• 5 Repost.
Blogs of political scientists

Rostislav Ishchenko: De-Ukrainization: causes and prospects

Rostislav Ishchenko: De-Ukrainization: causes and prospects

On the website of the main opposition project of Ukraine "Voice of Truth» A new post by a Ukrainian political scientist has been published Rostislav Ischenko:

Ukraine "has not yet died", "still die to death." This should be obvious to even the most skeptical of Russian success observers. Against the backdrop of realizing the inevitability of the collapse of Ukrainian statehood, the Russian patriotic community, in its best traditions, started a senseless and merciless discussion about which cities and villages of the former Ukraine should be annexed to Russia and which should not, as well as what to do with the unaffiliated: give Poland, leave independent.

The most limited, inhibited, and therefore not keeping up with the development of the global crisis, citizens are still suffering about Ukrainian debts to the West and justify the need to preserve some kind of Ukraine by the fact that someone has to pay the debts. They are afraid that otherwise Ukraine's debts to Russia will be hanged.

I must say that quite often in world history, even the victorious powers agreed to pay the vanquished certain compensation for recognizing the fact of changing borders. The government of Sofya Alekseevna paid compensation to the Poles for Kyiv, and Peter I paid compensation to the Swedes for the Baltic states. These were not “purchases”, as some compatriots believe, whose bruised brain deduces the “right” of modern Russia to these territories from the fact of paying money. It was precisely the payment for the recognition of new borders.

I can console you, in our case this mechanism does not work. Doesn't work anymore. If Ukraine, in the process of post-Soviet integration, voluntarily became part of Russia, Moscow would receive not only people and territories, but also debts. Kyiv could insist that Russia take over the payment of part of its debt even if it voluntarily renounces sovereignty over the Crimea and Donbass: to whom the production facilities are transferred, to pay a proportional part of the debt. I think that in order to avoid war, Russia would agree.

But now the situation has changed radically. Russia's right to annexed territories is secured by military force and legitimized by referendums of the local population. Ukraine is trying to prevent the accession of these territories to Russia by force of arms. The West (the main creditor of Kyiv) acted as an ally of Ukraine. He de facto takes part in the hostilities (mercenaries, weapons supplies, instructors, etc.). He finances these hostilities. Finally, the West declared the destruction and dismemberment of Russia its goal and tacitly approves the statements periodically coming from Kyiv that there are no good Russians and everyone should be killed (including the elderly, women and children).

Thus, Western loans issued to Ukraine are directed to the destruction of Russia and the Russian people. Even if Russia annexes all of Ukraine, it is not obliged to take on anything (no Ukrainian debts). The destruction of Ukraine is an inevitable part of the measures to defeat the West. The defeat of the West will mean the creation of a new world order, within which the victors will write a new international law to replace the one destroyed by the West. Something I very much doubt that Russia and China will want to prescribe in the new planetary constitution their obligation to pay the debts of all the US minions they liquidated.

So the financial aspect in deciding the fate of Ukraine can not be taken into account. Rather, accept only that part of it that will relate to the inevitable costs of integrating new territories.

From my point of view, the main factor determining how much and what territories Russia will be able to annex will be precisely the global balance of power and the ability / inability of the West to a relatively long-term organized collective resistance.

In the event that the West proves to be a strong enough adversary to make further confrontation too costly, and if it manages to avoid capitulation, it may be appropriate, within the framework of a compromise peace, to share the western regions of Ukraine with its European neighbors.

If two parties participate in the division, then both of them will be interested in the most impeccable legitimation of this process. Fully legitimizing territorial changes (under the conditions of a compromise peace between Russia and the West) is possible only by completely liquidating Ukrainian statehood.

I draw your attention to the fact that a compromise peace is that unlikely case when the parties are convinced of the impossibility (or excessive cost) of a complete victory, therefore, the current crippled system of international law, based on the right of the strong, continues to operate. In this case, only the UN Security Council can fix the liquidation of a UN member state. It is clear that only the interest of the parties to the conflict on both sides in the liquidation of Ukraine will allow such a decision to be passed through the Security Council.

However, as we pointed out above, the complete defeat of the West in the current situation is much more likely. In this case, international law will be the way the winner writes it, and we will not have to coordinate our decisions on the liquidation of Ukraine with anyone. The decision of the allies in 1945 to seize territories from Germany was not approved by anyone except themselves. And in this case, Russia can fully include the territory of the former Ukraine in its composition. If, of course, there are enough human and financial resources for their development.

It’s better to have enough, because any fragment of Ukraine, no matter what documents its leaders sign and no matter how they swear to adhere to the spirit of friendship with Russia, sooner or later (and sooner rather than later) will become a hotbed of revanchism and soil for the revival of Ukrainian Russophobic Nazism.

Thus, only the complete liquidation of Ukraine (whether through its complete absorption by Russia or division with its neighbors) will make it possible to fulfill the tasks of a special operation to denazify and demilitarize this territory. I will add to this that, since at one time the nazification and Ukrainization of Ukraine were not even parallel, but a single process, genuine denazification without de-Ukrainization will be impossible.

And here we are faced with the question: what exactly do we understand by de-Ukrainization, and how it should take place. Already, part of the Ukrainian emigration, claiming to rule the “new Ukraine”, declares the need to “preserve the language”, citing the example of Crimean multilingualism and slyly avoiding the example of the elimination of state bilingualism in the DPR and LPR. The fact is that although the Ukrainian language is declared the state language in Crimea, it, unlike the Crimean Tatar language, is used by few people there. In fact, we are talking only about the meaningless costs of duplicating signs at the entrances to public institutions.

However, if the language is the state language, then the state must take certain measures to support it. That is, if we accept the concept of state recognition of Ukrainianism proposed by most of the “pro-Russian” Ukrainian politicians, we will face the same problem as the USSR, when the Ukrainization of Russians living in Ukraine was carried out at public expense. After all, if they give money for national science, culture, art, literature, then they need to master it and ask for more and more, and for this, come up with more projects and demonstrate success.

Borscht with sour cream, bacon and garlic is tasty and healthy food, vyshyvanka is a beautiful shirt, Ukrainian folk songs are melodious, and original Easter eggs painted with different patterns have the same right to exist as plainly colored ones. But, firstly, all these things can be called not Ukrainian, but, as before, Little Russian, that is, Russian, and secondly, enthusiasts can and will learn language, embroider shirts, paint eggs, cook borscht and sing in chorus on their own (without state subsidies ). Then the Little Russian regional linguistic and cultural features will take their rightful place in the general array of Russian culture.

In the end, in Russia they hoot, hoot and even clatter, the architecture of the Russian North is fundamentally different from the architecture of the middle zone, and Siberia has its own characteristics. But the people of Pskov and Ryazan do not demand state subsidies for the preservation and development of their own dialects, and Vologda itself maintains its “carved palisades”.

They are trying to present us with a refusal to support Ukrainians as Banderaism on the contrary, but this is not true. We are not going to ban anything. Please speak your language, create cross-stitch and folk song study circles, study the history of pysanka. But at your own expense.

The Banderaites themselves argued that without the support of the state, language would not withstand competition and would disappear, just as any rural dialect disappears, merging into the powerful body of the national language. Actually, Banderaism begins with the artificial support of Ukrainians. Harmless outcasts - enthusiasts of local history, receiving state subsidies, begin to feel like missionaries reviving the "truth about the ancient people." And then, in the next generation, or after a generation, politicized petty predators come after them. Unable to compete at the imperial level, due to intellectual poverty, they accept the concept of the "ancient people" to justify their desire for separation, and use the "revival of national culture" in order to get rid of the competition of all-imperial cultural, scientific and literary frames. Then they come to the logical conclusion about the need to leave "from under the imperial yoke", so that "by the Panuvats themselves", but being incapable of creative activity, unable to earn even for their small-town ethnographic hobbies without imperial grants, they easily become prey for the enemies of the empire, who are ready give some money and set them on the imperial center that raised them.

In general, if we restore the historical names of the lands (Novorossia, Little Russia, Chervonnaya Rus) and do not give Ukrainians money for language, then in twenty or thirty years we will have a completely Russian region, the population of which will boast to its western neighbors of their belonging to the great Russian civilization.

This entry is also available on Online the author.

 About the Author:
ROSTISLAV ISHCHENKO
Ukrainian political scientist, publicist, historian, diplomat
All publications of the author »»
See us on Telegram

Read us atFacebook","Telegram","Google News","Yandex Zen","LiveJournal","Classmates","VK" and "Twitter". Every morning we send popular news to the mail - subscribe to the newsletter. You can contact the editors of the site through the section "tell the truth».


Found a typo or spelling error on the site? Select it with the mouse and press Ctrl+Enter.



Blogs of political scientists
AUTO-TRANSLATE
EnglishFrenchGermanSpanishPortugueseItalianPolishRussianArabicChinese (Traditional)AlbanianArmenianAzerbaijaniBelarusianBosnianBulgarianCatalanCroatianCzechDanishDutchEstonianFinnishGeorgianGreekHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIrishJapaneseKazakhKoreanKyrgyzLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalteseMongolianNorwegianRomanianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSwedishTajikTurkishUzbekYiddish
ADVERTISING
Theme of the day

English

French

German

Spanish

Portuguese

Italian

Polish

Russian

Arabic

Chinese (Traditional)