Under current conditions, the main task for those who are ill for Russia is to preserve the integrity of the country and protect its sovereignty.
When you see a man from the camp of liberals, frankly speaking with an anti-Russian stance, you are not surprised. Representatives of such a public are still no-no, and they will remember the idea of a “compact, controlled state”. Everything is clear with them. Other cases are surprising: when the integrity of Russia is questioned by people who do not consider themselves liberals, moreover, they consider themselves patriots.
Someone diligently convinces the population of Russia - we must part with the Caucasus. And, of course, Caucasians themselves are convinced of the same thing.
I had a few days ago a serious conversation with one acquaintance - the far-right, in the European sense of the word, character. A kind of "Russian Breivik." I will make a reservation - the case, to put it mildly, is not unique. This position holds, as it turned out later through the study of the mood in the Russian blogging industry, quite a lot of modern extreme right.
So, the talk in our conversation was that corruption was eating up the country, that the government was rotten, and the law enforcement agencies were often hostile to society. Yes, who would argue. But, in my opinion, now there is a paradoxical situation: any effective anti-system actions are beneficial for the Americans. And if someone or something brings down the existing, of course, vicious system, it will lead to the disintegration of Russia and the coming under the sly of NATO to us. This will be the end. This cannot be allowed - at any cost. It always seemed to the author of these lines that for any normal person this is an axiom ...
The citizen opponent, expressively sparkling with a neatly shaven bald head and scars from street fights, believed that, firstly, a small Russia is not so bad. That the national republics only suck money from the budget. Secondly, my interlocutor agreed to the point that they were especially frightened by the arrival of NATO, so that we would not be busied. And in general, he makes an assumption, maybe, with NATO, it will be better for a simple Russian.
Such an amazing, completely sincere person to whom his declared patriotism doesn’t interfere, in fact, with being a non-leader. Grants are not “sawing” - I'm pretty sure of this on 100%.
Another similar case is the notorious Herman Sterligov. Also very sincere, just a wonderful person. Although not without excesses, it is even good. One thing neglects all his virtues - he always does not get tired of moving the idea of a “small happy country”. Yes exactly. According to Sterligov, big Russia is bad, we must part with the national republics, and everything will be fine. Anyway, a lot with whom to leave.
His words are worthy to quote them: “We must urgently grant independence to Tatarstan, Bashkiria, the Caucasus. [...] Only to part with each other is the only peaceful way out of the interethnic and interfaith trap. ” And again: “It will turn out a small country in the approximate borders of Muscovite XVI century - a country with one language and one faith. And our good neighbors will live around: Great Chechnya, Great Tataria and other countries, too, with one language and one faith. ” What is it painfully reminiscent? The Great Middle East, Great Circassia - the stages of the American plan.
And, finally, the third strong impression of the end of summer and autumn of this year: Alexey Navalny, “Stop feeding the Caucasus” campaign. This person can hardly be called sincere, however, he enjoys a certain influence.
Realizing that his anti-corruption frenzy was already fed up with everything, but it is not relevant in the light of the fact that the EP, perhaps, is preparing for a “plum”, the citizen pravdorub clung to another “hot” topic. Here, the ears of the US State Department are sticking up so that at least take aim. Although this is not directly voiced, the main content of his message is the secession of the North Caucasus from Russia. Navalny himself will not say that. But read his supporters, everything will become clear. This topic is American to the bone, they are promoting it, they are implementing this scenario - at an accelerated pace and in all possible ways - from the hustle and bustle of blogs to terrorist attacks in Dagestan.
Activity in this direction has intensified since the spring - it was then, in the same LiveJournal, in the tops, daily articles began to appear on the topic of "why we need to part with the Caucasus." Someone very well can not wait to have this happen as soon as possible. Someone diligently convinces the population of Russia - we must part with the Caucasus. And, of course, Caucasians themselves are convinced of the same thing.
It will be quite adequate to build the “friend or foe” axis, based on whether someone is working or in favor of Russia's sovereignty and its territorial integrity, or its actions and / or words indicate the opposite.
I will repeat - Navalny is absolutely not sincere and happens in the USA. Samples to put nowhere. But it so happened that he has built up a reputation for himself, he knows how to be convincing, and people believe him. Unfortunately, this is the case - just sincere, passionate people, those who love Russia with all their hearts, but are subject to foreign influence and their own momentary emotional outbursts, believe him. The campaign for the separation of the Caucasus, even if the separation is not voiced as the ultimate goal, even if it is only a vector, is much more dangerous than pulling out official dirty laundry.
We will not lie to ourselves - all three, and they are given as examples - traitors. Like others like them. Like the creators of the "Arabic scenarios", which are going to present the Nobel Peace Prize for having thrown their relatively prosperous countries into chaos until recently. You were “bred” or you skillfully “breed” others - it doesn't matter. This is a betrayal in fact. Betrayal of the interests of his people, his country. Traitors deserve only contempt. Or let them repent, or society will spit in their faces, curse them and their families.
If the collapse of Russia begins, it will in itself become historical the catastrophe of a great state, the abuse of its centuries-old history. This breakup will not be an intellectual divorce of spouses who are bored with each other, as some try to imagine. The USSR collapsed terribly - in the event of the collapse of Russia there will be blood - even more blood. There will not be, German Lvovich, a "small, happy Orthodox country." There will be NATO attacks designed to finish off the last resistance, there will be American soldiers stomping our land, killing men, raping children and women. All the countries with which this happened have gone through similar.
And most importantly - after that Russia will not be. Everything. Even if the people mentioned by me survive, after they will only have to commit suicide, so as not to see what they have done. There will be a US planetary victory. Victory over Russia. Do this want sincere people who are ready to sacrifice the integrity of Russia? Do they want this world for their children?
In modern Russian society a great many different forces have been formed. Sometimes it is difficult to figure out who is in a constructive position, and who is laying the vector more than dangerous.
It will quite adequately form the attitude towards structures and people, build an “friend-foe” axis, based on whether this someone is working or advocating Russia's sovereignty and its territorial integrity, or its actions and / or words indicate the opposite.
Everyone in Russia, from the president to the ordinary citizen, should clearly feel and realize: although the economy and the resolution of internal political conflicts are important, it is necessary to be guided by the main ones. And the main thing is the preservation of our country. Russia, without which there will be no us, without which we will turn into lonely atoms without a Motherland, whose history the new masters of the world will soon quickly erase from the memory of post-humanity.