Military Review

Striving for national unity

The American government is confident that people are happy if the government gives them the right to life, freedom, and allows them to strive for happiness, subject to the consent of the electorate "to vote for idlers." Publicist Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry writes about this, adding that the government forgets: people want more and more awareness of national status, they want statehood. On the example of what is happening in Ukraine, this is especially clearly seen.

Striving for national unity

Pascal Emmanuel Gobry is an entrepreneur and writer from Paris. He writes for various popular publications: Forbes, The Atlantic, Commentary Magazine, The Daily Beast, The Federalist, Quartz and many others. 29 August his article on the Russian-Ukrainian issue was published in "The Week".

Already in the title, the central idea of ​​the essay comes through: the West must cede the east of Ukraine to Russia.

As Gobry points out, Putin’s Russia "seems to have finally launched its real invasion of Ukraine." Therefore, many “rightly outraged American lawmakers”, the author ironically, will certainly be ready to “stop Russia” (but “not at any cost”). Ukraine, the journalist writes with even greater irony, is “a sovereign state, and the invasion of sovereign countries is bad (unless you are the United States)”.

However, here, the journalist believes, the main thing is missing. The United States is blind to the issue of national status (nationhood), he said. In the US, it seems accepted to think that as long as people have access to “life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness,” which the government gives them (“and at the same time low taxes and the ability to vote for idlers”), they are “happy ". In fact, people want something else from their government: statehood.

This concept is quite complicated. Every nation defines it for itself, and often “implicitly,” the author believes. For some countries, statehood is closely intertwined with ethnicity. Other countries associate it with the territory. Others focus on language, culture and history. Most of the countries, the journalist continues, conclude in this notion a “mysterious combination” of all the listed elements. And here the author notes that the USA is almost the only country that believes (at least officially) that its statehood is fundamentally determined by a “set of legal norms”.

Meanwhile, Gobry says, peoples have a soul, desires, fears and want unity. That is why Charles de Gaulle never mentioned the name "Soviet Union", but said: "Russia". He believed that the Politburo did not adhere to a real communist ideology, but rather acted on national interests. As for Stalin, he did only what Peter the Great would have done in similar circumstances.

American blindness in the important issue of statehood has created a catastrophe in the form of war in Iraq. The problem with the American government is that Iraq has never been a nation. The Iraqis were not happy to receive "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," because they were not one people. Iraqis are an “agglomeration of nations” and a religious mixture of Sunnis and Shiites. And there are also Kurds. Now, many people understand that Iraq is a kind of state fiction, but in fact a free "confederation of autonomous Kurdish areas, as well as Sunni and Shiite enclaves." It took ten years for the US government to shed Iraqi blood to finally learn this basic historical rule, the author writes.

All this brings us to Ukraine, the journalist continues. “Ukraine is a nation?” He asks. Well, yes, there is such a nation, he answers himself (although, somehow, hesitantly). But the problem (“as it often happens in Eastern Europe”) is that “although there is a Ukrainian nation, the borders of the state of Ukraine do not coincide with it”. The journalist is in a hurry to add that this, of course, is a “gross simplification.”

He lays out Ukrainian solitaire like this: the inhabitants of the western part of the country are largely “Ukrainophones” (and not Russian-speaking), they are pro-European and pro-Western-minded people. Ukrainians from the eastern part of the country are mostly Russian-speaking and pro-Russian. The Crimea peninsula has historically been a part of Russia (since the 18th century, the journalist reminds) and was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev (Kruschchev), which was "a completely symbolic gesture, since Ukraine was under the control of the Soviet Union." “The election of Viktor Yanukovych as president in 2010,” writes Gobry, “proves that Russophilism has real popular support in Ukraine and is not organized by Moscow’s machinations.”

The “Ukrainian crisis” the West has been observing for ten years now - since the Orange Revolution 2004. And every winter the battle is “flared up” because of the gas issue. In fact, there is a broad national struggle: two people are fighting among themselves, being in the same team, in one state, and each people are pulling the cart towards one of the two main blocks of the European continent.

As for the USA and the EU, they have shown incompetence over this decade, the author gently notes. If they were competent, the EU and NATO would create their institutions in Ukraine so that they could resist Russia, or at least they could tie Ukraine to the Western bloc. But now it's too late.

Just like in Iraq, this crisis will continue for another decade or more. It will continue until its cause is eliminated. Ukraine today is a “two-nation-in-one-state”. Many Ukrainians feel Russia as their home, and many want their country to become part of the Euro-American West.

What conclusion does the publicist make?

The answer is clear, says Gobry. The West must come to an agreement with Russia, as a result of which Ukraine will be divided into two parts. Russian-speaking areas will join Russia. And this is not at all a “concession for fear of Russia,” since “many in the Kremlin” would not want such a deal. After all, the entry of even the “remnant” of Ukraine into NATO will mean the end of Russia's ambitions beyond its state (at least in the foreseeable future), and Russian politicians are very keen to have a “buffer” between Russia and the NATO countries.

The best offers, the journalist summarizes, are those in which “both parties get more than they expected.” True, for this and have to give more than provided. Therefore, a solution of this kind would be difficult for Washington, Brussels, Kiev and Moscow.

Recall in conclusion that many analysts and political analysts had previously spoken about the split scenario into two parts of Ukraine. However, the United States, the European Union and “official Kiev” invariably declared the “territorial integrity” of Ukraine and the inadmissibility of encroachments on its sovereignty, and Kiev politicians have not yet retreated from the idea of ​​“returning Crimea”. Western sanctions against Russia are a complete contradiction of the idea voiced by the writer from Paris.

Observed and translated by Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for
Photos used:

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vend
    Vend 3 September 2014 09: 40
    The preparation for the section begins. It is logical and predictable.
    1. Imperialkolorad
      Imperialkolorad 3 September 2014 09: 47
      You will see, as with Poland, sections 2 and 3.
  2. Karlsonn
    Karlsonn 3 September 2014 09: 41
    Thanks Oleg for the article, it seems they are beginning to suspect something.

    Top of Saur Graves. (Clickable)
    1. Mart
      3 September 2014 09: 45
      Quote: Karlsonn
      Thanks Oleg for the article, it seems they are beginning to suspect something.

      Hi, buddy Alex! Tomorrow there will be more material about Ukraine and the West. About insights and suspicions ...
      1. Karlsonn
        Karlsonn 3 September 2014 11: 59
        Quote: Mart
        Hi buddy Alexey!

        Greetings! hi As always, I look forward to it. drinks

        1-th September Ukraine, 1-th lesson in the temporarily occupied territories.

        1. IAlex
          IAlex 3 September 2014 17: 19
          Now the fingerprints of the SBU will establish the identities of these two Putin who are GRU colonels who invaded the territory of occupied Ukraine ...
  3. Fear
    Fear 3 September 2014 09: 41
    in November, I came across this video! Scenario - Be!
  4. air wolf
    air wolf 3 September 2014 09: 46
    Only Odessa and our Moldova should not be forgotten! And everything will be a bunch and this "fucking" bridge will not be needed.
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 3 September 2014 09: 56
    The answer is clear, says Gobri. The West must come to an agreement with Russia, as a result of which Ukraine will be divided into two parts.
    ..And if possible immediately, but not in parts.
    - Maybe you still take parts? asked the vengeful Balaganov. Ostap carefully looked at the interlocutor and answered quite seriously:
    - I would take it in parts. But I need to immediately. Balaganov wanted to joke about this phrase, but, raising his eyes to Ostap, immediately stopped short.
    I. Ilf, E. Petrov. Golden calf
  6. Snoop
    Snoop 3 September 2014 10: 31
    The West may go to the partition of Ukraine in connection with the success of the army of New Russia. But will Moscow do that?)
  7. KBR109
    KBR109 3 September 2014 11: 45
    If the section takes place in reality, then Kiev will not have a place on the political map.
  8. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 3 September 2014 12: 19
    Well, yes, as it was supposed at the very beginning, that Ukraine will be divided into several pieces, and what will not even be predicted by Wange later. This was achieved by the scum oligarchs and allowed by the stupid presidents of Ukraine with the help of the bloodthirsty West.
  9. aszzz888
    aszzz888 3 September 2014 12: 46
    Interestingly, what will they do with Catalonia, which will leave Spain in the spring of 2015?
    That same will bomb, in the American democratic order throughout the world?
    1. Edvagan
      Edvagan 3 September 2014 14: 10
      burn protesting Catalans in the cathedral of Grand Familia
  10. A1L9E4K9S
    A1L9E4K9S 3 September 2014 13: 12
    And Russian politicians just want to have Ukraine as a buffer between NATO and Russia.

    No, Russia wants to have a buffer on one side of the English Channel, on the other hand the state of Canada, that’s more true.
  11. Serafimov
    Serafimov 3 September 2014 13: 40
    To drive away all the non-whale wake-potreots to the Lviv region. Derive everything valuable from there: industry, specialists, equipment. Give Lviv to Poland, they will only be glad, they will not notice the catch. When the patient has a rotted leg, the doctor does not kill the patient, the doctor cuts off the leg.
  12. Wladimir71
    Wladimir71 3 September 2014 19: 43
    Blood will continue to pour, this war is very beneficial for NATO. Namely the dollar. New weapons, development grants, new strategies and plans, exercises. All these are goods with the highest added value, and most importantly there is a reason. Europe needs to make an offer that it cannot refuse, gas to those who do not have NATO bases. TOOKO friends. Who has the base is drowned from them. Otherwise, we kirdyk.
    Economics is energy, as if to strangle the economies of NATO countries and breathe, the defense then draws our resources.
    1. 225chay
      225chay 4 September 2014 06: 55
      Quote: Wladimir71
      Blood will continue to pour, this war is very beneficial for NATO.

      Moreover, it has long been planned by the "Committee of 300" with the aim of partition and subsequent destruction of Russia