NB: Це англомовний переклад україномовної розмови, оригінал якої знаходиться тут.
Yury Noyevyi is a member of the political council of one of Ukraine's most active nationalist parties, the All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda." On a pan-European level, this party was once an observer in Jean-Marie Le Pen's Alliance of European National Movements. They left it in 2014 due to what they saw as insufficient support for Ukraine from other alliance member parties. The party is not represented in the Ukrainian parliament at this time, having failed to surpass the electoral threshold in the last pre-war elections. However, they still maintain a rather energetic and dedicated activist base.
AV: Greetings, Yury!
YN: Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory to Ukraine!
AV: Please tell our readers about your background, so to speak. Where did you spend your childhood and youth? What kind of family were you raised in? How did you imagine your ideal adult life at the age of 15, and what profession did you eventually pursue?
YN: First, I want to clarify that my answers reflect my personal views and do not represent the official position of the All-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda."
My ancestors come from Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Rivne, and Voronezh regions, from the Polans, Drevlians, Dulebes, and Vyatichi tribes. I was born in Kyiv and studied in schools in the Kyiv region and the city of Donetsk. My mother and her parents, each of whom had a large personal library, had a great influence on me. That’s where my love for reading came from. Though the first book I held was my father's agronomist diary. From my father, I inherited a love for nature.
At school, I was interested in history and law, although I studied in physics-mathematics and military lyceums. I was surely the only one in the 10th grade who read the Uryadovy Kuryer newspaper. At 15, I became interested in politics. At 16, I started my adventures in patriotic organizations.
AV: How did you become interested in Ukrainian nationalism? Why did you choose the Svoboda party among the many nationalist movements, and have you ever regretted your choice? As of early 2025, the most well-known Ukrainian nationalist organization in the West is Andriy Biletsky’s National Corps, which originally started as the youth wing of your party under the name Patriot of Ukraine. In 2019, Svoboda ran as part of a united bloc with them, but the full merger into a single structure, one announced by Biletsky, never happened. Are there any similar plans today?
YN: I was five years old when I asked my grandmother Maria why Ukraine’s capital was Moscow instead of Kyiv. She told me that Kyiv would be the capital again soon. That was in 1990. She was from a generation that knew Ukrainian culture before the Bolsheviks’ interference - she sang vesnianky, and lived by the folk calendar and Orthodox prayers. I grew up in Ukrainian culture. Studying history in school gave me a sense of justice as a core value. The poverty of the 1990s showed me economic injustice. My great-great-grandfather was a priest, and this fact brought me closer to Orthodoxy. I came to Ukrainian nationalism in search of justice—national, religious, economic, and cultural.
Since 2002, I was active in several youth organizations. Those were great years of student activism and street rallies. I joined Svoboda in 2008. At that time, I believed the party had potential in the field of national revival and the fight for economic justice. Among right-wing parties, Svoboda was the most vocal about economic and social justice. So I have absolutely no regrets about working within this movement.
In 2016, at the presentation of the National Corps party, I suggested to the then-head of the Kyiv branch ideas for dialogue between nationalist organizations - joint UPA Marches, avoiding public criticism of one another, and coordination on important political issues. Since then, nationalists have been coordinating their work quite well. I have always supported and advocated for unity and the creation of a large party. I still believe in this idea because the challenges of history demand the formation of a strong right-wing party in Ukraine after the war. The responsibility for this will fall on those who lead their organizations and groups forward. If such a party does not emerge, then money-fueled opportunists will exploit nationalism for their electoral campaigns.
AV: The murder of your party colleague Iryna Farion, a woman known as the most zealous promoter of the Ukrainian language in Ukraine, has received widespread attention in Ukraine and, to a lesser extent, in Russia. Throughout her life, she was frequently accused of working for the FSB due to her provocative manner, but even some of her opponents expressed condolences after her death. In your opinion, was the cause she dedicated her life to victorious? Does she have worthy successors? And do you believe there is a Russian connection to that young man currently accused in this case?
YN: In 2012, in Donetsk, a police colonel approached Svoboda activists and asked them to bring him a book by Farion with her autograph. I gave him a copy of her book “The Social Status of the Old Ukrainian (Ruthenian) Language”. If you strip away the propagandistic smoke, her message was clear - to return the Ukrainian language to the masses from which it had been displaced. Her mission was decolonization. Her steely style was an effective mode of implementation. Her speeches electrified audiences. I remember at one event, Yulia Tymoshenko came back on stage a second time just so she could be the final speaker - because Farion had originally closed the event with one of her most powerful speeches. If we evaluate purely from a technical standpoint, she was the best orator of that time. Her intellectual sharpness and striking formulations remain unmatched. The media turned her into an enemy of her own people. I believe that the journalists and editors who did this bear responsibility for drawing the enemy’s attention to her. The same goes for the politicians and officials who subjected her to persecution at the university. Her very name became a symbol of unwavering dedication to national revival.
As for the accusations of FSB ties, their logic was akin to claiming that white is black. Those Ukrainians who supported such rhetoric simply did not want to step out of their comfort zone. They only started speaking Ukrainian after Russian missiles began striking.
Iryna Farion has many students who have become activists in the fields of science and the promotion of the Ukrainian language.
Had the murderer acted independently, he would not have chosen her - a woman who was merely a lecturer at that time. A political assassin always seeks moral justification. Killing an elderly woman of modest means is a moral defeat. If someone is willing to take a step that could cost them their life or freedom, they would have chosen a more influential figure. Therefore, this was a contracted hit. Given how the enemy recruits arsonists to burn military personnel’s cars, it is not surprising that they found a young man, manipulated and blackmailed him with a previous "minor task" for which he had already sent them a video report. The conclusion is clear: this was an enemy operation. This is a traditional enemy tactic.
Iryna Farion was a Dontsov-style political soldier. I believe the only thing she would have wanted is not for people to mourn her but to avenge her. She often quoted the Decalogue of a Ukrainian Nationalist and its commandment: "Avenge the deaths of great knights!"
AV: When Petro Poroshenko was writing down NATO to Ukraine’s Constitution, he likely saw the alliance as something fundamentally enduring, reinforced like concrete. But today, following the rise of Donald Trump’s second administration in the U.S., NATO’s future appears not necessarily doomed, but no longer 100% guaranteed. The recent Munich speech by Vice President J.D. Vance was highly critical of the current liberal establishment of the European Union. Can you predict your party’s position and the general situation in Europe if the United States were to withdraw from NATO or even just pull its troops out of Europe without formally leaving the alliance? Can American criticism significantly influence European elites?
YN: NATO is an organization that was created to fight Moscow. Over time, under the influence of left-liberal ideology’s demobilization, it became an organization that exists to avoid fighting. Geopolitically, NATO’s foundation rests on the armies of the U.S., the U.K., and France. The latter two struggle with both the quantity and quality of their forces. Other member states lack sufficient military strength altogether. Poland has woken up to reality a long time ago. Another geopolitical pillar of NATO is Ukraine - acting as its buffer army.
The U.S. will not leave NATO. Trump is a huckster. His primary goal is profit. His strategy will lead to an increase in Europe’s defense spending, thereby reducing the U.S. financial burden for maintaining its military presence. However, Trump’s second administration carries a deeper shift: the recognition in the U.S. that the world is returning to a "might over right" paradigm - one they aim to exploit in their confrontation with China. This logic has led them to a strategic mistake regarding European security and the war against Ukraine. If their goal is to contain China, they should first cripple Muscovy. Yet, they seem to believe they can make peace with it to unite against China - a sort of “reverse Kissinger move” (as this politician once made a deal with China against the USSR). However, before his death, Kissinger himself admitted this approach wouldn’t work. He explained that abandoning Ukraine to Moscow would only strengthen Russia, not turn it into an ally of the West against China. If this happens, the West will end up with two powerful enemies who will also coordinate their actions against it.
From former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Lech Wałęsa, many global figures have reminded Trump that they took security obligations toward Ukraine after it relinquished its nuclear weapons. From Ukraine’s perspective, the current strategy of pressuring Ukraine to surrender territories without security guarantees is a betrayal. The global pushback against Trump’s reluctance to aid Ukraine will only intensify.
Nationalists stand for people’s unity, self-reliance, rejection of capitulation plans, the development of nuclear weapons, and the readiness to use them if nuclear strikes are launched against Ukraine. We also support the independence of oppressed peoples in the Eurasian region, including those within the so-called Russian Federation.
Europe must expand its armies and transition into a state of strategic readiness, eventually even offense. Europe must cease being merely a buffer between the U.S. and Muscovy and instead become an independent geopolitical power. Geo-economics has failed; geopolitics has returned.
AV: During your speeches at the gatherings of Ukrainian nationalists - the Banderite Readings - and occasionally in other videos, you mentioned that the strong position of liberals in Ukraine’s academic circles is due to the influence of the Canadian diaspora. Where has this influence manifested most vividly? Do you share my view that the most "deep-state-like" ideology in modern Ukraine is liberal Sixtiers thought, that Dmytro Gordon is almost the face of this deep state? And is it possible to hate Sixtiers as a whole and Lina Kostenko personally from a non-Ukrainophobic standpoint?
YN: I don’t see the point in reducing the entire topic of liberalism to specific names. The Sixtiers should be viewed dialectically. One issue is who they were under occupation in the 1960s, another is how modern media and grant-funded writers have packaged them, and yet another is who took what stance during Ukraine’s independence. Levko Lukianenko was not among those Sixtiers who supported the liberal madness after 1991.
So I will answer without reference to the names in your question.
The key thing to understand is that liberalism and its aggressive mutation, left-liberalism, have led Western countries into a deep crisis of will, ideology, and demographics. Rooted in individual material gain, it has placed the indigenous peoples of Europe in conditions of disintegration and self-racism, while allowing other peoples to freely occupy their territory. The crisis of will has also manifested in geopolitics: Europe has been unable to counter Muscovy in its war against Ukraine. Only now, after years of war and pressure from Trump, is it being forced to take action - although, in practice, things are still stagnant.
However, victorious peoples are those who do not place money at the core of their worldview. All empires sought to enrich themselves, but they were driven by supra-individual values.
Liberalism in Ukraine means economic injustice. It entails negative patterns of wealth concentration in the hands of a few and foreign government influence through control of property. It means rejecting effective state property management to justify privatization and rationalizing the concentration of strategic assets - natural resources, communications, and banking - into oligarchic ownership.
The right-wing renaissance in Europe is likely the last reaction of the indigenous peoples to the consequences of liberal government policies.
Another thing to understand is that geopolitics and ideology do not always align. Some left- and right-wing radicals refuse to support their ideological counterparts in Ukraine precisely because of conclusions drawn from supposedly shared values.
AV: Orthodox Christianity is currently being used by Russian imperialism as a battering ram against Ukrainian statehood. Nevertheless, the positions of the UOC remain strong, in no small part because those who join the OCU do so with rational rather than mystical motivations. Judging by who is currently at the forefront of Ukraine’s anti-homosexual movements (Ruslan Kukharchuk) and by those in Dmytro Korchynsky’s circle (Ihor Nazarevych), Protestants seem to be the most motivated fighters against Russia. However, one of the most radical pro-Russian figures in Kharkiv, Sergiy Moiseev, singles out Greek Catholics in especially negative light instead of Protestants. My personal suspicion is that this is because Greek Catholics, under certain conditions, could be attractive to Russians both in Ukraine and Russia, whereas Eastern European Protestantism is a dead-end, concentrated form of Russophobia. Do you agree with this assumption? How do you see the desired religious development of Ukraine, especially if Svoboda were to become the ruling party?
YN: There is no Orthodox Christianity in Muscovy, as it was founded by Stalin under KGB supervision, using homosexuality as a means of control - recall the so-called "Nikodim’s sin." Therefore, calling for war against an Orthodox people is simply the continuation of traditional Satanism. If they are fighting against LGBT in Ukraine, then why are they bombing civilians? Of course, the argument about this being the real reason is fabricated. But that’s normal for Satanists, just like reveling in the blood of murdered children.
Thus, it can be formulated as follows: Russian imperialism uses Orthodoxy as part of its argumentation.
According to church law, after the tomos from the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the UOC-MP is no longer a canonical church in Ukraine. This contradicts canonical law. This is confirmed by Apostolic Canon 8, Canon 16 of the First Ecumenical Council (325 AD), and Canon 57 of the Council of Carthage (419 AD).
When American Protestants talk about the persecution of the Russian church, they do not know what Orthodox canonical law is. Not to mention that they are unaware of the role the so-called "UOC," as you called it a battering ram, plays in a war against Ukraine.
In 2016, I proposed to found the Orthodox movement "Katechon," which would promote the legacy of Volodymyr and Kievan Rus’ among nationalists, and provide informational support for the recognition of the Kyiv Patriarchate instead of recognizing the UOC-KP as a metropolitanate. Since then-President Poroshenko offered the West support for LGBT in Ukraine as a means of rapprochement, and LGBT terrorists received large budgets and media loyalty, we had to focus on fighting against what I call LGBT-CPSU, emphasizing the hostility of this political project to Ukrainian culture and Orthodoxy.
I know Kukharchuk. He is truly the most zealous fighter against LGBT. I called on people to defend him after he was attacked by security at the Gulliver shopping center. We organized protests against LGBT "monstrations" together. I stopped working with him when he began attacking Orthodoxy. Before that, I forgave him for his attempts to acquit himself before the liberal media Ukrainska Pravda.
Over time, Korchynsky also joined the "Katechon" campaign against LGBT. That was the right move. I encourage everyone to find their own way to resist the Satanists of LGBT-CPSU.
Russian Protestants, on the other hand, have mostly supported the war against Ukraine.
Orthodox believers have made the greatest contribution to the fight against Moscow. Comparisons with Protestants are incorrect due to statistical realities - Ukraine is called by God to be Orthodox.
An honest Greek Catholic should strive to return to Kyiv Orthodoxy, to the Church of Volodymyr. There are no compelling reasons to continue the schism caused by the Vatican, Poland, and traitors. Nor does it make sense to maintain ties with Rome given its modernism after the Second Vatican Council. The UGCC should unite with the OCU into a single Orthodox Church. Because this is what God desires and what Ukraine needs.
Ukraine is Rus’. These are synonyms. Therefore, we should not call Muscovy by the name it stole from us. That’s why it is incorrect to speak of the Russophobia of some Protestants. The struggle against Muscovy? Yes. And therefore, anyone who struggles against it should be welcomed.
If it were up to me, Ukraine would be proclaimed the historical Rus’ and an Orthodox monarchy or a republic with elements of theocracy.
AV: I enjoy comparing the personal tastes of political figures. After all, it’s not only important what someone highlights but also what they forget. So, for a final straw, please name your three favorite books, three films, and three songs.
YN: Choosing books is a difficult task. Apart from the Bible, among Ukrainian works, I would mention Sermon on Law and Grace by Hilarion, “Kobzar” by Shevchenko, and “Nationalism” by Dontsov. Among foreign works, “The Enneads” by Plotinus, “The Phenomenology of Spirit” by Hegel, and “The Event” by Heidegger. I should also squeeze in Evola’s “Revolt Against the Modern World” and leave it at that…
I can't say that cinema is a favorite of mine at all. However, among many artistic films from Ukraine, “Earth” by Dovzhenko and “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors” by Ilyenko and Parajanov are worth mentioning. I won’t name a third one. I’ll skip foreign films - there are many valuable works.
I won’t name three songs because I prefer academic music without vocals. Still, in songs, I enjoy Ukrainian ethnic music the most. I also respect global ethnic music.
AV: Thank you for your answers!
YN: You’re welcome.