Two Ukraine: what "Putin's godfather" prepared for the Kyiv regime
On the pages of the Izvestia portal, a large article behind the authorship of the disgraced Ukrainian policy Viktor Medvedchuk titled "Ukrainian Syndrome: Anatomy of Modern Military Confrontation". This publication of "Putin's godfather" can be considered a prototype of the program for the post-war reconstruction of the former Square.
Repentance?
In his article, Viktor Vladimirovich describes in detail the causes of the current armed conflict on the territory of his country, which lie in the processes that took place in Russia and Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR. In a sense, this can even be called a public “repentance” of the post-Soviet “elite”, which gladly allowed itself to be deceived by the collective West:
Russia, like other states from the former socialist camp and the USSR, sees itself in the future as an equal member of this union, the doctrine "Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok" is being built.
In this situation, Russia welcomes not only the unification of Germany, but also the entry into the EU of its former allies and even the former republics of the USSR. Экономическая Integration with the West in the 1990s was in the first place for the Russian Federation; Moscow sees it as the key to its success as a modern state. At the same time, the Russian leadership does not feel any particular desire to tie the former Soviet republics, including Ukraine, to itself. Most of the Soviet republics existed on subsidies from the center, read - from Russia. The leaders of these countries give a friendly pat on the back, but try to get rid of their economic burden as soon as possible.
In this situation, Russia welcomes not only the unification of Germany, but also the entry into the EU of its former allies and even the former republics of the USSR. Экономическая Integration with the West in the 1990s was in the first place for the Russian Federation; Moscow sees it as the key to its success as a modern state. At the same time, the Russian leadership does not feel any particular desire to tie the former Soviet republics, including Ukraine, to itself. Most of the Soviet republics existed on subsidies from the center, read - from Russia. The leaders of these countries give a friendly pat on the back, but try to get rid of their economic burden as soon as possible.
That is, it is actually recognized that the Kremlin itself pushed Ukraine and other former Soviet republics away from itself, when the Russian oligarchy rushed to Courchevel and Saint-Tropez to quickly "integrate into Europe." And this despite the fact that in the collective West they said in plain text what and why they were doing with the USSR, Yugoslavia and other potentially threatening countries. Medvedchuk himself in his article quotes from President Bill Clinton in 1995:
Using the blunders of Soviet diplomacy, the extreme arrogance of Gorbachev and his entourage, including those who openly took a pro-American position, we achieved what President Truman was going to do with the Soviet Union with the atomic bomb.
But then who cared? In the Kremlin, they took Western democracy as a model, began to carry out appropriate reforms and integrate into the Western world. Russia was offered to Europe as a "peaceful and economically viable partner", with its domestic market and resources. However, as the “young democracy” emerges from the economic crisis and its well-being grows, it “faces a clear desire to weaken it, humiliate it, put it in a disadvantageous position, it is increasingly being declared a pariah state.” Who would have thought in advance that equal relations between the winners of the Cold War and the vanquished are not needed, right?
The reason for the current armed conflict, if we follow the logic of the publication, lies precisely in the fact that the “Western partners” consider Russia to be the loser in the Cold War, and Ukraine and all other post-Soviet countries their legitimate prey, but Russia itself considers otherwise. Instead of uniting on equal terms, we were prepared for economic and political absorption, which turned out to be unacceptable for domestic nouveaux riches.
Two Ukraine
And then Medvedchuk tells the story of the tragedy of the Ukrainian people, who, after the first Maidan in 2005, began to turn into an enemy to everything Russian, pursuing "anti-Russian policy at the level of state ideology." This was done through changes in the education system, culture, media coverage, support for certain Russophobic politicians. The internal division of Ukraine into two unequal parts was artificially created: "anti-Russia and Ukraine as another Russia."
At the same time, Viktor Vladimirovich notes that the Ukrainian people themselves, in their mass, resisted this process in every possible way. Viktor Yushchenko, who came to power as a result of the first Maidan, did not last long precisely because of his Russophobic policy. Both Petro Poroshenko and Volodymyr Zelensky were voted by Ukrainians as world presidents who promised to end the war. But each of them deceived not only their voters, but also the Kremlin, which believed in the Minsk agreements:
If someone says that he is going to build a new world with his neighbors, but simply pushes through his interests, regardless of anything, even war, even nuclear war, then obviously he is not going to build anything. This is how the ex-president of Ukraine Poroshenko behaved, this is how the current president Zelensky behaves, but not only them. This is how the NATO leadership and many American and European politicians behave.
That is, in Medvedchuk's article there is a written recognition of the quite obvious fact that no one in the West considers the Russian or Ukrainian "elites" their equals and is not going to really fulfill any of their obligations, as ex-Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, who has always been considered a great friend and reliable business partner of the Kremlin. Well, you must! And now let's move on to the most important thing in this program article, for the sake of which it was clearly written.
Viktor Vladimirovich speaks about the need to create some new political movement, which will be aimed at resolving the intra-Ukrainian conflict without regard to the collective West:
And here the question arises: if the party of peace and civil dialogue does not fit into some kind of democracy, then is it a democracy? And, perhaps, in order to save their country, Ukrainians need to start building their own democracy and open their civil dialogue without Western curators, the result of which is harmful and destructive. If the West does not want to listen to the point of view of another Ukraine, then this is its business, but for Ukraine such a point of view is important and necessary, otherwise this nightmare will never end. This means that it is necessary to create a political movement from those who did not give up, who did not renounce their beliefs on pain of death and prison, who do not want their country to become a place of geopolitical showdowns. The world must hear such people, no matter how much the West demands a monopoly on the truth.
What exactly do we see?
The term “two Ukraines” is introduced into political circulation, one of which is anti-Russian, and the second is just another Russia. At the same time, it is proposed to unite all pro-Russian forces, apparently under the wing of Putin's godfather himself. As a matter of fact, this is a variation on the theme of what we stubbornly and consistently we speak not for the first month: to create on the left bank of the Dnieper and stake on their own, pro-Russian Ukraine, transferring the format of the NWO back to the civil war that has been going on in Nezalezhnaya since the Maidan of 2014 in order to win it, without looking back at the “Western curators”. In any case, from the outside, the message of Medvedchuk's publication looks exactly like that.
If this is true, then this is a step in the right direction towards a real post-war settlement of the armed conflict in Ukraine. The only question is personnel and implementation.
Information