System battle

The concentration of Russian troops at the Ukrainian borders, which was reported all last week, this time, it seems, turned out to be elementary intimidation. Does this mean that the threat of a large-scale invasion of continental Ukraine has passed and the Kremlin is ready to be satisfied in a marodic, in a shakal captured by the Crimea?

Increasingly, you have to read that if Hitler stopped at the seizure of the Sudeten region, he would calmly sit in power for 30 years and died his death in high esteem and glory. And if Putin stops at the annexation of Crimea, he will be able to “freeze” the situation, stabilizing the regime in its current form for a long time. Why could not Hitler stop - and can Putin stop?

Hitler did not allow Hitler not least ideology. She said that the Germans must rule the world. Firstly, because they are worthy. Secondly, because this is the only way for them to survive in the world, which is the field of the great battle of peoples for existence. Either you will achieve dominance, or you will be trampled. The Fuhrer and the movement led by him were extremely seriously led by ideology. For them, she was not only an instrument of propaganda manipulations. Unlike the original Nazi "revenge". The calls to “reset the Versailles” and reunite the divided people were just tools in order to bring a moral justification under the beginning of aggression and gradually prepare a public consciousness for the adoption of a “general idea”.

The ideology of Putinism initially was largely artificial, imitational in nature, like all of it through the false regime. Evgeny Nilov drew attention to significant differences in the style of the Nazi and Putin propaganda. In one case, this is the clang of steel jaws, in the other - the squealous thieves tantrum: keep me seven, otherwise I am now! .. In fact, it is beating in hysterics quite well and knows very well where to stop. It would seem that today it prevents the pragmatic Putin from stopping?

However, today it can already be stated that the freak created in the Kremlin test tube has grown up and gained its own life. The court alchemists finally selected that set by an ideology that is most consistent with the attitude of the ruling kleptocracy. Its basis is the ideas of publicists of the guard-monarchist camp of the second half of the 19th century, meaning at the level of gopnik from the gateway.

Actually, this is "rashism." Its essence in the denial of legal restrictions imposed on the state both in its internal and external affairs. As a historical defeat of "Russian civilization", not so much the loss of territories and the separation of compatriots are perceived as the need to obey these legal restrictions for some time. Putin does not just collect lands and reunite compatriots. He crushes the world order imposed by us alien to us by Western civilization, limiting state violence both in relation to our own population and in relation to neighbors.

That is why the Kremlin propagandists are so proudly declared at all angles that the Western norms of human rights are not written to us. Therefore, so demonstratively, Moscow trampled all its own obligations under the Budapest Agreement on a miraculous Ukraine. For the Kremlin, this is not a means of capturing Crimea, but a completely self -value goal. A kind of "dropping Versailles". Feast of disobedience.

There is one significant difference between Putinism and Hitlerism. The global project of the "new world order", in which true Aryans subjugate their will and put all other peoples in their service, was not the only supporting support of the ideological structure of Nazism - was another, no less important. Like Russian Bolshevism, German Nazism was a radical-revolutionary project of radical restructuring of the entire system of relations in all areas of life. The Nazis, like the Bolsheviks, really created a new society, a new state, a new world, a new person. And this in itself could inspire, light with enthusiasm, mobilize regardless of foreign policy victories.

Putinism does not have such a project. He is deeply conservative. He does not transform society. The idea of ​​stabilization of an unkurgeous criminal-oligarchic capitalism, which worked immediately after the "dashing 90s", today can be inspired only by a completely clinical idiot. That is, in addition to the "rashist" revengeism of the Kremlin groin, there is nothing "spirit -lifting" at all.

Aggression against Ukraine was unlikely to be planned in advance. Rather, it was an impulsive reaction to the overthrow of the twin regime in the neighborhood. The annexation of Crimea and the mobilization propaganda campaign against the “enemies surrounding us” played the role of an artificial stimulant of ideological exaltation in a society becoming more and more flowing into apathy. The stimulant, to which the regime would still turn to soon or later. But, since resorting to this potent doping to raise the rating of the "national leader", the regime will no longer be able to do without it.

Without a constant demonstration of new and new successes and victories, an artificially pumped rating will be blown away very quickly. What can we say about what will happen if the acquisitions are replaced by losses - for example, if Transnistria is lost (and what now, without a direct exit to Transnistria, Russia will lose it obviously).

This is the main factor pushing the Kremlin to a full -scale invasion. There are others. This is a uterine desire to crush the Ukrainian revolution, and an unbearable temptation to take advantage of the inevitable weakening of Ukrainian statehood in the inevitable in any revolution. This, by the way, is the dependence on Ukraine of the Russian military -industrial complex.

And what benefits will Putin get if he limits himself as the capture of Crimea? It is not necessary to count on the fact that the West, having reassured his conscience with the verbal condemnation of the aggressor and symbolic sanctions, will not have to continue to have a business with Russia. The danger emanating from Putin's Russia is recognized as Western leaders, as well as the inevitability of a forceful clash with it. This means that the weakening of a potential enemy becomes a priority purpose, if not the current leaders, then those who change them in a year or two.

Yes, the West will increase sanctions gradually. Yes, he will cynically try to the last opportunity to avoid his own losses. But even symbolic "prestigious-status" sanctions can be very painful for the Kremlin Pahan. This is the same question of his artificially pumped rating. Pahan, the leader, the Fuhrer cannot allow him to talk to him in front of the crowd of his admirers, brought into excitement with revenge -free stimulants.

In the West, they are also very sensitive to prestige issues. But only there they believe that prestige is created not by the “effectiveness of treachery”, not the ability to violate their own promises with impunity, but on the contrary, the ability to be responsible for their words. In the West, old -fashioned believe that contracts must be respected. England to the last dodged the entry into the First World War, but could not leave without the consequences that Germany trampled the British guarantees of neutral Belgium, given almost 100 years before.

The West can be selfish, selfish, corrupt, pampered, relaxed. But in the face of the threat of the basics of his existence, he was always able to mobilize and take on this hardness. There is a feature, beyond which the West does not recede and repulses. Sometimes - hopelessly missing the time when this rebuff could be given with minimal victims. But still gives. The same Chamberlain who passed to Hitler Czechoslovakia eventually declared war on him.

Sometimes the confrontation between Putin Russia and the West is described in terms of the theory of "conflict of civilizations", sometimes in terms of the theory of the struggle of traditionalism and modernization. But most of all here is a purely Soviet propaganda structure - the struggle of the two systems. The radical difference between them is who in them “most important”: personality or state, society or “elite”? The struggle on this issue does not go between civilizations, but within each of them. Any state seeks to subjugate a personality, any elite seeks to subjugate society. But in some occasion, it was possible to create a system of institutions that limit the power of the state and the elite over the personality and society, but in others it was not possible.

Today, relations between power and man, between the elite and society are derived from the category of purely internal affairs of each individual state. The restriction of the state power over its citizens is enshrined in the norms of international law. And although for many states this restriction still remains purely declarative, over the past 70 years, the zone of action of the principle of limited power slowly but steadily expanded. In the historical perspective, the system built on authoritarian principles can defend the right of power to arbitrariness within the state only by destroying the entire international legal order. This is exactly what makes the clash of Putin's Russia with the West historically inevitable.

And if the weapon will speak in Ukraine now, everyone will have to make a choice on whose side he is in this war. The choice is unequivocal. Positions like “I am not against the Ukrainian revolution and do not approve of the methods of joining Crimea, but still this is the restoration of historical justice” or “I am against the Putin regime, but I can’t support the revolution in which Yarosh is involved“ will not be accepted. Either you take the side of the civilization of the whip and nagikes, or you participate in the war against it. In the war, until the very eradication of the very possibility of its revival in the construction space.