Notes from the Upside-Down III: Neo-Nazis Everywhere, or: An Inquest into ‘Whataboutism’, Pt. 2 shows German 'NGO' Amadeu Antonio Stiftung's Hand

Austrian State Broadcaster ORF confirms that there are, in fact, Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, Background on the Maidan Putsch, and a Trip down the Rabbit Hole of Anti-Russian Agit-Prop in German media

And here’s part 2 of my inquest into ‘whataboutism’ deriving from two legacy media items in Austrian state and de facto state media. While in part 1 we looked at an image-heavy piece on allegations of extremism by association, exemplified by an unknown—and in fact unknowable—number of extremists participating in anti-mandate protests in the past months.

I’ve written a bit about sources, methods, and the like in part 1, and I very much encourage you to revisit it, if needs be (i.e., I won’t repeat it here).

So, without much further ado, here’s the second instalment.

Pt. 2 Neo-Nazis in Ukraine Edition—(Unwitting) Admissions by Austrian State Broadcaster ORF

Description: on 27 Feb. 2022, Christian Körber published a piece in Austrian state media ORF, which focused on Vladimir Putin’s justification of the Russian military operations in Ukraine. Entitled ‘Putin’s Nazi Tales about Ukraine’, Mr. Körber tries his hands at dis-assembling what he calls ‘selective information, disinformation, and, as it must very well be called, propaganda’. Published online on 27 Feb. 2022, the piece doesn’t have any comments, but I suppose that’s alright. This is the source material from a ‘state’ legacy media outlet, and you can find the article here.This is very much a written piece, but it, too, features a number of illustrations, reproduced in part below.

Mr. Körber opens his piece in the following way (note that all emphases are mine):

Putin’s Nazi Tales about Ukraine

War always goes hand in hand with selective information, disinformation, and quite likely also propaganda by all involved parties. In this context, the strategy of Russian President Vladimir Putin to explain the attack on Ukraine to his compatriots is a telling example: he repeatedly emphasises the aim to ‘denazify’ Ukraine.

Here’s Mr. Körber’s brief summary of ‘his’ piece:

Aided by Western forces and NATO, Ukraine was threatening Russia and committing ‘genocide’ in the ‘People’s Republics in the Donbass’. The [Russian] offensive was therefore an act of defence and an aid to these ‘people’s republics’.

Under the header ‘constructed parallels to WW2’ Mr. Körber quotes Mr. Putting as follows (this isn’t my translation, but a transcript available over at Bloomberg):

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation… I would also like to address the military personnel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Comrade officers, your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine. You swore the oath of allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people.

For those unable and/or unwilling to comprehend, Mr. Körber then offers a few lines on what has been going on in Ukraine since 2014:

Putin tries to draw parallels to WW2 and compares the situation in Ukraine, which is supported by the West, with Nazi Germany. Mr. Putin also suggests that Neo-Nazis are in power in Ukraine or could soon take over. Even if these statements are based on a tiny core that is actually true, Mr. Putin’s argument does not accurately reflect facts on the ground. [His] narrative is not new, either: this leitmotif was heard and seen again and again during the Crimean crisis, including on billboards before the Crimean referendum in 2014. Still, back then it had a bit more truth to it.

Brief Comment: see what is going on? On the one hand, Mr. Körber is to be commended for actually quoting Mr. Putin directly, but the way he does this, is disingenuous on at least two counts: on the one hand, Mr. Putin’s comments are taken out of context (which his speech provides, to certain extents, but Mr. Körber doesn’t link to it, and neither did ORF provide a transcript). On the other hand, the way Mr. Körber—and remember: the ORF is Austria’s state broadcaster—spins the uncomfortable truth of the matter (Neo-Nazis in Ukraine) tells you quite a bit about what’s going on: there were Neo-Nazis in 2014, perhaps even more than there are today (in and of itself a questionable assumption), but they are still there.

Still, more from Mr. Putin’s speech would have brought up any number of certainly uncomfortable quotes, of which you may find a rather random sampling (all courtesy of the above-linked Bloomberg transcript; emphases mine):

On February 21, 2022, I spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border…

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns…

Why is this happening?…In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union grew weaker and subsequently broke apart. That experience should serve as a good lesson for us, because it has shown us that the paralysis of power and will is the first step towards complete degradation and oblivion. We lost confidence for only one moment, but it was enough to disrupt the balance of forces in the world…

As a result, the old treaties and agreements are no longer effective. Entreaties and requests do not help. Anything that does not suit the dominant state, the powers that be, is denounced as archaic, obsolete and useless. At the same time, everything it regards as useful is presented as the ultimate truth and forced on others regardless of the cost, abusively and by any means available. Those who refuse to comply are subjected to strong-arm tactics.

I could go on, but I really encourage you to read Mr. Putin’s speech.

Right-Wing Extremism in Ukraine

None of these issues play a role in Mr. Körber’s piece, by the way, to which we return now. Still, and in spite of these significant omissions (by design?), Mr. Körber is at least partially honest about right-wing extremism in Ukraine (all emphases mine):

In fact, there were and are connections to the international Neo-Nazi scene in Ukraine. And indeed, there were and are several extreme right-wing extremist groups in Ukrainian politics and the Ukrainian military, even though they have lost a good deal of their influence in recent years, especially in the political realm.

The political arm of the ultranationalist and largely far-right scene is the Svoboda [Freedom] Party, which serves as a rallying point for several groups. In 2012, the party achieved more than 10% in the parliamentary elections. In 2013, the party was instrumental in the Euromaidan protests against President Viktor Yanukovych, who was loyal to Russia. Together with Vitaly Klitschko’s pro-European UDAR and Yulia Tymoshenko’s All-Ukrainian Association ‘Fatherland’, they formed a three-way alliance.

And just like that, Mr. Körber—in a way that seems quite unwittingly—admitted that Mr. Putin’s argument (which Körber cited in his piece) was, at least ‘in part’, true. What is even more telling is the fact that Austrian state broadcaster ORF actually admits that ‘the ultranationalist and largely far-right’ Svoboda Party ‘was instrumental in the Euromaidan’ putsch against Mr. Yanukovych. The latter’s crime was, of course, that he ‘was loyal to Russia’, hence the less-than-subtle allegation of treasonous behaviour.

At this point, let’s turn to the Kyiv Post (‘Ukraine’s Global Voice’) to hear from Mr. Yanukovych about this momentous decision of the Ukrainian government (my emphases):

President Viktor Yanukovych reaffirmed on Nov. 26 his refusal to sign a political association and free trade pact with the European Union until he gets a better deal… Reuters quoted him as saying the EU offer was humiliating: ‘We don’t have to be humiliated like this. We are a serious country. A European one.’…

Yanukovych made clear he wasn’t going to reverse the government’s decision:

‘Do we have to go blindfolded and run anywhere? We already were running very fast. We overcame in a short period a very big distance. We may get problems’, he said in the televised interviews. ‘As soon as we reach a level that is comfortable for us, when it meets our interests, when we agree on normal terms, then we will talk about signing’, Yanukovych said, adding that he doesn’t know when it will happen.

You see, sovereignty in international affairs is what ‘the West’ stands for, at least when such actions are leading countries such as Ukraine to unconditionally act against their own interests. It is well-known that the arrangements prior to EU accession, so-called Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAA) in Brussels-speak, would establish a ‘deep and comprehensive free trade area’ between two very unequal partners. Furthermore, the obligations imposed by both EU and wider ‘Western’ institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF cannot but be considered quite onerous.

At the same time, the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Commission’s announcement to exclude Ukraine from its own arrangements in the case of ratification of the SAA is telling us one more thing: Mr. Yanukovych was offered a veritable Trojan Horse. Ukraine was (is) sitting in-between the EU-led ‘Western’ and the Russian-led ‘Eurasian’ bloc, hence Kiev may only choose between one of them, instead of a trilateral arrangement. In other words: a fake choice, which ties in neatly with the fake history prodded by ‘Western’ legacy media, to which we now return.

Here’s Mr. Körber again, who reassures his readers that ‘after Mr. Yaukovych’s ouster’, the ‘Right Sector was marginalised again’. As a memento of these ‘good ol’ days’ in Kiev, ORF provides us with this picture:

Caption: members of the ‘Right Sector’ blocking the [Ukrainian] parliament in 2014.

It get’s ‘better’, though, at least in terms of admitting what I wrote about a few days ago. Here’s Mr. Körber on the Neo-Nazis in the Donbass (my emphases):

While the far right is now politically practically irrelevant and, above all, has nothing to do with the [Zelensky] government, some military and paramilitary groups remain in action: first and foremost, the Azov Battalion. It was founded in 2014 by far-right politicians to support the Ukrainian military in the fight against pro-Russian units in the east as a volunteer outfit. Back then, the Ukrainian government incorporated the regiment into the National Guard. From a military point of view, this was perhaps understandable, but politically it turned out to be a big mistake.

The [Azov Regt.] openly uses Nazi and Neo-Nazi symbols [and insignia] and soon became a rallying point for the militant right-wing extremist scene in Europe, including and especially from Germany. At the same time, ideologically like-minded mercenaries from all over the world joined the force, including, incidentally, individuals from Russia, as the Canadian journalist and author Michael Colborne recently noted in an interview with the online platform Belltower.

Let’s stop here for a moment—Michael Colborn? Belltower News?

Belltower News and the Amadeu Antonio Foundation

Michael Colborn is ‘a journalist in eastern Europe’, according to Foreign Policy, and he frequently writes about right-wing extremism. Note here that FP is an outfit of the Slate Magazine, which itself is owned by the Washington Post group, which is owned by multi-billionaire and Amazon founder Jezz Bezos. This you probably knew.

Belltower News, however, is a more recent creation by the ‘NGO’ Amadeu Antonio Stiftung (foundation), an institution funded by both donations and the German government, according to independent journalist Thomas Röper:

More than half of this [Amadeu Antonio] foundation is financed by the [German] Federal Government, the rest are donations. It became known [in 2018] mainly for its important role in the implementation of the controversial Network Enforcement Act [legislation here, Wikipedia guidance here]. This act is ostensibly about combatting ‘hate-speech’ online and in particular in social media. And the [Amadeu Antonio] foundation is more or less the referee here, because there is no court of law that decides what constitutes ‘hate-speech’, but this is de facto what the foundation is there for.

Belltower News, according to their own website, is ‘operated by, with full responsibility for content, the Amadeu Antonio Foundation’. So basically, the foundation is the functional equivalent of an inquisitorial service that affords its funders—which, by the way, remain unmentioned on its website—plausible deniability. Note, furthermore, that the chairwomen of the Amadeu Antonio Foundation’s board, Ms. Anetta Kahane (bio via Wikipedia), worked as an informer for the GDR’s State Security (Stasi) from 1974-82. Now, I’m not saying people can’t or won’t change, but I’ll leave you with a quip from my partner (upon learning what I just told you): ‘well, no-one can say Ms. Kahane doesn’t know her business’.

You can check out the Foundation’s early history here, courtesy of the Wayback Machine; while I won’t go any further down this particular rabbit hole, I will point out that the Fondation was established in 1998 and, one year later, ‘then Speaker of German Federal Parliament, Wolfgang Thierse, bec[ame] official patron of the Foundation’. In and of itself, this is quite telling about the ties to the highest offices of the German state enjoyed by the Amadeu Antonio Foundation.

With this background information, which Mr. Körber quite certainly didn’t bother to check (if he did and left unmentioned, it’s even worse, so I’m being charitable here), he goes on to summarise Nicholas Potter’s recent piece in Belltower News. You may or may not read Mr. Potter’s piece yourself, I’ll leave you with the below illustration from Mr. Körber’s piece to transition to the latter’s final part.

Caption: members of the Azov Regt. in Kiev in 2020

According to Mr. Körber, it remains ‘unclear how the Russian public will view [Mr. Putin’s] tales about the invasion’ of Ukraine, noting, albeit without a hint of irony or introspection, that (my emphases)

the vast majority of media are under the Kremlin’s direct control [gleichgeschaltet, i.e., Nazi terminology] and will therefore hardly voice any critical comments. How Russia deals with protests was demonstrated again on Thursday [24 Feb.] evening. Anti-war protests, which were called for on social media, were broken up by large police forces in St. Petersburg and Moscow. In Moscow alone, 1,800 people were arrested.

There’s more in terms of illustrations (a woman, of course masked, being manhandled by police, which I’ll spare you). Personally, after 2+ years of Covid censorship in the ‘West’ I find the allegations of media censorship in Russia almost too comical to comment on.

Mr. Körber goes on to note the highly visible ‘protests’ by the creative classes (which I shall spare you, too) before mentioning, in his conclusion, that Mr. Putin’s days may be numbered—because of his sagging popularity according to (of course state-run) polls showing a ‘measly 73% favourability’ for Mr. Putin. (At that point, I wonder about, say, Mr. Biden’s favourability rate… /sarcasm). Time will tell, Mr. Körber states in closing, what will happen in the next Russian presidential election in 2024.

A Tale of Two Whataboutisms

As has been demostrated in this brief two-part enquiry, there’s two kinds of far right-wing extremists, according to ‘Western’ legacy media of both the state and de facto state garden variety: there are those (few) among the anti-mandate protesters everywhere that metaphorically spoil the entire barrel, as opposed to the (many more) Neo-Nazis in Ukraine who apparently fight for the ‘right cause’ (no pun intended).

I’m almost tempted to paraphrase a quite well-known politician to sum up this weird situation: we know that there are Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, but they are our Neo-Nazis.

Still, what does this tell you about what scholarship refers to as ‘cognitive dissonance’ between objective reality (the existence of Neo-Nazis in both groups) vs. their ‘selective information, disinformation, and quite likely also propaganda by all involved parties’, in Mr Körber’s words.

It is, indeed, quite interesting to observe the absurdities this kind of coverage entails, to say nothing about the literal cases of ‘Whataboutism’ both legacy media pieces show. As the above-statement by Mr. Körber shows, this isn’t a mere allegation of ‘Whatboutism’, but it’s a textbook example. According to the OED, ‘Whataboutism’ is

The practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue. Also in later use: the practice of raising a supposedly analogous issue in response to a perceived hypocrisy or inconsistency.

Now, let’s read that introductory statement by Mr. Körber again (my emphasis):

War always goes hand in hand with selective information, disinformation, and quite likely also propaganda by all involved parties. In this context, the strategy of Russian President Vladimir Putin to explain the attack on Ukraine to his compatriots is a telling example: he repeatedly emphasises the aim to ‘denazify’ Ukraine.

Now, this isn’t merely a telling example of ‘Whataboutism’ that reeks of stunning levels of hypocrisy, too. It’s also a truism, i.e., this is something one doesn’t need to point out, and the fact of the matter is that Mr. Körber—remember: he works for the state broadcaster—does so is ample proof of ORF engaging in this kind of activism.

In other words: ‘Western’ legacy media has managed to become the proverbial pot that’s calling the kettle black.

The only thing that might serve as saving grace for Austrian state and de facto state legacy media may be their ignorance of the above facts.