The internal political conflict that Ukraine will be facing when the war ends
Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an expert analyst at Corr Analytics, www.canalyt.com
Cross-posted from Russian & Eurasian Politics
Introduction
It is possible, if not likely that Ukraine’s defeat in the war and its residual effects (collapse of the army, front, and even state) could facilitate neofascists’ rise to power if somehow an anti-Russian and independent Ukraine emerges after the war. Ukraine’s ultra-nationalists or neo-fascists are intensely anti-liberal, anti-republican, and anti-Western. A few years ago, Dmitro Yarosh, founder and then leader or “coordinator’ of Ukraine’s neofascist Right Sector (RS) and later advisor to now fired Ukrainian Armed Forces Commander, Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, who is now Kiev’s ambassador to the UK, promised there would be a ‘second phase of the nationalist revolution’ of which the February 2014 Maidan revolt was supposedly but the first. The second phase is to sweep away the liberal and oligarchic remnants of the pre-Maidan democratic order brought into the Maidan regime, in Yarosh’s view. Similar views are held by Ukraine’s many other ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists, and they have been waiting for the moment to initiate the second phase.
Ukraine’s neo-fascists tolerate Western military and other assistance and therefore influence because there is no choice, given the war. Should they come to power and have the opportunity, they would gladly turn away from the West, its assistance, and its anti-national influences and become a fortress island defending against the Western and Eastern (Russian) hordes. Resentment over broken promises and making Ukraine NATO’s sacrificial lamb to the alliance’s expansion would easily fuel neofascist resentment and hatred towards the West in the event of Ukraine’s final defeat in the war.
On the background of the great ruin of the country that the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War has wrought and the event of Ukraine being forced to capitulate to Moscow or sign a peace treaty that consigns all of the four Ukrainian regions that Russia claims as its own (Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, Kherson, and Crimea) to Moscow, it is highly likely that a segment of the Ukrainian population, perhaps a large one, is likely to turn against the West. This could occur whether or not the ‘nationalist revolution is completed’ in an overt way such as a coup, as ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists hope to come to power. Ukrainians have much to resent regarding the West’s abuse of the desire of many to join the West: political meddling that did not mitigate corruption, pushing NATO expansion despite the visceral opposition to this as a grave national security threat on the part of Ukraine’s great power neighbor, nurturing the February 2014 color ‘revolution of dignity that split the country and sparked civil war, provoking war between Russia and Ukraine by repealing in January 2022 on US President Joe Biden’s December 2021 pledge to Putin that the U.S. would never deploy ballistic missiles in Ukraine, promising Ukraine military assistance ‘for as long as it takes’ so Kiev would abandon the imminent Istanbul peace treaty with Moscow in March-April 2022, the dwindling assistance to Kiev as Russian forces gained the upper hand in the war in late 2023 for American domestic political reasons, and, more recently, pressure to extend Ukraine’s brutally coercive mobilization to the age range of 18-25, which would bring a near catastrophic demographic collapse to a population already depleted by some 30 percent because of war deaths and emigration.[1]
The roots for greater Ukrainian resentment of the West’s limited support lies in the gap between word and deed and occasional glimpses into the selfish motives driving Western actions in Ukraine which are designed to bring benefits to the West purchased in Ukrainian blood and treasure. Western politicians have often stated that it is a ‘good deal’ for Ukrainians to die fighting the Russians so that Westerners do not have to. Yet what kind of ‘Western leadership’ can one speak of when Western politicians repeat ad infinitum that Putin wants to seize all of Europe or at least re-establish the Soviet or Russian Empires after seizes Ukraine. Ukrainians must see this as two-faced hypocrisy; if the threat is so grave then NATO forces should be sent to Ukraine. Of course, most everyone understands that such claims about Putin’s intentions are absurd rhetoric, but those who buy it must resent the hypocrisy and cynical abuse of Ukraine it serves. On this background, it is not surprising that, for example, former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitro Kuleba recently expressed “shock” at the West’s refusal to send troops as Ukraine’s battlefronts collapse, noting: “’People in Europe can be pissed off with me, but I kept saying, and I will keep saying, that the truth is today Russia has a friend ready to send its soldiers to die for Russia[’s] war,’ he said, whereas Ukraine’s friends won’t even send it the weapons it needs.”[2]
Thus, the potential for a post-war Ukrainian turn away from the West to the East would not necessarily be extinguished if more moderate elements come to power in a still independent Ukraine or, as is most likely now, a rump thereof. These elements would now be chastened by the bitter experience with the West that pushed their country to war but then abandoned them by requiring Kiev negotiate with Moscow. This more moderate element more nationalistic and less liberal because of the war experience and consigned to make peace with Moscow could well decide that Ukraine’s national self-interest dictates developing good relations with its powerful eastern neighbor rather than relying in a one-sided manner on unreliable Western partners, the most powerful of which is located half a world away. This could be true even if Russia does not impose a puppet regime in Kiev, and if it does then Moscow will find the task of finding allies and subduing resistance within the Ukrainian populace that much easier.
There has been considerable instability and infighting within the Maidan regime since its seizure of power in February 2014 led by a diffuse coalition of oligarchic, nationalist, ultra-nationalist, neo-fascist, liberal republican, and centrist forces. I have written extensively on the fissures within the oligarchic-nationalist Maidan regime both before and during the present NATO-Russia Ukrainian War. I will not review them here other than two mention a few signal conflicts: Petro Poroshenko versus Ihor Kolomoiskii, ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists versus everyone, Yuliya Tymoshenko versus Poroshenko, Volodomyr Zelenskiy versus Poroshenko (not the election but the latter’s arrest), President Zelenskiy versus Kolomoiskii, Zelenskiy versus Ukrainian Armed Forces chief commander General Valeriy Zaluzhniy, HRU chief Kirill Budanov versus Zaluzhniy, and so many, many more. The point is that there is little ideological or political unity within Ukraine’s political elite and people, and as defeat in the war nears the passions it will release will lead to finger pointing, scapegoating, and the most bitter power struggles seen in the country since the Maidan revolt and its aftermath of civil war. The best armed political-ideological element in Ukrainian politics, especially in the event of the collapse of the state or front, is the ultranationalist and neofascist groups. Many ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists will consider the moment to complete the nationalist revolution to have arrived if Ukraine is defeated by Moscow or negotiates with it to end the NATO-Russia Ukrainian War.
All Power to Ukraine’s Neo-Fascists?
I have written for nearly two years now that “as the position of Ukraine’s army deteriorates” along the entire battle front, “the likelihood of a military insurrection and/or popular revolt becomes quite high.” Therefore:
“(T)he risk of a palace and/or military coup runs high. Forces such as Right Sector, Azov, the Ukrainian Volunteer Corps, and a host of smaller ultranationalist and neofascist parties and organizations, with access to arms could return to Kiev and seize power in tandem with some moderate military officers. After all, these elements have been a source of political violence, mass disturbances, and protests of neofascist intimidation for a decade or more. Indeed, they played the lead role in transforming the peaceful Maidan demonstrations, motivated by European aspirations and distaste for corruption, into a violent false flag terrorist attack that targeted protesters and police, sparking the outrage that led to fall of President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014. There is no reason why they cannot convert a new cycle of upheaval, even chaos into a new overthrow of the political leadership.
“A military coup or military-backed coup could also come about as a result of the disintegration and isolation of one or more large Ukrainian military contingent, which manages to set up a separate or even separatist enclave, for example in western Ukraine or parts thereof, under the patronage and leadership of a local politician, oligarch and/or military commander establishing himself as warlord. In this way and others political schism could spark internecine warfare and civil war.”[3]
Along with the West, the neo-fascists and ultra-nationalists were a major stumbling block to any peaceful modus vivendi with Moscow and Ukraine’s ethnic Russian and Russophone populations, blocking implementation of the Minsk accords, violating its ceasefire conditions, and threatening Ukrainian presidents should they fulfill Minsk or otherwise make peace with Moscow after Kiev initiated the civil war in Ukraine in April 2014. There are new elements playing into to radicals’ hands and driving any potential desperate gambit against the Maidan regime, now led by Volodomyr Zelenskiy, including: anger provoked by death and defeat in war among the many extremists fighting on the Ukrainian side, collapse of the Ukrainian state and its sovereignty at the hands of both Russia and the West, and the creeping dissolution of the army.
Some in the West are now beginning to acknowledge not just Ukraine’s likely or certain military defeat, but also the approaching collapse of the front and the possibility of the same for the state, and they are belatedly turning to ceasefire and/or peace talks as a way out. Even the propagandistic Institute for the Study of War acknowledges that Russia has seized six more times territory in 2024 than in 2023 and 2024.[4] One Kings’ College professor has finally warned that the Ukrainian front and army are on the verge of collapse (www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0dpdx420lo). Collapse of army could lead to revolt by units, especially the more politicized, nationalist units, such as Azov, leading to internecine violence and state collapse. Similarly, the economic dislocation any of these processes could facilitate might also bring state failure. The same is true for the opening of negotiations, which could spark the ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists to revolt.
Even the global neocon outlet The Financial Times has suddenly admitted: “Ukraine is losing on the battlefield.” “Biden administration is aware that its present strategy is not sustainable because “we are losing the war.” “If you get into any negotiation, it could be a trigger for social instability,” says a Ukrainian official. “Zelenskyy knows this very well.” “’There will always be a radical segment of Ukrainian society that will call any negotiation capitulation. The far right in Ukraine is growing. The right wing is a danger to democracy,’ says Merezhko, who is an MP for Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People party. Ukraine is heading into what may be its darkest moment of the war so far. It is losing on the battlefield in the east of the country, with Russian forces advancing relentlessly — albeit at immense cost in men and equipment. It is struggling to restore its depleted ranks with motivated and well-trained soldiers while an arbitrary military mobilisation system is causing real social tension. It is also facing a bleak winter of severe power and potentially heating outages. The Biden administration is aware that its present strategy is not sustainable because “we are losing the war”, says Jeremy Shapiro, head of the Washington office of the European Council on Foreign Relations.”[5]
The infamous Azov is perhaps the leading fighting element among Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists and will be inclined to take desperate measures in the event of a Ukrainian defeat or Russo-Ukrainian peace. Azov-based or fully manned units, such as the 3rd Assault Brigade, increasingly are refusing to carry out orders. Recently, Azov commander Bogdan Koretich forced the authorities to investigate and fire a top general, with Koretich blaming him for more Ukrainian deaths than those inflicted by the Russians.[6] More recently, he stated Azov would reject any peace agreement with the Russians and would accept only a full Ukrainian victory.[7] This came after three statements by Zelenskiy acknowledging the need for an end to the war and intent to draft a peace proposal by year’s end. In the last of these statements, he stated conditions that did not include the return of all 1991 Ukrainian territory and full withdrawal of Russian troops, though all this changed under his ‘Victory Plan.’
Most recently, RS founder and advisor to former Ukrainian army top commander Zaluzhniy, Dmitro Yarosh repeated his call for the completion of the neofascist revolution on his Facebook page: “As it turned out, during the Dignity Revolution and the Russian-Ukrainian War, Ukrainian nationalists became the main factor in the Ukrainian national-liberation struggle in the 21st century… I am a Ukrainian Nationalist – sounds proud both in Ukraine and across the world. The next power after the War for Independence should be nationalist. Otherwise, we will once again be led down an unbreakable cycle of national humiliation, corruption, degeneracy, moral degradation, economic decline, inferiority and defeat… Therefore, after the War for Independence, the wise, courageous and noble should rule in Ukraine. Glory to the Nation!”[8]
Neo-Fascist Anti-Westernism and a Potential Ukrainian Turn East
Ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists are bitterly opposed to Western values and are using Western assistance to fight off the hated ‘Moskal’ and maintain an independent state they can eventually rule with an iron fist. They will shape if not rule any remaining rump of independent Ukraine should there be one. Any such entity will be centered politically on western Ukraine even more than pre-Maidan and even pre-war Ukraine. It is the birthplace and contemporary hotbed of Ukrainian nationalism, ultra-nationalism, and neo-fascism.
The ultra-nationalists’ disdain for the West is really nothing new. Ukrainian nationalist thinking, which has seeped into most parts of the population in one form or another, has little or, as in most cases, no tolerance for liberalism. Right Sector (RS), founded by Dmitro Yarosh on the Maidan, is a classic Banderist neofascist entity. The Ukrainian collective order envisaged by RS’s philosophy rejects the “empires of communism, Russian great-power chauvinism, democratic liberalism and cosmopolitanism” which are inherently “hostile to the Ukrainian nation.” Ukraine is seen as “caught on the edge between two worlds,” and Ukrainian nationalists’ “sacred mission” is to defend the West in “the ongoing struggle against the latest generation of Asian hordes” and “create a new life.”[9]
The program of the other main RS-founding group, the SNA, should not leave a Western or any other reader sanguine. It emphasizes the very same concept of “nationocracy.” Its proposes banning all political parties, organizations, associations and ideological groups. The elite of the Ukrainian ethnic group or nation will hold full power: “Political power is wholly owned by the Ukrainian nation through its most talented, idealistic and altruistic national representatives who are able to ensure proper development of the nation and its competitiveness.” “Supreme power (executive, legislative and judicial) of the Ukrainian state will be in the hands of the head of state, who is personally responsible to the nation’s own blood and property.” Capitalism is to be “dismantled” and democracy is to be “eliminated.” All actions that fail “to comply with obligations to the nation and the state will entail the restriction of civil rights or deprivation of citizenship … The ultimate goal of Ukrainian foreign policy is world domination.”[10]
The SNA’s leader at the time of Right Sector’s formation was Andriy Biletskiy, who prior to running the SNA led the equally ultra-nationalist ‘Patriots of Ukraine,’ the military wing of the UNA, which was in the business of beating immigrants. Biletskiy is now the commander of the notorious Azov Battalion. In a 2010 interview he described his organization as nationalist “storm troopers.”[11] A year later Biletskiy was in prison, after his organization—renamed the SNA—had been involved in a series of shootouts and fights. In 2007, Biletskiy castigated a government decision to introduce fines for racist remarks, noting: “So why the ‘Negro-love’ on a legislative level? They want to break everyone who has risen to defend themselves, their family, their right to be masters of their own land! They want to destroy the Nation’s biological resistance to everything alien and do to us what happened to Old Europe, where the immigrant hordes are a nightmare for the French, Germans and Belgians, where cities are ‘blackening’ fast and crime and the drug trade are invading even the remotest corners.”[12] Although Azov is stridently anti-Russian, there are holes in its seeming unanimity that could play to more toleration of them. For example, while anti-Russianism or rusophobia has replaced anti-Semitism and anti-Sovietism at present, this need not be forever in such circles. Thus, the commander of the 3rd Mechanized Company of the Azov Battalion or 3rd Assault Brigade and awardee of Ukraine’s Golden Cross, Anton “Berserk” Radko, blames the Soviet era famine in Ukraine and elsewhere, the Holodomor, not on the Soviets per se or even the Russian but on the Jews, presumably the Jewish Bolsheviks: “We must not forget nationalities, which are responsible for the hunger. And those are not Russians.”[13]
Nothing has changed in this part of Ukraine’s political spectrum, except perhaps for greater radicalization and rejection of Western values. In a recent Facebook post, Yarosh noted: “Our struggle for God’s values, Ukrainian identification, our State denies all the filth that the ‘multicultural’, ‘gender-equal’, ‘tolerant’ West is trying to impose on us… The Eastern Horde is at war with us, Ukrainians, understanding all the weakness of the collective west… We, fighting for ourselves, do not have to surrender to either the rot of the West or Eastern despotism. We, Ukrainians, need to realize that we can win only when God is with us, and not Satan. The Ten Commandments of God are the landmark of all normal people. Praise God and Nation!”[14]
The war’s devastation and Western perfidy are strengthening the radical nationalist wing of Ukrainian politics: the ultranationalists and neofascists. As Rada deputy Merezhko, representing Zelenskiy’s Slugy naroda (Servants of the People) party is quoted above: “If you get into any negotiation, it could be a trigger for social instability. … There will always be a radical segment of Ukrainian society that will call any negotiation capitulation. The far right in Ukraine is growing. The right wing is a danger to democracy.”[15]
But the nationalists’ strengthening does not guarantee their seizure of power. There is the equally feasible possibility that a more moderate, realistic group – perhaps led by oligarchs and/or sensible military men – that will sue for peace, swallow the bitter pills of lost population, territory, and economies blaming it on the West for convincing Zelenskiy to reject Istanbul, and make a turn back to the east. As one former Zelenskiy Cabinet official told an American journalist that Zelenskiy’s vision of the war‘s end corresponds neither to the West’s or the Ukrainian people’s and that there is an enormous gap between the elite and the population about continuation of the war.[16] The family and friends of the now nearly one million Ukrainians who have lost their lives in this eminently avoidable war will have questions, and those who rejected peace with Moscow and persisted and persist in a lost venture will have no good answers. In Ukraine’s increasingly angst- and revenge-filled atmosphere, there would be nothing unusual or even untoward about a turn against the West.
Non-Western-Centric Foreign Policy Visions
In foreign policy, RS’s program proposes a non-aligned course in the current understanding of that term. Partnership with NATO, the EU, the CIS and other existing international organizations is regarded as “dangerous and destructive.” Ukrainian geopolitical strategy is to be based on something like Pilsudski’s ‘Intermarium’: the creation of a “priority space” encompassing a north-south axis extending from the Baltic Sea to the Caucasus and Black Sea based on countries Ukraine has “historically cooperated with” – Sweden, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey, Georgia).[17] A short course for RS members on the ideology of “nationalist revolution” and “nationocracy” states that the RS is founded on the ideas of OUN, Bandera, among other Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. Specifically, the polity of the “National Order” will be built not on the basis of political competition and parties but on “orders” or brotherhoods designed not to represent various interests but rather to unite the Ukrainian nation in a “Ukrainian Community of Independent States” (Ukrainskaya Sobornaya Samostiynoi Derzhava) or UCCD. In both Ukrainian and Russian, the concept of ‘sobornost’’ means an organic unity that presumes unity of belief and values and precludes conflict between interests within a community. Thus, quoting the nationalist philosopher Ivan Franko, the course notes assert: “Everything that goes beyond the frame of the nation is either hypocrisy or sterile sentimental fiction.” [18] Azov vision for Ukrainian ‘foreign policy’ has been stated by its commander Biletskiy: “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.”[19]
There is no pro-Western vision is in these plans. The world is divided into two camps in different variations, but there is one constant: the superiority of the Ukrainian nation over all else. And these sentiments do not reside only in the farthest reaches of Ukraine’s political spectrum. There are held by people who have been accepted into the Ukrainian mainstream within the elite. Yarosh was a military advisor to Zaluzhniy, who has close relations with Right Sector and its military spinoff: the Ukrainian Volunteer Corps (DUK) modeled ideologically on the World War II era, Nazi-allied Ukrainian Partisan Army (UPA). Biletskiy is commander of Azov, which is one of the Ukrtainian army’s most important military units. Moreover, many of their ideas are shared by or resemble those professed by the numerous other ultra-nationalist and neo-fascist groups in Ukraine such as C13, Svoboda and even moderate nationalist parties such as Yulia Tymoshenko’s ‘Fatherland’ party. Moreover, many neofascists have been elected to the Rada on tickets of moderate parties. Moreover, independently of political personages, ultra-nationalist and neo-fascist ideas have bled into the mainstream and are comfortably tolerated when not fully supported. So a moderate post-war successor to the Zelenskiy government could adopt positions based on non-alignment with West and find practical and cultural reasons to restore decent relations with Moscow.
Neither a neo-fascist regime or their messianic vision becoming a model of post-war Ukrainian foreign policy is needed for the adoption of an a-Western or anti-Western policy of return to the east. Nor do these positions mean necessarily a return to close or even good relations with Russia or a puppet-master relationship. The former outcome in the short- to mid-term aftermath of this conflict is unlikely. The latter – some sort of puppet regime in Kiev – would obviously preclude a nationalist regime of any kind. But a moderate, practical oligarchic regime could come to power in an independent, neutral post-war Ukraine — perhaps by way of a coup led by some within Zelenskiy’s inner circle and/or former president Petro Poroshenko and Gen. Zaluzhniy — and sue for peace. Their subsequent regime could involve the likes of coal magnate Rinat Akhmetov and/or centrist politicians such as Oleg Boiko. It would be more interested in garnering the economic investment opportunities the Sino-Russian BRICS+ and One Road One Belt project might offer for rebuilding Ukraine. China is already heavily invested in land purchases there.
Although Russian puppet regime or Ukraine’s disappearance as an independent state are becoming more likely, peace talks between the future Trump administration and the Kremlin could produce an agreement that allows for an independent, rump and, crucially, neutral and largely military-denuded Ukraine. In such conditions, a clever, practical Ukrainian government might play off the West and the Sino-Russian-led Rest against each other to Ukraine’s benefit, as the overthrown Viktor Yanukovych once did. Now, however, EU membership prospects can be perhaps improved by moving close to BRICS+ either through cooperation or membership, since EU membership does not preclude BRICS+ membership (though BRICS+ membership could preclude EC accession. At any rate, there would be ways to game the two systems before making a decisive commitment either way.
It becomes an exercise in futility trying to imagine a scenario in which a truly neo-fascist regime coming to remains there long in lieu of massive Western backing and a very Russo-Western standoff that somehow remains peaceful ensuring the survival of Ukraine and many of the rest of us. Western backing is unlikely at any rate, since Western publics are tired enough of the corrupt, quasi-neo-fascist Maidan regime in its wartime iteration. Western backing of an outright neofascist regime of the kind a Yarosh or Biletskiy could head or strongly support seems a bridge too far even for today’s unprincipled West. An independent moderate regime or a Russian puppet regime seem more likely outcomes. The former could be formed only in conditions of a Russo-West peace agreement on Ukraine and Europe’s future security architecture. Ukrainian neutrality, which would have to be part and parcel of any such agreement, would hold the potential for a slow return of Ukraine to the east, maintaining self-interested and cordial relations with Moscow and the West, and Kiev’s joining the new Eurasian order.
Be the first to comment