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:
[26] 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. [28] 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)
[19] 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. [20] 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.
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
亚历山大·杜金
亚历山大·杜金作者
俄罗斯政治学者，普京的哲学家
【文/观察者网专栏作者 亚历山大·杜金，译/观察者网 由冠群】
目前俄罗斯与西方的关系危机同天然气、石油、能源或通常的经济没有关系。像丹尼尔•耶金那样试图用“奖品”理论来解释政治是徒劳而肤浅的。（译注：丹尼尔•耶金是美国作家，他写了一部名为《奖品》的书，介绍石油和权力、财富的关系。）我们正在处理文明和地缘政治进程，在这些进程中，经济和能源问题是次要问题，它们只是被借用的工具。
从文明的角度看，这一切都与意识形态有关，尤其是在拜登民主党政府执政期间更是如此。目前的美国政府由极端全球主义者、新保守派和自由主义鹰派组成。他们观察到，单极世界、全球自由主义意识形态和西方霸权正在崩溃，他们愿意采取任何行动——甚至发动第三次世界大战——来阻止这种情况发生。
全球主义者有很多敌人——伊斯兰教、民粹主义（包括特朗普）、保守主义、政治化的伊斯兰等等。但只有两个大国真正有潜力挑战霸权——俄罗斯和中国。俄罗斯是一个军事大国，而中国则是一个经济大国。
这就有了地缘政治的运作空间。对拜登而言，重要的是将俄罗斯与想要独立的欧洲割裂开来。于是，乌克兰问题出现了，顿巴斯危机升级了。俄罗斯和普京被妖魔化，并被指责要入侵邻国。虽然入侵并没有真正发生，但华盛顿却表现得好像入侵已经发生了。
因此，接踵而来的是制裁，甚至还有可能在顿巴斯地区采取预防性军事措施。由于所有西方人都相信俄罗斯会入侵，所以有北约支持的乌克兰人在顿巴斯采取任何军事行动都将被视为“正当防御”。与此同时，还有人认为，针对俄罗斯展开的媒体宣传活动将阻止莫斯科做出任何适当反应。有关天然气和北溪2号项目的争执只是用作打排位战的技术工具。
习近平会见来华参加冬奥会开幕式的普京 图源：新华社
对中国来说，形势也是如此。拜登已经用盎格鲁-撒克逊国家（澳大利亚、英国）的奥库斯协议和亚洲国家（日本、印度）的四国机制QUAD打造出了一个反华联盟。这次给中国准备的绊脚石是台湾（就像乌克兰之于俄罗斯）。最终目标是破坏和阻止中国通过“一带一路”倡议进行“经济扩张”。
俄罗斯和中国结成联盟，再加上俄罗斯试图将“大欧亚”计划与“一带一路”倡议相结合从而恢复“大纵深”（正如俄中两国领导人几年前宣布的那样），这意味着西方霸权会不可逆转的终结。普京和习近平最近的会面无疑表明“大欧亚”计划是认真的，决心已下。因此，极端自由主义者和全球主义者索罗斯对中国发起了猛烈的攻击。
所有这些都是经典的地缘政治学案例，分毫不差地重复着从麦金德到布热津斯基的大西洋主义工程，是海权（自由主义者、全球主义者）与陆权（欧亚）的对决。
与此同时，俄罗斯和中国可能会欢迎其他多极竞争者加入进来——
• 拉丁美洲（正如阿根廷总统阿尔伯特•费尔南德斯访问莫斯科时强调的，以及巴西总统博尔索纳罗在访问俄罗斯时肯定会讨论的），
• 伊斯兰世界（正梦想摆脱西方的控制——伊朗、土耳其和巴基斯坦处于前锋位置），
• 非洲（俄罗斯和中国已经开始在非洲清理欧洲傀儡政权），
• 以及欧洲大陆本身（越来越厌倦大西洋主义，梦想自己成为一极——尽管大西洋主义自由派精英仍在法国、德国、意大利和西班牙掌权，但这些想法在这些国家越来越流行）。
只有印度（因与中国和巴基斯坦有冲突）、日本（仍在美国的严密控制之下）以及某些全球主义傀儡国家，仍站在明显的失败者一边。站在失败者一边已经成了一种彻头彻尾的耻辱。
这也会影响到意识形态。所有反对美国霸权和反对拜登拯救单极世界（本着“民主国家联盟”的精神）的人，也开始与自由主义教条拉开距离——尤其是当这些教条以目前这种令人厌恶和病态的形式出现时（合法化同性恋、双性恋、变性、同性婚姻和其他变态行为，甚至是激进地用极权主义手段实施这些法律；以及授权人工智能导致现实威胁出现，正是大型科技公司积极推进“后人文主义”带来了这样的恶果）。
如果我们再加上防疫政策的失败、可疑的疫苗接种（被奥密克戎疫情证明完全无效）、不合理且糟糕的有组织封城、极权模式下的新冠护照和全面监控系统，显然自由主义的崩溃比以往任何时候都更近在眼前。加拿大叛逆的“自由卡车”组织成功迫使自由主义全球论者特鲁多躲藏了起来，而反马克龙的候选人在法国大受欢迎（从泽穆尔和马琳•勒庞到梅拉雄，他们都站在反自由主义和反北约的立场上），这些只是全球化进程表现出来的一些症状，它们预示着大西洋霸权的终结。
俄乌边境局势紧张
俄罗斯现在也相应地受到了大西洋主义的挑战，俄罗斯应该——
• 从欧亚地缘政治的角度看，以多极化反对全球主义；
• 以替代性的传统文明价值观反对自由主义；否定同性恋、双性恋和变性，肯定传统家庭（载入宪法）；不要个人主义而要国家及其历史身份等。
中国总体上支持莫斯科的这种做法。北京也反对全球主义和西方霸权，也捍卫中国的传统价值观。
普京与习近平在最近一次会面时清晰表达了这些观点：
• 莫斯科和北京打算反对任何侵犯其主权的企图（与霸权主义和全球主义斗争到底）；
• 中国和俄罗斯已经考虑到拜登要建立反华集团和在东欧激活北约机制，并打算（一起）反对这些行动；
• 两国领导人暗指美国实施生物恐怖主义（这种威胁被称为“美国军事生物活动”），事实上，这意味着两国认为是西方国家（美国和英国）释放了新冠病毒；
• 北京在东欧问题上支持莫斯科，莫斯科在印度洋和太平洋支持北京，普京已明确宣布“台湾是你们的”；
• 两国都谴责“民主国家联盟”（单极），并发誓维护多极世界秩序（这应该被理解为声明维护雅尔塔体系和联合国）。
俄罗斯-中国-欧亚集团已经成型。其他所有国家都必须做出选择——站在哪一边：
• 是站到咄咄逼人且彻底疯狂的美国霸权一边，
• 还是与那些为维护国家主权和文明身份而反对美国的国家集团（包括俄罗斯、中国、伊朗、巴基斯坦、白俄罗斯、朝鲜、委内瑞拉、古巴、尼加拉瓜、叙利亚、马里、中非共和国、布基那法索、几内亚，以及尚未完全加入的土耳其、阿根廷和巴西）合作？
未来肯定是多极化的，因此欧亚集团必胜。苏联解体后，自由主义者因无法巩固和坚守自己的成功而功败垂成，建立世界帝国的最近一次努力失败了，新世界已经出现了。
本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。
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
Alexander Dugin
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】
今天，在乔·拜登的新保守主义和极端全球主义政府的领导下，俄罗斯和美国之间的关系非常紧张，人类并非处于冷战（长期以来这一直没有停止）的边缘，而是处于核战争、第三次世界大战的边缘。主要的麻烦是乌克兰。
在外国观察家看来，这两个民族有来自基辅罗斯的共同祖先，他们有血缘关系，都信奉东斯拉夫的东正教，所以他们之间的冲突是一种奇怪和不可理解的事情。
这表明，有第三种力量参与了这场冲突——也就是那些美国人，他们试图让这两个兄弟民族相互对立，并通过支持其中一方——乌克兰，来打击俄罗斯，而普京总统的爱国主义改革正让俄罗斯回归历史。
在俄罗斯和乌克兰的关系中，有几个因素在外部观察者眼中并不是非常清晰。
12月底，西方媒体纷纷报道称，超过一万名俄军已经从俄乌边境地带撤离。图片来源：CBS视频截图
一、历史上乌克兰真实存在吗？
首要的误解就是将冲突表述为两个国家之间的对抗，西方媒体和政客把一切都表述得好像乌克兰是一个有着悠久历史的独立国家。按他们的说辞，布尔什维克在20世纪20年代将其强行并入苏联，而当共产主义政权垮台后，乌克兰立即恢复了独立，但这完全不符合实情。
·基辅罗斯及其分裂：东斯拉夫人三个分支的起源
九世纪，俄罗斯国家诞生于俄罗斯北部——诺夫哥罗德（Novgorod），但在很短的时间内，其首都转移到了基辅（Kiev），因此被称为基辅罗斯。俄罗斯的人口主要由东部的斯拉夫人组成，北部和东北部有相当比例的芬兰—乌戈尔人，南部和东南部有突厥人。
很快，这个统一的国家分裂为了一些几乎独立的地区——公国。
西部主要的公国是加利西亚（Galicia）和沃里尼亚（Volhyn’）。
东部，弗拉基米尔（Vladimir，后来则由莫斯科承继）开始壮大。
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。
·俄罗斯东部和俄罗斯西部
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）。
他们命运迥异。在蒙古人入侵期间，大俄罗斯人和小俄罗斯人被纳入了蒙古汗国的管辖范围，但蒙古人承认了王公们对大俄罗斯的领导地位，当地得以保留全面的东正教（以大主教为首的教会）和一定程度的主权。
另一方面，小俄罗斯人发现自己被困于立陶宛、波兰和奥匈帝国之间，他们的宗教身份受到西方天主教的强烈影响。
而白俄罗斯则成为了立陶宛大公国的一部分，该公国相对独立于金帐汗国。
金帐汗国与俄罗斯各公国
·大俄罗斯（Velikorossia，或Great Russia）的崛起
几个世纪过去了，在金帐汗国灭亡后，莫斯科开始变成一个强大的地区势力。立陶宛与波兰合并，并接受天主教的统治。而小俄罗斯人（又称乌克兰人）发现自己成为了从属阶级，一些在波兰人手下，一些是奥匈帝国的一部分。
前基辅罗斯的南部地区首先在克里米亚鞑靼人（Crimean Tatars）的统治之下，然后与克里米亚一起被奥斯曼（土耳其）帝国吞并。因此，乌克兰的名字，即Okraina，意思是“边缘领土”。那时乌克兰没有任何独立性，领土被不同国家分割。同时，小俄罗斯人（乌克兰人）的核心保留了东正教和古老的东斯拉夫传统。
随着莫斯科权力的增长，大俄罗斯（Velikorossy）开始逼退波兰人和土耳其人，夺取他们在前基辅罗斯的属地，纳入其不断增长的帝国版图。其中最先夺取的是从哈尔科夫（Kharkov）到敖德萨（Odessa）的新俄罗斯（Novorossia）的土地，最后则是从奥斯曼帝国手中夺得的克里米亚（Crimea）。
1768-1774年间的俄土战争，最终使奥斯曼帝国丢掉了克里米亚，图为描绘1770年切什梅海战的油画，在此战中奥斯曼海军主力被歼。
这些领土的居民要么是大俄罗斯的本地人，要么是对莫斯科友好的哥萨克，包括小俄罗斯（乌克兰）的哥萨克和那些已经扩散到俄罗斯帝国南部的哥萨克。新俄罗斯（Novorossia）成为了俄罗斯帝国不可分割的一部分。
后来，沙皇俄国还从波兰人那里收回了乌克兰的其他地区，这片区域主要居住着乌克兰本民族和小俄罗斯哥萨克人（Malorussian Cossacks）。在西北方向，白俄罗斯的情况也是如此。这些土地都成为了沙皇俄国的领土。
1792年俄波战争
·帝国解体
1917年至1921年，沙皇俄国覆灭，导致多个国家宣布从俄国独立。但布尔什维克逐渐将大部分领土——除了波兰、芬兰和波罗的海三国——收归莫斯科控制（波罗的海三国在二战后被斯大林重新纳入领土范围）。乌克兰和白俄罗斯在一个完全由他人决定的、纯粹行政性的边界划定之下，成为了苏联不可分割的一部分。
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。
·苏联解体
1991年苏联解体时，前苏联的各个加盟共和国——实际上完全就是俄罗斯帝国的行政省份，只是在苏联时期被称为“加盟共和国”，纷纷在腐败精英的影响下、在资本主义西方的直接支持下，宣布脱离莫斯科独立。
由于从叶利钦开始至90年代，莫斯科都一直由亲西方的改革者掌权，这些掌权者们很容易地就在苏联“完完全全人为的边界线”内承认新的国家实体。在苏联，边界本身没有任何意义，只是为了行政管理的方便而划定（就像同一座城市分成几个行政区）。
因此，单一制的沙皇俄国产生的单一制国家——苏联，曾把所有这些土地和人民汇聚在一起，现在却被取代了，产生17个新的几乎从未存在过的“国家”——至少没有按这样的边界存在过，而其中大多数压根从来都不存在。（这些国家从一产生就注定失败。）
其中一些国家仍然效忠于莫斯科，另一些则受到西方的影响，并采取了严苛的反俄路线。不幸的是，乌克兰属于后者。
二、两种乌克兰人（或更多种乌克兰人）
1991年出现的新政治实体“乌克兰”的领土是由完全异质的领土和人民组成的。
乌克兰东部 （从敖德萨到哈尔科夫，途经顿巴斯的这部分领土）或新俄罗斯的居民实际上与现代俄罗斯东南部居民是同一类群。正如我们刚才所谈到的，这些土地被俄罗斯帝国（其中大部分是在叶卡捷琳娜大帝统治时期）从土耳其人手中夺取，俄罗斯人（大俄罗斯人，Velikorossy）重新定居于此，克里米亚也是同样的情况。
如果你沿着第聂伯河看地图就会发现，许多世纪以来，乌克兰西部地区（即右岸乌克兰）一直处于天主教波兰和奥匈帝国的统治之下，根本不是国家。那里的居民是东正教徒，大多数都是农民，因此被天主教贵族认为是低等民族。
虽然如此，并非那里所有的人都乐意让大俄罗斯人当自己的解放者。部分小俄罗斯人（即乌克兰人）仍坚持自己的身份认同，当然，他们的文化与沙皇俄国和大俄罗斯帝国的文化不同。正是从这些异见分子开始，乌克兰民族主义甚至乌克兰语言本身在波兰和整个西方的强烈影响下开始形成，这是一种基于各种东南部方言的被构造出来的语言，模仿了波兰语的结构。
在二十世纪初俄罗斯帝国时期，这种人为构建的民族主义崇扬、纯粹想象出来的“乌克兰身份”有了最初的迹象。第二次世界大战期间，许多乌克兰民族主义者（班德拉、舒赫维奇等）加入了德国纳粹，他们极其残忍地屠杀共产党人、犹太人、波兰人和大俄罗斯人，这部分人被统称为扎帕第奇（zapadentsy，词源 “Zapad”，俄语和乌克兰语中的“西方”）。
投靠纳粹的斯特潘·班德拉（中）
在乌克兰的最西边，居住着鲁塞尼亚人，这是东斯拉夫人的另一个分支，他们的身份认同与扎帕第奇人也很不同。
·扎帕第奇人的“独立”（Nezalezhnost）概念
“乌克兰独立”是扎帕第奇人的口号，而东部的居民则认为，应当与俄罗斯保持密切联系，因为他们总体上与俄罗斯人是同一个民族。
顺便说一下，绝大多数乌克兰人都说俄语（Velikorossky）。“人造”的乌克兰语只有少数人会说，也只有少数人在日常讲话中会使用这种语言。
尽管如此，扎帕第奇人的独立路线在20世纪90年代的乌克兰占了上风，他们把持了政治、经济、文化和信息等领域的关键位置。
西方积极支持这种 扎帕第奇人的民族主义，尽管它有纳粹历史和种族主义意识形态。美国和北约的战略家从实用主义出发，决定在乌克兰动用这些人的力量，将整个国家撕离俄罗斯，并在未来将其完全置于西方控制之下。
·乌克兰东部vs乌克兰西部
在整个新乌克兰，西方和东方这两种倾向一直在相互斗争。从选举分布图中可以看出——亲俄的东部投票给了一些候选人，而亲西方、恐俄的西部总是支持其他候选人。东西部的总统们互相交替，他们的路线代表了在莫斯科和华盛顿之间的摇摆：克拉夫丘克（Kravchuk）是一个温和的西部人；库奇马（Kuchma）采取了多方向的立场；尤先科（Yushchenko）毫不含糊地向西方倾斜；亚努科维奇（Yanukovich）前后不一地、犹豫不决地寻求莫斯科的支持。
但一直以来，在政治和文化方面西部的趋向持续增长，以至于产生了对克里米亚和乌克兰东部的人口进行种族灭绝的呼声，因为据民族主义者说，这些地区的人口是忠于莫斯科的。
乌克兰亲欧盟示威运动 (Euromaidan)得到了美国——正是拜登、维多利亚·纽兰和新保守派那些人——的积极支持，在推翻亚努科维奇的政变中使最激进的扎帕第奇人掌权。半个乌克兰正面临大规模恐怖威胁。上台的“军政府”宣布了其倾向北约的态度，并要求俄罗斯船只从塞瓦斯托波尔撤出。
三、普京出场
莫斯科已不再像叶利钦时期那样，而是重新拥有主权并清楚地意识到自己的地缘政治利益。正是在这时，普京政府决定进行干预。偶然成为乌克兰一部分的克里米亚居民立即宣布加入俄罗斯。顿巴斯地区的顿涅茨克和卢甘斯克做出了同样的决定。
敖德萨、哈尔科夫和尼古拉耶夫居民本来也会这样做，也许波尔塔瓦和苏梅也是同样，但基辅的扎帕第奇人转向了大规模镇压（2014年5月2日在敖德萨工会大厦杀害平民等）。
在多次尝试夺回顿巴斯之后，基辅放弃了这一战略，开始准备与西方和北约建立更紧密的联盟。此时，俄方犯了一个错误：承认乌克兰新政府，希望与基辅建立和平。
·明斯克僵局
这就是我们目前的情况。诺曼底模式和明斯克协议，实际上只是为了缓和局势，但从长远来看，甚至从中期来看，都解决不了任何问题。
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。
·美国正在变本加厉
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。
俄罗斯正被指控准备入侵乌克兰，实际上这个借口掩盖下的进程是乌克兰加速融入北约。莫斯科没有丝毫用军事手段解决局势的意图，但美国的挑衅让莫斯科别无选择，正如普京、拉夫罗夫等俄罗斯高官近日反复表态的那样。
尽管局势有所缓和，美军依然命令“哈里·杜鲁门”号航母打击群驻留地中海地区，暂缓前往中东，图片来源：美国海军
普京宣布，乌克兰——连同通常认为自己是俄罗斯人的那一半人口——融入北约的行动跨越了“红线”。如果西方不注意这一警告，就不能排除发生军事冲突的可能性。
我们只需要了解，这并不是一国对另一国的攻击，而是大地缘政治的进程。当莫斯科软弱，并且任由白痴或西方势力的直接代理人统治时，俄罗斯就失去了乌克兰，让乌克兰落入了那些立即被西方选中的极端民族主义政客手中。当普京开始恢复俄罗斯作为大国的主权和权力时，乌克兰问题浮出水面。兹比格涅夫·布热津斯基（Zbigniew Brzezinski）坚信，没有乌克兰，俄罗斯不可能成为多极世界的主权极点，他本来说中了，但今天的俄罗斯已经设定了坚定的道路，来成为这样一个极点。
细心的读者可以自己得出其余的结论。
本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。
Dugin: Ukraine in the Great Game
Source: Observer Network
2021-12-31 08:51
Alexander Dugin
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.
Minsk deadlock
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment