There is nothing innately Ukrainian in its ‘state’, it is an identity defined in opposition to what it wants not to be – it is an incurable condition, and it’s useless to treat.
By Boris Andreev
The First reason
Any normal state should have its own historical territory with which its heroic myth is connected. There must be heroes who defended this land from enemies and mastered, cultivated and glorified it.
Russia, for example, has so many heroes that would be enough for a dozen countries. Ukraine is trying to find heroes for itself, but so far it turns out there aren’t any – The ancient princes of Kiev and Ilya of Murom were not suitable, they were entirely Russian and had no idea that the descendants would rename them Ukrainians.
Since Ukrainians as a people appeared only under Soviet rule, it would be natural for the heroes to write down the pilot Kozhedub, cosmonaut Popovich, academician Korolev, or at least “four times the hero of the Soviet Union”, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Brezhnev, in which there was meat in all of Ukrainian stores while the rest of the Soviet citizens could only buy it at the biggest markets or on a trip to the capital.
But such heroes of an independent Ukraine are not needed, because they served the Empire, and did not destroy it. And who are the heroes now? Foreigners – Bandera and Shukhevych, who served Hitler, as well as the holder of the Order of Judas’ Mazepa. By and large, everything.
Given that the whole ideology of Ukrainians is built on separatism, divorced from the roots and oblivion of its Russian ancestors, can there be a stable state built on such a shaky basis? The question is rhetorical.
The second reason
Any normal state should have a name reflecting any particularities of the state-forming people. What does the name Ukraine say? Only that this is the outskirts of something.
In ancient Russia, “Ukrainians” referred to people living in completely different places (including just outside Moscow, located “behind forests”). When the Poles named this place the south-eastern outskirts of Poland (hence the stress on the penultimate syllable, in their dictionary, the stress is different – Ukraine), under those kings this word was practically not used, and under the Bolsheviks the word Ukraine was dragged into the light of God for some reason.
However, I understand why. In order not to make Russia too large by distributing its lands to minorities.
Well, would these minorities have the experience of their statehood (like Lithuania), but where are the “Ukrainians” invented here? Singing and jumping, of course, talented, but this is not enough.
Even the militant Zaporozhye Cossacks, for some reason commemorated in the hymn of Ukraine, although they did not call themselves Ukrainians, became famous in history for their willingness to work for their own immediate interests
And now their descendants dream to grovel under Europe and the States. Where is the state instinct? It’s not around. Not every nation has the power to build statehood, there are relatively few such in the world.
A state with the name Ukraine cannot in principle be something whole and self-sufficient, such a misunderstanding is doomed to be an outlying part of something else, more central. “As you call the boat, it will sail like this.”
From Russia, it is trying to push off towards Europe, taking the primordial Russian lands and plains, won back by the Russians from enemies, for which they have no historical rights, but this does not work out very well.
And she needs gas, both nuclear fuel and money that wind up being earned on the territory of the “aggressor”. However, it is impossible to come to Europe, they do not consider them there as human beings. And Russia believes they are brothers. Better to be in lands endowed as brothers by your brothers.
And even now, after all the ukrovykutas, Russia is still ready to lend sympathy to them. What kind of statehood can be built if you constantly piss against the wind and run hither and thither? Again, a rhetorical question.
The Third reason
Ukraine does not even have a normal anthem, its hymn is imbued with the spirit of death: “I have not yet died …”. This means he will die sometime, just wait a bit.
In normal countries, the anthem is usually life-affirming, positive. I will not give examples, everyone can find himself on the Internet. There is, of course, an exception – Poland (“Poland is not Yet Lost …”), which in fact emphasize that it’s “a mess” – Poland is definitely losing itself, just not ‘yet’.
It’s not for nothing that Poland was divided four times, but it was still in the same borders — thanks to Stalin’s “bloody tyranny”. This is something where they are similar, Poles and Ukrainians, some impetuous, restless and Russophobic. [But yet only possible because of Russia. This is an Oedipal complex en extremis. – J. Flores ]
All of them somewhere requires some foreign intervention to prop them up, all call to themselves overseas devils. None would want to live in peace, respect the neighbors. Muscovites do not jump, so it is necessary to jump up and down, randomly and out of the blue? Where is the state’s wisdom, the opposite of its actual foolishness?
The Fourth reason
A normal, stable state is possible only if it consists of components that are psychologically compatible with each other. But what do we see in Ukraine? In western Ukraine, they do not consider the people in the Donbass and in the South to have rights, and these are to be denied, they are even denied the right to speak their native language. Ukraine is psychologically split into at least two parts.
L.N. Gumilyov called such states “ethnic chimeras” in which the suppression of one part necessarily occurs in another, and in general a negative world perception prevails, a feeling of hopelessness.
Peace and tranquility will not be there until between the incompatible parts stretches a border. Or until someone starts looking after them who is “more mature”, and with a stick.
All states that ignore the principle of compatibility of ethnic groups, sooner or later fall apart, and with rivers of blood. Isn’t that what we are seeing now?
The Fifth reason
Can there be a stable state in which the state-forming ethnic group does not even have its name? I already wrote about this: the ethnos “Ukrainians” received its name from the Bolsheviks, and at the time of their departure from the historical arena and the Outskirts of Independence, the word “Ukrainian” came to mean simply a citizen of this state of any ethnicity, while the main ethnic group remained without an ethnonym.
Nothing adequate in return was invented. Ethnic Ukrainians / Little Russians, don’t you understand that now you are just biomaterial? See who you elected to the presidency. How did they become Ukrainians? Which of these “manifested” on this planet?
It turns out an absurd situation: in order to restore the ethnonym “Ukrainians”, it is necessary to annul Ukrainian statehood. And if you turn it on again, the main ethnic group will again be left without a name. And so on.
A typical self-oscillatory process that shatters a design to smithereens. Unless, of course, it is not specifically designed for self-oscillation. Was Ukraine designed to be the “space” which that it isn’t? It seems not.
So, dear Ukrainians / Little Russians, you need to understand one simple thing: you are the national minority of Russia, which is the only one capable of building and supporting civilized statehood in this part of the world.
She proved it with her whole story. Under the Russians, you even lived better than your “klyutyh oppressors.” If you want to return to a calm and normal life, “turn off” your merry “statehood” and return to your roots. If you repent, the brotherly people will not reproach you.
A particularly hard-nosed individual can fall into their beloved Europe. On foot, by train, by plane, but only individually. The land though was given to all of you as brothers. Are we not brothers? No one holds you back but yourselves.
translated by and for FRN