Many of us support Ukraine, and will always support Ukraine, not so much because of the Holodomor but because breakaway nations from large decaying mixed-race empires tend to produce healthy societies. As nationalists, we believe that every society is one ethnic group, and so Ukraine has a need to be free from Russia.
The battle here is over Crimea and associated regions which the Russians want to use as a land bridge to a warm water port. The reality is that Crimea has always been contested since first conquered by the Cimmerians, and the Russians have no more claim to it than other groups, while Kiev has attempted dominance over it for a thousand years.
This makes for a sticky issue because as many have pointed out, all of the wrong people in the West are pasting “Slava Ukrainia” stickers over the BLM, Coexist, Mask Up!, and Stop Global Warming on their MacBooks and Priuses. A sensible approach is to support Ukraine, but distrust the Western narrative.
If we have to characterize the Western narrative, it makes sense to realize that it is what has united Western powers since the American Civil War and consists of the democracy narrative: we, who allow “freedom,” are better than these despots who are “racist,” therefore we should destroy them and take whatever they have.
Democracy provides this kind of blank cheque reasoning because democracy is based on rationalization. If we assume that people are equal, we can then assume that anything that makes them equal — restoring order, in the eyes of the egalitarian faithful — is good and that everything we do should move in that direction.
In WW1, the Americans were told that the German Kaiser speared babies on bayonets and was a threat to freedom and decency themselves. The Kaiser supported hierarchy, but America, the UK, and France wanted the State-managed anarchy of democracy instead, and posited then postured that it was superior and used this to justify war.
In the same way, WW2 was a war against any alternative to control of Europe by democracy. They called democracy “freedom,” but what they really meant was the political system that, like the “domino effect” of Communism twenty years later, was expanding like Ebola at a cuddling convention.
It was only later in the late 1970s that the West figured out that the killer app against Hitler was accusing him of “racism,” including anti-Semitism, because this outraged all the Americans high on the presumed moral superiority of equality and democracy. America gave up its culture to become the world advocate for E&D.
The same narrative was used in the Vietnam Conflict. Supposedly they attacked our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin; this was plausible since they did it all the time. However, like Pearl Harbor and the USS Maine, this meant that democracy could play its passive-aggressive game and claim it was the victim and therefore revenge was justified.
Democracy has done this for years. It provoked an attack on Fort Sumter, then claimed that it had been unjustifiably wounded and that this justified retaliation. When the USS Maine exploded for mysterious reasons, this kicked off the Spanish-American War.
Our government had previously used the same strategy with its subjugation of the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli. We even did it in our Revolutionary War, rioting in Boston until the British responded by shooting down sacrificial African-American Crispus Attucks and started the violence that “forced” the Americans to form an army.
Sometimes it was legitimate. When thousands of Communist troops began pouring over the northern borden of South Korea from the Soviet-sponsored (at the time) North Korean proxy state, Americans fought back because the South Koreans faced a legitimate threat from a mindless and destructive invader.
Democracy however can wage any war it wants by constructing the Narrative: we give freedom, now to all races and gender orientations, but They do not, therefore in our egalitarian logic, They are absolutely and universally bad and we are to all humans and our secular gods 100% good, so we should win and destroy Them.
In American politics, the Democrats have decided to use Russia as their scapegoat. Russia has failed to neuter itself like the West with democracy; instead it has neutered itself with third-world corruption. Russia are not “the good guys.” Russia is a dangerously unstable republic that is allied with China with a consistently failing economy.
Failing countries, like ghettos and trailer parks, turn to crime. They do it not because it is the only way to get the money as Leftists allege but because it is the only way to be important. Being feared is better than being ignored and modern Russia, which is strategically and economically mostly irrelevant, is generally ignored.
The Russian people want Stalin back because the Soviet Union was at least feared. Russia has allied itself with China because it cannot make an alliance with the West while Russia is still a non-democratic state, but democratic Russia would be plundered by Western business. With this alliance and Nordstream pipelines Russia at least feels relevant.
In the West, democratic leaders see an opportunity here. They will fight a proxy war in Ukraine, sending the Ukes more advanced weaponry than the Russian rank-and-file have, and training them to fight better than the Russian conscripts (or even, apparently, the much-pimped Wagner Group and Spetznatz, neither of whom have been effective).
This will destroy the Russian ambition to be the new Soviet Union. You cannot be a terrifying military regime if you lose little wars in Afghanistan and Ukraine (the Americans at least had sense to “nation build” and then let that lose instead). China will view you as a junior partner in this case as well.
Democracy Inc wants to do this because it senses opportunity. With Putin out of the way, it can seduce Russia with democracy, destroy whatever internal order is left, and seize the natural resources that like most of the third world, Russia has been gifted by the gods in possessing.
As usual, Democracy Inc has pimped out Ukraine as the perfect victim, forgetting that under the lazy-eyed watch of Barack Obama our oversight was weak enough that Vlad Putin could ship his citizens into Crimea and then using that as a pretext, seize it. He has read our book of strategy, too, and he too is defending “innocent victims.”
Sensible people see that Ukraine has good reason to break away from Russia. They are ethnically different enough from Russia, and higher-IQ and therefore wealthier, to want to avoid joining the big collective of former Soviet states and having their wealth and most promising sons and daughters taken by Moscow.
In that sense, we all want to support Ukraine. We may even support the Western powers fighting their proxy war. What we do not want however is the expansion of Democracy Inc and its toxic brew of civil rights, liberal democracy, and mixed economies that is taking over the world.
Ukraine joining NATO is not a real issue; that was going to happen anyway, since everyone who does not want to be invaded by Russia-China wants to join NATO. Ukraine having neo-Nazis in its legions is not a real issue either, although RINOs have made it so. The issue is nationalism: Ukraine must exist outside of Russia.
As usual, democracy has clouded this clear and simple issue by getting its parasitic esurient fingers into the mess. WW2 could have been avoided by bringing Hitler to the negotiating table. WW1 could have been bypassed by accepting that the Kaiser had the right to rule his people as he saw fit. $10m in bribes could have foreclosed Vietnam.
For us as voters and observers, this means that our mission is twofold. We want a free Ukraine able to rule itself as it sees fit, but we also want it to be free of Democracy Inc as well as Russia, since both are parasites. This does not fit into a hashtag very well because like all real things it defies simple emotion, but there it is.