How America Uses Ukrainian Nationalism

by Zoltanous

Introduction

Before continuing this article, I recommend anybody viewing this one to check out my other article on why I hate Stepan Bandera.

While both Ukrainian neo-Nazism and German National Socialism share certain characteristics, there are also important differences in their historical and ideological contexts. Ukrainian nationalist organizations, such as those influenced by Stepan Bandera, have a complex history that includes both opposition to German occupation during World War II and collaboration with the Nazis. Additionally, modern Ukrainian nationalism is shaped by a range of factors, including historical grievances, cultural identity, and geopolitical concerns, which make it distinct from German National Socialism. It is important to understand the unique historical and ideological factors that make it fundamentally different. 

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine has been a key battleground in the struggle for influence between Russia and the West. One of the key issues in this struggle has been the status of Ukraine's relationship with NATO and the European Union. While the West has sought to bring Ukraine into its orbit, Russia has opposed this move, seeing it as a direct challenge to its own security and geographical interests. As a result, the West has increasingly turned to Ukrainian nationalist groups as a way of advancing its interests throughout the region. This essay will examine the evidence for US and NATO support for Ukrainian nationalist groups, and the implications of this support for the crisis in Ukraine.

“The United States has a long history of intervening in the politics of Ukraine, and has often supported far-right and nationalist groups in the country. This has had a destabilizing effect on Ukrainian society and politics."

— Mark Ames, On how the US has backed Ukraine's nationalist rebels

Members of the infamous Azov Battalion holding a NATO and Hitler youth flag

Proof of (American) Subversiveness

During the Cold War, the United States and its NATO allies sought to weaken the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence, including what was then Soviet Ukraine. One way they did this was by supporting Ukrainian nationalists who were opposed to Soviet occupation. The CIA and NATO provided financial and logistical support to these groups, and in some cases, collaborated directly with them. One of the most prominent Ukrainian nationalist groups supported by the CIA and NATO was the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). The OUN had a long history of opposing Soviet rule in Ukraine, and during World War II, they fought against Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and also Poland. Despite this, the CIA saw the OUN and its leader, Stepan Bandera, as a valuable asset against the Soviet Union.

"The CIA became the OUN's primary source of political and financial support in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s."

— Mark Kramer, The OUN, the UPA and the Holocaust: A Study in the Manufacturing of Historical Myths

Furthermore, the CIA's support for Ukrainian nationalists was not limited to the OUN and its various factions. The agency also supported other groups, including the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), which was responsible for numerous acts of violence against civilians during World War II. According to historian Mark Kramer, the CIA provided financial assistance to the UPA in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The CIA's support for the OUN continued into the 1960s, despite growing evidence of the group's involvement in terrorism and other violent acts. In 1962, the CIA even considered using the OUN to carry out sabotage operations in the Soviet Union.

According to declassified CIA documents, the agency believed that the OUN:

“Could provide a valuable asset in the implementation of U.S. policy objectives toward the USSR."

— Central Intelligence Agency, Possible use of OUN for sabotage operations February 1962

Bandera is honored in Ukraine

In addition to the OUN, the CIA and NATO also supported other Ukrainian nationalist groups. For instance, in the 1980s, the CIA provided funding to the Ukrainian National Association, a group that advocated for Ukrainian independence and opposed Soviet rule.

Former CIA officer John Stockwell stated that:

“We supported various Ukrainian groups... to keep trouble stirred-up inside the Soviet Union"

— John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard: The U.S. Role in the New World Order. South End Press

It’s worth noting that the CIA's support for Ukrainian nationalists was not limited to financial and logistical assistance. The agency also provided weapons and training to these groups. John Stockwell in The Praetorian Guard: The U.S. Role in the New World Order, pointed out that the agency provided "paramilitary training" to Ukrainian nationalists in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Stockwell also stated that the CIA provided weapons to these groups, including submachine guns, pistols, and grenades. 

It is also worth noting that Jonathan Haslam, in Soviet Foreign Policy, 1930-33: The Impact of the Depression, exposed that the CIA and NATO were using Ukrainian nationalists as part of a larger strategy to weaken the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence. This strategy included not only support for nationalist groups in Ukraine, but also support for dissident groups in other Soviet-bloc countries, such as Poland and Hungary. The CIA's support for Ukrainian nationalists continued even after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, the agency provided funding to the Ukrainian-American National Association, a group that lobbied for U.S. support for Ukrainian independence.

"The CIA was still active in Ukraine in the 1990’s, supporting nationalist groups and opposition politicians." 

— Robert Baer, How the West Lost Putin

In terms of unintended consequences, the support provided by the CIA and NATO to Ukrainian nationalists contributed to tensions between Ukraine and Russia. This is because many Ukrainian nationalists view Russia as a historical oppressor and seek to distance Ukraine from Russian influence. This has led to conflicts over issues such as language rights and political autonomy in Ukraine. The CIA and NATO continued to support these groups into the 1990s. It is worth noting that the current crisis in Ukraine has its roots in the country's post-Soviet history. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became an independent country. However, it remained heavily dependent on Russia for energy and other resources. This led to tensions between the two countries, particularly over issues such as gas prices and access to pipelines. These tensions were exacerbated by the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the subsequent annexation of Crimea by Russia. 

According to Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at New York University and Princeton University, NATO's expansion was a significant factor in Russia's deteriorating relations with the West.

Cohen stated that:

"NATO's expansion eastward was not only a violation of a pledge made to Gorbachev in 1990 but also a strategic threat to Russia's national security. The US-led policy of encircling Russia with military bases and missile defense systems has pushed Moscow into a defensive crouch and heightened tensions between the two countries." 

— Stephen F. Cohen, Cold War Against Russia — Without Debate

The situation in Ukraine in 2014 further exacerbated tensions between Russia and the West. The Ukrainian government was overthrown following months of protests against then-President Viktor Yanukovych. The United States and other Western countries supported the new government in Kiev, which was seen by Moscow as a Western-backed coup against a democratically elected leader. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in March 2014 added fuel to the fire, with Western countries imposing economic sanctions on Russia in response. The crisis in Ukraine also led to an increase in support for Western-aligned nationalist groups in Ukraine.

One of the most significant pieces of evidence for US and NATO support for Ukrainian nationalist groups is a leaked phone call between US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in 2014. In the call, Nuland and Pyatt discuss who should be appointed to the Ukrainian government, with Nuland saying "Fuck the EU". As shown by The Guardian, Victoria Nuland also admitted that the US had 'invested' $5bn in Ukraine when discussing the EU's role in the process. The call also includes a discussion of the role of Ukrainian nationalist groups in the protests that led to the ousting of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. While the call does not provide direct evidence of US or NATO funding for these groups, it does suggest that the US was actively involved in shaping the political landscape in Ukraine.

Photos from Ukraine during the 2014 coup

Another piece of evidence for US and NATO support for Ukrainian nationalist groups comes from a declassified US State Department cable from 2006.

"A radical right-wing populist party that is loosely organized around a virulently nationalist ideology.

Svoboda has embraced street hooliganism as a tactic in confronting government opponents and perceived enemies." 

— The Nation, Is Ukraine Riddled with Fascists?

While this cable is old, it provides important context for understanding the rise of nationalist groups in Ukraine. While the party has seen a decline in support in recent years, its influence on Ukrainian politics and society should not be ignored. During the Orange Revolution in 2004, the US government provided support to pro-Western political forces in Ukraine, including nationalist groups such as the Svoboda Party. The US government also provided funding and training to Ukrainian civil society organizations and media outlets that promoted pro-Western values. One example of this support was the US government's funding of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a non-profit organization that promotes democracy and human rights around the world. According to a report by Foreign Policy in 2014 called The US Role in Ukraine’s Crisis, the NED provided funding to Ukrainian civil society organizations and media outlets that were critical of the government headed by former President Viktor Yanukovych. The report also noted that some of these organizations had ties to nationalist groups such as the Svoboda Party.

The infiltration of neo-Nazis within the Ukrainian military has been happening for some time. One example of such a group is the Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian nationalist group. The Azov Battalion has been involved in the conflict in eastern Ukraine and has received training and support from the Ukrainian military. In addition to their use of neo-Nazi symbols and slogans, the group has been accused of committing war crimes against civilians. While the Ukrainian government has denied any ties to neo-Nazi groups, the presence of the Azov Battalion in the military raises questions about the government's claims. Another example of this infiltration can be seen in the case of Andriy Biletsky. Biletsky, the founder of the Azov Battalion, was elected to the Ukrainian parliament in 2014 and has been involved in the leadership of the National Corps, a Ukrainian nationalist group heavily influenced by Bandera.

Moreover, John McCain suggested that the Ukrainian military is infiltrated by neo-Nazis:

“The Ukrainian military is not what it used to be. It’s been infiltrated by neo-Nazis and other extremist elements."

—  John McCain, John McCain suggests Ukrainian military is infiltrated by neo-Nazis

A look into the symbolism of the original Azov logo

The reason why we know that McCain is correct here is to look no further than McCain's trip to Kyiv, back in 2013. McCain was repeatedly photographed with Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of the Svoboda party. Utterly showing that John McCain and figures like Tyahnybok, is proof of Western corporate media outlets bending over to portray the relentless warmongering West as good. And McCain knew this, however he simply didn’t care.

John McCain, right, meets Ukrainian opposition leaders Arseniy Yatsenyuk, left, and Oleh Tyahnybok in Kiev, Ukraine, Saturday, Dec 14 2013

According to a report by The Guardian, the United States has provided training and support to Ukrainian nationalist groups, including the Azov Battalion. The report cites documents obtained by a Ukrainian lawmaker that show US military instructors providing training to Azov members in 2018. The involvement of the CIA in Ukraine has also been a subject of controversy. In 2015, The New York Times reported that the CIA had been working with the Ukrainian government to provide intelligence and training to Ukrainian security forces.

The report stated that:

“The CIA has become increasingly involved in helping its Ukrainian counterparts fend off Russian aggression." 

— Shaun Walker, Ukraine's Azov Battalion: Up Close and Personal with Kiev's Far-Right Fighters

Perhaps the most damning evidence for US and NATO support for Ukrainian nationalist groups comes from a report by the German intelligence agency BND, leaked in 2015. The report titled Ukraine conflict far from over,  suggests that the Ukrainian neo-Nazi group Azov Battalion had received weapons and training from NATO countries. Another example of US support for Ukrainian nationalist groups is the US government's funding of the Ukrainian military in its conflict with Russia. According to a report by The Intercept in US Military Support for Ukraine: The Escalation in Washington's Quiet War, the US government has provided military and economic assistance to Ukraine since the conflict began in 2014. This assistance has included training and equipping Ukrainian troops and providing financial aid to the Ukrainian government. The report notes that many of the Ukrainian nationalist elements that have been involved in the conflict have received support from the US government.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine should be seen as extremely relevant to this entire current crisis. This was a post-Cold War foreign policy doctrine that was written by Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby Liebowitz. The original doctrine, before it was leaked to the press and reworded, was essentially a plan to propagate and maintain United States unipolarity the world over. It specifically mentioned the containment of Russia to prevent it from rising out of the ashes of the Cold War to once again challenge US global supremacy. This doctrine has had a lasting impact on US foreign policy and has influenced subsequent US foreign policy decisions. 

One origin point for the Wolfowitz Doctrine is the Mackinder Heartland Theory. Sir Halford Mackinder was a British geographer who lived from 1861 to 1947. He developed a theory of geopolitics that identified the heartland of Eurasia as the key to world domination. According to Mackinder, whoever controlled the heartland would control the world. His theory was based on the idea that the Eurasian landmass was the largest and most populous region in the world, and that its central location made it strategically important. This theory was a major influence on US foreign policy during the Cold War, as the US government sought to prevent the Soviet Union from gaining control of the heartland and thereby dominating the world.

In his seminal work, The Geographical Pivot of History, Mackinder wrote:

“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.” 

— Halford Mackinder, The Geographical Pivot of History

This quote encapsulates his belief that control of the Eurasian landmass, particularly the heartland of Eastern Europe and Russia, was crucial for global domination. This was the view held by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and was later picked up by CFR member George F. Kennan, who in 1947 wrote the famous Long Telegram that would shape US foreign policy towards the Soviet Union for decades. Kennan argued that the Soviet Union's expansionist tendencies were a natural response to its geographical position in the heartland, and that containment was the only viable strategy to prevent Soviet domination of the World-Island. While not all CFR members agreed with Kennan's analysis or his proposed policy, his ideas became influential in shaping US foreign policy during the Cold War. The Wolfowitz Doctrine can be seen as a continuation of this Cold War-era policy. It seeks to maintain US global supremacy by preventing the rise of any potential challengers, including Russia. The doctrine is relevant today because it reflects the US government's continued desire for global dominance and influence.

Photographic examples of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine

Why are the actions of the U.S. in Ukraine problematic? According to John Mearsheimer, the U.S. and its allies failed to acknowledge Russia's legitimate concerns and interests in Ukraine. By moving forward with plans to bring Ukraine into the Western sphere, the U.S. and its allies created a situation that was likely to provoke a strong response from Moscow. Mearsheimer also argues that the U.S.'s support for the overthrow of the Ukrainian government was a strategic mistake, threatening Russia's security and strategic interests and leading to a deterioration of relations between Russia and the West. Additionally, the continued expansion of NATO eastward has only added to Russia's concerns and contributed to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Several other factors contributed to Russia's alienation from the West. In the 1990s and early 2000s, one of the main factors was the West's attempt to expand NATO into Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, which Russia saw as a threat to its national security. Russia felt that NATO expansion violated an agreement reached after the Cold War that NATO would not expand into former Soviet countries. Another factor was the West's economic policies towards Russia. While the West encouraged Russia to adopt market-oriented economic reforms and integrate into the global economy, many Russians felt that the West was taking advantage of Russia's economic weakness and exploiting its resources. Additionally, the West imposed economic sanctions on Russia in response to human rights violations and other issues, further straining relations. The West's support for pro-Western political movements in countries like Ukraine and Georgia was viewed by Russia as interference in its sphere of influence, leading to the perception that the West was trying to encircle and undermine Russia's influence in the region.

The idea of encirclement, or the perception that the West is attempting to contain Russia, is a major concern for Russian leaders and has contributed to a sense of insecurity and mistrust towards the West. This perception has been fueled by a number of factors, including NATO expansion, support for pro-Western governments in Eastern Europe, funding nationalist paramilitary groups, and economic sanctions. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, formulated in the aftermath of the Cold War, called for the United States to maintain its status as the world's sole superpower and prevent the emergence of potential rivals. This doctrine contributed to the expansion of NATO and the United States' military presence in regions that were formerly part of the Soviet Union's sphere of influence.

The American policy of encirclement has led to increased tensions between Russia and the West, and there is a risk that these tensions could escalate into a conflict. A conflict between Russia and the West would have catastrophic consequences, including the possibility of a nuclear war. It is important for the international community to work towards reducing tensions and addressing the underlying issues that have led to the current state of the relationship between Russia and the West. This could involve measures such as diplomatic engagement, economic cooperation, and dialogues on issues of mutual concern. Ultimately, a world war or nuclear war would be catastrophic for all parties involved and should be avoided at all costs. Efforts should be made to de-escalate tensions and find peaceful solutions to this challenge.

Finally, the portrayal of Ukrainian nationalism as being un-organic and controlled by the West is indicative of its problematic nature. While genuine Ukrainian nationalists may seek a neutral or non-aligned Ukraine, many are seemingly stuck in a historical mindset or view the situation as a Western crusade for democracy. However, this conflict is driven by Western globalist interests. Therefore, the fundamental view of Ukrainian nationalism as being no different than ISIS, the Shining Path, or Pinochet's American-backed dictatorship is justified.

Disclosed information from U.S. security records and officials has shed light on extensive American espionage activities in western Ukraine shortly after World War II. The American government provided support for approximately 30,000 anti-Soviet insurgents in the Galicia region, supplying them with medical aid, money, and radio equipment for communication. These efforts aimed to establish a detection network for any signs of Soviet troop movements. Such actions highlight the U.S. strategy of leveraging expatriate communities and factions like the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists led by Stepan Bandera. The CIA honed in on identifying the most dependable individuals within these groups, including Mykola Lebed, and went on to develop their own networks within the Soviet Union. These nationalist groups primarily served as expendable reconnaissance resources. Ultimately, these findings confirm the view that Ukrainian nationalist movements were significantly manipulated by American interests. The implication is that Ukrainians could be more influential in international politics if they recognized their historical manipulation by foreign powers, yet many continue to overlook this aspect.