Why do liberals need heavy artillery?
Against the background of all that “fun” that is going on in the former USSR, one cannot fail to recall one noble Ukrainian and defector, Rezun, and not to turn over his “immortal ideas”. It is impossible not to laugh at a very old fan of Makhno’s father and not to admire his “foresight”: “Everything turned out, Ukraine became free!”.
Let me remind you of the main fabric of his science fiction novels: the Soviet system was ineffective, people flee from socialism in droves, so you need to capture the whole world, so you need mountains weapons. And even the Soviet security officers had heavy howitzers. Something like this. It is interesting. And the ancestors of Rezun were from Ukraine, and he was very tightly associated with this country. Well, he, like Ukraine, was lucky. They still managed to escape from the embrace of the USSR and begin to build their own separate life. As comrade Rezun taught us, life outside the totalitarian system (and especially the life of a simple Ukrainian) will be free, rich and happy.
I just wanted to analyze all this history in terms of freedom. You know, I completely believe in freedom of choice. And I think this is a fundamental, basic value. And indeed, a society in which people must be held by force has no prospects (here Rezun is right again). Sooner or later, such a system will fall apart. And people will flee like wildebeest from the pen. You see, the ambush of any law is that it is common. That is, it applies not only to this particular case, but also “in general”. Kai is a man, so Kai is mortal. Parallel straight (no matter whose) obstinately refuse to intersect. Although, of course, there is a unique principle: the territorial integrity of Georgia. It is only Georgia. Centuries, minutes of the millennium will pass, and only Georgia will remain unchanged. The principle is as follows. But seriously, this was all voiced after Kosovo and it was not very convenient to speak simply about the “principle of territorial integrity”, therefore the “principle of Georgia’s territorial integrity”. Funny.
So, about freedom. I agree, the basic and core value. This is me without irony. The very freedom that tempted us so long in the USSR and the lack of which was so long stabbed. A civilized person must be free. And this is true, and freedom must be fought. The problem is that the principle is common and applies to all. This is something many people don’t want to consider. Did “those who stood on the Maidan” have the right to express their opinion and to exercise their political rights? Yes, definitely. The problem is that the inhabitants of the Crimea and the Donbass had exactly the same rights. For this there is a representative democracy to resolve such contradictions. I have political rights, but my opponent also has political rights. So, in order to resolve the contradiction that arises, we use the “representative democracy” technology. And everyone is happy.
Rather, almost everything. As we remember, the south-east of Ukraine was corny richer and had more population than the north-west. Therefore, elections could be held infinitely; they did not give the “necessary” result. That's exactly the reason for the two Maidan-forcibly change the course of history. That is, it is important, not who and how votes, but who and how “jumps” in Kiev. And yes, the pro-Western / anti-Russian propaganda went on endlessly, but this all did not give the "necessary" result. By the way, I am against the second Maidan (and against the first) precisely because I adhere to liberal views. In the sense that the main value is freedom. You know, I am an extremist in terms of freedom. So, I am against the Maidan for this reason: on the Maidan your freedom is stolen. And this is somehow not good at all.
Then these complex, multi-level democratic / electoral procedures were invented to take into account the opinion of the most diverse segments of the population. And yes, in Ukraine, elections (including under Yanukovych) were held regularly and no one canceled them. There was democracy in Ukraine. Was, because there is no longer and never will be, but it was, albeit very imperfect. Paradoxically, but it is the Ukrainian example that confirms (from the opposite) the advantages of the democratic form of government: the more consensus in society is reached, the less violence is required for management. Mass executions are, of course, the best management method, and, of course, only they will save the Motherland, which has been torn by the enemies, but somehow I wanted to avoid it. Therefore, democracy. And let everyone express their opinion about the future of the country. The tragedy of Ukraine was that serious external players categorically did not suit such a “consensus”.
By the way, all claims to Russia for respecting sovereignty, which so often sound, for example from Minsk (and before that came from Kiev), frankly, I am genuinely surprised. Surprise to the depths of the soul, because it is impossible to respect what is not in principle. I, thank God, is not a politician, so I can speak directly. After all, not only the United States or Germany, but even Poland, even Lithuania (Lithuania !!), categorically refuse to respect the sovereignty of Belarus (and Ukraine, of course). Or am I wrong? Even in impoverished third-rate Vilnius, no one respects the state sovereignty of Belarus: propaganda, subversive activities and preparations for regime change are open. De facto, the official Minsk is not even recognized there.
The position of Western countries in relation to the same Belarus is very simple: Lukashenko is the last dictator of Europe. The regime should be changed, which is typical; at the same time, no one is interested in the opinion of Belarusians and is not going to be interested. Strange democracy, huh? A certain group of "wise men" makes decisions for ten million people, without asking their opinions. Moreover, the West is treated with great respect in Belarus: no one is going to be rude and make sharp remarks. And to demand "respect for sovereignty", too. According to the experience of Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Libya, it can be said with confidence that the "demolition of the regime" can take place with a lot of blood and a complete collapse of the economy. That's exactly what its liberal European friends are planning for Belarus. This is quite strange for me when people of “liberal” views support the coup d'etat and the subsequent mess. At the same time, no one is particularly interested in the opinion of the population to be “blessed”. His fate, by the way, too.
This is very strange, such a contradiction in the views of the “liberals”: on the one hand, freedom is good, and lack of freedom is bad (with which I fully agree); on the other hand, willingness to use violence on a large scale. But after all, widespread use of violence is just a “birthmark” of totalitarian regimes? Is not it so? In the same Ukraine: there was bribery, corruption, propaganda and implementation. But it didn't work out. Then the "democratic procedures" pushed aside, made an armed coup and simply put at the head of the country those people who organized the sponsors of the coup. They were not elected at all (within the country). After that, some leaders say that Putin is simply afraid of Ukrainian democracy. Excuse me, how can you be afraid of what has become?
In Ukraine, there was a dirty and bloody (with murders, fires and mass arrests) regime change in the interests of foreign powers. What can Putin be afraid of here, what democratic model can Russians see here? Classic African coup. What is there, sorry, interesting? “Yes, it was a million times!” Here in the CAR there was something similar, in Nigeria, the Congo ... The paradox is that it happened “in the middle of Europe” and all European liberal figures supported it. In fact, in order to push through one specific solution (Euro-Association), a coup was carried out by the forces of radicals and democracy was destroyed (which Radio Liberty told us for so long). And what is it, forgive, an example and what can you learn here? Roughly speaking, if the Ukrainians dreamed so much about the “Euro-Association”, then why couldn’t they vote for it? The thing is that Europe did not need all these "games", specifically Merkel was not ready to admit defeat, even temporarily, she needed a victory, and here, now and for free. And to hell with democracy!
You see, I remember that very USSR and that very ideology, and everything was, and everything was connected, and almost everything worked. From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability (joke). I literally get lost when I come across an ideology where one is said, but something is done that is absolutely not connected with it. Freedom of choice? Perfectly! A great base for a free society. Here is the Crimea and chose ... No, not right. They could not choose. And who could? Specially trained people from the closed list. You still do not know them. And the one who does not obey the order will be shot along with his family ... Are you still sure that we are talking about the same "free society" and "liberal ideology"?
In the last decades of the USSR, a lot was said about the “convergence” of the two systems. Somehow she unexpectedly passed, this convergence. The "free world" is forced to promote freedom, democracy and economic prosperity by purely forceful means. (Just what Western burghers frightened Comrade Rezun talking about the USSR.) Coups, gangs of armed Nazis, artillery firing on peaceful cities. If this is so great, and Mercedes is so much better than Zhiguli, then why so much blood? Adherents of the Western system like to ask this obvious answer: what is better from the brands of two cars. From the experience of Ukraine, the counter question immediately arises: why then so much blood?
By the way, from the experience of Yugoslavia or Iraq there arises about the same question. A new, progressive system boldly strides forward over millions of corpses. “With an iron hand, we will pound humanity happily, speak?” And at once, somehow everything is unstable in this most tolerant of all worlds, and at once, there are many enemies, threats ... with which we must fight. This situation is somehow familiar, just painfully familiar, it was all already, not with us, but it was. You know, when you really like Karl Marx, but not really like Laurent Beria. That's about the same feeling I feel, looking at the implementation of liberal ideas in the modern world to me.
I like the liberal ideas very much, I don’t like their implementation: Donbass didn’t understand the charms of European integration? So build West Berlin with Disneyland in Kiev! The problem is what? After all, Mercedes is always better than Zhiguli! And Disneyland is much better than the Gulag! And not only the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk, but also the Russians and Belarusians will see what kind of free, rich and free life is going on in the Euro-associated Ukraine. Instead, Donetsk is endlessly shelled, and people are dying there.
It is strange when you are one of the few who share liberal ideas and at the same time use logic: why kill those whom you want to make happy? EU membership, visa-free Schengen, salaries of two thousand euros and pensions of a thousand ... Is that bad? Noble Germans want to make Ukraine a rich, free and happy country? Fine, but what's the point of shelling Donetsk? Riddle. You see, in the same Europe it is very difficult to combine liberal ideas and shelling by landmines of the Donetsk quarters. These two things do not want to fit in one reality. When freedom of choice is declared the main value and massacres of those who have made the “wrong choice” are carried out at the same time, logic begins to protest.
Most often in the Western press contrasted "free Europe" and "totalitarian Russia". Different countries, different history, different culture, different policies. The priority of the individual and the priority of the state, freedom and non-freedom. Europe and Asia. Everything is fine, but the example of Donetsk somehow refutes it all. You can make any choice if this is our choice. Otherwise we will destroy you. The Donetsk residents were not going to go to Lviv and deprive the Westerners of their historical choice? So what's the problem? Who are they threatening? And then there is the thesis that the most important thing is the unity of the state. At any cost, even the massacre of the "rebels". Great, Comrade Nebuchadnezzar applauds with both hands. But then what have the liberal views and democratic values? What is more important for the European Union: the values of ancient Assyria / Babylonia or the values of the Great French Revolution? Where is the starting point?
And we are going back to four thousand years ago, when rebellious cities were simply wiped off the face of the Earth. The more everything changes, the more everything remains the same? Sardanapal and Catherine Ashton politically - twin brothers / sisters? Of course, the real policy has always departed from the values declared as basic. But not so much! Not to the same extent. It is all one thing that in the era of absolutism it is frankly and publicly “chmorye” the blood orange. It is illogical somehow, I would even say, ridiculous. Yes, of course, the real power could be in the hands of the “gray cardinal”. But then he was gray, which formally for all the head of state remained the king. No options. In the USSR, often gigantic efforts were made to squeeze one or another managerial decision into the framework of ideology. Not always, by the way, successfully.
And here everything is much simpler: some very attractive things are declared for many things, and then a very tough policy is carried out, which is NOT connected with the declared ideology. Top arrogance. And then, when people begin to resent the “humanitarian bombardments” and Guantanamo, there comes something like this: why are you afraid of democracy? That is, the ideology (very attractive) and the real politician are divorced in different directions. And that “wonderful ideology” is substituted for all the “retaliatory” blows: they are against us, because they are against freedom ... You see, it is impossible to argue with a frank liar — you just have nothing to cling to. So it is here: there are generally accepted democratic countries and governments, any actions of which are automatically declared correct, logical and legal.
And there are countries and peoples, by definition, "undemocratic" (apparently, not the proportions of the skull of the population), which have no rights and which can be robbed and killed, as much as they please. There are those who worship Baal and other “perjurers”, there are Christians and pagan savages, there are true Aryans and “subhumans”. New edition of the old ideology. But if during these times it was openly declared that there is “us and them”, now everything is done much smarter: new principles are declared universal, but, in fact, they work very differently for different nations. And there is no limit to our misunderstanding: we are trying to study their ideology and point to obvious "inconsistencies." They are in response only cute smile: it does not concern you.
Therefore, to consider “liberal ideology” today is basically pointless: it is widely declared in the West, but it does not work in any way. Real politics is not connected with it at all, not even partially connected. Take, for example, the same Abkhaz people: they exist, they live, they must somehow build a political system of governance. And elections are regularly held in Abkhazia, and the West regularly refuses to recognize them. And what forgive the Abkhazians to do? Die? Put life "on pause"? Regardless of Russia, there is Abkhaz history, culture, language. But it is not interesting to anyone. Abkhazia is considered as a territory occupied by Russia, and that's it. The territory must be returned to Georgia, and everyone will be happy. But what about the Abkhaz? With their unique culture and complete rejection of the Georgian state? No way. Their opinion is not interesting to anyone. Their very existence is denied. Well, and how to combine it with “liberal values”?
In the end, who prevented the “European Commissioners” to establish direct contact with representatives of the very Abkhaz (or South Ossetian) people? Not recognizing them officially. Find out what their demands, fears, worries and sadness are. Try to understand them. Paradoxically, this could help (in due time) to preserve the territorial integrity of Georgia. But the European commissioners did just that - they relied on official Tbilisi, issued a blank check to any actions and closed their eyes to everything. In the end, what could the death of thousands and tens of thousands of natives mean to a civilized European?
Absolutely nothing. Tolerant Europeans followed the old patterns of colonial policy: set some natives against others. And then, weakening and subjugating the locals, create a new colony. Such are the "liberal values". For the Georgian state, it ended in a terrible disaster. It has, in fact, broken up. And after all these outrages, I still can not understand: why the Abkhaz are worse than Georgians and who prevented them from taking their interests into account when creating an independent Georgia? And how does this contradict the very liberal principles? The principles of real politics is also not inconsistent. The Abkhaz were essentially driven into a corner: either a complete orientation towards Russia, or genocide. Liberal Europeans did not want to offer them any other options. The same was true of Ossetians living in Georgia.
At the same time, following the widely declared European principles of state-building eliminated all these contradictions: the Abkhaz and Ossetians would gain wide autonomy and self-government (like Switzerland), while Georgia would maintain its territorial integrity. And everyone is happy. Lepot But our dear European partners went a completely different way, from European liberal values very far away. Instead of searching for an international compromise, the Clean Field operation was proposed. What kind of hints. Why do I write so long and hard about Abkhazia: they are not Russians, not Slavs, and they were not going to Russia at all. They just wanted to be heard. But they did not want to listen. The whole West was very "worried" about the problems of the Georgian people, but nobody noticed and did not notice the Abkhaz there. Again it is not clear, and why are Georgians “better” than the Abkhaz? And in general, where can you see the "gradation" of nations by their qualities? Well, to better navigate politics.
But an interesting task for an adept of liberal values: what should the Abkhaz do? How do they live in this beautiful world? That same foolish and amateurish policy that we observed in Ukraine, much earlier and in a much smaller volume was implemented in Georgia. By the way, Ukraine could also be easily saved on the basis of European liberal values. Surprised? In the meantime, it is. The implementation of the very principles that are obligatory in Europe (respect for the language and culture of national minorities) completely rescued Ukraine from the threat of internal armed unrest. And all the glory would be given to European politicians, and Ukraine would become, no, not France, but the second (or third after Georgia) Switzerland, which undoubtedly shares the same European values that they were refused to give.
The situations are similar both in Georgia and in Ukraine: for many years Western politicians have listened attentively to ONE side of the conflict, completely ignoring the other. And looking for a way out of the impasse. The second side of the conflict within Georgia and within Ukraine does not exist for them - there is a Kremlin policy with which to fight. What is the point of discussing “human rights” if they are not available to all nationalities? You know how at one time Soviet dissidents called on the authorities of the USSR: “Observe your own constitution!” This is about the same thing. I really like “liberal values”, I just don’t like that all this doesn’t work, at least outside the EU.
By the way, analyzing the foreign policy of the European Union, you can come to a rather amusing conclusion: this is a weak opponent. No, of course, he has a lot of muscular (financial) mass. But the policy: stupid, aggressive and straightforward. No tricks, dodge, plans B, C, he does not have and close. The tactics and strategy of "direct heap" - what he blames Russia for (according to Freud) - frank lies and direct aggression. For the last seven years, there have been virtually no attempts by the West to “drag” the Russian audience onto its side. There is a stream of threats, insults and other dirt. So these people understand politics and propaganda. At the level of marketplace swearing. The plan is that the Russians need to understand how bad they are. Even so.
Propaganda, lies, an attempt of a coup ... In theory, they planned that everything would happen easily and quickly in Ukraine, and no one would notice a brief moment of fraud. In fact, everything turned into an endless bloody nightmare. At the same time, the European commissioners, having once made a bet on "their scoundrels", are forced to continue to cover them in everything. With the support of standard Nazis and scumbags in Kiev, talking about liberal values in Russia has become quite difficult. The people see everything. The Europeans gave the Huntik carte blanche, and they went all in. And they could not win. Now both the “gentlemen” in Kiev and the “gentlemen” in Brussels are sitting stupidly and waiting for Russia to collapse, they have no other options. And yes, the very first projectile in the Donbass nailed, no, not the truth (it was nailed much earlier), they were nailed by the very “liberal values” that Echo of Moscow had been telling us about for so long and popularly.
Information