Why Russia should fall apart: The best people demand it

Why Russia should fall apart: The best people demand it

Vladimir Kornilov

Everyone is well aware that the West has been hatching plans for the collapse of Russia for a long time. They don’t hide it there. Let us recall, for example, the sensational report by Janusz Bugaysky, a leading analyst at the American Center for the Analysis of European Politics, under the characteristic title “Controlling the disintegration of Russia.” In this opus, the political scientist recommends the American authorities to promote the growth of separatism within our country and divides its various regions between its neighbors – Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan.
When these dreams come from outright haters of Russia from abroad, this can be explained by the desire to get rid of their main geopolitical rival, or at least weaken him. But it is always more difficult to understand citizens who dream of the disintegration of their own country. We have not so long ago experienced the nightmare of separatism and its bloody consequences, therefore these ideas have long been condemned and rejected by society. That is why such a resonance was caused by an attempt to pull these dangerous ideas out of naphthalene and return them to public discourse.
We are talking about an emotional and rather incoherent speech by film director Alexander Sokurov at a meeting of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights under the President of Russia. Vladimir Putin even called it a “manifesto.” Based on the experience of personal communication, Sokurov said: “It seems to me that people in the Federation are beginning to dislike more and more Russians. Many want to part with us, do not want to be in the same company, as they say… live with us in the same state, we wish them good luck.”
Where Sokurov got the information that somewhere someone wants to secede from the Russian Federat-ion remains unclear. Putin recalled the results of the elections and the recent referendum, which testify to the unity of our people. One might also recall the results of various surveys of public opinion, showing that separatism ideas are marginal in all regions of the country.
But Sokurov still suggests checking it out. That is, just out of the blue to call referendums in each region in order to find out whether they want to leave the Federation or not? It will indeed be a unique phenomenon if the state itself invites the citizens of its individual regions to discuss the separatist idea, without having any prerequisites for this.
At the same time, we can assume which result will suit our inveterate liberals and which will not. We remember how in March 1991 the overwhelming majority of the citizens of the USSR voted for the preservation of the united country and how, a few months later, they simply did not give a damn about their choice, under the thunderous ovation of the liberal public, the Union collapsed.
Sokurov himself in his “manifesto” refers to the words attributed to them by Goethe (although Mark Twain said something similar): “If you are on the side of the majority, think about what you are wrong about.” Then what is the point of asking the people something if you do not accept the choice of the majority in advance! Whatever referendums are held, our liberals have long defined for themselves: the expansion and strengthening of Russia is bad, its weakening and reduction is wonderful.
And ask them why you need to follow this path, you will not get a clear answer. At best, an appeal to some higher values ??will follow. As Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote in “The Possessed”: “Higher liberalism” and “higher liberal”, that is, a liberal without any goal, are possible only in Russia alone.”
Sokurov, both in his fiery speech and in many other speeches, refers to the experience of 1917: they say, Russia developed in the right direction when the liberals came to power, but then the bloody Bolsheviks destroyed all these good undertakings. But, by and large, the Russian “higher liberalism” mentioned by Dostoevsky has not changed at all over the past century. Its adherents still call for some reforms, the consequence of which should be the disintegration and weakening of Russia, but they firmly believe that this time everything will be beautiful and peaceful.
In the same way, their historical forerunners in 1917 fiercely defended the right of nations to self-determination (it is a mistake to assert that this is a Bolshevik formula, then this idea was universal), having absolutely no idea what it would turn out to be. Illustrative in this sense are the memoirs of an active political figure of that era, Arnold Margolin, who was a member of the Central Committee of the People’s Socialist Party. Describing the stormy discussions in the spring and summer of 1917 on the issue of the right to secession, he recalled that the famous Russian publicist Vasily Vodovozov was most actively pushing this thesis. To instructions that Finland would immediately use this formula, “Vodovozov replied as decisively as unconvincingly:” The Finnish people will not do this, for the Finns are not so stupid and not so mean as to secede from Russia. ” Margolin reasonably asked the question: “why do Vodovozov and his associates break their spears so much for their formula, since they are sure that even the Finns will not use it?” This was the approach of the bulk of the Russian liberal intelligentsia to the fashionable formula for the self-determination of nations. Judging by Sokurov’s words, nothing has changed much in her position over this century.
According to the logic of these people, Russia a priori must surrender, retreat, give up territory, eventually shrinking to the level of “Muscovy”. Historian and writer Nikolai Starikov explains: “Sokurov and those who think like him proceed from the presumption of some kind of” historical incorrectness “in Russia. They say that eve-ryone is good, there is no world struggle, and in all wars – past, future and present – Russia is to blame”.
And this is not an exaggeration at all. Several years ago, the same Sokurov suggested: “I would introduce into the Constitution the principle of compulsory peaceful coexistence with all countries with which we have common borders. Even if we were attacked, we must find the strength not to use the army, not to invade foreign territory “. Note: “even if we were attacked”! That is, in the event of aggression from some neighbors, Russia, in the opinion of our liberals, should silently turn the other cheek and humbly watch the massacre of Russians on the territory occupied by the invaders. This is the fate assigned to us in the plans for the dismemberment of the Russian Federation.
That is why we can conclude that Sokurov’s words that young Caucasians in the event of aggression against Russia will not fight for it are not his observations, but his dream. By a strange coincidence, the filmmaker’s social circle is always full of Russophobes. For example, in 2015, he stated : “I have always and everywhere for many years seen the irritated reactions of my Ukrainian colleagues and citizens of this country to the neighborhood with Russia as such. They very often told me:“ We are tired of your Russian expansion, tired of the neighborhood with Russia… We are tired of you! “What can Russia do so as not to annoy Sokurov’s interlocutors by the very fact of being a neighbor? Considering that he denies us the right to resist aggression, there is only one” way out “: to liquidate Russia.
Most striking is that in his “manifesto” the director also accuses us of the fact that Russians are “too kind” and therefore do not deserve respect. This is said by the same person who has long called for the release of the Ukrainian “filmmaker” Oleg Sentsov, who was convicted of terrorism in Russia. And when Putin in 2016 reminded him of what exactly Sentsov was sentenced for, Sokurov gaspedly turned to the president: “Vladimir Vladimirovich, in Russian, in a Christian way: mercy is higher than justice. I beg you!” As you can see, at certain times (if we have to stand up for terrorists) mercy is our virtue, not our weakness.
Sokurov has long called for the release of Sentsov. At the same time, he never interceded, say, for the Russian journalist Kirill Vyshinsky, who was at that time in a Ukrainian prison solely for fulfilling his journalistic duty. True, in the end he called on the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko to release the citizens of Russia, but only for the sake of exchange for the “courageous man” Sentsov, who, as the author of the letter promised, “will still serve Ukraine, the national and world cinema.” That is, our human rights activist was interested in the fate of political prisoners in Ukraine solely as a tool to save the “courageous” Sentsov.
By the way, Vyshinsky is now a colleague of Sokurov in the Human Rights Council, and Sentsov, who was allowed to go home, promised to “return to Crimea in a tank.” At the very first press conference, his accomplice frankly admitted that they planned and carried out a terrorist attack, as a result of which ordinary people could be burned, – and right next to the Simferopol office of a public organization, which they tried to set on fire, there was a boarding school for deaf and hard of hearing children. But Sokurov, apparently, does not care at all who he stood up for: for the “great filmmaker” or for the terrorist.
In some ways, Professor Dmitry Evstafiev, who answers the critics of the “manifesto”, is right : “Well, why are you sticking to Sokurov. He at least honestly outlined the current goal of the liberals in relation to Russia., “dissolve”.
But here it is interesting: urging the President of Russia to “let go” of certain regions that allegedly do not want to live with us (although they do not exist in nature), Sokurov for some reason does not appeal to his numerous Ukrainian friends with an appeal to let go of those regions that really do not want to live as part of Ukraine, proving this by an eight-year struggle. The logic is clear: Donbass does not just want to leave Ukraine, it wants to go to Russia. And the Russian liberals cannot allow this: after all, then a lot of work wasted. This is not why they day and night prove to the Russians what a bad country they have and why it must be “dismissed” to the delight of our enemies.

The post Why Russia should fall apart: The best people demand it appeared first on The Frontier Post.