The future of Ukraine and Russia
Ukraine in the modern historical format will not be. Then what will happen? Let us think about it, but first - that there is Ukraine for Russia.
The expert and political community of Russia has a firm conviction that without Ukraine our country will be weak and weak. In addition, we were convinced of this, we were accustomed to this by Bismarck, Hitler, Brzezinski and many other foreign authorities. I myself believed in it. We somehow got used to think that once a Ukrainian means a friend and brother. But if the Kazakh, Kirghiz or Tatar - this is already something more distant, different from the Russians. But if we carefully analyze the processes in the Eurasian space over the past quarter century, then we, perhaps, will come to completely different conclusions.
Who made a decisive contribution to the destruction of the USSR? No, not Balts, without them, and even without Georgia, the Union would have lived and prospered. Powerful mine under the foundation of the USSR laid M. Gorbachev with his henchmen and, concurrently, agents of the Western special services, A. Yakovlev and E. Shevardnadze. They sowed doubts about the righteousness of the existence of the world socialist system, as the antipode of the unlimited power of capital, discredited the great achievements and great friendship of the peoples of the USSR, ideologically disarmed the CPSU and society. It was Gorbachev who dragged the Soviet Union from an independent path of development, promising and crisis-free, to the fawning on the West. That later, and recognized publicly. With their mindless restructuring and criticism of the Soviet system, they shattered the foundations of a single state. Under the banner of democracy, replacing the priority of the rights of the people with the slogan about the priority of the rights of an individual and national minorities, Gorbachev and his ilk launched the process of destroying a powerful and unique power. And under these slogans, extreme nationalism, separatism, and fascism began to revive, which was immediately used and financed by foreign special services. Ukraine flinch one of the first. In the republic, as a virus, the idea of independence from Moscow began to spread. Yeltsin precisely took allies for the collapse of the USSR leader of Ukraine Kravchuk. Because he was convinced that Ukraine is the main ally of Russia, more significant than all the other Soviet republics. And Kravchuk relied on the all-Ukrainian referendum on 1991, in which the majority of residents voted for “independence”. But not one of the Central Asian nations voted for secession from the USSR. And N.A. Nazarbayev, I.A. Karimov, A.A. Akaev, until the last, fought to preserve the Union in an updated version. And after the collapse of a great power, it was the Asians-Presidents who did everything possible not to run away in national apartments. N.Nazarbayev already in 1993 began to talk about the need for the Eurasian Union, proposed its scientifically-based project. The Ukrainian president, however, did his best to disperse as far as possible from each other. I testify this as an official present at all meetings of the Council of Heads of State of the CIS countries up to the 2002 year. If it were not for Nazarbayev and Karimov, the CIS would collapse another 20 March 1992. At the meeting of the heads of state in Kiev, Kravchuk, accompanied by the Westerners screaming under the windows, suggested that the first issue be considered redistribution of the gold reserves and the diamond fund of Russia. Yeltsin did not object to putting this issue on the agenda, but said that the Russian delegation would not participate in its discussion. Then Kravchuk proposed to dissolve the CIS. Belarusian Shushkevich, Moldovan Snegur did not object to this. The others were silent. And only the diplomatic art of the chairman IA Karimov, the strategic vision and perseverance of N.Nazarbayev saved the situation. But, nevertheless, Ukraine consistently pursued a course towards the disintegration of the post-Soviet space. The leadership of Ukraine did not allow the creation of the Commonwealth Joint Armed Forces, the Unified Air Defense System, an effective collective security system of the CIS, a common economic space, the Bank of the CIS, but in general, launch closer integration processes in the post-Soviet space. Practically for all integration programs, the Ukrainian presidents and their representatives had a special opinion, and it consisted, as a rule, in a jealous attitude to any Russian integration initiative, in suspicion that Moscow wants to restrict the independence of Ukraine. The Ukrainian side was actively working on the Charter of the CIS, depleting from it all the positions politically binding the post-Soviet space. The same for other basic documents. The Russian leadership for the sake of keeping Ukraine in the field of friendship and influence, agreed with most of the positions of Kiev. But the project prepared with regard to the Ukrainian proposals, Kiev, as a rule, did not sign. Moreover, the Ukrainian leadership initiated the creation of the anti-Russian association GUUAM (Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova) as opposed to the CIS and the CSTO.
Recall the Chechen events. On the territory of Ukraine, primarily in the Crimea, camps were set up for the training and rest of Chechen fighters, Ukrainian Nazis participated in military operations against federal forces, displaying particular cruelty to Russian soldiers. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) didn’t notice this. August 2008. Georgia attacks South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers. Armed with Georgian forces - modernized Ukrainian Tanks, anti-tank grenade launchers, anti-aircraft missile systems. As a result, the deaths of Russian guys, civilians, the loss of several aircraft, etc. The Verkhovna Rada and the prosecutor's office in these actions did not reveal anything bad, unfriendly, and even less so anti-Russian. I have heard more than once at international forums the position of Ukrainian diplomats and politicians, not at all friendly, but rather hostile to Russia and the Russians. But how many nasty things did our Ukrainian brothers do during perestroika and, especially, during the “independent” years? Older times are better not to remember. And before the Pereyaslav Rada, and after it, not all Ukrainians welcomed the entry into Russia, many fought against it, conducted subversive activities. The same mazeps, vygovskys, loops, bandera pass through the whole Russian history. Of all the peoples of the Russian Empire and the USSR, perhaps, Ukraine gave us the most problems. Especially in terms of unity. And as soon as Russia as a state weakened, it was Ukraine that was the first to come out of it. And in order to persuade her to remain in the composition of a single state, we always gave her something: Russian territories, millions of Russian people (V. Putin: like a sack of potatoes), provided various kinds of preferences and benefits. That is, they bought loyalty and hoped that, finally, the Ukrainians would become brothers. But they did not become, or became for a short time and immediately began an anti-Russian intrigue. The Russian side really was brotherly towards all residents of Ukraine. Often at the expense of themselves. Take at least Pereyaslavskaya Rada. The attitude of the Russian tsar to B. Khmelnitsky was generous and truly fraternal: “The relations between Russia and the Hetman’s after the decisions taken at the Pereyaslav Rada cannot be described as vassal,” writes the Ukrainian historian B.N. Floria. “On the contrary, the prerequisites for fraternization and equality were laid. According to a number of chartered letters, the Russian tsar was granted a large amount of rights for the Ukrainian army, clergy, court.” (Florya B.N. Pereyaslavskaya is pleased with 1654 and its place in the history of Ukraine // Belarus and Ukraine: history and culture: yearbook / Institute of Slavic Studies. - M., Nauka, 2004. P. 423). But the heirs and followers of B. Khmelnitsky again continued the intrigue about "independence". From western Ukraine (although such a term did not yet exist - LI), a wave of Catholicism rolled eastward. Already in the beginning of the 18th century, the western part of Ukraine was finally transferred to the union with Rome. During the Great Patriotic War, the most massive betrayal among the population of the USSR was also in Ukraine, and Bandera fought against the Soviet troops for ten years longer than the Germans.
Today, it is also not worthwhile to build illusions that a handful of Bandera people stirred up the Ukrainian people and seized power in Kiev, and the overwhelming majority of the population for a great friendship with Russia and almost for joining it. This is far from the case: the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian population is against Russia, against the return of the Crimea to its composition, against Putin. This is not a fantasy, it is a reality. Even in the pro-Russian Poltava, it would seem that the population voluntarily digs trenches and trenches to defend against the “Muscovites”, and the reserve officers massively voluntarily enroll for service in the new army and the National Guard under, calling this process “anti-Putin appeal.”
And now let's think about the meaning of the phrases of O. von Bismarck. Of course, this is the natural desire of the Germans (and not only) to tear Russia to pieces. But the installation “to find and cultivate traitors among the elite” is far from worthy of any country. They do not say that about Belarus and its elite. And the contemptuous word "moskal" is not in use by any nation that was part of the Russian Empire and the USSR. But in Ukraine such an “elite” was found at all times. It means that something deep-seated anti-Russian has been laid, which does not recognize cultural-civilizational kinship with Orthodoxy and Russianness.
Let us quote another historical document - the US National Security Council Directive 20 / 1 of August 18 1948, which is a strategic plan for the destruction of the USSR. Ukraine and here, like Bismarck and Hitler, play the main role in the operation to destroy big Russia (USSR):
"Ukraine has no clear ethnic or geographical framework. Now the population of Ukraine, which mainly consists of people fleeing from Russian or Polish despotism, is quietly dissolved among the same Russians and Poles. There is no clear border between Russians and Ukrainians, and its not possible. Cities on the territory of Ukraine were mostly Russian or Jewish. So the basis of a sense of national identity is a sense of "difference" ....
This feeling of "otlichiya", Ukrainian peculiarity and is manifested in Ukrainian politics of all kinds and levels. And not only in relation to Russia, but also to its own citizens, even those who have 100% of Ukrainian blood, but are Orthodox or not suffering from the syndrome of Nazism. So talking about a single Ukrainian nation, apparently not entirely correct. The national is based on a common language, culture, religion, territory of residence, goal-setting of a common destiny. In Ukraine, at least two cultural - civilization matrices are actively present. One is Orthodox Slavic, identical to Russian civilization, feeling itself a part of Russia-Eurasia. And these are really our brothers, with whom it is possible and necessary to build a common spiritual, political and economic space. Russia is the geopolitical center of Eurasia, and its future is not in the West, but in the Eurasian Union. But are Ukrainians ready to become Eurasians? Perhaps, besides Donbass and Lugansk, no other region of Ukraine in the Eurasian direction is yet unfolding. It will require brutal violence from the Kiev-Bandera junta, poverty and hunger, with complete indifference from the same-sex governments of Europe, the dictatorial arrogance of the United States, before the south and east of Ukraine turn to Eurasia. N.S.Trubetskoy on the same occasion stated: "Every citizen of a Eurasian state must realize not only that he belongs to such a people, but also that this same people belongs to a Eurasian nation." (Trubetskoy NS On true and false nationalism. / / The legacy of Genghis Khan //. Sofia, 1921).
Today, the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians do not associate themselves with either Asia or Eurasia, Europe is closer to them, Russia is also close, but as part of Europe. They can be designated as the heirs of Kievan Rus, they are people of high culture, people are basically Orthodox. In this environment, the sense of Ukrainian nationalism, of the Ukrainian individuality, is strongly developed, which, given their moderate manifestation, is quite normal, because there can be no nations without nationalism. But they want to be "independent" from Russia and from Europe. For Russians, they become brothers during a war, when they are involved in big ambitious projects, when Russia thrives in its development, when crisis or fascism is rampant in Europe. Unfortunately, today we do not have large-scale joint projects; Russia is far from an example of prosperity; Fortunately, there is no exterminatory war. And we need to take this geopolitical factor into account in our policy. In Ukraine, there is also a third matrix - this is the limitrop. Like the Balts, the Poles, the Georgians, etc. What is a limitrop? This is the absence of a clear cultural and civilizational self-identification, a semi-culture, when the values of other cultures, incompatible with the national value scale, are strongly interwoven into the national culture. Or values are replaced by the interests of elites. Moreover, the external "values" are the "values" of the occupiers: cruelty, violence, merciless exploitation, robbery. So, in limitrofs, there is always inconsistency in political orientation, the manifestation of a surrogate for different cultures, or the absence of culture as such. True, in my opinion, this moment was noticed by GV from Europe. Vernadsky: “On the contrary, the influence of the West was at this time (the period of Kievan Rus — LI) in many ways degrading and weakening. there is political order and calm, reinforcing elements of strife and instability. " (Vernadsky GV Experience of the history of Eurasia. Links of Russian culture. // M., Association of scientific publications KMK. 2005, p. 115). With the next change of political orientations, in order to earn the trust of a new “chosen one”, hostility, extraordinary cruelty, rejection of even advantageous cooperation is manifested in relation to the former. We clearly observed this during the Great Patriotic War: the Baltic and Ukrainian Nazis acted against the Soviet troops and civilians of their own countries more cruelly than the German fascists. To curry favor and prove his lackey loyalty. We see the same thing in today's Ukraine. The junta, which seized power in Kiev, unquestioningly submits to any American and European nonentities.
What is the future of Ukraine? It has never been, and never will be, because the territorial integrity is determined, first of all, by the cultural and civilization unity and the common value scale of the peoples living in it. Therefore, the process launched by the Maidan is a process of gradual disengagement of the Ukrainian population and territories.
According to the results of the referendum in the Donbass and Lugansk, the "divorce proceedings" of these areas with the Kiev Maidan and the procedure for reunification with the Russian Federation will begin. But not in the Crimean, but rather in the Abkhaz variant, i.e. through the proclamation of independence. And only then (1 – 2 of the year) - a new referendum on joining the Russian Federation on the Crimean variant. And Russia is obliged to support this process in every way, because it is the return to the homeland of their sons, who were once devotees by it. This is our holy duty and redemption of guilt. Other areas will wish to follow this example, but due to internal contradictions within the regions, as well as the efforts of Kiev and the West to curb the Crimean syndrome, there will be no chain reaction. Having received relative autonomy and promises, other southeastern regions will temporarily calm down before the onset of a new phase.
The next stage: a new rebellious wave can occur not only in the South and East of Ukraine, but primarily in the West, along the conditional line of the Orthodox-Catholic border and end with heavy protest actions, and probably with new referendums. The basis may be confessional disputes, repressive measures of the new authorities, a sharp decline in living standards against the background of the positive achievements of the Crimea, Donbas and Lugansk. It does not exclude the introduction of a limited contingent of NATO troops, which will calm the situation for a while.
The third stage: Ukraine - the Federal State. Three or four republics. West - with the capital in Lviv, Center - with the capital in Kiev, East - with the capital in Kharkov, South - with Dnepropetrovsk.
And with NATO troops on the Dnieper.
Possible nuances. For example, not federalization, but the complete independence of the above-mentioned subjects due to the complete economic collapse and internal hostility of the oligarchy who seized power in federal subjects. And then a part of the “independent” states can turn towards unity with Russia in the form of a “union state”. This requires the powerful multi-dimensional work of Russian state institutions and public organizations. One of the likely scenarios would be to squeeze out the “gad-bit zapadentsev” together with the capital Lvov, from the “Square” and the subsequent acquisition of western territories by European applicants, Poland in the first place.
Such are the geopolitical realities, you need to be ready for them, and most importantly - to force the construction of the Eurasian Union. Without Ukraine. Bismarck was also wrong many times.
Information