Global Research

“The aim, of the unfolding events, – is an internal Slavic war, the final solution to the Russian question.”

The events in Ukraine and around the Crimea – “dust” from a long-running project – are part of a plan to eliminate Russia as the only barrier to the North Atlantic elites scheme to dominate the world. Those are the deductions of Andrew Fursov, the director of the Centre of the Russian Studies of MGU (Moscow State University), the director of the Systematic-Strategic analysis Institute, the scholar of the International Academy of Science (Austria), the main editor of the magazine “Востоковедение и африканистика” (“Orientalism and Africanism”), an often guest lecturer in European and American Universities.

(This is a slightly earlier interview with A.I.Fursov, but it goes into a lot more detail about the events in Ukraine. Please note that half a year has passed, and he was right and accurate, about the events which had already happened and are still unfolding – MR)

Q: Andrey Iliych, the main geopolitical question of today is the Russian geopolitics in Ukraine. Let’s start our conversation with the analysis of that situation. What happened there?

A: The situation in Ukraine, I would put on a par with the situation in Syria. And if the Syrian question was met with conflicting views – the leaders of the world Capitalism, the Elite, did not want an escalation of the conflict in Syria and its transformation into a regional war – the Ukrainian question was met by the West as one. It is obvious that, economically, Ukraine is of no interest to the northern-Atlantic Elite. It is, rather, a geopolitical necessity to tear Ukraine from Russia, to turn it into an anti-Russian foothold.

The separation of Ukraine, from Russia, is a long-time geopolitical project of the West – Germans, Britons, Americans. We often quote the words of Zbignew Brzezinski: “deprived of the reunion with Ukraine, Russia is not destined to reclaim the status of a great power”. “Long Zbig” is wrong: Russia can reclaim that status without Ukraine, but it will be more difficult and take longer. The thing is, Brzezinski is not original; he repeats the words of a German General Paul Rohrbach, who stated, in the beginning of the XX century: “to diminish the threat of Russia to Europe, and especially to Germany, you must completely remove Ukrainian Russia from Muscovy Russia”. Please note that to a German General both – Ukraine and Muscovy – are Russia; and he speaks of creating an internal, Russian, split. He evokes the ideas of the German politicians of the last third of the XIX century, principally Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck-Schönhausen, who not only insisted on the necessity of such a split, but defined the means.

Many German politicians outlined the need to oppose Ukraine to Russia, incite the people; in order to do so, it is necessary to cultivate, among the Russian Ukrainians, people with a consciousness, so perverse, that they will begin to hate everything Russian. Thus, it was the psycho-historical operation, with information and psychological sabotage aimed at the creation of Slavic-Russophobes as a psycho-cultural type and a political power. Edakii Orcs in the service of Western Saruman . They were to sever Ukraine from Russia and to oppose it, as a final “anti-Russian Russ”, as a “free and democratic” alternative to the Empire. All this was originally moulded as a Galician project, which was worked on, first, by Austro-Hungarian intelligence and Kaiser’s Germany; then taken over by the Third Reich and inherited, in the second half of the XX century, by the CIA and the BND.

After the “Orange Revolution” (in 2004) it appeared, to the West, that the task was almost complete – but they were wrong. By the end of 2013 it again appeared so; it seemed that the EU clamp was firmly around Yanukovych’s neck, tightening over Ukraine. But, the position of Russia (and possibly, China) played a lead role, and Yanukovych, deciding on his own, unknown, game, bolted. It was at this instant that the West wrote-off, firstly, Yanukovych, and, secondly, the peaceful “Orange” path of separating Ukraine from Russia. Instead they bet on the “Banderovtsy”, on the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Russophobes; the product of that very psycho-historical operation, started by the Germans one hundred and fifty years ago. Then during the second world war, the Nazis picked up the baton, creating the “Galichina” SS Division, and since 1990 ‘s, the heirs of the Third Reich – the Americans – were to establish a new world order (what a coincidence terminology!).

During the current situation with Ukraine, the USA and the EU showed a clear, unashamed demonstration of double standards, hypocrisy and Russophobia. That is the only explanation for their “tolerant” behaviour towards the Ukrainian Nazis, who marched through the streets of Kiev, to the SS mantras. The logic is simple: if the Ukrainian Nazis (and the Baltic ones) are against Russia, let them be. On the other hand, this is nothing new for the Americans. Actively aided by the Russophobic Vatican throughout 1945-46, they did everything to get the Nazis away from justice (even those guilty of “war crimes”); to smuggle them into USA or Latin America, and actively utilise them against the USSR. The Ukrainian events are a clear example, of who we are dealing with.

Q: Who exactly are we dealing with?

A: In Kiev, on the 19-21 of February, there occurred a Bandera neo-Nazi revolt, inspired by the collective West, primarily by the US. It was the Americans, who exploited the stupidity and greed of Yanukovych (and his entourage), who altered the situation, by halting the anti-terrorist operation of the Ukrainian government at the start. If the operation had been given the green light, Maidan would have been over (as it had already began to dissolve). But the result was as it happened. The long years of work of the US intelligence with the Ukrainian leaders, who keep their money in the American banks, with the SBU (the Ukrainian secret service), with the Bandera underground, which was reinvented and activated, paid off.

It is significant that during the two deciding days, the American ambassador took on the “role” of the Rada (Parliament) Speaker, dictating the conditions to the leaders of the “nezalezhnoi” (independent) Ukraine. But, how can we even mention the constitutional “nezalezhnost” (independence)? The quasi-state of Ukraine has always been prominently steered by the external influence; here, such was revealed most visibly, cynically and impudently. It was done so to demonstrate who runs the “show” – and who steers the events – of the Rada (Parliament) and of Maidan; to demonstrate whose will directs the neo-Nazi scum. The American-Bandera revolt could prominently change the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, Eurasia and the world.

Q: But, did the Kiev protest not represent the real, honest, discontent of Yanukovich’s regime?

A: Yanukovich’s clan, without a doubt, is mafia-oligopolistic. But the West – and the pro-western powers within the Ukraine – abused, for self-profit, the natural discontent of the Ukrainian population.

Q: What are their aims?

A: At a minimum, the creation of a West Slavic Bandera neo-Nazi Reich. A constant pressure upon Russia, with numerous methods of provocation, including sabotage. And, if receiving an adequate response – replicating in the world’s media the image of ” a free and democratic Ukraine, which is being molested by the imperially motivated Russia. In short, poor little Ukraine – a victim of the big Russia, following the proven Yugoslavian scheme: “poor Albanians – victims of the evil Serbs”.

A maximum program, identical to the one in 1930’s, with the creation of the German Nazi Reich: the creation of a force, which, if necessary for the West, will take on the deciding role in a war with Russia, resulting in a maximum Russian exhaustion, self-destruction. In other words, the final solution to the Slavic/Russian question, carried out by the Slav/Russians themselves, with a subsequent division of Russia/northern Eurasia and the allocation of the natural resources and land. It must be remembered: the current separation of Ukraine from Russia is planned to result in an opposition, to pressure or to punch Russia with the strength of the Bandera neo-Nazi regime.

This, among other factors (such as the power struggle among the American leadership, Obama’s shaky position after the stale 2013, the American-German disagreements, the Chinese games in Eastern Europe and so on), is the USA’s reply to the actions of Russia, during 2013. It appears that they (the current administration and the clans behind it), obliged to save face, are commencing active action. The elections are in two years’ time, and the Democrats desperately don’t want to leave the White House, meaning that Obama is forced to work for the next, probably white, President. Whoever that will be – maybe Madam Clinton (who spent the whole of December 2012 fuming over the Customs Union, claiming it to be the re-Sovietisation of the post-Soviet territory and demanding that the US must oppose it with all means), Biden or someone else – is of no importance. What is of importance is the fact that Russia should not expect anything pleasant from this segment of the American Elite, while an attack is possible.

But, as the heroes of the movie “Chapaev” stated about the enemy attack: “Psychic? Screw it, let’s go mental.” On paper, everything was smooth. History – is Queen of the insidious; it is enough to remember how it ended for those, fuelled by the desire to find a permanent solution to the Russian question. This is not to mention the fact that there is East and South-East of Ukraine.

Q: Could it be that you are exaggerating?

A: I’d really love to be wrong, I want time to prove that I was exaggerating. Never the less, I have spent decades studying the international power struggle, information and resources; analysing the aims and the actions of the north-Atlantic Elites. I repeat: Russia, even in its current state, is still the only obstacle in the way of the full world domination, the creation of a “New World Order”. This is why one of the last commanders of the Soviet intelligence, Leonid Shebarshin, stated: “the West needs one thing from Russia: for it not to exist.” Strategically, geo-historically – to not exist. In order to organise such “non-existence” a battering-ram is needed – like Hitler. That is why we must always be ready for an attack: we have been warned. I would rather exaggerate and be wrong, than to allow for a repeat of the 22^nd of June 1941; especially, taking into account the fact that, the northern-Atlantic Elites are an enemy much more dangerous than Hitler, with his Third Reich, who ended up alone, and opposed by almost the whole world. Today, we are the ones alone and opposed by, almost, the whole world; the RF (Russian Federation) is not the USSR, not so in terms of economic potential, and not so – most importantly, in the quality of the human resource.

Q: How do you see Ukraine after the collapse of Yanukovich’s regime?

A: Ruins. Nothing else is possible. A Partly destroyed, partly repressed, partly exiled Russian population. The infrastructure destroyed, the land bought by the West and, to a smaller extend, by China. It’s theoretically possible for a commotion, which will end with overturn of the Bandera regime. But, it is hard to overthrow the regime, which is sustained by the West. That was possible, when USSR existed in the world – a second Super Power, which could have supported the weaker of our world, the underdogs, in their struggle against the strong; against the iron foot of the “bourgeoisie”.

A more probable outcome: the regime and the West will attempt to direct the social rage of the masses at the eastern neighbour, declaring it to be the source of all sorrow, lashed by the, supposed, “whip of the Russian Empire”, “Soviet Totalitarism” and so on. Regrettably, the bout for Ukraine is lost, and most shabbily. Our ambassadors worked with the Ukrainian oligarchs, chasing their own gain, completely forgetting about the people, the population, some pro-Russian – for the dollar fogs the mind. At the same time the West worked with both, the oligarchs and the most active representatives of the anti-Russian forces, layers, groups. It was those groups that became the “Jokers”, with which the West beat the, so-called, pro-Russian oligarchs and their envoy, Yanukovych, with a criminal past.

Yet, I will repeat: history – is a cruel Queen. Everything can go by a different scenario. The future is not foretold, it is created from the struggle, from the collision of will and strength; thus, it depends on us, on our actions. Losing the bout, is not the same as losing the match, the match continues. But, to win, or, at least not to lose, merciless effort has to be applied to right the mistakes, to clean house. The loss of the “Ukrainian bout” is the result of internal problems, internal instability.

Q: You say the bout for Ukraine is lost. What about the Russian army in the Crimean territory?

A: The decision of the Russian administration, particularly Putin, completely destroys the scenario of the evolvement of the Bandera neo-Nazi revolt in Ukraine, inspired by the West, primarily by the USA. From that, we can state that the “face” of “Sasha Belyj” (Alexander Muzychko, a known Nazi, part of the post-revolt Ukrainian government, used to attend parliament meetings with an AK, was murdered, shot in the heart, 10 days after this interview – MR) is the reflection of President Obama and all those in the West, who pushed the neo-Nazis into power. Once the power was seized in Kiev, the radicals, after banning the use of the Russian language in their first Act, planned – reinforced and aided by the West – to push the Russian east and south-east into submission, onto their knees. But, it turned out that those regions had support, serious support – Russia. It turns out that a country, which has defeated Nazism before, stood-up to the neo-Nazis’ attempt at a Russian genocide.

The suppression of the east and south-east (it would have followed the same pattern, which was utilised to overpower the Serbs during the Yugoslavian affair, only the Albanians, who acted from below the NATO shields, would have been replaced by the western Ukrainians) is utterly necessary to the northern-Atlantic Elite – for they want the whole of Ukraine, not only the western part. Because, the western part alone is completely pointless, and can be used only as a second Kosovo.

This is why, the Russian position has enraged the western leaders, who, in turn, are not actually capable of any serious harm; only the winding up of the nerves, provocations, petty deceits and so forth. The words of Obama and Co, are lined with impotent fury. They wanted Russia to step aside and watch, to observe how the Russians would be stomped, how the Slavic neo-Nazi Reich would be formed on her western border. It is most educational to observe that the majority of the Russian Federation population supports the actions of the government. The majority, from which a small, but very loud, group is excluded: the “fifth column”, the one that started hissing straight away.

In general, the situation in Ukraine, and around it, perfectly exposes the “fifth column” – her vileness, her intellectual and professional squalor. An expert surfaced, from the Carnegie Fund, and began squeaking that all this reminds him of the arrival of the troops in Afghanistan. What does Afghanistan have to do with this? Did Afghanistan, prior to the introduction of the Soviet troops, house a Bandera neo-Nazi revolt, and did the persecution of the Russians begin? Was Afghanistan, inhabited by the citizens of Russia (then of the USSR)? Where is the logic? It appears that logic is redundant for an expert, the main thing is that the American “masters” heard him bark, loud and timely. On the other hand, if I were in place of the “owners”, I would have cut the pay cheque, of such a “servant”; how could an expert, so stupidly “guard” the interests of those who’d hired him? He should be more graceful, more meticulous.

That is the problem of the “fifth column”. You listen to their argumentation and wonder: are they that unprofessional or are we dealing with a basic case of imbecility?

One more question, why does our country still accommodate institutions such as the Carnegie Fund? Why is an agency, clearly of a foreign influence, so comfortable in our country? Yes, they are mostly rude and counterproductive, but it is a matter of principle. But, back to the surface. For example an outdated singer. Proudly announcing that our army, in the Ukraine, will nosedive, like it did in Czechoslovakia. Unfortunate, weak man, go read a book, if you can still read. The Soviet Army established control over Czechoslovakia (the third strongest army of Europe, following the USSR and East Germany) in 36 hours, with minimal losses – of its own and civilian ones. That operation was studied as a model in NATO centres. The current crisis will require trimming the “fifth column” of the media; you need to put hard political and legal barriers to its operations. And ignore the hypocritical cries of those who wallowed in the blood of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, many countries, with blood, and are ready to drown Ukraine.

Overall, the West is increasingly interested in the Russian situation, in the post-Soviet region. Do they not have their own problems? If so, maybe such should be arranged? Why does the West operate, unpunished, in our zone? Why shouldn’t we start doing, what the Soviet Union did, actively working the foreign zones? Considering that there are more than enough feeble locations.

In any outcome, the Ukrainian crisis, provoked by the West to the backdrop of the national discontent with Yanukovich’s regime, is a marker in the history of Europe, Eurasia and international relations. The era, which started in 1991 with the August provocation and the betraying “belovezhskij” agreement (Belovezha Accords), is coming to an end. A new era is dawning. You can’t run away from time – and why would you? Time must be met, face first.

And, most of all, you must protect your own, fight for them, as Alexander Nevskij would have said “for friends of yours”. In the given situation, not only “for friends”, but for yourself – for the Russian existence and self-sufficiency in history.

Original article: in Russian

Translated by Maria Razdiak
Edited by Paul Shalley & S. Naylor