Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Before getting on to the alleged genocide by Russian and Belarusian forces in Ukraine, let’s briefly salute Wikipedia’s list of genocides, which includes not only that alleged event but Germany’s Siege of Leningrad as well several others Germany has yet to atone for. Although there are several “minor” genocides there, which I was either unaware of or had half-forgotten, this alleged Ukrainian genocide is my focus here because it helps to put NATO’s shoddy scholarship and shoddy reporting not only on the current Ukrainian conflict but on many others, such as the current Alawite genocide, into focus.

First off, we may note that, as Belarus is not a participant in the war, Belarus can no more be said to be accountable for Russia’s alleged crimes, than Sweden, Ireland and Switzerland can be for the crimes Germany committed a little over 80 years ago. Although that much should be obvious, my main criticism is not with Wikipedia’s shaky standards but with the various “authoritative” sources they cite in notes 54-60 regarding this alleged genocide by Russia.

Note 54 refers to this United Nations account which is just a superficial 850 word survey of how the war stands. Although attacks on dual purpose schools and children fatalities are mentioned in passing, there is no direct mention of genocide or attempts at genocide. Note 55 is this 380 word February 2024 AFP piece, which speculates on the total body bag count and which quotes Zelensky’s fellow Ukrainian Pinocchios to negate any authoritative or trustworthy substance it might have otherwise have had.

Several of my former articles have already dealt at great length with notes 59 and 60, which deal with charges NATO’s International Criminal Court has leveled against Russian President Putin and the even more ridiculous ones against Maria Lvova-Belova. Whereas note 59 links to the now discredited ICC, note 60 links to this shallow Le Monde report which, though basically telling us that child abduction is as bad in Ukraine as it is in Syria, Africa or Cambodia, does not adduce an iota of evidence regarding Putin’s culpability in this alleged crime. My own opinion, having deduced the evidence as best I can, is that Putin has ordered his troops to go easy on the tough love and the reason the Pope and others express antithetical views is they listen far too much to Zelensky and his fellow Pinocchio puppets.

On the topic of Pinocchios, note 57 refers to this BBC report, which conflates Russian reports regarding the need to neutralise Ukraine’s well entrenched fascist extremist movements with a perceived Russian desire to exterminate all Ukrainians. Even leaving aside that it was Zelensky’s Nazis who wanted to do their own mini Final Solution of Russian speakers and that incriminating video evidence abounds as to how they treated the civilian “Ivans” they captured in Kursk, Russia, to my uninformed mind and to that of very many Rusisans, has fought this war with their gloves firmly on. As regards the old fall back of the tourist attraction for NATO leaders of Bucha, to my eyes at least, it was, on the evidence presented at the time, the Ukrainians who perpetrated that massacre. And, though time constraints forbid me from dwelling on it, I know that Wikipedia and the links they share will shed no real light on that crime.

Although note 58 refers to this May 2022 report by the New Lines Institute entitled.“An Independent Legal Analysis of the Russian Federation’s Breaches of the Genocide Convention in Ukraine and the Duty to Prevent”, one has to wonder how independent this Washington based Muslim Brotherhood lobby group is, given that it admits to working to enhance American foreign policy. Given that the report was written very shortly after Russia’s military intervention, one has to naturally wonder just how neutral this report by this Washington-aligned group is.

As the report kicks off with a series of maps with such titles as “Russian Destruction of Ukraine” and “Russian Destruction tactics in Ukraine” before going on to “Reports in the media” and linking to a variety of reports praising Syria’s head choppers, we can conclude that, despite the huge financial resources behind this snow job, it is worthless as a piece of research or as a well of background knowledge.

Having dispensed with all the rest, we now move to note 56, the last note standing, which links to a variety of supposedly peer reviewed academic articles.

Mykola Riabchuk’s June 2022 article in the Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities does not mince words. Though Riabchuk uses decidely unacademic language, he believes that the smoking gun of Russian intent to commit genocide can be uncovered “if the anti-Ukrainian rhetoric of Russian officials, pundits, and propagandists is systemically scrutinized, deconstructed, and contextualized”. Though Riabchuk’s background as a Ukrainian citizen and unabashed Zelensky apologist might help him in that regard, that blatant partisanship totally invalidates not only his paper but the journal that published it. To phrase that differently, anyone wanting to get to the heart of Russian intent or Russian perfidy in Ukraine would be best off ignoring Riabchuk’s rantings.

Timothy Snyder’s 1000 wood April 2022 substack piece is also cited in note 56, no doubt because Snyder regards himself as a “historian of mass killing” which, given the range of genocides Wikipedia adumbrated, is a very wide field and not one anyone, least of all a know-it-all American ignoramus, can be expert on.

Snyder’s main point is that “Russia has just issued a genocide handbook for its war on Ukraine [which is, he alleges] an explicit program for the complete elimination of the Ukrainian nation as such”. Snyder goes on to say that “denazification” in official Russian usage “just means the destruction of the Ukrainian state and nation. A Nazi, as the genocide manual explains, is simply a human being who self-identifies as Ukrainian”.

Let’s stop the idiot right there. Not only did my second SCF article specifically finger the Nazi ideologues of today’s Ukrainian Reich but countless others have highlighted how the most innocuous manifestations of Russian culture are under attack not only in the Ukrainian Nazi Reich but in those propping up Zelensky as well. If genocide is being practiced against anyone, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Russians and all they hold dear are the victims.

Not to Snyder, who believes that “the actual history of actual Nazis and their actual crimes in the 1930s and 1940s is thus totally irrelevant” because Russians are sub-human Orcs, to borrow the terminology those who slaughter them use. And, though an argument could conceivably be presented that Russia unfairly leverages Nazi history and Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis for her own ends, the fact of the matter is the Ukrainian state and its Baltic allies still honour Hitler’s Nazis and their war crimes to this very day. This is not to say that all Ukrainians are Nazis but it is to say that Ukraine’s Nazis remain, both those who are festooned with Third Reich tattoos and those who are not, in the driving seat.

It is also to say that Snyder and his April 2022 garbage shed no light on the issue at hand and should, like the rest of notes 54-60, be ignored because they bring Wikipedia into further disrepute. As do these articles here and here in the Journal of Genocide Research, and this gobbledygook from Rice University some Polish crew saw fit to publish.

As the other two cited sources in note 56 are just run of the mill pieces from The Independent and the Washington Post, they are not worth dwelling on, except to point out that they are indicative of how shallow reporting and research is on Ukraine and on all arenas that do not shoehorn into NATO’s own genocidal agenda.

To sum up then, not only does Wikipedia’s propaganda fall far short of any acceptable academic yardsticks, but so do the rest of NATO’s spinmeisters. To phrase that differently, the reports in this journal on the Ukrainian and Syrian genocides by Sonja van den Ende are academic leagues ahead of any of that dross and that is not so much a clap on the back for van den Ende, as it is a withering condemnation of all journals, media outlets and flunkeys who have parrotted the NATO apologia for their war crimes adumbrated above and who are thereby complicit in them.