Anti -Russian project "Ukraine"

From the editorial office. After 2004, the Russian political class considered Ukraine as a problem. Recently, at a meeting of the State Council, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that it is impossible to allow the development of the Russian political system according to the Ukrainian scenario, that is, turning it into a political jelly. In other words, the country is ethnically and culturally closest to Russia for the Russian Federation. Russian journalist and TV presenter Mikhail Leontyev proposes to solve this problem in the same way as Alexander Macedonian, the Gordian Knot, solved the problem of the Gordian Knot. The editors of the “Russian Journal” reports that the author’s point of view does not share in everything.

* * *

The very idea of ​​“Failed state” contains an answer to the question about the territorial integrity of “failed states”: if the state turned out to be “failed”, then what is its integrity and attributes of sovereignty?

Haiti

Take an example, which is now by ear - Haiti. Unfortunately, no one wants to deprive this country. From a humanitarian point of view, any dismemberment of Haiti between the interested parties would be extremely positive . Only there are no interested parties - that is the problem. There is a common interest to intervene as little as possible, simulating interest. Haiti is located in a region in which his agony as a state and the suffering of the population does not particularly touch anyone. Even the Dominican Republic on the same island. Unfortunate Haiters will agonize, cut, eat each other in conditions of a high degree of tolerance to this process of the world community .

The very idea of ​​uniform principles has the right to exist only as an instrument of dulling someone else. Who and by whom is a question of specifics. It is clear that in the current state of political culture, the Polite requires a certain rhetoric of this kind: general principles, the lack of double standards, the issue of territorial integrity, international law, and so on. All categories named here in the practical plane do not have a place to be, they simply do not. This is a description of what is not in nature.

Afghanistan

As for multi -ethnic Afghanistan, the question of its division existed insofar as Afghanistan exists. True, there is one small “but” here: the unity of Afghanistan was held somehow by the will of the Afghans themselves. Afghanistan as a kind of historical education has two interconnected features: the first is impossible to control the power (no one succeeded in), and the second arising from the first-it exists insofar as it is for some reason to the Afghans themselves. Even the Afghans do not understand why they need it.

From a rational point of view, Afghanistan would be easier to somehow, primarily for different Afghans, to restructure. There is a separate Pashtun core, there are Tajiks and Uzbeks, who already have a certain statehood. These are only the main peoples, not counting all kinds of Khazareans, who, unfortunately, have nowhere to go, but this is a separate issue. But since Afghanistan has never been self -sufficient for the surrounding powerful players, but has always been a kind of tool, any restructuring means a sharp change in balance in one direction or another, and the history does not yet know the acceptable and acceptable options for such restructuring. Maybe he will see now. There are no obstacles.

The ideas of the restructuring of Afghanistan, and Iraq, in principle, are discussed. They are discussed openly, they are discussed in the political science community, and the most different. If they are not discussed at the diplomatic level, this is the same tribute to the so -called principles of international law, which, in general, are more reminiscent of the rules of conduct at the table. You can treat the owner and guests as you like, but you don’t seem to blow your hair in napkins. Therefore, the question is not in the process of redding, but in its residual publicity or residual public inadmissibility.

Afghanistan is not an failed state. Afghanistan is a classic example of a super -standing state. It would seem that with so many attempts, no one could somehow make it into a cynical form to do this in a cynical form.

Ukraine

If we talk about Ukraine, then we are not talking about the fate of a certain historical subject, but about the reunification or non -binding of a single country, which was still called Russia, in different connotations, but nevertheless Russia. This is about this - that is, whether it is necessary to restore the unity of the split country, or is not necessary.

Russia is interested in Ukraine as a project to cease to exist, because the Ukrainian project is a project specially sharpened against Russia . It never existed, does not exist and will not exist. This is the only meaning of its existence.

There has never been any national liberation Ukrainian idea, it always existed as a parody, as a project against Russia. Mazepa, Bandera and Petliura always existed as such projects. Several national Svidoma schizophrenics can be found in any people, but their existence as a significant force is fertilized not by them, but by the customer. Therefore, there is no subject for conversation at all. The subject for conversation is a medical and political study of the Russian idea, according to which Russia for some reason refuses to discuss this topic, considering it for some reason incorrect, provocative and marginal . In the framework of the current official position, the very existence of Russia as a country is, in general, conditionally marginal and not very decent.

A significant part of the Russian current establishment is shy about the existence of its own country, the fact of its existence seems to them not entirely appropriate in a decent society. Therefore, all the time you need to apologize, pretend to be a rag and swear that we are quiet and non -hazardous, but not at all what you think about us.