Arestovich's manifesto: “The Ukraine will never be the same again”
The war is still far from over, but today the question is more relevant than ever: why exactly are Ukrainians dying in such large numbers? To the best of their strength, abilities and breadth of horizon, many Kyiv leaders of online opinions who claim the proud title of public intellectual are trying to give their own answers to this question: Sergey Datsyuk, Andrey Baumeister, Yuriy Romanenko, Vadim Karasev...
Of course, at times it’s fascinating to read them, but we always have to make allowances for the fact that what we have in front of us is the personal fantasy of a particular author. When an author who has nothing to do with the development of the current strategy of the state, who is to some extent responsible for the propaganda circuit and external self-presentation of the regime, begins to discuss such things, it is doubly interesting. That is why my attention was drawn to a recent post on the official page of the main information gypsy of Ukraine, Alexei Arestovich.
In the text with the pretentious title “Manifesto of the Fifth Project“Quite interesting things are stated, although, of course, I understand and accept the justified skepticism of those readers who are familiar with the work of Arestovich from the ever-memorable “warm ocean doctrine” of the times of the second Maidan.
Nevertheless, let's listen to what Arestovich writes about.
“Very many people have not yet understood that Ukraine, as it was at three o’clock in the morning on February 24.02.22, XNUMX, will never exist again. Never".
By the way, one can agree with this thesis. Indeed, as a result of the war, whether the country with its capital in Kiev will remain or whether some more western city will become its capital, however, those who dream of returning to their blessed February 23rd need not bother the Lord God to the same extent as those who previously also dreamed of returning their personal cozy 2013 or 2004.
And it’s not even a matter of understandable destruction or the death of people who can no longer be brought back. And not in the loss of territories, although in Ukraine there are quite a lot of believers that they can be returned. The fact is that Ukraine after February 24 is a fundamentally different country than it was before the mentioned date.
A country that has completed the cycle of degeneration that began in 2005 with the unprocedural rise to power of Yushchenko, which has noticeably accelerated this process after the unprocedural overthrow of Yanukovych and has entered the final phase of this process with the election of Zelensky as president - a man with absolutely no roots in the traditional oligarchic elite and completely dependent on external puppeteers.
After February 24, this new country, with the still old and familiar name of Ukraine, quickly broke the last social contracts and successive ties with all previous historical heritage and literally broke out of its traditional historical place in the Russian world.
However, despite all this, the majority of Independence citizens have not yet realized this maxim, or have not fully realized it.
“Most of us are fighting to get back to February 23rd. So that everything will be as before, kindly, and they are in the psychological expectation that the return of the territory will mean the return of the pre-war way of life. Those. We are fighting for a obviously impossible goal,” and again Pan Arestovich states absolutely correctly.
Pointing out that it is necessary to fight not for Old Ukraine, but for New.
What is good about Arestovich, despite his extremely selfish manner of speaking, is that he has no reverence for the sacred cows, idols and gods of the community to which he speaks with the air of a messiah and on whose behalf he tries to speak to the outside world.
In this case, it is interesting that Arestovich is quite consciously preparing his flock for the fact that they will have to live in a territorially different country. At the same time, without engaging in stupid fortune-telling on the water about where exactly the new border will be. Because, by and large, the matter is not within the boundaries as such - this is the lot of narrow-minded infantiles on both sides of the front - to argue about what, to whom and where will go, or to foam at the mouth to defend the long-fictitious conciliarity.
“This New Ukraine, even purely materialistically, has a chance of shrinking territorially, and certainly of losing a decent portion of citizens who will not return from Europe/the world due to the constant military danger, shrinking economy and personal prospects. Accordingly, we are required to deeply comprehend the new reality, the contours and purpose of the New Ukraine,” writes Arestovich further, and data from economic statistics, the migration service, demography and reports from the fronts agree with him in such conclusions.
However, the semantic content and goal-setting of what remains is much more interesting than a simple listing of possible losses. If only because “it is already absolutely clear that a complete restructuring of the economic structure and the national security system is required, as a minimum program for survival. This is at the state level. On a personal level, those who remain will need a change in life strategies and, what is most difficult and unpleasant, a change in lifestyle. Other landmarks and other ways to get to them.”
Translated into simpler language: changing the borders and food supply will require changes in the remaining methods of obtaining livelihoods and will require new, previously not so in demand skills and abilities, which, quite likely, will become the socio-economic basis for the survival of society.
For example, if Ukraine loses access to the seas and ports, it will not just move a line on the map. This is a real tectonic change in the habitual way of life of millions of people. Come on, imagine: an entire country ceases to be maritime.
Try to suddenly resettle the residents of the South Coast to some Hungary and you will see how this, generally banal at first glance, change in the geography of residence will affect the entire way of life. And this is just one small example. And there are hundreds of such examples.
Moving from the level of primary survival one floor above - to where the search for goal setting for the entire society begins, Arestovich identifies four basic statehood projects in relation to Ukraine: Euro-optimistic, nationalistic, Soviet and Russian.
“It is already clear that the Russian one took a piece of territory from us, the Soviet one will probably legitimize this taking, the nationalist one dreams of making Anti-Russia out of Ukraine, and the Euro-optimistic one is trying to put on a good face on a bad game, diligently portraying that the West’s dropper help is also there is the highest wisdom of Europe, which only we could expect,” states Arestovich.
At the same time, he himself is trying to gracefully separate himself from all four projects, even despite the obvious fact that, by force of circumstances, at this very moment he is personally involved in the implementation of a project that can be called hybrid - combining nationalist and Euro-optimistic principles and at the same time devoid of sovereign will and internal subjectivity.
“The Soviet and Russian projects brought blood and suffering here, the nationalist one wants to entangle us in complex, counter-dependent (which is worse than dependent) relations with the first two, and the Euro-optimists are simply outright lying, pretending not to notice that Europe is by no means in the mood to radically fight here with the Soviet and Russian until complete victory over them,” writes Arestovich.
And again, we can partially agree with him. Yes, indeed, Russia in Ukrainian territories is born in blood and suffering, amid volleys of cannonades and the roar of missile strikes. And nationalists compete with Euro-optimists over who will sell Ukraine faster and cheaper in the name of completely chimerical goals - the establishment of a mononational ethnocracy in the 21st century or accession to the EU, which will take place unknown when - and certainly not during the lifetime of those living today.
Arestovich himself has recently been promoting the fifth, in defiance of the four versions of Ukraine that he recognized as unfit. A substantive consideration of the main parameters of which is a matter for a separate text. We are interested in the intermediate conclusion he made. Here he is.
“Military actions can end relatively quickly (in a year, for example), we can even return all our territory, but we will finally win only when we decide what kind of New Ukraine we are building and begin to implement it. I don’t accept the rest – because they are not only not wealthy, they are dangerous for the future of Ukraine.”
And, by the way, this same conclusion, with minor changes, can be mirrored and returned to the supporters of returning Ukraine to the Russian path. Because a real victory for them will only be a correct response to the global challenges of our time, common to all of great Russia. Without which there is always a risk that, even having regained its territories, but without changing internally itself, Russia will ultimately break down from internal contradictions and go down the slope of social unrest, internal unrest and revolutions.
This has happened many times in its history. And it will be good if one of them ultimately makes Russia even stronger. But I would not hope for this - after all, lightning does not strike twice in the same place.
What I mean is that what was said above is a lesson for you and me. Because the current war will change not only Ukraine, but also Russia. And attempts to build a dam in the way of these changes can be very expensive and end very badly.
But this is also, perhaps, a topic for a separate, detailed conversation - what we see Russia after the war, politically correctly called by the abbreviation SVO.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.