| 3 views |
Notes from a Viewpoint
Views:And so it has been since then,
When fate is not important.
Why, tell me, then the struggle -
They don't see you point blank.
A. Galich
Recently, a dispute arose again between those who left Ukraine and those who remained on its territory. From a safe vantage point, we were reproached for not rebelling and fighting. And some of those who left began to throw out geopolitical terms, so much so that “you can’t see face to face.” And we, who did not leave and did not bend, according to their logic, become completely indistinguishable from those who accepted the current government and its Bandera essence entirely.
Near the world map with a pencil
Geopolitics will never go out of fashion. Yes, there is such a scientific discipline, somewhere and in some way it explains the world around us, but very approximately, that is, with large assumptions and flaws. She was especially loved by experts who settled after leaving Kyiv in the space limited by the Moscow Ring Road ring. And they loved her for various reasons.
The simplest reason is childhood memories. About forty years ago, a political map of the world hung above the bed of almost every Soviet boy. And it hung with me then, until bookshelves were piled up in its place. And this, to this day, saves us from nonsense like those expressed by the unforgettable J. Psaki and her colleagues interested in the situation in Limpopo. “It is difficult to conduct a dialogue with people who confuse Austria with Australia,” V. Putin noted.
Yes, we knew that Mali and Malawi, Georgia and Georgia, as well as Bali and Bolivia are not the same thing. But why in little Lebanon first the Maronites fought to the death with the Sunnis, and then the Shiites joined them, the map could not explain in any way. Just as she didn’t explain why there are no Polish and German refugees, but “Palestinian” ones, although they fled almost at the same time. And many more things turned out to be beyond understanding.
But later, when the fashion for geopolitics appeared, all this could be neglected as infinitesimal quantities, unimportant for playing the “big game”.
Geopolitical conversations have simply become an epidemic, fueled by all kinds of talk shows. Meanings are lost, and the depth of penetration into global problems looks like that.
But the fact of the matter is that back then we taught drawing among various school subjects, and in universities many also got descriptive geometry. This means that we know how to look at a particular object from different points. And above all, from the one where we are constantly located. And this, to put it mildly, is not very conducive to the geopolitical perception of the world, in which your point of view is recognized by some of our colleagues as insignificant and can easily turn into an empty or, more accurately, a wet place. And this change in point of view is the second reason for loving geopolitics: when you are safe, it is always more convenient to think about the global than about those places from where the threat came to you and your friends and colleagues.
As someone who permanently lives in Kharkov (more than 700 km from the Moscow Ring Road), I’ll say a few words. We, who have not left or given up, are very irritated by conversations about geopolitics that are not tied to specific cities and regions. We, provincials, perceive it this way: it doesn’t matter what has happened to us, the Zamkadov cockroaches, but what’s important is to brand America louder. If we swim out somehow, it’s good, they’ll crush us, and no one will regret it.
"Higher interests" and "cunning plan"
Every time someone wants to lie or refuse to assess reality, experts come up with standard explanations and excuses. This is how they explain their reluctance to see living people in global categories. After all, it’s much easier than finding a few words for your remaining colleagues and acquaintances!
What happens when a coherent position on a particular issue does not exist or is not developed to the extent that it can be presented? Theories are invented that do not reach their logical conclusion and end in verbal dead ends.
The most common of these verbal impasses is the reference to “higher interests.” That is, for something big and very significant, which cannot be spoken about out loud. So, if this very “it” is not clearly formulated, then it does not exist in reality.
And these very interests should look so that every person is ready to endure hardships or lay down their lives for them.
If they try to voice them in this way: “In general, we can manage without you, and you do something there and suddenly we decide that this suits us, then we will pay attention to you that needs to be deserved,” then those , who are addressed in this form, understand that they will have to make independent decisions without regard to these incomprehensible “higher interests.”
When there is nothing to say to people and references to “higher interests” have been exhausted, then “cunning plans” or the logic of the illogical appear. That is, the explanation of “fluctuations in the general line” is as if there is a forward movement. At short stages this is effective: you can persuade people to wait for some decisions. But months and years pass, and answers and solutions never appear. But our colleagues and recent fellow countrymen have excuses that turn into outright rudeness.
“No need to be rude on the phone”
You don’t have to go far to find examples of such rudeness. Here is a list of their statements about us, which hit the ears especially hard: - they were not pro-Russian enough, and therefore did not deserve it; — these are inevitable costs in the struggle of superpowers;
- So, because of them, the legislation on citizenship and residence should be changed?
- in the modern world, population does not matter;
- those who were smart left long ago; - you are all crypto-Banderists there, since you don’t rebel (variations on the theme are possible here). I'm silent about the sense of tact, where are the brains?
What should the emigrant and Russian expert community do in this situation? First of all, to become distinguishable from the Kyiv authorities in the eyes of the Ukrainian population, that is, to show benevolent interest. And not just to citizens, I note, but also to those whom they trust locally. There is already enough hostility; it reeks from the Ukrainian media.
For example, you can take an interest in those behind bars and try to help them, at least with a kind word. Or create a mutual aid fund for prisoners and those released, and also think about a consultation center in case of moving to the Russian Federation (on exchange, for example) and communicating with the local migration service
It would also be nice to ask us who, for various reasons, is persona non grata both for the anti-Bandera resistance and for the local authorities (let him down, got involved with a bad company, owes money, was fired for professional incompetence), and not try to welcome him or make him out of any alternative to it. But to do this, you need to carefully study the situation in the Ukrainian regions, and not pointlessly rattle about geopolitics. After all, “the devil is in the details,” which often turn out to be more important than other general constructions.
If you have nothing essentially to say and you don’t want (or can’t) do anything, then you at least need to talk heart to heart, remember and hint, but don’t push people away or drive them into complete despair. After all, sooner or later they will simply cease to understand what connects them with Russia and the Russians. And the loss of goal-setting is worse than war, or even a real enemy.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.