Worsening of the current geo-political crisis: new aggression of the Moscovian Imperialism against the Ukrainian People and its State

Worsening of the current geo-political crisis: new aggression of the Moscovian Imperialism against the Ukrainian People and its State

Felipe Campo

“[...] Already Boris Nolde – almost at the beginning of the [twentieth] century – wondered how a small Nordic State of the sixteenth century [the Principality – Kniaz/Kniazhestvo – of Muscovy] had managed in less than four centuries to become a vast Empire that does today occupy half of the European continent and one-third of the Asian continent, that is, a sixth of the world.

“If we carry out a statistical analysis – so akin to the technified historians of our days – we will surprisingly verify that, from the fifteenth century to the present day, Russia has annexed territories in a proportion of approximately 80 square kilometres per day, covering to date an area of about 17 million square kilometres. This process had an accelerated advance in the twentieth century, when the Soviet Union annexed a proportion of 3,000 km2 per day between 1940 and 1950. It is important to note that, at the same time, the colonialist nations of the West, especially Great Britain and France, carried out the reverse process. [We must make an aside here to point out that, as far as France is concerned, this process took place in the face of the bloody military opposition of that metropolis against the independence of its colonies, which led to the wars in Viet Nam and Algeria in those and the following decades, as we shall see.]

[...]

“In order to explain the process of Russian expansion over time we have used the worn-out concept of ‘imperialism’ because we consider that it clearly reflects the characteristics that we will point out through the work, clarifying what we mean by it [the aforementioned concept of imperialism]: ‘a movement of indefinite expansion, of world scope, of a political and economic character at the same time, accompanied by the mystical belief in a world superiority, which confers duties and rights vis-à-vis other peoples’. [...]

“Having made the pertinent clarifications and delimited the context of our work, we believe it is appropriate to point out that we set the following specific objectives in the research:

-        To empirically demonstrate, throughout the history of Russia, the existence of a process of expansion (not the reasons for it).

-       To demonstrate that it – with the corresponding variants of each era – has been a constant in the history of Russia. And

-     To demonstrate that its historical development was based on different theories that have moved, sustained or justified it.” Etc. (Florencio Hubeñak; ‘Rusia. Teoría y praxis del imperialismo’, his doctoral thesis, 2001. Translated into English from the original text in Spanish by the author of this article.)

*

On January 27th we published on this page a note entitled ‘About the current geo-political crisis’, in which an excerpt from our text ‘The hegemonic crisis’ was exposed in its most significant general lines on the subject. All this has been tragically confirmed and aggravated by the current war of aggression of the so-called “Federation of Russia” against the Republic of Ukraine, a continuation of its previous aggression carried out in February-March-2014, which deserves some more detailed comment.

Under the Budapest Memorandum on Security Guarantees, signed at the Conference of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Budapest on December 5, 1994, Ukraine undertook to surrender all its nuclear weapons to the “Federation of Russia”, and so it did. In return, the other signatories of the Memorandum: Usonia (United States Of North Independent America), the United Kingdom and the “Russian Federation”, undertook to guarantee the security and integrity of the State of Ukraine. China and France gave somewhat weaker assurances in separate documents.

But now those Powers have thrown all that into the waste-paper basket and have left Ukraine alone in the face of the Moscovian war of aggression, which violates that Memorandum and all International Law; and they try to cover their shame with the nonsense – constantly and systematically repeated on television – that “Ukraine does not belong to the NATO”. An absurd excuse with which they hypocritically try to wash away their obvious bad conscience (since that did not prevent them from bombing Belgrade), and to divert the world's attention from the real underlying issue they want to hide, which consists of the flagrant breach of the obligations they contracted under the Budapest Memorandum. (By the way, Belarus and Kazakhstan also signed – as did Ukraine – similar agreements in Budapest, and now they will have to keep their own house in order; especially Belarus, which is being a base of operations for Moscow's aggression against Ukraine.)

Prior to this Memorandum, the contemporary International Law that began to be formulated since the end of World War II had condemned the war of aggression in the harshest terms, beginning with the Judgment of the Tribunal that tried the Nazi Criminals in Nuremberg:

“The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War [of aggression] is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent States alone but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” (Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals that followed World War II; Nüremberg, 30th September and 1st October, 1946; see: “The Common Plan or Conspiracy and Aggressive War”.)

For its part, the United Nations General Assembly made it clear its condemnation of the war of aggression:

“The General Assembly, [...],

Convinced that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a major obstacle to the promotion of international peace and security,

Convinced that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to contemporary International Law, and that its effective application is of paramount importance for the promotion of friendly relations among States, based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality, [...],

Solemnly proclaims the following principles:

The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations [...].

   A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace for which there is responsibility under International Law. [...]

   Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence.

   Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed gang, including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State. [...].

   [...] No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal. [...].

[And in the GENERAL PART],

“2. Declares that: In their interpretation and application the above principles are interrelated and each principle should be construed in the context of the other principles.

   Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed as prejudicing in any manner the provisions of the Charter or the rights and duties of Member States under the Charter or the rights of peoples under the Charter, taking into account the elaboration of these rights in this Declaration.

3. Declares further that: The principles of the Charter which are embodied in this Declaration constitute basic principles of international law, and consequently appeals to all States to be guided by these principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the strict observance of these principles.” [UNGAR 2625 (1970)]

Half a century earlier, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had expressed himself in Parliament as follows:

“[...] There is no security in any land without certainty of punishment. There is no protection for life, property, or money, in a State where the criminal is more powerful than the law.

“The law of nations is no exception; and until it has been vindicated, the peace of the world will always be at the mercy of any nation whose professors have assiduously taught it to believe that no crime is wrong so long as it leads to the aggrandizement and enrichment of the country to which they owe allegiance.

“There have been many times in the history of the world CRIMINAL STATES. We are dealing with one of them now. And there will always be criminal States until the reward of INTERNATIONAL CRIME becomes too precarious to make it profitable, and the punishment of international crime becomes too sure to make it attractive.’ (From the Address of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Mr. David Lloyd George; 14-December-1917. Emphasis added.)

The United Nations’ Organization, for its part, has spoken out unequivocally on international crimes:

“The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 2583 (XXIV) of 15 December 1969, 2712 (XXV) of 15 December 1970, 2840 (XXVI) of 18 December 1971, and 3020 (XXVII) of 18 December 1972,

Taking into account the special need for international action in order to ensure the prosecution and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity,

Having considered the draft principles of international co-operation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity,

Declares that the United Nations, in pursuance of the principles and purposes set forth in the Charter concerning the promotion of cooperation between peoples and the maintenance of international peace and security, proclaims the following principles of international cooperation in the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity;

1. War crimes and crimes against humanity, wherever they are committed, shall be subject to investigation and the persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed such crimes shall be subject to tracing, arrest, trial and, if found guilty, to punishment.

2. Every State has the right to try its own nationals for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

3. States shall co-operate with each other on a bilateral and multilateral basis with a view to halting and preventing war crimes and crimes against humanity, and shall take the domestic and international measures necessary for that purpose.

4. States shall assist each other in detecting, arresting and bringing to trial persons suspected of having committed such crimes, and, if they are found guilty, in punishing them.

5. Persons against whom there is evidence that they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity shall be subject to trial and, if found guilty, to punishment, as a general rule in the countries in which they committed those crimes. In that connection, States shall cooperate on questions of extraditing such persons.

6. States shall cooperate with each other in the collection of information and evidence which would help to bring to trial the persons in paragraph 5 above and shall exchange such information.

7. In accordance with article 1 of the Declaration on Territorial Asylum of 14 December 1967, States shall not grant asylum to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity.

8. States shall not take any legislative or other measures which may be prejudicial to the international obligations they have assumed in regard to the detection, arrest, extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.” Etc. [UNGAR 3074 (1973)]

And in the same way that we can speak of criminal States, we can already speak of Terrorist States. Let’s see. After the Second World War, and in the first formulations of international organizations, the concept of terrorism “was” limited to non-State perpetrators. The concept of “external” terrorism: inter-national or trans-national, implied a multi-national scope of terrorism but always preserving the same idea that the terrorist agent was non-State, and excluding the authorship of terrorism carried out by States. However, the notion of State Terrorism, or of the Terrorist State, with a State as the perpetrator of acts of terrorism, “reappears” later. The idea of international terrorism (between nations) also appears, with a “terrorist State” as its author:

“The Security Council, Deeply disturbed by the world-wide persistence of acts of international terrorism in all its forms, including those in which States are directly or indirectly involved, which endanger or take innocent lives, have a deleterious effect on international relations and jeopardize the security of States,” etc. [S/Res/731 (1992)]

“The Security Council, Deeply disturbed by the world-wide persistence of acts of international terrorism in all its forms, which endanger or take innocent lives, have a deleterious effect on international relations and jeopardize the security of States, [...] Convinced that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including those in which States are involved, is an essential element for the maintenance of international peace and security,” etc. [S/Res/1044 (1996)]

“The Security Council, [...] Reaffirming that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including those in which States are involved, is essential for the maintenance of international peace and security,” etc. [S/Res/1070 (1996)]

It also follows that “mandatory sanctions may be imposed against States that engage in or possibly support such activities”.

It is incomprehensible that the Government of Ukraine did not publicly air before the whole world the obligations of the guarantor States under the Budapest Memorandum, and that it did not demand that Usonia and the United Kingdom – and China and France – should comply with them, when it saw the terrorist threat of the “Russian Federation” by accumulating near its borders an immense concentration of troops, weapons and logistics aimed at invading the State of Ukraine. On the contrary, the statements of its President Zelensky: to the total detriment of the lawful interests and security of Ukraine, consisted in not talking at all about these obligations; in downgrading – if not denying – the relevance of the reports that were provided to him on those alarming and unequivocal war preparations (which included supply units, field hospitals, etc.); and in saying that practically nothing was happening there, all in a total agreement with Putin's propaganda and lying statements, according to which nothing was happening other than “Western hysteria”. Statements that of course were perfectly consistent with his criminal projects of aggression, at the service of his aspirations for imperialism and hegemony over Europe.

(These are the disastrous dangers that derive from amateurism in politics, conceived as a ‘show’ carried out by unprepared “politicians” launched by the mass media as a fashionable product. The dignity and courage that President Zelensky is currently showing: which honour him and magnify his figure in these moments of tragedy for his Country, unfortunately do no longer serve to stop the horror of the crimes unleashed and long prepared by the criminal imperialistic and Mafia-Kagebist régime of Putin-Lavrov/Peskov-Zakharova against Ukraine; of which he was warned but did not want to believe it despite having it before his eyes.)

From among the aforementioned guarantors of its security and integrity in the Budapest Act, what could Ukraine expect from the “communist” – despotic-Asiatic, imperialistic and totalitarian – régime of China, which has been watching with interest the outcome of this event and then applying it to its own criminal, imperialistic and colonialist expansionism over the Peoples and States of Taiwan, Tibet and East Turkestan (not forgetting Manchuria and South Mongolia): subjected to a permanent violation of their fundamental human rights and above all of their international right to self-determination or independence, under the occupation or threat of military occupation by China? Certainly nothing, like the imperialistic ally of Putin – not of the Peoples of the so-called “Russian Federation” – that this régime is. (See our text ‘El Imperialismo Chino contra el derecho de autodeterminación de los Pueblos’, published on this blog on August 6, 2022.)

But the weakness and the lack of morality of the rulers of Usonia, the United Kingdom and France, in the face of Putin's expansionism against Ukraine since 2014, is inexcusable. They have practically consisted of an invitation to Putin to do what he wanted to do in and with Ukraine (since they adopted as their own the policy of capitulation and “appeasement” before him sponsored by the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel); and, during all these years, they have been similar to their capitulation and “appeasement” to Hitler in the Munich Agreement of September 30, 1938, to the detriment of Czechoslovakia. Shame! The spirits of those murdered and the lives broken by the criminals Hitler and Putin: in Czechoslovakia and the rest of Europe since 1938, in Georgia since 2008, in Ukraine since 2014, and in the carpet bombing of cities in Syria since 2015 to support the criminal régime of this Country, cry out for revenge together with all the innocent victims of imperialism, always rampant in the face of cowardice, selfishness and the “cunning” of miserable politicians:

“Here, Nazi Germany [as they could have said – and would no doubt say – of Francoist Spain: their ally and protégé, always respected by the ‘Western democracies’] is regarded as a very useful battering ram against Bolshevism; on the contrary, Czechoslovakia hardly has spokespeople at this meeting, as few as in the conservative press.

[This comment refers to the coterie that formed the so-called 'Cliveden Set': weekend meetings held in England during the summer of 1938 at the Cliveden mansion, attended by a certain elite and the British conservative political class who supported the 'Appeasement Policy' with Hitler, and whose regular guests included Prime Minister Lord Neville Chamberlain and his Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax.]

“In the summer of 1938, some British newspapers – such as the Daily Express and the Daily Mail – reproached the Czechs for having taken too long to make the necessary concessions, thus putting the world in danger of being plunged into another world war; thus, from that point of view the Czechs had lost a lot of popularity. It was thought that it was up to them to make the necessary concessions to secure peace in Europe; that they were the ones who put the world on the brink of war by insisting on maintaining that strip of land: ‘give up the Sudeten territory to Hitler, and then he will leave the rest of the world in peace’, many thought like this. Among Cliveden guests was also the Editor of The Times, Geoffrey Dowson, and in early June [1938] he wrote in his editorial that the only possible way out was to cede the Sudetenland to the German Reich.”

“To cede the Sudetenland to the German Reich”... just as since 2014 there has been proposed to close the eyes to Putin's demands and the aggressions and annexations of the Moscovian Imperialism – Crimea, Donbas – against the Ukrainian People and State; believing equally stupidly and suicidally “that this way Hitler/Putin will leave the rest of the world in peace”.

Apparently, the alleged “invitation” to Putin we have referred to has been understood by him: completely at his own risk and without the slightest caution, of course, as a new edition of the deceptive “permission” that Saddam Hussein believed he had received – and that he probably received verbally – from the Western Powers and above all from Usonia so as to enter Kuwait militarily, in August 1990, and to carry out the reunification of that former province with the State of Iraq of which it had always legitimately been a part; something that the genuine popular uprisings of the 30s – especially in 1938 – had requested in the face of the interventionism of the British, aimed at the secession of that territory by their colonialist interests.

The “international intervention” that followed that operation of Iraq caused, in addition to the horrific crimes against humanity represented by the bombing of Baghdad in January-February 1991, an immense damage to the credibility of those Powers as pretended defenders of the sake of human rights and democracy (even more so because of their subsequent aggression in the War against Iraq in 2003: “justified” with falsehoods and deceptions about its alleged “weapons of mass destruction”), to the point of devaluing the warnings that Ukrainian President Zelensky received from them about Muscovy’s imminent aggression against that Country.

But in this case now, and quite differently as we will see, Putin’s project to annex Ukraine to Muscovy is built on the basis of the mystified conceptions of Moscow’s Nationalist-imperialistic historiography, supported by the demands of its Colonists and the Ukrainian Renegades; and it had no other “justification” than the eternal colonialist imperialism of Moscow over that Country and all its neighbours, as evidenced by the work of the historian Florencio Hubeñak to whom we have alluded at the beginning of this text. Unfortunately, the example of Saddam Hussein has not induced the slightest prudence in the current Moscovian leader despite the warnings of devastating sanctions for his Country, in the event that he attacked Ukraine; warnings that were absolutely public, clear and sincere at all times.

In short, the hope that Putin would put himself into the Nationalist delusion of re-establishing the tsarist-Bolshevik and now Putinist Moscovian Empire: again restored without any interposed “Soviet” ideological subterfuge and voiced by him simply as “Russia!” (‘Rossiya, Rossiya'!); and that he would undertake the criminal and never abandoned enterprise of subjugating Ukraine, in order – on that basis – to have then the justification and the legal possibility of ruining the so-called “Russian Federation” through a lasting war of attrition, both military and economic, against its criminal régime, is an explanation of what has happened that is presented as perfectly plausible and that has the appearance of having worked perfectly well.

But, in any case, it is undeniable that the unilateral aggression and crimes of the "Russian Federation": committed against the Ukrainian People and State since February-March 2014 and “justified” on the historical-sociological falsifications of the Moscovian imperialistic Nationalism that Putin has decided to exploit, all of this is the exclusive responsibility of Vladimir Putin; and it will cause the Ukrainian Peoples above all, but also the Peoples dominated under the Moscovian Empire and their European neighbours, the same misfortunes that Hitler's similar imperialistic hallucinations caused to the German People and to those same neighbours. (Incidentally, the oil that moved both the Nazi tanks in the Blitzkrieg against Poland and then against the Netherlands, Belgium and France, as well as the Nazi planes during the Battle of Britain, was provided to Hitler by Stalin after the German-Soviet Pact signed between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union on August 23, 1939.)

*

As indicated at the beginning of this text, the Moscovian imperialistic and expansionist Nationalism is a unilateral historical enterprise of aggression and domination of other Peoples, Countries and States, which has been going on uninterruptedly since at least the sixteenth century to the present day. The “Russia” we know today maintains the same conception of the world that this State has always maintained; with the inevitable sociological changes that the evolution and development of the times have brought about. The current régime of Muscovy is not an aberration, nor is it even an anomaly or deviation from the Muscovy régime model of always: autocratic, militaristic, repressive, and enemy of a West that is perceived as a whole as a – cultural and political – “threat” both to its own expansion over other Countries, as well as to the maintenance of its totalitarian State also within “Russian” society itself. A totalitarian State that is intrinsically necessary for the maintenance of its imperialistic-fascist system of domination and military occupation over other Peoples and States. Without the West having done anything to bring about this reality, and long before NATO existed: which is now presented by Putin as the reason for his aggression against Ukraine, “Russia” was already like that.

In fact, as early as December 1939, the League of Nations decided to expel the alleged “Soviet Union” from its bosom two weeks after that State had begun its war of aggression against Finland in the so-called “Winter War”: the result of its non-aggression pact signed in August of that year with Hitler's Nazi Germany for a new joint partition of Poland and the Moscovian annexation of all the Baltic States; and this without there being any NATO in between. It is therefore not clear why the UNO – the successor of that League – should not now do the same with the so-called “Russian Federation” – officially the successor of the USSR – for its war of aggression against the Ukrainian People and its legitimate State, of whose independence and integrity that “Federation” was a guarantor by the Budapest Memorandum.

On the other hand, it is also necessary to denounce the calculated crime against the non-Russian Peoples who are being used as cannon fodder in this aggression against Ukraine: Buryats, Chechens, etc.; an ethnic cleansing or directly a genocide with which Putin is destroying those Peoples (seen as obstacles to the Moscovian imperialism), while preserving his own people from paying a tribute of blood as a price for his imperialism:

“The blood tribute and extortion has always been part of the tribute and extortion that imperialism does always and necessarily impose on the subjugated Peoples. Given their contemporary scarcity, as a result of the process of Peoples’ liberation, the resurgence of the new professional armies has given a new impetus to the recruitment of mercenaries – either permanent or contractual – who continue ‘trading with their body’ and with their life, and ‘voluntarily’ paying with blood the price of imperialism and colonialism in the new globalized ‘liberal’ world.

“The question of mercenaries has acquired a renewed importance with modern colonialism and the new professional armies, always at the expense of the previously under-developed Peoples. Under the procedure of compulsory military service, the armed forces are recruited by means of violence in order to exercise violence; and the professional armies do the same on a commercial basis. The metropolitan empires have always appreciated in their proper value the troops of the occupied and colonized Peoples: particularly as cannon fodder for their criminal confrontations and expansion enterprises, in which these troops provide the dead and wounded; with which imperialism gains doubly. Against this:

“The General Assembly, [...] Reaffirming the declarations made in General Assembly resolutions 2548 (XXIV) of 11 December 1969, and 2708 (XXV) of 14 December 1970, that the practice of using mercenaries against national liberation movements in the colonial Territories constitutes a criminal act, [...], Solemnly proclaims [...]; 5. The use of mercenaries by colonial and racist régimes against the national liberation movements struggling for their freedom and independence from the yoke of colonialism and alien domination is considered to be a criminal act and the mercenaries should accordingly be punished as criminals” etc. [UNGAR 3103 (1973)]

“According to Article 47 of the Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, (June 1977): “1. A mercenary has no the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war”. And furthermore:

“The General Assembly, [...] Recalling also its resolutions 2465 (XXIII) of 20 December 1968, 2548 (XXIV) of 11 December 1969, 2708 (XXV) of 14 December 1970, 3103 (XXVIII) of 12 December 1973, and 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974 on the use and recruitment of mercenaries against national liberation movements and sovereign States, [...]; 7. Reaffirms that the practice of using mercenaries against national liberation movements and sovereign States constitutes a criminal act and that the mercenaries themselves are criminals, and calls upon the Governments of all countries to enact legislation declaring the recruitment, financing and training of mercenaries in their territory and the transit of mercenaries through their territory to be punishable offences and prohibiting their nationals from serving as mercenaries, and to report on such legislation to the Secretary-General;” etc. [UNGAR 33/24 (1978), and 35/35 (1980)]

(See Chapter XV – ‘Imperialism vs. International Law (XV)’, of our general work ‘EUSKAL HERRIA AND THE KINGDOM OF NABARRE, OR THE BASQUE PEOPLE AND ITS STATE, AGAINST FRENCH-SPANISH IMPERIALISM’.)

In any case, when the tragedy in Ukraine is consummated by the lack of resolution and moral principles of “the Western democracies” in 2014: a reality that Putin and the Chinese took note of, those Countries are now alarmed by Putin’s threats against Finland and Sweden. Well, in view of this, it is necessary to remind them again of a few words about dishonour, said in a situation that is in every way similar to the current one: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.” (Winston Churchill to Neville Chamberlain, 1938, after the signing of the Munich Agreement accepting Hitler's expansionist demands.)

To understand them correctly, it must be borne in mind: and ever more clearly if what we intend is to preserve the salvation of Humanity and civilization, that the only true ‘honour’ consists strictly in the maintenance and defence of fundamental human rights, and above all of the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples: “the first of fundamental human rights and the precondition for the full enjoyment of them all”, as established by contemporary International Law recognized by the United Nations; which is the complete opposite of imperialism and colonialism.

“Honour is a vital need of the human soul. [...] All oppression creates a hunger as regards to the need for honour, because the traditions of grandeur possessed by the oppressed, for lack of social prestige [as a result of the oppression], are not recognized. This is always the effect of the conquest.” (Simone Weil; ‘L’Enracinement. Prelude to a Declaration of Duties towards the human being’, 1949.)

All this implies the affirmation and respect for the Self-Determination or Independence of ALL Peoples, in positive words, that is: the abolition of imperialism over the Peoples (which is the negative correlative of their Self-Determination or Independence), as well as the unconditional and immediate withdrawal of all foreign occupation forces, outside their Territories and from the States that are legitimately constituted on the principle of equal rights and Peoples’ Self-Determination or Independence, and not on the principle of imperialistic Nationalism (Nationalism in the strict sense), conquest, domination and colonization of other Peoples.

This is precisely the case of the Moscovian Nationalism and of its criminal imperialistic, terrorist and totalitarian State: first Tsarist, then “Bolshevik” and now Mafia-Kagebist-Putinist, which have historically been imposed on the Ukrainian People – and the Chechen People, among others – by the “Russian” Armies and the civilian, religious and military ideological agents and Colonists, with the extreme support of the indigenous Renegades of those Peoples that the Moscovian Imperialism keeps subjugated. Exactly the same as what happens in our Country with the Spanish and French imperialistic Nationalism and their imperial-totalitarian States, criminally imposed on the Basque People and its legitimate State, the Kingdom of Nabarre, through their armies of occupation, metropolitan Colonists and native Renegades; ultimately through the Spanish Nazi-Fascist rebellion of 1936-1937 and the genocide against the Basque People.

*

In the face of the constant interference and pretensions of domination over Ukraine – and other Countries – by the Tsardom (= Kingdom) of Muscovy and its régime of serfdom and forced “Russification”: all this “legitimized” by the illegal claim of supremacy of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow over that of Kiev (a concession of supremacy that Moscow had obtained from Constantinople in 1686 through pressure and simony, and that was abolished on January 5, 2019 by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I through the Tomos that restored the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine under the Metropolitan of Kiev); in the face of all that state of affairs, we say, the project of achieving independence for the Ukrainian People and of definitively guaranteeing it through the creation of a modern and advanced Ukrainian State, successor of the previous Kievan Rus’, was conceived at the beginning of the eighteenth century by Ivan Mazepa and Pylyp Orlyk, who understood that their only strategic possibility: “logical and inevitable, imposed by the need to liberate the motherland” as they themselves expressed it, consisted of taking refuge in the sphere of counter-power offered by the alliance with Sweden against the Muscovite Tsar, who threatened the existence in freedom of the Ukrainian People.

Unfortunately, this coalition formed by Charles XII of Sweden and Mazepa’s Cossack troops was defeated by Tsar Peter I in the Battle of Poltava (Ukraina, 1709), that is, in what was a clear defensive action: within the territory of Ukraine, against the aggression and expansionism of the Muscovite Tsar; exactly the same as what is happening today. This defeat delayed the independence of Ukraine for almost three hundred years (except for the brief independence declared by its Central Rada in 1918 and aborted by Lenin and Trotsky in 1922, to force Ukraine to constitute the so-called “Soviet Union”); with all that this meant, in terms of the continuation of the forced “Russification” and oppression-colonization under the Moscovian State: first Tsarist and then Soviet, supported by the expansion of “Russian” Colonists throughout the occupied Countries (as well as by the inevitable autochthonous Renegades in the service of Moscovian imperialistic Nationalism). Countries that all the Moscovian Nationalists-Imperialists deny as such distinct and sovereign Countries and declare them as their property, no matter what ideological alibi they manifest to “justify” it: from the National-Orthodox of Patriarch Kirill/Vladimir, to the current National-Mafia-Putinist one, passing through the National-“communist” one of the “communist” Party of the “Soviet Union” / “Russian communist” Party.

That victory of Peter I and his imperialistic and despotic régime: sung by Pushkin in his poem ‘Poltava’ (1829) which glorified Peter I and presented the battle as a great feat of “Russian” imperialistic Nationalism, was a great disgrace for his People and the fundamental human rights in general (just as a victory of Putin would be now), since it established the basis for the Tsar’s Autocracy and Asiatic Despotism over the People of Muscovy and the rest of the Peoples dominated by the Moscovian nationalist Imperialism for centuries to come. This was the inevitable result of that victory, just as the victory of the French king at Bouvines (1214) had laid the foundation for Absolutism in France. Instead, the “defeated” England was heading towards a society constituted on a system of freedoms, guarantees and checks and balances established the year after the “defeat” by the ‘Magna Carta’ (1215), imposed on the defeated English king by his barons. According to the historian Ernest Lavisse, “the two nations set off in different directions: England headed towards liberty; France towards absolutism”.

(As there had happened at the beginning of the thirteenth century with the Battles of Las Navas, Muret and Bouvines in 1212, 1213 and 1214 [which was set out in our ‘Manifesto of the Basque Movement of Resistance and National Salvation’, published in English, Euskara, French, and Spanish], the eighteenth Century did also begin – and in quite consecutive years too – with three battles whose outcomes were equally favourable to the reinforcement of despotism on the European continent, and to the blocking of the Peoples’ freedom. These are the Battles of Almansa [Kingdom of Valencia] in 1707; Poltava [Ukraine] in 1709; and Barcelona [Principality of Catalonia] in 1714. See our work ‘Notes on the History of the Basque People/Euskal Herria and its State: the Kingdom of Nabarre‘.)

In fact, the Muscovite Tsar Peter I: who, because of his notorious cruelty, many of his pious subjects believed to be the Antichrist, after signing peace with Sweden – and confiscating as his own the choronym of the old Kievan Rus’ – had himself proclaimed in 1721 “Emperor of All the Russias” (22 October 1721); and it is in this way that the Tsardom of Muscovy was renamed as “Russian Empire”.

Given the new circumstances created as a result of the defeat of Ukraine in Poltava, the eternal Traitors and Renegades of that Country began to perform their contortions so as to re-situate themselves in the face of the new situation. This is the case of the Ukrainian-born archbishop Theophan Prokopovich, who in 1707, while still a monk, had written a play glorifying the Grand Prince of Kievan Rus’, Vladimir I, which he dedicated to Ivan Mazepa. However, when the latter was defeated in Poltava, he went over to the side of the new “Russia”, and became the ideologist of the imperialism of Peter I “the Great” (although he is only great for his crimes, as Lenin would say) and one of his closest collaborators, as Pushkin mentions him – only by his name Feophan – in his work ‘The Moor of Peter the Great’. Thus the foundations were laid for the introduction of the dogma of the Holy Trinity into “Russian” politics: in which these fanatical monks introduced the insane mysticism – the mystification – of a so-called “holy and triune Russia” formed by “Great Russia” (i.e. the Tsardom of Muscovy), “Little Russia” (Kievan-Rus’-Ukraine), and “White Russia” (Belarus). And a century later, the tsarist minister Uvarov would establish his Nationalist-imperialistic dogmas through a new set of “trinitarian” trickery with his “Triad of official Nationality”, as we shall see.

[Note: We make an aside, after the initial publication of this text, to indicate that, interviewed V. Putin on Wednesday, March 13, 2024 by his propaganda agent D. Kiselyov, “general director” of the media group ‘Rossiya Segodnya’ (an interview broadcast two days before the start of the “general elections” for his fifth re-election as president of the “Russian Federation”, and carried out under strict guidelines of obsequious servility, propaganda, disinformation and intimidation), the interviewee, aware of the ideological exhaustion of the aforementioned Triad, recorded the new “triad” on which he bases his current aspirations:

“Question: [...] Are we really prepared for nuclear war?

“Vladimir Putin: From a military-technical point of view, of course we are prepared. They [the troops] are constantly in a state of combat readiness. This is the first thing. Second (this is also generally accepted): our nuclear triad is more modern than any other triad, and only we and Americans have that triad.” Etc.

On the nature of such “general elections”, in which “it is not the votes that serve in Russia to ascend and stay in power but the gun, the dagger and the poison”, see, among others, our text “Elecciones legislativas” bajo el imperialismo y el totalitarismo: una falsa fachada de legitimidad y democracia.]

In this state of affairs, and despite the defeat in Poltava by the Moscovian Tsar Peter I, Pylyp Orlyk established in the city of Bender – now in the Republic of Moldova – a kind of Ukrainian government in exile, and in 1710 he proclaimed there a Constitution for Ukraine that bears his name: the “Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk”, also known as “Bender Constitution”, written in Ukrainian and Latin with the title: “Pacts and Constitutions of Rights and Freedoms of the Zaporozhian Army”. And in its same Preamble, after exposing the efforts of the Moscovian power “to limit and annul by all available means the rights and freedoms” of the Ukrainian People, and thus justifying its policy of opposition to the imperialistic Tsardom of Muscovy and of alliance with Charles XII of Sweden – followed by Ivan Mazepa and himself – “as logical and inevitable, imposed by the need to liberate the homeland”, this author established from the outset as a priority objective of the Constitution the independence of the new State, naturally affirmed against Muscovy.

In this Constitution, in addition to proclaiming the need to maintain the independence of Ukraine from all foreign domination and exploitation, as well as the Orthodox faith independent from the Moscow Patriarchate, and to guaranteeing the inviolability of borders, Orlyk established the principle of the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the State; thus proposing this principle thirty-eight year before it was formulated by Baron de Montesquieu in his work ‘On the Spirit of the Laws’ (1748). That interesting project of independence for the Ukrainian People was pioneering: not only in relation to the calamitous social situation of the Moscovian-Tsarist Empire but also as regards the standards that were in force at that time in the areas of democratic organization of Western European society.

It should be remembered that Pylyp Orlyk’s Constitution predates by 45 years the Constitution that Pasquale Paoli drafted in 1755 for Corsica: the first written in Italian and the first to grant the vote to women; in 77 years to the Constitution of Usonia approved in 1787 by the Convention of Philadelphia; and in 81 years to the Constitution of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: the “Constitution of May 3rd, 1791”, which was approved with an overwhelming popular support. The current “Russian" Colonists and “pro-Russian” sectors of Ukraine are nothing new: the Russian-Polish War of 1792, called “War in Defence of the Constitution”, was unleashed precisely because of the opposition that carried out against it both the aristocratic and reactionary Polish-Lithuanian “pro-Russian” sectors (united in the so-called “Confederation of Targowica” that was created in St. Petersburg under the protection and instigation of the “Empress” Catherine II), as well as the “Russian Empire” that she ruled.

The “empress” Catherine, fearful of the “contagion effect” that this Constitution – and the freedoms it established – could have in Muscovy, invaded the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of Two Nations without a declaration of war; just like Vladimir Putin, fearful of the contagion effect that the consolidation of democracy in Ukraine could have on his own Country (after the Euromaidan Uprising in 2014 for its National Independence and against its puppet government in the hands of Putin), invaded that Country just after those events, also without a declaration of war and hiding the insignia of his corsair-agents. The betrayal of the Polish king led in 1793 to the illegal annulment of the Constitution and to the Second Partition-Annexation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by the “Russian Empire”. In this way, the Moscovian imperialism prevented independence and democracy – both realities are inseparable in the Countries that are under the imperialism of a foreign domination – in Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine; just as the French imperialism had ruined Corsica in 1769, by annexing that island through aggression and military occupation.

Thus, after the domination of Ukraine was achieved in 1709, the Moscovian expansionism and colonialism continued in that region. The great miseries of the peasants provoked, already under the reign of Catherine II, the Pugachev uprising (1773-75), the greatest peasant revolt that “Russia” has known and which was ferociously suppressed; Catherine II did also take advantage of this to destroy in 1775 the Sich – fortified headquarters – of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, surrounded by the infantry and artillery of the ‘Imperial Russian Army’ and subdued by means of an ultimatum. And the year 1783 marks a milestone in this disastrous Moscovian expansionist process, with its “introduction of serfdom in Ukraine, which until then had not known it” (M. Mourre, ‘Dictionnaire de l'Histoire’, 1981); and with its annexation of Crimea – at the instigation of the agent Potemkin – in violation of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca that the “Russian Empire” had imposed on Turkey in 1774, according to which the independence of the Crimean Khanate was recognized.

Undoubtedly, had Ukraine achieved victory in 1709, the consolidation of its independence under the Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk would have conducted things in a very different way; but the evolution that was to take place as a result of the victory of the Moscovian Nationalist Imperialism was quite different. During the reigns of Peter I and Catherine II (also “the Great”), serfdom and oppression did not stop growing for all the subjects of the Empire and also for the Moscovian people themselves. A despotic-Asiatic régime of these two “emperors” that the objectively lackey “historians” at the service of the established power do perversely or stupidly present as “enlightened”; just as – in the same line of distortion and falsification of reality – the “Soviet tsars” are presented by these lackeys as “socialists and communists”:

    “[...] Russia had seen many things in a thousand years of history. During the Soviet years, the country had witnessed world military victories, huge constructions, new cities, dams that stopped the course of the Dnieper and the Volga and canals that linked the seas, the power of tractors, skyscrapers... The one thing Russia hadn’t seen in a thousand years was freedom.

    “[...] Like an old liquor thousands of years old, the principle of serfdom was strengthened in the Russian soul. [...]

    “But the more did [Russian] life superficially resemble the life of the West; when the din of its factories, the noise of the wheels of carriages and trains, the snap of the sails of its ships, and the crystalline light of the windows of its palaces were more reminiscent of Western life, the more grew the mysterious gulf that separated Russian and European life.

    “That abyss consisted in the fact that the development of the West was fertilized by the growth of freedom [well understood: the freedom of its own, albeit not necessarily that of others], while the development of Russia was fertilized by the growth of [its own] slavery.

    “The history [of development] of mankind is the history of its freedom. The growth of humanity's power is expressed above all in the growth of freedom. [...]. Progress is, in essence, progress of human freedom. [...]

    “[Instead,] Russian development has revealed a strange nature: it has been confused with the development of lack of freedom. Year after year, the slavery of peasants has become harsher and crueler, their right to land has been diminished more and more; at the same time, Russian science, technology, and education were continually growing, parallel to the growth of Russian slavery.

    “The birth of the Russian State system was marked by the definitive enslavement of the peasants, [...].

    “The powerful activity of Peter the Great, [...] was also linked to a powerful progress of serfdom. Peter the Great [...] did subjugate into serfdom the free citizens of the north and the odnodvortsi in the south. Under the reign of Peter, to the servitude of the landowners was added the serfdom of the State, which favoured education and progress. [...], but the chasm between freedom and non-freedom was getting deeper and deeper.

    “Thus came the splendid century of Catherine II, the century of the marvellous flowering of Russian art and culture, the century in which slavery reached its greatest development. [...].

    “In February 1917 the road to freedom was opened before Russia. Russia chose Lenin. [...]. And yet the whole history of Russia forced Lenin, strange and grotesque as this may seem, to retain the curse of Russia: the link between development and slavery. [...] But the tragedy of Russia was not just a Russian tragedy, it was a world tragedy. [...] The Leninist synthesis between the absence of freedom and socialism stunned the world more than the discovery of atomic energy. [...]

    “Stalin brought together in himself all the traits of the Russia of serfdom that ignored pity for human beings. In his incredible cruelty, in his incredible perfidy, in his ability to feign and pretend, in his spiteful and vengeful character, in his rudeness and his humor, the Asian tyrant is glimpsed. [...] And the State that he built had as its elementary principle to be a State without freedom. [...] In this State, not only small Peoples, neither also the Russian People has national freedom.

    [However, the oppression that endure the non-Russian Peoples: which are being subjugated and Russified through criminal Violence by the Moscovian imperialistic and terrorist Nationalism, constitutes for them a definitive existential threat that leads to their liquidation as such Peoples; which, obviously, does not admit any equivalence with the situation of the own Moscovian People, however unfortunate it may be.] [...]

    “The thousand-year-old principle according to which the development of culture, science and industrial power could be obtained at the same time as the absence of freedom grew: a principle put into practice by the Russia of the Boyars, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and Catherine II, achieved its full victory with Stalin.” Etc. (Vasili Grossman; ‘Everything flows’ [Vsio techiot], 5, 22, 24; 1961.)

To all this led the constant affirmation of the Moscovian imperialistic Nationalism through the centuries. The ideological foundation of this Nationalism was set forth in 1833 to Tsar Nicholas I by his Minister of Education, Sergei Uvarov, in an influential report based on a triad of reactionary and National-Imperialistic Great-Russian dogmas under the slogan: Pravoslavie, Samoderzhavie, Narodnost, i.e., Orthodoxy (under the Moscow Patriarchate), Autocracy (of the Tsar), and Great-Russian National Essence (as opposed to “Little Russia”, which is what they called Ukraine and its language). This occurred precisely the same year in which the first War of National Independence of the Basque People began, against the totalitarian integration in Spain that was imposed on it by Spanish imperialist nationalism. A war that its official historiography: with the collaboration of the inevitable Colonized and the autochthonous “Basque” Renegades (who are always joined by the eternally clueless), has recuperated, hidden and misrepresented by calling it “Carlist” War.

This ideological development of Moscovian imperialistic Nationalism, promoted by Minister Uvarov, had been encouraged by the fact that the previous year, by means of the encyclical ‘Cum primum’ (1832) addressed “To the Bishops of Poland on the authority of Princes”, Pope Gregory XVI had condemned: to the great scandal of the Catholics of what was then called “Poland of the Congress” (of Vienna, or “Tsardom of Poland”), the uprising that Polish patriots had carried out against Moscovian rule; an uprising that had led to the new Polish-Russian War of 1830-1831, in which Polish patriots had finally been crushed. Faced with this situation, the encyclical reaffirmed “the healthiest doctrine of the obedience that subjects must render to their legitimate Prince”, that is: the obedience that Polish Catholics should render “to their legitimate Russian tsar”. (See Chapter 5 – ‘Roman-Vatican Imperialism’, from our already mentioned work ‘Notes on the History of the Basque People/Euskal Herria and its State: the Kingdom of Nabarre’.)

This ideological help from the Catholic Church, in reaffirmation of the “duty of the Polish subjects” to abide by the ‘status quo’ criminally established by the “Russian Empire”: confirmed as legitimate by its highest authority the pope, was immediately taken advantage of, as can be seen, by the ideologists of the autocratic tsarist régime in order to consolidate their Moscovian religious-political-nationalist authority over all its subjects. In fact, just the year after that encyclical, and under the blessing of the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the “Russian” imperialistic Nationalism was formulated by the aforementioned minister, upon that confirmed duty to “render to the Tsar (= Caesar) what is the Tsar’s”, and “to Russia what was Russia’s”. The trickery is obvious, but it continues to operate today in the minds deranged by the Moscovian imperialist Nationalism, in its relationship with the non-Russian Peoples, Countries and States dominated by Muscovy.

From there, the imposition of the Moscovian Nationalism on Ukraine (what is called “Russification”) and the persecution against its national language increased. Thirty years after the aforementioned report of Minister Uvarov, the secret decree – ukaz – of Piotr Valuev (minister of “Internal Affairs” of Emperor Alexander II), known as ‘Circular Valuev’, established in 1863 the prohibition of publications in the Ukrainian language, also affirming the non-existence of such a language: “a separate Little Russian language never existed, does not exist, and it will not exist, and the language of them [i.e., of the Ukrainians, whom he calls ‘Little Russians’], used by the commoners, is nothing but Russian corrupted by the influence of Poland”, he said.

While these “official prohibitions” were taking place in denial of reality, a young Ukrainian of twenty-four: serf and son of serfs who in 1838 had been rescued from serfdom by friends who raised the money to buy his freedom so that he could go to university, forbidden to people like him, had created his great works in Ukrainian. He was Taras Shevchenko, the great poet and writer who had brought the Ukrainian language – “which never existed, does not exist, and will not exist” – to its splendour, and who – after having spent time in prison for his literary work – died at the age of 47 in 1861.

Finally, Ukrainian language was completely banned with the – also secret – Ukase of Ems, promulgated by Tsar Alexander II himself in 1876, prohibiting the use of Ukrainian in all publications and in all artistic (theatre etc.) and school production. This Decree: with various vicissitudes in its operation depending on the moment, was never abolished, and therefore remains officially in force. As if all that was not enough, in the twentieth century there were mass murders ethnically directed against Ukrainians (Vinnitsa, 1937-38) and their traditional artists (murder of bandurists in Kharkiv, 1933); and above all the genocide of the Ukrainian People through the creation of a famine (Holodomor) in 1932-1934.

As late as 1914, Lenin himself denounced:

    “If, in our political agitation, we fail to advance and advocate the slogan of the right to secession [of the subjugated nations], we shall play in the hands not only of the bourgeoisie but also of the feudal landlords and the absolutism of the oppressor nation. Kautsky long ago used this argument against Rosa Luxemburg, and the argument is indisputable. [...]

    “Let us consider the position of an oppressor nation. Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot. The interests of the freedom of the Great-Russian population require a struggle against such oppression. The long, centuries-old history of suppression of the oppressed nations’ movements, and the systematic propaganda in favour of such suppression coming from the ‘upper’ classes, have created enormous obstacles to the cause of freedom of the Great-Russian people itself, in the form of prejudices etc.

    “The Great-Russian Black Hundreds [ultra-nationalist Russian groups] deliberately foster these prejudices and encourage them. The Great-Russian bourgeoisie tolerates or condones them. The Great-Russian proletariat cannot achieve its own aims or clear the road to its freedom without systematically countering these prejudices.

    “[...] Whether the Ukraine, for example, is destined to form an independent state is a matter that will be determined by a thousand unpredictable factors. Without attempting idle ‘guesses’, we firmly uphold something that is beyond doubt: the right of the Ukraine to form such a state. We respect this right; we do not uphold the privileges of Great Russians with regard to Ukrainians; we educate the masses in the spirit of recognition of that right, in the spirit of rejecting state privileges for any nation. [...]

    “The position of the ‘bureaucracy’ (we beg pardon for this inaccurate term) and of the feudal landlords of our united-nobility type is well known. They definitely reject both the equality of nationalities and the right to self-determination. Theirs is the old motto of the days of serfdom: autocracy, orthodoxy, and the national essence — the last term applying only to the Great-Russian nation. Even the Ukrainians are declared to be an ‘alien’ people and their very language is being suppressed. [...]

    “Reaction in England is strengthened and fostered by the enslavement of Ireland (just as reaction in Russia is fostered by her enslavement of a number of nations!). [...]

    “[...] Where the oppressed nations are concerned, the separate organisation of the proletariat as an independent party sometimes leads to such a bitter struggle against local nationalism that the perspective becomes distorted, and meanwhile the nationalism of the oppressor nation is lost sight of.

    “[...] Their ideas predominate, and their persecution of non-Russians for “separatism”, for thinking about secession, is being preached, and practised in the Duma, in the schools, in the churches, in the barracks, and in hundreds and thousands of newspapers. It is this Great-Russian nationalist poison that is polluting the entire all-Russia political atmosphere. This is the misfortune of one nation, which, by subjugating other nations, is strengthening reaction throughout Russia.” Etc. (V. Lenin; ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’, 4, 5, 8, 10; 1914.)

Throughout “Russia” and in Europe. The Ukrainians, an “alien” People whose language was being suppressed... in Ukraine! Lenin wrote that in 1914, but unfortunately, once in power, Lenin’s Bolsheviks fought against the independence of Ukraine that its Central Rada had proclaimed in its Fourth Universal Proclamation on January 22, 1918; thus, in 1922 they forced the Ukraine by means of a military imposition to constitute, together with Belarus etc., the so-called “Soviet Union”, which maintained the centuries-old domination of nationalist Imperialism of Muscovy over its neighbours. Therefore, this so-called “Soviet Union”: a “Bolshevik” continuation of the eternal Moscovian-Tsarist domination over its neighboring Countries, was an illegal and null and void act; as illegal and null and void as the “Russian Empire” had been, founded in 1721 on the aggression and occupation of Ukraine after its defeat in Poltava.

After the dissolution of this new “Russian-Soviet” empire in 1991, the remaining Moscovian imperial State called “Federation of Russia” could have re-oriented its path towards a policy of peace, development and progress for its People, and of respect and peaceful coexistence for its neighbours and the rest of the Peoples that it continued to keep subjugated; it could have re-invented itself again as a true counter-power in the world, championing an authentic democratic multi-polarity established on the defence of fundamental human rights and above all the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples, with which it would have acquired a leading role in the world in the face of international imperialism. Of course, this required the abandonment of all whims of “Russian” Nationalist domination over the Peoples, States and Territories that this imperial State still dominates, from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean.

But, instead of doing that, the Moscow Government dedicated itself to reinforcing among its population the insanity of its criminal imperialistic Nationalism over ALL the Peoples and States that they had dominated in the past; an enterprise of domination in which it insisted on making his people see that his glory was placed. And so, longing once again for the re-establishment of the empire of the Romanov and "Soviet" tsars in all its scope, that Government did once again take a wrong exit, given its criminal purpose of continuing to be a prominent protagonist of the imperialistic multi-polarity and the eternal international bullying on the Peoples that the former had subjugated in the past; first of all on the Ukrainian People and its legitimate State, whose denial-destruction had to be achieved in the first place. Taking up again Grossman’s words about Lenin, the road to freedom was opened [once again] before “Russia”, but “Russia” chose (?) Putin, presented to the Moscovian national-imperialistic masses as “the saviour and restorer of the fatherland”.

Vladimir Putin is currently the extreme and most complete epitome of all the criminal and National-imperialistic Moscovian insanity, which denies the Ukrainian People and State and affirms them as part of Muscovy; if necessary, by carrying out a genocide to achieve it, which will already be the second one carried out by the Moscovian State against the Ukrainian People, after the Holodomor created by Stalin 90 years ago, in 1932-1933. Permanent military domination and occupation, and oppression, colonization and genocide at the hands of the Tsarist-Bolshevik Moscovian State for almost three hundred years: these are THE ONLY foundations of the “Russian” presence within the Ukrainian People and some areas of its State (Donbas, Crimea); just as it is these same components that for centuries have founded the Spanish and French presence between the Basque People and their State, the Kingdom of Nabarre.

In correspondence with the never-abandoned aspirations of the Moscovian Imperialism over the Ukrainian People and its State, the terminology imposed by its ideology in current speech continues to refer to Ukraine as “the territory of Ukraine”, never as the Nation and State of Ukraine. The same is true of “the Baltic territories”; never the Baltic States. We are facing the most genuine continuity of the despotism, denial of freedom and Moscovian imperialistic Nationalism described by Grossman; which, having reached “their full victory with Stalin”, continue to settle in the poisonous minds and depraved souls of the ideologists and spokesmen of that imperialistic Nationalism, and of the Silovikí who are at the head of and parasitize the current totalitarian, imperialistic and Mafia-Kagebist-Putinist Moscovian State, to the misfortune of its People and its neighbours.

“What hope is left to Russia, if not even her prophets distinguish freedom from slavery? What hope does it have left, if the genius of Russia sees the sweet and luminous beauty of Russian soul in its obedient bondage? What hope is left for Russia, if the greatest of its reformers, Lenin, did not destroy but strengthened the link between progress and slavery? When will the soul of Russia be free and human? When will that day come?”

In the work cited, the author answers those anguished questions that he asks himself by saying, “Maybe that time will never come.” (V. Grossman; op. cit., chapter 22, final.)

Hopefully that is not the case! But, in order to secure this, the Moscovian People must stop listening to and following the siren songs of that swarm of lunatics and/or doctrinaire criminals, visionaries and charlatans who, for at least two centuries and uninterruptedly, have been – at the same time that some of them were developing Russian literature – exploiting their credulity and causing their misfortune in the name of a false mysticism about “the Russian soul” that no one attacks except for their own leaders; who attack, rob and plunder their own people as much as they can after having always eliminated all opposition against their Despotism.

On the contrary, the only thing that is hidden behind all that deliquescent ideological delirium of the “Russian soul/the soul of Russia”: presented at least since Gogol as a real mythological being, is the aggression and the imposition of the Moscovian imperialistic Nationalism on Peoples which ARE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO BE OF THAT COUNTRY, but who have been forced to be so by horrendous and countless crimes, prohibition of their own language, and robbery, plunder, and destruction of their Countries; something that continues today through the imperialistic ideologists who support Putin and his kleptocratic régime, so that they can continue with their yachts and palaces to an even greater degree than the Romanov tsars did.

All of them strive to make the People of Muscovy believe that its future: from its privileged position in the “Geographical Pivot of History” (the “Heartland” of the “World-Island” imagined by H. Mackinder), allows and at the same time demands the imposition of its Imperialistic Nationalism on other Peoples such as the Ukrainians or the Chechens; who, as Lenin denounced (but then, after taking power, did not correct), are denied – if necessary through military aggression and horrendous imprescriptible crimes – their right to self-determination or independence and their very existence as distinct Peoples, in a way not unlike what would be done if they were cattle and not human persons. But this also means the ruin of the Moscovian People; because its “obedient bondage”, placed in the hands of unscrupulous criminals, can only lead and in fact has led to the worst results:

“[...] The brainwashing and the mental intoxication of masses, in charge of the mass-media monopolies of the totalitarian power, have made up of a large part of its society a helpless and inert victim of the propaganda and psychological warfare; a society incapable of perceiving and processing the most obvious political reality. Social alienation has become mental alienation. The destruction of the reason, achieved by Imperialism and Fascism, has reached unprecedented levels at the expense of populations previously reduced to the mental condition of telephagic zombies. [...]

“The ideology incorporated into the imperial-colonialist régime is multiform and protean, but it obeys constant and simple principles. It consists of a permanent effort of lies and falsification in order to conceal an unavoidable reality, namely: the presence, continuity and Resistance of the Peoples and States that are confronting the criminal enterprise of imperialistic domination; the centuries-old violation of the fundamental human rights, which the said régime is founded upon; and the criminal Violence, war of aggression, conquest, occupation, annexation, State Terrorism, plunder, gulags, assassinations, deportations, and all their calamitous direct and indirect consequences that are linked to this enterprise of subjugation of Peoples and States. It is a criminal reality that the dominant Nations cannot face in any other way than by maintaining the lie and the falsification of the fundamental terms and concepts of sociology and policy, as well as the abandonment of any morality, elementary though it may be. Its result is a debased and mentally ill society.” Etc. (From Chapter X – The ideological disguise of National-Imperialistic Totalitarianism of our general work of reference.)

*

At the same time, the grotesque claim that the “Russian” Colonists – scattered throughout Ukraine and other Countries thanks to the imperialistic and military expansionism and colonialism of the Moscovian Empire – have the “right of self-determination” claimed by the colonialists-imperialists (a non-existent “right” that, as they pretend, prevails over the legitimate rights of self-determination, independence and national integrity of the indigenous Peoples and their Countries, dominated and colonized by Moscovian Imperialism throughout its history; Peoples and States that in addition this imperialistic Nationalism denies), is the cancer that corrodes that “Russian soul” without possible remission, and that leads that People to imperialistic madness.

The “Russian” Colonists of the Donbas in Ukraine, or those of Transnistria in Moldova, or those settled in the Baltic States and in Georgia: no more than the “Russian” Colonists in East Prussia (which the Moscovian imperialists call “Kaliningrad”), Chechnya/Ichkeria, Tatarstan, Udmurtia, Buryatia, Yakutia etc. etc. HAVE NO RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION NOR ANY OTHER POLITICAL RIGHT. In exactly the same way that did not have it the German Colonists in East Prussia and the Sudetenland: descendants or successors of the Teutonic Knights and their criminal Crusades propitiated – since Conrad I of Mazovia – by the Polish imperialistic and expansionist Nationalism against the native Prussian Baltic Peoples; consequently, those Colonists were expelled from those territories. And just as the French and Spanish Colonists in Algeria, Indochina, Cuba, the Philippines and the Kingdom of Nabarra HAVE NO RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION NOR ANY OTHER POLITICAL RIGHT.

The international right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples: recognized – not constituted – by the contemporary International Law of the United Nations – since the First Article of its founding Charter of San Francisco, as well as by numerous and relevant Resolutions of its General Assembly – as the first of the fundamental human rights and the precondition for the full enjoyment of them all, belongs to the indigenous Peoples established in their own Countries, NOT TO THE IMPERIALISTS AND COLONIALISTS established in the Countries they have invaded, occupied by “right of conquest”, and subsequently colonized through wars of aggression and imprescriptible crimes. And that international right of Peoples’ self-determination or independence consists of the original and immanent – not derived or granted – right of unconditional and immediate independence that these indigenous Peoples have against any foreign aggression or interference contrary to their national independence, NOT IN CARRYING OUT FALSIFIED REFERENDUMS CALLED “OF SELF-DETERMINATION” UNDER THE OCCUPYING FORCES OF IMPERIALISM, WHICH ARE THE DENIAL of the authentic right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples. As such, THE IMPERIALISTS HAVE NO RIGHTS. Out with the imperialists in the subjugated Peoples and States!

The shameless claim of a pretended right of self-determination of the “Russian” Settlers that the aggressor Putin has made, in order to “justify” his criminal aggression against the Ukrainian People and their legitimate State while denying that this is a war (and also a war of aggression, to be precise), is identical and is based on the same “argumentation” that was used by Hitler in 1938 to “justify” his claim of “the return of the region of the Sudetenland to the German motherland”. It is the same affirmation of “constitutional unity” established by the formal and secondary Spanish “Constitution” of 1812, proslavery, colonialist and racist, when it states in its Article 1: “The Spanish nation is the gathering of all Spaniards from both hemispheres”. And it is the same one that was used by the Nationalism-Imperialism of France against its colonies: “It is essential to establish colonization upon domination”, Jules Ferry had said in his speech before the Chamber of Deputies in July 1885 to justify the colonialist aggression against Algeria.

(“In 1885 the ‘socialist’ Jaurès had voted for war credits for Tonkin. In 1887, at the time of the Schnæbelé affair, he was in favour of the military credits for Algeria in ‘the patriotic silence [non-oppossition] of the parliamentarians’. In 1903, he demaded the budget for ‘the peaceful penetration’ in Morocco. In 1904, Jules Guesde reproached him for ‘having voted the war and Navy budgets’; which Jaurès had personally avoided doing. But ‘those [parliamentarians] of yours have voted them – argued Guesde that year addressing at Jaurès and the PsF. Your error is in your conception of socialism, which has nothing of socialist. You do arise your socialism from the Republic, while we do arise it from the capitalist evolution. Your method is nationalism under a more dangerous form than any other!’ Finally, in 1908 Jaurès rejected additional military appropriations.” Quotation taken from Chapter XI of the text  ‘Nationalisme et National-socialisme’ / ‘Nationalism and National-socialism’, by Iñaki Aginaga; published in the blog of Nabarra-ko Erresuma on January 17, 2021.)

For his part, the “socialist” Mitterrand responded like this to the challenge that the National Liberation Front of Algeria had just posed to France with its Proclamation of November 1st, 1954, for “the goal of National Independence within the North African framework”, and “The recognition [by France] of Algerian nationality by an official declaration repealing the edicts, decrees, and laws that present Algeria as a ‘French land’, which is a denial of the history, the geography, the language, the religion, and the customs of the Algerian people”:

“[...] Must Algeria, too, enter into the cycle of this world that for the last fifteen years is in revolt against the nations that claimed to be their guardians? [An allusion to the process that is mentioned in the quotation with which we opened this text; a process that had led to the humiliating French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in May of that same year and to the subsequent Treaty of Geneva in July, and that resulted in the French withdrawal from Indochina.]

“Well, in fact, no, that is not what will happen! Because it so happens that Algeria is France; because it so happens that Algeria’s departments are departments of the French republic. From Flanders to the Congo, even if there is some difference in how our laws are applied, the law still reigns everywhere, and that law is French law; it is the law that you [parliamentarians] have voted for, because there is only one parliament and one nation in our overseas territories, just like the departments of Algeria, just like in the metropolis. That is the rule that guides us; not just because the Constitution requires it but because this is how we want it to be.” Etc. (From the speech by François Mitterrand, Minister of the Interior of the Mendes-France Government, given from the rostrum of the French “National Assembly” on November 12, 1954.)

“The only negotiation is war”, this “socialist” character concluded. “Therefore”, his Government invoked the rights of self-determination and legitimate defence of the French people against the “internal aggression” they claimed to suffer in Algeria, so as to justify Algeria's infamous colonial “non-war” (i.e. Its War of Independence, from 1954 to 1962), which French imperialism had declared to be “an integral part of the French people”.

This is Aron’s description of that mentality:

“We are in the presence of an armed and vivacious nationality that is necessary to turn off by assimilation, [...] the displacement of the Berber People and the fusion. [...] The apparent simplicity of the issue – independence or not – disguises the complexity of the situation. If the independence of the protectorate or of the colony were considered by the imperial State as an unmitigated evil, an irremediable defeat, it would be necessary to return to the elementary duality friend-foe. The nationalist – Tunisian, Moroccan, Algerian – would be the enemy: not occasional nor even permanent, to resume the terms we have defined above; he would be the absolute enemy, he with whom no reconciliation is possible, whose very existence is aggression and who, consequently, if the logic were to be followed up to the end, had to be exterminated. ‘Delenda est Carthago’: the formula is that of the absolute enmity, the enmity of Rome and of Carthage; one of the two cities is ‘de trop’. If Algeria must remain definitely French, the nationalists who want an independent Algeria must be eliminated without mercy. In order that millions of Muslims become French, in the middle of the 20^th century, it is necessary that they can no longer dream in an Algerian nation, and forget the witnesses ‘who had their throats cut off’.” Etc. (Raymond Aron; ‘Paix et guerre entre les nations’, 1962.)

Once the dogma “Algeria is France, and in France there is no other People but the French” had been established a priori, from this it was deduced with pretensions of a “Cartesian logic” the ridiculous and absurd assertion that “France cannot fight against itself”; and that, therefore, Algeria's colonial-imperialistic war was a non-war. Similarly, the current aggression that the so-called “Federation of Russia” has undertaken against the Ukrainian People and its State, under the name “special military operation” and “non-war”, is the continuation of that same line of imperialism, crime, shamelessness and destruction of reason developed by French imperialism against Algeria. And it is also identical to the positions of Hitler, who in the program of the “National Socialist German Workers' Party-NSDAP” (which he himself co-wrote and read at his first mass meeting held in Munich in February-1920), called for the “unification of the Germans” (Germans of Austria and Sudetenland-Czechoslovakia) invoking that same falsified imperialistic version of the right of self-determination, and that led the German People to its greatest misery. (See Chapter XV – ‘Imperialism vs. International Law (XV)’ of our general work ‘EUSKAL HERRIA AND THE KINGDOM OF NABARRE, OR THE BASQUE PEOPLE AND ITS STATE, AGAINST FRENCH-SPANISH IMPERIALISM’.)

All this is currently being reproduced by the criminal aggression of the Putinist State in order to restore the Moscovian imperialistic and colonialist achievements over the Ukrainian People and its State. These are criminal achievements that had been established in Poltava in 1709, three hundred and five years earlier; and that, after the uprising of the Ukrainian People on the Maidan of 2014 for its national independence and the sovereignty of its State (and against the lackeys of the Moscovian imperialism infiltrated in the Ukrainian Government), could be nullified if no intervention was taken about it.

Thus, in the face of the new International Law precariously established after the end of World War II, with the affirmation of the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples (and therefore also of the Ukrainian, Chechen Peoples, etc.), and in the face of the above-mentioned international Treaties – ultimately the aforementioned Budapest Memorandum of 1994 – by which the so-called “Federation of Russia” recognized the independence and integrity of the State of Ukraine, the new masters of the Kremlin came to the conclusion that it was necessary to re-establish the old theories of “the defence of our national interests”, based on the affirmation of “zones of influence and limited sovereignty”, and – in short – on the “right of imperialism” over these Peoples and States.

The consequence of the recognition of these criminal interests is the consolidation throughout the world of “Colonial Reservations” in which fundamental human rights – and first and foremost the first and the precondition of them all: the right of self-determination (RSD) or independence of all Peoples – have no validity whatsoever; as well as the renovation or stabilization of “Zones of Influence, Protectorates, Living Spaces/Lebensraum/Spazio Vitale, Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Spheres, Security Zones” and other old acquaintances of imperialistic expansion, also underlying the “Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty”. But that means to bring the world back to a situation that is unacceptable to the majority of Countries, and of course to its destruction.

In the face of this fatal blunder implied by the affirmation of the non-existent and criminal “right of imperialism of the Holy Russia” over all its neighbours, the Moscovian People and their sensible and non-criminal leaders should understand that their real interest lies in joining a world established on the affirmation of the principles of respect for fundamental human rights and cooperation among Peoples and Nations of the World, and above all on the right of self-determination or national independence of all Peoples, and not on the false “rights” of imperialistic colonialism; and that a “future” built on the imposition of the Moscovian imperialistic Nationalism on other Peoples consists only of horrendous crimes, corruption, and finally destruction, material and moral ruin, and death. Also for themselves.

*

But unfortunately, and as a result of a systematic task of Asiatic Terror and Despotism PROMOTED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION BY ALL the totalitarian and imperialistic régimes that have ruled in Muscovy for at least the last four hundred and sixty years: from the Moscow kniaz/tsar Ivan IV the Terrible to the current “Russian” autocrat Putin, lo and behold that, as a result, the sophisms, the destruction of reason, and the theoretical-conceptual fanaticism inherent in imperialistic Nationalism have taken root in the intellectual structure and in the “cosmogony of the Russian world”. Only in this way can it be understood that a part of the Moscovian People has silently endorsed and accepted the lack of empathy, the perversion and cruelty implied in ignoring what the leader of their Country is doing in Ukraine; all this guaranteed, of course, by the current terror and persecution directed against all independent and democratic thought, opposition and action that challenge the diktat and the new oprichnina and okhrana of the régime. It is a leader who, in the face of the passivity of these sectors of his People – if not with a secret and unhealthy satisfaction for these actions – affirms against all truth and against all sanity that the neighbouring People and Country next door “does not exist, is not real, and needs to be invaded [through criminal aggression] in a defensive and existential war for the Russian People, against a new Nazism”.

Now then, as for Nazism, this one was the ally of the Soviet State since the ‘Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the [so-called] Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-USSR’ (also known as the “Hitler-Stalin Pact”), signed between these two Powers for 10 years on August 23, 1939. However, in a secret Protocol, the Pact did in reality establish the division of Eastern and Central Europe between the two Powers according to “zones of influence” agreed between them. In addition to a new joint Partition of Poland – the fourth – between the German Reich and the new Empire of the “Soviet Union”, the latter would be allowed to annexing Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (except its capital Vilnius) and Bessarabia (present-day Moldova). That is, all the “possessions” of the Moscovian-Tsarist Empire that the Moscovian-Bolshevik Empire had had to renounce by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, and whose domination Stalin was eager to regain thanks to his pact with Hitler, who appropriated for Germany the rest of its “areas of special interest”. And today, after having regained their independence, all those former “possessions” of tsarism are now once again in Putin's aim. The “Soviet Russians” were not enemies of Nazism; they were its allies since the beginning of World War II. If the Soviets did later fight the Nazis it was because the latter betrayed the Non-Aggression Pact and attacked them, forcing them to defend themselves against their initial allies.

Once that Treaty-Pact of mutual Non-Aggression and of Partition of Europe was signed, and counting on the complicity of Stalin’s “Soviet Russia”, Hitler had a free hand to invade Poland nine days later, on September 1st, 1939; which caused the declaration of war by the United Kingdom and France against Germany, thus starting World War II. And sixteen days later, on September 17, the “Soviet Union” launched its invasion of its eastern “part” of Poland, annexing it, suppressing the Resistance through executions and deportations to Siberia and other remote areas, and claiming to be coming to Poland to save it from the Nazis. In fact, the “Soviet” Politburo did cynically call the annexation of Poland that they had agreed with the Nazis a “liberation campaign”. Similarly, on November the 30^th of that year, the “Russian Soviet” imperialists – just as the tsarists had done before them with all the Peoples they had dominated from the Baltic to the Pacific – launched themselves against Finland, which faced that aggression in the sso-called “Winter War” and did thus avoid annexation, but not serious territorial losses that are still retained by the current “Russian Federation”. On June 15 and 16, 1940, the other three Baltic States: Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, received ultimatums and were occupied by the “Red Army”, which from the following June 28 did also occupy Bessarabia and the north of Bukovina, as had been agreed between the Nazi and the “Soviet” régimes.

Putin does totally and cynically distort reality when he claims that he wants to “liberate and denazify Ukraine”, since now in Ukraine, as in 1939 in Poland and Finland, and in 1940 in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania, the Nazis are their former allies, namely: the invading “Russian” agents of Moscovian Imperialism, camouflaged as “Soviets” then and who now openly appear as Mafia-Kagebists-Putinists. (This will be recorded in history, to the eternal shame and total discredit of the European “left” that supports the Petersburg dictator, and in particular of the so-called “Basque nationalist left”: totally complexed, cornered and recuperated by the Spanish National-“Socialists” and National-“Communists” who make up the current Spanish social imperialism.)

Such is the régime that holds power today in Moscow under Putin’s government; who, in an official speech (March 16, 2022, available on the Kremlin’s website), to designate those who oppose him and the – according to him – “true patriots”, has used terms such as “scum, traitors, insects [moshki]”, and “natural and essential self-cleansing of society”, as well as “nationaltraitors” in a single word; in the same way as Hitler first used the word Nationalverräter in ‘Mein Kampf’; and did also speak of those whom he aspired to destroy as subhuman (Untermenschen), to psychologically facilitate the task of crushing them as if they were scum or insects. In fact, the contempt of the Ukrainians is a commonplace, something established among Moscovian imperialistic Nationalism, which constitutes the ideological mainstream of that Country. Lenin himself warned against this disastrous tendency of his People:

“[...] In my writings on the national question I have already said that an abstract presentation of the question of nationalism in general is of no use at all. A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, [between] the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation.

“In respect of the second kind of nationalism we, nationals of a big nation, have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice, of an infinite number of cases of violence; furthermore, we commit violence and insult an infinite number of times without noticing it. It is sufficient to recall my Volga reminiscences of how non-Russians are treated; how the Poles are not called by any other name than ‘Polyachiska’, how the Tatar is nicknamed Prince, how the Ukrainians are always ‘Khokhols’ and the Georgians and other Caucasian nationals always ‘Kapkasians’.

“That is why internationalism on the part of oppressors or ‘great’ nations, as they are called (though they are great only in their violence, only great as bullies), must consist not only in the observance of the formal equality of nations but even in an inequality of the oppressor nation, the great nation, that must make up for the inequality which obtains in actual practice. [...]

“[...] And I think that in the present instance, as far as the Georgian nation is concerned, we have a typical case in which a genuinely proletarian attitude makes profound caution, thoughtfulness and a readiness to compromise a matter of necessity for us. The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of ‘nationalist-socialism’ (whereas he himself is a real and true ‘nationalist-socialist’, and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice,” etc. (V. Lenin; ‘The Question of Nationalities or “Autonomisation” ’. Taken down by his secretary Mariya Volodiceva on December 31st, 1922.)

Today we know that the Germans who opposed Hitler were not national-traitors but quite the opposite, and that quite to the contrary those who supported him in his criminal enterprise contributed to bring misfortune and shame to the German People; in the same way as those “true Russian patriots” according to Putin: those who today support him in his criminal enterprise, are going to bring ruin and shame to their People. It is the “Russian political philosopher” Ivan Ilyin: an emulator of Hitler and avowedly fascist, whose mortal remains Putin had brought back to Muscovy from Switzerland and whose tomb he consecrated, who seems to be his inspiration. Finally, the fact that he has chosen as a badge of his aggression the symbol of a letter ‘z’: which is actually a semi-Sauvastic (or inverted semi-swastika), gives us the complete vision of this new Nazi imitator of Hitler that is Vladimir Putin, and who like him has started with the Anschluss of Ukraine. Nazism is now running Muscovy: from the Kremlin, of course; but also from the Duma and the Country's television.

*

But, at the same time that Putin and his ideological agents maintain the coarse statement of “the Nazis of Ukraine”: a simple pretext to invade and annex that Country just as the “Soviet Russians” used it in 1939 to annex Poland by halves with their allies the Nazis (as well as the rest of Countries that supposedly corresponded to the Soviet Empire, as we have explained that they had secretly agreed), and as a position of tactical retreat if they see that this lie does not work (but without ever acknowledging that it is a lie), the Moscovian ideologists of the aggression against Ukraine do then spread the statement that “this is not about Ukraine at all but reflects the battle over what the new post-Western world order will look like”.

By resorting to this new “justification”, these agents of Moscovian imperialism make it clear that if “this is not about Ukraine”, as they say now, that statement is contradictory to the first one of “the Nazis of Ukraine” with which they “justified” their aggression against that Country; and that, in short, they follow the old ideological tactic of every totalitarian régime according to which “the more propaganda, the better”. And they are not in the least concerned that this propaganda is despicable, formally contradictory in itself and of a very low level, because they know very well that their affirmations do not depend on truth or formal logic to impose themselves but on the volume of the media monopolies of falsification of ideas and of stultification and ideological intoxication of the masses; an intoxication that they impose on the population without fearing any more democratic opposition than that which they have already brought to the cemeteries or the prisons.

Now then, if we look behind all that chatter, we see that this supposed “new post-Western world order” for which the Putinist régime now claims – through the mouth of its first propagandist Lavrov – to be fighting, DOES NOT CONSIST of a new democratic and anti-imperialistic order: therefore founded on the validity and respect of fundamental human rights (HR) and above all on the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples, the first of all HR and the precondition for all of them according to the International Law of the United Nations. It consists, on the contrary, in the maintenance of THE SAME imperialistic order, only that now it is intended to orbit under the hegemony of an Eastern or at least “non-Western” Power: the so-called “Russian Federation” and/or China.

And this is precisely what is concealed, since the “Russian Federation” and China are also Powers that are part of the imperialistic system of international domination over their respective “spheres of influence”. In the true reality, there is no such “Western world order”: which would be – as implicitly and subliminally claimed by the propaganda of those Powers – the only imperialistic one, to which an “Eastern world order” and supposedly anti-imperialistic one is opposed. Quite differently, what we have is AN IMPERIALISTIC GLOBAL ORDER based on what is the essence of imperialism, namely: the violation of both fundamental human rights and above all of the Self-Determination or Independence of Peoples, as well as the integrity and security of their legitimate States constituted on the principle of equal rights and Peoples’ Self-Determination. An imperialistic global order and structure that includes both Western imperialist Powers as well as Eastern imperialist Powers.

In the face of this global imperialistic order, the democratic Resistance of the Peoples which are being attacked by this imperialistic order is opposed, regardless of the aggressor: Eastern or Western; a Resistance that should be supported by all the free Peoples of the world. This democratic Resistance, based on the defence of the national independence of those attacked Peoples, is now represented by the opposition of the Ukrainian People to be swallowed up by Moscovian Imperialism, which aspires to achieve it through its current war of aggression against that People, so as to destroy first of all its legitimate State and then the People itself. And of course, is also represented by the opposition and national Resistance of the Basque People against the criminal colonialist and fascist imperialism of Spain and France.

We are therefore only facing a mere geographical re-dimensioning of the imperialistic world order, in which it is not possible to seriously affirm that this supposed “new post-Western world order” consists of an anti-imperialistic democratic order, since the Government of the “Russian Federation” intends to impose it by subjugating the Ukrainian People and destroying its legitimate State through war crimes. crimes against the peace and security of Peoples and their legitimately constituted States, and crimes against Humanity; of all of which the cynical propagandist of Moscovian imperialism, Lavrov, does not say a word because all this is subject to the categorical imperative of his “Great-Russian” imperialistic Nationalism: including the lies that have to be told and the crimes that have to be perpetrated. It is once again the old Moscovian imperialistic order of all times, established by the tsars under the aegis of the “holy and triune Russia” and its imperialistic Nationalism, oppressors of Peoples and their legitimate States.

This Nationalist-imperialistic, Putinist and fascist ideology, fanatically endorsed by a part of the Moscovian People and supported in Western Europe and other parts by “representatives and thinkers” of a purported and reactionary “Marxist left”: ideologically, intellectually and morally ruined, degenerate and in total coincidence with the fascist right of always (and which in our Country is supported by the sectors intoxicated with the dogmatism and fanaticism of Eta: current lackeys of the Spanish “socialist and communist” social-imperialism), is the real cancer that debases the Moscovian People and that makes possible the continuity of the régime of that autocrat and his mafia gang.

It is this lethal ideology that fuels this situation, and that allows such régimes to emerge and be maintained. But there are no missiles or nuclear weapons – it is essential to understand this – that can be used to combat the fascist ideology, whether of Putin, of the European pseudo-revolutionary “Marxist left”, of Berlusconi or of Donald Trump. What is needed in the face of it is a theoretical-ideological development based on authentic Democracy, and not on its current falsification and substitute created by “modern” imperialism and totalitarianism “with elections”, and applied in Western Europe for two hundred and thirty years since the French Nationalist “revolution”. That is, the development of an authentic Democracy, based on the respect for and enforcement of fundamental human rights, and above all on the Self-Determination or National Independence of all Peoples, which dismantles the sophisms and falsehoods which every imperialistic, totalitarian and fascist régime “with elections” is based upon. Let us look at the conditions of development of both ideologies:

“[...] For the appreciation and interpretation of the reality according to the ideology of imperialism and fascism, and due to the mental/moral distortion that this ideology establishes, the same data, the same means, the same facts and the same ideas are either ‘intrinsically and fundamentally’ evil, or straight and holy; all this depending on the circumstances, the moment, the involved subject and the own convenience. The application of concepts, values, criteria, principles, norms and theoretical references that are not only variable but even formally contradictory (an application performed jointly or separately depending on the ideological need and opportunity, and on whether they are applied to one or the other of the opponents), is a constant factor of the imperialistic and fascist propaganda.

“Instead, for the subjugated persons and Peoples, the truth is the sole way: long, hazardous and full of risks, which sometimes leads to freedom, as well as it equally comes from it. (Unfortunately, throughout their history Spaniards and French have known no other ‘freedom’ than that of their permanent Despotic-Asiatic and Absolutist régimes; and their ‘truth’ is the affirmation of their imperialistic Nationalism over the Basque People.)

“Now then, in a world like ours, telling the truth is an inadvisable activity that exposes its reckless or unconscious actors to the worst reactions of the ‘public’ opinion and powers. As far as truth is concerned, whoever here wants to ‘live well’, or at least live quietly, has every interest in learning to close his trap. Most of the population has understood this for a long time. ‘The truth will set you free’, it has been said; but the lie and the destruction of reason also ‘liberate’ its own servants: agents of the established totalitarian, imperialistic and fascist power, to whom it offers the rich diversity of its all-powerful will.

“Insofar as democracy implies freedom of thought, of criticism and research, the logical coherence, the terminological and conceptual univocity, the semantic parity and the methodological stability are conditions for the access to truth and knowledge. On the contrary, for imperialism and fascism, they are insurmountable obstacles to be destroyed, because their agents cannot dominate ideologically the Peoples without falsifying, recuperating and confusing the ideas. This form of ideology involves the previous dumbing down of its patients by modern propaganda monopolies; however, if this condition is lacking, the reaction can be dangerous for the pretentious fascist agents.

“Intellectual probity, on the one hand, and imperialistic Nationalism, on the other, are realities that do mutually exclude each other. Nationalism-Imperialism has nothing to do with any kind of intellectual honesty. That Imperialism is a criminal enterprise of Nationalist and racist domination-exploitation against Peoples’ freedom, established and maintained by means of criminal Violence, which is also achieved through ideological indoctrination; which implies mental confusion of its patients, falsehood, disguise and calumny.

“The ideologists of the imperialistic and fascist Nationalism: whether they claim to be National-Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox, or National-laymen/socialist/communists, are not honourable theorists or men of science, even less ‘good-hearted persons who defend their ideas – all legitimate and respectable – with pen and word, and who oppose culture to violence’, as their indigenous and ‘autonomous’ services of ideological intoxication of masses seek to make us believe. Quite on the contrary, as politicians, they are agents, partners, accomplices, accessories after the fact and/or beneficiaries – notorious and convicted – of the robbery and the crimes of war, against peace and against Humanity that constitute the current French-Spanish imperialistic régime that subjugates our Country. And as ideologists, they are liars, libellers, forgers and impostors, cheats and swindlers, habitual or professional advantage players.

“Decent people, good people, do not talk to the imperialistic and fascist criminals who do continue or try that there continues the enterprise of domination of the French-Spanish imperialistic Nationalism, which has bloodied and oppressed the Basque People and is occupying our Country for twelve centuries. Even less can do it those who exercise functions and assume ideological and political responsibility. The thinker, the politician, or the free person that faces theoretical, practical or simple information issues under the conditions of imperialism will do well to distrust and protect himself from any communication or ‘informative, scientific or artistic’ contribution that comes from its agents.

“For decent politicians, scientists and persons, no honourable trade and no honest frequentation are possible with the imperialistic and fascist ideological agents: whatever the moral or cultural pretensions with which they conceal themselves may be. There cannot be talks with those who – whether having or not a gun on the table – do lean on the monopoly of criminal Violence, established through war of aggression, conquest, and countless and horrendous imprescriptible crimes against our Country. In our Country, there cannot be a place for ‘talks’ with the agents of the propaganda and the psychological warfare that impose the ideas of the French-Spanish imperialism and fascism, in the service and under the protection of their occupying army. The ‘dialogue’ with the imperialistic Fascism and Terrorism is a formal nonsense that involves complicity with their agents and the covering-up of their criminal enterprise of destruction of the free persons and Peoples; consequently, it must be absolutely and positively avoided.

“In the conditions of the imperialistic régime of military occupation, they are impossible and contradictory the democratic relations with those who fight the fundamental human rights and, first of all, the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples: ‘the first of fundamental human rights and the prior condition to the full enjoyment of them all’, according to contemporary International Law recognized – not constituted – by the United Nations. Democratic relations, popular will and human rights are only reached by the suppression of the imperialistic occupation as a precondition. [...]

“Lies and defamation with a mass range are strong weapons, more direct and effective than their problematic subsequent theoretical rectification. To begin with, the monopolies of criminal Violence and propaganda of imperialism do already exclude any proportionate response to the damage caused, thus multiplying decisively the ideological superiority of the imperialistic forces; and in this way the lie repeated a thousand times becomes again the ideological truth.

“It should be borne in mind that the extreme use of the material means at its disposal, and even the theoretical-formal weakness of the imperialistic and fascist propaganda, are cause and effect of the situation of absolute domination that the monopoly of the criminal Violence provides to its agents. And this is because the formal contradiction in which they move with total naturalness and without its causing them the slightest concern, the lie and the stupidity, the falsification of words and the manipulation of concepts, are always profitable for fascism if the monopoly of propaganda assures them repetition and penetration without possibility of reply; and this is something that fascism makes sure to achieve. The falsification of the cardinal terms and concepts of sociology and policy is part of the ideological technique of modern imperialism and totalitarianism, so as to achieve confusion and domination over the Peoples.

“Imperialism and fascism do not only destroy the material reality of Peoples; they also destroy in them the common sense and reason. The ideological schizophrenia does found the dominant propaganda that affirms the “freedom” of imperialism. Their spokespersons: considered mentally healthy by the traditional clinical systems and criteria, are a permanent danger for the mental health of the populations subjected to the monopolies of propaganda, psychological warfare, and ideological intoxication of masses of the imperialistic and fascist régime. Far from harming them, irrationality offers these officials considerable – and often decisive – ideological advantages vis-à-vis the defenders of authentic freedom based on fundamental human rights and Democracy; without the former having to fear from the latter any rational or scientific competition that can be ideologically effective among the masses, given their overwhelming superiority of means.

“Surprising though it may appear to the deluded or romantic idealists: who still believe in the universal value and validity of panlogism and in the effectiveness of reason as an ideological weapon, the stupidity and the formal irrationality are not defect or weakness but ideological fullness and virtue, under the conditions of imperialism and fascism.

“In the face of them, the only antidote that democratic ideology has is intellectual honesty and logical-formal coherence, on the one hand; and, on the other, the structuring of a democratic ideology and a policy based upon the theoretical and practical affirmation of the universal validity and respect of fundamental humanrights and, above all, upon the first and the precondition of them all: the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples. Without fundamental rights, there is no democracy.” Etc. (See Chapter XXIII ‘Imperialistic ideology versus democratic ideology: an asymmetry of variable and constant factors’, of our aforementioned general work.)

*

“Russian” imperialistic Nationalism, like all imperialistic Nationalism, is incompatible with fundamental human rights, including those of its People. But above all it is incompatible with what is the first and the precondition of all of them: the right to freedom, self-determination or independence of all the Peoples over whom it aspires to impose itself; and therefore it means the destruction of all democracy, which can exist and subsist only on fundamental human rights and only because of those rights. “A People that oppresses another People cannot be free.” To identify oneself with the imperialistic Nationalism is to identify oneself with criminal military aggression, totalitarianism and fascism: for other Peoples but also for oneself. This is the case of the Moscovian imperialistic régime: currently Mafia-Kagebist-Putinist, as it was Bolshevik before, as it was Tsarist before.

This is also the case of French-Spanish imperialistic Nationalism and of the totalitarian States – monarchical or republican, national-Catholic or national-secular, national-socialist/communist or national-fascist – of Spain and France, which have subjugated the Basque People and do occupy its State, the Kingdom of Nabarre, against all national and international legality. This French-Spanish Nationalism-imperialism has also been imposed on the Basque People throughout a history of aggression, persecution, oppression, war and State Terrorism, and imprescriptible crimes against the People, its Language and its State, perpetrated by the occupying Armies of Spain and of France, their doctrinal propagandists, and their French-Spanish metropolitan Colonists together with the indigenous Renegades. They have all been helped by their necessary collaborators and parties that call themselves “radical Basque nationalists and patriots”, which form the mafia-liquidationist bureaucrats Pnv-Eta, who have admitted the imperialistic occupiers as “Basque democrats”. They do all hide that they comfort this French-Spanish imperialistic domination on the ideological “justification” of denying the Basque People and its original, international and indefeasible right of unconditional and immediate self-determination or independence, on an equal footing as another People of the world; and of affirming it on the contrary as “Spanish” or “French”. According to all of them, the régimes of military occupation and the resulting genocidal, imperialistic, colonialist and fascist States of Spain and of France are “non-nationalist, non-violent, legitimate and democratic”, and the own and ones of the Basque People.

In view of all this, we reproduce again a significant paragraph from the 'Declaration for the Rights and the Liberation of Peoples', published in Basque, English, French and Spanish:

“Those who oppress Peoples and States are not agents of honourable political enterprises, they are simply criminals; yet, not political but just common delinquents. Nor are they criminals of a particular level either but the perpetrators of the greatest crimes that morality and law can record. If we take International Law as a reference, these terrible offences can be classified into three groups: those committed against the laws of war, against peace, and against Humanity. They cannot be forgotten or forgiven, if we are really aiming to finish with them.” (Iñaki Aginaga; from his mentioned Declaration.)

“‘All Empire will perish.’ Fortunately, the empires do crumble and fall apart, forced to abandon their domination over the Peoples that they subjugated by means of criminal Violence and Terror, and that – if they are not liquidated before – regain their national independence one after the other. Not only in various and distant Continents but also in the small European peninsula next to the ‘Heartland’ in the ‘World Island’; which is resulting in the significant return of European Nations to their historical territories geo-politically conditioned and constituted.

“‘At a time when the world tends to unite’, the Great European Powers are losing the territories they did violently and illegally occupy and annex, thus returning to their historical borders; while the Peoples that the former subdued, do recover the freedom, territory and identity that these Powers took from them. France and Spain are the Continental and Western exceptions.”

Now then, “From Oriental Despotism to Feudalism, from Absolutism to proto-Fascist ‘Liberalism’, and from military dictatorships to contemporary totalitarian systems ‘democratic with elections’, considered the cases of England, Germany, Japan or the ‘Russian Empire’, comparative history shows the evolutionary diversity of imperialisms; but it confirms that, in general, imperialism does never retreat in a voluntary, spontaneous, rational or reasonable way. Its remission or limitation does only occur when it encounters resistances that it cannot overcome.”

These resistances – ideological and in their case military – must be maintained by all the means that the Peoples have at their disposal, by virtue of their right of legitimate self-defence, and with the help of the free Peoples and States of the world, as established by relevant resolutions of the UNO General Assembly.

“The pernicious tendency of the ‘great’ Powers’ international law to preserve the status quo: founded on uncountable crimes against smaller Peoples and States but advocated notwithstanding as a ‘beneficial peaceful form’ of imperialism (‘even if it is’ in violation of the international and indefeasible right of self-determination-RSD or independence of all Peoples), has already caused terrible consequences for Humanity. The affirmation of this RSD allows – even if it be in a defective form – peace and coexistence between Nations and States; its denial does never allow them.

“When – forced by the crisis created by the subjugated Peoples – the imperialistic leaders affirm that ‘we don’t have a problem of independence but a problem of coexistence’ (P. Sánchez, Spanish prime minister for the ‘National-socialist Party for the Spanish workers–Falange-Ugt-PsoE’), they are completely distorting the reality, since the ‘coexistence’ hypocritically preached by imperialism consists in the submission to its domination.

“In reality, those who in theory and in practice deny the freedom and the right of self-determination or independence of all Peoples, do destroy the only possible foundation of democratic coexistence, peace and order; do build in their place the foundations of criminal Violence and war of aggression; and do establish and sustain the bases of the order and disorder of violence among Nations.

“Without a real solution for the national question: a democratic solution, based therefore on the independence and integrity of Peoples and their legitimate States built on the Self-Determination or Independence of Peoples, there are no firm and long-lasting coexistence, peace or tranquillity but interim periods between one conflict and another. ‘If the Peoples’ right of self-determination is emptied of its content, there gets removed the foundation from which the friendship among Peoples can be developed.’

“The grotesque identification of the struggles of Peoples for their national independence with ‘violence, terrorism and Nazism’; and the correlative identification of the imperialism and the status quo product of imperialism with ‘non-violence, pacifism and Democracy’, do – without further ado – imply:

– the liquidation of the principle of national freedom and independence, and of the Peoples’ right of self-determination and of legitimate self-defence;

– the abolition of the crimes against the fundamental human rights, and the impunity of the criminals against them;

– the criminalization of struggles for national independence, subjected to properly terrorist and increasingly extreme forms of repression; and

– the return to the classic ‘international law’ that the imperialistic and colonialist Great Powers did establish, with their iniquitous affirmation of the legitimacy of the ‘doctrine of discovery’, the ‘right of conquest’, and the jus ad bellum, jus in bello, jus post bellum. This is: the affirmation of their absolute and terrorist ‘right’ to expansion and rapine through the war, in the war, and in the post-war, under the simple condition that one of those Powers feels in a position of being able to impose it.” Etc. (From Chapter 10 – ‘The “national question” is the question of the policy and law of Nations’, of ‘Ideological fundamentals – Stepping-stones’.)

NO ‘CONVERSATION’ WITH THE PERPETRATORS OF PEOPLES’ GENOCIDE AND THE CRIMINALS AGAINST HUMANITY WHO CALL THEMSELVES‘POLITICAL LEADERS’!

OUT OF THE REPUBLIC OF UKRAINE THE MOSCOVIAN FORCES OF MILITARY OCCUPATION!

OUT OF THE KINGDOM OF NABARRE, THE FRENCH-SPANISH FORCES OF MILITARY OCCUPATION!

TO JAIL WITH THE EVILDOERS AND MURDERERS OF MASSES!!

GO AWAY FROM HERE!!