Hovering around the couch
Thanks to the Ukrainian crisis in international politics, a new subject of politics has emerged - SOFA. It is the subject. Because it is difficult to call an object the one who captured an order of magnitude more people than all the parties to the conflict, taken together, and the one who has his own "couch troops" and "couch strategists". There are calls from all sides: “Get off the sofa, start to fight against ...” And then the listing of what you have to fight against. Or even more radical calls: “Come and die.” But most of them captivated by the sofa do not respond to these calls. And further accusations of cowardice, indifference, etc. follow. Why is this happening?
Because each of the parties to the conflict in Ukraine has two main problems:
1. The lack of an IDEA that the people understand that they want to build FOR THE PEOPLE.
2. The absence of a leader capable of leading the process of achieving this future and achieving unity among the current "leaders." This is not surprising in the absence of an IDEA.
Simply put: people will prefer to remain in the captivity of the sofa until they see FOR WHAT they fight, and the leader for whom they are ready to go.
This answer is so obvious that all sides of the Ukrainian conflict are trying to divert attention from him in every way. And quite successfully. Please note that in almost all appeals to “get off the couch,” there is a call to join the fight AGAINST something. AGAINST "taiga union" or "geyropy", AGAINST "fascists" or "separatists", AGAINST "Right Sector" or "Russian troops", etc. But most ordinary people prefer to fight not against something, but for something. For example, FOR an idea, FOR a bright future, etc. Even the Russian language itself suggests: they do not say “die against something”, say “die for something”. And that's fine. Because it is human nature to be creative. After all, after the fight AGAINST the ruins. After that, the question still arises: “What are we going to build on this place”? That is, "FOR WHAT, in fact, we fought"? Therefore, people subconsciously strive to initially have an idea “FOR WHAT TO FIGHT” in order not to slip into the war of “all against all”.
And here all sides of the conflict begin big problems. To formulate an idea, FOR WHAT one must go die, no one succeeds. “Pro-European” forces are agitating for joining the European Union, “pro-Russian” for joining Russia. At the same time, none of them are embarrassed that the EU is not yet ready to offer Ukraine the prospect of membership in the union (as stated by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso), and Russia is not going to join the south-east of Ukraine (as stated by Russian President Vladimir Putin). As a result, we have a wild picture: the Slavs kill each other - one for Europe (which says that they do not need it), and others for Russia (which also says that they do not need it).
And for the sake of participation in this idiocy, it is proposed to “get off the couch and go die”?
Ukrainians are constantly being told about the “European” future from all sides. Even if what they say is nonsense, but it is told persistently and for a long time, then this nonsense gradually penetrates people's brains (try to communicate with such “victims of the TV”). At the same time, the “pro-European” propaganda does not focus on the fact that “for Europe” we must go to war and die. The emphasis is on all sorts of quite “sofa” actions: transfer money somewhere, send SMS, go to wave a flag, etc. That is, the majority had the persistent feeling that you can move to Europe right on the couch. Like Emelya on the stove. Simple clear dream, sung in folk tales.
About the future of the South-East "pro-Russian" forces are somehow deafly silent. The initial cry “for joining Russia” was skillfully kicked off by Russia itself. And now the “pro-Russian” forces are trying to create several projects at once: “DNR”, “LNR”, and “Novorossiya”. That speaks about the lack of unity of "pro-Russian" forces, a plan of action and systematic assistance from Russia.
Accordingly, the IDEA regarding the arrangement of the Southeast is also incomprehensible. For example, it appeared on the Internet that Strelkov was a monarchist. That's interesting: how does he see the future of "people's" republics? What does the word “popular” mean in the name of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics? That the prevailing form of ownership will be public, and private will be allowed and tightly controlled? Or the fact that the people will again be given a toy called "elections", and let it be played while the rich uncles solve their problems? What will happen to the oligarchs? What will happen to the banks? Gubarev on the Internet announced the abolition of loan interest and the nationalization of enterprises. Whether this is his personal fantasies or is it public policy is not known. And a lot of unanswered questions. Just right to remind historical example: the first acts of the Bolsheviks were not a constitution, but decrees on peace and on land. The effect of these decrees was much greater than that of public disputes in the DPR - “privatize Akhmetov” or “respect private property”.
Meanwhile, the fighting intensifies, the number of victims increases. That is, there is a tough struggle FOR SOMETHING NOT AFFILIATED. And if no one tells the people, FOR WHAT FUTURE is the struggle, then this means that this future is not for the people. It seems that these are some kind of games of transnational corporations, special services, politicians, etc.
And at the same time the people are called to fight for this strange future ...
As for the leader, he is not on either side.
On the part of Ukraine, all the “leaders” have long been known to be flaky, so there is no point in wasting time discussing them. We can only say that they all have one thing in common, which will never give them the opportunity to become people's leaders. This is their value system, where personal enrichment comes first. And Ukraine, as a state, God forbid, to the second. Well, the Ukrainian people in this value system may be absent altogether.
On the part of the LPR, the DPR and Novorossia, the “leaders” are mostly new faces in politics, and little is still known about them.
The most “not new” and the most famous of them is Tsarev. To put it mildly, neither a speaker nor a thinker. In Dnepropetrovsk, he is well remembered by land deriban in the city and region. His business qualities can be judged at least by the fact that since his election as “head of state of Novorossia”, no of his decisions have been announced. Neither the organ nor the official website of the state has been created. How is the “head of state” going to inform his citizens about something? And the fact that the “head” of a belligerent state does not indulge his visits either by the militias or their commanders, also looks strange. Apparently, neither with them, nor with the leadership of the LC and the DPR, nor with Gubarev, does he add up. What then is he the head of? .. One can say that Tsarev is quite suitable to discredit and ruin the idea of New Russia. Potentially, this is Yanukovych №2.
"People's Governor" Gubarev is the leader of the political movement "Novorossiya". Even Wikipedia doesn't know what it is. What he controls and who considers him to be their leader is not known.
Pushilin is famous for his statements, from which even the supporters of the DPR flinch. Now he nationalizes the good of Akhmetov, then he goes over to Russian legislation. His resignation is quite expected. As well as the kind words about him from Tsarev.
About Bolotov known even less.
“Muscovites” stand separately: Strelkov, Borodai, etc. In their behavior, capital arrogance towards the local “leaders” and the local population is already beginning to show through. Suffice it to recall two episodes, videos of which you can easily find on the Internet:
1. At one of the press conferences, Boroday so excitedly began to tell that no one called Gubarev and called him in any way, that Strelkov could not even stand it and asked not to disavow Gubarev at all, as he appointed him head of the mobilization department. “Oh, yes! ..” - Boroday and Strelkov were smiling at each other, demonstrating that in reality they were big uncles, warmed by an orphan.
2. At the end of the first “consultation” with Kuchma and Medvedchuk, when everyone had already risen, and Tsarev decided to say a few words in thanks to the participants, it was very clearly visible how the Beard companions defiantly turn their backs and leave against the background of the Tsarev speaker. Probably, the spin doctor has forgotten that you should not show disagreements between your people on camera, even if they exist.
And what kind of political strategist who does not appreciate the local cadres and is not trying to unleash the already ready local “leader”, and instead he is trying to become leaders? Tired of making rulers? Wanted to "reign"? Maybe for sobering it is necessary to remind that the beautiful word "political technologist" is translated into Russian as "an expert on brain-shaking the population"?
By the way, Premier LNR Basharov is also a Russian political consultant.
And it turns out that the Slavs from the "people's republics" under the leadership of the Russian "specialists in brain shaking" are fighting with other Slavs, who are led by Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk Jews.
Shooters and others often complain that the people are not in a hurry to join them in the militia. There is no popular war. And it will not work until they start talking with the people about their future, until the people see themselves in this future, until the people see that words do not diverge from their deeds. But so far everything goes to the fact that the people will soon get tired of this strange war of “Moscow” with “Dnepro-Kiev” and say in Shakespeare: “A plague on both your houses!” Then the “Batka” will start to appear, the gang of “green” (not environmentalists), and chaos will begin. From which, perhaps, a new people's leader will emerge with an idea that is understandable to the people, which the “brainwashing specialists” could not give birth to.
What is happening in Ukraine is a tragedy for all Slavs. But an attempt to solve the Ukrainian problem with unsuitable means, an attempt to “fish in troubled waters, is a shot into the future of the entire Slavic world. A shot at our children and grandchildren.
It is necessary to speak directly and clearly to the people, FOR WHAT the Southeast is fighting. Not only in order to explain, but also for current “leaders” to publicly commit themselves. What future do they undertake to build? The people should see every day how the “leader” keeps his word. And so that the "leader" could not start telling that he "did not say that".
The distinctive features of a national leader are the ability to publicly take on clear and unequivocal obligations towards the future of the people, and the ability to achieve their fulfillment. Will current “leaders” grow up to this?
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.