What will be the Russian myth of Donetsk separatism

The fall of Slavyansk has at least intermediate conclusions about the situation in Ukraine. Being one of those authors who from the very beginning insisted that there was no Russian spring in Ukraine, that the Donbass would not separate from Ukraine, that the civil war will remain civilian, and not the Russian-Ukrainian, and that the word “drain” will eventually become the main Russian foreign policy, used in the context of Eastern Ukrainian separatism, as one of these authors, I could say Now that everything happened, as I predicted, and here you are on this subject another portion of fascinating forecasts on the Ukrainian topic.

But the peculiarity of the events similar to Ukrainian is that such events, as a rule, develop not in the plane of facts that have come true or unfulfilled forecasts and other things, but in the plane of mythology, which ultimately always turns out to be stronger than what was actually. Winners write history - this is striking now; For example, Viktor Yanukovych, Ukrainian authors, are already granted by the Russian puppet, is Yanukovych, the one who was traded for gas and for the Customs Union and who, even in his Russian imprisonment, never agreed with the annexation of Crimea. And they will write in textbooks - there was, they say, a pro -Russian president, a puppet, and nothing can be done about it. What Ukrainians will write in their textbooks about the Donbass, in general, it is also clear in advance. The terrorists supported by Russia with the help of Russian weapons and Russian militants for several months terrorized the Ukrainian regions, and when the Ukrainian army finally liberated the city, the happy local population greeted the liberators with national flags, and the liberators gave their dry solders their dry solders.

Something will be written in Ukrainian textbooks, and, therefore, this will be the historical truth. But it is not for us to learn from those textbooks. It is more interesting for us that they will write in Russia. What will be the Russian official myth about the events of spring-summer 2014 in the southeastern regions of Ukraine? Everything is clear with unofficial: three hundred shooters, Slavyansk as a new Stalingrad and new generations of reconstructors from the Igor Strelkov memory forum will play a battle of Karachun near Moscow. But these are subcultures, and what will propaganda say?

It is clear that on May 2, 2015, Russian television will be loud and tearful (much louder and more tearful than in Ukraine) to remember Odessa, and in general rhetorical exercises about the innumerable troubles brought by the Bandera (and what else?) The revolution will sound for a long time, becoming louder, depending on some current affairs-either international summits, then negotiations in the same negotiations. gas, then something else. So so far, we still have a half -deprived state of a myth about the Georgian War of 2008: the shot Tskhinval, the dead sleeping peacekeepers and Saakashvili, a chewing tie. If suddenly some exacerbation with Georgia occurs, the instructive film will show about this channel “Russia-1”. "Russia remembers." The same myth will be built about the Donbass.

What definitely will not be in the Russian myth about Donetsk separatism is just the words “drain”. They will explain to us that everything was so conceived that no one was mistaken and no one lost. The begging official or semi -official version - it is already quite popular, they often and with pleasure speak and write about it: well, they say, Russia conducted a somewhat cynical game in the Donbass, designed to ensure the cover of the final integration of Crimea into Russia. All these people's republics, militias, referendums and so on - all this pursued the only goal - to prove to Ukraine and the world that the loss of Crimea alone was the smallest of all its possible losses. Already now this version looks like the most rational of all answers to the question "What was it?" In relation to Donbass. It is this version that has the greatest chances to become the official Russian myth about East Ukrainian events. Why did Russia hand out advances to the "people's governors", why did it lead a multi -month propaganda hysteria, why did not interfere with the export of weapons and volunteers? To consolidate the accession of Crimea, and no more. “Donbass? I didn’t really want to, but our Crimea. ”

It does not matter if such a version of reality corresponds. Most likely, it does not correspond - how the Kremlin’s position on “Novorossia” has changed over these months, indicates anything, except that everything was so conceived. But the facts do not harm the myth, in the same way, for example, Russian officials retell the Stalinist myth of the causes of the Finnish war, without specifying why it was required to create the Workers and Peasants' Government of Finland to adjust the border.

But if, inventing political correct and non -self -assembled synonyms of the word “drain”, Russian officials and propaganda will really explain that all this was just for the sake of Crimea, one unpleasant conclusion can be made from this version. This spring, too many words were said about the bloodless and peaceful accession of Crimea to Russia, and so - it was not at all bloodless. The Russian Crimea was paid by the lives of many dozen people in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Those corpses in refrigerators - this was the price that the Crimean Federal District cost Russia. Too high price, too scary? If the Russians were told in February that the Russian Crimea would cost them a thousand Russian and Ukrainian corpses, maybe there would have been no such enthusiasm ? But no one asked Russians about anything, and, therefore, there is nothing to worry about - as, however, always.