It seems that such wisdom is not enough for the current political elite of Ukraine, which rushes headlong into the arms of the West. This is explained by the fact that Ukraine supposedly wants this. In fact, this is an ordinary cheating: nobody asked her what Ukraine wants. Nationalist and oligarchic circles decided everything for us. Apparently, believing that they are Ukraine.
When it comes to the fact that it would not be bad to hold an all-Ukrainian referendum, adherents of European non-alternativeness declare in chorus: it is impossible to shift such a fateful choice to the fragile shoulders of the people. He says it’s hard to figure out where his happiness is. This is better understood by political elites, and they must take on this responsibility.
One can only marvel at the Pharisaism of those in power. When the next election campaign comes (presidential or parliamentary), compliments to ordinary Ukrainians from the greedy crowd of politicians who want to become their servants, literally do not count. “Our people are smart,” they say, “and well versed in who is who.” True, in order to make it even more intelligent, it is plagued not only with sweet-voiced speeches, but also with gifts in the form of food rations, cash assistance, gasification of streets or settlements, construction of playgrounds, etc. However, as soon as the elections are held, the people who have chosen the "unexpected" power becomes stupid and can not understand the complex public problems. Now everything is decided for him by his "servants".
By participating in many “round tables” and conferences devoted to the problem of Ukraine’s choosing the so-called integration vector, I was convinced that the major economists are Valery Geyets, Sergey Glazyev, Valery Muntiyan and others trying to rationally assess the situation and show the advantages of Eurasian with numbers in their hands integration, only in vain spend their strength. Nobody listens to them. After all, the choice is not economic, but political. And not for the people, but for the political and economic (which is actually the same thing in the conditions of Ukraine) of the elite.
That she needs to align the integration status of the country with her personal. She's already in Europe for a long time. There are millions and even billions of dollars in it, villas. As one of our presidents put it, the elite there rest, heal, teach children. Ukrainian political scientists, who (with rare exceptions) live quite comfortably on Western European and American grants, have become affiliated with Europe. All of them are directors of some institutes, centers, funds and are heralds of European values. It is amazing, but even those who painfully learned before our eyes to speak Ukrainian. True, they have not learned.
Often, under the pressure of irrefutable analytical arguments about the inevitable deterioration of Ukraine’s economic situation in the event of the signing of the Association Agreement with the EU, unshakable European integrators declare: “We are ready to tighten our belts, but we will have the chance to live in the civilized world, without corruption and rudeness that surround us now and from which we will not get rid of if we unite with Russia. There, after all, orders are no better than ours. ”
The first thesis about the tightening of the belts is simply immoral. After all, they know that they don’t have to tighten any belts. It will be necessary to tighten the belts to simple Ukrainians, who even today did not release them much. On the sovereign march, Ukraine lost about 7 million citizens. On the way to a “civilized Europe” demographic losses will be even greater. And it turns out that for the legalization of the political and economic elite of its European status, Ukraine will pay with the lives of millions of ordinary people.
As for the “corruption and rudeness”, I am afraid they will stay with us for a long time. After all, it is impossible to imagine that as soon as Viktor Yanukovych signs the association agreement in Vilnius, our former vices will disappear overnight. Why did it happen? From what will be a shame in front of Europeans, or from the fact that they force us not to steal? They will send their Baskas to us, as the Mongols used to be. And without external coercion we do it weakly? Essentially, the hope that Europe will ennoble us is nothing more than a recognition of our own inferiority. We cannot do it ourselves, but with the help of a European baton of civilization, maybe.
I do not cease to be disturbed by the fact that for the Ukrainian authorities, together with the opposition, integration into Europe is not just a political, but, it turns out, also a civilizational choice. Previously, it seemed to me that such statements stem from the fact that people who make them are elementarily illiterate. They do not understand that our civilization choice was made at the time of Kievan Rus by Vladimir Svyatoslavich. And this more than a thousand years.
Over time, however, I had to make sure that not everyone does not understand what they are talking about. Some politicians (especially from the camp of the nationalist opposition) very much understand. It was not by chance that we started talking about the conditional division of the Ukrainian church into Orthodoxy and Catholicism, since the baptism of Russia took place, we even before the division of Christianity into two branches. The idea that Orthodoxy turned out to be less progressive than Catholicism sounded quite distinctly. Some are convinced that if Vladimir had adopted Christianity from Rome, Ukraine would have long been in the family of the countries of the European West. At the same time in Kiev, on the left bank of the Dnieper, the cathedral of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is consecrated.
In essence, there is a gradual erosion of the Ukrainian civilization identity, people are taught to think that Ukraine is not an Orthodox country, but simply a Christian one with an equal presence in its spiritual life of various Christian denominations. In such conditions, the words “civilization choice” no longer seem to be something not quite meaningful and unreal. With the help of the authorities, the choice can really be corrected, as happened in 1596, when the efforts of the Polish authorities implemented the project of the Roman Catholic church of separation from the Orthodox Slavic continent of the Western Ukraine region. If it was possible then to do it with one part, then why today it is impossible to do the same with the whole of Ukraine? Here you have a new choice of civilization.
Surprisingly, this did not bother the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. At least no statements on this account from her followed. I mean the canonical church. As for the hierarchy of breakaway branches, it seems to have completely dissolved in the European choice and is in complete agreement with the statements of state leaders about its civilizational character. The vocabulary of some of the higher hierarchs of these churches is not at all distinguishable from the bureaucratic when they talk about European integration.
At one time I had to express the idea that Ukraine is constantly late and solves the problems of yesterday. Absolutized the factor of state independence, when in the conditions of globalization, independence becomes more and more conditional, tries to build a mono-national state, than the civilized world had had more pain in the XIX century, and, finally, seeks to integrate into Europe, which is no longer there.
It seems that domestic integrators do not know what is happening in Europe. Its present unity is inertial rather than real. It is cracking at the seams. It is torn apart by interstate contradictions. Mostly economic, but also political. Rich countries complain that they have to subsidize the poor from their budgets, and the latter, in their turn, are indignant at the fact that an unfair social austerity policy is being applied to them. Already today, the prospect of disintegration or a significant transformation of the European Union has become quite real. Some European politicians are of the opinion that, perhaps, it is time to form a single confederative state on the basis of the EU. Others believe that this is completely unrealizable dreams. The possibility of leaving the community of some states is also being discussed.
A great danger to European countries is a huge influx of migrants from Asia, the Muslim East and "black" Africa. Recently, the leaders of some countries have started talking about the crisis of so-called multiculturalism. In fact, they meant the collapse of European illusions about the possibility to cultivate and assimilate the millions of migrants who actively and musically assert Muslim civilizational values in Christian Europe. At the same time, the European dream did not come true with the help of migrants to replenish the labor market. It turned out that migrants flee their countries not because there is no work there, but because one can live in Europe without working. On social benefits.
And there is no one to complain to Europe, since it itself has created and continues to create this stalemate. Overcome by an obsession to make the rest of the world happy with the values of freedom and democracy, she (along with the United States) does not stop at the imposition of these values even through the use of military force. So consistently were "democratized" Afghanistan, Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt. Syria is next in line, where a civil war has been provoked by the West, and the threat of an American and NATO military invasion has become real. This is triggered by Europe through the uncontrolled resettlement of millions of “liberated from dictatorial tyranny” citizens. They are settled in all countries, since there are no internal borders in Europe.
It is possible that after the signing of the Association Agreement, Ukraine will also receive its quota for accepting migrants from Muslim countries. According to him, she will not have any European rights, duties alone. After all, politically, Ukraine is entirely included in the sphere of interests of the EU. Uneven hour, you have to join NATO.
The question arises: given the uncertain future of Europe itself, why should it involve Ukraine in this zone of instability? Are there really sincerely concerned about the best prospect for Ukrainians, as local political scientists and journalists assure us? Of course not.
Interest in Ukraine is more prosaic. The first and main goal of the West is to tear us away from Russia. This, according to Western ideologists, will be a guarantee of the impossibility of reviving a new empire in the post-Soviet space that would become a competitor to the empires of the United States and the EU. The second goal is to expand the market for their products, as well as get a significant reserve of labor. Europe has partially solved this problem after accepting the Baltic countries, Poland and the Balkan region. It is known how significant demographic losses they suffered after entering the EU. Remember how popular the plumber from Poland was in the Western media. Now, apparently, the finest hour will come for plumbing from Ukraine.
Of course, nothing is done without intent. Intra-European migrants to the West are incomparably more profitable than Asian-African ones. They do not cause virtually any headache in terms of so-called multiculturalism. In the worst case, the first generation will practice the principle of dual identity. In the second, they are already integrated into the European cultural context in which they will find themselves. At best, they will infuse fresh blood into a decrepit Western society that preaches such values (for example, homosexuality and same-sex marriages) that are not only incompatible with common sense, but also contrary to God's providence.
From Ukraine, the West expects to receive immeasurably more than it intends to give it. And is it going? Especially when you consider that he is not interested in the development of either Ukrainian industry or agricultural production. We are allowed to grow sunflower except to provide Europe with sunflower oil. But this will inevitably lead to the degradation of Ukrainian soils, the restoration of which will take decades. Moreover, when the united Europe falls apart, only Ukrainians will be involved in this.
When you observe the not very logical actions of the ruling political elite of Ukraine, it is not difficult to see that this elite is trying to stay in two chairs at once - the European political and Eurasian economic. And although for a long time he has received quite distinct signals about the unreality of such a dream, he continues to hope for something. It seems that even the “cold shower” of toughening of the customs control of Ukrainian goods by the Russians did not return them to the sinful land. Every now and then, phrases from the lips of high government officials are flashing that the association with Europe is not directed against Russia and should not become a reason for canceling its duty-free trade on the space of the CU countries.
This position can be understood. It is dictated by the realization that, despite the much larger capacity of the European market compared to the Eurasian market, there is no place for the sale of Ukrainian goods. This was recalled by the recent events with the prohibition of the importation of “roshenovskaya” sweet products into Russia. It would seem, why bother! Do not take in Russia, take in Europe. Pyotr Poroshenko himself tirelessly convinces the Ukrainian public in the benefits of European integration, arguing this among the vastness of the local market.
An interview with European Commissioner S. Füle in connection with the trade conflict between Russia and Ukraine can be very characteristic and, perhaps, instructive for us. Noting that the signing of an agreement with Ukraine is not directed against any of its neighbors, he then declared: “any pressure on Ukraine is not acceptable for the European Union.” And not a word that Ukraine should no longer fear any kind of “trade war” with Russia, since it can reorient its products to the European market. In order, they say, and integrated into Europe.
It seems that they do not believe that with the “departure of Ukraine from Russia”, as the Ukrainian journalists call the upcoming signing in Vilnius, a European golden rain will be shed on it, even the most violent European integrators. Some speak only about gaining some civilizational advantages, while others (like the World Congress of Ukrainians) even urge the European Parliament to condemn Moscow’s actions to limit the access of Ukrainian goods to the Russian market.
If the hopes of maintaining the duty-free trade participation of Ukraine in the Eurasian space can at least somehow be explained, then to assume that it will remain a strategic partner of Russia is complete madness. Political scientist V. Fesenko launched an angry tirade on the adviser to the president of Russia S. Glazyev because he ruled out the possibility of strategic allied relations between Russia and Ukraine in the event of signing the latest Association Agreement with the EU. This prompted the political scientist even to threats: “If Russia single-handedly refuses the previous agreements with Ukraine, we will also have to revise them, including the conditions of stay of the Russian fleet on the territory of Ukraine. "
Touches the second part of the phrase. It is formulated as if Mr. Fesenko is one of those who make such responsible decisions. Of course, there are only emotions. And if the political scientist calmly thought about it, he would not have seen anything unnatural, and even more offensive for Ukraine in the words of Glazyev. And does this have to be explained? Ukraine will not be able to remain a strategic partner not only because it will be unacceptable for Russia, but also because the European Union will not allow it to do so. Otherwise, what were the efforts to involve Ukraine in its political orbit?
Of course, Ukraine will not be able to marry and preserve innocence. Something will have to part with, and something to donate. That's just not to be miscalculated. And it is very similar that instead of two chairs, Ukraine will receive only the edge of one. True, the new civilization.
In conclusion of the November Act of signing the agreement in Vilnius. Both in Ukraine and in Europe they speak of him as about some kind of inevitability. Meanwhile, as the analysis of the content of the agreement by the legal services of the Communist Party of Ukraine showed, it cannot be signed. It contradicts a number of provisions of the Ukrainian Constitution. This was announced at a number of conferences and round tables, the materials of which were published. No denials followed. Neither the authorities nor the opposition. Everything is decided, according to their camps, and we have no time to enter into discussions.
It is amazing that he did not react at all to the presence of significant contradictions between the agreement and the Basic Law of Ukraine and the West: if this promises him a benefit, you can close your eyes to the legal side.
Do you think, gentlemen of European integrators, that it is at least dishonorable to do so?