Russian Nationalist at the Front: Introduction, the Ukraine Question and "Denazification" part 1/2

Translated article is (https://nordfront.se/rysk-nationalist-vid-fronten-introduktion-och-ukrainafragan)

Nordfront interviewed a Ukrainian nationalist last year who fights in the ukrainian army against the russians. Now, it is time for a Russian nationalist, who are fighting for Russia to talk about his views on Russia, the Ukraine and the ongoing conflict.

Person interviewed is Alexey Milchakov

"ed. note.” are Nordfront's additions that are only there to explain something to the reader and not comments on the answers as such

(I am not affiliated with Nordfront) (translation may not be 100% accurate and nordfront will release their own translation)

question: Can you tell us a bit about yourself, your background, and your dedication to nationalism, as well as your role in the conflict in Ukraine?

Milchakov: I was born in Saint Petersburg 1991 and went to school there. Since i was 14 i engaged actively in the nationalist movement and went on football games with ultras. I was one of the first in Saint Petersburg who advocated things like military training for right wing youth as well as to the radical right wing movements should arm themselves (for the purchase of legal weapons).

After russian agencies in 2009 banned the slavic union which i was a part of at the time, did i leave all movements and start to engage independently in the creation of a paramillitary, nationalistic structure who was thought to fight for russian interests. Because there was no wars ongoing we focused simply on preparing and get experience.

Between 2012 and 2013 i served in the russian army-airborn forces, 76th airborne assault division. in 2014 i came to the then territory of Ukraine (Lugansk) with a small group and began to create my own group as a part of Batman task force, as a regular and at the same time voulantary formation. we got there without knowing anything about the future but it turned out well

question: You are commander of a group called Rusich. Can you talk about what Rusich was and why it was creacted?

Milchakov: Unit was created 2009, then it consisted of a friendgroup of nationalists, patriots and right wing radicals who had the goal to learn to fight. in other words, unlike other standard nationalist movements who during the time focused on street activism, demonstration and so on, our aim was more precisely to prepare for participation in war, so that we were armed and trained according to a military model.

Later during 2014 members of the group were the very core of those who traveled to defend the Russian people in Donbass with us. When we realized that our current level of knowledge and training allowed us to expand, we decided to go out with our name and started working independently.

Question: Is Rusich today purley a paramillitary organization or is it also political? if also political what kind of ideologi does it have?

Milchakov: Rusich is a project and the paramilitary part is only one of the project's components. We also have a military patriotic club, an information department, a finance department and a number of other departments.

All of us are of course nationalists and patriots. Our ideological component is partly national socialist in addition to other national political movements. The reason is that classical national socialism of the type of the third reich is already outdated and is not applicable to russia.

Question: What is your final political goal? Would you like to see a kind of panslavisk state, re-establish the Russian empire as a tsardom? Or is it something else? 

Milchakov: Our ultimate political goal is the development of Russia in the traditional, and classic sense, as a white, european, heterosexual country and the unity of the slavic people under Russia's protectorate, in its capacity as the strongest slavic power

There is no goal to purge Russia of all other indigenous peoples who have lived in this country for thousands of years, they too must be allowed to live in peace, harmony and unity on Russian territory. But the Russians must get, as a state-forming nation, their own great nation-state, called Russia.

Question: Do you mean that ethnic Russians should have a nation-state within the framework of a wider Russian federation and that the latter would also include other, native peoples with their own political entities?

Milchakov: Russia must become a nation-state for the Russian people at an official level, with a mention of political supremacy for the Russian people in the state constitution. This should of course include territories currently occupied by "national republics" [today's sub-republics of the Russian Federation. eds. note] in today's Russia and even more.

Other peoples may also live on Russian territory, but they cannot have any cultural or political autonomy, nor can they count on state support for their national languages and cultures. Only Russian can be the official language of the state and only Russian culture must be studied in public schools.

Question: What was Rusich's role before 2014 and then after 2014 in Donbass and further after the start of the special military operation in Ukraine in 2022?

Milchakov: Rusich's role in 2014 on the territory of the Lugansk People's Republic was significant, as was the entire "Batman" force (of which we were a part at the time). Since Lugansk at that time consisted of a small group of poorly armed people with insufficient training, our role was very crucial.

After 2014, we participated in other battles and were part of other structures.'

The [military] special operation, which began in 2022, became a very large-scale enterprise with a large number of forces. But we fulfilled our role and did what was expected of us.

Question: Is it true that Rusich today is part of the private military company Wagner [which is reported both in the media and on Wikipedia. eds. note]? And if that's true, how do you see it?

Milchakov: No, today "rusich" is not part of Wagner.

Question: What is your view of the former head of Wagner, the Jew Yevgeny Prigozhin? Was he just a crook or was his criticism of Russia's military leadership justified and reasonable?

Milchakov: During the [military] special operation, Yevgeny Prigozhin proved himself to be a smart leader, capable of administering a large unit that delivered results, which was largely thanks to him. By the way, he never condemned or tried to intervene against Russian nationalists and never tried to force their ideological beliefs out of them.

It is funny that he is called a Jew. His mother is Russian, his father is Russian, he has always seen himself as Russian and Orthodox, while always treating the Gentiles in his inner circle the best. Pay particular attention to the person who was his "right hand man" for many years and what tattoos and visions that person had. Also look at the photos of Prigozhin's house from the police raid - how many Orthodox icons were there and how many Jewish objects could be seen (zero).

His criticism of Russia's military leadership was justified. Yevgeny Prigozhin is of course emotional, but his criticism was right and here we fully support him.

Question: How do you think Yevgeny Prigozhin died? Was it an accident or a murder? And if it was a murder, who was behind it?

Milchakov: We don't think it was an accident. And continued guessing is beyond our competence.

Question: On the Internet, there are some terrible stories attributed to you, first of all animal cruelty (a video of the torture of a dog) and also war crimes in eastern Ukraine. Is there any truth to this, and what are your comments?

Milchakov: There has never been a video of a dog being tortured on the Internet. If you can provide us with just a small part of this video, which directly shows how a dog is tortured, we will send you an archive of unique photographs that will cause chaos on the Internet worldwide. If you cannot find the video, we will unfortunately not give you these photos.

We did not commit war crimes in eastern Ukraine because we were not military personnel at that time. But our position is always to be as cruel as possible to the enemy, that is true.

Question: It is true that we have not seen any video but only photographs or what appear to be screenshots of a video of the alleged incident, as well as media reports about it. Is it correct to interpret your response as dismissing the narrative as fake news and if so what is the real context of these images?

Milchakov: The photographs are not photoshopped, of course, but it is unclear why people think that a photo of a corpse and the process by which it became a corpse are the same thing.

Question: We have been following the case of Jan Petrovskij from Rusich, since the time he lived in Norway many years ago and up to today, when he is imprisoned in Finland and also being investigated for war crimes. Can you tell me more about his case?

Milchakov: We cannot tell you much about the case of Jan Petrovsky. We can only say that we do not believe that he is guilty and that Finland has taken on a great burden that it may not be able to bear. Even if you joined NATO.

Finland has no right to prosecute a Russian citizen for "crimes" committed outside Finnish territory. We are also completely convinced that Jan Petrovskij has not committed any crimes and that his case is of an exclusively political nature, and that Jan himself is being held as a political hostage.

Question: As a Russian nationalist, how do you see the Ukrainian nation? Are the Ukrainians part of the Russian people or a separate ethnic group?

Milchakov: We dont see ukrainians as a seperate people

The eastern parts of modern "Ukraine" are traditionally Russian land and those who live there are Russians just like us. The border between us arose "thanks" to the Bolsheviks, whose goal was to weaken Russia through the creation of artificial republics along the country's borders.

Western "Ukraine" consists of Russians mixed with Poles, Hungarians and Romanians, in addition to Jews who lived there outside of Russia, in the Jewish settlement area of the Russian Empire [an area in the western parts of the former Tsardom where the Jewish population was exiled. eds. note]. There were no Ukrainians there either.

Question: How did you see the Euromaidan in Ukraine from a Russian perspective? Was it a popular revolution or a Western-backed coup?

Milchakov: We do not look at the Maidan from a Russian perspective, but from our own perspective. The original Euromaidan slogan was "We don't want the CU, we want the EU!" (CU - a Customs Union [Custom Union] between Russia and neighboring countries). While Ukraine rebelled because they wanted to be in the EU, we didn't care.

But then these events came to develop in a completely different direction. As soon as Ichkerian flags [Chechen separatist flags. eds. note] and the "Right Sector" began to call for terrorist attacks on Russian territory, it became obvious to every Russian person that the events on Maidan Square [in Kiev] assumed a distinctly negative character.

we believe that the conflict was provoked by the West, only to create tension near the Russian border and in our traditional lands that millions of our ancestors died to defend.

Question: Why does Russia oppose Ukraine's approach to the EU?

Milchakov: For Russia, the European Union is a foreign organization that advocates tolerance, immigration, homosexuality and various other abominations at the highest official level. Russia definitely does not need such an ally. The European Union is unfortunately not only a trade and economic union, but also a political one, with a unified political structure and propaganda.

Of course, it is not beneficial for Russia to lose its historical lands, which are inhabited by a Russian population, to an enemy that supports the aforementioned filth and abominations.

Question: In the West, the Russian annexation of Crimea is portrayed as a very aggressive and threatening move by Russia and it is said that the referendum was not conducted properly. What is your opinion of this?

Milchakov: First of all, there was no annexation of Crimea. The documents on the transfer of Crimea to "Ukraine" were signed by the crypto-Jew Nikita Khrushchev [leader of the Soviet Union from September 7, 1953 to October 14, 1964. eds. note], who artificially separated parts of Russia from their Motherland.

At the same time, Russians continued to live in Crimea along with a small group of Crimean Tatars who returned after a well-deserved deportation (they were deported for collaboration with Nazis and for genocide of Russians). In a well-intentioned way, a strong leader of the Crimean Tatars had simply annihilated them, but Joseph Stalin generously gave them a chance to survive. What a waste - the Crimean Tatars (5 percent of the peninsula's population) were the only ones whining about "Ukraine".

The rest of the population was Russian, they always spoke Russian and waited for Russia for 23 years [from Ukraine's independence in 1991 to 2014 when Crimea joined the Russian Federation. eds. note]. Thus, Crimea's return to its homeland is a natural phenomenon. Historically, Crimea has always been a Russian-Slavic country. All this led to the fact that the reunification was not harsh, but was carried out as smoothly as possible, without any deaths, because the population of Crimea fully supported the idea.

Question: Is Russia a threat to the rest of Europe?

Milchakov: No, Russia is not a threat to Europe. We believe that Russia should have cooperation and a friendly dialogue with European countries in the first place, and not with Asian countries. Russia needs no alliances with other races when there are Europeans.

But in this case, Europe itself poses a threat to Russia. Not only in a military sense, but also in the sense that the influence of traditional values is rapidly declining in Europe. The white, healthy, heterosexual family as the foundation of society is becoming a bygone chapter. Europe imports millions of immigrants from Arab and African countries.

What is the point of Russia now being friends with France, which is inhabited by monkeys and is already largely black and Muslim? And especially since Europe at this stage of its development is completely subordinated to the United States.

Question: How much did Russia support the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk when the civil war in Ukraine started in 2014? From the West it is said that the breakaway republics were very much controlled and supported by Russia, at the same time there seem to be a lot of Russian nationalists who instead accuse the Russian state of having abandoned the Russians in eastern Ukraine and for a long time left them to their fate.

Milchakov: The support received [by the separatists] was insufficient; it should have been both better and more comprehensive. We do not believe that the Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk were abandoned to their fate under any circumstances. But Russia definitely did not provide the support needed at the time of the outbreak of the conflict in 2014.

Perhaps there were reasons for this. At least Vladislav Surkov told us about it during a personal dialogue, but it is not yet time to report the details of that conversation to the press, especially not foreign ones.

[Translator's addition: Vladislav Surkov was the former head of all internal politics in Russia and one of the five most influential people in the country.]

Question: Why was it necessary for Russia to invade Ukraine in 2022?

Milchakov: If a special military operation had not been launched in February 2022, it is our opinion that Ukraine would have instead tried to launch a large-scale offensive operation against the Donetsk and Luhansk republics in the coming months, which would lead to serious consequences and a large number of civilian casualties.

Such an operation was of course planned under the leadership of the United States, which was controlled by the old and senile [President Joe] Biden, because his son Hunter (a drug addict incest and child sex lover) had serious business in Ukraine and covered up the criminal plans of Biden and the Democrats to launder millions dollars in this thoroughly corrupt country.

In other words, the Biden family, with their record low support in American politics, needed to:

A) First of all, distract the public from scandals surrounding the complete incompetence of the old man and the disgusting behavior of his son and at least marginally increase political support, which has nevertheless completely crashed.

B) Second, spend the next billions of dollars on Ukrainian grant and aid programs, which no one can track given the record high level of corruption in this country.

A quick and successful operation against Donetsk and Lugansk could have helped Biden achieve these goals. But then Russia intervened.

This was an absolutely necessary military operation for self-defense purposes, which, moreover, took place on Russia's own territory (which the Jewish Bolsheviks, through a misunderstanding, gave to the "Ukrainian" people). The point was to finally stop the bombing of peaceful Donetsk and finally liberate the Russian people, who through no fault of their own found themselves in another state's territory when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and have been awaiting Russia's arrival ever since.

Question: Was there no peaceful solution to the conflict?

Milchakov: There was clearly no possibility of a peaceful solution. If such a possibility existed, it would most likely have been implemented. But there are a large number of people and groups on the Ukrainian side who profit from the war.

And it is unlikely that the Ukrainian government would have agreed to a peaceful solution, that the radical Ukrainian elements and their big finance, who are making millions from the war, would have agreed to it.

Question: Doesn't the invasion mean that Russia loses some of its moral superiority over the United States now that Russian troops invade an independent country just like American soldiers have done time and time again?

Milchakov: We do not see that it would be wrong to invade other countries and to interfere with their sovereignty in order to advance our own national interests. The US and its allies are doing this, Israel is doing that (literally international terrorism at the state level) - and the whole world is silent about it.

But at the same time, please note: the United States is invading faraway countries that have no connection to America in any way, where there are no American residents, and on vague grounds to say the least.

All the while Russia is restoring freedom to Russian people living on traditionally Russian lands, who found themselves outside of Russia only because of the Bolsheviks and their artificial borders. All these people wanted was to read books in Russian, watch Russian movies and teach children in Russian schools (all of which are banned in Ukraine since 2014).

And now the whole Western world and their puppet media are screaming that Russia is the aggressor. No that is not true.

Question: What would you say is Russia's goal with the war today?

Milchakov: We do not know what goals the political leadership of the Russian Federation is pursuing right now.

Our own view is that the minimally favorable outcome for Russia in this conflict is: The return of traditionally Russian lands, including the Kherson region, Odessa and Kiev (so, beyond the Dnieper River) along with a buffer zone between Russia and NATO in western Ukraine.

In addition, the annihilation of prominent representatives of Ukrainian Russophobia (who, for example, have publicly promised to kill Russians all over the planet based on nationality alone). This is the minimum of what we consider adequate.

Question: In 2022, in the official Russian rhetoric, which we heard in the West, there was a great focus on Russia "denazifying" Ukraine. This was also echoed by Vladimir Putin when he was interviewed by Tucker Carlson recently, when he said that all forms of "neo-Nazism" must be banned in Ukraine. What does this mean and is this "denazification" rhetoric as common in Russia? In the West there is a lot of confusion about this, because Ukraine is led by a Jewish president and other Jewish politicians, while Putin is called a fascist and Russia stands for values that in the West are labeled as extreme right.

Milchakov: In all honesty, we don't understand what "denazification" is. Obviously, the term was needed in order to explain the conflict to the Russian population, which exists in the state-imposed paradigm of the fight against Nazism as the country's main project and the victory over Hitler as its greatest achievement. But this is only characteristic of the current regime. If there is a change of power in Russia, the tone will also change and people will again start talking about other important Russian achievements: space travel, the invention of airplanes and helicopters, the creation of television and radio, the main classical Russian culture and Russian science.

But in Ukraine there is actually no clear Nazism or real nationalism. After all, nationalism is the love for one's people.

Instead, their whole idea is simply built on the Russophobic ideology, in other words to do anything just to be different from Russia. Just like their artificial language [Ukrainian], which is a particularly garbled version of the Russian language. This was what drunk, illiterate peasants from the southern regions of Russia spoke, and they came to add even more inaccuracies to the language and then adopt it at the official level, just to be different from us. On the battlefield, by the way, you never hear the Ukrainian language - both sides shout in the purest Russian.

At the same time: At the first small danger, a large part of the Ukrainian population ran in fear to Europe and destroyed for European taxpayers - this is their real ideology and real ideas. Where is the nationalism there, in other words love for the people and try to defend it?

On the other hand, we see, within the framework of the special operation, a decommunization. Since Ukraine never existed and was artificially created by communists, its complete obliteration will be part of the decommunization and correction of the mistakes of the red communist system.

Question: the West accuses Russia of having plans to "wipe out" the Ukrainian people. Reference is made here to things that have been said and written regarding "denazification", where certain Russian opinion leaders have painted the entire modern Ukrainian culture as something problematic in need of liquidation. What do you have to say about those accusations, are they hysterical exaggerations or a valid concern?

Milchakov: As previously mentioned, we do not consider the Ukrainian people to exist. Those who see themselves as Ukrainians are actually from an ethnic point of view either straight Russians or a mixture between Russians and other peoples who inhabit the areas surrounding western Ukraine.

We are not talking about wiping out the Ukrainian people - how can you destroy something that does not exist: the Ukrainian people have not had enough time to take shape.

We mentioned earlier our own vision of the goals of this conflict and these territories, the return of which we see as part of our task. Please note that our list does not include cities in western Ukraine, such as Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk. These are historically Polish-Austrian cities and lands and we do not claim them. But for the sake of Russian security, western Ukraine should become a neutral buffer zone between us and NATO.

But the Jew [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy makes no secret of the fact that his goal is to wipe out the ethnic Russian population among the citizens of Ukraine. Just look at the territorial array of their conscripts and their mobilized army now, which are falling by the hundreds every day - mainly people from the central and eastern parts of Ukraine, in other words, ethnic Russians who even have a strong Russian accent when they speak Ukrainian. But the inhabitants of Lviv are not patterned - after all, there is almost nothing Russian about them at all, they are above all a mixture of Jews with Poles and Hungarians. In other words, the core of the future Ukrainian nation, which today is only about to be created.

Question: What does Ukraine need to agree to in order for the Russian invasion to end? Are there any official demands from Russia or do you have your own thoughts on what would be reasonable?

Milchakov: We do not know what demands the Russian Federation will make. But to stop and leave Ukraine with current resources, pumped up by the West, would only move the conflict into the future. No, the enemy must be defeated. both on the battlefield and in the political arena.

As for the terms of surrender, of course, all documents of the Military Intelligence Service of Ukraine (GUR) and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) must be transferred to Russia, the employees of these security services, spies, people who committed terrorist acts against the Russian Federation and so on must be arrested or executed. But Ukraine will never agree to this as long as it receives support from the West.

Question: How long do you think the war in Ukraine will last and how do you think it will end?

Milchakov: We have no choice but to win, because Russia cannot lose this war, and we do not know how long it will last. My personal opinion is that the war is guaranteed to continue for another two, maybe three years.

And this will only end the hot part of the war, but the conflict will then move to a stage of counter-terrorist operations to clean up the Ukrainian underworld, which will also take its time.

No matter what, it is impossible to defeat Russia.

Question: After the conflict, would a sovereign and independent Ukraine in any form be acceptable to Russians in general and to you in particular?

Milchakov: After the war, yes, maybe there could be a territory called "Ukraine" on maps, but no matter what, it won't be a sovereign state. Even today, Ukraine does not have sovereignty, when it receives all its resources, including funding to pay pensions to the elderly, from the West. And as soon as this assistance ends, the collapse of the state is inevitable. Moreover, the West will force them to fight to the last Ukrainian, until the state is completely emptied. Zelensky and [Ukraine's former commander-in-chief Valery] Zaluzhny wanted peace and agreed to our demands only a month or so after the war began. But Biden and [then British Prime Minister Boris] Johnson forced them to keep fighting to get continued aid.

Maybe parts of the country's territory will end up under the rule of Poland, some parts maybe go to Romania, maybe Hungary gets its share.

No matter what, the entire territory of the former Ukraine will not be annexed to Russia. This, in turn, would require extensive resources to eradicate the Russophobic elements in western Ukraine. If this can be avoided, then a small part of the West will be able to be called "Ukraine".