How do we win the conceptual war for Ukraine
The information battle of the last 23 years for Ukraine, Russia, unfortunately, has generally lost. But she lost the battle, not the war. Moreover, this does not mean that we will always lose. It is necessary, having carried out work on the bugs, to start a new battle. We lost the past, primarily because we accepted the conceptual apparatus of the enemy. And the one who accepts the enemy discourse will certainly be defeated. For in the discourse the worldview is laid. They accepted the enemy discourse - they will impose an enemy world view on you.After all, it is no secret that Russian and Western views on Ukraine are strikingly different. We see Ukraine as an integral part and cradle of Russia. The West sees Ukraine not just as a separate state, but fenced off by a high fence from the rest of Russia. As a non-Russian, and, therefore, anti-Russian. And this view is “packed” in the conceptual apparatus, which we have so far self-destructively accepted.
Therefore, in order for Ukraine, and for the beginning of Novorossia, to be reunited with the rest of Russia, we are obliged to use the conceptual apparatus appropriate to our purpose.
Our goal is simple - the revival of Holy Russia, which implies the reunification of the Russian civilization. It means that we have to promote the discourse corresponding to this goal for years and, if necessary, for decades. The conceptual apparatus is weapon mass ideological defeat. Consider with concrete examples the causes of our past failure and offer conceptual techniques for victory.
The first point is most important, therefore it is extensive.
I. From the end of the 19th century, the propaganda of the term “Ukrainians” began in Galicia, which the Soviet government then imposed on all residents of the Ukrainian SSR created by it. In fact, the term “Ukrainians” is a homonym, i.e. a word with different meanings.
What is the trap here? That there is a legal fact of existence of the state of Ukraine. On the basis of this legal fact, using a philological reception (citizens of Ukraine = Ukrainians), a clever trick is done: an ethnic fact is proclaimed that a separate nation lives in Ukraine, not connected with Russian, but with a supposedly separate culture, language, faith. And this forgery is fixed in the ideological and political field. This is the origin of the political ideology of the Ukrainians, which is strictly anti-Russian.
It is no coincidence that many figures of the beginning of the twentieth century in the same Galicia emphasized that the Ukrainians are a political party. That's where the legs grow from the notorious "Russian-Ukrainian contradictions." In fact, there are no contradictions, just a part of the Russian people was reformatted in anti-Russian. Our path to victory is the separation of the legal, ethnic, and political meanings of the term “Ukrainians”. Originally, he designated exclusively political orientation, and now we are caught as a net.
The output is as follows. The conceptual apparatus needs to be revised as follows:
- in a legal sense, use only “citizens of Ukraine” or “population of Ukraine”, preventing any attempts at speculation on the term “Ukrainians”, including not giving rise to the slogan “Ukraine is for Ukrainians” (since here we are imperceptibly moving from the legal field to ideological, ie, conceptually we lose);
- in the ethnic sense, to use "ethnic groups of Ukraine", knocking the ground out from under the feet of ethnocrats insisting on mono-ethnicity on the basis of the legal fact of the existence of the state of Ukraine, and this is a forgery and deception. The term "Ukrainians" can be used, but only if it is used along with the names of other ethnic groups. Having translated the conversation in this direction, you snatch their main argument from Russophobes - “Ukraine’s mono-ethnicity” - and seize the initiative;
- in a political and ideological sense, more and more confused, so you always need to clarify the position, specifying exactly what is at stake. The easiest way is to seek an answer, how do you feel about Russia and who are your heroes? Then we can talk about nationalism, Nazism, banderization, etc. The one who is for the reunification of Russia must forever remember one rule: it is necessary to divide Ukraine, as a state and “Ukrainians”, as its imaginary population (the real population of Ukraine is “citizens of Ukraine”).
Publicly, you need to speak only against the criminals who seized power in Ukraine, or their criminal ideology, but not against Ukraine as a state. For in the latter case it can be perceived as against the people.
And this is specifically done: any disapproving statement from Russia is turned by the local media into anti-Ukrainian. Like, look how "Russians hate Ukrainians." Therefore, the sword in the hands of enemies can not be given. It is necessary to concretize the object of our disapproval as much as possible and to speak not about abstract “Ukrainians”, but about concrete people. Thus, criticism from Russia is becoming much more efficient and easier to reach the hearts of the local population, who will not feel resentment of a national character.
For example, the expression “Ukrainians defile war monuments” is fundamentally wrong and losing. For "Ukrainians" is a homonym. Maybe the one who said this meant “political Ukrainians”, but the homonymous term will immediately be directed against Russia, allegedly accusing the entire population of Ukraine of barbarism.
So, using the term “Ukrainians”, one should be extremely careful, and especially not put it into the negative context of a national character, since The population of Ukraine is very sensitive to this. More flexibility is what we often lack.
Ii. It is necessary in every way to oppose the population and the power of Ukraine. Never use expressions like "ugly Ukrainian authorities did this or that," because The population of Ukraine is very touchy and takes it personally. That's right: the Kiev authorities, the Kiev junta, the Kiev regime. You can find thousands of ways to bind the authorities only to a territorial basis (but not a legal one, from which they will immediately make an ethnic one!), So as not to offend people who don’t understand much, but turn against Russia. Fortunately, from February, the Russian media called the junta precisely the Kiev authorities. That is correct.
Iii. It is necessary to forever use the sabotage terms "Eastern (Western, etc.) Ukrainians." Because this geographical term easily turns into ethnic and even ideological. Since “Ukrainians” means one mova, etc. There are no “eastern Ukrainians” in nature. Ukrainians are legally the same everywhere - these are citizens of Ukraine, and if we are talking about the people, then we are Russians.
Iv. The names “Eastern (southern, etc.) Ukraine” also do not need to be used. There are many regions (Volyn, Galicia, Transcarpathia, etc.), and it is necessary to untie geographic names from the “Ukrainian” component by all means, for it is homonymous, i.e. has different meanings. You mean one thing, and your mistake is directed against you, putting already ethnic meaning into it.
V. Never to use the expression “Ukrainian people”, since this term means a historically established single organism that is aware of its commonality stories and its future, separate from all other nations. In Ukraine, there is no such! For the "Ukrainian people" we are now given Bandera evil. Instead of "Ukrainian people" it is better to say "the population of Ukraine", getting rid of the ethno-ideological content. And it, this population, is very different.
“The population of Ukraine” is a legally impeccable and neutral wording that does not give trumps to the hands of enemies.
Vi. Never use the humiliating expression "Russian-speaking (Russian-speaking) Ukrainians." The deception here is that of the Russians, who are in the majority in Ukraine, made "Ukrainians", even if they are "Russian-speaking". The next step will be the destruction of the Russian language, because why is it for the "Ukrainians." The question is: can we expect the population of Ukraine to want reunification with the rest of Russia if we ourselves call it “Russian-speaking Ukrainians”? Hardly. Therefore, the utmost attention to the terms! The Russian people live in Ukraine: almost the same as in Russia, only with other passports and subjected to 23-year-old spiritual violence. And our goal is not to push him away, but to bring him back home.
VII. We are not for separating the regions "from Ukraine", but for reunification with the rest of Russia! This is a fundamental difference. Separatists are those who won the 1991 year, shutting themselves off with a fence. Our task is to correct that mistake.
Viii. In Ukraine, there can be no “pro-Russian” organizations! Because this deceitful term is driving us into the narrow conceptual framework of the fact that there are two different states, Russia and Ukraine, and the “pro-Russian” organizations are fighting against the alleged state of their own, Ukraine. The truth is this: in Ukraine there are Russian patriotic organizations and movements that express the will of the Russian people who have lived on their land for centuries. And we are fighting not for another state, as the enemies instill, but for the reunification of our united Fatherland.
Ix. Finally, you need to forever assimilate and use only the correct expressions “in Ukraine” (and not “in”) and “from Ukraine” (and not “from”), since Ukraine etymologically means the outskirts, i.e. land, not a separate state. The unnatural use of “in Ukraine” fixes Ukraine as a separate state from the rest of Russia and works against us, and the correct expression “IN Ukraine” underlines the unity of our land and therefore brings our reunion closer.
Here are just the basic conceptual techniques that correspond to our cherished goal - the reunification of United Russia. If we become active carriers of this discourse, then it is not far off!
Part 2.
Last year my article was published, devoted to the formation of a winning conceptual apparatus in the war for Ukraine. Its consistent use and advance deliberately forms a worldview corresponding to our goal - the reunification of Holy Russia. Because the discourse used so far on the Ukrainian question is worthless. It "printed" and "molded" into the flesh of concepts that we cannot accept at all, the existence of separate states in Russia, in which different nations live. That is just what the enemies of the Russian World need. We need his reunion. And that means another conceptual apparatus. Therefore, the started topic requires its logical continuation.
Back to her prompted news, promoted by all Russian media, that Valtsman (aka Poroshenko) threatened to “return the Crimea”. This is a typical example of an incorrect information policy that uses someone else’s conceptual apparatus, in which Crimea, for some unknown reason, belongs to Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine cannot return the Crimea, because it is impossible to return someone else’s. Kiev power (more precisely, the United States behind it) threatens to seize the Crimea, as an integral part of Russia. You can only return your own, and what does not belong to you can only be captured. How Crimea became Russian territory is already a matter of history, but not of its Russian affiliation. So, simply using the term “returning Crimea to Ukraine,” we indirectly agree that Crimea is not exactly a Russian region, and we question the territorial integrity of Russia. But is the unity of Russian territory a matter of doubt? Not! Therefore, the utmost attention to the terms. After all, they concealed worldview.
1. Unfortunately, our ideological errors had time to take root. We begin to absorb them at school, studying as an immutable fact the never-existing state of Kievan Rus, with the light hand of Tatishchev, who entered historical science and became some kind of idol in the eyes of Ukrainians. But there was no such state! There was Rus, but it is nowhere, in any chronicles not recorded as "Kievan Rus", which was introduced by historians only in the XVIII century. I'm not talking about the fact that the states themselves in the modern sense appeared in Europe only in modern times. “Kiev binding” of Ancient Russia is used by the enemies of Russian unity as irrefutable proof of its ... Ukrainian character, after all, Russia, they say, was Kiev. Some clever men even agreed to the "baptism of Kievan Rus", bringing in the near future to the mythical "baptism of Ukraine."
Therefore, we need to completely abandon this term, overgrown with additional political meaning. Ancient Russia is the only way, and nothing else! No trumps in the hands of enemies!
2. And what a disgusting term was invented by the Bolsheviks - “ethnic Ukrainians”. How can “Ukrainians” be ethnic when they emerged as a political project ?! At the beginning of the twentieth century, it was obvious to everyone that the Ukrainians are a separatist political party, and after a hundred years, the carriers of this ideology, you see, have already become “ethnic”, and the Russians living in southern Russian lands fighting for the reunification of the Fatherland, separatists ". But this false accusation of separatism stems from the recognition of the existence of "ethnic Ukrainians."
Historically, this lie was imposed by the Bolsheviks, because in the national question Lenin's concept of “national republics” won, which had to be populated with new “ethnic” communities that emerged on paper. Therefore, those who were born within the administrative borders of the newly established Soviet republics automatically became “ethnic”. Born in the territory of the Ukrainian SSR means “ethnic Ukrainian,” etc. In fact, they are ethnic in Gulkin’s nose: they are the imprint of political decisions of the CPSU (b), and no more.
But it is also wonderful. They are proving to us that now there is an inter-ethnic conflict in the Donbass, and the Russians are fighting against some “Ukrainians” who are too far from the Russians to live together. Supposedly this is a separate nation. But everything is much simpler. They are Russians infected with a political ideology of anti-Russianness, and not a separate ethnos of any kind. And they beat this ideology into their heads. Therefore, their children will leave the ideology of Ukrainians as easily as they themselves have adopted it. It’s just that ideology itself creates a chimera of new ethnicity, but this does not cease to be an ideology, which means it can be treated. Conclusion: to defeat any ideology, it is necessary to reject its conceptual apparatus. And the ideology of Ukrainians is built on the axiom of the existence of "ethnic Ukrainians." So down with this term!
3. Similarly, with the "Ukrainian language". Some people really want the Russians themselves to think that different languages originally existed on the lands of Russia. Why? Very simple: language is the first sign of a people. If different languages, then different nations. And if so, then different states. But this is a trick for simpletons. There has never been any Ukrainian language. Dahl did not know him, speaking only of the Little Russian dialect. And the Bolsheviks, from nowhere, had a new “Ukrainian language”. It is clear that for the same ideological reasons, it was necessary to somehow substantiate the division of the Russian people into new “domains” in the form of union republics. That appeared in the Ukrainian SSR "language". Therefore, if we want the gathering of the Russian lands, and not their division, we need to leave this fable and never return to it again. The South Russian dialect - yes, but the “Ukrainian language” - play your ideology yourself.
4. For the same reasons, the monstrous myth of "fraternal peoples" (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians) arose. While the USSR was, they did not pay attention to their difference of attention, since "fraternalness" was ideologically obligatory. But after the collapse of the "brotherhood" was forgotten, but the difference remained. In fact, there are no “fraternal peoples”, because by that, a part of the Russians “is cut off” from the Russian people and is allocated to separate “Ukrainians”. And then go and prove that the Russian "Ukrainians" are not strangers. Is it not simpler and more correct to reject the foolish expression “fraternal peoples” from the very beginning, but to call us the unified (triune) Russian people? Why give a sword in the hands of enemies? This is the only harm that can cause seemingly one term. Because the term is a weapon that affects consciousness. Each term is worth its weight in gold. Ministry of terminology? Why not.
5. We need to take into account that there is not and cannot be any “Russian-Ukrainian relations”. Do you know why? Because this term means that there are Russians and “Ukrainians”, i.e. “Ukrainians” are not Russians, if relations between them and Russians are possible. And in general, how can you compare white with soft, and sour with dark? How can you compare people with political ideology? The Russians are the people, and the “Ukrainians” are the bearers of the political ideology of the Ukrainians among the Russians themselves. After all, let's say, the Poles do not knock on the head the meaning of their lives based on proving that they are not Russians. They already know that. But the "Ukrainians" - comes, because they themselves do not believe in it. So why do we still need to play up to them?
Relations can only be Russian-Ukrainian, and even then temporarily - as long as there is a separate state of Ukraine. And since always, as long as it exists, it will exaggerate its “Ukrainianness” as non-Russian, the problem of the Ukrainian state will have to be solved entirely.
Thus, there is nothing Russian-Ukrainian, because culturally, Ukrainian is part of the common Russian heritage. It is just the same as if you would call “Russian-Moscow”, “Russian-Kostroma” or “Russian-Ryazan”. And the one and the other, and the third - is intra-Russian relations. Even the Russian-Ukrainian dictionary - and that over time is subject to change the name. For what? The time will come - we will solve this question. And the topic clearly requires development ...
Part 3.
The previous two parts of this topic were devoted to how we build a conceptual apparatus aimed at winning the war for Ukraine. First of all, it concerns the ideology of the Russian people, who must overcome their division and reunite. And for this, a qualitatively different conceptual apparatus is needed, already in our consciousness reuniting all of Russia and not tolerating any specific principalities.
Gangsters and murderers should be called who they really are.
Now we will consider this task in relation to the war in the Donbass, since the discourse used to describe the war of liberation in Donbass is half-hearted and too compromising with respect to Ukrainian Nazism. And we have no right to accept this, including because the Donbass is fighting not only for its freedom, but also for the liberation of other regions of the former Ukraine from the fascist regime. Former - because the result of this liberation should be the reunification of Russia. Hence, our task is to consolidate the consciousness of the Russian people so that it becomes intolerable to the split of Russia and uncompromising to the reunification of the Fatherland. Therefore, we will continue to clear the conceptual apparatus.
1. There is no "military operation", there is a punitive war of the fascist regime.
First of all, you need to remember that there is no “ATO”, and there is no “force operation” at all, as the Russian fascist regime often calls the punitive war against the Donbass. What is this “operation” when bombs are dropped on residents, and artillery is driven into cities and fired at quarters indiscriminately? This is the fascists' revenge on the Donbas for being Russian. This should not be forgotten, in order not to insult the memory of the soldiers who fell in the war of liberation against fascism, and the peaceful citizens who were killed at the hands of the punishers of Bandera.
2. There is no “territory uncontrolled by the Ukrainian siloviki,” there are liberated territories.
In all that concerns the current war, it is necessary to clearly understand: there are no "territories beyond the control of Ukrainian security officials." This phrase displays the liberated territories in the status of some rebel regions that are allegedly beyond the control of the legitimate Ukrainian authorities. This is what this phrase subconsciously (or consciously) means. In fact, this Kiev government is illegal, criminal and rebellious, and the Donbass is not “uncontrolled” to it, but liberated territory. The same parts of Donbass, which are not yet liberated, are territories occupied by the Kiev regime. Therefore, it is necessary to move from the controlled / uncontrolled territories to the liberated / occupied territories. This changes the case and clearly indicates the mobilizing goal - their release, and not just states who controls what.
3. "Ukrainian security officials" does not exist
It is necessary to completely eliminate from the use of "Ukrainian security officials", because the word "security official" means someone who has the legal right to use force. But there are no such people in Ukraine under the current regime. The force is used by those who are under the rule of the fascist junta, which means that the imprint of evil lies on the act of any Ukrainian military person who fulfills any of their orders. Consequently, there are Ukrainian militants, often not at all clear to whom and to which laws they obey, for the AFU after an armed coup d'état are outlawed and illegitimate. These are armed formations that carry out the criminal orders of the bandits who seized power in Kiev.
Therefore, the "Ukrainian security officials" does not exist. There are Kiev (since they are subordinate to the Kiev authorities) insurgents, regardless of how they turned out to be in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and what convictions they have. They may be Nazi, Bandera or simply Ukrainian, but - the militants. Because this seal lies on everyone who is under their authority. These are soldiers subordinating to the enemy, although there are many among them who do not want to kill their fellows. But we are not fighting against people, but against Ukrainian fascism. And therefore our duty is to tell the truth, including for the sake of these people who need help to see their sight. Security forces do not bomb the city and do not shoot at residential areas from artillery; only militants or terrorists do this.
4. Fascists and Nazis instead of "radicals" and "nationalists"
It is high time to stop making compliments to the fascists, calling them the empty word "radicals" or "nationalists". These are real fascists and nazis, who kill all Russians and build the chimera of the Ukrainian ethnocracy on the blood of all who remained true to the memory of their ancestors. The rule is very simple: instead of “radicals” and “nationalists”, you should call the Nazis and fascists. For the same reason, you need to forget about any "volunteer battalions." What is the difference, on what principle they are formed, if it is the battalions of the Nazis? Why protrude way of their formation, and the essence is silenced?
This can only come from enemies who want to disorient us and impose their conceptual apparatus. If they don’t recruit Bandera volunteers, but mobilize by force, will they cease to be fascist? Not. Therefore, any "voluntary" battalions must be rejected. This is a fascist battalion to be destroyed.
5. There are no law enforcement agencies in Ukraine
In Ukraine, there is no law enforcement for a year. Law enforcement officers are those who protect the law, and those who are now called that, do not serve the law, but the Kiev regime in its punitive-repressive activities. Therefore, in Ukraine they cannot arrest anyone, people are simply kidnapped for reprisal — anyone who does not recognize the Nazis as the legal authority. So, you can not use the expression "Ukrainian law enforcement officers arrested that." It is correct to say that “the Ukrainian punitive bodies stole that”. For example, Pavel Gubarev or other leaders of the Russian spring were abducted - they were seized and taken away in an unknown direction, subjected to torture and harassment. What is this, law enforcement? These are bandits! They do not arrest, they kidnap, and often for ransom. Similarly, Ukrainian punishers kidnap people for exchange for their militants. Therefore, if we consider the junta to be gangster authority, which it is, then we must also use the proper expression for the bandits.
6. Fascists are not "activists"
The same applies to the fascists from the "Right Sector" or other similar groups. They are often called "activists of the" Right Sector ", and even the Russian media. But this is ideological sabotage! What other "activists" ?! Activists are those who do something good. And these villains are fascists, nazis, terrorists, militants, punishers, etc .; depending on the crimes committed by them, you can always find the right word. Yes, whatever you like to call them, but not the "activists." Why legitimize the fascists with their conceptual apparatus?
More attention to the terms! After all, they form our worldview. This conceptual apparatus must be introduced into discourse. He brings our victory closer!
Part 4.
In this part, we will continue to consider relevant terms used in the conceptual war against Russia, and offer our conceptual weapons. Start, as always, from the beginning.
1. You need to specify who the separatist
Who in Ukraine against the Russian World? Ukrainian separatists. That is how they should be called, and not justified by the fact that the Crimea and the Donbass are not separatism. This is not enough! You need to specify who the separatist. "Svidomye ukry" and all those who support the separatist ideology of Ukrainians. Because the term “separatism” must be considered in the context of all of Russia, and not of the margin that has temporarily broken away from it. In this case, it becomes clear that not only do we not need to make excuses for the Crimea and Donbass, which, they say, are not separatists, but to go on the offensive against the Ukrainians, who declared the captured piece of Russia as a whole separate from the rest of Russia. No, the whole is all of Russia, and we are fighting for its reunification, and the Ukrainian fanatics are dissenters, both politically and ecclesiastically, and in a civilizational sense.
We can give one more example of the irrelevance of excuses that we, they say, are not separatists, showing how absurd this self-justification is. It is like that a young man, intending to marry, will assure the parents of his chosen one that what he will do in a marriage is not rape, and they should not worry. It is clear that such a direction of thought indicates a serious damage to the mind, as long as it compares the inherent aspect of marriage with rape. So why do many of us still compare the desire for reunification of Russia with separatism, as if apologizing for their historical duty and trying to reconcile it with the Russophobic project "Ukraine"? This is our goal, our sacred duty - to reunite Russia. Because our ancestors bequeathed to us its single and did not think of any specific principalities on its territory. Therefore, the word "separatism" from now on and forever should be used only in relation to the Ukrainians.
We do not “separate”, do not “disconnect” and do nothing at all that would allow to use such words in relation to the state of Ukraine, for these words hint at the usefulness that it does not have. All that we do is a long reunion process. Not even joining, namely, reunification, reminiscent of the inevitability of the restoration of historical justice.
2. Russian World is a civilization given
Continuing this topic, it is necessary to take the rule that the Russian World is a civilization given, which should be capitalized, such as the Old World, the Far East, etc. Why is there still a "Russian world"? Because some have not yet fully awakened from anti-Russian propaganda, very timidly trying to squeeze the obvious fact of Russian existence into a hostile conceptual field. It still will not succeed, because the “Russian world” exists only in the negative context of anti-Russian propaganda. Using it, we indirectly agree with the negative meaning of this term. On the contrary, the Russian World inspires, fills life with meaning, prompts to serve. Therefore, to write correctly is the Russian World. Here is our great goal! No concessions foes!
3. "Russian community of Ukraine"
It is necessary to get rid of the expressions "Russian community of Ukraine" and others like him. What other community? With this statement we are driving ourselves into a corner, recognizing that the Russian minority lives on the lands of South Russia, and some "Ukrainians", written on paper by the Bolsheviks in 1920, are supposedly the main majority.
This is not true. There are only the Russian people of Ukraine, who constitute the majority, and the ethnic minorities of the Greeks, Hungarians, and Romanians. And the Ukrainians are a temporary fact of a political order based on the state of Ukraine that exists so far, and no more. Just now the ideology of Ukrainians crushed and intimidated the Russian people. But if our goal is reunification, then there are no mythical “communities” in Ukraine at all. The word "community" is applicable to Greeks, Hungarians, Romanians living compactly in certain territories, but not to Russians, who have been living on their Russian land for ages and constitute its overwhelming majority. It is necessary to remember that the “community” has the subtext of the ghetto, and we, on the contrary, should free all Russians. Therefore, only one people live in Ukraine - the Russian people.
4. "Russian-speaking"
We need to permanently delete from our lexicon the harmful and degrading expression “Russian-speaking (Russian-speaking) Ukrainians”, or simply “Russian-speaking”. The deception here is that of the Russians, who are in the majority in Ukraine, made "Ukrainians", even if they are "Russian-speaking". The next step will be the destruction of the Russian language, because why is it for the "Ukrainians." The question is: can we expect the Russian people of Ukraine to crave reunification with the rest of Russia if we ourselves call it “Russian-speaking Ukrainians”? Not. Therefore, the utmost attention to the terms!
5. Do not attach the "Ukrainian"
It is necessary to resolutely reject the expressions “Ukrainian Kharkov”, “Ukrainian Odessa”, etc., which are often used by the Russian media. It is clear that in the news feeds this is used to indicate the state in which they are still located, but the harm of these expressions is very great. If Odessa is “Ukrainian,” then traitors of the motherland were burned at the House of Trade Unions. They attach “Ukrainianness” to Kharkov, Odessa and other Russian cities. More recently, the same thing was used in relation to the Russian Sevastopol, for which such an expression is akin to insult.
Therefore, if we want Kharkiv, Odessa and other Russian cities to follow the path of Sevastopol, then we should call them: Russian Kharkov, Russian Odessa ... "In the Russian Zaporozhye, Ukrainian separatists threw such a monument" - this is the correct expression that sets the reader’s thoughts are in the right direction: the city is occupied, and it must be freed.
6. "Holodomor"
You did not notice that instead of famine 1932-33. imposed "famine", and even the "Ukrainian people"? As if the Soviet government specifically starved those whom it had recorded for 15 years before in the “Ukrainians”. We have introduced this conceptual virus into consciousness, having installed the Ukrainian myth as a historical fact. And now, repeating the “famine”, we indirectly subscribe to the Russophobes lie. In fact, there was no "famine." There was a famine. And the only way to call it.
* * *
Everything must be called with one holy goal - as quickly as possible and complete reunification of Holy Russia. Here is our guiding star, which should be such for the entire Russian people.
Information