Ukraine: A Game of World Domination
February 21, 2014 in Commentary
I’ve been conspicuously silent on the geopolitical can of worms that’s been spilling over for months in Kiev. I encourage you to be, too. American White Nationalists are wise to keep abreast of what’s going on, to continue reporting on it, and to continue learning from it. But the Ukrainian situation is among the first in what will surely be a growing number of ideologically ambiguous conflagrations.
Syria is different. Ethnic nationalist sovereignty and the defense of embattled Christian minorities are pitted against a comically villainous alliance of greedy Western oligarch-wannabes and fanatical Al Qaeda fundamentalists. The global identitarian principles all post-supremacist White Advocates should stand behind were aligned with Assad’s regime. Those principles were and must remain our lodestar and litmus test.
Both sides of the conflict are ratcheting out their sketchy viral videos, their attractive women pitching their angles to target audiences, and their polemical screeds in defense of their geopolitical interests. So far, Dugin’s spin re-posted at Counter-Currents recently is the most compelling…
So it is only about on which side such a group stands. If the group is against Putin, against Yanukovych, against Russia, the ideology of that group is not a problem. If that group supports Putin, Russia or Yanukovych, the ideology immediately becomes a huge problem. It is all about the geopolitical side the group takes. It is nothing but geopolitics. It is a very good lesson what is going on in Ukraine. The lesson tells us: Geopolitics is dominating those conflicts and nothing else.
It’s a natural bias to perceive human events from our own perspectives. I’m an ideologue, and my first questions about the Ukrainian affair were about which factions stood for which ideas. That’s well and good, but if we actually believe the ideas are the principle drivers of these conflicts, we’ll be operating with a flawed model. Military and financial interests dominate and largely decide these affairs, and our place as idealists is to adjust our sails according to the prevailing geopolitical winds to arrive at our destination.
Later on in that interview, Dugin explains the futility of attempting to promote a “third position” against opposing geopolitical factions.
The idea to take a third and independent position between the two dominating blocks is very common. I had some interesting interviews and talks with a leading figure of the Chechen separatist guerrilla. He confessed to me that he really believed in the possibility of an independent and free Islamic Chechnya. But later he understood that there is no “third position,” no possibility of that. He understood that he fights against Russia on the side of the West. He was a geopolitical instrument of the West, a NATO proxy on the Caucasian battlefield. The same ugly truth hits the Ukrainian “nationalist” and the Arab salafi fighter: They are Western proxies.
As the Ukrainian situation develops, one faction or another may unambiguously align with the global identitarian vision. At that point, and no sooner, I’ll have a side. As with the classic board game Risk, this “game of world domination” is one where sometimes it’s best to skip your turn and sit back while the other players stake out their positions.