The Maidan has shown that a cohesive ideologically heated group, at least in a moment of political turbulence, turns out to be far more powerful than “money”
The events in Ukraine are often presented as nothing but a struggle for power by the oligarchy. With such an approach, the ideological component of this struggle is eliminated. The Banderites are declared puppets of the oligarchs, who use them as a convenient cover to disguise their struggle for power and property.
The framework of this approach proposes that Nazis be ignored as a purely secondary phenomenon, and that everything will work out if you negotiate with the Ukrainian oligarchs. They say that money rules the world, and everything else is secondary.
Even a cursory glance at the history of Ukraine over the past ten years shows the fallacy of this approach.
To begin with, let us recall how the events developed on the Maidan.
2013. Yanukovich is in power. Ukraine is the preponderance of the oligarchs (a favorite, unchanging topic). The mass media are discussing Dmitry Firtash and Rinat Akhmetov, the Donetsk clan, the Dnepropetrovsk clan, etc.
And then something happened that showed that the power of the oligarchs was by no means unconditional. Of course, I’m talking about the Maidan.
Let me remind you that at some point the oligarchs, having appreciated the political weight of the Maidan, began to visit it and declare their support.
Thus Firtash (one of the pillars of President Viktor Yanukovich’s regime; let us recall the then very influential “Firtash group”) became the sponsor of the Maidan. Viktor Pinchuk (who at the time was called the “Kremlin oligarch” in Ukraine) and even Akhmetov (another pillar of Yanukovich’s regime) spoke out in support of the Maidan.
Pinchuk said of the Maidan, “It gives me great optimism about the future of our country.” Akhmetov expressed support of the Maidan, “It‘s great!”
It is revealing that on February 20, 2014, at the time of the bloodiest clashes on the Maidan, BBC News published an article titled Ukraine crisis: Oligarchs are Yanukovych’s weakest link, which reads, “The business clans are the Achilles’ heels of the regime.” The publication not only points out this fact but also exerts pressure on this Achilles heel, threatening the oligarchs with the loss of their most precious asset – money – if they do not give up on Yanukovich. “Cutting off European oxygen would mean that the cost of doing business under a Yanukovych presidency would be too high. This is the main leverage that the EU and the US have.”
The oligarchs took the hint and betrayed Yanukovich. The latter is still busy accusing one or the other of them of betrayal.
Back then, during the Maidan, a number of experts urged us not to take the radicals seriously, calling them the puppets of big business. But who really controls whom?
None of the political forces are willing to disclose their sources of funding – this is what is called a delicate topic. However, in Ukraine, various clans waging political wars leak information about each other from time to time. This is how the public has learned many interesting details about the oligarchy’s ties to radicals.
These connections were established long before the events on the Maidan in 2014. In the late 2000s, the radicals had strong ties with Ukraine’s oligarchs: Firtash finances Oleg Tyagnibok and his Nazis from Svoboda party, Arseniy Yatsenyuk (protégé of the Austrian monarch house of Habsburg in Ukraine) and Vitali Klitschko from UDAR party. Igor Kolomoisky and Leonid Chernovetsky also fund the Svoboda party. There is even information that Svoboda was financed by Akhmetov. Pinchuk finances Maidan “heroes” Yatsenyuk and Klitschko (the latter is called Pinchuk’s man).
It is possible for Firtash as a representative of the Yanukovich regime and the main fighter against this regime, Right Sector (organization banned in Russia) leader Dmitry Yarosh to have something in common? Well, in March 2014, Ukrainska Pravda published an article proving that Firtash financed Yarosh.
The Banderites’ coup dramatically changed the balance of political power in Ukraine. As early as April 2014, it was clear that the oligarchs who were behind Yanukovich (but who visit the Maidan, like Firtash and Akhmetov) were clearly losing power after the coup. And hence, money as well: Firtash’s fortune decreased 5-fold from 2013 to 2016. Moreover, immediately after the Banderites’ coup, Firtash was detained in Vienna on suspicion of bribery and creation of a criminal association at the request of the FBI. Firtash resides in Vienna on bail without the right to leave. There have been several attempts to extradite him to the United States. His case is still unresolved.
It should be noted that Akhmetov also lost significantly because of his “insufficient” support of the Maidan. He was not only pushed out of power after the overthrow of Yanukovich. The coup seriously affected his capital: from 2013 to 2017, Akhmetov’s fortune shrank almost fourfold. But unlike Firtash, Akhmetov managed to stop the decline and started to regain his position by 2018.
The Maidan has shown that a cohesive ideologically heated group, at least in a moment of political turbulence, turns out to be far more powerful than “money”
Moreover, the “money” goes cap in hand to this group. Expecting, of course, to regain their positions back when the storm dies down.
On the wave of the Maidan protests, another oligarch Pyotr Poroshenko came to power. He plays the nationalist card to the utmost extent and even dares to quote a renowned Nazi, the spiritual father of the Bandera Nazism Dmitriy Dontsov from the rostrum of the Verkhovna Rada [Ukrainian parliament – translator’s note], and call himself Dontsov’s follower.
In 2014, the oligarch Kolomoisky’s preferences for Banderites also became definitive. Not only did he become the head of the Dnepropetrovsk region on the wave of the Maidan. Kolomoisky, acting in conjunction with Ukrainina Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, created nationalist battalions, he finances them, and he covers their activities in the media. Kolomoisky, we should stress, even got himself listed as a terrorist in the United States. These are the same battalions that rushed into Donbass in the spring of 2014 to massacre Russians and became infamous for their atrocities there.
The Maidan and the formation of the nationalist battalions greatly changed the balance of political power in Ukraine. The role of nationalists in power has increased dramatically. They are no longer marginalized. Just remember the Yatsenyuk government, with large number of radicals from Svoboda, UDAR and other groups represented in it! Near the conclusion of the Maidan, Yarosh demanded control over almost all of Ukraine’s security and military structures (although he did not receive this). Nontheless, Valentin Nalivaychenko from the UDAR party, who had been working in close contact with Yarosh, was appointed the head of the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine – translator’s note).
After the Ukrainian army’s defeats in the Donbass in July and August 2014 – for example the Debaltsevo cauldron – Poroshenko’s power in Kiev began to falter. Radicals, enraged by military failures, were beginning to think about a new coup in Kiev – this time against Poroshenko. Yarosh promised to send his militants to Kiev to storm the government. In September 2014, Boris Filatov, Kolomoisky’s deputy, announced a possible “march of volunteers on Kiev” (volunteers = Nazis).
In November 2014, The Economist published an article reporting that the nationalist battalions are preparing to create a shadow defense ministry that would coordinate the work of the nationalist battalions and take on the task of winning the war in Donbass. Avakov and Kolomoisky were deeply connected to this force, The Economist stresses.
Things did not come to a new coup then. However, Ukrainian radicals were still convinced that Poroshenko had purposely “burned through” the nationalists in Donbass at that time, for fear of losing power.
The change in the balance of power between the oligarchy and the radicals in power in Ukraine after Maidan is eloquently illustrated by the following story.
In late December 2016, Pinchuk published an article in The Wall Street Journal in which he declared the need to make compromises with Moscow. In this article, Pinchuk proposes to postpone the process of European integration for an uncertain time and to abandon the policy on the accession to the NATO. In fact, he also suggests to recognize the new authorities in the DPR and LPR and soften the position on Crimea.
The reaction of the radicals was immediate. Yarosh, who was a member of the Ukrainian Rada at the time, spoke of the “hostile and treasonous statements of the comprador parasite Pinchuk.” And Yarosh did not stop there: he filed a complaint against Pinchuk to the SBU. The SBU opened a case against Pinchuk on aiding terrorism and infringement upon the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
In response, Pinchuk hastily published a retraction of his article, complaining that he had been misunderstood and that the Americans are to blame, since they had abridged his article and distorted its meaning. In other words, Pinchuk completely denied all of his original theses.
So who controls whom: do the oligarchs control the radicals, or is it vice versa?
The next milestone was the current president of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky ascendance to power. It is no secret that the most pro-Banderite of the oligarchs, Kolomoisky, who ensured his enthronement. In this connection, many people have recently been inclined to consider the processes in Ukraine based on a matrix: the confrontation between the Banderite Kolomoisky and his allegedly pro-Russian opponent Akhmetov.
Akhmetov was indeed in conflict with some of the nationalist battalions – if only because Kolomoisky’s influence was high there. He was even accused of financing the civil resistance to Nazism in Donbass. But this does not mean that he can in any way be considered an anti-Banderite.
Back in February 2018, a year before Zelensky came to power, materials proving Akhmetov’s ties to the Nazis appeared on the Web. It turns out that Akhmetov not only finances one of the most odious Nazi structures – the Azov battalion (organization banned in Russia). His connections with Andrey Beletsky, the founder of Azov (organization banned in Russia), the National Corps (organization banned in Russia) and other Nazi structures go much deeper. Akhmetov has put his DTEK corporation’s security service under Beletsky’s control.
To appreciate the importance of this appointment, let us recall that in the 1990s, Russian oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky appointed the former head of the Fifth Main Directorate of the KGB Filipp Bobkov as the head of his analytical department (neither was he a stranger to security functions). It is an example of what is usually called “the tail wagging the dog” in politics. A year before that, in 2017, the media informed that Akhmetov’s opponent Kolomoisky was funding the Right Sector (organization banned in Russia) and that another oligarch, Aleksandr Feldman, was also funding Azov (organization banned in Russia).
One would assume that the oligarchs, fighting among themselves, are trying to bring the various Nazi groups under their control and eliminate this power resource. Nothing of the sort!
In March 2017, the largest Nazi structures in Ukraine: Tyagnibok’s Svoboda, Beletsky’s National Corps (organization banned in Russia), and Yarosh’s Right Sector (organization banned in Russia) created a coalition to form a united party list to run for election to the Rada [in 2019]. The coalition even includes one of the “daughters” of the OUN (organization banned in Russia), the so-called Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (KUN) and the outright Nazi pogromists C14 (organization banned in Russia). They declared that their contradictions were in the past, and they issued a “Nationalist Manifesto.”
The demands listed in this Nationalist Manifesto were later consistently put into practice by President Zelensky, who escalated relations with Russia. Here are just a few points:
Clause 3. “Recognize the Russian Federation as an aggressor state at all levels of world diplomacy. Break diplomatic relations, blockade the occupied territories, stop Russian business activities in Ukraine, apply sanctions on Russian capital, goods and services.” Well, they must have had a second sight. All of this is now implemented.
Clause 4. “Return the right to restore [Ukraine’s] nuclear [weapons]potential as a fundamental basis of national security in connection with the violation of the Budapest Memorandum.” This is exactly what Zelensky demanded at the last Munich Security Conference.
Point 6. “Legislate the right to armed defense and free possession of arms.” Here they are, the territorial defense detachments and tens of thousands of automatic weapons uncontrollably handed out in Kiev.
Point 8. “Cleanse the Ukrainian information space from enemy propaganda. Cultivate traditional values and strengthen national consciousness and dignity. Ensure that the Ukrainian language has the status of the single state language.”
We have learned in recent days what Ukrainian propaganda is: Goebbels could not dream of such a thing. As for the language, Zelensky has also fulfilled this program. Since last autumn, Russian publications in Ukraine must be provided with a translation in Ukrainian, or they would be immediately closed. And last summer, Zelensky went beyond the framework of the “Nationalist Manifesto”: he released a law on indigenous peoples, in which the Russians were removed from the list of peoples native to Ukraine. Which in itself is a legislative formulation for the genocide of the Russians in Ukraine.
Clause 20. “Promote the creation of a single local church with the highest authority in Kiev.” Poroshenko accomplished this by creating the schismatic Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which has completely broken ties with the Moscow Patriarchate and has falln under the jurisdiction of the Constantinople Patriarchate.
As we can see, the Ukrainian government and businesses are becoming increasingly dependent on neo-Nazis. The government has consistently pursued their course of radical Russophobia, which is the core of the Bandera Nazi identity.
But let us return to Akhmetov.
In September 2020, the media again published materials proving that Akhmetov finances Beletsky’s National Corps (organization banned in Russia), “Andrey Beletsky’s ultra-nationalist party has long been ‘in the pocket’ of the Donetsk oligarch,” FromUA wrote. The same article states that the National Corps (organization banned in Russia) receives funding from many oligarchs, but “the biggest contract is with Akhmetov’s structures.”
Akhmetov’s goal, according to the online platform FromUA, is to exert pressure on Viktor Medvedchuk, who began a rapid offensive in the Ukrainian struggle for power in 2019 (after years of political oblivion) and threatened Akhmetov’s positions (both in business and in power). As we remember, the pressure was very successful: Medvedchuk was accused of high treason in May 2021, and in the summer of 2021, he was sentenced to house arrest.
Let us note that, according to texty.org.ua, Akhmetov already had close relations with Azov (organization banned in Russia) in December 2014, when Azov (organization banned in Russia) fighters were sent to guard the Azovstal plant, which belongs to the oligarch. At that time, Azov (organization banned in Russia) also guarded Akhmetov’s Zaporozhstal plant in Zaporozhye.
Meanwhile, many people continued to perceive the ongoing perturbations among the Ukrainian authorities as a conflict between Kolomoisky and Akhmetov. Ostensibly, it looked that way.
The law on oligarchs, clearly aimed against Akhmetov (Kolomoisky later said that he benefited from this law)… The resignation of Rada Speaker Razumkov (Zelensky’s former associate), his rapprochement with Akhmetov and the creation of a new opposition – as a counterattack by Akhmetov’s group… Finally, the sensational announcement by Zelensky on December 25, 2021 that Akhmetov was preparing a coup d’etat.
By early December, Zelensky’s regime found itself in a stalemate, and it resorted to using its last lifeline. In Ukraine, these were the Banderites. Zelensky came to them on bended knee (and previously he didn’t shun them).
In November 2021, Yarosh became advisor to the Chief of Staff of the Ukrainian armed forces. His official task was to build a network of national battalions within the Ukrainian army in view of a potential conflict with Russia. Yarosh himself has spent the last two years implanting Nazis into low-level military structures, such as the territorial defense.
If we think in terms of “money rules the world” and consider what is happening in Ukraine purely as a conflict between Kolomoisky and Akhmetov, then it is natural to expect that immediately after the start of the special operation to denazify Ukraine, Akhmetov would oppose Zelensky’s regime or at least gently distance himself from it.
But that was not the case! Akhmetov flew to Ukraine in mid-February, on the eve of a special denazification operation, at a time when many Ukrainian businessmen fled the country, and gave a press conference in Mariupol. There, he stated that he flew in to “share in his people’s unrest and anxiety” over a possible conflict with Russia. Akhmetov stated that his goal is “a strong, peaceful, single, beautiful and successful Ukraine.”
On February 23, a few hours before the start of the denazification operation, Akhmetov managed to fly to Kiev, meet with Zelensky there and “make peace” with him (as stated in the Ukrainian media), in other words, he swore allegiance to the regime. Zelensky paid his debts, and Akhmetov announced billions of dollars in investments into the Ukrainian economy. In particular, Akhmetov promises to pay a billion hryvnias of taxes in advance – or to simply hand them over to Zelensky’s regime.
“Our main goal is to protect our sovereignty, to protect our territorial integrity, to protect our independence,” Akhmetov says after his meeting with Zelensky. His new friendship with the regime is evidenced by Akhmetov’s words, “We are ready to help the government, we are ready to help the cities where we are present“ (where he has his business).
Then, on February 23, Akhmetov called to return Donetsk and Donbass to Ukraine, “A happy Donetsk, a happy Donbass are only possible in a united Ukraine. If it will not be in the united Ukraine, I, unfortunately, want to say – it will be an unhappy Donbass”. I emphasize that he was saying this after the Ukrainian army had begun its military escalation in Donbass, and the leadership of the DPR and LPR had started the evacuating people to Russia.
By March 4, Akhmetov donated 300 million hryvnias for “humanitarian needs” (according to a number of sources, he also finances the Ukrainian army). In addition, Akhmetov promises to provide free electricity to Ukrainian military units and other security agencies in Kiev, Donetsk, and Dnepropetrovsk regions.
But enough about Akhmetov. Obviously, he completely defected to Zelensky, just as his opponent Kolomoisky did earlier. And both of them became pillars for the Banderite regime during Russia’s operation to denazify Ukraine. I’m not even talking about Poroshenko: the ex-president constantly poses with a gun in his hand against the background of the Ukrainian military. Even Firtash, who is not allowed to travel, appeared in the media with a request to be released from Vienna so that he could come to Ukraine “in this time of crisis”.
As an epilogue, I will cite the latest statement by DPR head Denis Pushilin, which has just been released: Azov (organization banned in Russia) fighters* blew up a residential building in Mariupol, Akhmetov’s home turf, with 200 civilians under the rubble, and with their fate unknown at this time.
Well, even before, for example under Hitler, financial capital thought that it would rule and dominate – and it was wrong. The power of money is limitless only within a certain very narrow liberal-democratic framework. When the country is ruled by a brutal totalitarian regime, which is also set afire by ideology, capital obediently does everything it is told to do.
Everything turned out according to Pushkin – to the self-assured “I’ll buy everything – said the gold,” such power responds, “I’ll take everything – said the sword”.
Source for copy: https://eu.eot.su/2022/04/28/does-money-rule-ukraine-on-the-banderization-of-the-ukrainian-oligarchy/
This is a translation of the article by Andrey Bersenyov first published in the Essence of Time newspaper issue 473 on March 18, 2022.
