kvs wrote:The usual claim is that a failed Ukraine is bad for Russia, so Russia must support this tar baby. This argument is total BS.
A failed Ukraine is a big fail for NATzO. Comparing to Somalia and other African failed states, the only issue for Russia will
be pirates and similar which it can handle very well. It is vastly cheaper to keep the idiots behind the borders of their
failed state than to try to give these losers civilization.
NATzO has proven over the past 6+ years that it is not going to spend any coins to give Ukrs any sort of civilization. Why
the Hell should Russia succor haters?
exactly, the best for Russia is to wait and let this neighbouring state destroy itself. Of course there are some red lines that cannot be allowed (like ukraine hosting American cruise missile launchers and/or short and intermediate ballistic missile), but Russia does not need to occupy the whole country to prevent it.
Eventually historical Russian lands will return to the motherland, even if it takes a few more years (even 10 or 20 years are not much or compared to more than 1000 years of history of one form or another of a Russian state).
Of course it will be bad for the local population, but those that gladly accepted derussification and russophobic will have only themself to blame.
Still quoting from Ishchenko's article
Rostislav Ishchenko wrote:
They are de-Russified Russians. And they were not de-Russified after Maidan under the yoke of the Banderist regime and not because they were offended by Russia, which “did not come”. They de-Russified almost immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
(...)
By 1996, the political organisations of pro-Russian forces were marginalised in Ukraine, the idea of Russian unity (even in the form of a soft confederation of independent states united only by economic interests) was pushed out of the media, and the Ukrainisation of education, culture, science and religion was moving at full speed. But society did not react to this in any way. The vast majority of Ukrainian citizens did not feel hostility towards Russia, were ready to support economic cooperation that was beneficial for Ukraine, but at the same time felt their otherness towards Russians living in Russia.
They did not consider themselves a single people with Great Russians, and many doubted their brotherhood. They were simply not aggressive, constructive, and therefore seemed, and many still seem, quite Russian from the outside. In fact, all the voting in Ukraine shows that the population deliberately refused to support pro-Russian parties as if they are excessively radical and even “extremist”. The greatest level of support has always been for “constructive pro-Ukrainian” forces that advocated a multi-vector approach. Their ideology was based on the statement that mentally and civilisationally Ukrainians are Europeans, but Ukraine is too strongly connected with Russia economically, so it is necessary to maintain a balance between the western and eastern vectors of foreign policy, gradually extending the western one at the expense of the eastern one.
The vast majority of the Russian population of Ukraine agreed with this concept and voluntarily Ukrainised, especially since for more than 20 years it was not necessary to change either the language of communication or the way of life for their own de-Russification – it was enough just to understand that “our place is in Europe”, and “backwards Russia” will not be received there. At first glance, everything confirmed this concept. The Soviet legacy is three of the most equipped and armed military districts, a huge number of industrial enterprises that produce everything up to space rockets, qualified labour resources and a huge scientific potential. This was accompanied by an excellent geographical location – in a relatively warm zone and on trade routes (from south to north and from east to west), ideal conditions for farming and an inexhaustible Russian market.
What more can one ask for? It is only necessary to secure all this wealth, because 150 million hungry “Moskals” are so eager to return the Soviet Union, in order to again share it among everyone. And the Russians in Ukraine became Ukrainians. Outwardly, they remained the same, but inwardly they felt different – the “masters” of their separate country.
And for almost 30 years, generations have grown up who no longer learned Russian at school, who sincerely believe that they are descendants of the ancient Ukrs, who gave humanity the plough, fire and wheel. They still know how to speak passable Russian, although the accent, previously characteristic of people from the village who lived in the city for less than three years, is now already heard in “native Kievans” and is getting stronger every year. But they are definitely not Russian and never were.
They went to parades of embroidery, participated in Pysanka competitions, did not read the Ukrainian “writers”, but they know that Zabuzhko and Andrukhovych are classics of world literature, in a different league to any Pushkin and Shakespeare. They know that “Crimea was stolen”, that “Russia attacked Ukraine in Donbass”. I emphasise that they do not believe Banderist propaganda, but initially “know” that this is exactly the case and can not be otherwise.
Note:
I can fully agree with it.
I spoke a few weeks ago with a native of Nikolaev occasionally coming to Germany for some work who said that it was a good thing that the water channel from the Dnepr to Crimea was blocked and was trying to convince me that the crimean tatars are persecuted under Russian administration...
I avoided trying to put some sense in her mind, she was a lost cause
In the meanwhile it is better if current and previous ukrainian leadership, together with western nations, take the blame for the destruction of one of the richest and most industrialized parts of the Soviet union.
The only part that Russia should help is the donbass.
If the third scenario in the article actually happen, and the new novorussian state will go from Kharkov to the Dnester (and south of it to the Danube) then Russia could organize a path for integration divided in the span of a few years.
First as a sort of semi-independent state recognized by Russia and part of the euroasian union, and with some support to bring the system at a level of the Russian one (currency, military, schools and universities, training of officials and creation of a new political class, complete replacement of all civil servants administrative personnel and state employees and also rebuild from scratches the police forces (maybe with support from the former Berkuts) and then gradually integrating it
(starting from Lugansk and Donetsk, of course)
into Russia proper once the proper political and administrative structures are in place (and after the locals will have had their revenge on the banderists).
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
LMFS
