1. What is the present social and political situation in Ukraine?
Everything is quite tough. Even before Yanukovych came to power, we said that our country is occupied from the inside. Under the rule of Yanukovych, the anti-national nature of this regime reached its climax. Currently, after Yanukovych escaped, one can see cracks in the regime – but the regime itself has not been completely removed. The Party of the Regions and the Communist Party are not banned. Yesterdays opposition (parties) are not helping fight against corruption. There is no movement towards more justice and solidarity in society.
2. What do you think about the new government in Ukraine (the interim government)?
Originally, we tried not to criticize the new government to avoid destabilizing the situation in Ukraine. Now, however, we are forced to state the obvious: the interim government has demonstrated a completely lack of professionalism and patriotism. This can be seen clearly by the loss of Crimea, the ongoing presence of corruption, and the completely lack of any resistance towards internal and external enemies. Certain elements in the current government have become completely contra-revolutionary. The national revolution, in any case, must continue. Of course, it would be best if it continued in a peaceful form. But the current government, with its deeds can easily provoke a new wave of uprisings.
3. What do you think about western supporters of the Ukrainian uprising, like Soros or Bernard-Henri Lévy or even Obama? (some say the revolution was financed by western politicians, like Soros, Bernard-Henri Lévy or Obama). What do you think about this?
Soros, Bernard-Henri Lévy, or Obama were not at all interested in a national revolution in Ukraine. The west was interested in protests that would force Yanukovych change his geopolitical course. It’s obvious that effort was put towards this. Yet despite this, western countries viewed Yanukovych as the legitimate president even when people were dying on the streets on Kyiv. Bernard-Henri Lévy has certain ideological interests regarding Ukraine, while Soros has both ideological and economic interests. Obama, despite being from the democratic party, thinks through the scope of the imperialist interests of America. Not one of them wants to see a strong Ukrainian state.
4. What do think about NATO and the EU? Is the Ukrainian revolution pro-EU, pro-western? What do you think about America?
We are against membership in the EU or NATO. We have nothing against working with EU and NATO countries on equal terms. Yet giving up our sovereignty by joining one of these blocks is something we do not want to do. In the same sense, we want nothing to do with the ideology that currently dominates in the EU. We also don’t want to associate ourselves with imperialistic politics of NATO. The revolution that took place in Ukraine was, above all, cause by hate of ordinary citizens towards a corrupt and criminal government. Certain illusions regarding the EU might have played a slight role, but this role was always secondary. Today we, Ukrainian nationalists, are trying to push forward the view that Ukraine should not rely in the EU or NATO, but on itself. Unfortunately, Putin hinders our propaganda and makes promoting such views hard. Putin is by far the biggest promoter of pro-EU and pro-NATO moods in Ukraine –his own imperialistic politics force Ukrainians to look towards the west. On the other hand, the policies of western countries has been ruining the illusions of many Ukrainians. Because the west is doing nothing against Russia in terms of pressure, many Ukrainians have became disappointed in the west. Regarding America, we do not have some type of pathological hate to it – yet we are completely aware that it wants world domination, and we are against this. We are for a multipolar world, a world without empires, a world where every nation can be free and preserve its own identity and spirituality.
6. What type of political and cultural views do you have? (i.e. what do you not like, which politicians do you view as positive examples?). If you could describe the worldview of Right Sector in a few words, what would you say?
We support the ideology of classic Ukrainian nationalism and through this ideology try to find answers to modern-day issues. In this sense, we remain true the this ideology that was formed towards the middle of the 20th century, but also want to continue to develop it and transform it to present-day issues. The absolute base of Ukrainian nationalism is Christianity. We clearly differentiate nationalism from things such as chauvinism, xenophobia and imperialism. The heart of our movement is composed of people with nationalist views, people true to conservative Christian values. Quite often it is people filled with the noble spirit of the Middle Ages. Together with this, we’re ready to find answers to modern problems, ready to help society find answers to different social, economic and other problems.
7. Is your revolution against the Russian people, the Russian government or pro-Russian Ukrainians? What type of future do you want for Russian-speaking Ukrainians?
Our revolution, above all, aims to defend only the interests of our own nation. Regarding Russia, we’re against Russian imperialism. The fact that we have many Russians inside Right Sector quite clearly shows we’re not Russophobic. These people came here to support the Ukrainian revolution and gain experience. They also completely understand that the Putin regime is actually anti-Russian. Many Russian patriots have been thrown in jail for their activities. Russians are degrading morally and physically and inside Russia are being lost amongst a sea of non-Russian peoples. It’s quite possible that the next president of Russia can be the Chechen Ramzan Kadyrov. This is why many Russians understand that the only thing that can save their nation is destroying the empire. We work with such Russians and will continue to do so. Regarding Russian-speaking Ukrainians, then many of our activists are Russian-speaking Ukrainians are true Ukrainian patriots. Russificiation, however, is indeed a problem. An even more serious problem of similar nature exists in Ireland. We want the rebirth of Ukrainian culture and language, not through repression, but through art, through promotion. This will only become possible when we obtain a true national state.
8. What do you think regarding Crimea and the recent referendum there regarding separating from Ukraine?
We feel that Crimea belongs to Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. Besides this, many other ethnic minorities live there – not only Russians, but also Greeks, Armenians, Estonians and so forth. This is why we want to create a true autonomous region in Crimea, that being integrated fully with the rest of Ukraine, would still guarantee the rights of Crimean Tatars and other ethnic minorities. Theoretically, the main argument for the creation of such an autonomy is the pro-Ukrainian position of Crimean Tatars. Regarding the so-called referendum, it was a complete farce. Less than 30% of the population of Crimea took party on it. This pseudo-referendum took place underneath Russian guns. Sooner or later Kyiv will regain full control of Crimea.
9. You say you want an independent and sovereign Ukraine. If you came to power tomorrow, what type of foreign policy would you have? What geopolitical goals do you have for Ukraine? Should Ukraine join any international alliances? What type of relations will such a Ukraine have with Russia?
We see a few chances for consolidation and integrating countries of central and eastern Europe. First of all, it is the creating of a vertical axis from the Baltic to Black Sea with the Baltic countries, Belarus, Poland and Ukraine. Second of all, we’re interested in seeing consolidation between the countries in the Black Sea region and countries in the south Caucasus region. In many aspects, we are prepared to be pragmatic in finding allies. Regarding Russia, then we can have normal relations with this country only when it gets rid of its imperialistic ambitions.