It is hard to imagine a more vivid confirmation of Godwin's law than the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The theme of Nazism is so dominant in discussions that you cannot ignore. German Professor Andreas Umland is one of the most renowned specialists on the Ukrainian and Russian nationalism. He worked in Russia, and now teaches at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and saw all the hot events of the Kiev Winter with your own eyes. We talked with him about how both sides really close to somber ideals of the Third Reich.
-Russian-Ukrainian conflict each other called fascists. Being German, how do you feel in this situation?
-Well, it is used as a curse word. Those who most frequently uses this word, less all realize its value. Of course, there are people on both sides, statements which indications can be attributed to fascism. Fascism is a more complex phenomenon than the various unpleasant forms of nationalism. His radical idea-the birth of a new nation is deeper and pathological than restoration nationalism of Putin and Ukrainian nationalism-liberation, protective, although too radical. But neither one nor the other, in General, is not an expression of fascism.
"The right sector and the remaining
Putin said that the authorities in Kiev were seized. At the same time from the kievans often hear: "Where, what the Nazis, we have not seen eyes. Where is the truth?
-In Ukraine really created an alliance between Democrats and nationalists. Party "Svoboda" itself calls himself a nationalist. There are representatives who have interest in Nazism,-say, Deputy Yuri Mikhalchishin from Lviv. Scientific interest, and not only.
-What is it?
He published a collection, which included his own texts as well as texts of Stepan Bandera and Joseph Goebbels. It is sometimes argued that this was purely a scientific publication. This may be to believe, or not believe.
-But is not limited to the Maidan "freedom" …
-Yes, there are neo-Nazi groups, such as "little" C14 grouping, which whether is or not has to do with "freedom", but is not a part of it. Their supposedly 200 people. These 200 people probably can be regarded as fascists, neo-Nazis.
-If we talk about the "right" sector?
-This is difficult, because it is an Alliance of marginal groups, and there are many ambiguities with which of them there. There is, for example, the shadow airs for the grouping called "White hammer", which was first and then not included. For a while there were disputes on whether there una-UNSO. The problem with "the right sector" that he is absolutely not researched. We know little about him. There is included, for example, the name "Trident organisation of Stepan Bandera." Well, Bandera was a fascist, but I don't know whether it's worth in this context known as "Trident" a fascist organization. Probably, but rather a national conservative grouping. And another question: what is the impact of this is expressed "right"? Was a discussion about whether "the right sector" be included in the national guard or his wife into the structures of the Ministry of internal affairs. But all this does not mean that they define a policy of Ukraine is internal or external.
"But they also played quite a key role in the revolution?
-No. I think it is a myth. They have participated, as well as many others, including the radical left group. But, according to various estimates, "self-defence" Maidana included from a few thousand to 30 thousand people. And on the right sector "refers to figures from several hundred to several thousand people. That is, it's not even half of the power of resistance. The initiator of the first procession to Parliament and, apparently, was Avtomajdan. "The right sector joined later. Yes, they were a part of this, but did not play the most important role. I know many people who tyre ride and petrol, but none of them has nothing to do with "the right sector. Strange that none of the members of the "Heavenly hundred" not yet identified as a member of the "right". Among those killed were members of the Freedom Party, but the party was not an official part of the armed resistance. This shows that the role of the "right" was relatively insignificant. We know that there were different groups-"Spil′na right", "Popular", "sounded right sector", "Democratic Alliance". But we just don't know who had some weight, and Russian propaganda plays on this ignorance.
Bandera Evrointegrator
-If we talk not about ultra-nationalists, but simply about the nationalists: how much in Evromajdane was nationalism, and how much desire for democracy and modern European life?
For many Ukrainians is not a contradiction, although there is a contradiction. European integration means restricting national sovereignty. It's antinacionalističeskij project. There are many national thinking Ukrainians who may even call themselves nationalists, but in practice they are quite tolerant and liberal. Then there are the nationalists, which can be called a radical, but sometimes this radicalism is not ideological, and is ready for radical action for the sake of Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity. This is èmansipatorskij, a liberation nationalism, similar to what has been, for example, in Germany, the beginning of the 19th century during the Napoleonic occupation and after. It was a nationalist liberation movement, which was quite different from what we are accustomed to associate with German nationalism.
-Romantic nationalism?
-Yes, and then there's the problem that this liberation nationalism is sometimes too ethnocentric, racist and anti-Semitic elements. Also was and is in Ukraine and classic ul′traradikal′nyj nationalism-people talking about the purity of the Ukrainian nation, conservative values: a ban on abortion, homosexuality and all classical set. But it seems to me that this minority.
Putin in his speech said the word "Crimean Banderas. He certainly didn't mean residents of the Moldavian city, and followers of Stepan Bandera.
-In Ukraine there are really some cult around Bandera. I think this is a pathology of the Ukrainian historical consciousness. Such pathologies is for many people. Here, for example, there is Martin Luther-creator of the Protestant Church, which in Germany and not only raise monuments, but forget that he was a fairly radical anti-Semite. Or, say, George Washington, who is an Idol for the Americans, but that he was a slave owner and supporter of the Institute. Bandera is perhaps worse than these two, because he was the leader of the party, which at least in the late 1930 's and early 1940 's was a fascist. Oun (b) was the Ukrainian version of the fascist parties that existed then in almost all European countries. But there are different forms of memories of Bandera. The predominant perception Bandera as a fighter for Ukrainian independence.
-How this element is counterproductive for Evromajdana and the current regime?
-On the Maidan impression banderovskoj domination ideology because there have been several small groups who created this Entourage: pasted portraits and so on. For example, near the stage hung a large portrait of Maidan Bandera, but underneath was the inscription-"Ukrainian nationalists" Congress. This is a totally marginal institution which was not even mentioned in the national polls. Less than half a percent of support. But this huge portrait of a determined, in a sense, the image of Evromajdana. I talked and wrote about that banderovskaâ the antipatriotična Evromajdane ideology, because it shares the political nation of Ukraine. And now "freedom" disproportionate representation in Government is part of the same problem. Three ministries, Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney General is too much. Russia will indefinitely on this play, and the West don't like it either.
-What can you say about the konspirologičeskoj theory, according to which the radical nationalists-Putin's agents?
-Of course they are not agents, but Putin's policy instruments. A few years ago it was the treatment of Ukrainian intellectuals, stating that "If" freedom "was not, Russia would have to invent it." There is no evidence that they are directly financed by the Kremlin, but the Kremlin has used them to the fullest in the information war. And this is the response, particularly in Germany, where bad react to those who can somehow associate with "fascism", for example through citation Mikhalchishin. Although no one said that in Russia, Rogozin-Glazyev, Vice Prime-Minister-Advisor to Putin and Dugin-Professor of the Moscow State University.
-And what is the ideological distance between the Bandera or Roman Šuhevičem as they are known by historians, on the one hand, and those who now walk around with red-and-black flags and portraits of these characters with another?
-Those who so walk, of course, would say that there is no difference. But the distance is great, because it really was a period in the biographies shukhevich, Bandera, Stetsko, when they were the Nazis and when they were close to Nazism. Shukhevych was an officer in the Wehrmacht, wrote a letter to Hitler, Stetsko in expressing support for his policies. With Bandera harder, because he spent most of the war under German arrest and about a year in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. To him in this sense less claims.
I think there are a lot of people who just don't understand the ideology of Stepan Bandera. There are an awful lot of Bander-this artifact to different people mean different things. Ukraine was fortunate that Bandera never came to power. Because it came to power, the OUN, probably, would be about the same as the Croatian ustase. Those receiving on time power, created concentration camps for Serbs and so on. People have an idealised view of Bandera, selective vision of "banderovskoj" of Ukraine. I am sure that there are people who think that would make Ukraine Bandera part of the European Union.
In Russia many the impression that there are Ukrainian Ukrainians, which was a problem, and Bandera, which is against. How much is true?
Were polls which show that the OUN was predominantly positive only in Galicia. Even in Volhynia, where all too speak Ukrainian, the other figures, but in central Ukraine is even lower. In Bukovina, Transcarpathia too attitude rather skeptical. I would suggest that even among Ukrainian Ukrainians are positively disposed to Bandera for less than half. But there are Russian-speaking Ukrainians, who refer to him favorably. If you look at the biographies of nationalists from the "right" sector in particular, so there's a lot of Eastern Ukraine. They obviously grew up in a Russian-speaking Wednesday. There are those who never learned Ukrainian language, for example people from the Russian Patriot of Ukraine».
Not Hitler and Hindenburg
-But let's now move on to the opponents of Maidana. That in Russia that in Eastern Ukraine they are talking about the fight against the Nazis and therefore call themselves anti-fascists. The extent to which they were entitled to do so?
Is, of course, nonsense. Ideology and the current Ukrainian Government Square, certainly not fascist. She just anti-fascist. The main objective of the Government's European integration, which originated in including as response to radical nationalism and fascism. Evromajdan was a popular movement, where everything is and left and right. You could equally well, picking up the right interviews and pictures, to name a Evromajdan news on the grounds that there participated in the anarchist movement "people's alarm.
-How can you describe the new ideology of Putin, the crowning the joining of Crimea?
-Carried out similar to the accession of the Sudeten lands of Czechoslovakia to Germany. And indeed there are some similarities. There was also a German majority and Germany about separatism. And then came a request from separatists, which Nazi Germany and established itself. But I think that's all the similarities and ends. In the ideology of Putin, of course, there is a large dose of nationalism, homophobia, xenophobia, konspirologii, but I would still call it a restoration, irredentist, revisionist nationalism.
-What is the fundamental difference from Nazi ideology?
Fascism is a pathological form of nationalism striving for new birth nation. Putin wants to restore the Russian Empire, the greatness of the Russian State, at least partially. But it's not fascism. This type of nationalism, incidentally, also was in Germany in the 1920 's. Were national parties, who wanted to restore the greatness of Germany, but were not fascist. The new nation, new Russia, spoke publicly of Zhirinovsky. He said that Imperial and Soviet imperial models do not work, so you need to create a new empire in which should be included Turkey, Afghanistan and Iran. This is fascist plan because the present objective of creating an entirely new State. Russia, too, but newly born. Such a plan, Putin does. He ul′trakonservator soon.
"But probably the key feature of fascism was the theme of the internal enemy. While Putin now just talked about "fifth column".
-Yes, but it was in the Soviet Union, and various other avtokratiâh or teokratiâh. This is bad, but not all bad-fascism. In Russia, of course, there are people like Dugina and Die. They want to recreate the frenzy of Russia, a completely new quality, as the classic fascists. But mostly it's post-imperial syndrome: protect your, to restore order. This is revanšistskij nationalism, not fascism. I wouldn't compare Putin to Hitler. It's all different shapes. Putin is a representative of the old system. If you take the Weimar analogy, Putin is more Hindenburg, even though he was much older.
But what similar society Germany 1930-ies and modern Russia is an extreme otravlennost′ public discourse propaganda, dominate the Manichaean view of the world: us and them, the enemies, a conspiracy, hostile environment, resentment, alleged disrespect.
-Returning to Ukraine if it weren't a factor of ultra-nationalists, which could have been avoided?
-I ask myself this question. But it seems the Kremlin still something invented, for example developed would be the theme "gejropy". Instead of "Crimea will never banderovskim" Putin would say: «Crimea will never be homosexual. " On the other hand, banderovskij nationalism really unpopular in Eastern and southern Ukraine. I am so not sure what would have happened if events went on another trajectory. In any case, this is history in the conditional tense. Putin needed a compensation for the failure to build a Eurasian Union-because without Ukraine is not serious and he would be the request of society still would, with or without banderovcami.
