Split
Recently it has become difficult to write about Russian politics. And about the economy too. It has always been difficult, but now doubly difficult.
The reason is in Ukraine.
Society is highly polarized. Russian society.
It would seem that we, on the contrary, should have rallied under the influence of an external threat in the person of the West, which carried out the political seizure of Ukraine and provoked a war on historical Russian land with the participation of Russians and Ukrainians.
Against this threat, we must stand together.
But ...
There is a split.
The split occurs at once on several issues. Should Russia intervene in the situation, should it fight for Novorossia or for the whole of Ukraine, by what means do it, enter or not. And in the end, the main question - merged or not merged ...
To intervene or not?
Some believe that Russia should participate in the solution of the Ukrainian question. Because many Russians live there. And the Ukrainians themselves are not all supported Maidan. And also because Russia needs order in the border area. And also because there are Russian interests there, in particular the gas pipe. Arguments and their order may vary, only a part is shown here.
Others believe that the residents of Ukraine 23 voted for independence a year ago and now have to solve all the issues themselves. If you help - still will not thank. Extra care. Excess burden. It comes to the point that even Russians on the territory of Ukraine are called “unreal”. Very controversial statement, but it is.
New Russia or Ukraine?
Some believe that the creation of Novorossia as a Russian national state should be supported, and Ukraine should be released on all four sides. Rather send. To go to Europe, if you accept, to live as you like, with Bandera and gay parades, if they of course get along with each other.
Others consider that it is necessary to take Ukraine entirely. Not everyone knows how to do this, even approximately, but at a fundamental level there is such an opinion.
To enter or not to enter.
The question has somewhat lost relevance after the August offensive of the militias. Now there are enough local fighters without Russian troops. However, in spite of everything, time after time appeals to support Novorossia lead to long disputes about whether or not to introduce.
A variety of such disputes - whether or not Russian troops fought in the Donbass, whether they participated in the August offensive or not.
Who was the Strelkov.
This is another topic of controversy, where some argue that Strelkov was an agent of the Kremlin, while others argue that he acted in the interests of other forces. Strelkov’s exit from Slavyansk and his subsequent resignation is another subject of controversy.
Leaked or not leaked.
This is the main and most pressing issue. And many of the disputes listed above somehow lead to it.
The dispute is divided into two aspects:
1. Should Russia sacrifice its interests, spoil relations with the West, risk military personnel, spend money, and so on, on Ukraine, Novorossia and its interests there. Sometimes it denotes the dilemma "140 of millions of Russian citizens against 7 of millions of Donbass residents". In this aspect, supporters of the option "should not" adhere to the opinion that "if merged, it means it is necessary" and thus try to close the question.
2. Do the Russian authorities and in particular the President act correctly? In this aspect, the most heated dispute. Here, any arguments are used, and when they end, conjectures are introduced into the dispute, such as the “cunning plan”, which can neither be confirmed nor disproved by any arguments, because they are based only on faith. There are holivary in the truest sense of the dispute. Sacred wars, in which everything is given to the faithful and the unfaithful, believers in the BCP and heretics.
Disputes about Ukraine and the actions of the Russian authorities to address the crisis actually result in a dispute about the trust of the Russian authorities and the President. That is why they cause such a sharp controversy.
The question “leaked or not leaked” is actually a question of trust.
The answer “merged” essentially leads to the conclusion “but the president is not ours after all” or to a more moderate variant “and the president is no longer the same”. By and large, this is a vote of no confidence. Popular impeachment.
The answer is "not leaked" - on the contrary, a vote of confidence. Let it work further. No need to interfere. The President knows best. He has a plan.
Compromises are almost impossible here. Everyone takes one of the parties and is ready to argue to the bitter end. With and without arguments. As already mentioned, reaching a cunning plan, the dispute about which turns into a holivar between believers and heretics and does not end with anything.
And this controversy has lately been kept in mind. Even those who are not involved in the verbal battles, but just from the side watching them.
Perhaps that is why any question about Russian politics and economics is caused by the same sharp holivars as the debate on the subject of "leaked or not leaked". Because any topic of the dispute - economic growth, debt, inflation, corruption - anything, causes background issues -
So still merged or not merged?
Our president or not ours?
For the Russian or for what?
Leaked or not leaked Novorossia?
Has it merged or not merged Ukraine?
Has it merged or not merged Russia?
There is a dispute over the issue whose interests the president is protecting.
Who is he - a defender or a traitor, a liberal or a patriot.
And considering that the question of Ukraine and Novorossia is for many a strategic question, a question of protecting national interests, a question of protecting Russians and Russia - the answer is “not ours” means that the president needs to be changed. And the answer "our" means to leave and protect from attacks.
And in a dispute on such an important issue, at a historical moment for the country - figuratively speaking, all words are good.
But the main thing is different.
Russian society is highly polarized. Divided into two camps. And the reason is in Ukraine. This means that Washington has already completed the minimum program.
American political consultants know their business, it must be admitted. They split Russians and Ukrainians. They split society within Russia.
And now only the president himself can eliminate this split. Because on the Internet or in the kitchens, we do not agree on anything. Any arguments will lead to a dispute "merged or not merged" and further to the theory of the cunning plan and holivar, going to infinity.
Only the president with his decisive actions in Ukraine, the resolute support of Novorossia can prove that "no, he did not merge."
But if New Russia is still not needed, if Ukraine should remain united and indivisible and controlled by Washington, only the president can explain why Russia needs it and why everything is being done that way.
But he does not explain.
So far, the last policy statement was his speech after the annexation of the Crimea, where they spoke about the largest divided people and support of the Russians in Ukraine. The president promised to use all his forces and means if someone dares to fire at the Russians, if lawlessness is allowed.
But the chaos was allowed, and no action followed.
This means that while the president does not eliminate, but only maintains a split.
The source of the split is the discrepancy between the apparent development of the situation in Ukraine and Novorossia with the expectations of the people and with the words of the president himself, said in March after the annexation of the Crimea.
And here it should be recalled that in the summer, one day, it was announced that the president had an unplanned address to the nation. If I remember correctly, it was planned on 20: 30. An order to reserve airtime was sent to the state television channels. But ... the appeal was canceled.
What was the president going to say that day?
Maybe then it was planned to give an answer to this question - will Novorossia be supported or not, and if it will not, then why ... will Russia enter into confrontation with the West and look for its way or will it continue to try to integrate into the Anglo-Saxon global system? ...
Why was the appeal delayed?
Something has changed? What way has it changed?
Some time after the failed appeal to the nation in the Donbass, the offensive began and everyone forgot about the canceled appeal. And then a truce was concluded. And everyone forgot about the abolition of treatment even stronger.
August offensive - what was it?
Creating a springboard for the next, larger offensive or for retreat? Preparing positions to move forward or cover for retreat?
In words or actions, but the president should explain this. And the sooner the better. Because his silence and the lack of decisive actions give rise to cunning theories, unprovable, leading to the "believe - disbelieve" dilemma, generating holivars and deepening the split.
And the split is what Washington needs.
And in order to preserve the unity and cohesion of society, this split must be eliminated. And only the president himself can eliminate it, by giving words or actions by giving an unequivocal answer to a controversial question.
Information