Genocide in Plain Sight
By Susan Smith-Peter, Ph.D.
The world is now confronted with a new kind of genocide: one that does not feel the need to hide. This is a 21st century genocide, where Russian authors publish plans for genocide while at the same time accusing the Ukrainians of committing the genocide themselves. This is a postmodern genocide where words don’t seem to matter, even as bodies keep piling up.
This new genocide requires new thinking about how to combat it. The Nazi perpetrators of Holocaust and the Soviet-led Holodomor of the early 1930s that killed nearly 4 million Ukrainians made attempts to hide what they were doing from the world. In contrast, the Russian ideologists of genocide are seeking likes on social media. Rather than hiding what they are doing, they both draw attention to their plans and deny them by playing with words.
On April 4, Russian political consultant Timofei Sergeitsev published an article that was a blueprint for a genocide against the Ukrainian people. On April 13, he published a response to his critics, which I have translated and annotated below. The author starts out by declaring his contempt for the 20th century idea that words have fixed meanings by putting scare quotes around “evidence” and scoffing at the idea of the Hague. As a postmodernist, such concepts are irrelevant to him.
Rather than talk about the content of the article, which you can read below, it is more useful to explain how it came about and to show that Sergeitsev is part of the Russian political elite and his ideas are an expression of that elite.
Sergeitsev is a member of the Moscow Methodological Circle, a group of conservative thinkers who have connections throughout the Russian state. You can see their connections to other Russian institutions in the diagram above. Drawing on the ideas of Russian philosopher Georgii Shchedrovitskii, the group’s founder, they believe that ideas and language determine reality or our perception of it. Therefore, those who control language will control, to put it bluntly, the world.
During the late Soviet period, the Methodologists met to play what they called “activity games,” in which participants would be given a problem and be asked to solve it collectively. They believe that humans are machines that can be programmed or reprogrammed like a computer. By the 1980s, thousands of people had gone through the games and some would rise to prominence in post-Soviet Russia, some of them as the manipulative political consultants known there as political technologists.
According to sociologist Ilya Kukulin, the Methodologists’ credo was: “A small and specially organized group of political technologists can create any (or almost any) trends in social development and, therefore, is obliged to work out a strategy for this development in a narrow circle and then implement it with the help of various kinds of social manipulation.”
Methodologists rose to prominence in Putin’s Russia and they originated the idea of the Russian World, which began in the 1990s as a vision of the Russian diaspora as a resource for the Russian state and has morphed into a revanchist vision of a Russian sphere of influence over its neighbors. They also developed the campaigns for New Russia (Novorossiya), which preceded the emergence of the breakaway republics in Ukraine’s East, as well as the idea of the Russian Spring, which was a coordinated Russian campaign to destabilize Ukraine after the 2014 Euromaidan movement and the Revolution of Dignity. Sergeitsev worked for the pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians Leonid Kuchma and Viktor Yanukovych within this context.
A distinctly 21st century evil is thus coming into view: the elaboration of genocidal plans as part of a postmodern PR campaign. The broad framework of the genocide was set by Putin’s speeches before the invasion, but the details in Sergeitsev’s article were most likely worked out by a group of Methodologists as part of an “activity game.” Sergeitsev may have been chosen as the author of the piece precisely because his obscurity gave greater deniability to the state.
The article below is a collective work that responds to the Western criticism of the original plan by putting forward a logically incoherent set of arguments. Its purpose is to present a series of intellectual viruses that can be injected into the media with the hope that they will infect as many hosts as possible. Those who repeat or give credence to these arguments thus spread the viruses in the informational sphere of the genocide, which is a part of 21st century genocide that needs to be recognized and studied.
Fighting this new kind of genocide requires a new approach. First, the informational sphere needs to be seen as a coordinated part of the genocide itself. The article below states that the denazification (i.e., genocide) “is the fulfillment of the demand of the people of Russia to its leadership.” This helps to explain the function of this and the earlier article: to introduce these ideas into the Russian public and thus give a spurious legitimacy to Russian actions. It is notable that the response to Sergeitsev’s second article has been roughly 10-to-1 in favor, as measured by the likes given to the article. While not scientific, it is telling, particularly given reporting like that by Robyn Dixon of The Washington Post outlining greater support for genocide in Russia.[1]
Given this, there needs to be a coordinated approach to contesting and disrupting Russian propaganda. The banning of RT is a very helpful step, as it was one of the main means for spreading this, but Russian propagandists, including those who literally receive a paycheck from the Kremlin, are still quite active on Western social media. Those groups that combat them should be supported.
In parallel with the physical collection of evidence of genocide in Ukraine, evidence on social media also needs to be collected in a central location.
The West must adapt to this new kind of genocide in order to fight against it effectively. Words may not seem to mean anything, but death is forever.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/13/russias-war-ukraine-founders-ominous-rhetoric-gains-ground/
“Why the West is Afraid of the Denazification of Ukraine”
By Timofei Sergeitsev
Published on RIA Novosti, April 13, 2022
The previous material about the denazification of Ukraine caused quite a wide response, especially in the West. Hidden behind the loudly expressed joy that the article allegedly provides “evidence” of calls for genocide approved by the state, and its author should be tried in The Hague, is a poorly hidden frustration, a fear generated by one’s own sense of guilt for indifference to the victims of the Donbas and the fate of the Ukrainian people. Before answering this question on the merits, it is worthwhile to provide explanations to those “inconvenient places” and “sharp corners” that cannot be gotten around when discussing the topic of denazification.
First, and most importantly, we use the term “Nazism” in relation to Ukrainian politics and aggression in the Donbas, based on the precedent of the wording in the verdict of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg on October 1, 1946. [Editor’s note: For a rejection of similar claims, see the op ed by Fran Hirsch, author of Soviet Judgment at Nuremberg: https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3267060-de-ukrainization-is-genocide-biden-was-right-to-sound-the-alarm/]
Under the inevitable punishment of a country (narod) that supported the Nazi regime, we mean only and exclusively a quite obvious “natural” punishment (fate) — it is a law of history that a Nazi regime supported by the people will torture this people themselves, discarding any legal, ethical and generally human restrictions. And this torture will reach its maximum with the military defeat of the regime. This was true of the people (narod) of Hitler’s Germany and remains true of any other people. This is what the Armed Forces of Ukraine are doing today, including the territorial defense. It was the Nazi regime after the putsch that unleashed a war against the Donbas, and many people supported this war or remained indifferent to it.
Punishment of the Nazified people by the victor is not only unacceptable, but also impossible. It is unacceptable, since collective punishment is prohibited by international law (far from everyone is guilty), and would indeed bear signs of genocide. And it is impossible, as the scale of such punishment is technically unfeasible. And thank God. Nevertheless, the US punished the the Japanese people with nuclear bombing, and Britain punished the German people with the destruction of Dresden. It is not customary to talk about it.
The Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine are doing everything possible to reduce and alleviate the suffering of the population from military operations, and their opponents are doing everything to increase this suffering and hardship. This is the inevitable price to pay for supporting Nazism. This was directly demanded by Hitler: if the German people are not able to win, they must die. The Red Army saved the German people from this ending. The price of Nazism must also be paid by the innocent. But it is not the deliverer from Nazism who exacts it, but dying Nazism itself.
Denazification is the suppression of Nazi ideology in all its manifestations and the cleansing of all spheres of society from Nazi cadres, the identification and punishment of individually responsible Nazi criminals. This is a blessing that saves the people from Nazism.
Another resonant and important topic is de-Ukrainization, that is, countering forced Ukrainization, the artificial and compulsory imposition of Ukrainian identity on those who do not want it (and their children). This includes opposition to the imposition of an external cultural, or generally false, purely political “Ukrainianism” aimed solely at inciting hatred for Russia and the Russian people and having nothing to do with real ethnic or cultural affiliation.
In addition, we must remember that Ukrainization is the driving mechanism of Nazification, when the Ukrainized person is recognized as a Ukrainian by the environment only if he fully shares just this Nazi ideology. For this, it is not enough, and it is not at all necessary to speak Ukrainian. But to glorify Bandera as a hero is necessary and even sufficient (with all the consequences of this), just like hating the “Rusnya.”[Editor’s Note: In reality, the Ukrainian public rejected Viktor Yushchenko’s granting of a “Hero of Ukraine” award to Stepan Bandera in 2010.] He who was born a Ukrainian will remain one. But whoever considers himself (and is!) a Russian, a Jew, a Hungarian, a Romanian, a Greek, a Bulgarian, etc., and who does not want (and cannot) be a Ukrainian, must be free from any form of coercion towards cultural, political and Nazi Ukrainianism.[Editor’s note: Actually, the present war is forging a new, unified Ukrainian nation that transcends ethnic identity.]
The dismantling of the mechanisms of all these directions of forced Ukrainization is the denazification and de-Ukrainization necessary for a free country — and nothing more! But, of course, it is these mechanisms that the Kyiv regime will defend to the last. They are inviolable to him.
The fate of the Ukrainian political elite, which coincides completely with the oligarchic elite, including the latter’s various numerous “servants,” is most closely and inextricably linked with the fate of the regime doomed to destruction. This elite played the same role in the Nazification of Ukraine as the business circles of Germany played in the rise of the NSDAP and Hitler personally. The Ukrainian political elite was carried away by the Nazis as a very profitable business. And she did not want to see any dangers or alternatives. This business brought crazy profits — not to be compared with neutral, independent Ukraine.
There is no crime or betrayal that the oligarchs will not commit in order to preserve and increase their capital. They are certainly not patriots. They are indifferent to the fate of the people and the country. Therefore, a neutral, independent Ukraine in their hands had no chance to survive, to become a kind of Austria, Switzerland or Finland of the post-war period, which would be welcomed by Russia in every possible way.
Ukraine missed this chance. Its implementation needed will, work and time. The Ukrainian elite spent none of this. It was unprofitable.
The fact that it is fatally dangerous to become a real enemy of Russia was carefully hidden by this elite not only from public consciousness, but also from their own. Such a subject, which completely devalued democratic procedures (ultimately the elites had to organize a coup d’état), should be deprived of its political role as a “representative” of the people. [Editor’s note: This falsely equates the 2014 Revolution of Dignity with a coup.]
The personal fate of the Ukrainian elites will be determined by law in accordance with their role in organizing the Ukrainian tragedy. However, many of them fled abroad in advance, leaving only those who for certain will not be accepted “by the West.” In Russia, this was done in the early 2000s: the super-rich remained, but they lost their political influence. In Russia, an oligarchy did not take shape. And Ukraine was brought to disaster by its elite, having drawn a significant part of the population into the disastrous ideology of confrontation with Russia.
It seems that the nervous Western reaction to the very topic of denazification of Ukraine is determined precisely by the fact that the Russian leadership used this term not as a metaphor, not for fashionable PR, but in accordance with its real meaning. The fact that the SVO [Editor’s note: Special Military Operation] in Ukraine is carried out precisely with the ultimate goal of denazification (demilitarization is a condition for denazification) is a decision of the Russian leadership, supported by the overwhelming majority of the country’s population. And, moreover, this is the fulfillment of the demand of the people of Russia to its leadership.
Today, the Minsk agreements are seen from a different position: what an unimaginable happiness would be in their implementation now! But the implementation of Minsk-2 would mean the rejection of Ukrainian aggression against the Donbas, which was necessary for the American curators to draw Russia into the conflict, which would involve other European countries in the future. What this means can be seen by the unprecedented statement by Josep Borrell, the head of European diplomacy (!) that Ukraine must end the war with a victory on the battlefield.
Yes, the SVO solves the problem of protecting the Donbas and its people (narod). Yes, the SVO is aimed at protecting Russia from NATO and the deployment of American combat systems on the territory of Ukraine. But our country will not receive the required security guarantees if the possibility of Nazi recidivism on the territory of Ukraine is not prevented. This is the ultimate goal, and everything else serves as stages to achieve it.
The purpose of denazification in this capacity has just been reaffirmed by Putin, Lavrov and Medvedev, and not only does it not contradict the obligation to negotiate with the Kyiv group, but directly points to the ultimate goal of these negotiations. This is a political fact. It should be summed up and conclusions drawn from it. Nazism in Ukraine must be banned and eradicated. This is a condition for achieving peace, tranquility and prosperity in the country. The population must be provided with the freedom to have, among other things, a Ukrainian ethnic identity without the obligatory Nazi ideological profile identified with it. The curse of Nazism must be lifted from Ukrainians.
Today, the Nazi practice of the Kyiv regime in its entirety manifested itself in the course of hostilities, in terror against its “own” population. This terror is not limited by anything and is justified by the goal of creating a “Ukrainian nation.” This is the main sign of Nazism — “total war” for the self-affirmation of the nation, qualified and condemned by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Turning a blind eye to this, shrugging in bewilderment, pretending that there is no Ukrainian Nazism at all, is becoming increasingly difficult.
Meanwhile, allegedly “democratic” Kyiv, which is furiously destroying the Donbas, enjoys ever-wider financial, military, political and ideological support from the United States and Europe. They are increasingly identifying themselves with just such a Ukraine. Recognition of the Nazi character of the Kyiv regime — and denazification implies such unconditional recognition — means at the same time the recognition of the Nazification of Europe and the United States itself, which explains the totality of the growing totalitarian tendencies in these societies, which are experiencing an acute crisis of their so-called democratic political systems, in reality based on an oligarchy (primarily in the USA) and external management (in desubjectivized Europe).
Russia is an ineradicably anti-fascist and anti-Nazi country. It has fundamental experience in denazifying a former military adversary and building new positive relationships. Unlike Kyiv, it has not lost its identity in 30 years of separate existence. There is no doubt that a denazified Ukraine will not be able to be under external control by the US and Europe. And then the whole set of facts of Ukrainian Nazi practice and the support of this practice by the West will become public property and the subject of legal assessment, as happened with the Nazi practice of Hitler’s Germany.
Russia consistently and systematically requires the UN (and nowhere else) to investigate all crimes on the territory of Ukraine and is not afraid of this. In addition to the existing set of qualifications of crimes — military and against peace and humanity — a new corpus delicti without a statute of limitations may appear: against the truth, which consists of waging a global information war, of a total distortion of social facts and manipulation of public consciousness, leading to a civilizational catastrophe, the disintegration of society and to a mass of victims, in the informational organization and support of genocide. [Editor’s note: This is an example of projection.]
This truly is frightening.
