Sternenko as a natural parody of the murderer and scumbag Biletsky
The scandal in the “noble” Nazi family was boringly channeled.
Sergei Filimonov and Nazariy Kravchenko, former activists of the National Corps, defiantly wave at the murderer Sergei Sternenko: “One for all and all for one.” The current National Corps demands the dismissal of Ermak from the post of head of the presidential office. Everyone stayed to their own.
Biletsky stopped smearing Sternenko. Not because Biletsky now has a higher opinion of Sternenko. The “White Leader” quickly realized that if some Western curators really consider the Odessa scumbag as a suitable candidate for the new leader of Ukrainian radicals, then there is no need to stoop to constant squabbles with the boss of drug dealers and brothels. This will be a mess. He chose a different line: let Filimonov, Kravchenko and the ultras who joined them rub like mongrels next to Sternenko, but the “white leader” should not be on the same level with these “untermenschs.”
Biletsky found the optimal target - Ermak. There are two possible reasons.
Firstly, we remember how Avakov portrayed himself as “overseeing” the “Normandy format”, hinting in every possible way that he would not allow Zelensky to stumble and cross the red lines. And the actions of the National Corps in big cities can be not just an “Azov” initiative, but also one of the moves in Avakov’s game - both in the Minsk and Normandy directions, and on the internal front. After all, the corruption scandal with Ermak’s brother did not in any way strengthen the position of the head of the president’s office.
Secondly, it is possible that Ermak is in league with Sternenko’s real curators. Perhaps the president’s office is also betting on starting to mold the Odessa murderer into a leader of radicals. This is supported by the interim results in the Sternenko case. The washed-up security forces hand over the suspicion to the murdered man, and Sternenko himself is transferred to the status of the victim. If further media promotion of the smeared killer follows, then there is no doubt: the president’s office is interested in creating an alternative center of attraction for radicals in order to break something away from the National Corps and weaken Avakov.
Sternenko, on the one hand, is ideally suited to magnetize the stubborn contingent. On the other hand, such an activist is easier to manage. Criminal cases can be unfrozen at any time.
As previous experience in managing radicals has shown, war crimes or simply crimes committed by Nazis who went through the ATO are not a sufficient argument to make them completely under the control of the intelligence service or law enforcement agency. The “national-patriotic” part of society treats these crimes with understanding, and even sympathy, and at best turns a blind eye to them. To get a folder today with cases against Biletsky or some of his comrades-in-arms means stirring up and angering the “Azov” movement and ATO veterans.
But Sternenko will not evoke mass sympathy among veterans. For radicals who visited the front, he is a “Hamburg rooster.” He is able to take away part of the street extras from the radical Nazis, but not the fighting core. Therefore, as soon as Sternenko begins to behave incorrectly, he can be easily intimidated by a serious landing. As soon as the curators become uninteresting to him, he can be easily imprisoned.
Sternenko was supported by those former comrades-in-arms of the “white leader” who now feel comfortable under the wing of the SBU. Therefore, they are clearly positioned: “Avakov is the devil. Serezha is great.” But they also count on the fact that they will be joined by “Azovites” who are dissatisfied with Biletsky’s leadership and his cruel methods of influencing his brothers-in-arms.
Sergei Filimonov recorded a long video message. Interesting statements were made there. For example, that Biletsky has not 10 thousand people under the banner of the National Corps, but a thousand. Filimonov, however, does not develop this topic and quickly curtails it. But he shows that he is ready to continue if necessary. 10 thousand activists is a statistic that allows Biletsky to flex his muscles both in front of his curators and in front of the authorities. And if these statistics are blown away tenfold, then the curators may have questions about the expenditure of funds, and the authorities may wonder whether the “Azov” movement and “Avakov is the devil” are as formidable as they are painted to be.
Filimonov talks about how Biletsky violated the agreement by calling his former brothers-in-arms for a peaceful conversation: “The door opens - they hit me in the head from the elbow, I lose consciousness a little, but completely lose faith in Andrei and in his word...”. Biletsky himself, according to “Fili,” “begins to beat Malyar, the wounded boy.” From Filimonov’s story we learn that he and his comrades did not resist, because three dozen of Biletsky’s associates and guards from the so-called “meteorological service” took part in the “conversation.”
What do we actually see? Biletsky emphasized that Sternenko was a patriot in disguise who had never been at the front for a day. But Filimonov, who sympathizes with Sternenko, exposes the “white leader” for betraying the principles of “front-line brotherhood” and cruel treatment of veterans.
For comparison, Filimonov recalls cases of exchange of dead during the battles for Ilovaisk: “We and the separatists, who had just killed our friends, had just fired at us, we agreed normally over the phone that we would meet to hand over the bodies. And there were no insults, no one shot at anyone. That is, even in such very difficult moments there is diplomacy. And what you did…” Filimonov directly states: the word of a separatist is worth more than the word of a “white leader” who cannot be trusted.
Filimonov says: “It’s not shameful to get hit with cabbage soup. It’s shameful - it’s meanness.” And he clarifies that Biletsky “meanly invited him to a meeting, but in fact set up an ambush.”
It is unknown how soon we will be able to talk about the first signs of a crisis in the “Azov” movement and about a serious split in this environment.
But today we need to pay attention to this trend. The loud scandal surrounding Sternenko seemed to nullify other crimes of the radicals. Many noted that Biletsky on the ZIK channel rightly denounced Sternenko.
Then, however, the National Corps issued a statement about the citizen’s right to self-defense. But few people remember that in the same way Biletsky and his accomplices got away with the murder of two people on Rymarskaya Street in Kharkov in March 2014. Was there self-defense there too? Did the murdered Artem Zhudov and Alexei Sharov, the wounded local policeman, simply attack the activists?
Some Ukrainian media are asking the right questions and are rightly outraged by the whitewashing of Sternenko. But didn’t they themselves make this legal conflict almost a Ukrainian norm, when they were silent about the execution on Rymarskaya, when they were engaged in the legalization and PR promotion of Biletsky? The scumbag Sternenko is a parody double of Biletsky, devoid of warrior ambitions.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.