About scum, chaos and future plans
All images are collective, all coincidences are random, no one should be taken personally, be proud and ask the owners to increase the salary.
In the era of electronic media domination, almost everyone who writes, reads and comments on the Internet has encountered unpleasant people who know best how to bake cakes, sew clothes, care for animals and, of course, how to run the country and solve global problems. . "Specialists" in the field of domestic and foreign policy are among the most active participants in the discussion, even on the forums of the circles of choral singing and cross-stitching.
As a rule, these people practically do not write anything on their own, but comment on any text, news and even a comment below the text. Their comments boil down to the fact that everything around is bad, cowards and traitors are in power, only they know the correct algorithm of actions leading to salvation, but they are not heard, they do not understand and everything is lost.
In this style, there are three types of socially active individuals:
- illiterate marginals, with a reserve of a hundred words and resentment to the whole world for the fact that society underestimated them;
- “the saviors of the world” who read one book, one article or learned one thesis and decided that they have the secret knowledge that they are now trying to convey to all the “lost humanity”;
- ordinary scum (domestic version of which Mayakovsky in the famous play called "klopus vulgaris ..., found in the musty mattresses of time", and I, by analogy with the term used in the song from the film "Don César de Bazan", call Don Dublon, for their lasting love for the mortal metal).
The first two groups are people who are generally harmless and, in their own way, unhappy. They sincerely believe in their “mission”, and most importantly, they are unable, without the help of don doubloons, even to formulate their claims to opponents, the government, society and life in general.
The latter group consists of people literate enough to convince the “little ones” of their familiarity with the secrets of the universe, but not enough educated to offer their own concept of the situation, going beyond the methods of criticizing “bourgeois falsification” learned in the Soviet university, by pulling quotes from inaccessible to the masses of sources. Today, of course, there are no special guards, but the masses that are fed by don dublons still don’t read the originals of the texts, considering it sufficient to get acquainted with the opinion of the “guru”.
The abomination and danger of donons Dublon is not that they create a perverted picture of the world for readers and admirers, but that in pursuit of money and honors eternally escaping from them, they easily change their views, moving from adoration of fascists to radical anti-fascism (so radical, that it does not differ from fascism and only serves to compromise the anti-fascist movement), from supporting the liberal belolentochnogo movement, to terry monarchism, from Orthodox fundamentalism to such a radical leftist movement, that vneny him even Trotskyism and Maoism - only moderate currents. The reverse transition is also easy. The main birthmark that distinguishes the Doubloons is a true radicalism, the desire to run ahead of the locomotive, to be holier than the Pope, greater Obama than Obama and more Putin than Putin.
This is a logical move - if you cannot compete in a calm discussion, it is necessary to break its format, dramatically exacerbate the situation, create a conflict. The emergence of conflict ensures the polarization of the parties and the request for radicalism. But radical demands do not need to justify. They are “good” by the fact that the doubloons for all the good and against all the bad, and, unlike the “cowardly” “multi-tower” Kremlin, they want “all at once”. For the first time in Ukrainian political practice, this slogan was put forward in the early 90s by the then leader of the UNSO and already then an experienced fascist, my fellow student in the university, who was dismissed after the second year, Dmitry Korchinsky, but doubloons (obviously and implicitly, regardless of citizenship and country of residence) use it to this day.
Thus, conflict-induced radicalism is not a state of mind, but a way of feeding doubloons. Nothing personal - just business, but in everyday life they can be quite pleasant, moderately cynical sybarites.
Some colleagues are trying to wage informational struggles with doubloons, pointing to juggling, contradictions, continuous change of positions, non-academic discussion, substitution of meanings, outright lies, accompanied by rampant boasting and self-promotion. It's pointless. Doubloons can only serve as a submarine, even if it is hermetically sealed. This is harmful - every extra mention of a doubloon broadens its audience and maintains a sense of its own importance - noticed, arguing, it means that it’s not a trembling creature.
Now the doubloons are actively pushing Russia toward a radical position, and, in fact, toward war. Moreover, the war seems to them the only correct way to resolve any conflict and no matter how many wars will have to be fought simultaneously. Neither does it matter whether they will cause damage to the main adversary or, conversely, the US will have free hand and space for strategic maneuver, tying up Russia's hands and resources with exhausting chaotic conflicts in secondary areas, traditionally remaining outside the conflict and having the freedom to choose - when, by what means and on which side to join it.
For this, doubloons are often accused of treason and work with the money of the State Department and the CIA. This, if true, is only in certain exceptional cases. As a rule, they rush not to the US, but to the Russian budgets (harming Russia for its money has become a good tradition that no one wants to refuse, they even get offended and outraged when they are politely asked to walk through the market and offer their stale goods to someone something else). In view of the acute intellectual inadequacy, the doubloons are not in demand as advisers in the chess game and, therefore, they are trying to push Russian power into a chessboard fight mode. They operate with emotions only because they do not know how to operate with facts, to relate the potentials and capabilities of the parties, to consider not one option until the second move, but ten to the twentieth.
A competent, flexible politician can win without a war, unable to realize the beauty and understand the depth of maneuver of a doubloon war, conflict is needed as a means of personal enrichment. Like their Nazi-orange twin brothers, they can only be claimed by a split, in a state of civil opposition. The more stable the society, the more doubloons appear in the garbage (in the direct and figurative sense).
In order to deceive society and to provide support for their destructive ideas, they always offer, as a first point, an obvious fact that no one disputes. Today, for example, they state that the resumption of a hot conflict in Ukraine is inevitable. Russia's chance to be openly drawn into it is approaching 99%. Similarly, the Turkish leadership is practically unable to retreat in the conflict with Russia over the destruction of the Su-24 and the killing of two Russian servicemen. From which it follows that Russia (to which retreat is also contraindicated in terms of both international authority and internal political positioning of power) will almost inevitably enter the war with Turkey.
But further distortion begin. Firstly, from the fact that the possibility of victory without an open war (within the framework of a hybrid conflict) is extremely small the conclusion is made that there is no need to try. And then the whining begins, as Ukraine should have been occupied in 2014, and Turkey (since it was not pinned either in 1920 or 1945-1946) was destroyed, destroyed and divided immediately after its attack on the aircraft.
The fact that international provocations are organized in order to draw Russia into the war under conditions unfavorable to it has been written many times (many, not only by me) and many times explained why it’s better later than before, and even better with a kind word, without taking out pistol holsters. In the end, I agree that if they want to provoke us, then sooner or later they will be put in conditions in which the rejection of military reaction will be impossible. But is it worth the rush?
The hybrid war, during which the world is rapidly becoming chaotic, was not us. She started against us. Nevertheless, within the framework of the hybrid war, Russia was able to achieve a clear advantage by learning to use chaos to its own interests, acting as a stabilizer on time and in the right place. I am not writing this for those who “know everything” about “the evil Surkov,” “the cowardly Kremlin”, “the Donbas devotee”, “the Syrians who turned out to be more important than the Russians”, etc. This is written for those who are able to ask themselves the question: why did the United States, who were going to defeat us in the framework of the hybrid war, suddenly began to provoke an open conflict, not sparing not only Ukraine that was not needed by anyone, but even the Turks - their NATO allies, whose territory and army are extremely important from a strategic point of view, including for controlling the Middle East and ensuring access of the NATO Navy to the Black Sea?
The logical answer to this question is because the hybrid confrontation is losing and they understand that another one or two years of development of events in such a dynamic and in the direction of Washington, from which Russia intercepts the control of chaos, will lose its last chance not only to win, but even to a draw. His position will be as strategically hopeless as Germany’s in April 1945. Even now, drawing Russia into two wars at the same time (Ukraine and Turkey) does not guarantee its defeat - it is not known who will hold out longer and whose resources will run out earlier (at war with Russia or affected by the US systemic crisis). Every day won by the formal world is increasingly shifting the balance in our favor.
The importance of winning time is no less than it was in 1939-1941. Then there was not enough year. But it’s scary to think how a war could develop if it started in September 1939. Within those borders, at that level of training of troops, at that level of technical support (especially in the Air Force, even in the project there were no fighters capable of equal combat with Messerschmitt Bf-109), with the readiness of the leadership of Great Britain and France to support the aggression of Germany against the USSR ( despite their guarantees to Poland) the Soviet Union had little chance of holding out.
Now our position is much better than in the 1939-1941 year. Nevertheless, it makes no sense to tempt fate. It is unlikely that anyone has any doubt that it is worth Russia to get involved in a conflict with Turkey, as the arrogance of the Kiev regime (by the way, and its internal stability) will increase dramatically. Similarly, Ankara will feel much more confident if Russia is tied up in Ukraine. And with all the gradual "insight" of Europe, being involved at once in two wars against two European allies (albeit not loved ones), it will be difficult to prove that you are not the aggressor.
Logistics of the Syrian operation will be greatly complicated. Military spending will increase many times. Social budget items will have to be reduced, which will be perceived by the public without enthusiasm. The United States will joyfully set fire to Central Asia.
In addition, operations against Ukraine and Turkey have their own unpleasant features. It is desirable to dissolve them in time, spending successively, one after another - first Turkish and then Ukrainian, but it is technically impossible to do this, since Ukraine threatens the rear of the group against Turkey and can provide its territory for deep Turkish sabotage in the Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod areas.
At the same time, it should be understood that absolutely surpassing Turkey in the qualitative, quantitative composition of the Armed Forces and in terms of their technical support, Russia, due to its specific features (both geographical and political, including the position of the Caucasian states, and not just the US and NATO) of the theater of military operations can not immediately concentrate grouping, sufficient for lightning defeat of Turkey. Consequently, the conflict will be long enough (hardly less than a year, and probably longer) and will require, together with the Syrian operation and the activation of galvanized Ukraine, a great deal of exertion.
On the other hand, the operation against Ukraine could take from several days to two weeks, but the worst would come after the victory, when Russia would have to urgently take on the maintenance of 40 million (almost a third of Russia's population) inhabitants of the occupied territory, as well as start investing tens of billions of dollars annually in creating a new economy there that would allow the population to stop feeding from the Russian budget in the foreseeable future and start at least partially earning a living on their own. A lightning victory over Ukraine, in terms of linking resources, would have cost more than a protracted conflict with Turkey. But the most dangerous thing is that, most likely, both conflicts would begin in direct connection with each other and Russia would receive all the problems in one bottle.
Patriotically hoping for the power of the army, but to achieve and consolidate victory finances are more important than warheads, and there is clearly not enough money to solve the Turkish-Ukrainian problem by force. By the way, Fuagra and Veuve Clicquot will be in stores - pensions and wages will begin to strive for the level of 90's. That is, from the state of intercepting the control of the chaos organized by the Americans, Russia will begin to move into its own internal chaos. To understand how it looks, what it leads to and how quickly it comes, take a look at Ukraine.
Therefore, in the framework of a hybrid war, avoiding open conflict, but (as in the case of an airplane), demonstrating readiness to go to the end if necessary, Russia uses not the most popular, but Minsk-proven mechanism for a comprehensive solution to geopolitical problems. Minsk, formally remaining a mechanism for resolving the internal Ukrainian conflict, went far beyond the limits of a purely Ukrainian format.
With the help of Minsk, Russia has put the Kiev regime in a situation where it cannot start a war. Germany and France do not command and threaten to place blame for the conflict on Ukraine, and this could lead to the lifting of European sanctions against Russia and, therefore, a complete failure of US policy in Europe.
But he can not and do not fight. Without war, the regime has nowhere to channel not only the hostility of its own Nazi militants against the leading remnants of the country of oligarchic kleptocracy, but also the hatred of the population, including the liberal-European integration crowd, which doesn’t understand why instead of milk rivers with milk and honey, Maidan brought only ruin, a sharp fall in life level, the elimination of the economy and endless civil war.
Without war, the regime is not viable. He was unable to carry out the federalist reform prescribed in Minsk and strongly recommended even by Biden, it was not for this that the Nazis unleashed the civil war (they could have been peacefully federalized as early as March 2014). It has already become a burden for the United States, which would have to be off balance, but they cannot just put down the Ukrainian bridgehead (after Saakashvilevskaya Georgia this will be the second deafening failure of the American project in the post-Soviet space and the complete loss of face and prospects). As a result, instead of Russian, chaotic Ukraine binds American resources, at the same time introducing dissonance into the touching relations of the United States with its leading European allies (Germany and France), which also incur enormous costs for the sake of extending the senseless agony of the unviable regime.
It is characteristic that the United States refused to directly support Turkey in its conflict with Russia. The EU also stepped aside. Ankara begins to develop the same hybrid process as with Ukraine. In fact, ideally, Russia is achieving the same thing that the Americans tried to achieve with the exact opposite. The strategic success of Moscow must pay opponents. The US and the EU are already paying it in Ukraine. Turkey and the United States must pay it in the Middle East.
There is a war between Moscow and Washington by proxy, on foreign territory, and mostly at the expense of others. Whoever invests less of his own resources in the fight and forces him to invest more of his opponent will win. So far, the United States is investing more, but they do not give up hope to turn the tide and force Russia to pay more - Washington is talking about this at all levels without hiding. And our doublon alarmists, who dream of making money on the radicalization of society and the militarization of state policy, are objective allies of Washington — a fifth column much more dangerous than all liberals and nationalists put together.
Of course, the ongoing Minsk policy, like any other, has its costs. In Ukraine as a whole and in the Donbass in particular, Russian people are really dying (or people loyally inclined towards Russia, although they are dreaming of a parochial self). But there is a loss in any war. The question is the criticality of their level. So, from the point of view of the development of the Russian World, the existence of Russia is critically necessary. The policy being pursued today to this requirement more than meets. Russia is still not only out of danger, but is moving progressively towards the design of its victory.
Only emotions can interfere with this - the same as those that destroyed the Russian rear in 1905 and in 1917. The doubloons, voluntarily or involuntarily, but disinterestedly, warm up their emotions with their defeatist propaganda (designed to bring about a change of chaos control in the framework of a hybrid Minsk, to dive into chaos under conditions of immersion in several direct military conflicts) and to try to undermine the people's trust in the authorities, in order to ask power budgets to restore this very confidence.
In the era of electronic media domination, almost everyone who writes, reads and comments on the Internet has encountered unpleasant people who know best how to bake cakes, sew clothes, care for animals and, of course, how to run the country and solve global problems. . "Specialists" in the field of domestic and foreign policy are among the most active participants in the discussion, even on the forums of the circles of choral singing and cross-stitching.
As a rule, these people practically do not write anything on their own, but comment on any text, news and even a comment below the text. Their comments boil down to the fact that everything around is bad, cowards and traitors are in power, only they know the correct algorithm of actions leading to salvation, but they are not heard, they do not understand and everything is lost.
In this style, there are three types of socially active individuals:
- illiterate marginals, with a reserve of a hundred words and resentment to the whole world for the fact that society underestimated them;
- “the saviors of the world” who read one book, one article or learned one thesis and decided that they have the secret knowledge that they are now trying to convey to all the “lost humanity”;
- ordinary scum (domestic version of which Mayakovsky in the famous play called "klopus vulgaris ..., found in the musty mattresses of time", and I, by analogy with the term used in the song from the film "Don César de Bazan", call Don Dublon, for their lasting love for the mortal metal).
The first two groups are people who are generally harmless and, in their own way, unhappy. They sincerely believe in their “mission”, and most importantly, they are unable, without the help of don doubloons, even to formulate their claims to opponents, the government, society and life in general.
The latter group consists of people literate enough to convince the “little ones” of their familiarity with the secrets of the universe, but not enough educated to offer their own concept of the situation, going beyond the methods of criticizing “bourgeois falsification” learned in the Soviet university, by pulling quotes from inaccessible to the masses of sources. Today, of course, there are no special guards, but the masses that are fed by don dublons still don’t read the originals of the texts, considering it sufficient to get acquainted with the opinion of the “guru”.
The abomination and danger of donons Dublon is not that they create a perverted picture of the world for readers and admirers, but that in pursuit of money and honors eternally escaping from them, they easily change their views, moving from adoration of fascists to radical anti-fascism (so radical, that it does not differ from fascism and only serves to compromise the anti-fascist movement), from supporting the liberal belolentochnogo movement, to terry monarchism, from Orthodox fundamentalism to such a radical leftist movement, that vneny him even Trotskyism and Maoism - only moderate currents. The reverse transition is also easy. The main birthmark that distinguishes the Doubloons is a true radicalism, the desire to run ahead of the locomotive, to be holier than the Pope, greater Obama than Obama and more Putin than Putin.
This is a logical move - if you cannot compete in a calm discussion, it is necessary to break its format, dramatically exacerbate the situation, create a conflict. The emergence of conflict ensures the polarization of the parties and the request for radicalism. But radical demands do not need to justify. They are “good” by the fact that the doubloons for all the good and against all the bad, and, unlike the “cowardly” “multi-tower” Kremlin, they want “all at once”. For the first time in Ukrainian political practice, this slogan was put forward in the early 90s by the then leader of the UNSO and already then an experienced fascist, my fellow student in the university, who was dismissed after the second year, Dmitry Korchinsky, but doubloons (obviously and implicitly, regardless of citizenship and country of residence) use it to this day.
Thus, conflict-induced radicalism is not a state of mind, but a way of feeding doubloons. Nothing personal - just business, but in everyday life they can be quite pleasant, moderately cynical sybarites.
Some colleagues are trying to wage informational struggles with doubloons, pointing to juggling, contradictions, continuous change of positions, non-academic discussion, substitution of meanings, outright lies, accompanied by rampant boasting and self-promotion. It's pointless. Doubloons can only serve as a submarine, even if it is hermetically sealed. This is harmful - every extra mention of a doubloon broadens its audience and maintains a sense of its own importance - noticed, arguing, it means that it’s not a trembling creature.
Now the doubloons are actively pushing Russia toward a radical position, and, in fact, toward war. Moreover, the war seems to them the only correct way to resolve any conflict and no matter how many wars will have to be fought simultaneously. Neither does it matter whether they will cause damage to the main adversary or, conversely, the US will have free hand and space for strategic maneuver, tying up Russia's hands and resources with exhausting chaotic conflicts in secondary areas, traditionally remaining outside the conflict and having the freedom to choose - when, by what means and on which side to join it.
For this, doubloons are often accused of treason and work with the money of the State Department and the CIA. This, if true, is only in certain exceptional cases. As a rule, they rush not to the US, but to the Russian budgets (harming Russia for its money has become a good tradition that no one wants to refuse, they even get offended and outraged when they are politely asked to walk through the market and offer their stale goods to someone something else). In view of the acute intellectual inadequacy, the doubloons are not in demand as advisers in the chess game and, therefore, they are trying to push Russian power into a chessboard fight mode. They operate with emotions only because they do not know how to operate with facts, to relate the potentials and capabilities of the parties, to consider not one option until the second move, but ten to the twentieth.
A competent, flexible politician can win without a war, unable to realize the beauty and understand the depth of maneuver of a doubloon war, conflict is needed as a means of personal enrichment. Like their Nazi-orange twin brothers, they can only be claimed by a split, in a state of civil opposition. The more stable the society, the more doubloons appear in the garbage (in the direct and figurative sense).
In order to deceive society and to provide support for their destructive ideas, they always offer, as a first point, an obvious fact that no one disputes. Today, for example, they state that the resumption of a hot conflict in Ukraine is inevitable. Russia's chance to be openly drawn into it is approaching 99%. Similarly, the Turkish leadership is practically unable to retreat in the conflict with Russia over the destruction of the Su-24 and the killing of two Russian servicemen. From which it follows that Russia (to which retreat is also contraindicated in terms of both international authority and internal political positioning of power) will almost inevitably enter the war with Turkey.
But further distortion begin. Firstly, from the fact that the possibility of victory without an open war (within the framework of a hybrid conflict) is extremely small the conclusion is made that there is no need to try. And then the whining begins, as Ukraine should have been occupied in 2014, and Turkey (since it was not pinned either in 1920 or 1945-1946) was destroyed, destroyed and divided immediately after its attack on the aircraft.
The fact that international provocations are organized in order to draw Russia into the war under conditions unfavorable to it has been written many times (many, not only by me) and many times explained why it’s better later than before, and even better with a kind word, without taking out pistol holsters. In the end, I agree that if they want to provoke us, then sooner or later they will be put in conditions in which the rejection of military reaction will be impossible. But is it worth the rush?
The hybrid war, during which the world is rapidly becoming chaotic, was not us. She started against us. Nevertheless, within the framework of the hybrid war, Russia was able to achieve a clear advantage by learning to use chaos to its own interests, acting as a stabilizer on time and in the right place. I am not writing this for those who “know everything” about “the evil Surkov,” “the cowardly Kremlin”, “the Donbas devotee”, “the Syrians who turned out to be more important than the Russians”, etc. This is written for those who are able to ask themselves the question: why did the United States, who were going to defeat us in the framework of the hybrid war, suddenly began to provoke an open conflict, not sparing not only Ukraine that was not needed by anyone, but even the Turks - their NATO allies, whose territory and army are extremely important from a strategic point of view, including for controlling the Middle East and ensuring access of the NATO Navy to the Black Sea?
The logical answer to this question is because the hybrid confrontation is losing and they understand that another one or two years of development of events in such a dynamic and in the direction of Washington, from which Russia intercepts the control of chaos, will lose its last chance not only to win, but even to a draw. His position will be as strategically hopeless as Germany’s in April 1945. Even now, drawing Russia into two wars at the same time (Ukraine and Turkey) does not guarantee its defeat - it is not known who will hold out longer and whose resources will run out earlier (at war with Russia or affected by the US systemic crisis). Every day won by the formal world is increasingly shifting the balance in our favor.
The importance of winning time is no less than it was in 1939-1941. Then there was not enough year. But it’s scary to think how a war could develop if it started in September 1939. Within those borders, at that level of training of troops, at that level of technical support (especially in the Air Force, even in the project there were no fighters capable of equal combat with Messerschmitt Bf-109), with the readiness of the leadership of Great Britain and France to support the aggression of Germany against the USSR ( despite their guarantees to Poland) the Soviet Union had little chance of holding out.
Now our position is much better than in the 1939-1941 year. Nevertheless, it makes no sense to tempt fate. It is unlikely that anyone has any doubt that it is worth Russia to get involved in a conflict with Turkey, as the arrogance of the Kiev regime (by the way, and its internal stability) will increase dramatically. Similarly, Ankara will feel much more confident if Russia is tied up in Ukraine. And with all the gradual "insight" of Europe, being involved at once in two wars against two European allies (albeit not loved ones), it will be difficult to prove that you are not the aggressor.
Logistics of the Syrian operation will be greatly complicated. Military spending will increase many times. Social budget items will have to be reduced, which will be perceived by the public without enthusiasm. The United States will joyfully set fire to Central Asia.
In addition, operations against Ukraine and Turkey have their own unpleasant features. It is desirable to dissolve them in time, spending successively, one after another - first Turkish and then Ukrainian, but it is technically impossible to do this, since Ukraine threatens the rear of the group against Turkey and can provide its territory for deep Turkish sabotage in the Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod areas.
At the same time, it should be understood that absolutely surpassing Turkey in the qualitative, quantitative composition of the Armed Forces and in terms of their technical support, Russia, due to its specific features (both geographical and political, including the position of the Caucasian states, and not just the US and NATO) of the theater of military operations can not immediately concentrate grouping, sufficient for lightning defeat of Turkey. Consequently, the conflict will be long enough (hardly less than a year, and probably longer) and will require, together with the Syrian operation and the activation of galvanized Ukraine, a great deal of exertion.
On the other hand, the operation against Ukraine could take from several days to two weeks, but the worst would come after the victory, when Russia would have to urgently take on the maintenance of 40 million (almost a third of Russia's population) inhabitants of the occupied territory, as well as start investing tens of billions of dollars annually in creating a new economy there that would allow the population to stop feeding from the Russian budget in the foreseeable future and start at least partially earning a living on their own. A lightning victory over Ukraine, in terms of linking resources, would have cost more than a protracted conflict with Turkey. But the most dangerous thing is that, most likely, both conflicts would begin in direct connection with each other and Russia would receive all the problems in one bottle.
Patriotically hoping for the power of the army, but to achieve and consolidate victory finances are more important than warheads, and there is clearly not enough money to solve the Turkish-Ukrainian problem by force. By the way, Fuagra and Veuve Clicquot will be in stores - pensions and wages will begin to strive for the level of 90's. That is, from the state of intercepting the control of the chaos organized by the Americans, Russia will begin to move into its own internal chaos. To understand how it looks, what it leads to and how quickly it comes, take a look at Ukraine.
Therefore, in the framework of a hybrid war, avoiding open conflict, but (as in the case of an airplane), demonstrating readiness to go to the end if necessary, Russia uses not the most popular, but Minsk-proven mechanism for a comprehensive solution to geopolitical problems. Minsk, formally remaining a mechanism for resolving the internal Ukrainian conflict, went far beyond the limits of a purely Ukrainian format.
With the help of Minsk, Russia has put the Kiev regime in a situation where it cannot start a war. Germany and France do not command and threaten to place blame for the conflict on Ukraine, and this could lead to the lifting of European sanctions against Russia and, therefore, a complete failure of US policy in Europe.
But he can not and do not fight. Without war, the regime has nowhere to channel not only the hostility of its own Nazi militants against the leading remnants of the country of oligarchic kleptocracy, but also the hatred of the population, including the liberal-European integration crowd, which doesn’t understand why instead of milk rivers with milk and honey, Maidan brought only ruin, a sharp fall in life level, the elimination of the economy and endless civil war.
Without war, the regime is not viable. He was unable to carry out the federalist reform prescribed in Minsk and strongly recommended even by Biden, it was not for this that the Nazis unleashed the civil war (they could have been peacefully federalized as early as March 2014). It has already become a burden for the United States, which would have to be off balance, but they cannot just put down the Ukrainian bridgehead (after Saakashvilevskaya Georgia this will be the second deafening failure of the American project in the post-Soviet space and the complete loss of face and prospects). As a result, instead of Russian, chaotic Ukraine binds American resources, at the same time introducing dissonance into the touching relations of the United States with its leading European allies (Germany and France), which also incur enormous costs for the sake of extending the senseless agony of the unviable regime.
It is characteristic that the United States refused to directly support Turkey in its conflict with Russia. The EU also stepped aside. Ankara begins to develop the same hybrid process as with Ukraine. In fact, ideally, Russia is achieving the same thing that the Americans tried to achieve with the exact opposite. The strategic success of Moscow must pay opponents. The US and the EU are already paying it in Ukraine. Turkey and the United States must pay it in the Middle East.
There is a war between Moscow and Washington by proxy, on foreign territory, and mostly at the expense of others. Whoever invests less of his own resources in the fight and forces him to invest more of his opponent will win. So far, the United States is investing more, but they do not give up hope to turn the tide and force Russia to pay more - Washington is talking about this at all levels without hiding. And our doublon alarmists, who dream of making money on the radicalization of society and the militarization of state policy, are objective allies of Washington — a fifth column much more dangerous than all liberals and nationalists put together.
Of course, the ongoing Minsk policy, like any other, has its costs. In Ukraine as a whole and in the Donbass in particular, Russian people are really dying (or people loyally inclined towards Russia, although they are dreaming of a parochial self). But there is a loss in any war. The question is the criticality of their level. So, from the point of view of the development of the Russian World, the existence of Russia is critically necessary. The policy being pursued today to this requirement more than meets. Russia is still not only out of danger, but is moving progressively towards the design of its victory.
Only emotions can interfere with this - the same as those that destroyed the Russian rear in 1905 and in 1917. The doubloons, voluntarily or involuntarily, but disinterestedly, warm up their emotions with their defeatist propaganda (designed to bring about a change of chaos control in the framework of a hybrid Minsk, to dive into chaos under conditions of immersion in several direct military conflicts) and to try to undermine the people's trust in the authorities, in order to ask power budgets to restore this very confidence.
Information