23-11-07

White Guards against Red Internationale

http://www.ateney.ru

http://euro-synergies.hautetfort.com/archive/2007/11/10/white-guards-against-red-internationale.html

By Pavel Toulaev

One of the peculiarities of the White counter-revolution in Russia was the fact that it emerged and developed when the World War was not yet over. As Germany was the enemy of the Russian Empire during the World War, it was the German High Command that planned to send Lenin and his associates to St. Petersburg in a sealed wagon. They were intended to become a factor of destabilization; their sole task was to remove Russia from the European theatre of war operations on the Allied side.

Having established his own dictatorship within the Congress of Soviets (councils) Lenin called upon workers and peasants for a revolutionary uprising. On a cold night of October 25, 1917 after the storming of the Zimny Dvoretz (the Winter Palace – the Tsar’s residence in Saint Petersburg) was completed, Lenin declared the official assertion of Soviet Power (i.e. the power of Soviets).

“Land to the peasants”, “Factories for the workers”, “Peace with no annexations and no tribute," “Convocation of a Constituent Assembly” – these were the official slogans he declared. But none of them were actually fulfilled. In fact it was the bloody regime of "War Communism" (Vojenny Kommunizm), headed predominantly by Jews and ethnic non-Russians, that was established.

1. War and Revolution.

During the second stage of the World War--after General Alexei Brusilov's 1916 breakthrough in Rumania, at a time when army headquarters was led by the very talented general Mikhail Alexeyev--the whole situation at the western fronts became favourable to Russia.

But the army was much undermined by the activity of revolutionary provocateurs who encouraged soldiers and junior officers to desert. Later, the first units of the RKKA (Raboche-Krestyanskaya Krasnaya Armiya, “The Red Army of Workers and Peasants”) were formed of those deserters.

A Ukrainian-born Jew, Lev "Trotsky"-Bronstein (1879-1940) occupied the position of Narkom (people's commissar) for Military Affairs and Defence in the newly-born Soviet Government. It was due to his personal initiative that the shameful Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed on March 3, 1918. After this Treaty, the western territories of the Empire, the most developed ones in economic terms (approximately one-third of the population and half of industry) were torn away. Taking advantage of Russia’s temporary weakness, the Germans managed to occupy the Baltic States, a part of Byelorussia and the Caucasus. Moreover, they technically reigned in Ukraine, where the hetman Skoropadsky became their protégé. The results of three years of intense battles by the Russian people on their western front were annulled!

A "Military-Revolutionary Committee" (Vojenno-Revolutsionny Komitet or VRK) was established instead of the former state bodies and the Kerensky Provisional Government. Numerous minor committees of the Bolsheviks, as well as punitive mass terror agencies, such as the Cheka, later the GPU and NKVD, were also formed.

Reckoning on the belief of the common people in the "State of Social Justice," the Red commissars called upon the people to accomplish a Global Revolution and to establish the "Global Dictatorship of the Proletariat." For the sake of “class struggle” major estates, factories and houses were expropriated by the Bolsheviks all over the country. Simultaneously, representatives of the aristocracy, clergy, the higher command of the army and the upper class (the wealthy citizens) were virtually exterminated. The economy began tumbling due to mass disturbances and devastations.

Most of the population, which at first believed the power of Bolsheviks to be temporary, cared more about saving their lives and property. But experienced politicians and leaders gradually began leading the nation to the understanding that it was necessary to resist the Revolution and its chaos. The counter-revolution began; white was chosen as its colour, as it traditionally symbolized monarchy and glory on the Russian banner.

2. First attempts at armed resistance.

Centres of armed resistance appeared all over the territories of the former Empire – from the North-West to the Far East. But they were different in terms of scale, duration of armed actions, and their results. Spontaneous (non-organized) uprisings occurred among the peasants quite often, but they were severely suppressed by the Red Army. The remains of organized military forces, faithful to the late Tsar and the Motherland, made attempts to join together into a unified solid front. Together they formed a White Movement (or Belaya Gvardiya, the White Guards) with active centres and military headquarters all over Russia.

The first attempts at armed resistance to the revolutionary powers were taken during the reign of the bourgeois-democratic Provisional Government, headed by Alexander Kerensky, in March of 1917, long before the Bolsheviks carried out their coup d'etat. The rebellion of General Lavr Kornilov that took place in September 1917 showed that the very idea of "parliamentary democracy" was unacceptable in military and patriotic circles.

General Kornilov (1870-1918) was a hereditary Cossack and an outstanding military leader. Having graduated from the Artillery school and later the Joint Staff Academy (with a gold medal for outstanding achievements), he served as a military attaché at the Russian embassy in China. He began his military career as an officer during the Russo-Japanese war (of 1904-1905), and was promoted to the post of commander-in-chief of the Russian Imperial Army during the First World War. He was an experienced commander, was decorated with the St. George's Cross and enjoyed great prestige among the common soldiers of the army. He was the first to raise the banner of the White Struggle and many hoped he would become a dictator, one capable of quashing the coming communist revolution.

On August 27, 1917 General Kornilov addressed the Russian people with a telegram in which he accused the Bolsheviks of pandering to the Germans and called upon his compatriots to join his ranks for the salvation of the Motherland. He swore “to lead the people to the Constituent Assembly, through which they can take their destiny into their own hands, to choose the form of the new State”. But Kornilov did not enjoy much support at this stage of his struggle and had to lay down his arms.

The communist revolution then broke out. The famous women’s death battalion (Batalion Smerti), led by Commander Maria Bochkareva demonstrated the true example of heroism and devotedness to the Motherland. Together with several hundred military cadets they defended the Winter Palace against the Bolsheviks. This unique female unit was created in the middle of the First World War to keep up the morale of the soldiers, who were losing faith in victory. The battalion numbered about 3,000 of these Russian Amazons and had its own banner; it was solemnly sanctified on Red Square. But the armed women were not able to withstand the armed Bolshevik revolutionists and their allies.

Submerging into the depths of revolutionary chaos, Russia had to discontinue its military operations on the fronts of the World War. Due to the Bolshevik coup, the country became an easy prey for its former allies as well as enemies. In this situation only a regular counter-revolutionist army, led by the professionals of the Tsarist military schools, was capable of withstanding the dangerous enemy that had seized the key posts of the state. There was a need of strong-willed true White leaders to unite the whole nation.

The counter-revolution soon began to acquire the form of an organized armed resistance. The first attempt at liberating St. Petersburg from the Bolsheviks took place at the Pulkovsky Heights on November 12, 1917. It was taken by a joint effort of Alexander Kerensky (who had managed to flee from the capital) and General Peter Krasnov (1869-1947). This was in effect the beginning of armed White struggle. But a regiment of 700 mounted Cossacks was not enough to accomplish this difficult mission. The riots and uprisings by workers all over the capital only accelerated the situation. Under these circumstances, on November 15 General Alexeyev and his entourage took the decision to form the Voluntary Army.

3. The Volunteer Army and the “Ice March” of 1918.

General Mikhail Alexeyev (1857-1918) was an outstanding military leader, a true scientist of war and a well-educated man. He was born into a family of a military officer and followed his father's path. Alexeyev finished the Moscow Infantry Military School, and the Russo-Turkish war of 1877 was his “baptism of fire”. After that, he was appointed a professor, Alekseev obtained a chair in Military History at the Joint Staff Academy. There his outstanding talents became evident.

Alexeyev did not occupy himself with staff service only – during the War with Japan he was appointed to the field army after his own appeal. Shortly before World War I Alexeyev was appointed head of Kiev Command for his outstanding military achievements. During the war he was in charge of the south-eastern front and it was due to his talent as its commander that the critical situation on the German front improved.

Tsar Nicolas II having abdicated, the Provisional Government appointed Alexeyev Supreme Commander-in-Chief. But shortly after that the general was dismissed due to his critical attitude towards the policy of the bourgeois government. After power was taken by the Bolsheviks, Alexeyev and his comrades-in-arms had to retreat south to begin a new stage of the war.

In the Don River valley there lived free Cossacks who had proved their fidelity to the Motherland by means of military service for centuries. It was there that the forming of the first White Guards began. The core of the army was grouped around “the White Cross”, a secret society, formed by army officers. Soon, generals Kornilov and Denikin as well as atamans (Cossack commanders) Kaledin (1861-1918) and Dutov (1879-1921) joined the headquarters of the Volunteer Army. The Cossacks of the Don, Orenburg and Baikal regions, outraged by the Jewish-Communist dictatorship and revolutionary terror rose to join the volunteers. “There rose in their noble rage true Christians, sons of the Don, and heeded the call of freedom!” – thus the lines of an old Cossack song.

The so-called “Ice March” of the Volunteer Corps led by Kornilov became the first notable event of the first stage of the war. It began in late February 1918 and proceeded under trying winter conditions, four thousand volunteers with high morale ready to break through the Red front lines after crossing the Don. It was the “baptism of fire” for the White Army and Alexeyev called it “a candle of faith and hope in the darkness that was devouring Russia”. But the campaign failed; the White volunteers were outnumbered by the Reds and had to retreat. General Kornilov fell as a true warrior in battle of Ekatrinodar.

4. Bolshevik Dictatorship and the Red Terror.

The military leaders believed that an organized armed force was needed for the recovery of peace and civil order--while peaceful citizens, confused by constant propaganda, never abandoned hope of restoring peace by legal democratic means.

On January 18, 1918 the All-Russian Constituent Assembly, supported by working class demonstrators, began to function in Saint Petersburg. But despite being peaceful, the Assembly was immediately broken up by armed Bolsheviks with more than ten demonstrators killed. One more liberal illusion perished.

Instead of developing democracy and protecting civil rights and liberties, the Bolsheviks concentrated on strengthening their own power. Nikolai Krylenko (1885-1938), a prominent member of the Bolshevik Party, Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the head of VRK (Vojenno-Revolutzionny Komitet or the Military-Revolutionary Committee) took the decision to form the Red Army of Workers and Peasants (RKKA). The compulsory mobilization of all male citizens aged from 18 to 40 began. In the severe conditions and ideological chaos of the Revolution a part of the tsarist military corps joined the Bolsheviks: of 130 000 officers of the Imperial Army, about 30 000 joined the RKKA, including such prominent higher command officers as Brusilov, Snesarev, Svechin and Tukhachevsky.

Military operations on the fronts of the First World War were suspended due to the revolutionary “Decree on Peace”. Now the Bolsheviks were much more preoccupied with defending “the Socialist Motherland” and “the achievements of the Revolution”. In reality it meant further class struggle and fratricidal civil war. Due to this reason many recruits refused to fight under the Red banners. Cases of desertion and changing sides by recruits often occurred at the fronts of the Civil War.

The Higher Command of the RKKA officially considered such actions to be desertion and, on issuing new laws, the deserters were to be shot on sight. This “method” was first applied by the above-mentioned Leon Trotsky, who wrote:

“It is impossible to build a strong army without repression. One cannot lead masses of people to death, without having the death penalty as a means of punishment. We must confront a soldier with his possible death in front of him and his inevitable death behind."

It was not accidental that the five-pointed red star (or pentagram), together with the hammer and sickle emblems, were chosen to be the emblem of RKKA (on medals and banners of the Red Army it was often depicted in an upturned position, which also required explanation). When speaking on the Fifth Annnual Congress of the Soviets in summer 1918, Trotsky explained this choice: when the rebellion of the Jews against Roman rule, led by Bar Kochba, took place in Palestine (132-135 A.D.), the Red star was depicted on the Jewish banner. In other words, for the Bolsheviks the star was a symbol of revolutionary fight against Empire.

In the early spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks, deliberately trying to “turn a world war into a civil war” had to confront the opening of a second external front. In March and April, the troops of the Entente were deployed in Russia: English and French troops landed in Murmansk and Archangel in the north, French troops in Odessa and Sevastopol in the south, English troops, supported by Japanese and Americans in Vladivostok in the Far East.

During the chaos of the Allied intervention, a Czech corps of many thousands of soldiers (whose leaders were connected to the headquarters of the Entente) excited a rebellion in the Volga region. English troops entered Turkistan and Transcaucasia; Rumania occupied Bessarabia. The Russian Empire was dissolving, turning into badly-controlled regions without any unified government. Meanwhile, the German command continued to support Lenin. With the help of Mirbach (the ambassador of Germany to the Soviet Republic) they transferred to the Bolsheviks more then 3 million golden marks every month; in May 1918 – 40 million more marks were transferred. The World War virtually continued on the territory of the dissolving Empire, and rivalling states continued to take part in it, either directly or indirectly.

Lenin understood very well that the united action of the external Entente forces with the internal opposition forces posed a great threat to the Bolshevik government. It was the reason, he openly declared, for the mass terror which he instituted against all those opposed to the “proletarian dictatorship”, including his own revolutionary comrades of yesterday: Mensheviks, the Socialist Revolutionists and Anarchists. With several hundreds of the left Socialist Revolutionists arrested as hostages, the “leader of the World Revolution” called for ruthless mass executions on June 26, 1918:

“We must encourage and promote mass terror against the counter-revolutionists, especially in Saint Petersburg, to make a decisive example”.

On July 1918, on Lenin’s personal order (and partially due to the initiative of his party comrade Jacob Sverdlov), the Tsar and his family were executed (with no investigation or trial) in Yekaterinburg. Several days later, six other representatives of the Romanov dynasty were killed.

Having suppressed the independent press (which was more or less influential and continued to comment on current events, influencing in this or that way the opinion of the people), the Bolsheviks began their systematic persecution of the Church. As a key religious institution it still exercised a widespread influence on many common Orthodox people and was an evident ideological opponent to the policy of aggressive atheism promoted by the Bolsheviks.

Concerning the peasants, they were supposed to be an ally of the workers in "class struggle." Nevertheless, a severe politics of “prodrazverstka” (or “bread war”) began toward them, with more then 75 000 Red Army Soldiers taking part. Concretely, the food grown was expropriated on the spot. All over the country not less then 300 peasant rebellions took place.

The workers were also dissatisfied with Soviet power, since instead of social justice, promised by the Bolsheviks, they got nothing but starvations and hardships. Old trade unions were dissolved, freedom of speech was suppressed and strikes were virtually banned. Rebellions of Cossacks, peasants, qualified workers and political adversaries of Bolshevism flared up all over the country.

The Bolsheviks were aware of, and concerned about the danger of armed resistance all over the country, as well as the peril of foreign intervention. The seat of government was soon moved to Moscow, farther from the front lines. In the “new” old capital of Russia, ruby red stars soon rose over the towers of Kremlin as a symbol of Bolshevik power. In Moscow, the Bolsheviks took the decision to fulfill the strategy of world revolution by organising the COMINTERN. It was financed from expropriated valuables of the Tsar’s family and Russian monasteries (predominantly their gold); and partially – due to the export of “excess bread," seized from the peasants.

Peaceful civilians, terrified by revolutions, wars, mass terror and starvation flee from both capitals; Moscow and Saint Petersburg soon became deserted. Within just three years (1918-1920) at least 5,750,000 civilians died. The world of science has acknowledged that it was one of the greatest demographic catastrophes ever.

5. The South as the Bastion of the White Guards

Towns and cities of the north were devoured by the revolution. Civilians and former soldiers of the army tried to flee south, since the southern regions were not controlled by either Bolsheviks or anarchists.

Southern Russia soon turned into a powerful bastion of counter-revolutionary forces. The remains of the tsarist army gathered there from all over the Empire. Soon, new military units of the emerging White Army began to form. It was on the Don River that the Volunteer Army, led by General Denikin, underwent its “rebirth”: in January 1919. Denikin joined forces with the Don River army of General Krasnov. This army has become the basis of the armed counter-revolutionary forces of southern Russia.

General Anton Denikin (1872-1947) was born to a poor family in Warsaw province. Having chosen a military career, he graduated from the Joint Staff Academy. His “baptism of fire” took place during the Russo-Japanese war. He was promoted to the rank of major general in 1914. Apart from military service, Denikin was also known as a writer and a prolific memoirist: those who read his first short stories and sketches on military life, never thought, that he would become one of the most famous memorialists of the Civil War.

As Denikin was a comrade-in-arms of Kornilov going back to the Ice March, after Kornilov's death it was Denikin who raised anew the banner of White Struggle. Under Denikin’s command, the White Army enjoyed many military achievements. It launched an offensive campaign toward Moscow, and soon occupied large territories containing approximately 42 million people: they liberated Kharkov, Kiev, Kursk, Orel, Voronezh and Tsaritsin, as well as the territories of the northern Caucasus. Denikin’s army posed a great threat to the Bolsheviks: the revolutionists were actually surrounded by a ring of counter-revolutionary forces. Strong combatant forces were sent against it. After enduring bloody battles, Denikin’s troops had to retreat from the cities it had occupied before.

Novorossiysk was the last town to be lost by the White Guards. Denikin himself evacuated to a ship and continued his struggle in emigration. Due to his authority and influence, Denikin soon became an influential and prominent social leader of the Russian émigrés abroad. In his famous five-volume book “The Russian Turmoil”, written after the events of 1921-1926, he reflected on the causes, reasons and possible results of the Revolution. It was published in Paris, Berlin and in the USA, to which Denikin later emigrated. He died in America in 1947, a patriot loyal until death to his Russian Motherland.

The Whites did not manage to connect the armies of the South and Far East, and a temporary tactical alliance with the Ukrainian troops of Petlyra (a radical anarchist) as well as with the Ukrainian National Army could not be long-lasting, since the White Guards and the Anarchists pursued different purposes.

The troops of General Nikolai Yudenich (1862-1933) in the northwest were actually separated from the main forces of the counter-revolution. Yudenich failed to occupy St. Petersburg, despite massive help from Western countries, including the help of the so-called “Freikorps”, volunteer corps in which anti-communists of all nations, including Germans, fought shoulder to shoulder. The Red Army, supported by Estonian separatists, stopped the offensive of General Yudenich near the village of Gatchina.

Then a large-scale advance of General Denikin’s troops along a front 1000 kilometers (or 600 miles) wide was stopped. This was a fatal flaw of the White Joint Staff, since the Whites were many times outnumbered by the Reds. In addition, the Bolsheviks were indirectly supported by various armed gangs of anarchists, most of whom were ordinary felons. One example to consider was the famous Anarchist Army of Nestor Makhno – it fought against all other powers, both Red and White.

6. Crimea - the Southern Bastion of the Whites.

Having established and strengthened the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” in central Russia, the Bolsheviks launched a counter-offensive to the east and south. It took the RKKA huge efforts to force the Whites onto the Crimean peninsula on the Black Sea, isolated from the continent. In the first years of the revolution, a massive political struggle between various ethnic and political forces arose on the Crimea (or the “province of Tavria” or “Taurida”). Apart from Russians, there were Tatar, Ukrainian and Jewish communities there.

Tatar nationalists managed to convoke a Tatar National Assembly (“Kurultai”), aimed at creating a Muslim state after the traditions of Girei Khans, with Bahchisarai as capital city. The Central Rada (council) of the Ukrainian People’s Republic was in favour of separatist tendencies (toward Russia) and supported the independent Tatar government in its initial stages.

The Russian White leaders had various attitudes towards Tatars. All in all, the Council of People’s Representatives that created a headquarters of Crimea Troops in Simferopol regarded the Tatars as possible allies against the Reds. For example, Kerensky was in favour of creating special Muslim units.

The Bolsheviks approached from the Black Sea; they were supported by revolutionary soldiers and sailors in the harbours of Sevastopol and Yevpatoria. Having assembled a 40,000-man army under the command of a Provisional Revolutionary Committee, the Reds defeated the Army of Crimea. In early 1918 "Soviet Power" was declared over the peninsula.

The Tatar government and the Council of People’s Representatives were dissolved and the Socialist republic of Taurida declared in March 1918. Much later, it gained the status of the "Crimean SSR" (Socialist Soviet Republic). Hardly had a month passed before the Bolsheviks had to face another threat: the German troops deployed in Crimea. When the German attack was repulsed, Taurida was liberated from the Bolsheviks by the troops of the White General Wrangel.

Peter Wrangel (1878-1928) was a strong-willed and charismatic leader. He was a descendent of ancient Scandinavian stock, the representatives of which served the Russian tsars for centuries. (All in all, this family gave the world seven field-marshals, seven admirals, and more then 30 generals; to Russia it gave 18 generals and two admirals).

As a worthy comrade-in-arms of the former leaders of the Whites, Wrangel headed the government and the troops of Crimea at the very crucial moment when the White army on the Continent was suffering great defeats. In the summer of 1918, having reorganized the Volunteer Army into a regular one, Wrangel began preparing his counter-offensive against the Red Army. Simultaneously, he improved civilian life on the peninsula, having adopted many progressive laws (such as land reform) and changed military policy for the better.

Not long before his eastern campaign, General Wrangel took the symbolic action of instituting the Order of Saint Nicolas. He addressed the public in an open letter:

“Hear, Russian people, what we are fighting for. We want revenge for our disgraced faith and our desecrated temples! We are fighting for the liberation of the Russian people from the yoke of communists, of vagrants and felons that have brought Holy Russia to ruin. For the end of the internecine war! For the peasants to have a chance of owning the land as property and working in peace. We are fighting for true freedom and justice to rule in Russia. For the Russian people to choose their leaders by themselves. Help me, true sons of the Nation, to save our Motherland!”

This call was heard. Soon, those who were looking for a firm bastion for revenge on the communist dictatorship (anchored in the capital cities) moved south. The Russian army of Peter Wrangel grew to be 80,000 strong, which made it possible to support the Cossack resistance in the Don and Kuban river valleys.

When the Soviet-Polish war of 1920-1921 broke out, Wrangel took the decision to strike at the back of the Red Army and its rearward areas. The Reds, weakened by a war on two fronts, had to retreat. But when the Bolsheviks saw the Whites head east to join forces with the Cossacks on the Continent, they changed their strategy immediately. In October 1920, despite the humiliating conditions of the armistice for the Soviet Union, the war with Poland was officially over. The Red Commissars made the army of the southern front 250,000 strong, concentrating the maximum amount of their forces on storming the White stronghold on the Crimea. On October 28 they launched their offensive.

First, Wrangel’s army was stopped by the Reds, commanded on the Southern front by a prominent member of the Bolshevik party, Michael Frunze. After that, the specially formed Budyony Cavalry was sent. Finally, on a cold November night the Reds took a wade through the icy waters of Sivash Gulf to bypass the Perekop Isthmus, which was very well protected by the Whites. Despite losing hundreds of soldiers killed and wounded under machine gun fire, the Revolutionary Red forces managed to get onto the peninsula and to fortify their positions for further offence.

The White units defending Perekop, the city guarding the isthmus, were shocked and demoralized. The Wrangel army had to fight just to protect its rear. After November 15, 1920 a mass evacuation from the peninsula began–first, peaceful citizens were evacuated, then soldiers and officers of the Wrangel army. Sometimes the evacuation turned into panic flight. All in all, over 120 ships brought more then 150,000 refugees to Istanbul (Constantinople).

The reprisals and massacres against the “enemies of the Revolution” began in Crimea. The Revolutionary Committee of Crimea, led by a Hungarian Jew, Bela Kun, was formed. In three years of Wrangel’s rule in Crimea, about 1,500 were arrested by the Whites, with as many as 300 shot. As for the Red terror, not less then 50,000 people died on the peninsula (according to other statistical data, up to 100,000). Rozalia Zalkind, a Jewish communist from Ukraine, excelled during the repression. She headed a political department of the Red Army and personally took part in executions by shooting. The tragic epic of the White movement in the south was over.

7. Civil War on the Far East

Having achieved a temporary victory, the Bolsheviks managed to establish a severe dictatorship in central Russia in the first three years of the Revolution despite an unprecedented toll in civilian victims and territorial losses. But it never led to peace, prosperity or justice as originally promised by the Bolsheviks. Due to the political and economic crisis, industry declined by 82% compared with 1913.

The number of wealthy Russian refugees (émigrés) grew constantly and amounted to over 1.5 million by the end of the Civil War. The villagers, having nowhere to run, protested and in their own ways fought for the rights the Bolsheviks were suppressing. There were numerous peasant uprisings that later became a popular war.The Tambov Revolt, led by Alexander Antonov (1888-1922), took place in 1920-1921. A whole army of peasant partisans soon formed, 30 000 strong.

Antonov was a "Right Socialist-Revolutionist," a non-Bolshevik leftist, and a Russian patriot. He fought against the “suppression of the people by capitalist exploitation” during the tsarist period. But when the Bolsheviks actually usurped the power by taking advantage of the revolutionary situation, Antonov declared war on the impostors who dared speak in the name of the workers and peasants. He addressed the people with a leaflet, in which he called upon “the Russian warrior to arise and save the Motherland by liberating Moscow from the hands of the Red butchers.”

To suppress the Tambov Revolt, the Red marshal Tukhachevsky sent in more then 100,000 soldiers of the regular army, including mercenaries from Lithuanian and Chinese units of the Red Army (over 40,000 Chinese served in the RKKA during the Civil War and afterward). The repressive force used armoured troops, aircraft and chemical weapons. They were severe to the local population, sometimes burning down houses with the families inside. Although the guerrillas were not numerous, it took the repressors almost a year to suppress the rebellion. But the armed partisans could be seen in the forest of Tambov long after that.

In March 1921 another rebellion was suppressed by the Bolsheviks – the rebellion of Kronstadt, in the bay before St. Petersburg). It was started by sailors of the Baltic fleet; one of the slogans of the rebellion was: “Government without Jews and communists!” Peasant rebellions took place all over the country: in the Ural, Siberian and Volga regions. Hundreds and thousands were killed as a result of armed clashes with the peasants.

Mass-killings of wealthy peasants (known as the "Kulak annihilation" or raskulachivanie) and landowners during the establishment of Soviet power in the villages led to devastation of the large farms, resulting in mass starvations. The 1921 starvation (golodomor) took place in the Volga region and began spreading all over Russia. In the cities, which were left without supplies of foodstuffs, the poorest citizens were destined to die, as well as some representatives of the intellectual elite, who deliberately refused to accept the food allowances of the Bolsheviks.

In order to quash critics, the Bolsheviks began a systematic persecution of dissenters. On Lenin's personal order, more then 200 representatives of the intelligentsia and cultural workers were expelled from the country on a specially prepared ship: those were the writers, philosophers, and scientists Berdyaev, Iliin, Lossky, Karsavin and many others. Famous and prolific poets such as Gumilev, Esenin or Klyev were either killed or driven to suicide. As for the writers and poets who survived the persecution, a strong censorship by the Glavlit (Central Committee for Literature) was imposed on them.

***

The White counter-revolutionist movement in the eastern Russia had many talented politicians and leaders within its ranks. The name of Admiral Alexander Kolchak deserves special mention.

Alexander Kolchak was an outstanding leader with a remarkable biography. His professional education was at the Naval Military school and he took part in several expeditions in the Pacific Ocean; he also commanding an ice-breaker during an expedition to the North Pole. All in all, he crossed four oceans during his career.

For his outstanding achievements, in the First World War Kolchak was appointed commander of the Black Sea Fleet. At first, he was in favour of the Revolution, but once he understood it was leading to the devastation of the Motherland, he started his own resistance movement.

He began armed resistance to Bolsheviks and their allies in the Far East, in central Siberia and in the Ural regions. In September 1918 Kolchak was appointed minister of defence in the Provisional Government. In January 1919 his new-born army took Perm in the Ural mountain area. The army soon grew to 112,000 and began an offensive on a wide front – from Uralsk and Orenburg to Vyatka. Inspired by the admiral's success, his brothers-in-arms and many other representatives of the White movement considered him the supreme leader of the true Russia.

A strange, ambiguous and even mysterious role on the eastern front of the Civil War was played by the so-called Czechoslovak Legion. It consisted predominantly of Czech and Slovak soldiers within the Austro-Hungarian army, more then 30,000 soldiers, who surrendered or were captured by Russia during the First World War. Originally, they were kept in the Ukraine area.

After the revolution, agents of the Entente managed to place the Legion under French command, which then ordered the Legion to be sent to France. It would have been rational to send the soldiers out by ships from the harbours of the Black Sea.

But due to a logic that now seems strange, on March 26, 1918 the Revolutionary government decided to evacuate the so-called “internationalist warriors” eastward through Siberia to Vladivostok, obliging them to hand over their weapons to the local soviets. Few of the Czech soldiers returned home travelling via Europe. The Bolsheviks were afraid (and their fears were quite understandable) that the Czechs would join forces with the Volunteer Army in the South. The troops of the Czech Legion ended up stretched out over the whole Siberian trunk-railway, over 7000 km long!

On their way east, the prisoner soldiers rebelled and joined forces with the counter-revolutionists: Socialist-Revolutionists, Cadets (Constitutional Democrats) and Social-Democrats. Together with the Whites, they conquered Novosibirsk (Novonikolaevsk), Penza, Syzran, Tomsk, Omsk, Samara and Krasnoyarsk. After that, having launcher a counter-offensive, they liberated Ufa, Simbirsk, Ekaterinburg and Kazan. In the Volga and Ural regions, as well as in Siberia, the Legion assisted local authorities in creating provisional governments for the convocation of a Constituent Assembly. It became one of the turning points of the Civil War.

Having prevented the junction of the White Armies in the East and South, the Reds launched a counter-offensive in Ural and Siberia in early 1920. Apart from frontal attacks they also used revolutionary propaganda and active secret services (counter-reconnaissance) aimed at eroding the enemy from inside. The Whites were outnumbered by the Reds; the forces of the army of Kolchak (together with the Czech Legion) were much weakened by then.

Neither the manly presence nor the bravery of the admiral could deter the aggression of the Reds. After the retreat from Irkutsk, with power there taken by the Left S-R's, Kolchak was forced to hand command of the army over to the ataman George Semenov (1890-1946).

On January 4, 1920, betrayed by his comrades-in-arms, Admiral Kolchak resigned. In this situation General Denikin became the supreme ruler of the true Russia. Under circumstances that remain unclear even today, Kolchak was taken into custody by the Czechs, who on Jan. 14 handed him over to the Socialist Revolutionists. The latter transferred Kolchak to the Bolseviks and he was shot on the personal order of Lenin.

The further history of the White Guards in the East was quite tragic. The troops of General Vladimir Kapell (1883-1920), who died soon after Kolchak, attempted a severe winter crossing over Lake Baikal to Chita. Lieutenant General Mikhail Diterichs (1874-1937), who succeeeded Kolchak as the supreme leader of the true Russia, had to retreat and later to emigrate after two more years resisting the Reds. All in all, hundreds of thousands people emigrated out through Vladivostok (as well as through the Crimea), including more then 56 thousand civilians, attached to the Czech Legion.

In the Pacific maritime region (Primorie) the battles against the Reds went on till the autumn of 1922. Later, the remains of the White units of atamans Dutov and Semyonov left Russia via China and Korea. Minor armed conflicts and clashes occurred in the Far East until 1923, but in those conflicts primarily guerrillas, not organized troops took part.

8. Baron Ungern and his Mongolian Troops

The story of the Asian Division Cavalry, led by Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg (1886-1921), a distant relative of the Tsar and a fanatical monarchist, deserves special mention.

The most famous facts of Ungern’s biography are connected with Mongolia, where he wanted to create a new Empire of his own and a launching pad for the White Revenge. During the years of the Revolution, this vast mountainous land had lost its independence (that it had attained in 1911 from China, supported by Russia). The Chinese were planning to take advantage of Mongolia’s temporary weakness and to resubjugate their neighbour to the North by sending troops to the city of Urga (now Ulan-Bator).

Having collected the remains of ataman Semyonov’s divisions (800 mounted Cossacks and 6 cannons), Ungern created an audacious plan to liberate Urga from foreign invaders. First, looking for support from the common people, he addressed the Mongols with a religious proclamation. After that he carried out a sophisticated clandestine operation and managed to liberate Bogdo-Geghen, the Khan of Mongolia from the Chinese-occupied capital city. Finally, he attacked Urga and took the city by storm, despite its defense by a Chinese garrison of more then 10 000 soldiers.

Having obtained a rest and resupply area and supported by the natives, the baron enthusiastically started to flesh out his grand plan. He believed that after the Bolshevik revolution one could no longer hope to restore traditional monarchies in Europe, for the peoples of the west were perverted by the ideas of materialism and socialism:

“Russia is devastated in terms of its economy, morals and spirituality; its future is appalling and can hardly be predicted. The revolution will triumph and the higher culture will perish under the onslaughts of a coarse, grasping and ignorant mob, gripped by the madness of revolutionary destruction and led by international Jewry” – Ungern wrote in one of his letters.

The baron stated that to establish peace, spirituality and order in the world, one should not hope for any help from the degraded West. Instead, he proposed to create a “Kingdom of Middle” in the East. It was to unite Mongolia, Sindzyan and Tibet (all now in western China) a "White Empire of the East" aimed at eradicating the world evil that came to the earth to “destroy the Divine within the souls of men.”

For fulfilling this divine mission, the baron adopted Buddhism. He later married a Chinese lady of noble origin and was awarded the title of "Prince of Mongolia" by Khan Bogdo-Gegen. Later, he proudly wore a princely caftan of the finest Chinese silk together with the uniform of a tsarist officer. The baron began sending official letters in which he proposed to the volunteers of the White armies that they join his troops.

The remainder of White units from the Baikal region, Tuva and the Mongolian steppes gathered under the banners of the Baron (named “the God of War”). Together with brigades, led by the atamans Kazagrandi, Kaigorodov, Bakich and others, the army of Ungern soon grew to be 4,000 sabres and dozens of artillery units strong. The army was able to execute minor raids along the coasts of the Selenga River. It also attacked Kyahcta, a small town on the Mongolian border, where the Bolsheviks had Chan Suhe-Bator as their protégé. It was in this period that the White unit were particularly cruel to communists, commissars and Jews, for whom (according to the Baron) “only one punishment was adequate – death!” But the militia of the Baron were outnumbered by the Reds and their efforts were not enough to prevail.

An expeditionary corps was sent from Chita to destroy the troops of Ungern. It had 7,500 of infantry, 2,500 sabres, 20 field guns, 4 aircraft and 4 river steamers. As the Reds were supported by Mongolian revolutionists, they managed to suppress the resistance of the counter-revolutionists. The White leaders of the east, including Ungern himself were imprisoned, interrogated and later executed.

The Red terror in the Far East had its own peculiarities, since not only monasteries and Khans’ estates, but also Russian bureaus and official institutions were looted. Much later, Lenin annulled the state debt of Mongolia of 5 million golden rubles and awarded the pro-Soviet general Sukhe-Bator the decoration of the Red Star during the official visit of the Mongolian leader to Kremlin in 1921.

9. Conclusions.

Confronting the Bolsheviks in the Civil War were not only White monarchists but also Social-Revolutionists, Democrats and Anarchists, as well as a major portion of the free Cossacks and wealthy peasants. The chaos of the whole revolutionary situation brought confusion and hindered the people from realizing the danger of Proletarian Dictatorship, which in reality turned out to be the tyranny of Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin and then Stalin.

It is however a false statement that during the Civil War "Russians fought Russians." In reality it was the Red Internationale that fought the White Guards. It is true however, that certain Russians as well as Cossacks from different regions of the Empire, and Ukrainians, Germans and Czechs, were present at the command posts of the Revolution. But within the Revolutionary leadership, Russians were an absolute minority.

Russian-speaking Jews, Ukrainians, Poles, Lithuanians, Magyars, Tatars, Chinese and minor Caucasian peoples predominated. The non-Russian, international units of the Reds counted more then 200,000 men.

All in all the Red army won rather due to revolutionary fanaticism and numerical superiority, but not due to strategic successes or the talents of the leaders. The Red Army occupied key strategic positions, plus it was approximately ten times as big as the White army. But it suffered many deserters and was close to total collapse in 1919.

Both fighting sides exhibited brutality, but the Whites never made terror a core instrument of their politics as the Red commissars did. They never exterminated whole classes or groups of the population and never created blocking detachments ("zagradotryady") or concentration camps.

All in all, the civil war turned out to be a real racial genocide.

Declaring and promoting opposite ideological slogans and ideas, the Reds and the Whites slaughtered each other in bloody war. Their readiness to spill blood and to march for internecine battle was reflected in the songs of those ruthless times. When marching and before the attacks, the Reds often sang a song with the following lines:

We will march to fight for the Power of Soviets

And die like one fighting for that.

The Whites used the same tune, but the lyrics were different:

We will march to fight for Holy Russia

And spill as one man our blood for Her.

But whatever was the text of the song, the blood of Russian soldiers and officers was always spilt, which almost ruined the gene pool of the Nation.

Most of the peasants believed in the revolutionary "Decree of Land" and never expected the Bolsheviks to turn against one of their main class allies within several years. They never saw the Whites as their potential protectors and mostly waged their own local war, fighting on their own during the rebellions.

The people traditionally believed all of the tsarist generals to be monarchists, but in reality, their ideological views were much broader. In fact, in the beginning of the revolutions, most of the generals and high army officials were in favour of the dethronement of the Tsar. For instance, General Kornilov and Admiral Kolchak arrested the most prominent members of the Tsar’s family in St. Petersburg and on the Crimea.

The tsarist officers overestimated their own forces, as they got bogged down in the fronts of the World War. They hoped for a miracle from God through their Christian faith, and they counted on the bravery of the Cossacks, on military support from the West and on the help of the peasants. But none of their hopes came true.

This firm belief in the power of Truth and in the triumph of Divine Justice and Law was maintained by the White Guards in exile. One of the most prominent leaders of the Russian émigrés wrote in his diary:

“Years will pass, the communists will be gone, and the Revolution will be but a thing of the past. But the White cause, renewed in this struggle will not be gone: Its spirit will stay with our future generations and will become a part of our National being and will help to build a New Russia”.

Pavel Tulayev.

7c6915f035071d824ec4868a70b74ff6

General L. Kornilov

16:08 Gepost door gepost door Kris Roman in Geopolitica english | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook |

23-10-07

Russia saves the world again

Alexander Radugin, english.Pravda.ru

Leaders of the countries of the former Soviet Union seem to be motivated by their “infantile resentments” when criticizing Russia these days. Compared to the conditions of today’s “windward sailing,” those countries felt much more secure under the auspices of the Soviet Union. Criticisms coming from the West are mostly based on the longstanding tradition of confrontation coupled with the fears of “competition,” which was put in motion by the West itself.

However, the common sense prevails in the end. Sensible actors in both the neighboring countries and overseas tend to see Russia as a reliable partner worth doing business with.

Russia is well-known for its vast natural resources. However, Russia does not resort to robbery in broad daylight nor it is inclined to pinch pennies. Last year’s pricing disputes over gas supplies caused quite a commotion in the relations between Russia and Ukraine, and Russia and Belarus. A more peaceful approach is used nowadays when it comes to resolving energy rows.

According to Alexander Surikov, a Russian ambassador to Belarus, a final price of Russian gas supplies to Belarus will be set as early as this December. Russia will be charging Belarus about $125 per one thousand cubic meters of natural gas. Russia is currently charging the EU countries $236 per one thousand cubic meters of natural gas. Gas prices for Ukraine, which has recently decided to repay its $2 billion debt for Russian gas supplies, are likely to be in the neighborhood of $150.

In 2007, both Ukraine and Belarus received natural gas from Russia at even more reduced prices i.e. $130 and $100 per one thousand cubic meters. However, Russia has to raise the price of its gas exports following an increase in price of Turkmen gas supplies for Russia. Other trends of the world market contributed to the situation. On the other hand, Russia does not aim to put too much strain on its customers by hiking the price. The price is being increased at a very slow pace. Russia has always shown respect for other countries of the former Soviet Union. No doubt about it, Russia will treat its neighbors in a similar fashion following the rise of global wheat prices. The world market trend has apparently affected Belarus too. Several days ago the Belarusian Ministry of Trade suggested that the government cut the export of butter and cheese following disruptions in the supply of dairy products to the domestic market.

Despite the fact that Belarusian cheese and butter imports account for 13-15 percent of all cheese and butter imported by Russia, experts say the measures will have a limited effect on the Russian domestic market since Belarus is not the sole exporter of dairy products to Russia. Besides, the importance of Belarusian supplies decreased following lower import duties imposed by the Russian government on foreign dairy products.It is quite obvious that rising global wheat prices have had an impact on Belarus. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko requested Russia for $1.5 billion in stabilization loan once again. President Lukashenko attempted to secure a loan in May without paying back a $456 million debt for Russian gas supplies. Subsequently, Belarus repaid its debt to Russia, which refused to loan money anyway. Now the situation is slightly different. According to Alexander Surikov, a Russian ambassador to Belarus, the country is now entitled to receive a $1.5 billion stabilization loan from Russia because “Belarus has a budget deficit” now that its budget has been recently reviewed.

Moscow has repeatedly offered Minsk to take a stabilization loan to the amount of $1.5-2 billion on a 5-year redemption schedule at 8.5 percent interest.

Russian Minister of Economic Development and Trade German Gref confirmed February that Russia could consider the issue of a stabilization loan for Belarus.

Now the outcome largely depends on Lukashenko’s attitude toward Russia, which could lend money provided that a borrower is Russia’s friend. Although Russia can feel the pressure of the global wheat prices, the overall status of the Russian economy has not deteriorated in terms of the world economy. Although the price of dairy products rose in the Russian Federation, the world oil prices continued to rise too, reaching a new all-time high last week. U.S. light sweet crude rose 2.9 percent to $86 per barrel at NYMEX on Tuesday as traders awaited a military operation to be launched by the Turks against the Kurds in Iraq, the world’s No 3 in terms of proven oil reserves.

The world oil prices are on the rice – a trend that helps the Russian economy grow at a higher rate. Earlier this month Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin predicted the country’s annual GDP growth at 7.3 percent plus a 20 percent increase in investments. “The economy’s dynamics exceed the most daring plans,” Kudrin said. However, the forecast was updated last Tuesday. According to the IMF report “The Global Economic Review,” the GDP rate in Russia should reach 7.8 percent in 2008.

Even the United States, which is traditionally considered “Russia’s worst friend”, has decided to “step up a dialogue with the Russian Federation on the key energy issues” within the framework of the G8 agreements. Director of Russian Affairs of U.S. Department of State Mary Warlick sounded quite enthusiastic while speaking about the Russian economy on Wednesday last week. “Russia’s trillion-dollar economy is now the world’s ninth largest economy in terms of value, and inward investment in the Russian economy has exceeded $67 billion over the first half of 2007 – it’s a lot more than the total amount of foreign capital inflow in the first ten years following the collapse of the Soviet Union,” said Mary Warlick. “Russia has more than $400 billion in foreign reserves, that’s the world’s third richest country in terms of foreign reserves,” added Mary Warlick.

“Who could foresee this kind of development mere five or six years ago?” said the director of Russian affairs. Warlick also said that “our economic relations are quickly turning into a street with real two-way traffic.” There is logic in the statement since “such U.S. leading companies as Boeing, Conoco-Philips, Exxon Mobil, International Paper, Alcoa, Ford, General Motors” and others “are quickly extending their presence on the Russian market.” Warlick also mentioned “good progress” made in the talks on Russia’s ascension to the WTO.

By and large, our nearby and faraway partners are hopeful about doing business with Russia as the complex crisis of the world economic system unfurls. At times a monkey wrench is thrown in the works (Lukashenko recently imposed restrictions on the export of foreign-made cars, and U.S. Congress resumed looking into some issues related to the Yukos case, for reasons unknown).

It appears that Russia has managed to gather enough evidence to prove its competence as a significant economic power. The efforts of Russia’s current leadership should not be underestimated. Quoting Mary Warlick from Washington would be just to the point: “Who could foresee such a development mere five or six years ago?”kremlin

02:57 Gepost door gepost door Kris Roman in Geopolitica english | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook |

The Jihadization of the North Caucasus

Comment by Dmitry Shlapentokh

Special to Russia Profile

http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=International&articleid=a1192618008

The Movement of Radical Islam into Russia is a Warning to the World

The North Caucasus continues to be a problem for Russia, and, increasingly, for the broader global community. The recent violence and public protests in Ingushetia and Dagestan demonstrate that the problem has not disappeared, despite the efforts of the Russian authorities to convince both the Russian public and the global community that the war in Chechnya was over a long time ago and that the entire North Caucasus, together with the rest of the country, enjoys stability and security. To casual observers, those currently engaging in violence in the North Caucasus are not very different from those who started the war in Chechnya, but gradually common criminals and nationalists are being replaced by jihadists.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a weak central government led to an increase in violent crime all over the country, but in certain regions of the Caucasus the growth of violence was especially strong. And eventually this violence evolved into a nationalist struggle against Moscow. At that time, the members of the Chechen resistance dreamed of creating an independent state fully incorporated in the global order. But already by the end of the first Chechen War, and especially after 2004, the motivation for violence began to shift away from establishing an independent Chechnya toward global jihadism. The reasons for this transition are, of course, manifold, but Moscow’s policy of supporting the Kadyrov clan—first the father and then the son—has played the most important role. Ramzan Kadyrov had become practically an independent ruler with only the slightest connection to Moscow. This “independent” Chechnya, at least in its political actuality, created an expectation for the other peoples of the North Caucasus to expect a complete separation from Moscow. This society is mainly one of brazen corruption, state-sponsored violence and, consequently, complete misery for the majority of Chechens, but these abuses are at least orchestrated by Chechens. This situation has allowed for the creation of a safe harbor for the global jihadist movement, which has increased its hold over a growing number of North Caucasian resistance fighters.

It would be wrong to assume that plain criminality and nationalistic-inspired resistance will completely disappear, but the influence of global jihadists is expanding. A clear sign of this growing influence could be seen a few years ago in correspondence between Movladi Udugov, the chief ideologist of the Chechen resistance, and Akhmed Zakayev, who played the role of Chechen foreign minister in exile. Udugov stated that he hardly saw the building of the Chechen state as a legitimate goal for the resistance. He pointed out that, in this respect, the Chechen state would not be much different from the Russian state in its oppressiveness. Udugov also proclaimed that he did not understand why he should feel any attachment to Chechens just because he is Chechen: it is not this tie that should unify the North Caucasian people. For some similar thinking individuals, the Taliban became the model to follow.

A basis for global cooperation

Despite the increasing tension between the United States, Russia and Iran, as well as the general distrust between the United States and many moderate Islamic regimes, there is still common ground for cooperation––they are all enemies of radical jihadists. The views of radical jihadists from the Russian North Caucasus provide a good window into the mind of a much broader constituency.

The North Caucasus resistance has become increasingly radical since the beginning of the Second Chechen War in 1999. For the jihadists who oppose Chechen nationalists, the Taliban has become the example. But as the radicalization of the North Caucasian resistance increases, even the Taliban, which according to some radical jihadists is possibly the only government that followed the dicta of the Koran, started to lose its luster.

A contributor to one Internet site appeals to the authority of Sheikh Al Islam Ibn Taymia, who, together with Qutb, is one of the most quoted authorities for present-day Islamists. The contributor argued that the Taliban has become tainted by compromise with the non-Islamic world and has tried to create a peculiar, but still democratic, state. This was a crucial mistake. To start with, democracy is an outmoded political system; even leaders who are not inspired by Islam understand this. Hitler abandoned democracy and made Germany a strong state. Chinese leaders have followed the same path, forsaking democracy and pitilessly crushing those who challenged the regime, which has made China strong despite much screaming from Western critics. Democracy is an unworkable institution by its very nature; furthermore, organized states of any type are not part of Islam. The Taliban forgot this. It attempted to play according to international rules. It wanted to be recognized by the international community and indeed was recognized by some states. The Taliban also tried to integrate themselves in the global order of the non-Islamic world, hobnobbing with regimes that, while claiming to be Muslim, were actually quite foreign to Islam, such as the Persian Gulf states.

All these blunders would have been avoided by those who follow the Islamic path. They would have rejected any political arrangement that does not stem directly from the Koran. The Koran implies that one-man rule rather than democracy should be the organizing principle of government. This principle should go along with resolute struggle against any regime that is a traitor to Islam despite external Muslim trappings. Such regimes are to be treated with the most decisive actions, for they are more dangerous than openly anti-Islamic regimes to the cause of Islam.

And the same holds for the Russian regime. Muslims who serve Russians and those such as Ramzan Kadyrov, Russia's viceroy in Chechnya who combines Islam and nationalism should be decimated without pity. The Internet sites make a special point of describing the gruesome death of such people. Other Muslims are warned not to help wounded pseudo-Muslims, at the risk of being subject to attack themselves.

This uncompromising extremist view, apparently shared by increasing numbers of Islamists underground, including the North Caucasian segment, is troubling. But it has a silver lining. The absolutist nature of the movement could well create a basis for cooperation for practically all members of the international community, regardless of the tensions among the major players.

Dmitry Shlapentokh is an associate professor of history at Indiana University, South Bend.

02:24 Gepost door gepost door Kris Roman in Geopolitica english | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook |

05-10-07

Pavel Tulaev (ATENEY) : Euro-Russia in the context of World War IV

http://www.ateney.ru/

Dear comrades and friends!

Please accept my hearty thanks for your participation in the conference THE WHITE WORLD’S FUTURE, for your excellent and strong reports. And please accept my congratulations concerning our common success today. Owing to you - the heroes of the present - we have one more victory in our long, dramatic struggle for truth, faith, justice, race and a better future.

Our conference today is an obvious demonstration of a new great return to sacred roots and real fundamental values. Together, we confirm the rebirth of the profoundly European and holy Russian spirit.We do not intent just to go back to old times for a formal reconstruction of a glorious past. We are conscious that a simple return to old traditions and myths in their archaic forms is impossible in our age. We will never have another Hellas, a third Roman Empire, a Fourth Reich or another USSR.

New Epoch

We have entered into an absolutely new epoch, a new time and spaces. Some thinkers call it the Krita Yuga, post-Christian era, New Age or New Renaissance. We live in a wondering new world with new laws, lies and ideas. Every day, we are facing the challenges of the 21st century. We have to resolve problems of progressive science and technology, contemporary economics and politics, new religions and modern aesthetics.

Good old rules from Christian and Communist times do not work. Sweet Jesus doesn’t save. Communism is once again in the past. Fascism has become old-fashioned.

Nordic Germany is being populated by Turks. Belle France looks like Africa. Mongoloid Japan is called the West. And our Nordic Belarus is attacked by the so-called North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Beautiful America - the dream of millions of European refugees and immigrants - that used to be free, proud and White, has transformed into an aggressive terrorist state, the corrupt policeman #1, protecting Masonic power, human degeneration, race-mixing and global Zionism.

Instead of the red Soviet Union with its GULAG we have a New White Russia, the hope of the heroes fighting for our race and freedom all over the world. Why is it so? How can we explain these paradoxes?

Russia is much more than a country

Russia is much more than a country. It was called Holy Russia, Moscow Kingdom, Russian Empire, Soviet Union, and in spite of all the changes, it still possesses some special essence. Her White body is living in the heavens, guarding the memory and the spirit of our race.

Located in the center of the Eurasian continent, Russia was, is and always will be the biggest European country, protecting the West from Mongol-Tatars and Turkish nomads. Formally you may call it post-European, like the USA, because we are the legatees of white colonizers and culture-bearers. But through our race, language, roots and civilization, we are Europeans in spite of all the dramas of the 20th century.

Native Russians make up the main body of our big nation, the nucleus and the spine of our state. If not for the Russians, the whole of Eurasia and Siberia would had been conquered by Chinese or Muslim tribes. Russia is still the center of White resistance in the Caucasus and the Far East.

That’s why I propose to rename Guillaume Faye’s project of “Eurosiberia” into “Euro-Russia”. In this way, the real historical and juridical subject (Russia) is not substituted by the geographic space called “Siberia”. From a geopolitical point of view, we come to the ethno-political one.

Unfortunately, the Russian people have become a divided nation today, like Germany’s after World War II. The very heart of our Old Russia has broken into three big pieces: Great Russia, White Russia (Belarus), and the Ukraine (its historical name was Rus or Little Russia). The project of Euro-Russia will help to unite the three Russias in a new way and on a new level.

Russia must be a strong national state inside the frontiers of the Slavic part of the former empire. Russians compose more than 80% of the whole population of our state now, so we do not need any multicultural version for our homogeneous nation. Other European, Aryan and White people can be our allies in the world struggle against human degradation.

That’s why we support our friends’ efforts to build the new continental axis “Paris-Berlin-Moscow ” or a pan-Aryan bloc from Spain to India. We obviously need a post-NATO alternative - a new military and political block.

After the victory in 1945 and a long period of Soviet occupation in the GDR (old Slavic lands), our government let Germany be reunited. It was a good gesture, a big gift and a political compromise. In the same manner, Europeans should understand our modern problems.

World War IV

This alternative is developing in the context of World War IV.

The Second World War between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union was in fact a realization of Churchill’s and Roosevelt’s conspiracy. After having studied Anthony Sutton’s works, we can add that these were the plans of the “Skull and Bones” secret order whose dirty tentacles permeated Europe during the First World War. In honor of the heroes who fell in fratricidal battles, we must learn this lesson of history.

The so called “Cold War” is also finished because the USSR has crashed. It does not exist anymore. And Communism as an international movement belongs to the past. Modern Russia is far from being a socialist society because the state is controlled by a capitalist oligarchy.

After the NATO bombings of Belgrade in 1999 and the terrorist diversion of September 11 in New York City, we live in another epoch. You may call it World War IV or just the New World War.

It is very important to realize that this is a war of a modern generation and not only by numbers. The factions are not states or nations anymore but transnational structures, like bankers, Microsoft or the porn business. This war is waged by qualitatively new weapons: brainpower, high technologies, biopolitics, mass media and drugs and programmers. I call it “sweet war” or “honey hell”.

Islamic terrorism is only one conflict in a bigger scenario that unites us nowadays. Islamic expansion has always been dangerous not only to Russia, but to the whole of Europe. In the Middle Ages, the Muslim world surrounded White nations. The specific point of today’s situation is that NATO and other globalists provoke Islamic attacks in order to destabilize the European way of life. I am sure that the war in Chechnya and the new Afghanistan crisis were planned and calculated with the help of strategists from overseas.

American activity in Central Asia can provoke a big war in the heart of Eurasia. It is very dangerous. In this situation, the role of the Russian army is becoming especially important. Nowadays, European security depends on our warriors as it has in the period of the anti-Turkish alliance.

This war against Islam will last a long time. It is not easy to convert Muslims into Christians and to make Europeans out of Asians. That is why we raise our Aryan heritage. It should help us to oppose the Islamic invasion in the South-East.

Synergies

Shall we live isolated and go away to the mountains or should we build a new society and state? Can we dream about a new empire - a synthesis of the Third Rome, the Third Reich and the USSR - or just construct our Web-sites and exchange information from various countries?

We must work and fight together for a Traditionalist and New Right alternative to the modern degeneration. We should carefully study the ancient and Christian world, make traditional reconstructions and organize festivals, publish books, magazines and newspapers. We should continue uniting our Internet resources as we have started at the web-portal www.ateney.ru.

You may call it Aryan or White Revolution, but please always stress the positive aspects of our movement. We don’t want to repeat mistakes of the 20th century. And let us start with ourselves. Let us be wise, educated and strong. Leave the ignorance to the fools. Let us be responsible for our nations, our race, and common heritage.

In any case, we should not work for any sort of “imperialisms.” Instead, we need a dynamic synergie or synarchy (leaderless resistance) that can become a living alternative to the pro-NATO European Union.

The center of the world is shifting towards the East. Let it not be Central Asia or China. Who will lead the gigantic Eurasian empire if the percentage of White blood is being reduced as we reach the Pacific Ocean? Who will colonize the enormous areas of Siberia, Asia and the Far East? If we follow the Eurasian principle, “soil before blood,” we can already admit our defeat to the Asians, the Chinese and the Muslims of the Caucasus whose ethnical expansion is a menace to our future.

So we do not want Eurasia (a mixture of Asia and Europe) instead of our holy Russia. And we proclaim the fundamental principle: “Blood before Soil!” Biopolitics vs. Geopolitics!

The White World’s Future

The modern world, in spite of its technological achievements, is going to hell. Our divine White race is infected by liberal ideals and capitalist standards. It is degenerating and degrading. Switch on the TV, look around the Internet, listen to pop music. What do you see? Stupid shows and non-stop advertising for millions of passive spectators. Transnational business needs you only as a consumer. You must pay, buy and cry with happiness! You are in a golden cell (a new kind of prison) and under sweet occupation.

Asia, Africa and Latin America are following their religious traditions and are growing in population. The White world is making money and having fun. And it is dying.

State-provoked terrorism will not resolve these problems. We need another solution. We want a revolution among Whites. An absolutely new alternative to this vampirism. We want genetic improvement, cultural renaissance and political organization. Our dream is an alliance of White nations, a new military bloc, a new international pact or even a confederation. Not at once, not in one day, but in a real and pragmatic way.

We know that there exists a strong global opposition to this “honey hell.” There are different forms of organized and leaderless resistance. We are a proper part of this world “reconquista”. Our fight is our way of life, our way to be free, honest and proud.

Though it is not enough nowadays for the victory. Besides the resistance and strong opposition the to the degradation of the White world, we need a constructive alternative. That’s why we are here. Our conference today, THE WHITE WORLD’S FUTURE, should be one more step in the building of our new home. Our sacred Fatherland.

This will be an honorable gift to our Beloved Gods and Ancestors. It will be our own Victory in the modern War.

18:15 Gepost door gepost door Kris Roman in Geopolitica english | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook |

Russia straddles Sunni-Shi’ite divide

By M K Bhadrakumar

The Asia Times

“We see that new ‘Berlin Walls’ are being erected. Instead of a common space, what we see is that this ‘Berlin Wall’ is simply being shifted further east and that new bases are being established.” These were Russian President Vladimir Putin’s words in a media interview in Moscow last week.

Never before had Putin come so close to acknowledging that he has heard the drumbeat of the “cold warriors” in the West. That Putin chose an Arab media outlet to make such a stark description should come as no surprise. Of all regions, it is in the Middle East that the tensions that have been accruing in Russia-US relations over recent years have begun outstripping other turfs - the Black Sea, the Caspian, the Caucasus, Central Asia.

The Middle East is also a region where it is to Russia’s advantage tactically to differentiate its policies from those of the West. Russia-US discord in the Middle East has picked up the thread from where the two powers left off some two decades ago. But Russia is returning to the region with a visage that bears hardly any resemblance to the Soviet era. Russia today is vastly leaner, more agile, resourceful and imaginative than previously. It has evidently done a lot of homework as to where things went wrong in the Soviet era.

Putin’s visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan in the past week harnesses a one-year period of extraordinary success in Russia’s Middle East policy.

It all began last March when a Hamas delegation led by Khaled Meshaal was hosted by Moscow. The event was a loud declaration that Russia was returning to big-time politics. Israel promptly protested that the Russian act was a “real knife in the back”. But Moscow was undeterred. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov affirmed, “The talks in Moscow are not a one-off action.”

Moscow put on public display all the justification for its initiative - Hamas had come to power through fair and free elections; Russia was only doing what Egypt and Turkey had done; isolation would only force Hamas to become more radical; Hamas sounded reasonable during the talks in Moscow; the international community would have no option but to deal eventually with Hamas and Russia’s contacts would prove useful.

Then came the body blow to US policy in the Middle East. Moscow said, first, the talks with Hamas were held “within the framework of the Quartet’s decisions” (the Middle East Quartet comprises top diplomats from the United States, the United Nations and the European Union). Second, Moscow was only trying to lead the Middle East crisis out of its deadlock. Third, Hamas should become an equal partner if any peace talks are to be meaningful.

By projecting itself as a bridge between the West and the Muslim Middle East, Moscow neatly served its own interests. It is making an ambitious bid to restore its traditional position and influence in the Middle East. It is wading into a power vacuum resulting from the loss of US influence in the region. And it is forging links with the Islamic world as a partner ready to make promises and willing to listen to Muslim opinion with respect. As Lavrov put it, “We will not let anyone put us at odds with the Islamic world.”

Actually, Russia didn’t have to say so explicitly. In Muslim Arab perceptions, Russian policy stands in sharp contrast with the Western (primarily US) approach that is characterized by pressure and the ever-threatening prospect of the use of force.

The thoughtfulness of the Russian policy became evident when, at the personal invitation of Putin, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas visited soon after Meshaal. The emphasis during the visits of the Palestinian leaders, no matter the concrete outcome, was on Russia making a visible attempt to restart the peace process at a time that Washington was patently uninterested.

Abbas told Putin, “When on Russian territory, we always feel that we are in a friendly state … Russia is always at our side, even in the most critical times.” But it was not a matter of atmospherics alone. In the interim between the visits of the two Palestinian leaders, Russia also persuaded the Quartet to adopt a decision to create an international mechanism for the direct transfer of aid to Palestine authorities. Russia compelled a furious Washington to go along with the collective Quartet decision.

But what infuriated Washington more than anything was Moscow’s audacity to suggest that regional states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Arab League should be made full participants of the Middle East peace process, rather than looking on. The Russian proposal (which is still on the Quartet’s table) is glaring: Moscow is championing the cause of pro-American Arab regimes in the Middle East! In essence, Moscow is merrily hunting in the heartlands of the traditional US preserve in the Middle East. Russia is exposing US doublespeak, which is one of holding Israel’s hand while shepherding the Arab protagonists on a case-by-case basis at random, a tactic that precluded the possibility of a common Arab position ever effectively challenging Israeli interests.

Moscow, which was bogged down with the baggage of ideology during the Soviet era, didn’t have such a freedom previously to be in the vanguard of Arab aspirations. In the Soviet era, Moscow also had to make a pretense of exporting its ideology. After Abbas’ visit to Moscow last May, a string of visitors went to the Russian capital - the secretary general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the prime minister of Lebanon, the president of Syria, the secretary general of the Arab League, the king of Jordan, the president of Egypt, etc. Putin himself visited Morocco and Algeria.

Russian diplomacy is one of great openness. First, Moscow began asserting that there is no alternative to a collective international effort in solving regional or global problems, meaning that Russia cannot be ignored any longer in conflict resolution - be it in the Middle East, Afghanistan or Kosovo. Lavrov told the Arab media soon after Meshaal’s visit, “The contemporary world is such, and the Middle East all the more so, that without collective efforts, nothing can be accomplished. Collective efforts presuppose a joint elaboration of position, which cannot admit extremes in either direction, which cannot unambiguously state: ‘in this crisis, this is the culprit, and this is the victim’ … There can be no stable settlement in which one party declares 100% victory, and the other side has to accept 100% defeat.”

Second, there can be no prescriptive approach by outsiders to the Arab world as to how they ought to go about restructuring their political life. “Trying to get everyone to move at one speed or to follow one particular model, be it democracy or the market, is unrealistic and impossible,” Lavrov has said. This Russian pragmatism is causing problems and constant embarrassment to Washington.

Third, unlike Washington’s, Moscow’s policy in the Middle East is well balanced. While building relations with Arab regimes, the so-called Arab street, Russia is also maintaining a sort of strategic partnership with Iran and a high level of relations with Israel.Fourth, apart from realizing geopolitical goals, the sheer fact of having warm and cordial political relations at the bilateral level with Arab regimes also provides Moscow a chance to develop close economic cooperation with the Persian Gulf countries, above all. For the first time, Russia is seriously viewing the pro-Western countries in the region as a potential market for its arms exports.

It is an important distinction from the Soviet era that Russia is no longer seeking alliances, but is content with partnerships. (Conceivably, Russia will learn to live with a US-Iran or US-Syria normalization.) In plain terms, Russia’s Middle East policy is not meant to be a geopolitical extravaganza. It is cost-effective and it is “self-financing”. It cannot become a strain on Russian resources - a vital lesson learnt from the Soviet era.

Finally, it is apparent that the Russian policy acts independently of the Quartet, but at the same time not ruling out participation in the Quartet. This also annoys Washington. But with the Iraq war weighing like an albatross, Washington can hardly keep pace with Russian diplomacy. The fatigue is beginning to show.

Without being confrontational with Washington, Moscow has all but succeeded in creating the impression in the Arab world that Russia and the US are rivals in the Middle East and the rest of the Islamic world. This suits Russia. It is even necessary, since Russia’s image has been one of a weak nation that is only too willing to curry favor with Washington.

Putin went out of his way to assert on the eve of his tour last week that Russia does not seek conflict with anyone, but “Russia knows its worth. We will work towards creating a multipolar world. We do not want to return to the era of confrontation between competing blocs. We do not want to split the world into different military and political groupings. But Russia does have enough potential to influence the formation of the new world order and to ensure that the future architecture of international relations is balanced and takes the interests of all the members of the international community into account.”

What remains to be seen, of course, is what this “rivalry” is based on, and how far it may go. As Russian presidential adviser Aslambek Aslakhanov put it, “That Russia is turning into an independent player in the world arena has come as a surprise to our [Western] partners … It is only fair that Russia does not want to play the role of a junior partner of the US in Middle East affairs and in questions pertaining to the destinies of the Muslim world. But Russia can and must be a partner of the US and the West when its national interests are not prejudiced.”

Admittedly, Russia is not gloating over the US setbacks in the Middle East - not openly, at least. It insists it is interested in regional stability, and that aggravation of the situation in Iraq has a destabilizing influence on the entire region, and that could have negative fallouts eventually in the direct vicinity of Russia - the Caucasus and Central Asia. Russia says that it is still possible to freeze the domestic conflict in Iraq and that Russia has good prospects of success in promoting an Iraqi dialogue involving all political and ethnic communities.

But Russia has not spared any effort in drawing a line of distinction between it and the United States, to the effect that Washington is yet to come up with a new strategy for the Middle East. Arab perceptions of Russia have dramatically changed in recent months. Amr Moussa, secretary general of the Arab League, articulated this collective Arab opinion when he told Putin at the Kremlin recently, “Relations between Russia and the Arab world are flourishing today and we greatly value Russia’s policy in the Middle East. The policies of other countries regarding our region have not proved as successful, perhaps. Russia is one of the few countries whose policy is distinguished by an understanding of the reality of our region” (emphasis added).

Russia has undertaken an exhaustive stocktaking of the Middle East crisis. First and foremost, Russia has assessed that the quagmire in which the US finds itself in Iraq is virtually hopeless. Washington cannot reconcile its support of a Shi’ite government in Baghdad with its regional policy in the Middle East and the Gulf. At the same time, US interests within Iraq cannot be secured except with Shi’ite and Kurdish allies.

But this alliance infringes on the interests of the Sunnis, which in turn aggravates tensions between Iraqis and complicates US-Iraqi relations, fuels the resistance and destabilizes the entire region. However, even with regard to the Shi’ite camp, there are serious limits to US influence, as evident from the fact that Washington couldn’t dictate the nomination of Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister.

In other words, Moscow has concluded that the political process in Iraq has almost come to a standstill and the current crisis is likely to be followed by more problems for Iraqis and the Americans. In an interview with Al-Jazeera last week in Moscow, Putin asserted with a new vehemence: “The solution is simple: strengthen Iraq’s own capacity to ensure its security, withdraw the foreign contingent from Iraqi soil, and give the Iraqi people the chance to decide their own future … When our American partners talk simply of boosting their military contingent, we do not consider this to be a new strategy … it will work only if a date is set for the withdrawal of the foreign contingent … a date should be set for the withdrawal of the foreign troops.”

In the Russian understanding, Iraq is not the only area where US regional strategy has misfired. Moscow sensed far ahead of most others that the future of resistance in the Middle East is fast becoming a central issue. Furthermore, Moscow could associate the resistance primarily with the Arab-Israeli conflict and the situation in Iraq. But Moscow was perceptive enough to note that armed resistance is not only due to occupation but is also a resistance to Western, primarily US, influence in the internal affairs of the region, as well as resistance to globalization. As a perceptive Russian expert commentator on the Middle East put it, “In fact, the growing number of Muslim women wearing headscarves is a challenge to Western civilization comparable to the actions of such movements as Hamas and Hezbollah.”

This level of understanding has led Moscow to conclude that any external influence can only trigger further strengthening of local resistance, deepen divides in Arab society, and alienate pro-Arab regimes from their people even more. That is to say, Washington’s policies virtually ensure that the pro-American regimes cannot remain long, and any US attempt to prop up these regimes can only meet with tactical, not strategic, success.

Moscow has sized up that the US-sponsored peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis are going nowhere. Moreover, the capacity of the US and the European Union to act as go-betweens has greatly diminished because of their stubborn refusal to have any dealings with Hamas. Also, in the Russian view, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict cannot be resolved without Syrian and Lebanese participation (and neither can the Iraq problem be resolved without Iranian and Syrian involvement).

A note of urgency has entered Russian pronouncements of late. Moscow seems to size up that Washington is getting ready for a possible war, and in the resolve to defend its interests in the region, the US administration is increasingly talking in the language of force rather than seeking compromise. But Moscow doubts whether the US is still able to reassure its allies in the region. It perceives that Middle Eastern equations are more nuanced than the crude lineup that propaganda would have us believe: the US, Israel and the pro-Western regimes versus Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and Shi’ite elements.

Moscow senses that the pro-Western Arab regimes have extended only conditional support to US regional strategy. They will be content that US forces remain in Iraq. And they may be relieved that the administration of President George W Bush does not want to involve Iran in an Iraq settlement. Having said that, they are not happy that tensions in the region are mounting and that an armed US-Iran conflict may ensue. They are worried that a US defeat in Iraq will be a disaster for the Middle East. But, at the same time, they are not prepared to tackle the problem created by the US in Iraq, they are prepared to go so far and no further. And they will bargain hard with Bush.

In sum, Russian policy in the Middle East is a kind of mirror image in reverse of the string of mistakes that Washington has committed in the region. Prominent among such mistakes is the tragic error on the part of President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to give an inter-civilizational character to the “war on terror”. Moscow realizes that the consequent sense of hurt and alienation in the Islamic world is profound. The Russian leadership has spared no occasion to harp on the fact that Moscow has nothing to do with the Western leadership’s characterization of “crusades” and “Islamo-fascism”.

On the contrary, Moscow is projecting that Russia’s Muslims can and should feel that they are an organic part of the Muslim world. Last year’s initiative of starting a broad-based dialogue between Russia and the Muslim world in the nature of the so-called Russia-Islamic World Strategic Vision Group was evidently a decision made at the highest level of leadership in the Kremlin, as evident from the fact that great Orientalist and former prime minister Yevgeny Primakov heads it.

The association of Primakov, who is familiar with the Western strategy of pitting Islam against the Soviet Union, implies that Russia is wary of Anglo-American intentions. Post-Soviet Russia has indeed done a great deal of thinking on its own tactics and strategy toward political Islam. Primakov has expounded on the theoretical foundations of Russian thinking. He wrote last year in a fascinating essay that it is very important to differentiate between Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic extremism.

Primakov explained, “Islamic fundamentalism is about building mosques, observing Islamic rites and providing assistance to the faithful. But aggressive, extremist Islamic fundamentalism is about using force to impose an Islamic model of governance on the state and society. History knows of periods when Christian fundamentalism grew into Christian-Catholic extremism. Remember the Jesuits or the Crusades. Today we have to deal with the manifestations of Islamic fundamentalism.”

Uncluttered by the ideological barriers that came in its way in the Soviet era, Moscow visualizes that “there are no countries in the Arab world now with which we have contradictions of any kind”, as Putin said recently. The Arab world feels comfortable with the knowledge that post-Soviet Russia is not seeking superpower status, either.

Equally, Moscow shares a relationship with both the Shi’ite world and Sunni Arab countries. With a strategic partnership, albeit limited, with Iran under its belt, Russia finds itself as an agent of dialogue in respect of both Shi’ites and Sunnis, “an asset that the Americans do not have”, the Jerusalem Post grudgingly admitted last week. The Israeli daily viewed with despondency the ease with which Moscow is crisscrossing the so-called Shi’ite-Sunni divide in the region, something that might dispel suspicion among Sunnis concerning a Shi’ite takeover in the region.

Russia has no doubt put itself in a unique position that will give it a clear advantage over the other players in the Middle East. Putin’s tour of the region last week was a “coming-out party for the Kremlin’s influence in the Middle East”, as the Jerusalem Post wryly observed.

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for more than 29 years, with postings including ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-98) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

18:09 Gepost door gepost door Kris Roman in Geopolitica english | Permalink | Commentaren (0) |  Facebook |