Connect with us

RussiaFeed

News

Ukrainian Leader says Half of Ukraine is Mentally Retarded

Svoboda party member Farion says Russian speaking Ukrainians are retards

Published

on

183 Views

A leader of the Ukrainian Svoboda Party Irina Farion declared that Russian-speakers in Ukraine are mentally retarded, and the biggest problem for Ukraine. The monumental stupidy of her claim, is that it insults not only roughly half of Ukrainians who speak Russian, but it also insults her fellow Ukrainian nationalists, including President Petro Poroshenko himself.

This map shows a trend, generally accurate, but  such maps should be tools of perception, not precision

Her speech is not worth anyone’s attention for any purpose other than to document the insanity plaguing Ukraine, but I would like to demonstrate how her words are not only racist, but demonstrate a profound ignorance of the Ukrainian reality, bordering on a desire to genocidally change it. Four years ago to this day, fascists of a similar mindset as her, killed hundreds of people in Odessa. Some were burned alive, some were strangled including a pregnant woman, as documented in this article – be warned, the photos are very graphic. Make no mistake, this is indicative of a fascist crisis in the heart of Europe.

As a result, I will briefly summarize her statement, however, a full translation into English can be found here at this website documenting the tragic events in Ukraine. I will be relying on the Ukrainian version of her ridiculous speech, rather than the Russian version. This is not so much to capture her original words most accurately, as Russian and Ukrainian are close enough languages that there is almost no such thing as lost in translation, between these two eastern Slavic languages. Rather, it would be amusing to make the point that speaking a certain language – in this case, Ukrainian – does not dictate political views.

Her speech begins by asking why Ukrainians live in Ukraine but speak the “occupiers language”, and she begins to blame the war in Ukraine on Russian-speaking citizens. It is very telling that she is NOT speaking exclusively about Ethnic Russians in Ukraine, but any Ukrainians who speak Russian. As we will later explain, this is a large percentage of the country.

She says the War in Ukraine is happening where there is the Russian Church, which is factually untrue. The “Russian Church”, officially called the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) is the only canonical (internationally recognized) Orthodox Church in Ukraine. It is located everywhere – not just in East Ukraine but even in the West, and controls the most important religious sites, even if the churches are often seized by radicals.

Pochaiv Lavra, a fortress of Russian Orthodoxy in Western Ukraine

The leader of the Ukrainian Church, His Beatitude Onufry of Kiev is a strong Ukrainian speaker from Western Ukraine, yet he is the Primate of the “Russian Church”. Metropolitan Onufry is one of the strongest voices advocating for an end to violence in Ukraine, and is born in one of the most Ukrainianized regions of the country. This alone demonstrates her idea of Russian Church, Russian speakers – enemies of Ukraine – is false.

She also blames Russian culture (of which Ukrainian can be considered a part of), and most telling, she says the war in Ukraine is wherever there are “російськомовні громадяни” meaning Russian-speaking citizens.

Some may infer she means citizens of the Russian Federation, but she then clearly states in her warped view: Російськомовні українці – найбільша проблема України “Russian-speaking Ukrainians – the greatest problem of Ukraine” – the word українці can only properly refer to “Ethnic Ukrainians”.

As a result, it is clear that she considers any Ukrainian who speaks Russian to be in her words, mental retards, and traitors. This is not surprising, considering that her party, Svoboda, is basically the Neo-Nazi light party.

Svoboda Party Leader Oleg Tyahniboh

The purpose of this article, however, is to explain how she is essentially targetting half the country.

How much of Ukraine is Russian or Russian-speaking?

I began this article by saying half of Ukraine speaks Russian, and at this point, in order to prove that, we have to deal with a major problem facing Ukraine – reliable statistics. Someone could easily produce a map of Ukraine with statistics showing 30% are Russian speakers, and I could likewise produce one saying at least 80% (like this Gallup poll). Why the difference? Well aside from the fact that some people have been known to openly lie, as this article reveals, the lines between Russians and Ukrainians have never exactly been clear.

Languages of Ukraine

The reality is – any Ukrainian can switch languages, and sadly, some can even switch identities, as easily as other people change their clothes. Switching back and forth between Ukrainian and Russian, even midsentence, is effortless, common, and very fun if you speak both…and to some friends and family who don’t…annoying. It’s called Surzhik, and we will later explore this. Generally speaking, there are four languages/dialects spoken in Ukraine, and a language is essentially a dialect with an army and navy. They are listed as spoken from West to East

  1. Western Ukrainian: while not technically different than literary Ukrainian, the accent and terminology are heavily Polish. Here are two examples of Western Ukrainian style speech, the latter being what some consider a separate language – Carpatho-Russian. Foreign western tourists have noted that Western Ukraine is the only part of Ukraine where Ukrainian language is by far dominant, but found the people still speak Russian if asked by a non-Ukrainian speaker.
  2. Standard Literary Ukrainian: common, especially in central and northern Ukraine, used most prevalently in print, and by politicians and universities. For an example of the differences between Literary Ukrainian and the Western dialect in song, here are two versions of the classic Polish song Hej Sokoly in Ukrainian. The first is in literary standard Ukrainian, and the second is in Western Ukrainian dialect – note the use of the word Hen’ to mean “there” in place of Tam, the word used in both standard Ukrainian and Russian.
  3. Surzhik: A mix of Russian and Ukrainian, ranging from throwing Russian words into Ukrainian sentences, to completely ignoring the norms of grammar for both languages. Arguably the most common language spoken in the typical Ukrainian countryside, especially East-Central, and South, associated with rural villagers and industrial workers. This letter from the great Russian-speaking Ukrainian writer Gogol is written in what some could consider 19th-century Surzhik. Surzhik can also be heard in Cossack songs, a good example being “Yihav Kozak za Dunai” where the Russian style word Lusche (better) is used in place of standard Ukrainian Krasche. Several versions of Halya Molodaya (Young Halya) interchange the word Lusche with Krasche. The glorious Cossack song Harni Kozak Harni also says “Nasha Slava Kozatskaya ne na paperi pisana” (Our Cossack Glory is Not Written in Paper) – the feminine ending of the adjective Kozatskaya is Russian. Ukrainian would have ended without the “ya” at the end i.e. Nasha Slava KozatskaAnother modern example of Surzhik is this video by a Ukrainian youtuber, though she is slightly exaggerating her expressions for humorous effect.
  4. Standard Russian: Russian as spoken in Russia, possibly with a Ukrainian accent, stereotypically on the G (which become like an English H). Mostly spoken in East Ukraine, and also in major cities such as Kiev and Odessa.

Those are the four types of speech you will hear in Ukraine. The areas where these languages are spoken correspond logically with the historical evolution of Ukraine. That being said, as a general rule, all Ukrainians can speak Russian as well as Ukrainian.

While Ukrainian controversially dominates as the only official language, government papers, university work, and signs are written in Ukrainian, some form of Russian remains the lingua franka, as well as the native language of many Ukrainians. Russian particularly dominates in television and media, where the government is actively taking steps to promote Ukrainian, due to Russian being far more common on TV – the main source of Ukrainian news.

Russian is so dominant in Ukrainian TV, that the comedy show Varyaty advertises as being “the first Ukrainian-language humor show”. If one takes a look at their website, they can see their city schedule is all western Ukrainian. This is why Ukrainian attempts to prevent Russian from becoming an “official language” is ridiculous and unpopular – as it’s still a main language of everyday life.

Ukraine’s top court rules Russian language ‘unconstitutional’

This is why the Ukrainian politician who called Russian-speakers mentally retarded, is simply out of touch with reality. She herself is almost certainly a Russian-speaker, if defined as someone who understands fluent Russian, even if she chooses to speak exclusively Ukrainian. Most of Ukraine is Russian speaking.

This includes even Russian-hating Nazis, one of whom sings anti-Russian songs…in Russian. By calling Russian speakers retards, she is calling a good chunk of the country, including her President Poroshenko retarted. Despite his anti-Russian nationalism, he famously forgot how to say “wallet” in Ukrainian (he remembered in Russian), and had to ask for help.

Poroshenko’s language mix up is a hilarious microcosm of the Ukrainian language situation, and perhaps the only thing he ever did that made him remotely relatable. Although he always tries to speak in very proper literary Ukrainian, it is obvious that he is perhaps stronger in Russian. When his own children congratulate him on his birthday, his son speaks Russian, unlike his Ukrainian speaking sister. This mix of languages even within one family is totally normal for Ukrainians. That is not even considered mixing languages within the same sentence.

Surzhik – Russian-Ukrainian mix

Due to its non-standardized colloquial nature, there are no statistics as to what population of the country speaks in Surzhik, but anyone who knows Ukraine can say it’s not a small minority. Surzhik can take many forms, but most commonly, it involves throwing Russian or Russified words into mostly Ukrainian sentences.

Think in Ukrainian – write in Russian – the only rule of Surzhik

The prevalence of Surzhik, as well as the influence on Ukrainian speech, essentially means that Ukraine is a state of organic diglossia – a place where two languages are spoken side by side. There are often two possible words or phrases for the same thing in Ukrainian, one more Russian influenced, and one pure Ukrainian, and as a result, Ukrainian speech can appear closer or more distant to Russian depending on the speaker. Here are some examples:

To say in Ukrainian “I speak Ukrainian” one can say: Я розмовляю українською мовою (Ya rozmovlyayu Ukrayiins’kuyu movoyu)

In Russian, the same phrase is: Я говорю по-украински (Ya gavaryu po Ukrainsky)

As a result, on the surface, they seem very different.

But one can just as easily say in Ukrainian: Я говорю по-українськи (Ya hovoryu po po Ukrayinssky).

The latter sounds very close to Russian, and is perfectly understandable, and it can be mixed up in several varieties. This video is made by anti-Kremlin Ukrainians, advocating for speaking Ukrainian, and while they used the instrumental case українською мовою, the word говорю is more Russian compared to розмовляю. That still makes it Ukrainian, and does not make the speakers Pro-Russian. There are plenty more examples of Surzhik in Ukraine:

Yak Dela (similar to Russian Kak Dela) as opposed to Ukrainian Yak Spravi. Do tsih pir (close to Russian Do tsikh por) instead of Dosi. Teper, like the Russian form instead of Zaraz.

As a result, seeing as most of Ukraine is truly and natively bilingual, it is clear that language alone is not the basis of what is causing the difference between Russians and Ukrainians. We have even seen examples of Russian-hating Ukrainians speaking Russian – even literary Russian as opposed to Surzhik, which is common in Kiev.

Whether a person is Russian or Ukrainian, or both, is largely based on their political views, region, religion, culture, language choice, and identity, rather than on clear ethnic or genetic grounds. If one changed their political party, for example, they could easily change from Russian to Ukrainian or Ukrainian to Russian.

That being said, the differences between literary Russian and Literary Ukrainian – not the mixed dialects but the pure “languages” are not so severe. Some say that Russian and Ukrainian have 60% of their words in common, so while they aren’t 100% mutually intelligible, they seem closer than Spanish and Italian for example.

The people are too similar to be completely different, sharing a common history, faith, and ethnogenesis (national origin), but of course, if they were 100% the same, we would not be talking about this at all.

In order to understand why this is, and then explain why the світогляд (worldview) of this politician is warped and totally insane with regards to the reality of Ukraine, we must understand from whence the Russian and Ukrainian lands and people had their origin. In order to understand what is happening in Ukraine, and what caused the language divide, understanding the history is a must.

To give a brief history, Russia and Ukraine are the children of the same state, Kievan Rus’ from their birth until 1240 when Rus’ was divided by invasions. Rus’ was the first East Slavic state, from which Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus’ take their origin from, and it existed on the territory of what is now those three countries. Ukrainian nationalists claim they are the true people of Rus’, whereas Russians have no connection to Rus’.

By 1360, all of Belarus, and much (but not all) of the territory of what is now Ukraine (mostly north central, and especially western), was ruled by Poland and Lithuania until Bogan’s Khmelnitsky’s uprising in 1654.

Polish occupied territories before 1654 included parts of Russia

Khmelnitsky succeeded in uniting most of Ukraine with Russia, when they had been apart for around 300 years, however in that time some differences emerged. The Western part of Ukraine, west of the River Dnipro, but especially west of the river Buh would still be ruled by Poland and later Austro-Hungary for longer.

Poles and later Austro-Hungarians would encourage these differences, and push Catholic-Uniate religion on the people, and eventually, they imposed the idea of Ukrainianization upon what is now Ukraine, causing the people to think of themselves as different than Russians. At the same time, Coosccaks, would help Russia capture the south and east of what is now Ukraine from the Turks and Tatars. This land including Odessa and Donbass, was called New Russia because it was not before a core part of Rus’.

The people of new Russia were not subject to Ukrainizaition to the same level as others, and remains more russian speaking.

While other Ukrainians who underwent Ukrainizaition, still considered themselves the children of Rus’, they felt Russia was not Rus. You could say simplistically, Ukrainian nationalists want to be Rusian but not Russian, though it is obvious from a study of history, that Rus’ and Russia are natural evolutions, and the differences in Ukraine were caused by foreign empires occupying and brainwashing the people.

When talking about Ukraine, its imperative to accept the reality that we are essentially talking about (at least) two different countries merged into one. In simplistic terms, you can divide Ukraine into East and West by the River Dnipro, and say the East is (generally speaking) Russified and Orthodox, and the West is (very generally speaking) Catholic-Uniate and Ukrainianized. Almost any map of modern Ukraine will show a major divide in Ukraine based on this simplistic module.

Note: this is a map of Modern Ukraine, the borders do NOT reflect historical borders. This map and other maps are also older than 2014, and so Crimea is shown as part of Ukraine. After 2014, the people of Crimea exercised their democratic right to self-determination and choose to join the Russian Federation.

As a result, the difference between a Ukrainian and a Russian can be seen as being more philosophical, political, and religious, than purely ethnic. The differences largely emerged from Modern Ukraine being a conglomeration of various historical territories. The ethnogenesis of Ukrainian people, along with Russians and Belarussians is worthy of its own scholarly and national studies.

It is the political division in modern Ukraine, which has caused hatred to poison the blood between normal Ukrainians and Russians. This hatred exists even towards other Ukrainians, as we witnessed with the example of that deranged politican who hates Russian-language speakers. It is clear from an examination of history that Russians and Ukrainians are a brotherly people with a common origin.

It is clear from the monumental works of legendary authors like Russian-speaking Ukrainian Nikolai Gogol, and the wisdom of Saints like Lavrentry of Chernigov (who by modern standards is a Ukrainian, but who considered himself Russian), that the divide between the peoples is artificial. Saint Lavrenty went as far as to say it was imposed by non-Orthodox foreign powers and Uniates to destroy Orthodox Rus’. It is clear even from a secular point of view, that this violence and division which has killed tens of thousands in Donbass, and brought ruin to Ukraine serves neither the Russian nor Ukrainian people.

The hatred in Ukraine is not the product of native East Slavs, but has been perniciously fostered by foreign powers for centuries, who fear the unity of the old lands of Rus’. The only solution is to lay aside the hatred and remember common roots far more ancient. This reaffirms the ancient words “Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, together we are Holy Rus.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Russia’s Next Weapon: A Church

The Russian military plans to build a military church to bolster the spiritual values of its armed forces.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Michael Peck via The National Interest:


Meet Vladimir Putin’s newest weapon: a church.

The Russian military plans to build a military church to bolster the spiritual values of its armed forces. Construction will soon begin of the Main Church of the Armed Forces, to be erected in Patriot Park outside Moscow, according to Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov, deputy defense minister and chief of the armed forces’ Main Military-Political Directorate, a new organization responsible for political education of the troops.

The “new church will be one more example of the people’s unity around the idea of patriotism, love, and devotion to our Motherland,” Kartapolov told Russian journalists.

To say the church, dubbed by some as the “Khaki Temple,” will have a martial air would be an understatement.

“The walls of the military church are really made in the color of the standard Russian missile system and armored vehicle,” according to the Russian newspaper The Independent [Google English translation here ] “…From the inside, the walls are decorated with paintings with battle scenes from military history and texts from the Holy Scriptures. The projected height is 95 meters [104 feet] and is designed for 6,000 people.”

“Kartapolov is convinced that the modern Russian serviceman cannot be shaped without shaping lofty spirituality in him,” Russian media said. “Speaking about ideology, the deputy head of the military department pointed out that this will be based on knowledge of the history of our Motherland and people and on historical and cultural traditions.”

“Even though the Russian constitution states that ‘no ideology may be established as state or obligatory,’ the Kremlin continues to search for a unifying set of beliefs,” notes the U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office.

Religion has long played a role in Russian military life, first through the Russian Orthodox Church in Tsarist times, and then—in a secular way—through Communism in Soviet times. “In late imperial Russia, when they began to build garrisons, every regiment sought to build a regimental church, but not a synagogue or mosque,” Roger Reese, an historian at Texas A&M University who has written books on the Tsarist and Soviet armed forces, told the National Interest. “In Putin’s Russia, the Orthodox Church seeks every opportunity to represent itself as the national religion and tie itself to the state as it had under the tsars, so this act represents continuity broken temporarily by the Soviet years. Of course the Soviet regime did not build churches for the army, but it did build the ‘House of the Red Army,’ shaped like a star, in Moscow dedicated to the use of the Red Army and its soldiers.

In some respects it was analogous to a USO [United Service Organization that supports American soldiers] building. So Putin’s dedicating one particular building to the use of the Russian Army soldiers for purposes of morale—and morals—is in line with that.”

While the thought of a military church will be distasteful to some, Russia is hardly unique in linking the military and religion.

Many armies, the United States and Israel included, maintain chaplains who wear uniform and hold military rank. Chapels are common on military bases, and soldiers are given time for – and sometimes pressured to – attend religious services. While a Russian military church is likely to favor a specific denomination – Russian Orthodoxy – even that isn’t unique: non-Christian members of the U.S. military have complained of religious discrimination , especially by Christian fundamentalists.

What’s interesting is how little things change. Be it the Tsar’s conscripts, or the Red Army’s draftees or the volunteers who comprise much of modern Russia’s military, some spiritual reinforcement is deemed necessary to get soldiers to fight.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

World War I Homage – A Triumph of Lies and Platitudes

The unilateral, lawless imperialism that engendered World War I and 20 years later World War II is still alive and dangerously vigorous.

Published

on

Authored by Finian Cunningham via Strategic Culture:


World leaders gathered in Paris on Sunday under the Arc de Triomphe to mark the centennial anniversary ending World War I. In an absurd way, the Napoleon-era arc was a fitting venue – because the ceremony and the rhetoric from President Emmanuel Macron was a “triumph” of lies and platitudes.

Among the estimated 70 international leaders were US President Trump and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, each sitting on either side of Macron and his wife. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was also given pride of place beside the French president.

Macron’s address to the dignitaries was supposed to be a call for international multilateralism. He urged a “brotherhood” for the cause of world peace. He also made a pointed rebuke of “nationalism” as posing a danger to peace – a remark which seemed aimed at Donald Trump who recently boasted of his politics with that very word.

But, ironically, everything about the ceremony and Macron’s speech resonated with jingoistic French nationalism, not his avowed multinationalism. As the politicians sat under the Arc de Triomphe, Macron walked around its circular esplanade in a salute to assembled French military forces bearing assault rifles and bayonets. The French anthem – The Marseillaise – was played twice, once by an army brass band, the second time sung by an army choir. There was also a military plane flyover displaying the blue, red and white tricolor of the French national flag.

In his speech, Macron talked about soldiers coming from all over the world to “die for France” during the 1914-18 Great War. He even said at one point that the war was fought for “the vision of France” and its “universal values”.

This was fluent drivel, French-style. No wonder Russia’s Putin momentarily gave a look of boredom as Macron waxed lyrical.

The speechifying and commemoration was completely detached from current realities of conflict and international tensions.

Among the “brotherhood” whom Macron was appealing to were Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whose military forces continue to bomb and slaughter Palestinian civilians in illegally occupied territory. Also present was Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko whose armed militias continue to terrorize the people of eastern Ukraine with the blatant objective of instigating a war between the US-led NATO alliance and Russia.

Listening to Macron one would think that World War I erupted mysteriously from no specific cause and that an estimated 10 million soldiers were all killed in heroic battles for noble principles.

There was, of course, no mention by Macron of imperialist warmongering and the barbaric sacrifice of humans as slaves in the service of national capitalist power interests.

Grotesquely, as the world leaders donned solemn faces and mouthed pious platitudes for peace, the whole occasion was a triumph in burying reality and the ongoing causes of wars, as well as whitewashing the very culprits responsible for wars. Among the war criminals wearing a mournful black suit was former French President Nicolas Sarkozy who launched the NATO blitzkrieg on Libya in 2011.

While the empty, self-indulgent rhetoric was ringing out, one couldn’t help but recall some of the most glaring contemporary contradictions that were blocked out with awesome Orwellian efficiency.

Just this week, reports emerged of the horrific civilian death toll from the American air force bombing the Syrian city of Raqqa. The city was razed to the ground by US air strikes last year – supposedly to defeat the ISIS terror group. Some 8,000 bodies of civilians, mainly women and children, have now been recovered by Syrian government forces. And that’s only from clearing away a tiny area of rubble for the whole city.

What the Americans did in Raqqa was a monumental war crime, all the more criminal because US forces, along with their NATO partners Britain and France, are illegally present in and assaulting sovereign Syrian territory.

As Macron was telling world leaders about “the vision of France”, hundreds were being killed in Yemen in a battle to strangle the entire population by taking the port city of Hodeida. The genocidal war on that country – which is putting up to 16 million people at risk from starvation – has been fully backed by France, the US and Britain, from their supply of warplanes and bombs to the Saudi and Emirati aggressive forces.

We could mention other specific conflicts where the culprits are clearly identified. For example, the multi-million-dollar support from Washington for the Azov Battalion and other Neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine, which openly emulate the genocidal conduct of Hitler’s Third Reich to exterminate ethnic Russians.

We could mention how US-led NATO forces continue to expand towards Russian territory with outrageous provocation. The mounting earlier this month of the biggest-ever NATO war drills since the Cold War in the Arctic region adjacent to Russia’s northern border was a brazen threat of rehearsing invasion. The announced tearing up of yet another nuclear arms control treaty unilaterally by Washington is a reckless undermining of global security.

Washington threatens China with naval forces marauding near Beijing’s maritime territory in the South China Sea. Washington blockades Iran with illegal economic warfare and openly agitates for regime change. Washington declares Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba a “troika of tyranny” and reserves the right to threaten each of these countries with military invasion at any time.

Meanwhile, this weekend, Russia hosted peace talks in Moscow between the warring parties of Afghanistan. It was seen as a major breakthrough in trying to bring peace to the Central Asia country which has been wracked by 17 years of violence since US forces began their ongoing military occupation – allegedly to defeat terrorism.

Elsewhere, Russia has engaged with Turkey, Germany and France to convene a summit for peaceful reconstruction of Syria. The latest summit held in Ankara at the end of last month follows several other such meetings in Astana and Sochi, largely at the behest of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, to find a political settlement to the nearly eight-year war in Syria – a war that was fomented covertly by Washington and its allies for regime change.

France’s Macron talks about “multilateralism” for world peace, yet the two countries which have arguably supported and implemented multilateralism in practice are Russia and China in their calls and policies for global partnership and economic development.

And yet it is Russia and China that are being harassed with American and European sanctions, and US military provocations.

The unilateral, lawless imperialism that engendered World War I and 20 years later World War II is still alive and dangerously vigorous. We only have to look around the present world to realize that. But when the culprits indulge in a triumph of bullshit then we also know that the world is once again in very grave danger.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

German Bundestag MP, Petr Bystron, calls for an end to sanctions against Russia

Petr Bystron: I don’t think Germany should let itself be blackmailed by anyone, and should be free to get its energy supplies from wherever is best.

The Duran

Published

on

Via the Centre for Geopolitcal Studies…


Interview conducted by Dragana Trifkovic, Director of the Centre for Geopolitcal Studies with the MP of the German House of Representatives (Bundestag), Mr. Petr Bystron

Dear Mr. Bystron, recently we have met at the International Conference on the Development of Parliamentarism in Moscow recently. In front of representatives of Parliaments from all around the world, international experts and journalists you held a well-received speech, calling for an end to sanctions against Russia. Why?

I demanded an end to sanctions because they have not achieved anything except harming German business. There’s no point to maintaining these useless sanctions any longer.

Photo: Petr Bystron

The Russian-German relations are very complex. On the political agenda, they are burdened with the sanctions which the EU countries imposed to Russia, but on the other hand, Germany and Russia cooperate on a strategic project such as North Stream 2. How do you see the prospect of developing further relations between your country and Russia, and also how the United States relations towards the possibility of greater convergence between Germany and Russia?

Of course German companies are still trying to do business with Russia. The sanctions mainly hurt the meat and fruit exporters, as well as the machine tool industry. Exports dropped as much as 60% in the early days of sanctions in these sectors. Naturally, German businesses want to maintain their traditionally good contacts to Russia. North Stream 2 is just one example of this. But it’s no secret there is a lot of pressure from the United States to stop this project. There was a bipartisan initiative in the U.S. Senate in March supported by 39 Senators, urging the government to do everything it can it stop the pipeline. President Trump has come out against North Stream 2 as well.

I don’t think Germany should let itself be blackmailed by anyone, and should be free to get its energy supplies from wherever is best. Even during the Cold War, Russia was a reliable supplier of energy, and there’s no reason to think that will change.

At the Moscow conference, we discussed about the perspective of Eurointegration of Balkan countries that are not yet members of the EU. You represent the view that the EU has no perspective and that EU candidate countries do not have much to hope for. What are in your opinion the biggest problems in the EU, and are they solvable? What kind of future can expect the EU, and can the EU be reformed and become a functional community?

There are two problems here: First of all, the EU is in no state to accept new members right now, with all its problems. The EU is in a deep crisis and is fighting for its survival. The main example is Brexit, of course: The first nations are leaving the sinking ship. If the EU doesn’t undergo far-reaching and fundamental reform, it is doomed to failure. The Euro currency system is not sustainable in its present form.

These problems have been exacerbated by the migration crisis, which was caused by Angela Merkel’s completely unnecessary and undemocratic opening of the borders in 2015. In a precarious situation like this, it is completely irresponsible to think about expanding the EU even further, especially with candidates who are not able to meet the most basic standards for joining the Union.

We already saw what problems it causes to accept members who don’t meet the criteria or even cheated to get in, as in the case of Greece. The EU now faces huge problems with Greece, Romania and Bulgaria for this reason. These are countries which shouldn’t have been accepted to the EU in the first place. Accepting the West Balkan countries in these circumstances would be tantamount to suicide.

If there is any country from this region which would qualify for membership, both economically and culturally, it is Serbia. Countries like Albania and Macedonia have huge problems in regard to corruption and economic development. And then there’s the problem with Kosovo, which is not recognized as a country by several European nations, Russia or China, for example. That’s a very unstable situation.

The EU wants very much to expand their influence in the Balkans. However, given the current state of the EU, it’s not even advisable for Serbia to want to join the EU, when countries like the UK, Italy and Eastern Europe are moving away from the broken monstrosity in Brussels. Serbia should be glad it is not in the EU, and stand up squarely for its own national interests.

You are particularly interested in the problem of Kosovo and Metohija. The territory of the southern Serbian province since 1999 and the end of the NATO aggression on Yugoslavia is under occupation. The Western powers want to resolve the problem of Kosovo and Metohija outside the framework of international law and UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Negotiations on resolving this issue are underway in Brussels, although Serbia is not a member of the EU and this community has no basis to deal with this problem. How and where, in your opinion, should the issue of Kosovo and Metohija be solved?

Kosovo is a powder keg with no solution in sight. It will remain a problem for many years. I’m convinced the current situation can not be maintained. This territory was part of Serbia for centuries, an I am very sure it will belong to Serbia again in the long run. The EU protectorate in Kosovo will be short-lived.

How well in the German public do you know the facts about what is happening in Kosovo and Metohija and how the so-called democracy in this territory works? Are there known facts about violence against Serbs in the presence of international forces UMNIK, KFOR and EULEX? How well do you know the results of these international missions?

The problem began with the way the EU treated the UCK. We should not be supporting a terrorist organization aiming to break up a country. A group like this would be immediately outlawed if it were trying to break up Germany, for example, and they would all be locked up. In the case of Yugoslavia, the EU and Germany for some reason supported this terrorist group, which was a tragic mistake. We are very concerned about the current situation, the human rights violations and the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo.

An entity like Kosovo – which I refuse to call a country – based on injustice and terror, is not viable in the long term, which is evidenced by the continued need for KFOR peacekeeping forces to keep this creation alive.

Recently has been an a discussion in the German Bundestag about the continuation of the mission of German soldiers in Kosovo. At KFOR, there are currently about 400 German soldiers in Kosovo. The Bundestag supported German soldiers remain in Kosovo, thanks to the votes of the ruling CDU / CSU and SPD and the Greens and Liberals (FDP). Alternative for Germany voted against it. How do you assess the mission of the German army in Kosovo and why did you vote against continuation of mission in Kosovo?

This is one of the paradoxes of German politics: That the first German combat mission since WW II was ordered by the formerly pacifist Green Party and their Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer under the Socialist Gerhard Schröder, and they continue to support the KFOR mission. The AfD does not believe in sending German troops to the Balkans, especially not to prop up an artificial entity like Kosovo.

The US supports the formation of the Kosovo Army, although this is contrary to Resolution 1244. German instructors train Albanians to become part of the official army. How is it possible to prevent the taking of illegal actions and violations of the international law by the Western countries?

This is a difficult question and will be a difficult process. But in countries like Germany and the USA, governments and policies can change, thank God. So Serbia needs to be very patient, continue to stand up for itself over the long haul, and reach out to allies and supporters who will see it the same way.

Have you personally, or a delegation from your party Alternative for Germany, visited Kosovo and Metohija? Is there an opportunity for you to do so in the coming period and to make sure of the state of democracy on the spot as well as to evaluate the results of the work of international missions, as well as the the German Bundeswehr?

That’s a good idea. We should definitely visit Serbia and Kosovo with an AfD delegation, to find out more about the situation on the ground. We have already been to Syria, for example, where the situation is completely different from the way it is portrayed in the Western mainstream media, so I’m sure visiting Kosovo would be very interesting.


Petr Bystron is the Speaker of the Alternative for Germany party (AfD)on the Foreign Policy Committee of the German Bundestag.He came to Germany in 1988 as a political refugee and joined the Euro-critical AfD in 2013. He was chair of the AfD for the State of Bavaria 2015-2018. Under his leadership the party reached the best tally of all states in West Germany in the federal elections 2017.

In 2018, he pushed to grant imprisoned British Islam critic Tommy Robinson political asylum in Germany, and filed criminal charges against migrant NGOs engaged in people-smuggling in the Mediterranean. He is a leading political publicist who has won several prizes for his writing and edited a book for

University of Geneva with Polish Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Wałęsa. He is currently one of the 10 most popular German politicians on social media.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending