Nationalist/rightwing party views on the Russia situation

[Bev]

BNP:

What's going on - and what should Britain do?

With William Hague and other Westminster warmongers traipsing between TV studios to condemn Russian intervention in Ukraine, most clued-up nationalists instinctively reject the controlled media's propaganda.

They are, of course, right. As principled nationalists, we naturally sympathise with the desire of Ukrainians for self-determination and for recognition for the terrible suffering of their people during the genocidal Hunger Holocaust inflicted on them by the Bolsheviks.

But such sentiments do not justify collaboration with the EU and US-based neo-cons, whose long-term aims are to subjugate the whole of Eastern Europe to globalist looting and a Frankfurt School style destruction of traditional identity and culture.

Red terror not 'Russian'

The greatest irony of all is that, while naive Ukrainian nationalists blame Russia for the murder of millions during the 1930s, the Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly not Russian at all, although the majority of their victims were.

Indeed, the radical Jewish racism and supremacism and anti-Christian hatred that in the 1930s produced the Bolshevik terror, now largely find their outlet in the extreme Zionism, anti-white fanaticism and globalism of the neo-cons.

The Ukrainian nationalists who provided the backbone of the recent revolution/coup against the elected but pro-Russian government are undoubtedly sincere, but they have been manipulated, organised, funded and armed by sinister forces in the West, which are in reality very far from being Western.

Cow-towing

Their leaders are not naive; they know exactly what they are doing. This is shown by their accepting weapons from Poland and meeting with leading neo-con puppets from Poland (when their ideological forebears were extremely anti-Polish), and by their high-profile meeting with the Israeli ambassador, where they reaffirmed their commitment to all the usual liberal-left shibboleths, including respect for all minorities - except, of course, Russians.

This explains and justifies the Russian intervention in the Crimea, which as well as being a strategic area within Russia's legitimate sphere of influence is also populated by ethnic Russians.

A fact that the controlled media won't let you know is that the Crimea was Russian until the Soviet leader Kruschev 'gave' it to Ukraine. Thus for Russia to take steps now to retain control of the area is as reasonable as it is inevitable - and entirely consistent with the nationalist principle of self-determination.

Protecting civilians

Further, Ukrainian chauvinists have a shocking record of launching brutal ethnic cleansing massacres of minorities, in the 1940s (mainly Poles and Hungarians, who were targets of the hatred now beginning to be displayed towards Russians). So it is not surprising or unreasonable for Putin to show that he is prepared to intervene to protect the huge Russian population of eastern Ukraine.

Nationalists from all over Europe are in touch with contacts on both sides of this tragic potential European Brothers' War urging restraint.

Ukraine is a long way away, but the peaceful settlement of the unfinished tragic divisions there and indeed in many parts of Europe - created by deliberate divide-and-rule population-mixing by 19th century empires and the insanely unjust 'peace' imposed by the victors of WW1 - matters to us.

We see in Ukraine how such old divisions can and will be exploited by sinister globalist power-grabbers.

Principle for peace

The only just and practical solution which will thwart those who would use old tragedies for their own ends is to recognise the right of self-determination by long-established local majorities.

This has to be negotiated through 'velvet divorces' of the kind carried out between the Czech and Slovak Republics, or by copying the canton system that brought permanent peace to Switzerland.

Foreign powers should stay out, which lf course includes Britain and the USA. Rather than lecturing Putin, the political pygmy William Hague should take the crisis in Ukraine as a warning about the growing danger of 'Balkanization' between different ethnic groups here in Britain.

Ukraine is Russia's business because millions of Russians live there and because it is in Russia's backyard, at a time when neo-con warmongers have an openly stated plan to encircle and dominate Russia.

Keep Britain out!

But what happens there is none of Britain's business. So we oppose the British government putting British jobs at risk or adding to international tensions (and higher fuel prices) by wittering on about 'consequences' for Russia such as sanctions.

And we condemn the hypocrisy of the fortunately equally toothless US for accusing Russia of "invading other countries on bogus pretexts" when those WMDs still haven't turned up in Iraq!

Britain has more than enough problems for our government and our taxes to try to put right. So we should steer well clear of the sabre-rattling over Ukraine, because it's not for us to interfere.

ht tp://w ww.bnp.org.uk/news/national/ukraine-official-statement



Farage/UKIP:

It's the oil and gas stupid! Until we start fracking, Russia will always win, says Farage
THE crisis in the Ukraine shows the power Russia wields by virtue not only of its military might and seat on the United Nations Security Council but vitally, through energy.

CRISIS No wonder Russia feels threatened by the EU s expanding empire says Nigel Farage

With the fall of the USSR and a rapid liberalisation of their markets, Russia was quickly dominated by oil and gas rich oligarchs as keen to flex their muscles in geopolitics as they were to buy luxury houses in Kensington Palace Gardens.

And this domination of energy markets has shown itself to be mightier than the sword across a huge number of international political situations where Russia has had her way. From Georgia to Syria and now the Crimea, it’s the West’s reliance on Russian energy which sits on the shoulder of all politicians as they debate what to do about Russia’s latest hostile actions.

We can see it clearly in the German reaction to the Russian invasion of the Crimea.

To send in troops - particularly without clear markings on their uniforms - is in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

unlike NATO, the EU has a policy of ever expanding borders, regardless of riding roughshod over complex political and cultural situations.

Nigel Farage

Yet Angela Merkel has been reserved and restrained in her dealings with Putin.

This is because German businesses dictate to their politicians what action to take. Germany is a powerhouse because of her successful industry.

Trade sanctions, seen by some as a pretty weak as a reaction to immediate military violence, will not be permitted by Germany because the impact and retaliations would force the shut down of half of German businesses.

The crux of the issue for Merkel is the energy arrangement Germany has with Russia. Germany is linked directly to Russian natural gas reserves through the Nord Stream pipeline.


Some 60 per cent of all German gas imports comes from Russia, as do 40 per cent of its oil needs.

Germany knows well what happened to the Ukraine previously when they defied Russia: all sales were closed off.

It is David Cameron’s policy to openly embrace Ukrainian membership of both NATO and the EU.

But whether we like it or not, many former satellite states of the USSR feel closely tied to Russia and look to Putin as a strong leader.

The make up of the Ukraine shows the pro-Russian East is much larger than the pro-EU West of the country.

And with many Ukrainians speaking Russian and enjoying family ties to the global super power, it is no surprise there has been a backlash to proposals to tie the Ukraine to Brussels.

And it’s understandable that Putin feels threatened by the continual Eastward expansion of the European Union: he has an empire on his doorstep, encroaching on countries containing many Russian speakers and passport holders.

Before the Georgian offensive in 2008 Russia handed out many passports to strengthen its claim that there were large numbers of Russians living there.

But the fact remains that the Ukraine is tied culturally to Russia and exceptionally reliant on her for oil and gas supplies.

When the Ukraine and NATO were in talks, many countries in the Treaty Organisation questioned why Membership Action Plan was taking place since it was ‘a clear departure from the original purpose of the alliance.’

But unlike NATO, the EU has a policy of ever expanding borders, regardless of riding roughshod over complex political and cultural situations.

It’s something that Germany understands, but David Cameron clearly doesn’t.



But then Germany also understands the importance if a secure energy policy which our coalition government and the Labour administration before them ably demonstrated they did not.

We have under us a way of ensuring that we are not reliant on politically unstable - and often bullying - countries for our oil and gas reserves.

Unlike those blasted windmills which smoothly transfer money from the poor to the rich by means of subsidies and green levies, fracking would provide this country with energy and with money which Ukip proposes to put into a Sovereign Wealth Fund, free from the greedy clutches of government departments.

For while the revenues from North Sea Oil went directly to the coffers of the Treasury, we would follow the example set by Norway where today their fund set up to invest revenues from oil and gas is worth around $750billion, 150 per cent of the country's GDP.

ht tp://ww w.express.co.uk/news/uk/463608/Farage-on-Friday-It-s-the-EU-s-ever-expanding-empire-which-has-upset-Vladimir-Putin

Not yet found anything from the NF - if anyone sees anything, can they add it?)