the new russian nationalismand various smaller groups of the ‘Black Hundreds’ type, together
with pro- Kremlin nationalists, the National Bolsheviks and the
majority of national democrats. The classic ‘imperial’ paradigm,
which basically does not recognise the existence of the Ukrainian
nation, has been used by some (like the Russian Imperial
Movement) in this context. Alternatively, an ‘ethnic conflict’ with
Ukrainians may be emphasised. Either way, opposition activists
have not stopped thinking of the Russian government as ‘anti-
Russian’. Consequently, they expect the ‘Russian uprising’ in the
Donbas to activate a Russian ‘national rebirth’ in Russia.
However, many radical nationalist political leaders have spoken
out against the ‘Russian Spring’. This includes almost the entire lead-
ership of the Russkie movement in Moscow and in St Petersburg,
the neo- Nazi movement Restrukt!, as well as individual activists
from movements and groups that otherwise support the ‘Russian
Spring’. This position is also based on denying or minimising the
conflict between Ukrainians and Russians, and in general the dis-
tinction between them. These activists see the Ukrainian revolu-
tion as the first step in a general nationalistic revolution against the
‘anti- Russian regime’. The clear majority of autonomous radical
nationalists have adopted this position. Opponents of the ‘Russian
Spring’ differ only on whether to support the Ukrainian side,^26 or
to maintain a position of neutrality, seeing both sides as ‘puppets
of Zionism’ or something of that sort.
To some extent, military as well as political differences are
the result of these arguments. A fair number of nationalists have
gone to fight on the separatist side, and some on the opposing
Kyivan side. As yet the information available on the makeup of
these fighting forces is too fragmentary to permit analysis of the
impact that specific organisations are having on military action.^27
Various news reports make brief mention of many organisations,
but it is usually impossible to discern whether these glimpses
relate to individual initiatives or the active involvement of those
organisations per se: it is not unusual for activists of organisations
whose leaders clearly condemn participation to go and join the
fighting.
Politically, what is important here is precisely institutional pres-
ence: at stake is who may capitalise politically on their war effort.