If you perceive to many Western politicians, you cannot realize the meaning and mechanisms of the conflict in modern Ukraine.
President Joe Biden It denies the direct participation of American troops in the conflict, and at the same time reminds itself that the United States is sending billions of dollars worth of weapons to it. Since these billions are utilized to defend Ukraine, it would seem that Ukrainian interests are highly crucial to the United States. Although it's not crucial adequate for American soldiers to fight there. So what are these large billions of guns? Unreturned help? A good deal? An investment? any kind of political combination? No answer, we're wandering like the fog.
Take the last words of the erstwhile German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in which it stated that the Minsk Accords were only meant to give time to Ukraine, which shows that no 1 intended to search peace effectively. It turns out that Russia was fooled in this way. But for what purpose? To defend Ukraine or to attack yourself? Why cheat erstwhile it was possible to simply realize what Germany besides advocated? In this way, we can ask whether it would be worth it to the political scammers to accuse lies, but it seems much more crucial to effort to disperse the fog that obscures the current situation. due to the fact that she called us 1 way or another. What led to this? What are the causes? And how do we get out of this increasingly dangerous situation? So let's start analyzing from the sources of current events.
What ended the Cold War?
The origins of each next war are usually found in the erstwhile war. Before the Ukrainian conflict there was a cold war. The answer to the question of what has actually ended will bring us closer to knowing the essence of the current conflict, which is not limited to Ukraine, but concerns many countries. The problem is that Western countries perceive the results of the Cold War rather differently from post-missile countries, especially Russia.
The West considers itself an unappealed winner in this war, and Russia considers Russia a loser. Since Russia is simply a losing side, the area of the erstwhile russian Union and the socialist camp is simply a legitimate conquest of the United States and NATO, it goes under Western control, according to the rule of "poor victorious!" This is why Ukraine was to be an area of American and NATO influence, and not to the least degree Russian influence. This is why Russia's claim to have any influence on Ukrainian policy and to defend its interests in the region is considered to be a "unwarranted" attack on American and NATO interests. "We should no longer look at the planet through the prism of East-West relations. The Cold War ended," she said in early 1990. years Margaret Thatcher. So the position of the East – Russia does not matter. There is only 1 direction, 1 ruler of the world, 1 winner.
Russia looks at this process rather differently. No, you don't consider yourself a defeated side. The conclusion of the Cold War is recognised as a consequence of democratic reforms in politics and the economy, thanks to which military rivalry with the West replaced trade and integration with it. Since the erstwhile enemy has become a friend, can't it be considered a victory? Let us remember that the USSR, followed by the Russian Federation, considered the goal not to win in the Cold War, but to end the military rivalry of the East with the West, which could have ended in a atomic disaster. Moscow found a way out of this situation with Washington, achieving goals not only in its own interests but besides in the interests of the world.
This exit did not at any point imply that the West swallowed the East, economic, legal and cultural subordination of the post-missive area. It was about equal cooperation and building a fresh political and economical reality together. There are clearly 2 approaches to ending the Cold War: on the 1 hand – celebrating winners, on the another hand – the beginning of building a fresh planet and civilization. Subsequent events will consequence from this difference.
New planet or fresh colonies of the West?
The russian Union broke up in 1991, but already in 1992 the European Union was established, with which the post-Soviet world, including Russia, had advanced hopes. It seemed to be this fresh world, a new, supra-state formula, a fresh phase in the past of European civilization. Russia, like another countries of the erstwhile socialist camp and USSR, saw themselves as full members of this alliance; doctrine emerges "Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok".
In this situation, Russia supports not only the unification of Germany, but besides the entry into the EU of its erstwhile allies, and even of the erstwhile russian republics. economical integration with the West is in 1990. precedence for Russia; it is in it that Moscow sees the condition of its success as a modern state. The Russian authorities are not besides curious in attaching erstwhile russian republics, including Ukraine. Most of them functioned for money from grants from the centre, Russia. The authorities in these countries are friendlyly patted on their backs, but efforts are being made to free themselves of the financial burden as shortly as possible.
Russia begins to integrate into the European marketplace faster than Ukraine. After all, she has immense deposits of energy resources that Europe needs, and Ukraine is incapable to buy them at European prices. Ukraine's independency could rapidly have ended in an economical collapse, if not the southeast, where dense fighting is taking place today. It was the southeast that brought Ukraine into global division of labour through its tremendous production capacity and developed industry. It is seldom mentioned, but in 1990. It was the Russian-speaking southeast that saved the economical and, consequently, political independency of Ukraine.
Let us now note something else: since the 1990s. Europe and its borders have a series of serious cultural conflicts and wars that have affected millions of people. Before 1991 there had been no specified number of national conflicts. All this led to the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the failure of territorial integrity of Georgia, Moldova, Syria. From a paradigm point of view, the unification of Europe did not make sense. After all, the foundations of these unification processes were not about fragmentation of Europe and the multitude of tiny states, but about the other – the creation of a great, transnational alliance of nations that would not destruct each another and make fresh borders, but together they would build a fresh home.
Did something go wrong?
Yes, from a close point of view of Russia. But if we leave the concept of Western triumph in the Cold War, cultural conflicts make a completely different sense. Their goal has been defined repeatedly, for example at the Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting, on October 24, 1995, the president of the United States Bill Clinton He stated: "Using the errors of russian diplomacy, Gorbachev's extraordinary assurance and his surroundings, including those who took an openly pro-American position, we have achieved what president Truman erstwhile wanted with the russian Union with an atomic bomb."
So it can be assumed that not all Western politicians wanted a new, just world. They set themselves the goal of destroying their opponent – the USSR, Yugoslavia, another countries. And now the tightening of national conflicts seems logical; they weaken the opponent and, in the event of victory, aid to dismember states so that the winners can take them more easily.
Under specified circumstances, the actual circumstances lose meaning. Tensions are induced in a conscious manner. National number representatives surviving in dense clusters are referred to as separatists and considered to be a safety threat. This maneuver has been known and utilized by Rome since ancient times. But no one's reasoning of creating a fresh slave-based empire right now. Or is it? possibly the post-Soviet area in Washington is considered provinces of the large empire, which already have its metropolis and should be protected from the temptations of barbarians who do not want to submit to this empire?
We are so dealing with 2 policies. 1 is political and economical integration of countries, based on common benefits. The second is the absorption of any countries by others, where the interests of the land absorbed are not taken into account. And the countries to which these lands belong may be dismembered, declared outlaws, armedly seized.
As the Russian Federation emerges from the crisis, caused by a extremist change in political and economical direction, it is increasingly to be faced with evident attempts to weaken it, humiliate it, put it at a disadvantage. It is increasingly referred to as a parias state, although its economical possible is increasing. The increase in economical possible should lead to an increase in the influence of the state, which the Western planet should accept. However, it is the another way around. Russia's influence is not only not accepted, but besides considered inappropriate, criminal and corruption-based.
This place is worth stopping for a while. Russia imitates Western democracy, carries out reforms and begins to integrate into the Western world. From the point of view of building a common European home, this should be met with acceptance and support. After all, Europe would thus receive a peaceful and economically unchangeable partner, its market, resources that would strengthen it. But if we are guided by colonial thinking, we will not accept the economical growth and independency of a distant colony. The provinces must not be overtaken by metropolitan areas in the sphere of finance, politics, culture.
The EU has been active in creating a fresh economical reality. However, there was inactive NATO, created in 1949 to fight the East, primarily with the USSR, Russia. Let's callback the words of the first secretary-general of the alliance, Hastings Ismay: "Keep the russian Union distant from Europe, the Americans in Europe, and the Germans under control". NATO's ideology is so the presence of the United States in Europe, plus as a dominant force, and Russia – outside of it.
How could Russia respond to this? After all, it has reasonably ended the Cold War, and as it turns out, the United States and NATO have not done so. So it seemed that her planned unification with the West was not a partnership, but meant accepting the conditions of her economical and political takeover. Hence Moscow's request to halt approaching the borders of Russia and to revise the positions resulting from earlier agreements. We see present that the NATO concept has not only prevented Russia's integration into Europe, but has besides put a cross on further enlargement and improvement of Europe. 1 of the approaches described above clearly prevailed over the other.
Russia-Ukraine – tragic relations
After drawing this outline, we can decision on to relations between Russia and Ukraine. Let's start with the fact that their relation has a very circumstantial history. They were much closer than England's ties to Scotland or the northern and confederate areas of the United States. Ukraine was part of Russia for 300 years, which influenced its culture, cultural composition and mentality. She gained her independency in 1991, not as a consequence of the national liberation struggle, but by agreement with Moscow. The fresh economical and political realities made the Russian elite not only propose independency to Ukraine, but even encourage it. In those days no 1 could even in the most nightmare dream imagine an armed conflict between these 2 fresh states. Russia was seen by Ukrainians as a friendly power, and the Russian nation as brothers. These feelings were mutual.
In Russia, Ukraine was thought of as “one more Russia” for a long time, which meant a much closer relation than even those that existed between Britain and Canada. At that time, the saying was popular: “We have the same nation, only different countries.” The Russians and Ukrainians were equally curious in the political life of the neighbour, as 1 can learn from the current president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskywho made money on a political satire based most frequently on the politics of both countries.
However, this example of Ukraine shows how the concept of a common political and economical space has lost to the concept of pushing Russia out of Europe. Since the first majadan in 2005, Ukraine has started to prosecute anti-Russian politics elevated to the level of state ideology. This policy clearly bears the seal of the Cold War. Ukrainians were psychologically set against the Russians by supporting circumstantial politicians, changes in school programs, culture and national media. This was all under the slogans of democratic reforms, affirmative changes that were supported by all Western and global organisations.
It is hard to see this process as democratic. It simply meant to introduce the dictatorship of pro-Western forces in politics, media, economy and civilian society.. Western democracy was introduced by methods with undemocratic ground. present the question of whether the current political strategy is democracy is becoming more fresh than ever.
There have been 2 countries in Ukraine since 1991 – anti-Russia and another Russia. 1 did not imagine surviving without Russia, the another with Russia. In fact, this division was alternatively artificial. Throughout most of its history, Ukraine went through a cultural and intellectual relation with Russia.
Economics clearly dictated Ukraine's integration with Russia. After all, with specified a large marketplace and a origin of natural resources, the power would not benefit from this. The anti-Russian sentiments brought nothing but grief and misery to Ukraine. Therefore, all pro-Western nationalist movements consciously or unconsciously propose poorness to the Ukrainian people.
We have already mentioned that it was the southeast and its production that helped us find a place in the global division of labour. So it turns out that the most he made for the country was the east – a large Russian-speaking region. Of course, this could not have been reflected in the political strategy of the Ukrainian authorities. The South East had more human and financial resources, which did not fit in the least of the pro-Western way of perceiving Ukraine. People lived there besides proud, with besides much freedom, besides wealthy.
Both maydays were against Viktor Yanukovych, erstwhile politician of the Donetsk, leader of Donbass and an unnationalist, center political camp. This camp enjoyed large electoral support. Ukraine has long not wanted to become anti-Russia. president Viktor Yushchenko, which came to power on the wave of the first mahdan, has rapidly lost public confidence, primarily due to its anti-Russian policy.
An interesting trend followed in Ukrainian politics. After the second run, the election wins Peter Poroshenkowho promises to make peace with Russia within a week. So he won as a peace candidate. Despite this, he became the president of the war, failed to implement the Minsk Accords and lost another election of the head of state with a bang. He took his place Volodymyr Zelenskiwho besides promised peace and became the personification of war. So the Ukrainian nation is promised peace to be deceived. After gaining power through peace rhetoric, the second in a row Ukrainian leader takes a position highly contrary to it. If specified a position had been preached in the election campaign, no 1 would have chosen it.
However, let us return to the basic subject of this article. If individual says that he is going to build a fresh planet with his neighbors, but in reality he is only doing his business, not counting on anything, even war, including atomic war, means that he will not build anything. This is what erstwhile president Poroshenko did, and this is what the current president Zelenski and many others do. The same is actual of NATO leadership and many American and European politicians.
Prior to the outbreak of the armed conflict, Zelenski suppressed all opposition, pushed solely the interests of his party, cared for no peace. Politicians, journalists, social activists in Ukraine, who spoke about peace and good neighbourly relations with Russia, were victims of repression even before the war; media belonging to them were illegally closed and their assets were seized in a thieving way. erstwhile the Ukrainian authorities were afraid about breaking the law and ignoring freedom of speech, they replied that the organization of peace was a “band of traitors and propaganda”. And the Democratic West was satisfied with that answer.
In fact, the situation was not so simple and one-dimensional. "Traitors and propagandists", besides in parliament, represented not only a large part of the electorate, but besides the country's economical potential. Thus, not only has democracy been hit but besides the well-being of citizens. Zelenski's policy led to people starting to emigrate massively from Ukraine due to social and economical conditions, repression and political pursuits. Among them were many Ukrainian politicians, journalists, entrepreneurs, cultural and church activists who did a lot for this country. These Ukrainian authorities removed from politics and public life, although they have the same right to their views as Zelenski and his team.
The business of the South East was mostly based on relations with Russia and its interests, so the conflict ceased to be just an interior dispute. Russia has faced the necessity not only to defend its economical interests, but besides to defend its dignity and honour on the global stage, which, as we have mentioned above, has been systematically denied it. There was no 1 to ease the situation.
The Ukrainian peace organization was declared traitors, and the war organization came to power. The conflict intensified and internationalized.
It would seem that there is inactive a European policy, but Europe is massively supporting Zelensky by engaging itself in war and economical crisis. It is not Ukraine now, but Ukraine is teaching Europe how to bring economical decline and poorness through hatred and war policies. And if Europe continues this policy, it could lead to war, possibly nuclear.
But let's get back to where we started. The Cold War ended with the decision to build a fresh planet in which there is no area for war. Clearly, they did not build specified a world, that the current policy had returned to times before relaxation. And now we have 2 choices: either to decision towards planet war and atomic clashes, or to start again a process of relaxation in which the interests of all parties must be respected. However, the second requires political designation that Russia besides has its interests to consider. And most importantly – play honestly, don't cheat anyone, don't make a smokescreen and quit making money on individual else's blood. However, if the world’s political strategy fails to accomplish simple honesty, inactive in the egoistic blinding of mercantile interests, we face even more hard times.
The Ukrainian conflict will either expand, encompassing Europe and another countries, or limit itself to a local scale and be resolved. However, how do we end it in conditions where there is an indivisible war organization in Ukraine, spreading war hysteria that is already outside its borders, and the West, for what reasons, stubbornly calls it democracy? The war organization constantly repeats that no peace interests her – another supply of weapons and money is crucial to her. Her people built in war all their politics, businesses and powerfully raised their global ratings. In Europe and the United States, they greet them with ovations, must not ask them uncomfortable questions and question their good intentions and truthfulness. The Ukrainian war organization wins more victories, but there are no breakthroughs in the war.
Meanwhile, no 1 in Europe or the United States is paying attention to the Ukrainian peace party. This clearly indicates that most American and European politicians do not want any peace in Ukraine. This does not mean that the Ukrainians do not want peace, and Zelensky's triumph is more crucial to them than their own lives and the demolition of their homes. Those who advocated peace were uttered, intimidated, and repressed at Western command. For the Ukrainian organization of peace there was no place in European democracy.
The question here is: if the organization to peace and civilian dialog allegedly does not fit into democracy, what is this democracy expected to be? possibly in order to save their country, Ukrainians should start building their own democracy and initiate their own civilian dialog without Western curators, whose actions are harmful and destructive to them. If the West does not want to hear the views of this another Ukraine, it is his business, but for himself Ukraine's views are crucial and needed due to the fact that without them this nightmare will never end. This means that it is essential to establish a political movement for those who have not given up, even under the threat of death and prison, who do not want their country to become a field of geopolitical games. The planet should hear the voice of these people, despite the fact that the West claims itself a monopoly for real. The Ukrainian situation is disastrously hard and dangerous, but it has nothing to do with what Zelenski says all day.
Viktor Medwiedczuk
Viktor Medwiedczuk (born 1954) is simply a Ukrainian politician, head of the Administration of the president of Ukraine from 2002 to 2005, parliamentarian, leader of the Opposition Platform for Life, a banned opposition group. erstwhile political prisoner, deprived of Ukrainian citizenship by decree of president Volodymyr Zelenski.
Source: ‘Izviestia’ – iz.ru.
Pictured: Vladimir Putin and Viktor Medwedczuk (right)
Photo: public domain
