 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.
In some respect Europe is ahead of us because they have genuine longstanding political parties on the right. We don't, and our political efforts go mostly into fighting the GOP rather that making real change. But I agree that in America one finds clearer conservative ideology. On the other hand there are no monarchists to speak of in America, and that is quintessential right wing.
ascendency of the individual over the state (rightism)
That is not "rightism", that is libertarianism. Indeed, that is less in evidence in Europe, but let us not switch definitions. The Right wing implies, for example, nationalism, and the libertarians are barely waking up to the issues such as national borders, and are uncomfortable with nations becoming a part of the political language.
That does not contradict the desire for Ukraine to draw closer to Europe. Prior to the communist revolution the Russians felt that they were a part of Europe in terms of culture if not geography. Many still consider themselves European and are appalled at Putin's Eurasianism. Many ethnic Russians in Ukraine would rather be in Ukraine if Ukraine cleans up its institutions and joins Europe.
Right, -- that is conservatism. But the right wing has a different albeit overlapping spectrum, on one end of which you will find sympathy to authoritarian solutions, such as the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile 40 years ago. More on the topic, the use of force by the rebels in Kiev is certainly right wing, but it is not conservatism.
Putin has done nothing to “fight back at muslims”, quite the opposite. He, for example, opposes the legislation to introduce visa regime on the border of RF with the Muslim neighbors, preferring some idiotic notion of Russia as a multi-ethnic state so that the Muslims become also-Russians.
The Muslim citizens of RF are Putin’s strongest political base. Crimean Tartars are a special case and have their own reasons to want to stay in Ukraine.
Ha. That is, by the way, the slogan or even "the punk prayer" for which some members of Pussy Riots served serious prison time. Always liked the prayer, I pray it myself these days quite often. I should give it some beads on my Rosary.
First, to Putin the phoniness of EU liberalism is no different than the phoniness of the USA ideology. He opposes all of us simply because NATO stands in his way of expansion.
Buchanan, however, wrote about Putin being "one of us" based on some cultural-conservative trends in Russia. That, it is now clear, was a huge mistake.
the Monarchists & supporters of the continuity of established and vested positions are right wing, and almost always Conservative. But Conservatives in countries like the United States & Switzerland, with a long Republican tradition, tend to be Republicans, as well as more sympathetic to a greater degree of social mobility, than those in some of the other European nations.
Thank you, excellent encyclopedic post.
Of course not. The Tartars just asked for their own autonomy. And besides, it is a wrong assumption that the Russian people want to be governed by Putin. Many would prefer Ukraine if it lives up to its promise of becoming a "normal European country", like most usually put it. Others emigrate, -- to the very same Europe.
So does Putin in his speeches. He also not recently called Nicholas II "bloody", a usual Communist slur. So Messrs Le Pen, Geert and Vona, where does Putin stand, Left, far Left or ultra-Left?
Whenever Pinochet is brought up, it should be remembered that this period of authoritarianism was the equivalent of martial law in Chile, and very much a reactionary response to the fact that Cuban-funded guerrillas were trying to turn Chile into a communist state. Pinochet gave up power voluntarily once the threat had been neutralized.
Yes. That is their code word, and it produces saliva.
Putin actually ASKED for his Parliament’s permission before moving on Crimea
Right, but on the other hand, he does not have a truly functioning parliament: the only sizable opposition Putin's United Russia party has is from the Communist Party. All pro-Western forces and all nationalist forces have been marginalized.
this is not about Putin
Of course not -- it is a country that is in large part united with him in the effort to gain back at least some losses of the Cold War. We are, therefore, likely to fight another Cold War.
A population I might add, that under it’s current social policies, will see positive growth over the next generations
The Russian proper population is declining. Maybe thanks to the Asian immigration the overall numbers are not so bad, but for the historical Russia the situation is routinely described as a demographic catastrophe.
I think we should be worrying more about...
Ukraine is not and should not be our next agenda, you are right. However, wisely or not we have taken the role of arbiter and guarantor at the end of the Cold War, and we also are the backbone of NATO, so we cannot just ignore a war in the region.
That was the case before the invasion and annexation of Crimea.
Then reconstructing the USSR would not be a step on that path, yet this is what actually is happening.
they know that communism is a bitter path to follow
A generation of neo-stalinists has emerged in Russia. Don't be so sure.
That is fine; obviously Britain has no vital interests at stake there, -- but I would be concerned if Putin becomes not "the Russian bear" but instead some kind of a hero. That would be very bad for conservatism in Europe, especially now that they are poised for electoral gains.
Yes, you right: it is visibly Eurasianism. The ruling gang in Moscow is very careful not to sound any Soviet-time slogans, especially since COMINTERN was dismantled by the USSR. But I think that, as slogans change, the fundamentals remain: international in scope, anti-national in practice communist movement that recognizes that new times call for new rhetoric.
Indeed, that is what makes Pinochet a true right-wing hero.
“Buchanan, however, wrote about Putin being “one of us” based on some cultural-conservative trends in Russia. That, it is now clear, was a huge mistake.”
That much is clear. AND it is as much a belief in myth to think Putin’s “conservatism” has a principle base similar to American Conservatism - which it does not - as it is to think the EU is not about empire building.
There was no “invasion” of Crimea. The Russians had an Status of Forces agreement with the former Ukraine which was never violated.
With no controlling legal authority in Kiev, the Crimean peninsula held a referendum on their future and chose to become part of Russia.
The entire NATO / EU / IMF construct needs to be revisited. The days of subsidizing European security & prosperity with American blood and treasure are over.
Your claim that the American understanding of “rightism” isn’t the true understanding just points out your fundamental lack of realization that we’re talking about two different political axes here. The term “right” isn’t used in the US in the way that you seem to believe it is. Trying to conflate the European “right” with the American “right” is nonsensical.
I made no such claim. American understanding is tilted toward republicanism and is often confused with libertarianism, but the "right" means pretty much the same thing everywhere: individual autonomy under law, strong national institutions, government limited to points of national interest, pursuing them vigorously.
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.