Fwd: NP [Re: GR: Who won the war?]

[Martin Dietze]

[ I had already prepared a response, but did not send it out since your mail had gone to me only rather than to the list. I have now shortened and adjusted it a little after the discussion with Thomas, so here it is. ]

Joseph,

I don't think there is much point in going through everything line by line, so I'll focus on the main points.


We have just been discussing the role of the Ukrainian far right in some detail in the other thread. Svoboda and Right Sector were visible on Maidan, but they represented only a small part of the movement, and electorally they soon became marginal: Svoboda received 4.71% and Right Sector 1.80% in 2014; in 2019 the combined far-right list managed 2.15%. That does not look much like a country politically controlled by fascists.

The description of the Donbas seems particularly implausible to me. Saying simply that "the residents took up arms" leaves out rather a lot. In April 2014, 52% in both Donetsk and Luhansk opposed joining Russia; only 28% and 30% respectively supported it. The European Court of Human Rights later found that Russian military personnel were present in eastern Ukraine from April 2014, that Russia supplied weapons and other military equipment from the earliest days of the "DPR" and "LPR", and that it exercised effective control over the separatist-held areas from May 2014. Girkin himself later openly described his role in starting the armed conflict. There was certainly some local support, but this was not simply a population rising up against Kyiv on its own.

The same caution is needed with Bandera. His popularity today tells us rather little about the popularity of his historical ideology. For many Ukrainians he functions primarily as a symbol of resistance to Russia. That is often very ahistorical, and sometimes based on ignorance or rejection of the darker parts of OUN history, but it is not evidence that Ukrainian society has embraced OUN ideology.

More generally, your account follows the Russian state's own narrative of the war very closely. Russia was never a neutral observer in the Donbas but an active participant with very clear interests of its own. And, as we discussed earlier, modern Russia itself displays quite a few of the features normally associated with fascist politics: radical nationalism, personalised rule, the destruction of meaningful political opposition, militarisation, a rhetoric of national rebirth, and now an imperial war of conquest.

That makes the Russian claim to be fighting "fascism" in Ukraine very difficult for me to take seriously. It takes a marginal phenomenon in Ukraine, blows it out of all proportion, and says very little about what has happened inside Russia itself.

And to bring this back to Pynchon, I think the point I made to Thomas still applies: Pynchon seems much more interested in how power actually works than in labels, symbols or inherited political imagery. Looking at how power is organised and exercised tells us rather more than trying to read the political character of a whole country from Bandera, Azov or a handful of far-right organisations.

Cheers,

Martin




On 6. October 2026 at 19:18:30, Joseph Tracy via Pynchon-l (pynchon-l at waste.org) wrote:


  
  
   
    
     
    
     Mistakenly sent only to M Dietze. Intended for list.  
     
  
     
  
     
  
     
-------- Forwarded Message --------  
     
Subject: Re: NP [Re: GR: Who won the war?]  
     
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2026 13:23:20 -0400  
     
From: Joseph Tracy <coypoet at mailfence.com>  
     
Organization: www.brooksideglassworks.com  
     
To: Martin Dietze <pynchon at the-little-red-haired-girl.org>  
     
  
     
  
     
  
     
On January 22, 2010 Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko awarded the  
     
deceased Bandera the title of Hero of Ukraine (Economist, 2010) which is  
     
the highest title any Ukrainian citizen can receive.  
     
  
     
It is within this context of Ukraine and Stepan Bandera’s history and  
     
the relationship of the current ruling junta to the RKU during the dark  
     
years of Nazi occupation, that today’s Ukraine must be understood. In  
     
February of 2014 a Ukrainian minority began protesting in the Ukrainian  
     
capital of Kyiv (this movement would become known as Euromaidan). There  
     
were three primary intentions behind these demonstrations: 1) to remove  
     
the democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovych from power  
     
(ignoring the constitutional process in effect); 2) to help bring  
     
attention to the possibility of Ukraine joining the European Union; and  
     
3) to alter the constitution to restore it to as it was between 2004 and  
     
2010. The first demonstrations promoting the message of Euromaidan began  
     
in 2012, but did not gain much traction until 2014 when right-wing  
     
organizations Svoboda (“Freedom”) and Right Sector effectively seized  
     
control as the militant tactical leadership of the demonstrations in Kiev.  
     
  
     
Founded in 1991, Svoboda cast itself as a Social-National Party of  
     
Ukraine while spewing a hard line on Ukrainian nationalism and  
     
anti-communism, a stance which led many Russian, Jewish, and other  
     
international organizations to denounce Svoboda as a fascist  
     
organization (Stern, 2013). Directly following the success of  
     
Euromaidan, multiple Svoboda members would gain positions within the  
     
Ukrainian government (Stern, 2012). The Deputy Prime Minister, Agrarian  
     
Policy and Food Minister, Environment and Natural Resources Minister,  
     
governor of Poltava, Ternopil and Rivine ‘Oblast all were members of  
     
Svoboda while holding office in the Ukrainian government.  
     
  
     
Svoboda took a strong leadership position in the Euromaidan coup that  
     
grew from a non-violent protest to a militant takeover of the country  
     
when far-right organizers began attacking, and eventually killing 17  
     
while injuring nearly 300 law enforcement and anti-EU demonstrators.  
     
Since 2004, Svoboda has been led by a man named Oleh Tyahnybok. His  
     
career in Ukrainian politics has been one built upon a platform of hate  
     
(against Jews, Russians, Communists, all non-Orthodox Christians, and  
     
any ethnic minorities in the country) and ultranationalism. As of 2017,  
     
Oleh has submitted 36 motions to the Ukrainian parliament, all of them  
     
promoting hate. These include opposition to the adoption of regional  
     
languages, support for further recognition of Nazi collaborator groups  
     
during World War II, the regulation of political involvement for  
     
communist officials, and demands to make communism in Ukraine illegal  
     
(Shekhovtsov, 2011). His personal conduct, while unsurprising to those  
     
familiar with his politics, underscore his true loyalties as well; in  
     
2004, while at the grave of a Nazi sympathizer of the Ukrainian  
     
Insurgent Army, Oleh made televised remarks such as “[You are the ones]  
     
that the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine fears most” (Kuzio, 2004)  
     
and “They were not afraid and we should not be afraid. They took their  
     
automatic guns on their necks and went into the woods, and fought  
     
against the Muscovites, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take  
     
away our Ukrainian state” (Shekhovtsov, 2011). Despite Oleh’s revolting  
     
history, he has still been welcomed with open arms by multiple American  
     
politicians, most notably and frequently U.S. Senator John McCain  
     
(Taylor, 2013).  
     
  
     
The two foremost paramilitary organizations with close relationships to  
     
Svoboda and Euromaidan (and personally connected to those with Nazi  
     
sympathies during World War Two) are known as Right Sector and Azov  
     
Battalion. Right Sector is a far-right political party and paramilitary  
     
organization which arose after the merging of six Ukrainian nationalist,  
     
religious fanatic, anti-communist, and Eurosceptic organizations  
     
(Anderson et. al., 2015). United as Right Sector, the organization led  
     
the most violent street brawling against Ukrainian police during  
     
Euromaidan, recognizable due to their use of the symbols of Bandera and  
     
the RKU. Such Right Sector (and Svoboda) demonstrations visibly display  
     
numerous flags and photos featuring Stepan Bandera’s face in addition to  
     
the red and black flags of the fascist Ukrainian Insurgent Army (which  
     
now also serves as the current flag of Right Sector). The Ukrainian  
     
Insurgent Army was formed in November of 2013 by Dmytro Yarosh and on  
     
December 27, 2015 a majority of the group left entirely claiming that  
     
Right Sector had done its job ‘as a revolutionary structure’ and was no  
     
longer needed. Yarosh said that he didn’t support continued  
     
revolutionary rhetoric and didn’t want to push anything that might  
     
weaken or question the current Ukrainian government’s hold on power  
     
(Melkozerova, 2016). After the majority of Right Sector declared their  
     
mission complete, they would go on to join the fascist-sympathetic and  
     
largest volunteer battalion of the Ukrainian Armed Forces: the Azov  
     
Battalion.  
     
  
     
The Donbass War arose in 2014 when the residents of the Donetsk and  
     
Lugansk Oblasts took up arms against the Ukrainian junta and declared  
     
themselves independent republics (known as the Donetsk People’s Republic  
     
and Lugansk People’s Republic, respectively)  
     
  
     
  
     
On 10/2/26 6:49 AM, Martin Dietze wrote:  
     
> Joseph,  
     
>  
     
> I don't really want to reopen our whole Ukraine discussion, but there  
     
> are a few things here I can't leave standing.  
     
>  
     
> "Coup” (which is as well-enough defined as “fascism") did not fit what  
     
> happened in 2014 then, and it does not fit any better now. It was,  
     
> however, the term Moscow adopted immediately and has repeated ever  
     
> since. Ukraine has since had internationally recognised competitive  
     
> elections including peaceful and civilised transfer of power - unlike  
     
> Russia, where genuine electoral competition has long since disappeared.  
     
>  
     
> As for the Donbas, reliable polling has become impossible in the parts  
     
> occupied in 2014. However, immediately beforehand, in April 2014, 52%  
     
> in both Donetsk and Luhansk opposed joining Russia; only 28% and 30%  
     
> supported it. And just before the full-scale invasion, 84% in the  
     
> Ukrainian-controlled parts of the Donbas still wanted Ukraine and  
     
> Russia to remain separate states. This does not make your assumptions  
     
> about the people of the Donbas very likely to be correct.  
     
>  
     
> Minsk I and II were broken first, and most blatantly, by Russia and  
     
> its proxies: Donetsk airport after Minsk I, and Debaltseve after Minsk  
     
> II. Those were not minor technical violations but major military  
     
> offensives.  
     
>  
     
> What also strikes me is how closely your account follows the Russian  
     
> state's own version of events.  
     
>  
     
> JT  What strikes me is how closely your account follows the Ukrainian  
     
> Nazis' version of events.  
     
>  
     
> Russia was never a neutral observer here. It was a participant with a  
     
> very clear agenda. Given that - and given what we have already  
     
> discussed about the authoritarian and recognisably fascistic features  
     
> of contemporary Russia - I find it hard to see why that version should  
     
> be accepted so readily when it conflicts with Ukrainian voices,  
     
> international observers and a large body of independent reporting.  
     
  
     
> JT   Not by any means _all_ Ukrainian voices, nor all international  
     
> voices in hundreds of articles and several books, and not by any means  
     
> all independent reporting. You are making shit up here, You are going  
     
> to use the McCarthyite and mainstream press  tactic of calling any  
     
> disagrement with the NATO narrative Russian propaganda. The mainstream  
     
> press has lost huge credibility due to its coverage of the fake  
     
> Russigate story, its support for the genocide in Palestine and several  
     
> similar fiascos.  The argument I am presenting is common to many  
     
> dissenting voices, libertarians, anarchists, marines, military  
     
> advisers, Swiss ex intelligence officers, a Canadian Ukrainian  
     
> historian, top quality Jewish American journalists, Tucker Carlson,  
     
> leftists who publish regulalry, writers for Harpers. Really anyone who  
     
> looks for the truth without political and cultural prejudice and is  
     
> skeptical of the corporate intel shaped narrative of the mainstream  
     
> press.  Neither I nor any of these voices are Communists or believe  
     
> that Russia is the ultimate haven of truth and justice. Your  little  
     
> conformist myth that Ukraine is an innocent nation cuelly attacked out  
     
> of the blue by the nasty Russian Bear is just ludicrous bullshit and a  
     
> denial of knowable history.  
     
>  
     
> Cheers,  
     
>  
     
> Martin  
     
>  
     
> On 2. October 2026 at 08:40:59, Joseph Tracy (coypoet at mailfence.com)  
     
> wrote:  
     
>  
     
>>  
     
>> On 10/1/26 5:09 PM, Martin Dietze wrote:  
     
>>> That passage on Big Brother is interesting, because Pynchon actually seems quite close there to the sort of definition I had in mind: charismatic dictatorship, control of behaviour, subordination of the individual to the collective, and so on. In other words, fairly concrete political characteristics rather than simply a synonym for brutality or state violence. At the same time, judging from the examples you collected (which I liked a lot, thank you!), he clearly also enjoys the word itself and sometimes throws it around rather more freely, polemically or ironically, when the context allows it.  
     
>  
     
>  
     
>> JT- As the one who started this conversation I want to make it clear that I never defined fascism as simply state brutality, emphasizing the merging of corporate capitlism with state colonialism and militarism. As to subordination of the individual to the collective, control of behavior, that has been a character of many religions, nations and empires. Big brother includes those plus technology of intense surveillance which has become a character of US Britain Germanyas much as say China. In the west it is merged with privatized surveillance technologies which is more in line with Musolini's version and he popularized the term.  
     
>  
     
>  
     
>>> MD -Regarding "it takes two to tango", I think that is rather misleading in this case: Russia invaded Ukraine, so responsibility for starting the war is not symmetrical.  
     
>  
     
>  
     
>> JT_ Ukraine invaded the Russian speaking majority of the Donbass who refused the illegitiate coup government in Kiev and later broke the Minsk accord they signed. People have a right to an elected government rather than a coup based government supported from abroad. The people of the Donbass asked for Russian support, fought alongside Russia, and later voted to leave Ukraine and affiliate with Russia. Journalists from England and Germany who have gone to the Donbass report that they are not living under coercion and have no desire to reunite with the Russophobic Ukrainian fascists who bombed and tortured them.  
     
>  
     
>  
     
>>> And yes, I think your final question is the important one: what do Ukrainians themselves want? In a KIIS survey from July–August 2026, 60% rejected handing over the whole Donbas even in return for Western security guarantees. That should probably carry more weight than what any of us outside Ukraine would prefer them to do.  
     
>  
     
>  
     
>> That's why Ukrainian men are terrified to leave their house for fear  
     
>> of being forced into the army, why those who can afford it bribe  
     
>> their way out of service, why Zalensky refuses to allow elections or  
     
>> opposition press or political parties, why tens of thousands have  
     
>> fled the country why hundreds of thousands are dead, because they so  
     
>> desperately want the Donbass oblasts that they themselves attacked  
     
>> and bomb. The Ukrainians in the Donbass and Crimea have already voted  
     
>> and fought and died to escape the fascists in Ukraine. All Zelensky  
     
>> has to do is stop attacking Russia and the war ends and they get to  
     
>> enjoy the benefits of wall street ownership and endless debt slavery.  
     
>> They will however have to survive without NATO nuclear bases which  
     
>> would provided such a security blanket under which to sing lullabyes  
     
>> to Bandera and snort synthetic cocaine.  
     
>> Every drone and missile Zelensky and Nato fires into Russia  
     
>> guarantees the death of more Ukrainians and the loss of more territory.  
     
>  
     
>  
     
>  
     
--  
     
Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l