National Struggle and Collaboration

National Struggle and Collaboration

Maurice Chavez,

Inspired by Petro Klymynchuk’s article “Today’s Relevance of Stepan Bandera’s personality”, National Corps, 2017 (

Ukrainian Nationalism and the West

January the 1st in Ukraine is known for torch parades, held in honour of Stepan Bandera in all major cities. The war with Moscow has turned his personality into a national symbol. The memory of Bandera, that only recently was marginalised by Soviet and Muscovite propaganda has become a unifying factor for the awaken nation.

Torch March Bandera

On his birthday, let us recall what Bandera thought about the collaboration of nationalists with Western governments. While the war of Rus against Moscow is ongoing, the Ukrainians often seek help from “Western allies” in this unequal fight. Bandera did not advise against the pragmatic cooperation with Western countries. He, however, emphasised the importance of principles that could not be compromised.

In his days, a segment of Ukrainian nationalist movement decided to agree on “liberalisation” of Ukrainian nationalism in return for favours from “democratic” countries. They demanded to include democratic and leftist notions in the ideology of Ukrainian nationalism and later formed the so-called “democratic opposition” to the official “authoritarian” Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). Muscovite MGB-KGB supported this ideological divide – firmly “right”, uncompromised nationalist ideology possessed a far greater danger to the communist regime than a “democratic” opposition.

In his article «Against the ideological disarmament of the liberation struggle», Bandera wrote: “We are completely against the tactics of collaboration with anyone who merely expresses their anti-bolshevism. It is crucial that the power we decided to collaborate with fully supports the struggle of the Ukrainian people and independence of the Ukrainian state. Otherwise, such collaboration is a basic opportunism that will lead us nowhere.”

Trading principles for support of a questionable value will lead to demoralisation, Bandera thought. He warns: “The doctrine of Ukrainian nationalism is the soul, main weapon and the very core of our movement. It is utterly harmful when its ideology is being compromised by the introduction of ideas that are distancing the nation from the struggle”.

History proves that he had a point.

During the reign of the communist regime, not only “anti-bolshevik” Western countries did not support Ukrainian anti-communist resistance but also urged Ukrainian nationalists to “soften” their approach.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, President George H. W. Bush and Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice in their Chicken speech urged Ukrainians not to seek independence and warned against “suicidal nationalism”. Prime minister Margaret Thatcher could only spit ironic jokes about the impossibility of creation of the Ukrainian state while referring to Ukraine as a province.

Bush During his Chicken Speech.jpg
Bush Delivering his Chicken Speech

In 1994, the United States and the United Kingdom had signed The Budapest Memorandum and assured the territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine in exchange for the complete nuclear disarmament and disposal of all Ukrainian strategic bombers as scrap metal. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, all signees of the memorandum breached it and reduced their support to sanctions and humanitarian aid. Today, Western European governments and the United States pay more attention to LGBT in Ukraine than to armed struggle on the Eastern front line.

Such is the morale of Western democracies. They are expressing their “deep concerns” when Ukraine is being attacked, and refer to “diplomacy” and “bureaucracy” when breaching the agreements. However, their determination has no equals when the time comes to launch a new war for oil somewhere in the Middle East.

European Nationalism and Moscow

Bandera’s warnings are relevant not only for Ukrainian, but for European nationalists also.

In EU, many so-called “nationalists” are in open favour of post-soviet Muscovite regime, and are again trading their principles for questionable benefits. Some are also expressing their disapproval of Ukrainian struggle for independence. Their views on this matter are identical to those of European radical left, which is symbolic.

The degree of hypocrisy here is stunning. Organisations that are calling themselves “nationalist” are supporting the canonical “Antifa-state” which uses the word “nationalism” as a damnation in its propaganda, and keeps virtually all active Russian nationalists locked in prisons. The official ideology of Muscovite state is based on the glorification of “victory against fascism”, multiculturalism, and pride for Bolshevik suppression of nationalist movements in former socialist countries (Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Chech Republic). Not a surprise, in 2014 Moscow justified her invasion of Ukraine by the need to protect the “Russian-speaking population” from a “nationalists coup”.

Novorossian rebels vs Ukrainian nationalists:

Russian Communist Antifa
Russian Communist Antifa
Ukrainian Volunteers

Some of those “nationalists” are simply being bought (like Le Pen’s National Front or Hungarian Jobbik), while some are being methodically brainwashed by the Asiatic ideology of duginism/eurasianism, suitable only for homo-soveticus (Red Ice radio and similar projects). Those that are less clever a being deceived by a simple notion of “common enemy”, e.g. “we are against western liberalism, and Muscovites also are, apparently. Thus, we must work together” (Spencer’s rank and file supporters could be taken as an example).

If those “nationalists” are glad to collaborate with the regime that has a long record of violent suppression of European national movements, then the principles are compromised. Bandera’s warnings should be heard. The infiltration of hostile ideas is hurting the movement. Gulag-loving nationalism possesses no danger to the enemies of Europe. Apparently, the majority of sane-minded Europeans will support the struggle of their Easter European brothers against the neo-soviet aggression. They will reject chimeric ideologies, as they do not appeal to the European mind. However, the harm that will be done to European nationalism by those who abandoned their principles will be significant. Many honest Europeans will be distanced or turned away from the struggle by their natural disgust for Asiatic ideologies that are being adopted by so-called “nationalists”.

An epic image of Putin on NPI Conference Video:

An epic image of Putin on NPI Conference Video
An epic image of Putin on NPI Conference Video

Moscovia today, during Putin’s reign:


We appeal to both sides. Let us all firmly stay on our principles. Ukrainian nationalists should reject the degrading ideas pushed by the West; national forces of Western Europe should reject the attempts of Moscow to infiltrate their movements.



If you have found a spelling error, please, notify us by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.

Spelling error report

The following text will be sent to our editors: