Book: DeNACification of Ukraine

What is happening in Ukraine? Ukrainian nationalists are not capable of anything but killing people. Can anyone name at least one enterprise opened in the last year or two? <...> So, the only thing that a modern Ukrainian nationalist can do is rob and kill. And this means that the most embittered, burdened with complexes, short-sighted and stupid people who are ready to do anything for the sake of some ephemeral idea should be included in their ranks. Blaming anyone for their own inferiority, they aim to destroy the enemy.

For a normal person, it is monstrous when a brother kills a brother. But you need to understand that for a Western Ukrainian, someone who was born and raised in Donetsk, Luhansk is neither a brother, nor a relative, nor anyone else. Someone will say that this is probably some kind of inferiority complex, which someday should develop into an understanding of what was done by Ukrainian nationalists. However, whether a sense of guilt will be formed in the whole country, as happened with the Germans after the end of World War II, is a debatable question.

The current Ukrainian nationalists are generally incapable of any dialogue, as you can see by watching their speeches.

Finally, among the current Ukrainian nationalists there is a cult not only of Bandera. In this regard, many of us simplify the situation. However, among the personalities revered in Ukraine there is also a certain Dmytro Dontsov, the creator of the so-called integral nationalism. He, if someone does not know, demanded only two things from Ukrainians: fanaticism and immorality. The national idea must be immoral, and only a fanatic can realize it. In fact, this is what we are seeing in the Donbass. An absolutely immoral theory about subhumans is being put into practice by fanatics who are ready to kill people only because they are carriers of a different, alien mentality. And one must understand that Dontsov did a lot to ensure that semi-petty-bourgeois (according to his own assessment) Ukraine rose above morality, learned to hate the enemy, even if he basically did nothing wrong. Because it is impossible to be kind, hatred allows a person to become evil, and therefore strong. Ukrainian nationalists began to act precisely on these principles. <...> Let me remind you what this very Dontsov wrote about: the best way to impose one's will is to sow hatred for one's own, to widen the split and mutual distrust, that is, to bring discord into one's own house. He also spoke about the need for a fratricidal war to heal the sick soul of the nation, since it is necessary to drive faith and truth into the troubled brains of society with a hammer, destroying distrust without regret. This is the answer to the question of what happened in Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014. According to Dontsov's scenario, the nationalists began, without regret, to exterminate everyone who does not share their point of view. Accordingly, this is how they hammered their own truth and ideology into the troubled brains of society, which really turned out to be ready to accept it at some point.

And finally, it is insulting for our national consciousness to call the current Ukrainian regime fascist. I do not argue with this, indeed, it is a shame to call Poroshenko, Avakov, Turchinov and Yatsenyuk fascists. Of course, from this point of view, they have nothing in common with Hitler, or with Rosenberg, or with Goebbels, or with any other leader of the Third Reich. They are in their purest form the legal successors of the Ukrainian nationalists. Therefore, there is no need to substitute concepts - we are not talking about fascism as such, we are talking about Ukrainian nationalism, which is a true historical enemy of all Russian statehood. And Bandera's words that power should be terrible are not accidental - this is exactly what, in the opinion of the current Ukrainian leadership, it should be in relation to the Russians.

On the example of Ukraine, we can follow the technology of creating a terrible model of a person, which discards all reason, any morality, religion and turns into some kind of pure, refined madness. <...> Moreover, one must understand that such a psychology is characteristic of any society. It’s just that some societies have sufficient strength to counteract the raging elements, while someone is ready at any moment to give up responsibility for their actions, for relatives, friends and acquaintances and surrender to the power of base impulses. Which, in fact, happened in Ukraine.

The national idea of any state should be the prosperity of its citizens. Otherwise, you will have to constantly face destructive forces and, relatively speaking, carry out denazification once every five years. After all, in the absence of concern for their own population, the number of dissatisfied will only grow, and people will again and again turn their eyes to people like Bandera and Shukhevych. If Ukrainian opposition politicians do not begin to address economic problems, the potential denazification program is doomed to failure. This is the fundamental difference between Ukraine and Germany.

During the denazification in Germany, all Germans, on the basis of a voluntary-compulsory survey, were divided into "uninvolved", "acquitted", "fellow travelers", "guilty" and "guilty in the highest degree." Those who refused to participate in the survey were deprived of food cards. Further, special judicial chambers were provided for each group. For example, the perpetrator could be sent to a work camp for five years or sentenced to community service, confiscate his property, deprive him of the right to vote for a period of five years. Fellow travelers could limit themselves to paying compensation to the German budget. The amount of money could vary.

Denazification is an extremely time-consuming and very cruel process. It assumes not only a civil breakdown, during which people will even have to be beaten out by force of those absurd postulates that they have been instilled in over the past years. This is the punishment for all the guilty. After all, if you listen to some, then there are big problems with determining who should be responsible. Who committed all these crimes in Ukraine? Is it Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Victoria Nuland? Of course not. They did not hand out weapons to anyone personally. No one was called to go to the South-East to kill Russians. This was done, among other things, by the Ukrainian political elite. That is, denazification presupposes, among other things, a change in the political elite. And here we run into the unfortunate circumstance that, in principle, no one wants to deal with this. Because everyone is happy with everything.

After all, if we offer instead the true history of Ukraine, starting from Catherine the Great, then the obvious will be revealed: Ukraine has never been independent. It has always been part of Russia, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union. Agree, then all the gestures of Ukrainian politicians over the past 25 years look very stupid. Instead of developing integration processes in the post-Soviet space, all efforts were aimed at eliminating the old ties. Then you began to physically kill Russians just because they dared to defend their Russian origin. How to deal with it?

Hence the question: if the Soviet government, using all its mighty resources, spent nearly 10 years on armed confrontation with the OUN-UPA, then who told you that in just a few months you can eliminate this problem? No, this is absolute nonsense. You need to organize a much more complex process than the one that took place in Germany. Because after the end of the war, the Germans surrendered their weapons and calmly went to all these filtration commissions. With Ukraine, this number will not work. Therefore, it is naive to expect that by removing Biletsky, Troyan, Tyagnibok, Farion and other unpleasant people from the socio-political space, you will solve all the problems at once.

Of course, at first, the Soviet government underestimated the OUN-UPA factor. <...> Sobering up came pretty quickly. To do this, it was necessary to suffer a really serious loss, which the whole country would mourn. The fighting of Ukrainian nationalists attacked the convoy, which was accompanied by soldiers of the Red Army, led by the commander of the First Ukrainian Front, General Vatutin. A battle began, during which the commander was seriously wounded, costing him his life. <...> After the shake-up that Moscow gave to the local authorities for the death of Vatutin, they decided to fight the OUN-UPA seriously. Large gangs were defeated by the spring of 1945. What is meant by "big gang"? This is a formation of about 300 people. In 1944, as a result of special operations, including with the participation of army units, 57,000 OUN-UPA fighters were destroyed.

Denazification is getting rid of the nationalist frenzy. But as long as the Holodomor exists in your mind, no liberation can happen. Denazification is, among other things, honest answers to oneself. If you continue to be guided by a position like “we will do something here, but we will not pay any attention to it”, then denazification will be impossible a priori.

I can't explain why this is happening. Perhaps this is due to the Ukrainian political tradition. Perhaps - with the general political inertia in the country. Maybe - with a desire to get off with little blood, that is, relatively speaking, to condemn only the activities of Ukrainian nationalists on the Maidan and the crimes of volunteer battalions in the Donbass, and leave everything else as before. I declare again: this will not be denazification, but profanation. In a few years you will again face the same trouble. You will never make progress unless you start to give clear answers to questions about what happened in Ukraine in 1932-1933.