Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan: do Russia need such “brothers”?
From the very beginning, and also for meticulous critics, it must be said that everything written below does not serve to incite ethnic hatred and the like, but is only an attempt to adequately assess the situation in the post-Soviet space and the relationship of Russia as part of the former USSR , with other nations. This article is neither a scientific publication, nor a dissertation, etc., therefore, the statistics presented in the text taken from open sources are rounded and serve only to provide a general comparative analysis on specific situations and indicators within the framework of the topic under consideration.
Recently, quite often, various information has appeared that the leadership of the former republics of the Soviet Union, that is, countries that the vast majority of Russians are accustomed to consider themselves “fraternal,” is taking some steps towards rapprochement with the West, in particular with the USA, while moving away Of Russia. And such actions are perceived in our country, as it were, even with a sense of offense - how, they say, are our “brotherly peoples” and it seems like they are leaving us to our worst enemy, in fact. We will call a spade a spade, otherwise we are tired of this deceitful term “partners”. Since everything that the United States has been doing recently in relation to our country, it can hardly be called hostile actions. But America, in this case, we judge solely by its real behavior both in the present and in the past, and other countries we write to ourselves as “brothers” for some reason solely on the basis that we have been part of them for a rather long time one state - first the Russian Empire, then the USSR. And it is on this basis that we are trying to build “fraternal” relations with them, as if distracting from what is in reality. Moreover, when viewed from the other side, that is, on behalf of these same former Soviet republics, and now independent states, the same attitude towards the Russian Federation, as a "fraternal country", is already found on a much smaller scale than we have for them. And here, in my opinion, it would have been quite in place it would have been somehow more precise to determine what kind of brothers they are to us, and whether the brothers in general, or simply former "neighbors in the same apartment" with whom we now "parted."
Let's start with the very principle of “entry into fraternal peoples”, based on cohabitation on a common territory, so to speak. If you look at pre-revolutionary tsarist Russia, then we also had “cohabitants” there, who later separated - Finns and Poles, for example. And so, can they be considered "brothers"? Firstly, both of them almost immediately after gaining independence moved to a camp hostile to our country, and secondly, some earlier, others later, but began to fight with us both independently and in coalitions with our other enemies . And they fought not for life, but for death, really, without any discounts on “fraternity” and recent “cohabitation”. And if you look now, for example, among European continental states, then the real enemies we have there, probably worse and meaner than the "fraternal Slavic" Polish state, are, probably.
Recently, all of Russia solemnly celebrated the next anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War. The parade, the "Immortal Regiment" and other events, not only in our country, of course, but also abroad, including the former Soviet republics. But there, for the most part, the celebrations were more modest, and participation in them was not so massive, although naturally all the peoples of the Soviet Union participated and won, of course, then together. Nevertheless, modern propaganda in these states, Victory Day and its main symbols - the red star, the guards tape, etc., writes more and more often in purely Russian holidays and Russian symbols, and not common to all "fraternal" peoples . The theme of participation or non-participation of representatives of the "fraternal" former republics of the USSR in major celebrations on Red Square in Moscow is also regularly discussed from different sides in our press and abroad. The second, moreover, happens more often. How so? Victory and celebration, it seems, are common? Why is there a different approach now? .. And because then, too, everything was not exactly the same, but when the Union was in office, it was not accepted to talk about it, so again, not to provoke ethnic hatred between the "fraternal" republics and their peoples. Yes, everyone served in the Red Army, and they took the oath, and shed blood. Fulfilled by law this military duty to protect the state. Someone really went for the idea, someone not for it, but simply for the country and from the bottom of the heart, and someone just because it was a given duty by law, and for non-fulfillment, strict punishment threatened. But this is also nothing unusual, our enemies, the same Germans, for example, all the same thing happened. After all, not all of them there were ideological “fascists” there, as we like to call them, and the existing political the system was far from sympathetic to everyone. But they also had their own state, at that time the same as it was, and in that state, again, the law, military duty and oath, and for violating or refusing to fulfill this duty by the law - severe punishment, up to death. So they fought, someone for the idea, and someone involuntarily. Like ours.
But there is one more aspect to all this - betrayal, collaboration, the transition to the enemy’s side and so on - the names are different, but the essence of the phenomenon is one. We do not like this topic and, if possible, try not to remember. But, as they say, you won’t erase a word from a song - it was as it was. The data and figures on this topic also exist different, and they are not fond of voicing them either in the USSR or in modern Russia. Apparently because the numbers are unflattering: according to various sources, in German military uniform, on the side of the enemy, that is, in the military and various auxiliary units of the armed forces and police of the Third Reich, from 890 thousand to one and a half million Soviet citizens voluntarily served during the Second World War. I would, for example, further take as a basis a cross from this, which, as it seems to me, is closer to the truth (the figures are also called 2 and 2,5 million, but I personally consider them very overpriced, and no adequate there is no documentary evidence of this data either). I’ll clarify again: it’s about Soviet citizens, without taking into account, for example, white emigrants and their descendants, who in these units also served in the amount of several tens of thousands of people, at least, but they were never USSR citizens. So who were all these people who crossed over to the enemy at a difficult time for their homeland? Often, the name of General Andrei Vlasov and his so-called “Russian Liberation Army” - ROA, appear on hearing in connection with the betrayal during the war. And all the traitors are often called "Vlasovites". But in reality, everything was a little more complicated.
The Germans often tried to “play” on the national question, and this was no exception with the peoples of the Soviet Union. Collaborant units were composed, as a rule, precisely on a national basis. That is, for example, Ukrainian, Georgian, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Turkestan, etc. separately, and ethnic Russians in these units almost never existed. But in the "Russian" units under the German command, in reality, one could meet not only Russians, but often simply Russian-speaking representatives of almost all the peoples of the USSR. If everything is described in a very short way, then by the very end of the war, the ROA, under the command of General Vlasov, was transformed into the Armed Forces of KONR (KONR, organized by Vlasov and his associates Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia), and into these "armed forces", although purely nominally, all “Russian” formations are scattered all over Europe, and at that time were somehow subordinate to the German command — 3 incomplete divisions of the ROA itself, aviation and air defense units, Cossack units, various intelligence schools and propaganda courses, construction and police units, formed from Russian collaborators of the SS, camp protection, etc. etc. At the same time, all other purely national units remained so. So the total maximum, albeit purely statistical, number of these very “VS KONR” under the command of Vlasov, and they, just notice, included the bulk of the former white emigrants who also considered themselves Russian, amounted (according to various sources, again the same) from 120 to 150 thousand people. That is, a completely natural question arises: if there are “Russians” in the total number of traitors, well, even if 150 thousand and with white emigrants together, so from whom does this rest plus / minus a million people recruit? And it just turns out that from the "fraternal" peoples of the USSR ... Here is such mathematics. That is, in the tendency of our “brothers” to run over to the side of the enemy in difficult times, it turns out that there is nothing new.
But let's move on. And what do we have now and in the recent past with the "fraternal" peoples? You can recall, for example, things that happened not even with Russians by nationality, but with Russian-speaking people in general, who at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union found themselves in the territories of national republics. But nothing good happened to them there, to put it mildly. Under the influence of sharply aggravated nationalist sentiments, almost everywhere these citizens began to be subjected to severe discrimination and humiliation, restrictions on their rights, and often came to cases of mass bloodshed and even killings, which can be described as actions that have signs of genocide. People were forcibly expelled from their places of residence, housing and property acquired over the years were taken away. There were even armed conflicts on a national basis. All this ultimately led to a mass exodus of the Russian-speaking population, for example, from the Central Asian republics or Transcaucasia. In addition to Ukraine and Belarus, immediately after the collapse of the USSR, attacks by a nationalist-minded local population against Russian-speaking fellow citizens began in almost all the former republics. But Ukraine has more than caught up with this “lag” now. Apart from the very specific situation historically prevailing in the Baltic states, in all other places over the past 30 years, the attitude towards the Russian-speaking minority has calmed down noticeably, however, state regimes in most of the former Soviet republics can hardly be considered fully “fraternal” in relation to the Russian Federation.
You can also look at the results of economic interaction. It would seem that during the existence of a common Soviet state, a jointly built and totally interconnected economy should historically predetermine successful economic cooperation in the future. But here everything is not quite as rosy as we would like. And this is despite all the various reciprocal preferential conditions that exist between the former republics of the Union, for example, free trade and the movement of capital and labor within the Eurasian countries (today full-fledged members of the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Tajikistan + Moldova in observer status). Here are the data on the mutual trade turnover of the Russian Federation with our "fraternal" countries for 2018 (in billions of dollars):
Kazakhstan - 18,2; Uzbekistan - 4,3; Armenia - 1,9; Kyrgyzstan - 1,8; Azerbaijan - 2,48; Georgia - 1,35; Moldova - 1,56; Tajikistan - 0,89. I do not give figures for Ukraine and the Baltic states, since there are currently obvious problems with the "brotherhood".
And now, for comparison, trade data for the same period with our typical "enemies", if you look at historical parallels, the axis "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo" (billion dollars):
Germany - 60,1; Italy - 24,5; Japan - 19,5. It should be added that these figures reflect the state of things after four years of hard anti-Russian sanctions that these states support, the FRG and Italy are the main members of the NATO block hostile to us, and with Japan, now the main US ally in the Far East, since World War II we have not yet signed a peace treaty and there are even unresolved territorial claims. It was these countries that were the instigators of the last world war and directly aggression against the Soviet Union. That is, by no means "brothers" and not even friends at all.
Another NATO member and our long-standing and eternal adversary, Turkey - $ 25,6 billion.
Someone, probably, can object, say, like: well, you can’t compare the former Soviet republics with the leading economies of the world and the largest states ... Perhaps. Well then, let’s take another example, also one of those who attacked us together with the Germans during the Second World War, fought against us, and now also joins NATO and, even on this basis, does not behave particularly friendly towards Russia, well, in short, also definitely not “brothers”:
Slovakia, a country with a population of incomplete 5,5 million people, the industry “cried”, in 2018 had a turnover of 5,9 billion dollars with the Russian Federation; Czech Republic, with a population of 10 million people - $ 8,6 billion, Romania - $ 4,9 billion, Hungary - almost $ 9 billion.
Or is Poland, why not an enemy? And trade turnover in 2018 was $ 21,7 billion, while compared to 2017, it grew by 42,9%! This is with all the sanctions, customs barriers, the ban on apples, membership in NATO, US bases and hostile political machinations. It somehow strange turns out that we have with our “enemies” a kind of even more active economic relationship than with our “brothers” in the Soviet past, with whom we once fought shoulder to shoulder against these same enemies ...
By the way, all these new NATO troops were also called “brothers” just recently - according to the socialist camp, CMEA, the Warsaw Pact, and there were also “brotherly” peoples, for example, Cuba, Angola and Mozambique, Vietnam and Kampuche, and so on. further, many of whom also constantly received “fraternal” military and economic assistance from us, and if, in truth, they simply, so to speak, sat on our neck, hanging their legs and chatting gaily in the air ...
Based on the above, the question arises: What is better, to have such “brothers” from whom we don’t even know when and what to expect, or, although not “native”, but simply pragmatic and quite predictable business partners, whose relations are built exclusively on a basis for balanced and mutual benefit? And in general, what is this concept of “brotherly people” or “brotherly country”? What, for example, does the USA have any “fraternal” states? Do India? Or France? Maybe in China? No, no one has. At Austria? Did the Austrians also once once with Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Yugoslavs and so on around them, lived in the same Austro-Hungarian empire? But for some reason they do not consider them all as “brothers,” like the Germans, and the Swiss, who are spoken with in the same language, also somehow do not record themselves in close relatives. Everyone just lives for himself in his own country and observe only their own national interests.
On the other hand, there is an example of Germany, the two parts of which, forcibly separated from each other as a result of a lost war and occupation, reunited, and this made the country stronger and more powerful. This is one people, one whole. There is a construction of the Union State of the Russian Federation and Belarus, with which we, too, are, in fact, a single people. Yes, there are problems, but they are also in families between close relatives. And besides, breaking something is always easier and faster than rebuilding. The same Germans also face this for three decades after the unification. But it normal.
So I think so: do you want a family? - welcome! But then let's live together, build our common home, and stand for each other always and in everything, no matter what happens. Then all this really makes sense and the future.
But to write to ourselves in the “brothers” those who ran away from us in their own corners as soon as the opportunity presented itself, I think it’s not very reasonable. Moreover, the "fraternal" relationship implies something radically more than a simple good neighborliness. And then these citizens then enjoy all their “fraternal” rights and privileges with pleasure, but somehow we are not in a hurry to reciprocate. I don’t see something in Syria of the troops of the CSTO member countries. And how is it that our “brothers” have still not recognized the reunification of Crimea with Russia? Where is their support for our UN resolutions? Where is the position on the "Kerch incident"? Why are the "fraternal" former republics of the USSR in no hurry to take retaliatory sanctions against the same US and EU, which have been strangling our economy for the fifth year with their illegal sanctions? Where is at least a nominal outrage by the US actions against our diplomatic property or participation in solving the situation in eastern Ukraine? ... But there is nothing like that! Where are you, brothers? Aw-u ... When we really need you, for some reason you’re not being around anymore. But when you need something from us, you are right there right away, with kindred smiles and hugs ...
Well, why do we need such “brothers”? ...
Recently, quite often, various information has appeared that the leadership of the former republics of the Soviet Union, that is, countries that the vast majority of Russians are accustomed to consider themselves “fraternal,” is taking some steps towards rapprochement with the West, in particular with the USA, while moving away Of Russia. And such actions are perceived in our country, as it were, even with a sense of offense - how, they say, are our “brotherly peoples” and it seems like they are leaving us to our worst enemy, in fact. We will call a spade a spade, otherwise we are tired of this deceitful term “partners”. Since everything that the United States has been doing recently in relation to our country, it can hardly be called hostile actions. But America, in this case, we judge solely by its real behavior both in the present and in the past, and other countries we write to ourselves as “brothers” for some reason solely on the basis that we have been part of them for a rather long time one state - first the Russian Empire, then the USSR. And it is on this basis that we are trying to build “fraternal” relations with them, as if distracting from what is in reality. Moreover, when viewed from the other side, that is, on behalf of these same former Soviet republics, and now independent states, the same attitude towards the Russian Federation, as a "fraternal country", is already found on a much smaller scale than we have for them. And here, in my opinion, it would have been quite in place it would have been somehow more precise to determine what kind of brothers they are to us, and whether the brothers in general, or simply former "neighbors in the same apartment" with whom we now "parted."
Let's start with the very principle of “entry into fraternal peoples”, based on cohabitation on a common territory, so to speak. If you look at pre-revolutionary tsarist Russia, then we also had “cohabitants” there, who later separated - Finns and Poles, for example. And so, can they be considered "brothers"? Firstly, both of them almost immediately after gaining independence moved to a camp hostile to our country, and secondly, some earlier, others later, but began to fight with us both independently and in coalitions with our other enemies . And they fought not for life, but for death, really, without any discounts on “fraternity” and recent “cohabitation”. And if you look now, for example, among European continental states, then the real enemies we have there, probably worse and meaner than the "fraternal Slavic" Polish state, are, probably.
About a common Victory and something else from the history of fraternal relations
Recently, all of Russia solemnly celebrated the next anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War. The parade, the "Immortal Regiment" and other events, not only in our country, of course, but also abroad, including the former Soviet republics. But there, for the most part, the celebrations were more modest, and participation in them was not so massive, although naturally all the peoples of the Soviet Union participated and won, of course, then together. Nevertheless, modern propaganda in these states, Victory Day and its main symbols - the red star, the guards tape, etc., writes more and more often in purely Russian holidays and Russian symbols, and not common to all "fraternal" peoples . The theme of participation or non-participation of representatives of the "fraternal" former republics of the USSR in major celebrations on Red Square in Moscow is also regularly discussed from different sides in our press and abroad. The second, moreover, happens more often. How so? Victory and celebration, it seems, are common? Why is there a different approach now? .. And because then, too, everything was not exactly the same, but when the Union was in office, it was not accepted to talk about it, so again, not to provoke ethnic hatred between the "fraternal" republics and their peoples. Yes, everyone served in the Red Army, and they took the oath, and shed blood. Fulfilled by law this military duty to protect the state. Someone really went for the idea, someone not for it, but simply for the country and from the bottom of the heart, and someone just because it was a given duty by law, and for non-fulfillment, strict punishment threatened. But this is also nothing unusual, our enemies, the same Germans, for example, all the same thing happened. After all, not all of them there were ideological “fascists” there, as we like to call them, and the existing political the system was far from sympathetic to everyone. But they also had their own state, at that time the same as it was, and in that state, again, the law, military duty and oath, and for violating or refusing to fulfill this duty by the law - severe punishment, up to death. So they fought, someone for the idea, and someone involuntarily. Like ours.
But there is one more aspect to all this - betrayal, collaboration, the transition to the enemy’s side and so on - the names are different, but the essence of the phenomenon is one. We do not like this topic and, if possible, try not to remember. But, as they say, you won’t erase a word from a song - it was as it was. The data and figures on this topic also exist different, and they are not fond of voicing them either in the USSR or in modern Russia. Apparently because the numbers are unflattering: according to various sources, in German military uniform, on the side of the enemy, that is, in the military and various auxiliary units of the armed forces and police of the Third Reich, from 890 thousand to one and a half million Soviet citizens voluntarily served during the Second World War. I would, for example, further take as a basis a cross from this, which, as it seems to me, is closer to the truth (the figures are also called 2 and 2,5 million, but I personally consider them very overpriced, and no adequate there is no documentary evidence of this data either). I’ll clarify again: it’s about Soviet citizens, without taking into account, for example, white emigrants and their descendants, who in these units also served in the amount of several tens of thousands of people, at least, but they were never USSR citizens. So who were all these people who crossed over to the enemy at a difficult time for their homeland? Often, the name of General Andrei Vlasov and his so-called “Russian Liberation Army” - ROA, appear on hearing in connection with the betrayal during the war. And all the traitors are often called "Vlasovites". But in reality, everything was a little more complicated.
The Germans often tried to “play” on the national question, and this was no exception with the peoples of the Soviet Union. Collaborant units were composed, as a rule, precisely on a national basis. That is, for example, Ukrainian, Georgian, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Turkestan, etc. separately, and ethnic Russians in these units almost never existed. But in the "Russian" units under the German command, in reality, one could meet not only Russians, but often simply Russian-speaking representatives of almost all the peoples of the USSR. If everything is described in a very short way, then by the very end of the war, the ROA, under the command of General Vlasov, was transformed into the Armed Forces of KONR (KONR, organized by Vlasov and his associates Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia), and into these "armed forces", although purely nominally, all “Russian” formations are scattered all over Europe, and at that time were somehow subordinate to the German command — 3 incomplete divisions of the ROA itself, aviation and air defense units, Cossack units, various intelligence schools and propaganda courses, construction and police units, formed from Russian collaborators of the SS, camp protection, etc. etc. At the same time, all other purely national units remained so. So the total maximum, albeit purely statistical, number of these very “VS KONR” under the command of Vlasov, and they, just notice, included the bulk of the former white emigrants who also considered themselves Russian, amounted (according to various sources, again the same) from 120 to 150 thousand people. That is, a completely natural question arises: if there are “Russians” in the total number of traitors, well, even if 150 thousand and with white emigrants together, so from whom does this rest plus / minus a million people recruit? And it just turns out that from the "fraternal" peoples of the USSR ... Here is such mathematics. That is, in the tendency of our “brothers” to run over to the side of the enemy in difficult times, it turns out that there is nothing new.
Soviet fraternity in modern realities
But let's move on. And what do we have now and in the recent past with the "fraternal" peoples? You can recall, for example, things that happened not even with Russians by nationality, but with Russian-speaking people in general, who at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union found themselves in the territories of national republics. But nothing good happened to them there, to put it mildly. Under the influence of sharply aggravated nationalist sentiments, almost everywhere these citizens began to be subjected to severe discrimination and humiliation, restrictions on their rights, and often came to cases of mass bloodshed and even killings, which can be described as actions that have signs of genocide. People were forcibly expelled from their places of residence, housing and property acquired over the years were taken away. There were even armed conflicts on a national basis. All this ultimately led to a mass exodus of the Russian-speaking population, for example, from the Central Asian republics or Transcaucasia. In addition to Ukraine and Belarus, immediately after the collapse of the USSR, attacks by a nationalist-minded local population against Russian-speaking fellow citizens began in almost all the former republics. But Ukraine has more than caught up with this “lag” now. Apart from the very specific situation historically prevailing in the Baltic states, in all other places over the past 30 years, the attitude towards the Russian-speaking minority has calmed down noticeably, however, state regimes in most of the former Soviet republics can hardly be considered fully “fraternal” in relation to the Russian Federation.
You can also look at the results of economic interaction. It would seem that during the existence of a common Soviet state, a jointly built and totally interconnected economy should historically predetermine successful economic cooperation in the future. But here everything is not quite as rosy as we would like. And this is despite all the various reciprocal preferential conditions that exist between the former republics of the Union, for example, free trade and the movement of capital and labor within the Eurasian countries (today full-fledged members of the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Tajikistan + Moldova in observer status). Here are the data on the mutual trade turnover of the Russian Federation with our "fraternal" countries for 2018 (in billions of dollars):
Kazakhstan - 18,2; Uzbekistan - 4,3; Armenia - 1,9; Kyrgyzstan - 1,8; Azerbaijan - 2,48; Georgia - 1,35; Moldova - 1,56; Tajikistan - 0,89. I do not give figures for Ukraine and the Baltic states, since there are currently obvious problems with the "brotherhood".
And now, for comparison, trade data for the same period with our typical "enemies", if you look at historical parallels, the axis "Berlin-Rome-Tokyo" (billion dollars):
Germany - 60,1; Italy - 24,5; Japan - 19,5. It should be added that these figures reflect the state of things after four years of hard anti-Russian sanctions that these states support, the FRG and Italy are the main members of the NATO block hostile to us, and with Japan, now the main US ally in the Far East, since World War II we have not yet signed a peace treaty and there are even unresolved territorial claims. It was these countries that were the instigators of the last world war and directly aggression against the Soviet Union. That is, by no means "brothers" and not even friends at all.
Another NATO member and our long-standing and eternal adversary, Turkey - $ 25,6 billion.
Someone, probably, can object, say, like: well, you can’t compare the former Soviet republics with the leading economies of the world and the largest states ... Perhaps. Well then, let’s take another example, also one of those who attacked us together with the Germans during the Second World War, fought against us, and now also joins NATO and, even on this basis, does not behave particularly friendly towards Russia, well, in short, also definitely not “brothers”:
Slovakia, a country with a population of incomplete 5,5 million people, the industry “cried”, in 2018 had a turnover of 5,9 billion dollars with the Russian Federation; Czech Republic, with a population of 10 million people - $ 8,6 billion, Romania - $ 4,9 billion, Hungary - almost $ 9 billion.
Or is Poland, why not an enemy? And trade turnover in 2018 was $ 21,7 billion, while compared to 2017, it grew by 42,9%! This is with all the sanctions, customs barriers, the ban on apples, membership in NATO, US bases and hostile political machinations. It somehow strange turns out that we have with our “enemies” a kind of even more active economic relationship than with our “brothers” in the Soviet past, with whom we once fought shoulder to shoulder against these same enemies ...
By the way, all these new NATO troops were also called “brothers” just recently - according to the socialist camp, CMEA, the Warsaw Pact, and there were also “brotherly” peoples, for example, Cuba, Angola and Mozambique, Vietnam and Kampuche, and so on. further, many of whom also constantly received “fraternal” military and economic assistance from us, and if, in truth, they simply, so to speak, sat on our neck, hanging their legs and chatting gaily in the air ...
Is it time to finally draw conclusions?
Based on the above, the question arises: What is better, to have such “brothers” from whom we don’t even know when and what to expect, or, although not “native”, but simply pragmatic and quite predictable business partners, whose relations are built exclusively on a basis for balanced and mutual benefit? And in general, what is this concept of “brotherly people” or “brotherly country”? What, for example, does the USA have any “fraternal” states? Do India? Or France? Maybe in China? No, no one has. At Austria? Did the Austrians also once once with Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Yugoslavs and so on around them, lived in the same Austro-Hungarian empire? But for some reason they do not consider them all as “brothers,” like the Germans, and the Swiss, who are spoken with in the same language, also somehow do not record themselves in close relatives. Everyone just lives for himself in his own country and observe only their own national interests.
On the other hand, there is an example of Germany, the two parts of which, forcibly separated from each other as a result of a lost war and occupation, reunited, and this made the country stronger and more powerful. This is one people, one whole. There is a construction of the Union State of the Russian Federation and Belarus, with which we, too, are, in fact, a single people. Yes, there are problems, but they are also in families between close relatives. And besides, breaking something is always easier and faster than rebuilding. The same Germans also face this for three decades after the unification. But it normal.
So I think so: do you want a family? - welcome! But then let's live together, build our common home, and stand for each other always and in everything, no matter what happens. Then all this really makes sense and the future.
But to write to ourselves in the “brothers” those who ran away from us in their own corners as soon as the opportunity presented itself, I think it’s not very reasonable. Moreover, the "fraternal" relationship implies something radically more than a simple good neighborliness. And then these citizens then enjoy all their “fraternal” rights and privileges with pleasure, but somehow we are not in a hurry to reciprocate. I don’t see something in Syria of the troops of the CSTO member countries. And how is it that our “brothers” have still not recognized the reunification of Crimea with Russia? Where is their support for our UN resolutions? Where is the position on the "Kerch incident"? Why are the "fraternal" former republics of the USSR in no hurry to take retaliatory sanctions against the same US and EU, which have been strangling our economy for the fifth year with their illegal sanctions? Where is at least a nominal outrage by the US actions against our diplomatic property or participation in solving the situation in eastern Ukraine? ... But there is nothing like that! Where are you, brothers? Aw-u ... When we really need you, for some reason you’re not being around anymore. But when you need something from us, you are right there right away, with kindred smiles and hugs ...
Well, why do we need such “brothers”? ...
Information