 Gabor Vona, president of the Hungarian radical right-wing party "Jobbik," delivers a speech at a rally in Budapest, March 15, 2014. (Bernadett Szabo / Courtesy Reuters) |
Posted on 03/29/2014 9:48:21 AM PDT by annalex
Gabor Vona, president of the Hungarian radical right-wing party "Jobbik," delivers a speech at a rally in Budapest, March 15, 2014. (Bernadett Szabo / Courtesy Reuters) |
Given that one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s stated reasons for invading Crimea was to prevent “Nazis” from coming to power in Ukraine, it is perhaps surprising that his regime is growing closer by the month to extreme right-wing parties across Europe. But, in both cases, Putin’s motives are not primarily ideological. In Ukraine, he simply wants to grab territory that he believes rightly belongs to him. In the European Union, he hopes that his backing of fringe parties will destabilize his foes and install in Brussels politicians who will be focused on dismantling the EU rather than enlarging it.
In Hungary, for example, Putin has taken the Jobbik party under his wing. The third-largest party in the country, Jobbik has supporters who dress in Nazi-type uniforms, spout anti-Semitic rhetoric, and express concern about Israeli “colonization” of Hungary. The party has capitalized on rising support for nationalist economic policies, which are seen as an antidote for unpopular austerity policies and for Hungary’s economic liberalization in recent years. Russia is bent on tapping into that sentiment. In May 2013, Kremlin-connected right-wing Russian nationalists at the prestigious Moscow State University invited Jobbik party president Gabor Vona to speak. Vona also met with Russia Duma leaders including Ivan Grachev, chairman of the State Duma Committee for Energy and Vasily Tarasyuk, deputy chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources and Utilization, among others. On the Jobbik website, the visit is characterized as “a major breakthrough” which made “clear that Russian leaders consider Jobbik as a partner.” In fact, there have been persistent rumors that Jobbik’s enthusiasm is paid for with Russian rubles. The party has also repeatedly criticized Hungary’s “Euro-Atlantic connections” and the European Union. And, more recently, it called the referendum in Crimea “exemplary,” a dangerous word in a country with extensive co-ethnic populations in Romania and Slovakia. It seems that the party sees Putin’s new ethnic politics as being aligned with its own revisionist nationalism.
The Kremlin’s ties to France’s extreme-right National Front have also been growing stronger. Marine Le Pen, the party leader, visited Moscow in June 2013 at the invitation of State Duma leader Sergei Naryshkin, a close associate of Putin’s. She also met with Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin and discussed issues of common concern, such as Syria, EU enlargement, and gay marriage. France’s ProRussia TV, which is funded by the Kremlin, is staffed by editors with close ties to the National Front who use the station to espouse views close to National Front’s own perspective on domestic and international politics. The National Front wishes to replace the EU and NATO with a pan-European partnership of independent nations, which, incidentally, includes Russia and would be driven by a trilateral Paris-Berlin-Moscow alliance. Le Pen’s spokesman, Ludovic De Danne, recently recognized the results of the Crimea referendum and stated in an interview with Voice of Russia radio that, “historically, Crimea is part of Mother Russia.” In the same interview, he mentioned that he had visited Crimea several times in the past year. Marine Le Pen also visited Crimea in June 2013.
The list of parties goes on. Remember Golden Dawn, the Greek fascist party that won 18 seats in Greece’s parliament in 2012? Members use Nazi symbols at rallies, emphasize street fighting, and sing the Greek version of the Nazi Party anthem. The Greek government imprisoned Nikos Michaloliakos, its leader, and stripped parliamentary deputies of their political immunity before slapping them with charges of organized violence. But the party continues to take to the streets. Golden Dawn has never hidden its close connections to Russia’s extreme right, and is thought to receive funds from Russia. One Golden Dawn–linked website reports that Michaloliakos even received a letter in prison from Moscow State University professor and former Kremlin adviser Alexander Dugin, one of the authors of Putin’s “Eurasian” ideology. It was also Dugin who hosted Jobbik leader Vona when he visited Moscow. In his letter, Dugin expressed support for Golden Dawn’s geopolitical positions and requested to open a line of communication between Golden Dawn and his think tank in Moscow. Golden Dawn’s New York website reports that Michaloliakos “has spoken out clearly in favor of an alliance and cooperation with Russia, and away from the ‘naval forces’ of the ‘Atlantic.’”
Finally, a cable made public by WikiLeaks shows that Bulgaria’s far right Ataka party has close links to the Russian embassy. Reports that Russia funds Ataka have swirled for years, but have never been verified. But evidence of enthusiasm for Russia’s foreign policy goals is open for all to see. Radio Bulgaria reported on March 17 that Ataka’s parliamentary group “has insisted that Bulgaria should recognize the results from the referendum for Crimea’s joining to the Russian Federation.” Meanwhile, party leader Volen Siderov has called repeatedly for Bulgaria to veto EU economic sanctions for Russia.
In addition to their very vocal support for Russia’s annexation of Crimea within the EU, Jobbik, National Front, and Ataka all sent election observers to validate the Crimea referendum (as did the Austrian Freedom Party, the Belgian Vlaams Belang party, Italy’s Forza Italia and Lega Nord, and Poland’s Self-Defense, in addition to a few far-left parties, conspicuously Germany’s Die Linke). Their showing was organized by the Russia-based Eurasian Observatory For Democracy & Elections, a far-right NGO “opposed to Western ideology.” The EODE specializes in monitoring elections in “self-proclaimed republics” (Abkhazia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh) allied with Moscow, according to its website.
The Putin government’s cordial relations with Europe’s far right sit oddly, to say the least, with his opposition to “Nazis” in the Ukrainian government. Yet Putin’s dislike for Ukrainian “fascists” has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with the fact that they are Ukrainian nationalists. The country’s Svoboda and Right Sector parties, which might do well in the post–Viktor Yanukovych Ukraine, stand for independence in a country that Putin does not believe should exist separate from Russia.
Similarly, Russian support of the far right in Europe has less to do with ideology than with his desire to destabilize European governments, prevent EU expansion, and help bring to power European governments that are friendly to Russia. In that sense, several European countries may only be one bad election away from disaster. In fact, some would say that Hungary has already met it. As support for Jobbik increases, the anti-democratic, center-right government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban has tacked heavily to the right and recently signed a major nuclear deal with Russia. Russia plans to lend Hungary ten billion euro to construct two new reactors at its Paks nuclear plant, making Hungary even more dependent for energy on Russia. Jobbik’s Vona wants to go even further, taking Hungary out of the EU and joining Russia’s proposed Eurasian Union.
European parliamentary elections, which are scheduled for the end of May, are expected to result in a strong showing for the far right. A weak economy, which was weakened further by the European Central Bank’s austerity policies, has caused the extreme right vote to surge. Current polls show the far-right parties in France and Holland winning the largest share of seats in their national delegations. Brussels strategists worry that 20 percent of members of the new European parliament could be affiliated with parties that wish to abolish the EU, double the current number. That could cause an EU government shutdown to rival the dysfunction of Washington and deal a major blow to efforts to enlarge the Union and oppose Russian expansionism.
It is strange to think that Putin’s strategy of using right-wing extremist political parties to foment disruption and then take advantage -- as he did in Crimea -- could work in southern and western Europe as well. Or that some of the extreme right parties in the European parliament, who work every day to delegitimize the European Union and whose numbers are growing, may be funded by Russia. Yet these possibilities cannot be dismissed. Russia might soon be able to disrupt the EU from within.
To counter Russia, European leaders should start launching public investigations into external funding of extreme-right political parties. If extensive Russia connections are found, it would be important to publicize that fact and then impose sanctions on Russia that would make it more difficult for it to provide such support. Pro-European parties must find a way to mobilize voters who are notoriously unwilling to vote in European parliament elections. Europe will also have to rethink the austerity policies that have worsened the grievances of many Europeans and pushed them to support the anti-system, anti-European right. Although Germany has banned extreme right parties from representation, other countries have not. Germany may have therefore underestimated the extent of damage austerity policies could do to the European project and should rethink how its excessive budget cutting, monetary prudence, and export surpluses are affecting politics in the rest of Europe.
Putin’s challenge to Europe must be taken seriously. Rather than making another land grab in his back yard, he might watch patiently from the sidelines at the end of May as pro-Russia far-right parties win a dramatic election victory in European parliamentary elections. These elections could weaken the European Union and bring Russia’s friends on the far right closer to power.
"That is no substitute for inspiring leadership or effective policies."
What, you weren't inspired by Barry's speech referring to the referendum in Kosovo?
/sarc
Indeed...
One may laugh or cringe at the Portuguese president of the Commission, but what he is saying is part of the root ideology of the EU. When Putin and Lavrov visited Brussels in January 2014 for a summit meeting with the EU leaders the same Barroso talked about "creat[ing] a common economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok". Several other leading politicians of EU member countries have spoken of a European Union from the Bay of Biscay to the Urals. (Latest of those was David Cameron during a visit to Kazakstan this year.)
These statements are no more meaningless phrases than the phrase "ever closer union" in the original EU (EEC) treaty. They mean it!
And the reason is the statist ideology that pervades the political discourse in Europe. Europe is a small peninsula on the European-Asian landmass. The individual countries will not be able to compete with the large popolous nations in Asia and the Americas for raw materials and energy supplies. Therefore the Union must grow larger and larger - the only way to safety (they feel).
Bad luck for Russia and Ukraine who happens to be in the way of that expansion - and bad luck also to the United States if the US decides to go along with the EU, because in the end it will have to be the US who for a third time will have to come to the aid of a Europe that has involved itself in a major conflict.
Very much true. Libertarianism requires by necessity for religious communities, township cohesion, and most importantly family life, to control and keep in check the norms of civil society. When those norms are broken down (as has happened), that’s the excuse for government intrusion and libertarianism falls apart.
The statist feels these communities and townships to be exclusionary and totalitarian, but they are in fact the very safeguard against tyranny. In working to undermine and disintegrate them at the behest of malcontents and misfits, the government in fact persecutes the majority to the point of minority, terminating civil life and sapping a country of its nationhood.
There is a fine balance between rights and responsibilities. Governmental authorities are to secure your rights, which are outlined clearly and unequivocally, unchanging and inviolable. Communal authorities are to secure your responsibilities, and this authority is centralized in each household. We no longer have households. We have houses.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Putin’s Western Allies: Why Europe’s Far Right Is on the Kremlin’s Side, annalex wrote:
Despite the article’s hysterical anti-right wing tone, I think the conservatives should indeed ponder: why are so many on the nationalist Right unable to see, through the Russian Federation’s Soviet-style social conservatism, a re-enactment of the old COMINTERN posing serious threat to the nations of Europe, including Russia itself?
The answer to your question why they’re accepting funds from the “Kremlin” is because some of these so called nationalistic groups (usefull idiots) believe they, not Putin, can control what they’re advocating. They also see no problem with being dependent on Russia for their energy sources which is what they believe Putin is really about. And to a certain extent he is waging a capitalistic war using commi tactics. Attempting to corner europes oil market.
When Ukraine which under the old soviet was an “independent” country voting in the UN signed those agreements there were limitations placed on the number of ships,troops, and equipment Russia could keep at its naval base. When the Ukrainians kicked out whatshisname Russia wasn’t observing those agreements because Putin’s stooge let them violate them big time. And of course the Kremlin p/r tells us and repeated here in postings by Putin supporters built up their cause celeb. The truth is very likely any new government would put a kibosh on that but had no intention of kicking the Russians out. One consistant FR poster makes that assertion here when that come up. As far as ownership of the Crimea goes there were a bunch of owners including the Venetians who by the way just passed a non binding independent country referendum. We’re not hearing about any conflict that’s going on in that peninsula so don’t buy the crap that Kremlin sources are spewing it’s now one happy “russified” place.
Just this week I haven’t seen it posted here in FRs UK’s PM Cameron urged tapping into europes shale oil gas deposits and forget about Russia. Plus all of those former “soviets” are closely re-examining their defences. If that all comes together Putin might be out before Obama gets impeached.
This article is what I would expect from the SPLC-ADL types in which everything they oppose must be a “far-right” conspiracy. Somehow the growing resentment against the EU by the people of Europe is seen as some kind of ‘threat’. After all, much of the EU’s policy’s have been far beyond their legal limits and for the most part is a continental government most Europeans didn’t want.
Oh, and one more thing: It’s FAILING. But let’s not let reality get in the way of conventional wisdom.
Now, in seeing the decline of the West, many ‘patriots’ are looking East to (dare I say it) moral stability (which as we know, usually leads to political and economic stability).
Also, has it become more than obvious to everyone that Putin is now the new ‘bad guy’? A typical tactic of the West to make an adversary all about one person (G.W. Bush, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, even Edward Snowden if the need arises).
Fact is that unlike Libya, Uganda, Pakistan, Somalia and a few other recent countries (to name a few), Putin actually ASKED for his Parliament’s permission before moving on Crimea. I predict Russia will slowly garner more support from Western citizens as they find a growing disconnect with their own government’s leaders.
What was that (in)famous line recently from Putin? Oh yes:
“... I only wish I had the power that Obama thinks he has...”
Throw up all the propaganda you wish, but this is not about Putin. It’s about that so-called ‘regional power’ that we have to pay $71 million per seat to get a man into space, who’s economy is stabilizing by not overspending, and turning the petro-dollars into domestic manufacturing (you know - that stuff WE used to do), and who - along with it’s BRIC alliance, government more than 60% of the worlds population.
(BRIC = Brazil, Russia, India, China)
A population I might add, that under it’s current social policies, will see positive growth over the next generations while their opposition will surely see a decline.
Not taking sides here, just calling them as I see them. Personally, I think we should be worrying more about the domestic army being poised against us, a full on invasion from our southern border, and the absence of Constitutional limits much more than that ‘regional’ problem in the Ukraine.
jimjohn - out.
Mainly because it used to be Polish....until they were kicked out of there in 1939.
A better question might be why the American right doesn’t take more cues from their European counterparts who clearly see that the real enemy to conservatism and national sovereignty is the anti-religious, socialism of the European Union, not the mafia-style capitalism operating in Russia.
or, perhaps Russia sees the path away from socialism as the proper course.
It’s for damn sure they know that communism is a bitter path to follow
Farage: EU does have 'blood on its hands' over Ukraine - March 27, 2014 - Asked by an audience member why Ukraine wanted to join what he had called a "failed" institution, Mr Farage attacked the EU's "imperialist, expansionist" ambitions, saying it had "blood on its hands" for encouraging Ukrainians to topple their president."If you poke the Russian bear with a stick he will respond. And if you have neither the means nor the political will to face him down that is very obviously not a good idea."
He said the British public were sick of being "dragged into conflicts where no pressing national interest was at stake".
He said European leaders should not allow the expectation to grow that countries such as Britain "will always side with uprisings in the naive belief that benevolent liberal democracy is bound to replace existing regimes, fundamentally imperfect as they are".
"That is not the way the world works. So I repeat the charge: the EU has blood on its hands," he added.
Interesting how the Left never applies the word "nazi" to themselves.
I dislike all comparisons to WW2 events and leaders because they rarely work other than as leftist propaganda. However, you cannot deny that the annexation of Crimea is spot-on Sudetenland and the Austrian Anschluss.
I know, I know, call on me!
Because Venezuelan National Guardsmen can only read English instructions!!!
The sound isn't brilliant, but for a "quick and dirty" it makes the necessary points.
I mention Mussolini, because until he began to try to create his North African Empire. he was still considered “respectable,” He had even made up with the pope after Italy and the papacy had been at odds for sixty years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/8074
The EU is our enemy. Sunni Islamists are our enemy. Shia Islamists are our enemy. China is our enemy. Communists are our enemy. And Eurasianists are our enemy.
No, I don't think they are a complete sham. There is a genuine need in Europe for right wing voices to be heard. They are just fools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.