For ever, it seems, people have been telling stories, stories that express the world and its relation to its audience. These stories are signs--that is they are objects deeply encased in signification. They are the objects--the codex--that is essential for setting not not just how a people can see the objects around them, but also how they can then give these objects meaning and then judge them and their relation to the collective (individuals may also engage in the process but theirs is a derivative exercise made around and in relation to the collective act of rationalizing the world and judging it good, bad, blessing or taboo). This semiotic relation between the objects and people's relationship to them forms the core of the rationalization of collectives. In ancient Western religious terms the relationship is succinctly described:
 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen. 1:26; 28)
 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.  And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field. (Gen. 2:19-20 KJV).
Note the relationship at the heart of collective meaning making between the maker of the object and the structures of meaning (the Divinity in this case) and the collective that can then signify those objects in relation to the collective (rather than to the Divinity), Thus where the fundamental force of creation caused to be made all objects that populate an Earth also created by that singularity, the meaning of those acts and objects--their signification, becomes an exercise of rationalizing the relationship between those things and acts and the people with the power to give them meaning. But that meaning is itself only a relational signification, Human collectives can order the world but only in relation to themselves. That meaning is central to the organization of the human but is to a great extent irrelevant to the meaning of those objects (and of humans) within larger or different functional relations. Meaning, truth, values, the certainties of organized life, then, are merely contingent, collectively personal, and a function of the object that is put at the center of the exercise of ordering and evaluation. All of these grand things exist, then, only in relation to the object (or collective) that seeks to extract meaning and order from a world in relation and for the greater glory of itself. Dominion is both relational and borrowed. It is founded on the stories people can authoritatively tell themselves and their children.
If one has read to this point one might be forgiven for asking: why drag the reader through this? What is the point? The Biblical pattern is endlessly repeated in the way that individuals signify in the shadow of collective meaning systems, and in the way that systems of collective meaning making can then project meaning (and its own greater glory) outward against others. And it lies (I use that word in its multiple senses--for the collective truth of one community are the error that must be rectified in another) at the heart of the construction of the rationalized ordering of the histories of the world from which the inevitability and triumph of the peoples at the center of those stories may be told, to one's own people, or to sympathetic outsiders, and projected onto the unwilling.
These are the stories laboriously told and retold by Alexander Dugin to the children of Russia (and others who gather around his rocking chair during this time of 'storms'), and now shared with the children of China. It is the story of demons and angelic spirits, and of the triumph of those collectives constituted good and the holders of a mandate of heaven (天命 Tiānmìng), from the demons who occupy the world. These are the stories that explain but that separate meaning making communities. These are the stories that create not just a vocabulary but also a values universe against which objects and events can be judged in relation to the central object that is the relationally driven definition of the good. In the West one likes to center identity (now race, gender, religion, and ethnicity) and build internally potent 天命 Tiānmìng meaning universes around them (e.g. the 1619 Project in the US) in the way the great singularity permitted Adam to name the beasts, fowl, and fish of the earth. Alexander Dugin and his kind would construct 天命 Tiānmìng meaning universes around ethno-blended national singularities--in this case on lands now called or to be absorbed as Russia and China. These are the center from which not just a meaning universe (and its valuations) but also a set of consequential and relational imperatives are constructed.
To some extent, then, to understand the current situation in Russia and its Ukrainian meaning-lusts; to understand the appealing power of this meaning-lusting by certain elements in China, it is necessary to delve into the meaning-world, the relational meta-verse, that Alexander Dugan is spinning from past, to present to a necessary future. These are creation stories--of the weaving together of peoples from the distaff of history. These are the stories concocted from the weaving of the Norse Norns--Urd (that which must be--fate), Verdandi (that which is ), and Skuld (that which must be) --fashioned on the frame that is called Russia. Its power, now, is measured in the blood of its people and those it would absorb. Its triumph is counted in the distance and deference of others to the power of these centering and relational stories. This is a story not unknown to the West (NATO’s Futures through Russian and Chinese Beholders’ Eyes, The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (2019)); but it is not clear that the power of these narratives on those with authority is clear. What is clear is that these stories make notions of truth and falsity much more intimately connected with the meaning-verse either from which it emerges or to which it is projected. Russian narratives are faked fairy tales from the meaning universe of the West--and necessarily so; but it is also clear that the Russians share that view (in reverse) when it comes to the meaning-verse of globalist liberal democratic communities. That makes these stories all the more powerful, but also dangerous. That danger increases as the conflict of narrative makes convergence or even common understanding increasingly hard to attain. It becomes explosive when even a common language disappears. For Mr. Dugin, that point appears not only to have been reached but now irrevocably past--in the absence of language, then, there can be only violence; the language of a 天命 Tiānmìng meaning universe written in the blood of that collective and others.
Pix Credit HERE. The quoted language was part of remarks made by Nikita Khrushchev at a reception for Poland's visiting Gomulka in in context: "About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether or not we exist. If you don't like us. don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it or not. history is on our side. We will bury you!" (Time (1956))
Two such narratives, in that vein, by Alexander Dugin (among others) translated into Chinese and both circulating there ,are worth a glimpse to understand the context and meaning-verse from which communications are transmitted from Russia and perhaps to some extent China on the invasion of Ukraine.
The first one is tied to the way that the arc of politics is understood, and sketches the grand theory that is perhaps meant to breath new life into Khrushchev's statement, "we will bury you" («Мы вас похороним!»). It is entitled亚历山大·杜金：自由主义者功败垂成，中俄引领的新世界已经出现了 来源：观察者网2022-02-14 07:34 (Alexander Dugin: Liberalists have succeeded in failure, a new world led by China and Russia has emerged Source: Observer Network 2022-02-14 07:34).
The second and perhaps more interesting in the longer term for those who still center meaning on tethno-politics (of which there are more than enough of a share everywhere now it seems) is 亚历山大杜金：大博弈中的乌克兰 来源：观察者网 2021-12-31 08:51 (Alexander Dugin: Ukraine in the Great Game Source: Observer Network 2021-12-31 08:51). Here one encounters for foundations for the post-global narrative of burying the West.
Both follow below in their Chinese and English translations. These story are not offered up for the 'truth' of their content, but for the relation of that content to the meaning-verse from which, perhaps, much of what has been visited on this world in the last several weeks has emerged--and where it appears to be going. The challenge this poses for other world rationalizing systems is clear; the response less so.
【文/观察者网专栏作者 亚历山大·杜金，译/观察者网 由冠群】
Alexander Dugin: Liberalists have succeeded in failure, a new world led by China and Russia has emerged
Source: Observer Network
alexander dugin author
Russian political scientist, Putin's philosopher
[Text/Observer Network columnist Alexander Dukin, translated/Observer Network by Guanqun]
The current crisis in Russia's relations with the West has nothing to do with gas, oil, energy, or the economy in general. It is futile and superficial to try to explain politics in terms of "prize" theory, as Daniel Yerkin does. (Annotation: Daniel Yerkin is an American author who wrote a book called The Prize about the relationship between oil and power and wealth.) We are dealing with civilizational and geopolitical processes in which economic and Energy issues are secondary issues, they are just borrowed tools.
From a civilizational standpoint, it's all about ideology, especially under a Biden Democratic administration. The current U.S. government is made up of ultra-globalists, neocons, and liberal hawks. They observed that the unipolar world, global liberal ideology, and Western hegemony were collapsing, and they were willing to do anything—even a third world war—to prevent this from happening.
Globalists have many enemies - Islam, populism (including Trump), conservatism, politicized Islam, and more. But only two great powers really have the potential to challenge hegemony—Russia and China. Russia is a military power, while China is an economic power.
This leaves room for geopolitics to operate. For Biden, it is important to separate Russia from an independent Europe. So, the Ukraine problem arose, and the Donbas crisis escalated. Russia and Putin have been demonized and accused of invading neighboring countries. While the invasion didn't actually happen, Washington acted as if the invasion had happened.
Hence, sanctions and even the possibility of preventive military measures in the Donbas region follow. Since all Westerners believe that Russia will invade, any military action by Ukrainians with NATO support in the Donbass would be considered a "justifiable defense". At the same time, others believe that a media campaign against Russia will prevent Moscow from making any appropriate response. The dispute over natural gas and the Nord Stream 2 project is only used as a technical tool for qualifying battles.
Xi Jinping meets Putin who is in China for the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics Source: Xinhua News Agency
The same is true for China. Biden has forged an anti-China coalition using the Anglo-Saxon countries (Australia, UK) with the Okus Agreement and the four-nation mechanism QUAD in Asian countries (Japan, India). The stumbling block for China this time is Taiwan (like Ukraine was for Russia). The ultimate goal is to disrupt and prevent China's "economic expansion" through the Belt and Road Initiative.
The alliance between Russia and China, coupled with Russia's attempt to combine the "Greater Eurasia" plan with the "Belt and Road" initiative to restore the "Great Depth" (as the leaders of Russia and China announced a few years ago), means that Western hegemony will end irreversibly. The recent meeting between Putin and Xi Jinping undoubtedly shows that the "Greater Eurasia" plan is serious and determined. So Soros, an ultra-liberal and globalist, has launched a blistering attack on China.
All of these are classic examples of geopolitics, exact repetitions of the Atlanticist project from Mackinder to Brzezinski, of sea power (liberals, globalists) and land power (Eurasian ) duel.
At the same time, Russia and China may welcome other multipolar competitors—
• Latin America (as highlighted by Argentine President Albert Fernandez during his visit to Moscow, and certainly discussed by Brazilian President Bolsonaro during his visit to Russia),
• The Islamic world (which is dreaming of breaking free from Western control - Iran, Turkey and Pakistan at the forefront),
• Africa (Russia and China have begun to clean up European puppet regimes in Africa),
• And the European continent itself (growing tired of Atlanticism and dreaming of becoming a pole - ideas that are gaining popularity in France, Germany, Italy and Spain, although the liberal elite of Atlanticism is still in power).
Only India (with conflicts with China and Pakistan), Japan (still under tight US control), and some globalist puppet states remain on the side of the clear losers. It has become an utter shame to stand on the loser's side.
This also affects ideology. All those who are against American hegemony and against Biden saving a unipolar world (in the spirit of the "League of Democracies") are also beginning to distance themselves from liberal dogma - especially when these dogmas are presented in this disgusting and When pathological forms emerge (legalizing gay, bisexual, transgender, same-sex marriage, and other perversions, and even aggressively enforcing these laws with totalitarian means; and empowering artificial intelligence to bring about real threats, it is the big tech companies that are actively Promoting "post-humanism" has had such consequences).
If we add in the failures of anti-epidemic policies, dubious vaccinations (proven to be completely ineffective by the Omicron outbreak), unreasonable and bad organized lockdowns, totalitarian mode of Covid-19 passports and total surveillance systems, clearly liberalism The collapse is closer than ever. Canada's renegade Liberty Trucks have managed to force the liberal globalist Trudeau into hiding, while anti-Macron candidates are popular in France (from Zemour and Marine Le Pen to Melachon, who both on an anti-liberal and anti-NATO standpoint), these are just some of the symptoms of the globalization process that heralded the end of Atlantic hegemony.
Tensions on the Russian-Ukrainian border
Russia is now correspondingly challenged by Atlanticism, and Russia should—
• Multipolarity against globalism from a Eurasian geopolitical perspective;
• Oppose liberalism with alternative traditional civilized values; deny homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderness, affirm the traditional family (encoded in the constitution); not individualism but the country and its historical identity, etc.
China generally supports this approach by Moscow. Beijing also opposes globalism and Western hegemony and defends traditional Chinese values.
Putin and Xi made these points clearly during their most recent meeting:
• Moscow and Beijing intend to oppose any attempt to violate their sovereignty (fight hegemonism and globalism to the end);
• China and Russia have considered Biden's desire to create anti-China blocs and activate NATO in Eastern Europe, and intend to (together) oppose these actions;
• Both leaders alluded to US bioterrorism (a threat known as "US military biological activity"), which in fact means that both countries believe that Western countries (US and UK) have released the coronavirus;
• Beijing supports Moscow on Eastern European issues, Moscow supports Beijing in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, and Putin has clearly declared that "Taiwan is yours";
• Both countries denounce the "Alliance of Democracies" (unipolar) and pledge to uphold a multipolar world order (this should be understood as a statement to uphold the Yalta system and the United Nations).
The Russian-Chinese-Eurasian bloc has taken shape. All other countries have to make a choice - which side:
• is on the side of an aggressive and utterly crazy American hegemony,
• Or with groups of countries that oppose the United States in order to preserve national sovereignty and civilized identity (including Rus
sia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Belarus, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, Mali, Central African Republic, Burkina Faso) , Guinea, and Turkey, Argentina and Brazil, which have not yet fully joined)?
The future is definitely multi-polar, so the Eurasian bloc will win. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberals failed to consolidate and hold on to their own successes, the most recent attempt to build a world empire failed, and a new world had emerged.This article is an exclusive manuscript of Observer.com. The content of the article is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's point of view. Without authorization, it may not be reproduced, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow the Observer Network WeChat guanchacn and read interesting articles every day.
* * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
【文/ 观察者网专栏作者 亚历山大·杜金 译/ 观察者网 余烈】
西北部，波洛茨克公国（Polotsk）逐渐被立陶宛控制，成为立陶宛大公国（the Grand Duchy of Lithuania）的基础。
中世纪时，在俄罗斯东部和西部之间，为争夺大公国的宝座产生了紧张的对立，弗拉基米尔的王公们最终成功地夺取了这个宝座。在安德烈·波戈柳布斯基十二世（Andrei Bogolyubsky (XII)）的领导下，整个俄罗斯的首都转移到了弗拉基米尔，后来迁移到了俄罗斯东部的莫斯科。基辅被遗弃了，并且几乎被人们遗忘，只出现在传说之中。
十二世纪是分裂的时代，基辅罗斯的人民和东斯拉夫人分裂成了三个分支，分别是西南、西北和东部分支。后来，他们分别被称为Malorossy（小俄罗斯人或乌克兰人，Little Russians or Ukrainians）、Byelorussy（白俄罗斯人，White Russians）和Velikorossy（大俄罗斯人，因为俄罗斯的东部被称为Velikorossia，即Great Russia，大俄罗斯）。
苏联是集中制的、具有共产主义意识形态的单一制统一国家。在苏联之前，乌克兰和白俄罗斯都从来不是独立的国家，除非把中世纪的加利西亚 - 沃里尼亚（Galicia-Volhynia）和波洛茨克（Polotsk）公国也算在内。
这种情况只能有一个解决方案：将乌克兰分成两部分，承认两个政治主权——西部的右岸乌克兰（Western Right Bank Ukraine ）和新俄罗斯（Novorossiya），同时基辅保留特殊地位。这迟早会发生。
新一轮的升级自从拜登上台开始，白宫里出现了一群极端的全球主义者、大西洋主义者、新保守主义者和不惜任何代价挽回单极世界的支持者，实际上也就是那些在 2013年至2014 年挑起亲欧盟示威运动（the Maidan）的人。
Dugin: Ukraine in the Great Game
Source: Observer Network
alexander dugin author
Russian political scientist, Putin's philosopher
[Text / Observer Network columnist Alexander Dukin translation / Observer Network Yu Lie]
Today, under Joe Biden's neoconservative and ultra-globalist administration, the relationship between Russia and the United States is very tense, and humanity is not on the brink of a cold war (which has not stopped for a long time), but a nuclear war , on the verge of World War III. The main trouble is Ukraine.
In the eyes of foreign observers, these two peoples have a common ancestor from Kievan Rus, they are related by blood, and both adhere to the Eastern Slavic Orthodox Church, so the conflict between them is a strange and incomprehensible thing.
This suggests that there is a third force involved in the conflict - namely the Americans who are trying to turn the two fraternal peoples against each other and fight against Russia by supporting one of them - Ukraine, while President Putin's patriotic Reforms are bringing Russia back to history.
There are several factors in Russia-Ukraine relations that are not very clear to outside observers.
At the end of December, Western media reported that more than 10,000 Russian troops had withdrawn from the Russian-Ukrainian border. Image source: Screenshot of CBS video
1. Did Ukraine really exist in history?
The number one misunderstanding is to present the conflict as a confrontation between two countries, with Western media and politicians presenting everything as if Ukraine were an independent country with a long history. According to their rhetoric, the Bolsheviks forcibly incorporated it into the Soviet Union in the 1920s, and Ukraine regained its independence immediately after the fall of the communist regime, but this is completely untrue.
Kievan Rus and its divisions: the origin of the three branches of the Eastern Slavs
In the ninth century, the Russian state was born in the northern part of Russia, Novgorod, but within a short time its capital was moved to Kiev, hence the name Kievan Rus. The population of Russia consists mainly of Slavs in the east, with a considerable proportion of Finno-Ugric peoples in the north and northeast, and Turks in the south and southeast.
Soon, the unified country was divided into a number of almost independent regions - duchies.
The main principalities in the west are Galicia and Volhyn'.
In the east, Vladimir (later succeeded by Moscow) began to grow.
To the northwest, Polotsk was gradually controlled by Lithuania and became the basis of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
· Eastern and Western Russia
During the Middle Ages, tensions arose between eastern and western Russia for the throne of the Grand Duchy, which Vladimir's princes eventually succeeded in taking. Under the leadership of Andrei Bogolyubsky (XII), the capital of the whole of Russia was transferred to Vladimir and later to Moscow in eastern Russia. Kyiv was abandoned and almost forgotten, only in legends.
The twelfth century was a time of division, the people of Kievan Rus and the East Slavs split into three branches, the southwest, northwest and east branches. Later, they were called Malorossy (Little Russians or Ukrainians, Little Russians or Ukrainians), Byelorussy (White Russians, White Russians) and Velikorossy (Great Russians, because the eastern part of Russia was called Velikorossia, that is, Great Russia, Great Russia).
Their fates were very different. During the Mongol invasion, the Great Russians and Little Russians were brought under the jurisdiction of the Mongol Khanate, but the Mongols recognized the leadership of the princes over Great Russia and the region was able to retain a full Orthodox Church (a church headed by an archbishop) and a certain degree of sovereignty.
Little Russians, on the other hand, found themselves trapped between Lithuania, Poland, and Austria-Hungary, and their religious identities were strongly influenced by Western Catholicism.
Belarus, on the other hand, became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was relatively independent from the Golden Horde.
The Golden Horde and the Russian Principalities
The rise of Velikorossia (or Great Russia)
Centuries passed, and after the fall of the Golden Horde, Moscow began to become a formidable regional power. Lithuania merged with Poland and accepted Catholic rule. And the Little Russians (aka Ukrainians) found themselves subordinate classes, some under the Poles, some part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
The southern region of the former Kievan Rus was first under the rule of the Crimean Tatars and then annexed together with Crimea by the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. Hence the Ukrainian name, Okraina, which means "marginal territory". At that time Ukraine did not have any independence and the territory was divided by different countries. At the same time, the core of Little Russians (Ukrainians) preserves the Orthodox Church and ancient East Slavic traditions.
As Moscow's power grew, Velikorossy began to push back the Poles and Turks, seizing their possessions in the former Kievan Rus and incorporating them into its growing empire. First among them was Novorossia, from Kharkov to Odessa, and lastly, Crimea, from the Ottoman Empire.
The Russo-Turkish War between 1768 and 1774 eventually led to the loss of Crimea by the Ottoman Empire. The picture shows an oil painting depicting the naval battle of Cesme in 1770, in which the main force of the Ottoman navy was annihilated.
The inhabitants of these territories were either natives of Great Russia or Moscow-friendly Cossacks, including those of Little Russia (Ukraine) and those that had spread to the south of the Russian Empire. Novorossia became an integral part of the Russian Empire.
Later, Czarist Russia also recovered other parts of Ukraine from the Poles, mainly inhabited by the Ukrainian people and the Malorussian Cossacks. To the northwest, the same is true in Belarus. These lands became the territory of Tsarist Russia.
1792 Russo-Polish War
·The disintegration of the empire
From 1917 to 1921, the fall of Tsarist Russia led to several countries declaring their independence from Russia. But the Bolsheviks gradually brought most of their territory—except Poland, Finland, and the three Baltic states—to Moscow control (the three Baltic states were reincorporated by Stalin after World War II). Ukraine and Belarus became an integral part of the Soviet Union under a purely administrative border demarcation determined entirely by others.
The Soviet Union was a centralized, unitary state with a communist ideology. Before the Soviet Union, neither Ukraine nor Belarus had ever been independent states, except for the medieval principalities of Galicia-Volhynia and Polotsk.
· Disintegration of the Soviet Union
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, the various republics of the former Soviet Union—in fact, they were all administrative provinces of the Russian Empire, but were called “republics” in Soviet times, were under the influence of corrupt elites and under the direct control of the capitalist West. Supported, declared independence from Moscow.
Since Moscow was ruled by pro-Western reformers from Yeltsin until the 1990s, those in power easily recognized new state entities within the Soviet Union's "entirely artificial borders." In the USSR, borders have no meaning in themselves, they are only drawn for administrative convenience (like the division of the same city into several administrative districts).
Thus, the unitary state created by unitary Tsarist Russia - the USSR, which brought together all these lands and peoples, has now been replaced, giving rise to 17 new "states" that have almost never existed - at least No such boundary ever existed, and most of them never existed at all. (These states are doomed from the start.)
Some of these countries remain loyal to Moscow, while others are influenced by the West and take a harsh anti-Russian line. Unfortunately, Ukraine falls into the latter category.
2. Two kinds of Ukrainians (or more Ukrainians)
The territory of the new political entity "Ukraine" that appeared in 1991 was composed of completely heterogeneous territories and peoples.
The inhabitants of eastern Ukraine (from Odessa to Kharkov, via this part of the territory of the Donbass) or New Russia are actually the same group as the inhabitants of modern southeastern Russia. As we have just talked about, these lands were taken from the Turks by the Russian Empire (most of them during the reign of Catherine the Great) and the Russians (Great Russians, Velikorossy) resettled here, Kerry Mia is the same.
If you look at the map along the Dnieper River, for many centuries the western region of Ukraine (i.e. Right Bank Ukraine) has been under the rule of Catholic Poland and Austria-Hungary, not a state at all. The inhabitants there were Orthodox Christians, mostly peasants, and were therefore considered inferior by the Catholic aristocracy.
Still, not everyone there is happy to have the Great Russians as their liberators. Some Little Russians (i.e. Ukrainians) still insist on their own identity, although of course their culture is different from that of Tsarist Russia and the Great Russian Empire. It was from these dissidents that Ukrainian nationalism and even the Ukrainian language itself began to take shape under the strong influence of Poland and the West as a whole, a constructed language based on various southeastern dialects that imitated the Polish language. structure.
The first signs of this artificially constructed nationalist, purely imagined "Ukrainian identity" occurred during the Russian Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century. During World War II, many Ukrainian nationalists (Bandera, Shukhevich, etc.) joined the German Nazis, and they brutally massacred communists, Jews, Poles and Great Russians, collectively referred to as For Zapadic (zapadentsy, etymology "Zapad", "Western" in Russian and Ukrainian).Stepan Bandera, who joined the Nazis (middle)
In the far west of Ukraine lives the Ruthenians, another branch of the Eastern Slavs, whose identities are also quite different from those of the Zapatic.
The Zapadic concept of "independence" (Nezalezhnost)
"Ukrainian independence" is the slogan of the Zapatic people, and the residents of the east believe that they should maintain close ties with Russia, because they are generally the same ethnic group as the Russians.
By the way, the vast majority of Ukrainians speak Russian (Velikorossky). The "artificial" Ukrainian language is only spoken by a minority of people, and it is used by a minority of people in everyday speech.
Nonetheless, the independent line of the Zapadi prevailed in Ukraine in the 1990s, and they held key positions in the political, economic, cultural and informational fields.
The West actively supports this Zapatic nationalism, despite its Nazi history and racist ideology. U.S. and NATO strategists are pragmatic and decided to use the power of these men in Ukraine to tear the entire country away from Russia and bring it into full Western control in the future.
· Eastern Ukraine vs Western Ukraine
Throughout the new Ukraine, the two tendencies of the West and the East have been fighting each other. As you can see from the election distribution map - the pro-Russian East voted for some candidates, while the pro-Western, Russian-phobic West always supported other candidates. The presidents of East and West alternated, and their lines represented a swing between Moscow and Washington: Kravchuk was a moderate westerner; Kuchma took a multi-directional stance; Yushchenko leaned unequivocally to the West; Yanukovich, inconsistently and hesitantly, sought Moscow's support.
But all the while, the political and cultural trend towards the west has continued to grow, so much so that there have been calls for genocide against the populations of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which, according to nationalists, are loyal to Moscow .
The Ukrainian pro-EU demonstration movement (Euromaidan), actively supported by the United States - precisely those of Biden, Victoria Nuland and the neocons - made the most radical Zappa in the coup to overthrow Yanukovych. The Dicians were in power. Half of Ukraine is facing a massive terrorist threat. The incoming "junta" declared its NATO-leaning attitude and demanded the withdrawal of Russian ships from Sevastopol.
3. Putin's appearance
Moscow is no longer what it was under Yeltsin, but regained sovereignty and a clear awareness of its geopolitical interests. It was at this point that the Putin government decided to intervene. Residents of Crimea, who accidentally became part of Ukraine, immediately announced their accession to Russia. Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas region made the same decision.
Residents of Odessa, Kharkov and Nikolaev would have done the same, maybe Poltava and Sumy, but the Zapatis in Kyiv turned to mass repression (May 2, 2014 the killing of civilians at the Odessa trade union building, etc.).
After several attempts to retake the Donbass, Kyiv abandoned this strategy and began preparing for a closer alliance with the West and NATO. At this time, the Russian side made a mistake: it recognized the new Ukrainian government and hoped to establish peace with Kyiv.
This is our current situation. The Normandy model and the Minsk agreement, really just to de-escalate the situation, will not solve anything in the long run, or even in the medium term.
There can only be one solution to this situation: split Ukraine into two parts, recognizing two political sovereignty - Western Right Bank Ukraine and Novorossiya - while retaining a special status for Kyiv. This will happen sooner or later.
· The United States is getting worse
A new round of escalation Since Biden took office, there has been a group of extreme globalists, Atlanticists, neoconservatives and supporters of saving a unipolar world at any cost in the White House. The person who provoked the pro-EU protest movement (the Maidan) until 2014.
Russia is being accused of preparing to invade Ukraine, and in fact the process under this pretext is Ukraine's accelerated integration into NATO. no Moscow There is the slightest intention to resolve the situation by military means, but the provocation of the United States has left Moscow with no choice, as Putin, Lavrov and other senior Russian officials have repeatedly stated recently.
Although the situation has eased, the US military still ordered the "Harry Truman" aircraft carrier strike group to stay in the Mediterranean region and suspend travel to the Middle East. Photo source: US Navy
Putin declared that Ukraine — along with the half of the population that usually considers itself Russian — crossed a “red line” for NATO integration. If the West does not heed this warning, the possibility of a military conflict cannot be ruled out.
We just need to understand that this is not an attack from one country on another, but a process of grand geopolitics. When Moscow was weak and left to rule by idiots or direct proxies of Western powers, Russia lost Ukraine, leaving Ukraine in the hands of ultra-nationalist politicians who were immediately chosen by the West. The Ukraine issue surfaced when Putin began to restore Russia's sovereignty and power as a great power. Zbigniew Brzezinski firmly believed that without Ukraine, Russia could not be the sovereign pole of a multipolar world, he was right, but today's Russia has set a firm path to become such a pole.
The attentive reader can draw the rest of the conclusions for himself.This article is an exclusive manuscript of Observer.com. The content of the article is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's point of view. Without authorization, it may not be reproduced, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow the Observer Network WeChat guanchacn and read interesting articles every day.