Thoughts on Zelensky and Ukraine

I do not comment too extensively on global conflicts as they are not a topic that is squarely in my wheelhouse. I am not terribly interested in the history of these various squabbles, and I do not have the expertise and framework for the topic as I do with social capital, race, or law. As such, I avoid commentary on things I do not understand better than most.

With that said, I have views of Zelensky and this conflict that I do not see well represented, and I found myself one of the few people making some of these points that I would like to share.

I remember watching the 2014 Euromaidan protests constantly. At the time, I had not seen anything like it in Europe in my lifetime. It was enthralling and would begin the most current saga of Russian-Ukranian political history.

The Nordstream pipeline events and Russian military presence in Ukraine took the conflict to the next level. The Russian perspective on entering Ukraine in February of 2022 was similar to the Danzig Corridor incidents leading to the German invasion of Poland in September of 1939. Russia alleged that Russian citizens in Donbas were being harassed and killed by Ukraine or by rogue groups known by Ukraine and that the country failed to protect the ethnic Russians in what would have been formerly Russian territory.

Echoing the past, the Danzig corridor was once part of Germany. The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 gave Danzig to Poland after WWI. Ethnic Germans were harassed and killed while the Polish government either ignored or participated; as such, the Germans under Hitler invaded the corridor with the intent to free the ethnic Germans.

The liberal accepted historical narrative on Germany and the contemporary view of Russia is that these claims were baseless and used as a pretext to invade a neighbor, with the idea being the invasion was done for some economic or another incentive, aside from the concern for one's ethnic group.

Note: Russia often claims there are elements of Ukraine that are "Nazi" or "neo-Nazi." To Russians, this means something different from what it means in the USA and Western Europe due to the different perspectives Russians have from their experience in WWII. To us, a "Nazi" has come to mean somebody with favorable views of Hitler, a person who liberals want to smear as being too right-wing for their liking, somebody that dislikes Jews, or somebody that Jews dislike. To Russians, a Nazi could mean those things, but it often means somebody who is anti-Russian. It is similar but different.

If you recall the run-up to the 2016 US Presidential Election, the liberal narrative machine was calling Trump a "Russian Agent," there was a fake "Russian Dossier," and a late-night talk show host referred to Trump's mouth as "Putin's cock holster." It was as absurd as it sounds. Hillary Clinton was teasing war with Russia at the time, while Trump was advocating for a working relationship with the Russian Empire. This sent many into hysterics, and I believe much of the anti-Russian sentiment we see in the liberal West is a carryover from that episode and perhaps undertones of a Levantine ethnic grudge going back to the October Revolution in November of 1917, where the Bolsheviks tortured and executed the Romanov family. The history of the Russian Revolution is something Putin is keenly aware of, from an interview in 2013, "I thought about something just now: The decision to nationalize this library was made by the first Soviet government, whose composition was 80-85 percent Jewish."^[1]

There is also an infrastructure argument to be made, with Ukraine having much more shoreline on the Black Sea than Russia, and an argument against NATO encroachment.

Moving forward, with the Western media entirely against Russia already, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky became a media darling almost immediately. Zelensky was/is a comedian and actor until he became President in 2019. It's not entirely unheard of in this era. Many dismissed Trump as merely "a reality TV star" as he began campaigning for his first Presidency. Ronald Regan got his start in entertainment. There is a catch-22 as far as pre-political careers go. People are either career politicians, which is often seen negatively, or they have some other job, which is attacked as insufficient training for politics. If people like the person, they will say their career in politics made them experienced; if they dislike them, they will say it means they are corrupt and out of touch. Similarly, if people like an outsider, they will say it adds a fresh new perspective to issues; if people dislike the outsider, they will claim their former career renders them too inexperienced against their opposition.

With the full weight of the media machine behind him, Zelensky began to raise money for his war via tremendous sums of foreign aid and decided to escalate the war. Some may take issue with this framing. I do not believe that Russia would take all of Ukraine or fight a war of extermination. But frankly, we do not know because nobody would meet with Putin to figure out what he wanted, which was a total failure of relations with a neighboring country by Ukraine. If there was any single qualification to be a President of Ukraine, being able to negotiate with your massive, nuclear-armed Empire of a neighbor sharing a large border would be the primary one—the unwillingness to negotiate created as significant an issue as any. Again, echoes of the past, I am reminded of the endless pleas to re-negotiate the Treaty of Versailles by Hitler and "appeals to reason," that all fell onto ears not willing to listen because they already expressly wanted a war with Germany.

This brings me to the next point: at this juncture, it seems there is no legitimate conclusion to draw other than Zelensky and leaders or those with power who want the war to continue. Online podcaster and commentator types have told me this is a war for Europe, for "blood and soil," to defend the white race from "Eurasian hordes" and against "communist Russia," among other equally insane comments.

Suppose anybody truly believes that a Jewish comedian, every liberal head of state that allows mass migration into their country, and every rabid liberal on social media is in full, unwavering support of a country fighting for anything helpful to whites. In that case, I really do not know what to tell you. There are indeed cases of "agreeing with liberals for all the wrong reasons," but I do not see any angle in which this is one of them. For that to be the case, there would need to be some serious material benefit to a war that has been killing and maiming young white men on both sides. There's no reality in which Ukraine wins a full-blown war with Russia unless the rest of the West gets involved. At that point, the pro-Ukraine argument becomes even more absurd when more white men and white tax dollars are spent to defeat Russia, a country that does zero material harm to the West. The logical end conclusion of any argument that this war is good or white people highlights the insanity of the premise to begin with.

For as long as wars have been going on, small groups of people have become extremely wealthy off of them. Those who finance wars, manufacture and deal arms and supplies, and otherwise are in some adjacent business or can get in on the massive flow of cash become fantastically wealthy during conflicts. "War profiteering" is a legitimate consideration in any conflict, whether the conflict is real or merely perceived.

Wars can be waged for ideological reasons, land disputes, ethnic conflicts, political power, resources, or a mix of these and more. However, money always remains in the backdrop. There are hundreds of reports of the Zelensky family buying mansions and multi-million-dollar cars, such as Olena Zelensky seen driving a 4.5-million-dollar Bugatti around France. Rumors of villas, mansions, penthouses, and estates purchased by Zelensky's parents and himself through agents or shells are rampant. Western outlets claim every single instance of such activity is “Russian disinformation,” the same excuse used to hand-wave any negative press about Clinton during the 2016 election. I cannot verify these claims about Zelensky and his spending habits. However, if a Jewish politician from one of the most corrupt countries in Europe is not spending foreign aid money on himself, I would be wildly shocked, and it might be a first in all of history.

I am willing to go on a limb and say the couple posing for Vogue Magazine, at the same time, young men were being slaughtered in a war they do not want to end are likely also doing other reprehensible work, such as spending war effort funds from foreign taxpayers (like us) on luxury real estate and cars. I could be wrong; maybe the Jewish entertainer raised in a former Easter Bloc state is entirely legitimate, but I wouldn't bet much on it.

There are people who consider themselves to be astute political analysts and they fail to see all of this for what it is, a cohort of liberals and jews sending white men to die. For that, they should never be taken seriously again. If they had any shame, they would delete all of their accounts and go back to their menial jobs, but alas. This is a blunder that should disqualify people from speaking on global matters such as this. It won’t, as that requires them feeling shame and admitting they were wrong, but I can dream.

I must comment on the recurring "former liberal" issue. Most of the current nationalists or claimed nationalists who support the Ukrainian war and Zelensky and are aghast at his treatment by Trump and Vance with the "ambush" meeting are self-proclaimed former liberals. And there is something to this. Often, people carry some priors or sentiments, making it challenging for them to adjust to novel or developing situations. They finally "stopped" being a liberal after a lifetime of thinking about a particular issue, say diversity, mass migration, or egalitarianism. It was not "natural" for them to shun these left-wing ideas right away. It took years for them to come to a right-wing conclusion. Those people might be great on many issues but always struggle with new and emerging issues as their instincts and sentiments are always askew. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is a blind spot they have for issues that sort of "break out" from the ether. If former liberals can't rely on an already formed framework or heuristic to evaluate the situation appropriately, they tend to get the issue wrong at first brush, and then double-down to save face.

As for Zelensky himself, he does not have the historical understanding or temperament for this position. He cannot deal with conflict, be it Russia or Trump holding his feet to the fire over his positions. He is from a long line of people who are all too willing to send someone else to die for a cause. Which brings me to the issue of online commentators in support of the war. I know of dozens of people personally, and many more I only see online, who want this war with Russia to continue. These are military-aged men who are often living in Europe, but not one of them will sign up and fight. They want a war; it's right in their backyard. They are a day's drive away from Ukraine, and nothing stops them. This cannot be overstated.

Very few wars have ever been worth fighting. I would be there if there were ever a war I felt worthy. I would not be online talking about it, bemoaning relations and foreign aid that didn't go the way I wanted for my side. I would be there with a rifle. And in that lies the absolute difference between men who are pro-war and those who see it as a total and horrific last resort. If there is ever a war I believe in, I will be there with a rifle. Until then, I will remain against all needless wars and advocate for what I find to be the most reasonable outcome that sends the fewest young white men their deaths.

Note: All of this applies equally and more so to Israel and retroactively to Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, and so on.

---

^[1] “Putin: First Soviet government was mostly Jewish.” The Times of Israel. June 19, 2013 https://www.timesofisrael.com/putin-first-soviet-government-was-mostly-jewish/ [https://archive.ph/voDcX]