Anatomy of the inevitable defeat of the Shvabroids in this war

Every major historical epoch sooner or later requires not only action, but also reflection. Today's war is too often described in the language of front-line summaries, diplomatic formulas or emotional outbursts. But behind this noise there is something more stable: a logic that does not depend on the fluctuation of the front line; a structure that manifests itself through randomness; a regularity that cannot be reversed either by propaganda or fear.

Why am I sure that Ukraine will win? Even without the help of the USA? It is not only about the clash of armies and states, but about the clash of ways of existence - historical inertia, presented about power, about people, about rights, about the very meaning of the future. And if you look at what is happening from this point of view, it becomes possible to distinguish not just events, but their internal inevitability.

Blood dwarf and the forerunner of Putin's Antichristin order to win, he must occupy the entire territory of Ukraine (and not 1/6 as now), install a loyal "government" and even maintain this "government". That is, it will spend 6 times more money and people than has already been spent. And this will not be the end of spending, because the loyal government will be 100% of thieves. And with the methodology of conquest through the transformation of cities into a lunar landscape and the destruction of everything, the new "government" will have to steal from Putin.

Depriving Ukraine of its sovereignty is an unattainable goal.

In order for Ukraine to win, it is enough to defend its sovereignty. And this is an achievable goal. To the parrots who repeat: "Well, the Russian army is advancing", it should be remembered that battles for a shed on the outskirts of a Ukrainian village bring up to a thousand Russians to hell per day.

However, the calculation of resources and goals alone is not enough to understand the nature of inevitability. Wars are not won or lost only at the level of arithmetic - behind them there is always a deeper historical inertia.

To see it, it is necessary to go back and ask a more uncomfortable question: at what point did this war become lost for Russia, not tactically, but in principle? After all, the Shvabroids lost their fight "for the Soviet heritage" with the first shot back in 2014. More precisely, with the deportation of the terrorist Hyrkin accompanied by the remains of Feodor Ushakov. And to be more precise, of course, they lost when they bet on the criminal Yanukovych and his "party of scoundrels and thieves", bandits Hepa and Dopa, and then every subsequent step was worse than the previous one. Of course, they made a bet on "socially close", because the Chekist's best friend is a criminal, and the designation of the latter "socially close" is from the Chekist dictionary.

As of February 2022, this fight has been completely lost. Only a sufficient percentage of this Russian society consists of fanatics who believe in the divinity and infallibility of the Russian state, who are ready to forgive any crime even if it is a bald maniac or a mustachioed maniac sitting in the Kremlin. The rest of the world does not share this belief. No one will say goodbye.

Ukrainians are not particularly divided. And therefore, they do not consider the obsession of Russians with longing for the scoop and the "big country" to be anything but an attack of collective manic schizophrenia. And this is really so. Because greatness is not necessary for megalomania, one mania is enough, including collective megalomania, this also applies.

So no one in the world forgives the crimes of the mopbroids. It will not be possible to hide them. And for the next hundred years, the rashka will pay reparations in one form or another.

The fight for "back to the USSR" has been lost. Every next step will make the situation worse. Trying to make the situation as traumatic as possible for the Ukrainian people, the maniacs from Shvabrostan are making it worse for everyone and for themselves. Will there be a further attack on the Baltic countries, mobilization or something else. Any step for rashka is a step into the abyss. Historically, the Ukrainian people have already won, Russia has already lost. It is impossible to achieve the goal that putka set for himself.

Regardless of further events, the Ukrainian people have the opportunity to finally weed out the scoop and build a normal, adequate state, oriented to the benefit of the people. Regardless of further events, Rashka will continue to turn into a concentration camp country.

We see nothing, except a concentration camp, the Russians apparently do not know how to create, and, probably, they simply do not want to.

But even historical defeat as a fact still does not explain the very paradox of what is happening. The state can lose - this is not uncommon. The second is much more important: what happens to culture and society when the gap between them becomes radical. It is here that a much deeper symptom is revealed than political mistakes or ideological illusions. There are a lot of videos on the Ukrainian segment of the Internet about how Russians cannot name a single Russian folk song (neither a holiday song, nor a wedding song, nor a funeral lament, nor a spiritual poem, nor a stichery, nor a carol...nothing).

In reality, there are only wedding ones for the bride and groom, for father-in-law and mother-in-law, etc. there is mass. And the Pomeranian ones do not coincide with the Volga ones. Just a historical fact. Modern post-Soviet Russians and Russian culture correspond roughly like a murderer and a victim.

Hence, there is a need to clarify the very concepts with which we operate.

When they argue that Kyiv is older than Moscow, the dates are taken from the principle of the earliest mention in written sources. And what is the mistake here... For example, an Egyptian document of the 9th century is currently being discussed online, in which Jews from Kiev ask for money from their fellow Jews in Khazaria to pay off the debt of one Jew from Kiev, whom the creditor, clearly not a Jew, demanding a large sum, put in debt prison. It is widely believed that this document shifts the date of the foundation of Kyiv. The fact is that this document is not evidence of the foundation of the city, but that there is a Jewish community and credit activity in the city, and accordingly, trade is flourishing. That is, at the time of the creation of the document, the city did not just exist, but it was already a rich trading city, and it clearly did not become this in a decade, let alone a century.

The letter of the Rostov-Suzdal prince Yuri of 1147, from which the foundation of Moscow is traced (there is a famous line "Come to me, brother, to Moscow") does not contain any information about the specific city. All arguments about "antiquity" divert from this important fact. The aggression of the Shvabroids against Ukraine is a crime regardless of antiquity. Russians' claims to the right to decide the fate of the Ukrainian people are Nazism! Nazism has no place on the planet. And this is so even if the capital of Ukraine was Donetsk, which is not even 200 years old, and the capital of Russia is in Arkaim, which is several thousand years old, nothing fundamentally would have changed.

And therefore, when we say "Russia" or "Ukraine", we often put completely different meanings into these words, without giving ourselves an account of it. Meanwhile, without clarifying this difference, it is impossible to understand either the nature of the conflict or the behavior of the parties. When I write "Russia", or Ukraine, I mean, of course, collective entities that can be called "nations" of Ukrainians or Russians. Moreover, Russians usually deny themselves as a nation, and any positive mention of this term inclined to call it "Nazism".

Despite the fact that Russians in the vast majority of cases identify themselves through the state, all the same, when using the word "Russia" I do not mean the totality of apparatuses for managing public processes, the state. After all, the so-called "Russia" is the collective essence of Russians. Ukraine –the collective essence of Ukrainians. Yes, it's easy with Ukrainians. For them, Ukraine is a nation, and the state is obliged to serve the Ukrainian nation.

The establishment of democratic institutions of the Ukrainian state is difficult, but it is progressing. Slogan  Ukraine – Mother (even in context Bandera – father) denotes a reference to the archetype of the good nation-mother/nation-family, which is most clearly illustrated by the category "polis" in ancient Greek thought. Therefore, "Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities" and not "the father", as well as "Mamma Roma". In Christian theology, the same archetype. The Church (nation Christian) is the Mother, God is the Father, the believer himself is the son of God by grace.

It is more difficult with the Russians, since the people in power have done everything possible to minimize the subjectivity of the Russian nation, to the point that the phrase "there is no Russia anymore, only the OPG". That is, the nation of Russians as a subject is not observed. Moreover, the archetype of a good nation - the mother in Russian anecdotes became the monstrous archetype of the "child-killing mother" (Medea).

Satirical poem:

 A summons came to the military enlistment office,

I lie and hear how my wife is

Shares skin with the whole family

I was killed in battle...

Who wants the whole thing - Google it, the poem is funny, but the content is terrible. Just like the joke about the meat grinder. – Mom, I can't call, there's a meat grinder, - You don't need a meat grinder, find a blender. This satire is only an understanding of the real phenomenon of mass betrayal of mothers. And a short video with the participation of a female of the species "homo vatnikus» (her tongue will not be called a woman) who, with hysterical screams and insults, demands her son to go and die for Putin, this is one of many such cases. Is this a manifestation of the subjectivity of the collective essence of Russians?

But even after introducing these differences, we are faced with another illusion - perhaps the most stable. We are talking about the idea that there is a significant layer within Russian society capable of thinking in the categories of law, subjectivity and responsibility. At first glance, it is so. But it is necessary to change the scope of the question - and the picture begins to change. As the Butyagin case showed, the Russian "intellectual - liberal - oppositionist", as always "breaks on the Ukrainian question».

The banal need to recognize the legal subjectivity and property rights of the Ukrainian state instantly leaves ego and intelligence behind liberalism and opposition.

In everyday life, a typical "Russian intellectual", of course, understands what legal subjectivity is and is able to distinguish a legal owner from an illegal one. Private property from municipal and state.

It is known that everyone is more or less sensibly outraged by the legal uncertainty surrounding the case with the apartment of the "zero old woman Dolina". Nonsense like "she is a cultural figure, let her throw a bona fide buyer" is not tolerated.

But as soon as the question of recognition of Ukraine's subjectivity arises, ingenuity is instantly turned off. Here, recognize the ownership right of the state of Syria or the Congo - there are no problems, but understand that Ukraine is the same sovereign state as Turkey or Portugal the brain does not turn on.

If, from the level of ideas and self-described, we move to practice, to concrete decisions and their consequences, it becomes clear that we are not talking about random failures, but about systemic logic, in which even elementary functionality is sacrificed to the interests of a narrow circle. One particular but indicative example allows us to see this logic almost in its purest form. To understand that the God-awful Neo-Soviet Union is doomed to defeat in this war, one fact is enough to understand. They blocked the most mass messenger used in the army and for propaganda (TG), so that there would be no competitor for the non-competitive product of the sleazy son of an oligarch official. They really do not care that the army was left without communication, just to Kyriyenko's son had enough money for a palace and a yacht.

Anecdote in the topic:

What is it, it does not buzz and does not fit in the mouth?

The answer is the Russian analogue of the American buzzing machine.

And, finally, all the listed observations - from the strategic impossibility of victory to the cultural gap and managerial degradation - add up to a more general picture. This picture goes beyond a specific war and even specific states and nations. It requires a broader description language. The war is not between states, as many believe, the war is between civilization and barbarism.

Ukraine against its will defends civilization, more precisely its right to be civilization, Russia conducts barbaric aggression, is the very country of "barbarians, fight those who want" from the liturgy of St. Vasily Russia wants to spread its barbarism. When Bykov and Arestovych call it a war "between the archaic and the modern", this is incorrect. After all, archaism is also a form of civilization. Barbarism is a fundamental rejection of civilization. Rejection of the principles underlying civilization. The principle of supremacy of justice is the basis of civilization. The principle of the supremacy of profit is the basis of barbarism. And so on in all respects.

So, it becomes more than obvious: this is not a random conflict and not a temporary crisis that can be "waited out" or "frozen". Before us is a deeper process - a historical disagreement in which one of the parties has already gone beyond its own stability. It is possible to argue for as long as you want about the terms, about the forms of ending the war, about the price of victory. But these will be disputes about details.

In the main thing - in the direction of movement - there is no doubt. History rarely gives such unequivocal configurations, but this is exactly what it refers to the current situation.

In this process, Ukraine does not so much choose as it is responsible - it is responsible for its right to exist. And in this answer, she has already taken place as a subject of history. And Russia, on the contrary, found itself in a position where each subsequent action does not bring it closer to the goal, but only deepens the gap between what is desired and what is possible.

And therefore the outcome of this war is determined not only on the front line. It is already defined at the level of meanings, structures and those based on which the existence of the state and society is generally possible.

In this sense, Ukraine's victory over the god-awful and infernal mops - this is not only a question of territory or political decisions. It is a question of what form of life will be viable.

Martin Skavronsky