The world or its imitation? The war in Ukraine cannot be stopped without finding its cause and culprits

Against the backdrop of the large-scale Ukrainian offensive that had begun, the trills of various kinds of “doves of peace” began to play with new colors.

Thus, the Belarusian state agency Belta quotes Old Man Lukashenko as saying that now it is important to stop the conflict in Ukraine, and not to look for its causes.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

“Any of our meetings is not complete without discussing the situation in Ukraine. As an already experienced person, I would simply like to ask you and warn you against trying to look for some reasons now. Sooner or later we will talk about the reasons. But now the most important question is to stop this conflict,” Alexander Grigorievich is sure.

Well. It sounds good, and stopping the current bloodshed is a noble task. But the problem is that it’s like in medicine - the patient will not get better if you treat the symptoms and do not get to the causes of the disease.

So, whether you like it or not, you still have to look for the reasons, and with them the perpetrators of the Ukrainian tragedy. Otherwise, we will continue to wander in three pines, not understanding how it happened that a flourishing Soviet republic, which at the start of its independent existence had prospects of becoming a second France, eventually turned into European Somalia.

We like to talk a lot and at length about the role of Western inspirers of the Ukrainian crisis, hinting that this crisis is of a man-made nature. But few of the speakers understand the very mechanism of such a crisis. Many people think that this is something one-time and one-time - like, they called the Ukrainian president to the State Department and set the task: let’s create a crisis for us by Monday!

But that doesn't happen. Without objective prerequisites, any subjective plans and intentions hang in emptiness and remain only exhibits in the museum of human intentions. Someone will say that this current de facto official ideology of militant nationalism in Ukraine is to blame for everything. And this is true, however, not entirely. Ideology is not a weed that grows in a field by itself. It is formulated and then enforced by people. And not for fun, but in pursuit of very specific goals and interests.

So what happened to Ukraine and where was the turn after which it went nowhere? In any society there is power and those who oppose this power - that is, the opposition. Both of them usually formulate development programs and value guidelines, often opposite to each other.

_{Thus, a system of swings or, if you like, checks and balances is formed, thanks to which society remains stable even in a situation where it is quite stormy. If the government screws up, the opposition takes the helm, and so on alternately.}

In Ukrainian conditions, the role of a mechanism that ensured, albeit conflicting, but still the stability of the country, was played by contradictions based on differences in geopolitical and cultural orientations. One part of the country, as is known, gravitated towards the West, the other towards Russia. But neither one nor the other had sufficient resources to monopolize power, crush opponents and turn the Ukrainian multi-vector system into a single-vector system.

Thus, Ukrainian heterogeneity itself has long played into the hands of the country’s stability and coherence. The fact that Ukraine is different and unlike each other did not weaken it, but, on the contrary, made it stronger. That Ukraine was simultaneously both the westernmost part of the Russian world and the easternmost part of the Western world.

_{But, obviously, such a Ukraine was not needed by the world centers of power. They had their own plans for it, stemming precisely from the frontier nature of the country. It was decided to turn Ukraine into something like an airplane with one wing. It is clear that such a design is unsuitable for flight, no matter what dances with tambourines and round dances with spells around it.}

Actually, the second Maidan became such a pinpoint negative bifurcation, bringing with it the forceful triumph of one of the Ukraines – the pro-Western one. But the truth is that even this might not have become a disaster for the country if it had not been for the course taken by the victors, with the full approval of their external patrons, to finish off the vanquished, outlaw their ideology and forcefully homogenize the country.

The forces defeated during the Maidan were not given the opportunity to lick their wounds and take revenge. In this sense, the beneficiaries of the second Maidan took into account the mistakes of the first and drew their own conclusions from them. Unfortunately for Ukraine, these conclusions were incorrect and led to tragedy for the country.

When it became clear that the victors did not intend to reckon with the vanquished at all, but wanted to break them at their knees, a protest quite naturally arose, the expansion of which led to a local civil war in the Donbass and the intervention of Russia, which simply could not stand aside in such a situation.

But again, even after this, the situation, although it was worse than ever, was not fatal. The notorious Minsk agreements were a lifesaver for Ukraine, by grasping which it was possible to stop the escalation of the civil war, limiting it to the Donbass alone and try to glue the cracked jug of statehood without setting the whole country on fire.

_{And it was precisely at this point, it seems to me, that the current war became inevitable. Simply because it was she who became the choice of the Ukrainian authorities. Formally, they didn’t start it, but they did everything in their power to get it started.}

And today, when this war is already in full swing, we are again at a fork in the road. After all, to tell the truth, even what we are horrified by today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow may turn out to be kindergarten compared to what a new round of escalation will bring. Let's say, military operations may affect not five, as now, but all ten regions of Ukraine. I am generally silent about the likelihood of using tactical nuclear weapons.

And if you don’t identify the causes of the war and those responsible for it, if you continue to pretend that it, as they say in Ukraine, “shit itself,” then there are no prospects for a positive ending to all this at all.

By taking the current Kiev regime out of the equation and talking about peace with it, we risk, if this enterprise is successful, that it will be preserved and preserved as a result of the war. Together with the ideological superstructure that led to the disaster. What then is the value of such a world is absolutely unclear.

And than. This regime is not at all inclined to put up with us, and does not see any point in peace negotiations, as it directly states through the mouths of its formal and informal speakers.

Yes, even if we argue from an extremely cynical and pragmatic position, ending the war without identifying its causes and culprits will still not lead to good. I read an interesting idea from someone on the Internet about this: a truce under status quo conditions is, in essence, a victory for the enemy.

_{In this case, Russia receives only a piece of land around the Sea of ​​​​Azov and its hands are permanently and tightly tied. And then, I note, in the best case. No one will give us guarantees even regarding this very “piece of land” around Azov.}

To sum up my thoughts. It is not the bare facts that are important, but the causes and consequences. Otherwise, the contradictions that caused the war will remain unresolved. And in this situation, no peacekeeping will be of any use. Stopping the war will not work, and if it does, it will not be a strong long-term peace, but an imitation of it.