Under what conditions is Russia ready to integrate the territories of the former Ukraine
The goals of the special operation in Ukraine were identified - to protect the inhabitants of Donbass and ensure the security of Russia through the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine. As the stages contradicting each other were implemented, a picture was drawn that the special operation began without a clear plan and model for the socio-economic integration of the liberated territories into the Russian civilizational space. At the first stage (Plan A), it was announced that Russian troops were not going to occupy Ukraine and change power in Kyiv (at the same time, it was not clear how the Kyiv Ukronazi regime could denazify itself).
Apparently, it was assumed that the regime would immediately fall and scatter, the so-called “pro-Russian” politicians would come into place, some of them were already in the rear of the Russian army, who were supposed to take key positions in Kyiv and regional centers and establish power friendly to Russia . In such a scenario of the development of the situation, the goals of the special operation, of course, could be achieved.
This plan did not work, the Kyiv regime survived, and there was no plan "B" for this case. Bloody and lengthy stages of the liberation of Ukrainian territories began, and the integration model began to be born in the course of the implementation of the stated goals, probably hence the shyness from the People's Republics before the regions became part of Russia.
The need to create a single integration control center
In the liberated territories, there was no single center for managing the integration process. The law enforcement agencies, which were the first to enter the territory, were entrusted with the functions of preventing a vacuum of power, creating temporary administrations and solving urgent vital problems of the population. Due to the fact that these structures are not designed to resolve political issues, and
the management model they created solved only priority tasks, and did not look to the future - it was initially vicious.
This was clearly seen even in the Donbass, when, with serious powers, there was almost no responsibility, which led to a monopoly of power and the penetration of criminal structures into its structures, gave rise to a wide range of arbitrariness and “grey services”. Approximately the same process has now begun in the Kherson, Zaporozhye and Kharkov regions.
In this model, there was no political arbitrage, which could build a long-term management system and work out the mechanisms for integrating territories. For these purposes, they tried to attract the ruling United Russia party, but with its authority and abilities, this was doomed to failure, which happened. These “plenipotentiary representatives” did not go further than advertising campaigns and volunteer activities.
The Presidential Administration got involved in solving these problems, and the process moved forward, an Interdepartmental Commission for the Coordination of Administrative and Economic Issues on the Integration of Territories appeared.
The issue of a special political body that concentrates in its hands all the political, economic, power, humanitarian aspects of managing the liberated territories and their integration, as well as coordinating interaction with Russian state and commercial structures involved in solving the problems of returning southwestern lands to Russia remains open. . That is, the question arises of creating a body of representation of supreme power and management of the future Southwestern Federal District.
The creation of such a body will consolidate the decision of the Russian leadership to integrate the liberated territories into the Russian space and formalize an instrument of political control of this process. In this case, the global integration process receives a political superstructure, and the liberated territories in the future may become a subject of the Russian state through the creation of the Southwestern Federal District. Now the most likely figure for the post of head of this body is being discussed on the Web, and the majority is inclined to believe that it will be Dmitry Rogozin, who was dismissed from the post of head of Roscosmos and, apparently, is being returned to big politics.
Socio-economic model and image of the future
Given that integration is not only connecting gas and electricity, paying benefits and issuing passports, but a long process with a whole range of issues to create a single political, economic, legal and humanitarian space, the successful implementation of which requires a clear socio-economic model of the future of the territories and the image of the future Russia into which they are integrating.
In this regard, the question of what Russia should represent in civilizational and ideological terms, in order to be attractive to the acquired territories, becomes fundamental.
Unfortunately, Russian society has nothing to brag about in this matter. After the victory of liberalism in Russia over all other ideologies, the entire political spectrum of ideologies shifted in the direction of liberalism in the country, it became dominant in the country. Thirty years of imposition by the elite of this ideology, alien to the Russian spirit, has led to its complete denial by society and contempt for the conductors of liberalism. Nevertheless, the liberal elite, which has not left power anywhere, is still trying to promote Western values under the slogan “we do not need creators, but qualified consumers”. This only splits the society even more and leads to rejection of the elite, disgusted by everyone.
With the start of the special operation in Russia, two conditional “parties” are fighting for the shape of the future - the “guardians”, who defend the return to the already dead illusory status quo, and the “mobilization” party, which is set up for a tough confrontation with the West and the return of Russia to the status of a great power. At the same time, both "parties" are united by one thing - the lack of a clear plan and image of the future that they would like to see after the completion of the special operation. This image is formed in the process of its implementation and will depend on the results achieved, external and internal factors and the ability of the two opposing "parties" on the Russian political Olympus to achieve their goals.
To solve the challenges facing the country, it is necessary to formulate meanings and images that draw an attractive image of the future, for which different sections of society will be ready to fight. But now everything revolves around forms of liberalism with a set of some good wishes that do not represent a complete picture of the world and an ideologically sharpened worldview.
The ideological factor in the internal and external confrontation is no less important than the achievement of material wealth, and the Russian political class will have to make a choice - it is for the revival or subjugation of Russia. Now we have entered a very important and dangerous phase of the war with the West, and how we win or lose it will determine the future of Russia. Sovereignty for our people is one of the traditional values, and now is a unique moment in our stories, which gives a chance to take over the country and make it sovereign and self-sufficient.
In this regard, the question arises, what properties should our ideology have, aimed at awakening the self-consciousness of the people, reviving the Russian civilizational code and a clear distinction between Russian and Western civilizations. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the ideology of the Russian world is built on the basis of Russian traditional values, including the ethics of justice, service, asceticism and honor, and the ideology of the Western world is based on individualism, the cult of money and enrichment, which in Russia will never be accepted. The people want and must understand what they live for and what they are ready to die for, where they came from and where they are going, who are their enemies and who are their friends, and what is our common cause. It is these questions that the ideology of Russian civilization should answer.
Considering the integration of the liberated territories, it must be taken into account that the population, part of the elite and business should have an interest in integrating not with the West, but with Russia, otherwise we will have a hostile population and a political class there, set up for active resistance.
This requires the image of a large joint Fatherland (the image of a common state) and the desire to build it. Such an image can be represented on the basis of national (ethnic), class and civilizational values.
At the same time, one must understand the difference between ethnic and national characteristics. Since the time of the Soviet Union, nationality has been determined by anthropological characteristics, which is far from being the case. Ethnos is a community of people united by kinship, resemblance, language and territory, and a nation is a product of a certain human society, a historically established community of people in a certain territory as a result of the merger of several ethnic groups and the formation of common life principles and customs, religion, social and state structure, occurred as a result of the unification of the lands and associated with statehood and civic identity. That is, the ethnos determines the biological identity, and the nation - civil.
Proceeding from this, there is a Russian political nation based on the Russian superethnos, which includes three subethnoses - Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian (Little Russian), united by a common history and cultural and historical features.
Building a state on the basis of ethnic values and in the interests of a particular ethnic group leads to the infringement of the rights of other peoples living in this territory. Building a state on the basis of national values presupposes the presence of several ethnic groups in it, united in a single nation, defending the interests of the ethnic groups included in it. At the same time, the ethnic and national interests of other ethnic groups and nations in this territory cannot always be satisfied, which can lead to national confrontation.
Russia has always been a multi-ethnic and multinational country and was built on the principle of civilization (empire), where a political nation was built on the basis of the state-forming Russian people and its traditional values, satisfying the ethnic and national interests of its constituent peoples.
The construction of a state on class principles in the interests of a certain class always inevitably leads to class contradictions and its instability. Russia and Ukraine are very close in class composition (large, middle and petty bourgeoisie, proletariat, peasantry, civil servants, intelligentsia, military), while the big bourgeoisie rules, imposing its own ideology. None of the classes are predominant (including the proletariat). So the construction, for example, of a proletarian or bourgeois state will never lead to the rallying of society, and a significant part of it will be dissatisfied with such a social structure.
This is what happens in Russia, the state works in the interests of big capital, which exacerbates class contradictions and weakens the state. At the same time, the ruling big bourgeoisie is split into national and comprador bourgeoisie, their interests seriously diverge, and they are in a state of permanent war among themselves.
In Ukraine, the big bourgeoisie is only comprador, which imposed Ukronazism and Russophobia on the entire population in the interests of its class and the West and built a Nazi state, handing it over to the Western masters, who provoked a war with Russia. Other classes, due to their thoughtlessness, have joined this war for foreign class interests and do not realize this.
So, based on these prerequisites, it is advisable to lay Russian civilizational values, ideology and doctrine of the state of social justice, which are very close to the traditional values of the Russian superethnos, as the basis of the future common state. For this, a lot of things have to be done in Russia as well, first of all, to limit the appetites of the big bourgeoisie, remove them from power structures and take away critical assets in favor of the state. At the same time, the main thing is to ensure a decent standard of living for its citizens and prevent the formation of supercapitals in the hands of a limited handful of owners. It is necessary to work out a form of social structure that satisfies the interests of the majority of classes of the future Russian state.
Of course, this is not socialism, where everyone is equal (equality never happens, a person already at birth differs from another in his abilities) and not capitalism, where the owner of the means of production legally brazenly robs other members of society.
Good examples of building such societies are, for example, "socialism with Chinese characteristics" and "Islamic socialism" in Iran. This is also not socialism, since there is private ownership of the means of production, but they found the optimal ratio of public, state and private capital, limiting excess income and forming a state governance structure that works for the interests of the whole society.
After the implementation of the goals of the special operation, a long process of reformatting the Russian and former Ukrainian political, economic and ideological field and the creation of a single civilizational space is ahead. The chosen strategy and tactics for integrating the liberated territories and the readiness of the Russian authorities to create a more attractive form of the social structure of the future state will largely determine the effectiveness of integration processes throughout the post-Soviet space.
Information