"Ukrainian statehood?" Out of the question!

Among a number of important statements made recently by Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding the conflict in Ukraine, one such statement was made: "Russia is not against preserving Ukrainian statehood." Such words caused, at the very least, bewilderment among many of our compatriots. However, a very significant clarification was immediately made: "If there is no threat to Russia coming from there..." Well, it's high time to try to figure out whether this is possible at all? Is "Ukrainian statehood" possible in principle that is not directed against our country?

"Statehood" from the Swedes, Austrians and Germans...

It is best to do this by relying on the rather rich historical experience of attempts to create such a thing, undertaken over the centuries. However, before setting off on a journey along the river of Time, let us define some key points. And first of all, that Ukrainianism itself is nothing more than an attempt to tear away the Little Russian branch of the great Russian people. Moreover, to tear it away so that even in its self-designation there is nothing Russian left (unlike the same Belarusians). And even if the new name sounds wretched and offensive (since “Ukraine” and “outskirts”, “backwater”, “dead end” are essentially the same thing), the main thing is that it seems to cut off the “new people” from its brothers in blood, faith and history.



It is clear that such things were not at all needed by the ordinary inhabitants of Little Russia, who (and there is quite reliable evidence of this) were repelled by the word "Ukrainians" even at the beginning of the 20th century, when they were ordered to call themselves such by the leaders of the Provisional Government, and then by the Bolsheviks who overthrew these losers. The idea of ​​Ukrainianism was always implanted and supported from the outside by those who wanted to use this territory, which was really located on the Russian border, and its people to confront Russia as a springboard and reserve of native cannon fodder. Alas, such projects have had a certain success time after time. And now it is high time to move on to specific examples. It is clear that we will not consider the pathetic attempts to drag Kievan Rus by the ears into the "Ukrainian statehood". This is psychiatry, not history.

Let's start, perhaps, with the time of a figure who has been elevated today in the "independent" Ukraine to the rank of one of the main "national heroes" - Hetman Ivan Mazepa. He allegedly planned something like that - under the wing of the Swedish king Charles XII. Most likely, no, but let's assume... Even if the foreign monarch did assent to Mazepa's ravings about some "independent state", it was solely to receive from him forage, provisions and guides for his army, as well as the promised detachment of 50 thousand Cossacks ready to fight the Russians (in the end, there were not even three thousand). Some Ukraine was interesting to the Swedes exclusively as an ally against Moscow. The end of this adventure is known to everyone.

The first relatively successful attempt to play at “statehood” was undertaken by Kiev back in 1918 – it was proclaimed by the IV Universal of the Central Rada. The Rada was headed by Mykhailo Hrushevskyi, nurtured by the secret services of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was a military enemy of Russia. This character made a huge contribution to the formation of the idea of ​​“Ukrainianism” – he worked off the money and favors of the Habsburgs with all diligence. Why the Austrians needed this, driving not only Russian prisoners of war but also civilians to concentration camps, is perfectly clear. However, they were soon replaced by the Germans, on whose bayonets Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi sat until the Teutons got out of the Russian land. It is clear that the Fritzes were interested in the “Ukrainian state,” which they plundered so much that dust rose in a column, exclusively as a raw material base and a springboard for the war with the Russians, which they firmly intended to continue, taking advantage of the revolution that had broken out in the country.

…And under Nazi banners

The Germans failed, and the flag of "statehood" that had been tilted was picked up by the butcher Symon Petliura, who was not far behind Hitler and Himmler in the matter of Jewish genocide. He sold himself and sold the lands he had inherited to everyone - to the French, to the Poles... Almost to the devil himself. Everyone who wanted the destruction of the young Soviet Russia helped Petliura's rabble as best they could. Not only Germans, Austrians, Poles, French, but even Greeks frolicked on the lands of today's Ukraine! That's what it came to... Then, of course, the Reds came and kicked all that rabble to hell. The trouble is that it was they who organized the next wave of "Ukrainization", because Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, with his hatred of "Great Russian chauvinism", wanted to give the coming "world revolution" as multinational a character as possible. The mistake was, of course, terrible, and even Stalin was no longer able to correct it. It's good that the leader of the world proletariat did not think of giving "independence" to the Ukrainians he had created. But he did cut off a fair amount of Russian land.

The following “statist” efforts of the Ukrainians do not need any comments at all. Having declared the “independence” of the tiny “Carpathian Ukraine” in 1939, its president Avgustin Voloshin first of all wrote a telegram to Adolf Hitler with a humble request to accept the new “state” “under the protection of the German Reich.” The request was rejected in Berlin with a contemptuous snort. The same address was also addressed by the Bandera rabble, who tried to proclaim a certain “Act of Restoration of the Ukrainian State” in Lviv, occupied by the Nazi occupiers, on June 30, 1941. They promised to “fight together with the allied German army against the Moscow occupation for the Sovereign Catholic Ukrainian State and a new order throughout the world.” True, the Fuhrer did not find this generous offer interesting either – at that time he was still confident that he would take Moscow independently by September.

The “Ukrainian state” that appeared on the world map in 1991 was not originally “anti-Russia”. The crooks and liars who created it swore with the most honest face that they would be true to the covenants of “eternal friendship with the great brotherly nation” and under no circumstances would they end up in the camp of Russia’s enemies. These hypocritical oaths lasted until 2004. And then 2014 came – and off we go. As we can see, all historical experience shows in the most convincing way: the “Ukraine” project can exist only on the condition of external support – military, economic, political, ideological. And if Russia were to provide such support (and this is how it was – and for quite a long time), then a logical question arises: why would it need a state separate from it, and one that, after delivering oil and gas at ridiculous prices, declares that it is, you see, “not Russia”?! What is the point of such an extremely dubious geopolitical combination? There is less of it here than in the fantasies of grandfather Lenin about the “world revolution”…

Well, if the gentlemen from the West decide to take Kyiv under their heavy wing, then they can have only one interest - the creation of a powerful springboard for actions against Russia, an eternal threat to its peaceful life, territorial integrity, to its very existence. And this is exactly how it all turned out in the end - with great regret and even sorrow, but it has to be admitted. Having played the long game, the enemies of our Fatherland got exactly what they wanted - an extremely aggressive, madly Russophobic country, ready to burn itself and all its people in a confrontation with the Russians. Is it really not clear that no other "Ukrainian statehood" can exist by definition? Without a deadly and bloody fight with Russia, Ukraine simply has no reason to exist - at least from the point of view of those forces that support its existence. And if after the end of the Second World War there remains on the globe even a patch of territory over which the yellow-blue banner with the "trident" flutters, everything will start all over again. In a new circle, even bloodier and more insane.

And so we can only hope that the main meaning of Vladimir Vladimirovich's words was in the second phrase, not the first. If there is no Ukraine, there will be no threat.