I’m 41 years old. I’m not a loser. I came to you and told you: remove the weapons,” Zelensky implored the fighters.

Once video of the stormy confrontation spread across Ukrainian social media channels, Zelensky became the target of an angry backlash.

Andriy Biletsky, the proudly fascist Azov Battalion leader who once pledged to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade…against Semite-led Untermenschen”, vowed to bring thousands of fighters to Zolote if Zelensky pressed any further. Meanwhile, a parliamentarian from the party of former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko openly fantasized about Zelensky being blown to bits by a militant’s grenade.

Though Zelensky achieved a minor disengagement, the neo-Nazi paramilitaries escalated their “No Capitulation” campaign. And within months, fighting began to heat up again in Zolote, sparking a new cycle of violations of the Minsk Agreement.

By this point, Azov had been formally incorporated into the Ukrainian military and its street vigilante wing, known as the National Corps, was deployed across the country under the watch of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry, and alongside the National Police. In December 2021, Zelensky would be seen delivering a “Hero of Ukraine” award to a leader of the fascistic Right Sector in a ceremony in Ukraine’s parliament.

A full-scale conflict with Russia was approaching, and the distance between Zelensky and the extremist paramilitaries was closing fast.

This February 24, when Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Ukrainian territory on a stated mission to “demilitarize and denazify” the country, US media embarked on a mission of its own: to deny the power of neo-Nazi paramilitaries over the country’s military and political sphere. As the US government-funded National Public Radio insisted, “Putin’s language [about denazification] is offensive and factually wrong.”

In its bid to deflect from the influence of Nazism in contemporary Ukraine, US media has found its most effective PR tool in the figure of Zelensky, a former TV star and comedian from a Jewish background. It is a role the actor-turned-politician has eagerly assumed.

But as we will see, Zelensky has not only ceded ground to the neo-Nazis in his midst, he has entrusted them with a front line role in his country’s war against pro-Russian and Russian forces.

The president’s Jewishness as Western media PR device

Hours before President Putin’s February 24 speech declaring denazification as the goal of Russian operations, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “asked how a people who lost eight million of its citizens fighting Nazis could support Nazism,” according to the BBC.

Raised in a non-religious Jewish family in the Soviet Union during the 1980’s, Zelensky has downplayed his heritage in the past. “The fact that I am Jewish barely makes 20 in my long list of faults,” he joked during a 2019 interview in which he declined to go into further detail about his religious background.

Today, as Russian troops bear down on cities like Mariupol, which is effectively under the control of the Azov Battalion, Zelensky is no longer ashamed to broadcast his Jewishness. “How could I be a Nazi?” he wondered aloud during a public address. For a US media engaged in an all-out information war against Russia, the president’s Jewish background has become an essential public relations tool.

A few examples of the US media’s deployment of Zelensky as a shield against allegations of rampant Nazism in Ukraine are below (see mash-up above for video):

• PBS NewsHour noted Putin’s comments on denazification with a qualifier: “even though President Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish and his great uncles died in the Holocaust.”
• On Fox & Friends, former CIA officer Dan Hoffman declared that “it’s the height of hypocrisy to call the Ukrainian nation to denazify — their president is Jewish after all.”
• On MSNBC, Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner said Putin’s “terminology, outrageous and obnoxious as it is — ‘denazify’ where you’ve got frankly a Jewish president in Mr. Zelensky. This guy [Putin] is on his own kind of personal jihad to restore greater Russia.”
• Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn said on Fox Business she’s “been impressed with President Zelensky and how he has stood up. And for Putin to go out there and say ‘we’re going to denazify’ and Zelensky is Jewish.”
• In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Gen. John Allen denounced Putin’s use of the term, “de-Nazify” while the newsman and former Israel lobbyist shook his head in disgust. In a separate interview with Blitzer, the so-called “Ukraine whistleblower” and Ukraine-born Alexander Vindman grumbled that the claim is “patently absurd, there’s really no merit… you pointed out that Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish… the Jewish community [is] embraced. It’s central to the country and there is nothing to this Nazi narrative, this fascist narrative. It’s fabricated as a pretext.”

Behind the corporate media spin lies the complex and increasingly close relationship Zelensky’s administration has enjoyed with the neo-Nazi forces invested with key military and political posts by the Ukrainian state, and the power these open fascists have enjoyed since Washington installed a Western-aligned regime through a coup in 2014.

In fact, Zelensky’s top financial backer, the Ukrainian Jewish oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, has been a key benefactor of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion and other extremists militias.

Backed by Zelensky’s top financier, neo-Nazi militants unleash a wave of intimidation

Incorporated into the Ukrainian National Guard, the Azov Battalion is considered the most ideologically zealous and militarily motivated unit fighting pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Donbas region.

With Nazi-inspired Wolfsangel insignia on the uniforms of its fighters, who have been photographed with Nazi SS symbols on their helmets, Azov “is known for its association with neo-Nazi ideology…[and] is believed to have participated in training and radicalizing US-based white supremacy organizations,” according to an FBI indictment of several US white nationalists that traveled to Kiev to train with Azov.

Igor Kolomoisky, a Ukrainian energy baron of Jewish heritage, has been a top funder of Azov since it was formed in 2014. He has also bankrolled private militias like the Dnipro and Aidar Battalions, and has deployed them as a personal thug squad to protect his financial interests.

In 2019, Kolomoisky emerged as the top backer of Zelensky’s presidential bid. Though Zelensky made anti-corruption the signature issue of his campaign, the Pandora Papers exposed him and members of his inner circle stashing large payments from Kolomoisky in a shadowy web of offshore accounts.

When Zelensky took office in May 2019, the Azov Battalion maintained de facto control of the strategic southeastern port city of Mariupol and its surrounding villages. As Open Democracy noted, “Azov has certainly established political control of the streets in Mariupol. To maintain this control, they have to react violently, even if not officially, to any public event which diverges sufficiently from their political agenda.”

Attacks by Azov in Mariupol have included assaults on “feminists and liberals” marching on International Women’s Day among other incidents.

In March 2019, members of the Azov Battalion’s National Corps attacked the home of Viktor Medvedchuk, the leading opposition figure in Ukraine, accusing him of treason for his friendly relations with Vladimir Putin, the godfather of Medvedchuk’s daughter.

Zelensky’s administration escalated the attack on Medvedchuk, shuttering several media outlets he controlled in February 2021 with the open approval of the US State Department, and jailing the opposition leader for treason three months later. Zelensky justified his actions on the grounds that he needed to “fight against the danger of Russian aggression in the information arena.”

Next, in August 2020, Azov’s National Corps opened fire on a bus containing members of Medvedchuk’s party, Patriots for Life, wounding several with rubber-coated steel bullets.

Zelensky failed to rein in neo-Nazis, wound up collaborating with them

Following his failed attempt to demobilize neo-Nazi militants in the town of Zolote in October 2019, Zelensky called the fighters to the table, telling reporters “I met with veterans yesterday. Everyone was there – the National Corps, Azov, and everyone else.”

A few seats away from the Jewish president was Yehven Karas, the leader of the neo-Nazi C14 gang.

During the Maidan “Revolution of Dignity” that ousted Ukraine’s elected president in 2014, C14 activists took over Kiev’s city hall and plastered its walls with neo-Nazi insignia before taking shelter in the Canadian embassy.

As the former youth wing of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party, C14 appears to draw its name from the infamous 14 words of US neo-Nazi leader David Lane: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

By offering to carry out acts of spectacular violence on behalf of anyone willing to pay, the hooligans have fostered a cozy relationship with various governing bodies and powerful elites across Ukraine.

A March 2018 report by Reuters stated that “C14 and Kiev’s city government recently signed an agreement allowing C14 to establish a ‘municipal guard’ to patrol the streets,” effectively giving them the sanction of the state to carry out pogroms.

As The Grayzone reported, C14 led raid to “purge” Romani from Kiev’s railway station in collaboration with the Kiev police.

Not only was this activity sanctioned by the Kiev city government, the US government itself saw little problem with it, hosting Bondar at an official US government institution in Kiev where he bragged about the pogroms. C14 continued to receive state funding throughout 2018 for “national-patriotic education.”

Karas has claimed that the Ukrainian Security Serves would “pass on” information regarding pro-separatist rallies “not only [to] us, but also Azov, the Right Sector and so on.”

“In general, deputies of all factions, the National Guard, the Security Service of Ukraine and the Ministry of Internal Affairs work for us. You can joke like that,” Karas said.

Throughout 2019, Zelensky and his administration deepened their ties with ultra-nationalist elements across Ukraine.

After Prime Minister attends neo-Nazi concert, Zelensky honors Right Sector leader

Just days after Zelensky’s meeting with Karas and other neo-Nazi leaders in November 2019, Oleksiy Honcharuk – then the Prime Minister and deputy head of Zelensky’s presidential office – appeared on stage at a neo-Nazi concert organized by C14 figure and accused murderer Andriy Medvedko.

Zelensky’s Minister for Veterans Affairs not only attended the concert, which featured several antisemitic metal bands, she promoted the concert on Facebook.

Also in 2019, Zelensky defended Ukrainian footballer Roman Zolzulya against Spanish fans taunting him as a “Nazi.” Zolzulya had posed beside photos of the World War II-era Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera and openly supported the Azov Battalion. Zelensky responded to the controversy by proclaiming that all of Ukraine backed Zolzulya, describing him as “not only a cool football player but a true patriot.”

In November 2021, one of Ukraine’s most prominent ultra-nationalist militiamen, Dmytro Yarosh, announced that he had been appointed as an advisor to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Yarosh is an avowed follower of the Nazi collaborator Bandera who led Right Sector from 2013 to 2015, vowing to lead the “de-Russification” of Ukraine.

A month later, as war with Russia drew closer, Zelensky awarded Right Sector commander Dmytro Kotsyubaylo the “Hero of Ukraine” commendation. Known as “Da Vinci,” Kosyubaylo keeps a pet wolf in his frontline base, and likes to joke to visiting reporters that his fighters “feed it the bones of Russian-speaking children.”

Ukrainian state-backed neo-Nazi leader flaunts influence on the eve of war with Russia

On February 5, 2022, only days before full-scale war with Russia erupted, Yevhen Karas of the neo-Nazi C14 delivered a stem-winding public address in Kiev intended to highlight the influence his organization and others like it enjoyed over Ukrainian politics.

“LGBT and foreign embassies say ‘there were not many Nazis at Maidan, maybe about 10 percent of real ideological ones,’” Karas remarked. “If not for those eight percent [of neo-Nazis] the effectiveness [of the Maidan coup] would have dropped by 90 percent.”

The 2014 Maidan “Revolution of Dignity” would have been a “gay parade” if not for the instrumental role of neo-Nazis, he proclaimed.

Karas went on to opine that the West armed Ukrainian ultra-nationalists because “we have fun killing.” He also fantasized about the balkanization of Russia, declaring that it should be broken up into “five different” countries.

“If we get killed…we died fighting a holy war”

When Russian forces entered Ukraine this February 24, encircling the Ukrainian military in the east and driving towards Kiev, President Zelensky announced a national mobilization that included the release of criminals from prison, among them accused murderers wanted in Russia. He also blessed the distribution of arms to average citizens, and their training by battle-hardened paramilitaries like the Azov Battalion.

With fighting underway, Azov’s National Corps gathered hundreds of ordinary civilians, including grandmothers and children, to train in public squares and warehouses from Kharviv to Kiev to Lviv.

On February 27, the official Twitter account of the National Guard of Ukraine posted video of “Azov Fighters” greasing their bullets with pig fat to humiliate Russian Muslim fighters from Chechnya.

A day later, the Azov Battalion’s National Corps announced that the Azov Battalion’s Kharkiv Regional Police would begin using the city’s Regional State Administration building as a defense headquarters. Footage posted to Telegram the following day shows the Azov-occupied building being hit by a Russian airstrike.

Besides authorizing the release of hardcore criminals to join the battle against Russia, Zelensky has ordered all males of fighting age to remain in the country. Azov militants have proceeded to enforce the policy by brutalizing civilians attempting to flee from the fighting around Mariupol.

According to one Greek resident in Mariupol recently interviewed by a Greek news station, “When you try to leave you run the risk of running into a patrol of the Ukrainian fascists, the Azov Battalion,” he said, adding “they would kill me and are responsible for everything.”

Footage posted online appears to show uniformed members of a fascist Ukrainian militia in Mariupol violently pulling fleeing residents out of their vehicles at gunpoint.

https://twitter.com/Deus_Abscondis/status/1497620925176754184

Other video filmed at checkpoints around Mariupol showed Azov fighters shooting and killing civilians attempting to flee.

On March 1, Zelensky replaced the regional administrator of Odessa with Maksym Marchenko, a former commander of the extreme right Aidar Battalion, which has been accused of an array of war crimes in the Donbas region.

Meanwhile, as a massive convoy of Russian armored vehicles bore down on Kiev, Yehven Karas of the neo-Nazi C14 posted a video on YouTube from inside a vehicle presumably transporting fighters.

“If we get killed, it’s fucking great because it means we died fighting a holy war,” Karas exclaimed. ”If we survive, it’s going to be even fucking better! That’s why I don’t see a downside to this, only upside!”

Alexander Rubinstein is a former staff writer for MintPress News based in Washington, DC. He writes about police, prisons, and protests in the United States. He previously reported for RT and Sputnik News.

Max Blumenthal is the founder and editor of The Grayzone, the author of several books and producer of full-length documentaries including the recently released Killing Gaza. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal.

Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/ukraine-jewish-president-zelensky-made-peace-neo-nazi-paramilitaries/279862/

---------------------

So there…

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW……