The HAMAS - Israel War of 2023

First, let me clearly state that I in no way condone the nature of what I am about to analyse; targeting civilians must always be condemned as the reprehensible act it is. As for parading “enemy” half-naked women through your streets in front of triumphant crowds chanting "Allahu Akhbar!", I lack words. That belongs in barbaric societies only, and a God wanting that sort of worship is worthy only of revulsion. There are no gods, but I am fairly certain that if there were, this is not what they would want unless they are psychos.

It is an effective strategy on some occasions though. I shall outline below why, why it can potentially have great consequences for Israel, and why it will undoubtedly have severe consequences for the Palestinians.

For my own stance, I believe both sides are arseholes, but attacks on civilians are never justified, and refer to Vlad Vexler’s excellent video about the subject

In order to understand the attacks, we need to understand the Insurgent/Guerrilla and his methods.

I will outline his methods below.

Let me first quote the father of modern guerilla; Mao Tse-Tsung, "It is a weapon that a nation inferior in arms and military equipment may employ against a more powerful aggressor nation".

When there is some sort of (perceived) repression, the ground is ripe for a reaction. Sometimes and somewhere that reaction will be militant.

This will often happen if the repressor is unwilling to find a political solution and give concessions or is perceived to be so.

The natural resort of the repressed will then be to employ guerilla to liberate themselves. The course of action thereafter can be divided into phases.

Mao uses the following:

1. Arousing and organizing the people.

2. Achieving internal unification politically.

3. Establishing bases.

4. Equipping forces.

5. Recovering national strength.

6. Destroying enemy's national strength.

7. Regaining lost territories.

Practically, Ho Chi Min and Giap organized this into five phases:

1. Propagandists and agitators start a subterranean work in the population. They are attentive to and receptive of dissatisfaction with the legal authorities (those imposed by the reigning system, it may be the occupation authorities as well but we will refer to them as legal authorities hereafter) and the pervading social conditions.

Their primary task is recognisance and they are thus careful not to call attention to themselves by revolutionary rhetoric. Instead, they can start discussion groups and clubs, for example, where their ideas can be debated and discussed. In the current Islamic vs The West conflict, Mosques, Islamic schools and- most of all- social media.

2. When these agitators has ensured local support they start to organise activists in groups according to age, profession or interests, it does not matter as long as they are organised. These groups have the task of surveying each-other and the individuals in them, in the political work and are themselves surveyed by committees. The goal of this organisation is to enmesh the individual tightly in a network of parallel hierarchies. Or rather new hierarchies organised and depending on the rebels/partisans/freedom fighters/resistance. One hierarchy is territorial; starting with the family, city block, farm etc. and is subject to various levels of a hierarchy topped by the rebels' provincial government. Another hierarchy is based on the above organisations, it incorporates male and female youth groups, mother's groups, peasant organisations, workers' organisation and any conceivable organisation the rebels can think of organising their subjects in. The imperative is that no one escapes being spun into the new parallel hierarchies where the territorial one "crosses" an organisational one surveying it that it itself surveys. To engage and organise the individual politically and generally and to ensure that there is always an eye kept on it in every aspect of its life. In the current global conflict, this differs slightly as this is a religious conflict while the Communist insurrections of the anti-colonial area were atheists. But there is a parallel to the religious hierarchy governing the life of the “Faithful”, and the various political organisations based on Sharia they are part of. But also family and clan organisation and loyalties is very important here, and these are based on a code of (dis)honour and upheld by slander and snitching. No one in the Middle- East is free of it, and no Moslem immigrant in a Danish or French ghetto is either- though some ignore it. It, with the religious codex and Sharia, is a very strong and successful social control.

This is where organised resistance to the legal authorities starts spreading, a process referred to by the French as "pourrissement" (rot/rotting); as a subterranean network of spies and agitators starts spreading and channel dissatisfied elements into the movement while they assert pressure- economical and physical pressure (by violence)- on the authorities' supporters and neutral persons to spread terror. Those pressured will consequently be frightened from further supporting the authorities. Those authorities that will often only discover the ripples on the surface of the water created by the dissidents at this stage (the guerrilla thrive, struggle and live in the population like the fish does in the sea as aptly described by Mao "The people are the sea and the guerrilla fighter the fish"). The ripples being the various signs of discontent and lacking support of the authorities.

This, then, suddenly places the authorities in a struggle to maintain authority and governing as the rebel network, organisation and hierarchy will have supplanted legal rule in many places and compete with them in many others. Further, the rebels are now able to escalate the number of agitators, saboteurs and terrorists from their safe bases; i.e., the havens of safety where their rule has totally supplanted the legal one. In the Islamist struggle versus the West they are aplenty in their so-called Kalifate, Sahel, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, there are also neighbourhoods in European cities not under government control, and they work the same. Hence, terrorist cells are planted or organised in local Moslem population of the West.

3. Armed gangs are raised for smaller actions such as ambushes on government patrols and raids on isolated police posts. The agitation, sabotage and terror started in the last phase is stepped up in intensity and the latter proves itself the most powerful tool in the rebels’ arsenal. Terror can be both indiscriminate and selective; a bomb in a cafe with supporters of both sides will create an atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety (which is ripe ground for agitation and recruitment- and polarises the situation as neutrals seek the extremes on both sides). And it challenges the authorities' ability to govern and protect the population- and showcasing that inability to do so; while assassination of the authorities local representatives and selected supporters (or perceived such) will have the same effect with the added benefit that it will make people hesitate to support authorities or accept working for them (I can add that during the Cold War when I trained as a sniper in the Danish Home Guard, we were instructed to shoot occupation troops fraternising, relaxing, peeing, etc- the spread a sense of fear and stress, where you can never relax). Attacks on symbols of the enemy and his ideology is important in this phase as well; be it the American Embassy in Saigon, ancient monuments in Palmyra, World Trade Centre or a night club.

4. Terrorism and guerrilla force the legal authorities to wholly give up on certain areas where the rebels can subsequently create their own provisional governments and further step up the work to mobilise the population and achieve international recognition. Powers of friendly disposition towards the rebels can be in the van of such recognition and the campaign to recognise them; and can now supply them with arms etc. and a regular rebel army can now be created. In the current struggle obviously, “the Kalifate” is such an area, but areas of Nigeria, Pakistan, Sahel, Yemen, Lebanon, Pakistan and Afghanistan are also outside of government control locally. And in a broader context extremist/conservative Islamic states also exists. The Gulf States and Iran just for starters. Some of whom play the role as our allies while financing Jihadist movements.

5. The last phase of the rebellion is a general, all-out offensive against the weakened authorities who are now ready for the death-knell. In the current struggle, when enough territory is united under Islamist rule, the Jihad to conquer “Dar al-Harab/Dar al-Garan” (House of War and House of the West respectively) and “Dar al-Kufr” (House of the Infidel), will be launched to give the death-knell to the West (and others, China, India and Russia are not friendly to Islam), and unite the world under one faith.

The rebel movement will be freely able to switch back and forth between the various phases and the individual struggle is too complicated and sophisticated to be covered by such a generalised model. However, it can provide a framework for the individual struggle to be studied within.

It is of great importance to recognise some aspects of guerrilla.

There is no difference between soldier and civilian in such a struggle. To differentiate would weaken the movement by taking away assets and resources from it, Mao says "Considering the revolutionary war as a whole, the operations of the people's guerrillas and those of the main forces of the Red Army complement each other like a man's right arm and left arm, and if we had only the main forces of the Red Army without the people's guerrillas, we would be like a warrior with only one arm". The struggle is also not about territory as in classical warfare but rather concerns the mind of the people. Even the regular forces of the movement must hence have a fourfold task to accomplish; to serve as political and military education (and conditioning) for the soldier and administrator, to create and spread propaganda in the population, to serve as a tool for excerting pressure on the opposition and, lastly; as a tool for warfare. Concurrently, tasks usually undertaken by the military; intelligence gathering and logistics, is performed by the civilian sector. However, the border between soldier and civilian is permeable; a teenager can throw stones at soldiers and a young mother is ideal for smuggling explosives. All while this is going on a struggle for support in the repressor's population as well as internationally is undertaken in order to mobilise support and weaken the backing of his struggle. Generally the repressor/legal authority will be weakened to such an extent before the final blow in phase 5 that the outcome of that is already given.

So as you see (if you are still reading), terror is percieved as a perfectly legitimate tool of the guerrilla as it holds a powerful sway over the mind of the population that are fought over. Terror is one of the only weapons available to the weak and oppressed to fight off the strong aggressor. Worse still; the only military solution to counter a guerrilla campaign is an even more bloody countercampaign. To scourge the countryside of all possible guerrilla fighters, round them up and kill or imprison them. Which is not really an option for a civilised country, as it will cost civilian lives. The only other solution is political or political-military and involves negotiations and concessions; i.e. giving the insurgent, what he wants.

Now Israel and the Gaza Strip are not one country. But the principle is the same; HAMAS shows strength through resistance to the occupation, settlements and control of Israel. It thus generates support for itself in its own population. Even more so, as Israel will now embark on a campaign to free the hostages, kill the militants and destroy their organisation, but also of revenge. And the population of the Gaza Strip will see that as just more Israeli aggression and repression, and rally to HAMAS (which is part of the reason for the attack).

However, as shown above; this massive attack (reputedly the largest since 1948) also exhibits a weakness in Israel. I have not gone into the details as to how and why, my attention is on Ukraine; but the pattern is clear. By attacking now where large parts of the population in Israel is against Netanyahu and his dismantling of Israeli democracy- which large parts of the military, intelligence services and police also opposes; HAMAS shows that Netanyahu, or the military, intelligence services and police cannot protect the population (it can go both ways, Bibi can spin the discourse to clamp down on his opposition in the various brances). They thus spread fear in the Israeli population, and put pressure on the Israeli parlament and government at a moment they are in a crisis. So their timing is perfect, and the execution seems to have been as well, in all its barbarism and cruelty. And it has had an effect on the Israeli population. Fear is very present it seems, as was the purpose. And it will generate support amongst Palestinians as described above. However, it will also have the consequences of an unprecedented Israeli military campaign in the Gaza Strip. I shall explain why I believe so below.

In the video above Vlad Vexler explains why the appropriate response is the one leaving the lightest footstep so to speak- a lenient if righteous one. However, as explained above in my enumeration of Guerrilla; that is not possible. And as also explained above, a harsh response will generate more support for HAMAS sadly.

However, I believe it is the path Netanyahu will take. He has set himself up as a "strongman" and is in the process of dismantling Israeli democracy while himself (as all strongmen) deeply corrupt. Strongmen cannot appear weak, they buld their support and power on the longing for security in a frightened and confused population (it is currently a general process in world societies, Ziehe calls it Ontologisation), which they will provide. Unless he is shown to have a very strong response to HAMAS, he will find it harder to stay in power. It will not matter so much if it is an effective response, but it must be very obvious. The intelligence services, military and police, who failed to predict this attack also need to show a strong response to wash off the failure. So we will see a period of intense violence. Especially as Hezbollah also joins in. This will be ugly. There is also a strong possiblity that Bibi will use this disaster as an excuse to further weaken Israeli democracy- an obvious way would be to blame opponents in military, intelligence services and police, and replace them with his cronies, like Erdogan did in Turkey after the failed coup there. I hope this helped to understand why the attacks and targets made en evil kind of sense to HAMAZ. And some of the consequences.

As stated; I do not condone such, but I can analyse where it comes from.

This article is worth reading too, it provides some concrete reasons HAMAS attacked.

A "Bagration 2" on Kyiv and Lutsk-Lviv?

 

On the possibility of a ”Bagration 2” from Belarussia this year.

On the 20^th of December, the retired Brigadier; Michael Hesselholt Clemmensen, wrote that we should be prepared for a an attempt of a repeat of Bagration in a few months, when Russia has trained and equipped its Mobiks and conscripts. As usually, he does what any good officer would do and outlines the worst, but I do not see it as a worst-case scenario. I estimate that, even if Russia carries out its maximum effort as he states is required; it cannot carry such an offensive off, and it will drown in blood; which will be good. I have warned back in spring that the Russians would learn, but there is limits, and the learning process has been very costly.

I shall outline below why, but here is his worst case scenario:

Edit; Clemme has just (27-12) informed me that he did not expect it to succeed, merely outlined the possibility. I shall let the analysis my misunderstanding of his post stand, as it contributes to our understanding of the coming winter

-          Russia will go all-out, making the maximum effort it can within the limits of its military culture (in which I would say he has great knowledge).

-          By death or purge, the most incompetent Russian officers has been removed, and only the competent ones are left.

-          Russia can scrounge up enough usable equipment to equip 2- 3 armies (120000 soldiers) with uniforms, body armour, helmets, weapons, heavy weapons, artillery, tanks, Anti-Air, transport and logistics, tanks and AFVs, field hospitals, communications equipment, etc. etc.

-          They can thus raise those armies, who will be efficiently commanded, and concentrate them for an offensive towards Kyiv and one against Lutsk- Lviv in January as the ground is frozen. Employing the traditional heavy firepower and good intelligence of Russian military tradition for a breakthrough.

-          Artillery, logistics hubs and HQs will be located in Belorussia to tempt the Ukrainians to shell them and draw Belorussia into the war.

 

Now, here is why I disagree. My first reason is that the staggering success of Bagration rested on the German reserves being lured away by Maskirovka, while the Red Army secretly concentrated its forces across from AGC. During the spring and summer of 1943, the majority of the fighting had been in Ukraine, and the Soviet winter offensives of 1943- ’44 had broken through the German defence lines and liberated most of the country; in the northern parts of Ukraine, the Red Army was very close to the 1939 “Molotov-Ribbentrop” border and poised to break into Poland. The Germans were thus conditioned to expect another attack in Ukraine, and had concentrated most of the armour that was not in France, as well as Luftwaffe; in Western and Northwestern Ukraine. Hence, it was a much easier breakthrough than any before against the Wehrmacht. It is highly unlikely that such strategic surprise can be achieved against a Ukraine that is being fed a steady stream of intel from NATO, as well as- I suspect- from Belorussian opposition, and their own surveillance. Hell, even commercial satellites currently provide up to date and detailed images of developments at the front.

Consequently, in my estimation, there is no chance of surprising the Ukrainians. Quite the contrary, I suspect attacking Russians would receive some nasty surprises, but more on that later. First, let us delve into my other reasons for concluding that there will be no successful “Bagration 2”:

Death have eliminated a lot of Russian officers, true. But only the incompetent ones? That is less certain. With a total of 1586 KIA Russian officers,[1] the potential leaders of these Russian units have been thinned out significantly. And with the heavy reliance in the Russian armed forces on top-down command from officers, and lack of initiative from subordinates, these are crippling losses. Especially with untrained and unproven soldiers, who will usually be distinguished by gathering together for a feeling of safety, and being herded by officers (as we have seen in countless videos from this war). A breakthrough with combined arms units is a complex matter that takes coordination, and thus highly skilled commanders at all levels. Russia simply does not have that. Further, though they can probably find 100000+ rusty AKs (or produce new ones) and even machine guns. When it comes to heavier and more advanced equipment as well as body armour and even winter uniforms, it seems doubtful to me that this would be available. From what we have seen, most vehicles in Russian storage stops working after a while from deterioration and/or theft, and their actual numbers are much lower than the on-paper strength.[2] The same goes for their logistics. We have already seen that Russian logistics are abysmal- even when not under HIMARS fire. How will these 100000 Mobiks be supplied? They have to eat, drink, fight, and be MedEvaced when wounded. Where will all these supplies come from? How will they be transported to the presumably advancing and fighting troops at the front across roads infested with Ukrainian partisans and SOF? But again, more on that later. Suffice it to say that we saw Russia lacking trucks and other supply vehicles like the KAMAZ TYPHOON in spring and summer already, and with the losses and dwindling production, the situation has not likely become better. Bagration was running on supplies carried in American Studebakers and Chevrolets, while JEEPs carried the soldiers and officers, Corned Beef fed them, they talked on American radios, etc., in this war American Lend Lease, weapons, technology and support is with the other side, and it tells. Further, while partisan rail sabotage seriously hindered German deployment of reserves and supplies in Bagration; the Belorussian rail workers have been shown to be firmly on Ukraine’s side- at least enough of them to delay supplies.

American-made Studebaker and Chevrolet trucks at a Red Army depot in Mozhaysk, west of Moscow, 1944

 

As for firepower; Russia undoubtedly still has it, Bakhmut shows us that it the case. However, the shelling in Bakhmut is not nearly as bad as that of the Sieverodonietsk area in summer, before the HIMARS arrived to wreak havoc with Russian supplies. And it is not as if Russia’s artillery is getting newer as they fire thousands of imprecise shells.[3] As the tubes are wearing out, fire gets more imprecise, and more shells are required to eliminate each target. Shells that seem to be increasingly running out, evidenced in the Russian resupply from North Korea and Belorussia. As that problem increases, Russian commanders will be faced increasingly to choose between the missions that get artillery support, or use the dwindling stuck of their precision missiles, which are admittedly quite advanced, but which also are limited in numbers, and very expensive. I would tend to think that the concentration of fire normal for Russian forces, will be increasingly hard to achieve. A breakthrough is thus less likely.

Lastly, I am doubtful that even a Ukrainian fire mission on an HQ in Belorussia would result in a DoW. “Luka” is no fool, and from what information I have on his armed forces, they make the Russians look like US Marines in training and equipment standards. Three Ukrainian Babuschkas with broomsticks could drive them off. Further, many of them do not regard Ukrainians as enemies, but as brothers, and it is likely that some would refuse or turn, and the country would erupt in protests again as soon as a significant potion of the armed forces were away from the cities- especially in case of a war with Ukraine, who the Belorussian opposition definitely regards as a friendly country.

 

That was the analysis on why their own incompetence is stopping Russia from making a “Bagration 2”. However, one has to always reckon with the enemy, and it is not as if Ukraine is not aware that Russia might attack from Belorussia again. They know this, and they have prepared for it. They have five Defence Brigades and two Mechanised Battalions, plus various support units deployed. Plus likely many small Home Guard units armed with copious amounts of LAWs, etc. Plus with timely warning various reserves can be deployed there as a QRF, as can the redoubtable HIMARS and self-propelled guns to wreck troop concentrations as soon as they cross the border, in the manner we have seen all Russian troop concentrations be wrecked over the last few months. The M30A1 warheads can really wreak havoc with infantry and light vehicles, while the GIMLETs have already proven themselves against armoured targets.

 

As can be seen below, Tungsten does not agree with Russian vehicles.

If I were the Ukrainians, I would set up a forward defence line, only lightly defended, then have strongpoints of increasing strength, minefields and obstacles, to channel a Russian offensive into kill zones with predesignated fires from artillery, AT and tanks as they progress 10+ km from the border and stay-behind units hit the soft supply lines as we saw in February- March. Ukraine has had enough time to prepare such nasty surprises for the Russians, and I predict any such offensive will drown in blood. I could hope they would try, for the more Russians die, the sooner the war will end.

 

The scenario I find more likely is a combination of a continued assault on Bakhmut and from Donetsk City, a diversionary attack from the north towards Kyiv, and a main push against Kharkiv. Actually… I am not sure how likely that is, I will have to ponder on the likely Russian actions a bit. The problem is that they do not elicit much rationality to someone schooled in The German Way of War and it's copied by NATO version. This can to some extent be due to corrupt officers not giving the dictator the whole picture, Prigozhin “The Offended” and Kadyrov running their own war with internal political aims rather than operational military ones, or a different military culture. I do know the USSR/Russian mindset and military culture somewhat (I know the WW2 one quite well), but the other factors make the water murky.

I also do not think the much-waunted Ukrainian offensive towards Melitopol will materialise yet. There is too much talk of it, and usually when Ukraine talks up an offensive that much (Denyz talks of itevery day); they intend to attack elsewhere. Likely Towards Luhansk.

 

In any case, I conclude that no “Bagration 2” can be carried off, and if it is attempted, it will defeat itself by incompetence and lack of equipment, and be ripped to shreds by well-prepared Ukrainian ambushes and defences. Even a smaller version launched on Kyiv has little chance of success. Just like the first one.

I state, as I did from the 24^th of February; Russia cannot win, and the faster some of Putolini’s henchmen understands that and remove him, the better. But he has spent 20 years removing any potential threats, so it will be a long and bloody while yet, and our best road to victory is to stop procrastinating and give the Ukrainians the weapon systems they ask for (*Cough Scholtz and ‘cough- cough Macron). The only road to victory goes across heaps of Russian bodies, and the faster they pile up, the faster the suffering will end.

---

[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_bpIqkzD88hlSpA-PDZenSQGNnVnxz3lwYHKViSyuUc/edit#gid=1361265165

[2] I refer you here to Perun’s videos and the count by satellite images “Covert Cabal” has done.

[3] Again I refer to Perun’s video on the matter.

Country Comparison - who are the "Nazis"; Russia or Ukraine

 

First; Yes, Russia is safe from us, and we from them. Under trump, who was Putin’s friend and tried to turn his back on NATO, the three Baltic States could probably have been taken, but as it is now, we are back to The Cold War and the M.A.D. situation. If we learned anything from that it is that nukes, make you safe. No-one dares attack a nuclear power. Not until we invent something that can ensure that all enemy nukes is taken out before reaching their targets, and to my knowledge that has not been invented yet. Has Russia always tried to expand west for its security and Germany/Poland/France tried to expand east? Yes, that is the nature of The Great European Plain, but nukes change everything. Nobody wants their cities vaporized. And yes, should the war escalate to NATO involvement (which I do not believe it will as it serves no-one’s interests, not even the Ukrainians), nukes would not be deployed until one side has nothing to lose; so NATO tanks closing on Moscow or Russian tanks on Berlin or Paris. And nobody is stupid enough in this game, to back the other into a corner, where he has nothing to lose. Remember M.A.D., nobody wins, everybody dies.

 

Now, a country comparison.

First the state of democracy as of last year, from Freedomindex and Democracyweb.

Freedomhouse sums up the state of democracy in Ukraine before the Russian attack thus, “Ukraine has enacted a number of positive reforms since the protest-driven ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. However, corruption remains endemic, and initiatives to combat it are only partially implemented. Attacks against journalists, civil society activists, and members of minority groups are frequent, and police responses are often inadequate. Russia occupies the autonomous Ukrainian region of Crimea, which it invaded in the aftermath of Yanukovych’s ouster, and its military supports armed separatists in the eastern Donbas area.”

And if you read the 21 pages report on their page, you will learn that Zelenskyy has had to change key political staff from reformers to more conservative staffers due to pressure from inside his party and widespread local resistance to reform from the local elites that control the regions and towns and want to continue doing that. Despite this, open party lists at elections has helped transparency and the structural democracy. Ukrainian democracy suffered from the continued war with Russia in the Donbas and Luhansk regions, but the abandonment of a “protection of disinformation” law that would have impeded the freedom of the press, shows that Ukrainians value a free and pluralistic press. A large problem for this is, again the influence of local elites/oligarchs that control the various media and make it provide only onesided coverage (so like Fox, et al in the US really). Ukraine has attempted to create an independent TV station, but it is underfunded and does not yet reach many viewers. Zelenskyy has pushed through many reforms in 2020, but the hasty way it was done has opened many of them to be challenged by corrupt courts. And this is the crux, local democracy is corrupt, not working well and elites/oligarchs resist change, as well as corrupting the judiciary system. Zelenskyy has in fact tried to change this, but turning course on something embedded in people’s minds for hundreds of years is not easy. He is also not himself free of ties to oligarchs, and his lack of experience with administration sometimes hinders sound policies. So he is no angel, but he is also no Putin. You could say that he has that in common with Churchill; no angel, but a very fitting head of state during war- and maybe in time a transition to an even less corrupt President, it is obviously what Ukrainians want.

Meanwhile laws have been enacted to protect minorities (including Russians), despite Russia’s claim to the opposite. However, after the capture of Crimea and rebellions in the Donbas and Luhansk Oblasts; there has been a rise in mistrust and discrimination amongst the populace. Hardly strange, but still not the world we want, where people are judged by the contents of their character.

As for Nazis in Ukraine. Let us have a look.

It is hard to deny that Ukraine joined the Germans and were anti-Semites in WWII, Holodomor and general antisemitism combined into something not very pretty. But measuring a current nation by its predecessor’s actions would not leave many nations looking good; the US would be a racist slave state, the UK a racist imperialist state and my own Denmark with our kin in Norway and Sweden would be raving pillagers attacking civilisation. So let us stick to contemporary times.

There are Nazis and antisemitism in Ukraine, yes. There are in all countries. There has been a rise in attacks on Jews, but there has everywhere (even in Denmark with our pride in October 1943). And Ukraine has enacted laws to protect its Jewish minority, who has both freedom and protection. There is no official discrimination against Jews. Which would also surprise, as Zelenskyy is a Jew himself who lost family members (I believe grandparents) to the Holocaust. Meanwhile statues of infamous Nazis such as Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych and Yaroslav Stetsko have been erected in various places in Ukraine. I have been unable to verify if this is by private, local or state actors. It is likely because the Ukrainians are so anti-Russian that they turn a blind eye to the Nazism of these peoples, but the crimes of Nazism must never be forgotten or excused. It is not an indication of a Nazi state though. Svoboda polls just below the election threshold and currently only has one member of the Ukrainian Parliament. Many people would argue that the hard right has a larger influence in the USA, with Trump, MTG, Lauren Boebert, Cawthorn, etc.

 

The Azov Regiment. This formation is hard to avoid talking about when talking of Nazis in Ukraine. It is inescapably far right wing with many Nazi members, including its leader. Other leaders of the regiment have claimed that “only” 10- 20% of its members are Nazis and ascribe it to “misguided youth”. This seems highly unlikely, the number is likely far higher, even if there are also Jews in the regiment- “politics makes strange bedfellows”. Just as with the statues; there is no excuse for accepting Neo Nazis in your armed forces (or at all). But it is likely that the Ukrainian National Guard has worked on the “beggars cannot be choosers” principle, and have accepted anyone that would fight the Russian rebels, and the harder they fight the better- and fanatics tend to fight hard (if not always smart). During The War on Terror, the US targeted Nazis, white supremacists and gang members for recruitment as well,[1] and 36% of US servicemembers in a 2020 poll had witnessed signs of white supremacy amongst their fellow servicemembers.[2] It is important to note that 36% witnessing not being the same as 36%, if five people in a squad of ten witness the same incident by one member, 50% of that squad has witnessed it, but only 10% performed it. It is also worth noting that people with obvious Nazi sympathies such as tattoos are kicked out of the US armed forces when discovered. Not in Ukraine, which is fighting for its survival.

 

In any case, the Azov Regiment does not represent the majority of the Ukrainian armed forces or people, as seen in Svoboda’s low support. However, there are Nazis in Ukraine, there is widespread corruption and there are problems with especially local politics and the judiciary system especially. However, from a historian’s point of view; Ukraine is on the way in the right direction, if we compare with historic examples, most of us were hardly perfect democracies 30 years after the change to this system. My own Denmark could by many measures be labelled a dictatorship at that point as we were engaged in a constitutional struggle that froze parliamentary power for 20 years 30 years into our new democracy. Meanwhile countries like Poland and Hungary have their own problems, and the far right grows everywhere from Russian propaganda and general Ontologisation of the population.

 

 

Now, let us have a look at the state of democracy, Nazism and Fascism in Russia.

Again, let us have a look at Freedomhouse’s information. And again this is before the war, now Russia has gone full totalitarian, and more so as the war fails.

They sum it up as such; “Power in Russia’s authoritarian political system is concentrated in the hands of President Vladimir Putin. With loyalist security forces, a subservient judiciary, a controlled media environment, and a legislature consisting of a ruling party and pliable opposition factions, the Kremlin is able to manipulate elections and suppress genuine dissent. Rampant corruption facilitates shifting links among bureaucrats and organized crime groups.”

That looks fairly dire…

Looking at their report; Russia does not have free and fair elections, the population has a minimal right to organize political parties, but no chance of gaining influence through these at elections. Russians also only have the bare minimum of freedom from forces outside the political sphere and rights for minorities, prompting my favorite band to do this on stage in Moscow 2019, and minority languages are forbidden from being taught in school (in contrast to Ukraine, where Russian is taught in school in the eastern provinces, but where Ukrainian has to be the first language).

Meanwhile Putin totally dominates the policies of the Duma, and there is only the minimum protection against corruption (which is progressively getting worse), and about as much transparency in politics as there is protection from corruption.

Russia also has no free and independent media (though until a week or so ago they did have some small outlets, but they were under constant pressure from authorities and have now been closed with Dozhd meaningfully playing Swan Lake on repeat as they had left the premises. Before that, arrests on trumped-up charges, office raids, threats and outright murder of journalists in Russia are common, as is general harassment. Arrests on members of Jehovah’s Witnesses is also common, and the organization is illegal as are many Islamic organisations, while freedom of religion is at the barest minimum as well, as is academic freedom and freedom of expression- and this was before the wa… “Special military Operation”. There is no freedom of NGOs, especially those engaged with Human rights, etc. The only place Russia is not at the barest minimum is labour Unions and freedom to move internally, which are at 2 of 4, while the judiciary system has a minimum of freedom and fairness, and there is no protections from threats of use of physical force and laws do not guarantee equal treatment of everybody at all.

So, all in all, not a very nice or secure place to live.

Now, Nazis in Russia…

Ironically for a country that is the heir to the USSR who was the main target of Nazis; consisting of Slavs, who were to be murdered in their millions according to Generalplan Ost; Nazis are numerous in Russia. And the country in general is following a sort of far-right autocracy not far from Nazism, but more of that later.

The Neo-Nazi political party in Russia is RNE (Russian National Unity) and seems to have a significant presence, but reliable hard numbers of members are difficult to come by. They have ties to the “Russian Orthodox Army” of around 4000 combatants and many members serve in the latter organisation. At the same time in the Donetsk Rebel republic, Vladimir Zhoga and his Sparta Battalion too are also Nazis, Zhoga was killed early in the war, but his father now leads and continue the ideology. Another Nazi group, The National Socialist Society North, were active ten years ago, and committed a string of murders of Africans, etc., but were outlawed and the murders punished. Meanwhile "Wagner" (Dmitri Utkin) and his group of (in)famous Mercenaries with strong ties to the Regime too, are openly Nazis, and it seems that there is a murky border between the Neo-Nazis in Russia and the general ideology. It is hard to distinguish Nazis, Fascists and general Far Right Nationalism and xenophobia, which is widespread in Russia, and Putin is a well-known follower of Russian Fascist thinker Ivan Ilyin. Nolte and Eco both has checklists for an ideology to be labelled “Fascism”, let us check Russia under Putin against these and see.

Nolte;

-      Anticommunism – Check

-      Antiliberalism – Check

-      Führer Principle – Check

-      Paramilitaries – Check

-      Totalitarion ideology – Check

-      Tendency to anticonservatism – No, Putin’s Russia is very conservative.

So five out of six

Eco

-     The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.” Check

-     The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense, Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.” Check

-     The cult of action for action’s sale. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.” Check

-     Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture, the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.” Check

-     Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.” Check

-     Appeal to social frustration. “[…] one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. This I cannot say.

-     The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.” Check

-     The enemy is both weak and strong. “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” Check (the West is weak and decadent, but all powerful and try to surround and crush poor Russia)

-     Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”

-     Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.” Check

-     Everybody is educated to become a hero. “in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.” Check

-     Machismo and Weaponry. “This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.” Check

-     Selective Populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People. Check

-     Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.” I am not so sure of this, I have not read Russian schoolbooks.

 

Eco also warns; “These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.”

As we can see, quite a lot of the points are obviously present, while two of them I simply cannot say.

So Russia, with the Ilyin-inspired Putin at the helm seems obviously Fascist. We can add to this that Jews are persecuted in Russia and that Antisemitism is widespread, but also that it is fortunately on the decline according to Yablokov as well as PEW Research.

 

Apart from the summary above, it may be instructional to see whose foreign policy and political rhetoric are most like the Nazis’ in the thirties. This seems quite clear; dreams of recreating a larger realm and power, justifying expansion with “protecting Russian minorities”, stirring these Russian minorities to rebel against the nation they are in, and the “Anschluss” of Crimea… It sort of answers itself.

---

[1] https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/228802-us-militarys-history-recruiting-and-retaining-neo-nazis

[2] https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/02/06/signs-of-white-supremacy-extremism-up-again-in-poll-of-active-duty-troops/