Yesterday the borders in Europe were different, and the day before yesterday too
The human age is short in historical by standards, therefore, people get used to so many things around them so much that it seems to them that it has always been so. “And only the old people remembered that the border of the glacier used to be much higher.” Just like life, human consciousness is limited. Many overly complicated things remain beyond the understanding of the common man. Both that, and another, certainly, a gift of gods.
But seriously, the map, for example, of Europe for the 1914th could seriously surprise the student back in the 80s of the 20th century. Everything is wrong there. Although it seems quite recently and although it seems to be the same Europe (civilized). No, France is in place, just like England and Spain, but the farther east, the more changes. Already looking at the map of the last year before the Great War, it becomes clear that the world then changed very much. And just as the consequences of glacier passing leave traces on the landscape, the consequences of such political changes leave traces on the political map.
World War II also changed the map of Europe, although not as much as the first. “The inviolability of borders” is a good thing, but unattainable. After the collapse of the USSR, Czechoslovakia collapsed and Yugoslavia was smashed to smithereens. Then, from Serbia, they “bit off” Kosovo. That is, the boundaries are quite changing for themselves.
The borders in Eastern Europe that we are fortunate to see often arose after 1945. That is, in fact - a “remake”. And there was still the victorious Soviet Union, and Comrade Stalin, with an unshakable hand, drew some lines there. But there is no longer the Soviet Union and, of course, no comrade. Stalin. But the borders seem to have remained. Question: for how long?
Once again: global political changes inevitably entail a change in borders. It's unavoidable. That is, for example, the borders of modern Poland (both in the west and in the east) were designated precisely in the victorious 45th. Of course, in the days of Poland and the USSR, casting doubt on them was like death. But the Germans (and one third of modern Poland is just on the former German lands) did not like this new border at all. And by the way, yes: it was not conducted by certain allies, but clearly and specifically by JV Stalin.
And this today creates serious problems in German-Polish relations. So to speak, everything is not so simple. For some reason, I recall how the Spartan king was told that King Philip gave this land to the Messenians. “Did he give them the power to protect her?” - asked the Spartan in response.
You can talk for a long time about a united Europe and NATO, but, as many have already noticed, in the decades following the collapse of the USSR, much has changed there. In no case do not want to play the role of Nostradamus, but the inviolability of the western Polish border is a very interesting question. What will be there and how will it be ... But the hell knows. But the USSR is no longer there, like the Warsaw Pact, and even when they were, the FRG was somehow in no hurry to recognize the “new borders”, and finally the “post-war settlement” took place in Europe even after the suppression of the “Prague Spring”! And before that there were questions.
The "indestructible" borders of Poland
So not everything is so simple. The main thing is the thread of reasoning: Russia today (for obvious reasons!) Owes Poland nothing. Will there be objections? And when the monuments to Soviet soldiers in the former NDP are demolished, the author personally does not even feel sad, but funny. The Poles are actively chopping the branch on which their current territorial integrity is based. If Stalin is a criminal, and the Red Army is an invader and an occupier, then ... then there will be interesting legal consequences. Just while the Poles are not even aware of this.
And they don’t have anyone to guess about. Politicians, of course, are, but very unsuspecting. Four sections of Poland clearly demonstrate this. That is, before taking any serious political steps, it is advisable to think carefully. Consult with knowledgeable people. Otherwise, it may turn out badly. If the Poles were dear to their western border (already drawn along German territory), they would regularly paint and update all the monuments to Soviet soldiers-liberators and invite veterans from Russia there and would congratulate and thank them. Explain why?
But why none doesn't want to see obvious things? Morality? What does morality have to do with it? What is the moral? Pure selfish calculation! Well, is there really no literate people in Poland and there is no one to tell Polish politicians that they need to glorify the Red Army and personally Comrade. Stalin? That's right, and nothing else. The western Polish border is the result of the “creativity” of the Red Army and Joseph Stalin. Imagine that a very unloved relative of yours bequeathed to you personally a spacious apartment in the center of the hero city of Moscow. But at the same time you have to get a haircut in Buddhists or join the LDPR. So what will be your decision?
That's right: refuse and keep your convictions! And to give the apartment to the state, it is more necessary for him. At one time, Sherlock Holmes was genuinely amazed at Watson's inability to build the simplest logical chain.
- Elementary Watson!
Lavrov is about the same astonishment lead some of his foreign colleagues. Rather, "the course of their reasoning." I will not quote.
You must admit that the demolition of monuments to Soviet soldiers has both a political and a legal dimension. The cadastral also has, if that. Why this none does not see? Are they all blind? They can’t add two and two? If the Soviet soldiers-liberators were not heroes and liberators, then who were they? And what did they do in Europe? And what do the Poles do in the ancient Hanseatic city of Danzig? And in the "last fortress of the Third Reich" - Breslau? How many questions arise, right?
It is clear that the average person is very difficult to calculate all the consequences of their steps. But what, the Polish state is also headed by "ordinary people"? Or how? Western allies at one time were forced to recognize the "new borders of Poland along the Oder-Neisse." But this was by no means their idea. With the disappearance of the USSR from the political arena, the border “hung” slightly. No, of course, Poland today is a close ally of the United States and all that, but it’s very difficult to predict what will happen next.
And for Russia to “guarantee” something in any plan to a country that occupies an extremely Russophobic position is rather strange. Why, sorry? Meaning? With the departure of the USSR, a political vacuum arose in Eastern Europe, but few understood this. Ukraine (formerly USSR) is an archetypal example. So far advanced western borders of this country are explained by the historical presence of the Republic of Ingushetia / USSR in “these places”. The last one there to “light” again was Joseph Stalin.
Who "painted" Ukraine?
For some reason, Eastern European politicians cannot / do not want to understand elementary things. The border is not as simple and cool as it seems. The very “borders of independent Ukraine” were carried out by Russian tsars and Soviet general secretaries; at the moment, “civilized Europe” did not give Ukraine a single square kilometer of territory. Something like that. No matter how the "Ukrainian state" itself arose and won no wars, and did not grow any territory.
Ukraine tried to combine the incompatible: completely abandon the historical heritage of the Ukrainian SSR and at the same time preserve its territory. As we see, it is no longer possible. Once again: all the talk about “bad Russia” and “good Europe” is limited to millions of square kilometers donated by “bad Russia” and zero square kilometers donated by “good Europe”. That is, the problem is much deeper than many people think.
The rejection of the Soviet legacy calls into question all the borders of the former. Ukrainian SSR, and first of all - Western. For Ukraine, it all started much earlier than in 2014. Even when the question arose about gas (!) Fields near Zmein Island. Which the European court gave European Romania. For some reason, it was not customary to raise this topic in Ukraine. Europe is good, Russia is bad. Well, if so, then “good Europe” could “compensate” Ukraine for the loss of Crimea. Why not?
Today, Poland, Hungary and Romania look with interest at their “former” territories as part of a weakening and impoverished Ukraine. Again, by no means am I going to play the role of Nostradamus, but the territorial future of Ukraine is under a very big question. At one time, Britain for a very long time "defended" Turkey from Russia, but after 1918, she let it go under the knife. That is, Russia just fought infinitely long with the Turks, who were finished off by their British friends. But who remembers this?
In any case, the western borders of Ukraine are a very, very controversial thing (if there is no powerful army and powerful state behind them). The western borders of the Ukrainian state are just the legacy of a great empire that has left it. The chances of "holding" them are very, very weak, about the same as in the British after the departure of the Roman legions. It’s just that this does not suddenly and immediately become apparent.
Ukraine today has neither a modern army, nor independence, nor an economy. Nothing at all. And a huge piece of land in the center of Europe. And the land is "no longer done." To preserve its industry, Ukraine had to maintain very good relations with Russia. No other way. It is obvious. Much less obvious is the fact that, in order to maintain its territorial integrity, Ukraine had to do the same.
At least several decades after the collapse of the USSR, this was absolutely inevitable. In order to avoid questions, Ukraine simply was obliged to focus on Moscow. And a very long time. Damn it, with the economy, but saving so vast territory (by European standards!) required external power support. As you know, Ukraine decisively took an anti-Russian position. After the return of Crimea, Russia officially declared that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is a problem of Ukraine alone.
It was impossible for Ukraine to quarrel with Russia, it is impossible, because, let’s say, issues of ownership of real estate are not always resolved “here and now”. Sometimes very old documents play a role. In Northern Italy - sometimes the 12th (!) Century! And Russia is not obligated to make a discount on the fact that today Ukraine simply does not have a normal diplomatic service. The anti-Russian position of Kiev removes from it all and all sorts of moral obligations. For obvious reasons, Russia is not obliged today to build its policy so that official Kiev has everything "good and healthy."
The trouble with Kiev is precisely that the western borders of their country were determined not from Kiev, but from Moscow. And the system of contracts (confirming these boundaries) was also drawn up in Moscow (but not in Kiev). And just Russia (as the heiress of the USSR, for example) has the full moral right, so to speak, to slightly change its attitude towards them. Ukrainians, in their great naivety, sincerely believe that it is enough to massively dance hopak in the city center - and that’s all, this is Ukraine, but not so simple. For some reason, people there are sincerely convinced that since the formation of independent Ukraine, this completely automatically privatized a piece of Russian territory and history for hundreds of years into the past. But everything is a bit more complicated.
A certain analogy to this: some weapons were produced in Ukraine, and patent documentation was stored in Moscow, which even before all the "Maidan" created a lot of problems. The problem of all Ukraine is precisely that the “patent documentation” for it is in many ways located in Moscow. That is, the gap with Russia hit not only in Ukrainian industry, but also in statehood in general.
With the filing of that same Poland, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was officially recognized as criminal in both Lithuania and Ukraine. If you say “A”, then sooner or later you will have to say “B”, and then it will come to other letters of the alphabet. The logic of actions, a single logic. Poland is good, Russia is bad. This was driven into every Ukrainian schoolchild. Well, sooner or later we got to that very pact. According to which Ukraine received the Polish Lviv and not only.
For a very long time all this was concealed by Russia's desire to be friends, no matter what. Now it is invisible to Ukrainians because of the general situation of the collapse of the economy and the war in the Donbass. But the problem seems to have gone nowhere. Today, for Kiev, counting on Russia's military or political support on a dispute with Hungary or Romania would be simply frivolous. Kiev politicians have achieved almost unbelievable: Moscow’s relations with Poland are better than with Ukraine! That is, they generally are.
The demonization of Russia and the glorification of the West is, of course, good. But as a result, Ukraine suffered significant economic and territorial losses. Reaction? Continued demonization of Russia and the glorification of the West. And everything is peddling. I specifically explain (especially to some stubborn compatriots): Ukraine is an independent state, we are not Ukrainians, we owe them nothing by definition, and we are not obliged to maintain any “dialogue” with them. All the problems of Ukraine are only and exclusively the problems of the Ukrainians themselves, but not ours.
Virtual USSR in the Heads
At one time, the author of the iconic work “Marauder” defiantly mocked Russian citizens who were confident in their security against the backdrop of NATO’s eastward expansion (the USSR was dead). About the same can be said about the inhabitants of small, but proud countries of Eastern Europe. It seems to them that their borders are reliably guaranteed by someone. They have such an illusion. I hasten to upset them: the very Soviet Union drew and guaranteed these borders, which, alas, are no more.
Which immediately affected the fate of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. It was the collapse of the USSR that led to the collapse of Czechoslovakia and the SFRY. Then Serbia lost Kosovo. Well, for example, Moldova, as it were, is not against entering Romania. And the flag in their hands, if they want it. Azerbaijan has lost Karabakh and the adjacent lands and has been trying to return them for many years. The GSSR practically collapsed. These are the “interesting” consequences. But one must understand that most of the borders in Eastern Europe were "drawn" one way or another under the influence of the USSR. Which is no more.
Russia is, of course, “a kind of successor,” but practically no country in Eastern Europe wants to focus on it. In general, the borders seemed to “hang in the air”. Russia today owes absolutely nothing to the new NATO members or even simply to the “Euro-oriented” governments of its neighbors.
Many people underestimate this fact. Borders always draw with a sword. This is ultimately the case. Any border is “universally recognized” when a powerful army stands behind it. Otherwise, questions arise. The basis of modern Ukrainian ideology is transcendent Russophobia. The tragic paradox is that the vast Ukrainian territory is the legacy of the “criminal” USSR / RI. The ravings of Ukrainian politicians that everyone around “owes to holy Ukraine” look good only in the Ukrainian information space.
“Return of Crimea to its home harbor” put Russia in a situation where it categorically not interested in “conservation ter. integrity of Ukraine. ” This is disadvantageous because. That is why the Polish-Hungarian (Romanian?) Territorial claims are not so bad when viewed from Moscow. Mutual exchange / recognition is possible because. And Kiev put itself in such a disadvantageous position.
And it’s already impossible to “win back” the situation. Not a single Ukrainian politician will be able to recognize the loss of Crimea, and therefore, will not be able to normalize relations with Russia and receive its political support on the western borders. This means that they are put under a big question mark. Today, the Ukrainian state does not have “good decisions” (but the borders of Poland are a very, very interesting topic, both western and eastern). Both Lemberg and Breslau ... there is something to think about. Moreover, both of them are not Russia's problem today.
And there are Romanian-Hungarian territorial contradictions. There they are, they haven’t gone anywhere. Yes, and the Balkans continue to slowly "smolder." And already the “great Estonia” can not come to terms with the current “unjust” borders with Russia. That is, the USSR is no longer there, and practically no one likes the current borders.
It is difficult to say exactly what this will lead to, but the complete inviolability of borders in the coming decades seems unlikely.