The mainstream media is ununited in promoting as anti-Russian line, and no doubt we will soon hear of Russian hordes tossing babies up in the air and skewering them on the points of their bayonets, as in all previous wars with the assigned villains. The Dissent Right though tends to a more pro-Russian stance, since Putin is seen as a nationalist and anti-woke, if we can accept his speeches. So, in the interests of intellectual balance and debate, which is what Alor.org is all about - the value of freedom in all its forms – here are some recent musings from the Dissent Right on the Ukrainian crisis. My view, expressed in articles today, is that the only real winner will be communist China, the real threat to Australia.

 

https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2022/03/nato-vs-russia-armchair-warriors.html
“Putin has taken an extremely big gamble. If he remains committed to limited objectives, he might just get away with it. Limited objectives would be claiming the disputed territories, accessing the Black Sea, pipeline interests, keeping Ukraine out of NATO, and intimidating Russia’s neighbors to the south away from getting too close to the West.

But if Putin opts for a full-blown occupation/annexation of Ukraine, he has an Iraq War Two situation on his hands. And if he ventures into NATO countries or countries outside Russia’s immediate border, he’s in deep sh*t.

The worst thing NATO could do is overreach and back Putin into a corner where he becomes desperate. If Putin tries to occupy all of Ukraine, it is strategically advantageous to let him get bogged down with a guerrilla insurgency (like the USA in Vietnam and Iraq, or both Russia and the USA in Afghanistan). An effort toward the “liberation” of Ukraine would mean directly engaging with Russian forces, which should be avoided as long as Russia only remains in Ukraine.

However, it is obviously possible to deter expanded Russian adventurism by placing a defensive ring of NATO forces in the border states to Ukraine and Russia other than Belarus and Moldova (all of these are NATO members except the two mentioned) similar to the Iron Curtain standoff during the Cold War (with the borders of Russia and/or Ukraine amounting to the new Berlin Wall).

It would also be possible for NATO to arm the Ukrainian insurgency against the Russian occupation (like Western backing for the mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghan War). A consequence of this would be large numbers of civilian casualties in Ukraine itself, and if/when Russia leaves a far-right fascist-like regime will probably emerge, because that is what usually happens with these things.

If Putin remains limited in his objectives, it could “only” be another Chechen War or Russian-Georgian War. If Putin actually tries to fully occupy and annex Ukraine, it will be the Russian version of America’s Iraq War Two, particularly, if NATO arms the resistance, which they probably will. The main danger is if there is direct conflict between NATO and Russian forces because who knows how far that could spread, and both sides are nuclear-armed.

But the main thing both sides need to do is not give the other side a reason to launch a nuclear first strike.

And in the interests of full disclosure, I am writing this from a desk chair, not an armchair.”

https://counter-currents.com/2022/03/a-european-view-on-the-war-in-ukraine/

A European View on the War in Ukraine by

Olli Huovinen

 

“I am a Finnish nationalist who has been following the American Dissident Right for many years. I greatly admire and regularly follow many of the superb writers and sites in this milieu. However, I feel that at least some American dissidents do not fully understand the European point of view on the Russo-Ukrainian war.

Some prominent American nationalists support Russia in their war with Ukraine, while among European nationalists, especially in Eastern Europe, there is widespread support for Ukraine. I have seen arguments from the American side that people on the Ukrainian side are simply victims of liberal propaganda, while European nationalists see the support of some Americans for Russia as a sign of ignorance about European affairs.

I am arguing that it is in fact in the national interest of certain European nations to oppose Russia in their war with Ukraine. It is not my intention to turn Americans into supporters of Ukraine, but simply to show that Europeans have legitimate reasons for siding with it. I shall also look at this war in the larger context of the Pan-Western cultural war. I will not make any arguments about the war’s morality and instead focus solely on why it is in the interests of many European nationalists to support Ukraine.

It is logical for an American nationalist to support Russia. Ukraine is in the liberal sphere of influence, and the global liberal democratic system is an enemy of the Historic American Nation, Western civilization, and white nations everywhere. Therefore, supporting an enemy of the liberal regime seems like the right thing to do. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, as the old saying goes. For many Americans, this war between Russia and Ukraine is a battle between a healthy conservative state and the degenerate liberal order. This is not the perspective of many in Europe, however.

My country of Finland shares a long border of approximately 830 miles with Russia. We still have conscription, with most males serving in the military for a period from half a year to a year, depending on the conscript’s role. With a population of only 5.5 million, our defense forces have an official wartime strength of 280,000 soldiers, with hundreds of thousands more in reserve to replenish losses. Our military is focused almost completely on conventional ground war, and there is only one reason why it exists at all: Russia.

Finland is not part of NATO, but does cooperate with it and is a European Union Member State. Our current government, as well as all the major parties except for one and the permanent bureaucracy, are firmly in the liberal, pro-United States camp. This means that in Russia’s eyes, we are a hostile state. In essence we have all the liabilities of being in NATO without the security guarantees that would act as a deterrent. Consequently, I conclude that there is a real chance that Russia could use military force against us.

Even if we were actually in NATO, like many Eastern European countries bordering Russia, the Russian threat would still not be completely dissipated. It is possible that the Russians might gamble that if they quickly take the Baltic countries or Finland, NATO will break up instead of going to full-scale war against Russia to liberate them. It might well turn out that there is no political will to fight for a few small European countries if the cost is a new world war that, in the worst case, could go nuclear.

Our regime upholds anti-white policies, like all the other liberal regimes. A Russian occupation is not a preferable alternative, however, nor is a puppet government or protectorate status. Losing the ability to control one’s national destiny is not something that any nationalist could accept. It is therefore in the interests of Finnish nationalists to reduce the chance of a Russian invasion, and the war in Ukraine offers a way to do this.

If the war goes badly for Russia, it will reduce Russia’s capability to wage war in the future. Firstly, there are the direct casualties and losses in equipment. Western sanctions could also cause the Russian economy to falter, likely forcing them to reduce their defense budget. Finally, large casualties and a failure to achieve their objectives reduces the government’s political capital and the desire for further wars among the population. Iraq and Afghanistan killed any desire for more war among the American population, and the same could happen to the Russians if the invasion of Ukraine ends in disaster.

An American could easily make the counterargument that this is petty European nationalism, and that it is detrimental to the larger culture war being waged throughout the West. Putting national interests above civilizational and racial interests is indeed counterproductive. Let us therefore look at what the war in Ukraine means for the larger struggle.

Ukraine is a sideshow. Whatever happens, it will not have any major impact on the global culture war. The satanic mills of the liberal leviathan will continue grinding just like before. A Russian victory will not diminish their media power, financial resources, or their hold on our institutions. Likewise, a Ukrainian victory will not increase their power in any significant way. The fight taking place within America will not be affected by whether a poor Eastern European country is retained in the liberal sphere of influence or not, just as the Taliban victory in Afghanistan did not have any real effect, either. The only consequence of a Russian victory will be a few liberal tears, which is undeniably enjoyable but quite unimportant in the culture war.

Another claim is that Russia is a conservative ally of ours. The argument is that while the war itself might be unimportant, a weak Russia will mean the loss of an important ally. It is not true that Russia is our ally. They are an old-fashioned imperial state and are only interested in expanding their own power and sphere of influence. They have no desire to see our side win, and I suspect it would in fact be in their long-term interests to see the West’s decline advance to final collapse. Russia itself is not even a real nation-state, but rather a multiethnic empire with a decreasing population of white Russians and an increasing population of non-white Muslims due to birthrates and immigration.

Contrary to liberal propaganda, Russia has not provided any significant aid to European or American nationalists. Russian officials sometimes make critical comments about the West’s wokeness, but that is basically the only extent of their support. A weakening of the Russian state would not therefore affect our side adversely or deprive us of resources.

To conclude, it is in the legitimate interest of many European nationalists to support Ukraine in this war. But while the war is important for many Europeans, in terms of the larger culture war it is an unimportant sideshow. A Ukrainian victory will not adversely affect the culture war in America nor in Europe. American dissidents do not lose anything if Ukraine wins, while many European nations have much to gain.”

Gregory Hood gives another take seeing “only two white peoples with below-fertility birth rates butchering each other.”

https://www.amren.com/features/2022/03/to-the-ronin-of-the-west/

“My unorthodox thesis can be summarized in one sentence: Excising war from our historical horizon has led to the disappearance of virility from Western European societies.” So writes Dominique Venner in A Handbook for Dissidents. War has indeed returned to Europe. Europeans are killing each other in another Western civil war.

According to Vladimir Putin, Ukrainians and Russians are one people, but not part of the West. Ukrainian nationalists say they are fighting the foreign Russian occupier. According to countless press reports, “The West” is now confronting a non-Western power. Volunteers organizing on Reddit and other websites may be joining the largest pan-European military project since the Waffen-SS. Both sides say they are anti-fascists and that their foes are Nazis.

War has returned to the European consciousness and defense policy is suddenly being taken seriously. And though war is on our “horizon,” the Great Replacement is not. I see only two white peoples with below-fertility birth rates butchering each other.

Despite sympathy for Russia among some conservatives, “white nationalists” may be on the side of the Ukrainians. However, victory could lead to an “independent” Ukraine’s integration into the soulless, cultureless, decadent parody of European civilization that Dominque Venner gave his life to protest. “The current cosmopolitan system stems from Europe’s decline,” he wrote. “There is no commonality with our perennial civilization. The latter is to be sought elsewhere, in the best of what has been handed down to us.”

If Europe is to be changed, it must be changed from the center, and, I’m persuaded, by France. That is France’s new civilizing mission, though Venner certainly saw no contradiction in standing for France and Europe. “It is good to think and talk about Europe as a union of peoples in one civilization,” he advises young dissidents. Still, Venner’s subtitle, The Spiritual Testament of a Samurai of the West, shows uncertainty. Though Venner argues that Homer wrote the foundational poem of our civilization, he takes a “detour” through Japan better to understand our own tradition. The Japanese would not need a detour in order to understand themselves.

Venner may have called himself a “samurai” of the West, but without a master, a samurai is a ronin, a wanderer without roots. We lack a sacral or even symbolic figure to unite Western Civilization, in contrast to the Muslims with their Prophet or the Japanese with their Emperor. Venner’s quest to find roots — and so set a master over himself and ourselves — is what this book is about.

Venner gave himself a mission. “Political action is inconceivable without the precondition of a spiritual ideal to inspire it and rebut the ‘we are nothing.’ So, what ideal?” What, then, should be our creed?

If we identify it, we can know who we are. However, this Spiritual Testament, written near the end of life, is as much a question as an answer. Venner does identify our foundational poems (The Iliad and The Odyssey), an approach (Neostoicism directed towards heroic action), and practical advice about political action. This alone makes the book worth reading, but sometimes it tells us more about how to fight than what we’re fighting for. There is still some work we have to do on our own.

Venner argues that there is a European tradition, “sung since time immemorial and set down in the primeval poems of ancient Greece.” The tradition includes the knightly and aristocratic honor codes such as chivalry and courtly love that appear in different nations, epochs, and creeds.

Venner invokes an ancient, if not eternal Western Man. His spirit is primordial, mysterious, and speaks to us through our blood. From nation to nation and even faith to faith, we see glimpses of the common tradition. However, elsewhere, Venner writes of civilization as something almost transient: “One can destroy a civilization with the stroke of a pen.”

That can happen through immigration. A civilization can certainly be subverted but it can’t die until the people themselves are removed from Earth. That is what we face today, and why the struggle is so important. Questions about marriage, family, immigration, defense, health care and every other policy issue ultimately are the question of whether a people can replace itself, maintain its identity, and grow in power and nobility.

How are we to act? Venner’s Neostoicism accepts death, the natural order, misfortune, and struggle. However, there is no hint of despair or resignation. Instead, he calls us to courage and a new moral order drawn from Homer. “Men therefore are reckoned by the beautiful and the ugly, the noble and the base,” he wrote. “Or, to put it differently, the struggle toward beauty is the condition of the good. But beauty is nothing without loyalty or courage.”

Faced with this inspiring example, the current war seems even more tragic. Europeans must not be slaughtered for causes not their own. “I have never accepted that the decadence and decay of Europe were our destiny,” Venner wrote. If a dissident can be defined by anything, it must be by this very defiance.

I have strong views about who is right or wrong in this war and what outcome I hope to see, but my foremost conviction goes beyond this war. It has made me think that we’ve focused too much on conventional politics, ceding a higher ideal. Perhaps we should again speak of the white nation, if only as an inspiring myth, something that belongs to all Europeans, to all Hyperboreans. That is a project that could unite people in all white nations who understand that we are one people and share one fate. It would be an achievement worthy of the Iliad. It would be faithful to Venner’s spirit, which still has so much to teach us. It would be a master worth serving.”

I do not agree with all of the above, but in times of mainstream censorship we need a variety of opinions.