Now, Look Here (Publicistics) — Part Three

Reads: 658  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 0

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Non-Fiction  |  House: We, The Silly People

Chapter 3 (v.1) - Thoughts about Ukraine

Submitted: May 06, 2018

Reads: 23

A A A | A A A

Submitted: May 06, 2018

A A A

A A A


THOUGHTS ABOUT UKRAINE


This is what is said, contemplations about Ukraine, why this, what is done there, though not new as situation, is not good, by what reasons, how the society evolves and to what this can lead, why Ukraine will in any case only lose if the disorder there will continue, what is best of all to do and to what to aim, who is guilty, and other related questions. Id est this is not political commentary, not only because I am not specialist in these matters, not political commentator or special observer, etc., but also because the situation there develops pretty fast, and while I write and multiply this material for several sites, then it will already become old. But my things usually do not age, even after twenty years, due to the fact that my approach is reasonable and a little philosophical, so that also this time I will write so that this material could have been read after, say, fifty years, or hundred, or two hundreds. Anyway, I for a long time, 3-4 years now, intend to write something of the kind and always can not find free time to do this. Well, then let me begin, and see what will succeed to create.
Although I wish to add in the beginning that I may be wrong in some details. For this reason I will summarize now how I understand the situation there, and you, if you think that the things are not so, the problems are entirely different, and this my idea about the situation there is quite vague, then just exit quickly out of this material. So my understanding of the situation is such: the Ukrainians feel themselves displeased and insulted by this that to them was attributed the role of younger brother, but they are more capable and gifted and more genuine Slavs and Christians, and it is long ago time for them to separate from Russia and unite with the West, with Europe, in order to start living happily among rivers of honey and butter. While in the same time the Russians feel obliged to defend the unity of neighbouring states, as also to exercise military supremacy in the region, and the less states remain in the CIS the harder they will defend its integrity. So that the Ukrainians must simply put up with the situation and try to derive from it as much benefits as possible, because else, if they succeed to separate from Russia, they, in any case, will only lose. That is how I thing in outlines, and as far as the situation in Ukraine is in many aspects similar to that in Bulgaria, at least in regard of the poverty, I have some look at the things, because Ukraine goes, so, twenty years after Bulgaria in its actions of untying from the influence of the "great and indestructible" Soviet Union, and in such case I can give some useful advice. So, and now I begin to explain the things in a bit finer raster.

Nothing new under the Sun

Everyone knows this, right? And this, what I have in mind here, is that the bigger amount of controversies arise between related or territorially adjacent people or territories, for the reason that they have similar views to the things, but differ in details, and because they have what to divide. The same is also true about the conflicts between generations, where the genes, in one or another degree, manifest themselves, and it was nearly the same almost 25 centuries back, when certain Alexander Macedonian decided to conquer first the state of Athens on his way to the East. To conquer not because he did not like them, for they had common gods, and the language as if also was the same, but he needed a strong rear. But he had no desire to fight with them, they were those who wanted to fight whatever happens, and they have even used on expenses for weapons and troops some hundred talents of gold from the neighbouring Persians, which the latter have decided to give them as gift, in order that they, defending themselves, stopped this Ksan Macedonian. Well, they have defended themselves, without any necessity, and have lost the battle. And do you know what is this a talent — where from has come also the word used for such gifted persons (like your author, right?)? It turns out that this was approximately 20 kilograms, because this is the usual load which a person can carry out on his back.
But I give you this example in order to show how the related nations from times immemorial have considered as almost obligatory firstly to fight between them, and later, eventually, to begin making friends. Id est how not necessarily economic reasons, but entirely "human", like excessive stubbornness, unwillingness to comply with reality, desire to show off, and so on, lead to entirely unnecessary quarrels and battles. Because it has to be clear that it is not right that the weak fights with the strong, this is silly, isn't it? Yeah, sure, this is silly, but, on the other hand, this is humanly! Such situations happen quite often, take for example the events in Ireland, or in the beginning of 90ies of the past century in Serboslavia, and in other places. And somewhere in that time when the battles in Yugoslavia were led, I think, I have come to the conclusion that usually, as a rule, in 90 percents of the cases

guilty are the weaker, but the responsibility carry the stronger.

I can not boast that read political commentaries, but have not met officially this statement, no matter that there are quite reasonable causes for it. They are fixed even etymologically, as in the English (your "mean" means average, but also bad, evil, etc.) so also in the Italian (their sinister means left, i.e. here weak, but also like your sinister, evil). And such character usually has the feminine reaction in family conflicts, which, obviously, is weak. Id est the women usually provoke conflicts, hoping that either the men will become ashamed, or there will be some public reaction, but they are those who begin the disputes, and the men are forced to apply brutal force since deep antiquity. And the weak side is usually more dishonest for the simple reason that in a fair fight it, surely, will lose the battle, it has no other choice. At the same time the responsibility carries the strong side, because that is why it is stronger, for to find solution, and with applying of as less as possible force.
So also in this conflict, I think, the situation is, generally, such, the Ukrainians want to defend their independence, this is the right of every individual and every nation, to insist on their language, and on their hryvnia, for else the Russians will assimilate them. And all military bases there, the Russian territories in Crimea, and other things, have to be returned to Ukraine, for to increase its prosperity, think they. The Russians may be similar to the Ukrainians, but not exactly, and their own shirt is closer to their body, as the Russian saying goes, what means that self comes first. Yeah, but when they are weaker, when the Russians are three times more on population, but on territory even about 25 times more, and when the Russians are nuclear state, then they simply must obey them, not to show their own wishes but comply with those of the Russians, maintain common market with them, and then they will only gain by all this.
But let us proceed. I think that

independence is one thing, but to change political blocs is not good.

Because we are living now in 21 century, in which all states are independent up to some extent, there are no colonies. Yet military blocs still exist, and as if in the nearest pair of centuries have no intention to disappear. They are still necessary, approximately in such degree in which the parties are necessary in political life, at which I am spitting nearly in every second of my materials, but this does not eliminate the necessity of them. The blocs are necessary for to make us think, before we come to the utmost means (ultima ratio in Latin), before we begin to combat, but also because they are significantly less than the number of states (say, 50 times) and can maintain reasonable relations, can lead negotiations, not to fight each against each. Blocs are power, and the power has to be taken in consideration, this is clear to everybody.
What means that as if the only reason to leave one bloc is to enter into another one. Very rare some small state can be considered really independent and not tied with military or economic blocs. Let us take Bulgaria. We left the Warsaw Pact, like also Czech Republic, Poland, at cetera, and did not miss (well, there passed 4-5 years, but we have though long ago, even before exiting this Pact) to enter the NATO. I personally am not satisfied with this, for the reason that, judging by the name of this organization (North Atlantic Trade Organization), we have nothing in common with the Atlantic Ocean (neither with the Northern one, nor with the Southern), and have never had, and also nobody has asked the people do we want this or not, but we, after all, are in Europe, and if all states around us are members of NATO, then we also must be such members, there is no other way. Id est, we have acted correctly, because otherwise we would have been forced to oppose NATO, what is not possible, but the case with Ukraine is not such. Ukraine goes, or has for a very long time gone, hand in hand with Russia, and if it can succeed somehow to enter NATO, exactly then it will become at gunpoint of the neighbouring states, i.e. of Russia and its allies, but now nobody aims at it. In other words, the (possible) membership of Ukraine in NATO will only worsen the situation in the region.
To judge that, you see, the Czech Republic and Poland have become members of NATO, have they not, so that why not to expand this bloc a little more on the east, is very naive, because it can not be expanded forever. Now, Turkey also wants to enter NATO but this, still, does not happen. And I will tell you why the whole Western Europe has decided to enter NATO, if you can not guess. Because the world, especially the Americans, do not trust much the Europeans, after the two world wars, and want to control this center of civilization, but also the very Europe, as if, does not trust itself; people there don't love much the Americans (obviously, for this reason they have tried to unite, in order to be in position to oppose the USA), but they want to be in one military bloc with them because it is more quiet in this way (and what if Russia ...). The Baltic states also have become members of NATO, but they are a bit on the outskirts, this is not the same like with Ukraine, not that the Russian military bases were so near as in Crimea. This is all not the same.
And in addition Georgia has also confused the situation. I am at least indignant by the behaviour of Georgia, because they should carry some responsibility for the Stalinism, shouldn't they, and he has brewed the biggest mess in the history of whole Soviet Union in the last century, the entire world would not have looked so at Russia and at the communists if Stalin has not existed. And there was also time when the Georgians have written humble petition to the Russian Tsar, Pavel I think, begging him to take them under his protection because the bassurmans oppressed them severely. And, now, the Russians must protect them when they are in trouble, but they have all rights to leave the Russians when the latter have not felt quite well after the collapse of USSR. So that, Ukrainians, Sirs, don't take bad example, take good one, look at the Cossacks, Tajiks, and other southern nations, who are even not Slavs, for them to speak Russian is, obviously, more difficult than for you.
Then take into consideration, or if you don't know this then listen, that

a military bloc (say, NATO) can not better the economic situation in poor countries,

it has not such goal and could never have it. It can even worsen it, by the simple reason that it will want money for purchasing of new armament. From the inclusion of poor or suffered country in new military bloc can win only the ... prostitutes and speculators in the black market! Believe me, please, because in my old years I have begun to read in Italian, and (for reasons of bad assortment of books in this language) I was forced to read a pair of books about the time of American occupation of Italy in the end of the Second World War, and there the situation was exactly the same. Then also Bulgaria for now 10 years is a member of NATO and what has happened? In economic regard nothing good — we are on the last place according the standard of life in European Union (and earlier were even on the penultimate place, after Albania). So that, you, Ukrainians, mark this well into your minds, if you enter some day NATO, as result of this your life will become only worse!
Let me explain a bit this my prediction. For one thing there is a psychological reason, which is in this that the West, and especially the Americans, will look at the Ukrainians as at more inferior beings. In this case I wouldn't say as at white slaves, but as at something of the kind. From point of view of the Americans, like the Russian language, so also the Ukrainian one, is anyway some Chinese, to such people one has not to give much credit. That's it. And also this is, still, Asia, isn't Europe, right? Well, maybe not exactly like in India, but somewhere around. Then comes the market, the competition with other countries, far more developed than Ukraine. For Bulgaria, after all, this has turned to be the major blow as result of our including in the European Union, and even before the inclusion, because their politicians wanted that we have had predominant exchange of goods with them, not with other countries (say, with Russia). And when we are not "on the level" nobody buys our products, we though give all our money to buy something from abroad, not Bulgarian. All this is elementary and obvious, I have spoken about it in various places, the market, no matter, how good it is for some countries, for more developed, turns to be as much bad for the weakly developed countries like Bulgaria, and I think I will not make an error if say that also for Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and so on. To happen to be not on your own market is, ah, how bad!
So, and now let us turn our attention to the question

about Ukrainian contribution to the Slavonic world.

I am not specialist in these matters, but I suppose it is known to everybody that in Kiev was adopted at their time the Christianity, that there was Kievan Rus, which later has shifted to the north, and also separated from the Ukrainians, who have left to the south. And the acceptance of Christianity was very important deed in that time, it signified their withdrawal from the barbarism (however strange this may seem from the standpoint of today's views). And generally, in the tenth century, and even earlier, when Cyril and Methodius have created the Slavonic alphabet, the center of Slavic world was on south, approximately in the region of Bulgaria, there was also the representative and single Slavonic language, although Slavs have lived in the north, in Great Moravia, as well on the east, around Kiev and even beyond the Urals. The very name of this town, too, in my opinion, is related somehow with the delight or ... kief, this is great town, mother of the towns, like for the Spaniards is Madrid, and for the Italians is Rome. In all probability this has to be exactly so, and the Ukrainians have all reasons to be proud with their Kiev, as well with the Christianity, and also with this, that they were its major pillars at least on the east and toward Asia, because the religion is carrier of morality and without it (when there was not universal education) people are savages
And to all this the very name of Ukrainians has to come, up to my mind (but for me it is obvious) from the border or periphery (okraina in Russian)! Id est these are people on the okraine, they as if are not the major Slavs in the region, but a deep province, agricultural appendage of the great Russia. Their language (to what we will come soon), too, is better than the Russian, and they feed the whole Russia, because on the north even potatoes are hardly sprouting, and despite all this the Russians insult them how they only can, think they. All this is so, yet to accept nationalistic position that, see, we are good but all the others are scum, is not only unethical but also silly and unjustified, because each nation has its achievements. And this, that the nations in their developing are trying all the time to differ with something from the others, especially if they are similar in many aspects, is on the one hand quite natural, this is part of the evolution, but on the other hand pretty oft leads to funny differences, just for the sake to find differences (similarly to various fashion styles of clothing, appearance, etc. — for example, the flower baskets which the great ladies have worn earlier on their heads, or the tin "armors" in which they have confined themselves, or the wigs and men's cylinders, and many other examples). So that, to everybody his own, yet not in the sense that everybody deserves punishment according to his actions (how have interpreted the fascists this slogan — Jedem das seine), but that everyone has his deserts, one some own, but the other also his own, and if the Ukrainians have been pillars of Christianity in their time, then the Russians have been pillars of peace and protection of surrounding countries at their time, and even now are this (don't you think please, that to carry the royal crown and responsibility for everything is easy!).
In this direction, but because here I want to say many different things I separate it under different heading, comes the question

about the Ukrainian (respectively, Russian) language.

As I have said (but not I have come to this conclusion) about 10 centuries back was single Slavonic language, the center of which was approximately on the territory of Bulgaria, because Cyril and Methodius have worked in the monastery of Athos on the territory of today's Greece, and quite near to the contemporary border of Bulgaria (and earlier also on the territory of Bulgaria). And then the question about the primacy of Ukrainians or Russians loses its meaning because first were, of course, the Bulgarians! After all, the Christianity was adopted in Bulgaria in 865, i.e. more than a century earlier than in Kievan Rus, and Bulgarian language was in the basis of Slavonic language, in the sense that contemporary Bulgarian language stays nearer to the old-Slavonic one than the Russian, or else Ukrainian (in it were no Latin letters, like "i", for example). I am laicus also in this relation, have not received linguistic education, but I have quite broad look at these questions (I call myself intelligent laic), for to have the right to pronounce myself on it. So that Sirs, and this time Russians and Ukrainians, there is no need to debate which language is better, I have told you (in my materials in the folder "For all those from CIS", which is in Russian and I don't intend to translate it in other languages but think to compose similar folder only in English for Arabs, Chinese, etc.) that the Bulgarian language deserves to be considered as etalon, standard or benchmark, for all Slavs (and even for the entire world, further more), in many aspects, in grammatical, in phonetical, and in relation to the international politics (now, as one of the languages of European Union). Here can't be whatever discussions, can be only misunderstood preferences due to the inertness of the people, as well also to partiality of judgement ("your own sh. does not smell", I beg your pardon, but this is well known proverb in Russian, not I have invented it, and it is just to the point).
But this question is very important, it continues now for many centuries, I suppose. In any case, in the 70ies of the last century, when I have studied in Saint Petersburg, then Leningrad, the Bulgarian students in Kiev have complained that in their University they read lectures to them in Ukrainian, what is entirely wrong, after all then existed still the USSR (and approximately 20 years later I have listened to lectures in Austria in English, what was though to be quite proper decision). Id est, understand me correctly, please: the necessary for the Slavs language, to all appearances (or else prove justifiably, scientifically, that this is not so) has to be the Bulgarian one, but if it goes about the territory of CIS, then this has to be the Russian, at least in the official institutions (how people speak at home, or on the streets, or at the pub, etc., is irrelevant). One can not imagine a state where they speak in different languages, the only exception in this case is Switzerland, but it is mountainous country, the different areas are isolated, there was somehow establisher such tradition, and now they all study English so that the problem was resolved by itself. In the framework of European Union there is no official language, but unofficially this role performs again the English, though the problem stays also before them. There is no need to remind you, I think, the fable about the Tower of Babel; in the present days to do without official language in some big group of people is simply inconceivable. But possibly it was so also in the antiquity, because at those times the languages have differed one from the other even less, they are for this reason called Indo-European languages (if not necessary one language then there were a pair of similar ones).
And now a bit more concrete about the Russian and Ukrainian languages. Although about the Russian I have spoken in the cited folder (there is even newer material in this sense) and it is entirely outmoded (in the original is said even "antediluvian"), with this language there is no entering in Europe (not that they will stop you on the border, but will laugh at you behind your back). The same can be said about the Ukrainian, too, when there exist cases in it, also similar prolonged vowels ("oy", "iy", etc.), and 32 letters are not enough for them and they are forced to use the Latin "i", too. And in political regard it can lead only to splitting, because the very Ukraine is not monolithic, one part of it is for alliance with the Russians, but the other is for uniting with Europe, due to the nearness to the Poles (with whom earlier, of course, they have fought and not rarely). If the "watershed" between the two Blocs must be drawn through the middle of Ukraine this is the worst possible scenario (and because of this I am afraid that something similar can happen — when people begin to do stupid things they never, as a rule, are satisfied with small stupidity, no, they play "all in", and usually lose).
But, still, the Ukrainian language, from general considerations that it is more southern language, as well also because of some phonetic details, is more correct than the Russian. Say, in regard of the letter "e" or "i" they are right, they say 'divka' (in single quotes I give how the word is pronounced, not how it is written), like in the Latin as also everywhere on the West (diva), what comes somewhere from the Sanskrit, not 'devka' as the Russians say. For this reason they have two letters "i", but not 'ie' like the Russian "e" (i.e. the Russians want to say 'i', but until they take the decision they already give up their intention, and then say 'e'), what in my terminology are modified vowels (like in English 'ae' in the word "back"). And when they are (more) southern Slavs then they must have more southern, understand Arabic or Persian, words. For example, I quite recently have found that they have the word "maydan" as gathering, congregation of people, what is Persian word, exactly 'maydan', and this means the same like Bulgarian archaic word "megdan", i.e. central place in a village where all can gather (if somebody says 'mahay to the maydan /megdan' — this is around the syllable 'may' like in the month May when everything changes fast). And to all this they are nearer to the Bulgarians, they like ... hot peppers, while the Russians — not at all. But in spite of all this, neither the Russian, nor the Ukrainian, are good enough languages, so that they were learned also by the non-Slavic nations of the CIS, and for the Slavic nations using of some other Slavonic language, i.e. of the Bulgarian, would have lessened, a priori, the possible frictions between these nations with about 30 percents, I think!
So, and from here it is easy to switch to the next theme, that

the disturbances in the CIS only make each of the parties weaker!

This is not only because the armament costs money, and all possible destructions in result of the military operations inflict direct damage to the countries, but also because this upsets the normal rhythm of work, this is favorable to no one. What is reduced to this that if the Ukrainians have not "kicked" so strongly against the Russians they would have lived better. And as I have cast a cursory glance in one material on the Internet, it turns out that the Russians propose exactly to maintain or organize common market for Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and other countries of the CIS, if they want this. That is how people act in civilized countries, look at the Arab states, or at the United Europe, or at the Northern America (where are united USA, Canada, and Mexico, if I am not mistaken). Only that the Ukrainians don't want peace, they want disturbances, right? Well, I overdo the things a little, not all Ukrainians want this, but the young ones, who have succeeded to grow up in the democratic time (as also our own, Bulgarian fascists) want exactly this, they want that there were quarrels, battles, actions, in order that they were able to show off with something, because otherwise life seems quite dull to them. They are right in their own way, but this is not the right thing, reasonable people don't behave in this way, the more when the Russians are strongly mixed with the Ukrainians, and there is no sense to stop this process, it goes only to the benefit of gene.
And now see what happens. Because the Ukrainians want to separate from Russia, but in Ukraine live many Russians, then these Russians want to separate from Ukraine, and then Russia is simply bound to help them. It begins to help them, and then Ukraine begins to cry aloud to the entire world, how badly Russia behaves to them and that it is high time that NATO intervened, and the generals there, nothing highly surprising, will begin to send weapons to the Ukrainians. Yeah, but how you, my Ukrainian brothers and sisters, think, will Ukraine in this way become more rich, or on the contrary, will their economic problems be solved in this way, or will worsen? Do you really want that the Great Powers and world community intervened, ah? But when they intervene they usually "are felling many trees", like the Russians say, or "together with the dry woods burn also the raw ones", as the Bulgarians say, i.e. they usually worsen the things, isn't it so? To remind you that the Great Powers have organized the country Israel, and 10 years after this there have begun the disorders and fights and they do not intend to stop at all. For the Western world, and especially for the United States, is preferable to have conflicts all around the world, this comes cheaper for them, instead of specially to provoke the conflicts. Try to come to reason, else the disorders will never end!
Well, and now let me give you some considerations of myself why the Ukrainians have to put up with the hegemony of Russia, why they will never succeed to become "older brother" and begin to rule "the roast". Here everything is simple, in my view,

the civilization nowadays just moves to the north.

In the sense that the nations have firstly moved from east to west, maybe because ... wanted to avoid that the sun shined them in the eyes, I suppose, or this was simply easier, to interfere with China there is no sense (if you start from India or the Himalayas), and further is the ocean, who knows (i.e. has known) where it ends and ends it at all or not? So, have come also to the new world, have discovered America, with their Indians instead of Hindus, and what further? To influence the Chinese is impossible, they are too much. What remains then? Well, it remains to go to the north, in Europe, as well in America, and in Asia, too. In particular, the Russians have made exactly this, some 5 - 10 centuries earlier. And why, how do you think? Well, because it is easier to withstand the cold than the heat! That's it.
And really, the northern nations, now already a pair of centuries show enviable progress in contrast with the southern ones (say, with the Arabic countries, too much to the south, after the equator, to go is equivalent to moving to the north, so that this is not it). This is because the plants easily withstand the cold, than the heat, and give better results. The winter season, if you ask the southern nations, is not cold but wet, and then everything grows and brings fruit. You all know that today all around the world is sold Canadian wheat or lentil, or something else that grows on earth and is nutritious (tomatoes there as if they do not breed, but they are grown in all countries in hothouses); earlier, in the times of Roman Empire, breadbasket of the world was Egypt, the Nile delta, but now this is Canada. And with the fish the situation is about the same, it is caught more of it in the North. And how is it with the people, ah? Where they withstand the weather easier, how do you think?
Well, I personally have given a thought to this issue (because I am trying to economize from what I only can, and decided to measure when I am feeling most comfortably, although this is known to the biologists), and it turned out that this is the temperature of 23ºC (maybe 22º would have been more suitable, but I am old man and skinny and I feel cold). And now let us move away from it in both directions and make conclusions when is better, by 13 or by 33? I personally would have preferred 33, but many people (especially in working premises, when one is dressed), and especially the plants and animals would have preferred 13ºC. And further, say by 3º or by 43º? Of course that by 3º, 43º is difficult to endure, the heart becomes overburdened, and extending this diapason further more the conclusions become directly imperatives, because by -3º people live in clover, but by 53º is necessary a space suite or air conditioner, and the latter is quite expensive. Then -13 this is usual winter for us, but 63 this is inconceivable, then -23º also can be endured, -33º harder but still possible, but in the direction of pluses now the protoplasm coagulates. Such are the things. And the plants and animals withstand even easier the minus temperatures than the humans.
But there is also another aspect, I have thought about this matter. When you want to warm yourself you burn some fire, it raises the temperature of the environment, warms it, too. And when you cool what happens? Well, it happens this, that you cool one place but around it you make it even warmer, this is not real cooling of the environment but only locally, yet this is so because there exists one thermodynamic law that says, that you can not take away energy from some body just so (lowering the energy of electrons, releasing to somewhere the fast electrons and leaving only the slow ones), it can give the heat only if there is someone to take it, but simply so to cool is impossible (though simply so to heat is possible), i.e. the situation here is similar to the ... time axes, it has for us only one direction. Add to this also the possible global warming (about which I have spoken that it is not so much warming as is fast mixing of the air, but little by little we are moving away from the glacial period, so that slight warming exists, after all). In the nearest pair of centuries I simply can't see how something in my conclusions can be changed, the more so on the background of mutated fruits and animals; I am telling you: the cold is better than the heat, for everything alive.
What naturally, if we return to our topic, means that Ukraine will continue to be weaker in economic relation than Russia, and even in Russia will be possible to grow absolutely everything necessary (even bananas, if need be), so that they will be able to do without the agricultural products that Ukraine can deliver to them. But for the minerals, too, the north seems to be better, for the reason that on the south the major part of them has been already used. So that this my conclusion is obviously correct.
But let us proceed further, let us speak now

about the patriotism and fatherland.

You see, the patria, or the earthen part (-ia, what must be the same in phonetical aspect) is a good thing, but in our days it begins to become more and more symbolical, because if the countries do not oppose especially to each other, if there exists global exchange of goods and services around the world, if one can change his (or her) place of residence and have double (and triple) citizenship, and live where only wants, even in Paris, or in New York, if the laws in all countries increasingly equalize, and the taxes, too, also the wages (in equally developed neighbouring countries, but all world moves to such equalizing), then there is no special difference "which god he will pray", so to say, i.e. what citizenship he will have. This is the reality, and the national flags and currency are of secondary importance, they become now insignificant, we all are humans, there are not best or chosen people, there are (still) only wealthy and poor. So that, my dear adolescents, or also military personnel, enough waving of fighting tomahawk, as the saying goes. Let us become friends, ah? And take into account chiefly the military blocs and the markets, so that there all were approximately equal, don't pay much attention to political differences. Have you still not understood that there is not communism or capitalism? What exists is strongly limited monopolistic production in the framework of capitalism, and more liberal capitalist one, that acknowledges both, monopolies and private companies. The communism, generally speaking, has converged with the capitalism, the difference is only in the level of intensification of labour (respectively, in the exploitation) in some countries, but everything is only a question of time, question of pair of decades of years (and even if it is half a century, what of it?).
So my dear (when you are only a few, ah?) readers. It is time to wrap it up, but let me say also something in the end

about the urgent measures in the given crisis,

because some of you are right to object that these moralizing of mine are only nice talk, but when the fire burns there is no need to explain the fire safety regulations, then the fire must be extinguished. So it is, but not exactly. Because we have not yet begun to throw atom bombs around, and what if we come to this? So that the rules for safety and peaceful coexistence must always be explained, even when we succeed to extinguish the fire ii also necessary, in order to know for the future. And then you know that these urgent measures, if we do not count the even bigger rousing of fire in the very process of extinguising (through supplying of weapons from various countries and to various sides of the conflict), is reduced only to applying of stronger force (as I have explained this in several places), in order that the opposing party was horrified and refused to fight (like, say, only to give an example, have done the Americans in the end of World War Two with Japan, or then, how they have acted after the assault of Bin Laden in the very beginning of this century, declaring war to the whole nation), or even to scare both sides (how it was with the bombing in the former Yugoslavia), if intervenes (as if) neutral side.
So it usually happens when casual spectators begin to help; this what they want is to see some real action, but that the fighting parties give human victims — well, after all, we have not forced them to fight, will say the spectators. So that you, first of all, try alone to help yourselves! Because guilty are both sides, the process has entered in cycles, it can't be said that the ones are guilty and the others are victims. For the reason that, if you give credence to my statement in the very beginning, then in the beginning guilty were the Ukrainians, because they wanted to separate from Russia in uncivilized way, mark this, because they were the weak side in the confrontation Ukraine - Russia, and Russia has carried the responsibility, yet it has done nothing, it has not begun to fight with Ukraine. So that on this stage the apparent guilty side was the Ukrainians (like the "kids", also the old ones). Later, however, when have begun the separatists actions in Ukraine, then the weak side were the Ukrainian Russians, and the strong side was the Ukraine alone, so that then guilty were these Russians, and the responsibility carries the Government of Ukraine, yet it has not dealt correctly, has not required reasonable measures together with Russia, with the intention to preserve this union, or else separate in civilized way. But if Ukraine begins (or has begun) to fight with these Russians then the conflict moves between Ukraine, as weaker side, and respectively guilty (if I am still right in my statement in the beginning), and Russia, which carries the responsibility for (not) solving the conflict. So that now, although Ukraine is as before more guilty, nonetheless both countries are guilty and they both carry the responsibility. Only with tanks the conflict will not be solved, maybe is necessary some common denunciation of both sides, of Russian separatists, and of Ukrainian nationalists, but the important things is that this was common verdict.
And now about this what means civilized "divorce". Well, this also is obvious, this is how the Czechs and Slovaks have acted in the distant 1993 (I think). If the Ukrainians are such that they always are ready to suspect the adversary in falsifying (and I think that they are exactly such, because that is how in Bulgaria also happens, the weaker ones, judging by themselves, are always unsatisfied, here is actual — I beg the more squeamish readers to excuse me — the aptly comparison, that ... the bad prick is hampered by the balls), then exists obvious decision: has to be performed open voting! It is true that in this way people run to certain risk, but what is this in the end, in Ukraine people either want to be friends with the Russians and stay in the same boat with them, as it was nearly thousand years, or they don't want this; let it be clear who will carry the responsibility for the next even bigger lessening of the standard of life, mainly in Ukraine, but in Russia, too. Or also conduct voting by Internet, and that the results come to both countries, or use as intermediary link some site of European Union and send their meanings to that site, using passwords, and from there they can be sent to the both countries — something of the kind, there are many variants, and it is not at all difficult to choose such, that there were impossible to falsify whatever. And as result of this referendum must be made exact plan how to perform this process, by months and years, but I think that in all cases must be waited 4-5 years till the final separation.
Or then first outline roughly the separation zone in the very Ukraine on Eastern and Western, where only the Western can enter in Europe. And this also without hurry, because must be taken the necessary measures, by European countries, by Russia, and by other CIS countries. This is not that a single family has divorced, here are millions of families, it should not be acted in a hurry. And even better to conduct a series of votings, two or three, with half an year between them, so that the people were able to think seriously about the things. Or also to set some neutral zone between the votes "pro" and "against", so that, say, the ratio of the bigger to the smaller parts differed with more than 5% (or rather to require initially even ten), and conduct referendums until people show real difference (after all, approximately so is chosen the Roman Pope), so that it was not possible to say later that some error happened. Because Ukraine, even if it is not so big state like Russia, but it is still quite big, this will be nearly as a "fight between dinosaurs".
Ah, it turns out that I can add also something more, about this

how the West looks at the might of Russia in the region.

I can't be quite sure in this case, but up to my mind the whole Europe, as well also the USA, don't want to intervene in open military confrontation with Russia. They don't want because of fears about the many possible victims, but also because Russia is beneficial for them as force in the region, without it would have become worse, it would have been harder to constrain the discontent of entire Arab world (or at least of the Moslem countries), and the fight for supremacy in the region of Himalayas continues to be central point in the geopolitics of the Great Powers! Some of you maybe remember that back in 1968, by the landing in Czechoslovakia, many people hoped that the West will intervene, but it, and this is reasonable reaction, in my view, has abstained to do this, objected for some time, but then considered the matter as internal affair of the countries in Warsaw Pact. I don't understand why now many Ukrainians (I am almost convinced that this is so) think that the West will intervene, I personally don't think so. After all, if the Russia was not so strong, then it would have begun to seek allies, it maybe would have united with India (ancient civilization, peaceful religion), and even with China (obviously also ancient civilization and vast, the most populated country in the world, and, as I have given a thought to the matter, on the whole peaceful, it has not conquered colonies, and even has defended itself from the Mongols in its time, quite worthy ally, and in addition also communist state, will not look at the Russians as at ... monkeys in the zoo, so to say). And if this happens then with such bloc will be impossible to cope!
So that, gentlemen, think, but be wise. The first think here is to stop fighting and begin to think quietly and slowly. And I dedicate you at parting the following tiny verse, hopping that it will cool a little extremely hot heads.

He, the Russian — you are bound
To admit — he knows to fight!
You, Okraynians, are around —
That's the truth, my girls and guys.
Try to fit, or you'll come down
Even more, that's it, bye-bye.

Dec 2014

 

 

 


 

 

 


© Copyright 2019 Chris Myrski. All rights reserved.

Chapters

Add Your Comments: