Here is a guest article by an author of the preeminent nationalist publication Counter Currents. This author who goes by Nicholas R. Jeelvy has written many articles concerning western attitudes towards the changing geopolitical situation. This guest article N R Jeelvy wrote showcases in a concise way how Western audiences need to band with out Ukrainian Nationalist brothers to together defeat the rising tide of Globalism in the east, as well as the west. Here is Why the West should support Ukraine by Nicholas R Jeelvy:
When the Russian Federation began its invasion of Ukraine on February 24th, it struck a heavy blow not only against Ukraine, but also among the community of nationalists and racialists in the West. What used to be a broad movement of people who generally agreed with each other about the problems facing the modern West and the white race was split in two, with the dividing line being support of Ukraine or Russia in the current war. The reasons for supporting Ukraine or Russia are many and not all of them can be addressed in a single piece, but here I’d like to address one reason why certain Western nationalists have for supporting the Russian Federation, or at least withholding support from Ukraine, that they put their own people first, before Ukrainians and that support of Ukraine in this conflict will injure the interests of their people, or in some cases, arguing that support of Russia will uphold the interests of their people.
We are nationalists. This means we put our own people first. We conceive of the nation as an extended family and our people as family members to be helped, protected and sacrificed for. If a nationalist believes that supporting the Ukrainian cause would injure his own people’s interests, I cannot fault him for that – I too put my own people first. However, I modify my nationalism with racialism, which means that I consider all white people on the planet to be part of my extended family, worthy of help, protection and certainly worthy of sacrifice. Of course, white people of other nations are more distant kin than people of my own nation, and as such I am less willing to sacrifice for them, but the will to sacrifice is certainly not zero and certainly more than for non-whites. So, for example, I’d be willing to accept a somewhat decreased standard of living for the duration of one year for my people, if it meant saving the lives of Ukrainians and helping them win this war by decoupling European supply chains from Russia. This is incidentally the same tradeoff which has been offered to Europe in 2022 and I am glad to say that the European people have gladly paid this price so that their racial kin in Ukraine may survive and defend themselves.
However, my message is not to the racialist thinker, but the older form of nationalist, someone who would not be willing to sacrifice his own people’s standard of living for the lives of racial kin in Ukraine or elsewhere in Eastern Europe. I wish to disabuse these people, insofar as they can be disabused from the notion that the interests of their countries can be defended by allowing Russia to destroy Ukraine.
Let’s start with an easy and almost self-explanatory argument. Eastern European countries and especially former Warsaw Pact countries have a direct security concern about Russian expansion and imperialism. One doesn’t have to be a geopolitical expert in order to see why the destruction of Ukraine would directly threaten Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Romania, Moldova, Hungary, Slovakia or the Czech Republic. These countries have, among others, been directly subject to Russian and Soviet imperialism within living memory. A Russian victory of Ukraine would put them in direct danger of attack and invasion. Conversely, a Ukrainian victory over Russia would push back the primary threat to their security and sovereignty as well as severely degrade its capacity for aggression. Indeed, were Ukraine to defeat the Russian military and its various proxies and private military allies and push them out of the occupied territories, including the separatist Donbass provinces and occupied Crimea, the aforementioned countries would be able to breathe a collective sigh of relief. For this reason, Polish, Baltic, Romanian and in general Eastern European support of Ukraine has been very strong – a victory for Ukraine is clearly and unequivocally a victory for those countries.
In a similar though not quite the same position as these countries are those nations in the Balkans which have in the past found themselves as subjects of Serbian and Yugoslav imperialism. There is a fear of a resurgence of Serbian imperialism, insofar as a Russia emboldened by a victory in Ukraine would support it. For this reason, Croats, Macedonians, Bosnians and others who have an interest in preventing such a scenario have a clear reason for supporting Ukraine, especially in light of the fact that the rhetoric of Serbian imperialism has an eerie parallel to the Russian narrative about Ukraine. Hysterical caterwauling about “Nazi Ustasha” and “fake nations” emanates from Belgrade every now and then, reminding the surrounding nations that the Balkan wars have not ended, but are merely on hold. A Russian victory, however, isn’t guaranteed to embolden Serbia to wage its own wars of aggression against its neighbors. One can always hope that the Serbian people accepting their own nature as a white nation and disavow further brother wars, while coming to recognize Russia’s perfidy with regard to the countries it cynically and falsely calls allies.
This leaves us with the countries of Western and Southern Europe which are geographically distant from Russia and thus less likely to come under threat. These countries are also distant from Ukraine and as such may not have the shared history or kinship characteristic of neighbor nations which the East has with Ukraine. As such, these peoples may not feel particularly threatened by Russia, or particularly obligated to sacrifice for Ukraine. I am here to demonstrate to nationalists of those countries that support for Ukraine and the defeat of Russia is in the interest of their own people as well.
The most common argument is a variation of the isolationist position. The white people of Western Europe and North America, Germany, France, Britain, America, Canada etc. have no quarrel with Russia and no reason to decrease either put themselves at risk of conflict with Russia or suffer economic hardship as a result of sanctions or decoupling Russia from the industrial and supply chains. Additionally, since Ukrainians are not of their nation, they have no reason to sacrifice for them. Why should a Briton or Frenchman put his wealth and heat security at risk for some foreigners in a far-off place who are being attacked by a large, powerful and economically strong country? A variation, which tries to retain a semblance of racialism is a nordicist position, which argues that Ukrainians and other Slavic and Eastern European peoples are not of the same race as Western or Northwestern Europeans and as such are owed no racial solidarity.
First, let us rebut the isolationist argument. It is purely nationalist, containing no racialist thinking, indeed, it constitutes a refutation of racial political organisation. If your position is that white people of different white nations owe each other no solidarity and no sacrifice, then you may be many things, but you are not a white nationalist or a racialist. That is of course, your right and I won’t judge you morally for not holding the racialist position. However, I have practical objections to this position. Both racialists and nationalists have the same group of enemies – those we like to call globalists. They come in many variations, some are Western, others Russian, still others are Chinese. Sometimes they work together, sometimes they compete for power and influence. All seek to destroy the white race and homogenise the world’s population into a featureless, ugly, brown goop. All groups of globalists are also very powerful and require the full resources and commitment of white nationalists and racialists to defeat. I believe that this group of evil men is mortal and vulnerable to defeat, but it is going to require cooperation and unity among white nationalists and racialists on an unprecedented scale to do so. However, if we accept the isolationist position, all that is necessary is for our enemies to prevail is to attack us one by one. One of the most valuable rhetorical victories of the early war was the portrayal of the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an attack on Europe. Indeed, the early Russian battle plans failed because they assumed that Ukraine would fall too quickly for Europe to respond as well as that Europe’s response would be weaker, that Europe would not consider an attack on Ukraine to be an attack against itself. Had the response been what Russia had anticipated, it is likely that Ukraine would have been destroyed and subjugated and that Russia would be now preparing to attack Poland, Moldova or one of the Baltic states.
The very nature of the European response has increased European security. By showing a willingness to sacrifice weapons, funds and cheap fuel from Russia for the defense of Ukraine, Western Europe has decreased the threat to itself as well as Eastern Europe. It has decreased the probability of hostile action against itself. Had European nationalists responded similarly to European states, with a willingness to help their racial kin in Ukraine and their ideological allies – Ukrainian nationalists, we would be safer from persecution from our traitor governments and their globalist masters. It is one thing to attack a single organization, or a confederacy of organizations in a single state, it’s quite another thing to attack a Europe-wide movement, which in some countries is part of the political and security establishment. The great irony here is that nationalists in Northwest Europe and North America, who have the least institutional power have managed to cut themselves off from nationalists in Eastern Europe, who have the most institutional power. This war will pass, but Azov Regiment will remain a part of the Ukrainian security apparatus, Ruuben Kaalep will remain leader of the largest parliamentary group in the Estonian parliament and all this institutional power which could be shared with brothers in the West will remain untapped because people were short-sighted and could not understand the basic insight of fascism – that individually we may be weak, but together we are unbreakable.
But who could blame people for failing to understand this when even the original fascists and National Socialists, though they understood the insight, failed to apply it in geopolitical practice and the price they paid for this failure was their defeat on the Eastern Front at the hands of the Bolshevik horde. It was German anti-Slavism, unrelated to and unnecessary to National Socialist doctrine which doomed German efforts to rid the world of the Bolshevik threat, but making enemies out of previously friendly Ukrainians, Russians and other people of the East who were eager to take up arms against the Soviet monstrosity. I will quote my friend Asier Abadroa here, whose article on the Reich’s greatest mistake should be read by all white nationalists and racialists.
“Thus, by far the most colossal mistake made by the Third Reich was to exclude a fundamental part of the white race from their revolution. Instead of waging a war of liberation to free the Russian people from the Jewish claws, “Operation Barbarossa,” the name under which the USSR was invaded, was approached as a simple preventive war — striking before the USSR could attack Germany, which was what Stalin planned to do — and as conquest for Lebensraum. This error is doubly tragic if we think of the positive reception the Germans initially received on Soviet territory and how relatively easy it initially would have been to engage in political warfare by inciting sabotage, revolt, and a change of sides — but unfortunately, there were no such efforts until it was too late.”
The nordicists try to convince me that Eastern Europeans are not their racial kin. “Slavs are not white,” they proclaim. I won’t deny that there are great differences between Northwestern and Eastern Europeans, more still with Southern Europeans. Broadly, we can divide the white race into the Nordic, Alpinid, Mediterranean and Slavic subracial groups. However, I will point out that the last time we allowed such divisive beliefs to fester in a racialist movement to save Europe, it resulted in unnecessary alienation of the continent’s east and ultimate defeat of the European cause, a defeat from which our race is yet to recover.
Fascism’s great insight, that men are stronger when they hold together and help each other is also true of peoples, nations, organizations and it can be applied on the racial scale. Since white people are targeted for destruction, we must unite to fight back against these attacks. However, since we’re also a race famous for its love of freedom and independence, we must not try to mash the peoples of Europe together into homogeneity, but rather respect each others’ right to autonomy and sovereignty, as well as the right to remain distinct, with our language, culture and unique genetic profile intact. The way forward, therefore, is the way of alliances, of brotherhood, of collective security and of mutual aid. In these dark days when Ukraine is under attack, our brotherhood is being tested. Some have failed this test and shown themselves unworthy. I wish now to give them a second chance, having demonstrated that by supporting Ukraine, they are also helping secure their own survival and future security. Together we can vanquish all our enemies and ensure our victory, thereby fulfilling our noble task of protecting our people from those who would destroy them.
More of Nicholas R Jeelvy can be found here at Counter Currents: https://counter-currents.com/tag/nicholas-r-jeelvy/