We continue our discussion on the topic "What is the Russian Spring", timed to coincide with the second anniversary of these historical events.

Political and public figures, experts, philosophers, as well as militias - direct eyewitnesses and participants in this dramatic process, the essence and significance of which we have yet to assess - are involved in our conversation.

Russian Vesna has already organized a survey of our readers (); we also talked on this topic with the head of the DPR Alexander Zakharchenko, politician Oleg Tsarev, writer Zakhar Prilepin, publicists Dmitry Olshansky and Alexander Chalenko, political scientist Oleg Bondarenko.

The Russian Spring is a historical event on a global scale, which marks the beginning of the end of the post-Soviet period.

The Soviet Union did not collapse in 1991. Its disintegration is a long process, which has not yet been completed, even now, in the tenths.

The union, with a few exceptions, was disintegrating exactly along the internal administrative boundaries, drawn at random, without any logic. Therefore, all the new states faced the problem of national consolidation, and none of them fully coped with it. They could not abandon the Soviet concept of "titular nation" (more precisely, "titular ethnic group") and formed regimes in which different ethnic and linguistic groups have different amounts of civil rights.

National, or more precisely, ethno-national, consolidation in such regimes is carried out in the most primitive and harsh way: through the squeezing out of public and political life (and in the long term - out of the country in general) all who do not belong to the “titular” group. Such a policy inevitably gives rise to conflict, but in some post-Soviet states it was immediately stopped by the possibility of free travel abroad. After the departure of the “aliens”, ethno-national consolidation did arise, but if the “non-titular” groups could not or did not want to leave, the potential for conflict was accumulating.

Why was the internal Ukrainian conflict so delayed in time? Ukraine received a rich inheritance from the USSR. She came into independence as an industrial country with a developed agricultural sector, which had several consequences. Firstly, the inheritance had to be divided between the oligarchic clans, therefore the problem of ethno-national consolidation was not on the agenda for a long time, “non-titular” groups enjoyed a certain amount of rights.

Ukraine, by the way, is one of the two post-Soviet European states that have ratified the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages ​​(the second is Armenia).

Secondly, there was no need to leave industrial Ukraine without earnings - many had the opportunity to work in their homeland, which means that the potential for conflict was not absorbed due to the outflow of the population, it simply accumulated.

Thirdly, in an industrially developed state, and Ukraine is no exception, there are many people with a modern worldview: engineers, highly skilled workers, scientists. And they, of course, were not the best soil for the implementation of archaic ethno-national projects.

But time has passed. The property was divided, de-industrialization began. At some point, the ruling group returned to ethno-national consolidation based on the most rigid and archaic methods (among other things, they refused to implement the Charter of Regional Languages). Ukraine has returned to the point of the beginning of the collapse of the USSR, only without the previous industrial and scientific potential.

The “non-titular” groups felt the danger, but it was impossible - and unnecessary, to go abroad freely, as the disaffected leave Latvia and Estonia. And then the accumulated conflict potential was actualized. The "Russian spring" has come.

What is Russian Spring? This is the uprising of the Russian and Russian-speaking people in Ukraine against not only the current Maidan-Bandera junta named after Turchynov-Yatsenyuk, but against the entire policy of forcible Ukrainization, which lasted for the entire quarter of a century of independence.

Who are the Russians? These are Russians and Ukrainians, one people, as a rule, speaking the same native language - Russian. Who the Russian-speaking people are are, for example, the Greeks of Mariupol, two hundred thousand of whom mostly indicate Russian as their native language.

What did they rebel against? Against the very structure of the Ukrainian small empire, in which a small and very aggressive oligarchy, living by blackmailing Russia and extortion from the West, and in which there were almost no Ukrainians, allegedly dominated on behalf of the Ukrainian part of the citizens of Ukraine over its Russian part.

This rebellion against the policy of genocide, which was no less deadly because it was carried out not with a machine gun and a knife, but with the help of a school textbook and a soundtrack in the cinema.

Already in 1991-2001. It is not clear where Ukraine lost three million of the Russian population - from 11 to 8 million, who disappeared from the census. They didn't move to Russia, they just disappeared. If this is not genocide, then what is genocide?

Shame was the main instrument of anti-Russian terror. Russians were continually humiliated and made to feel ashamed of being Russian. All Ukrainian history textbooks were built on the enumeration of the crimes committed against Ukrainians by Russian "cats", as the "poetesa" Dmytruk put it.

All the propaganda was aimed at making the Russian ashamed that he is Russian, that he is a damned Muscovite who does not understand sovereign language, so that he crammed his Russian essence as deeply as possible - he began to pretend that he speaks in a language in which it is impossible to think, hide his Orthodoxy, hitting the Filaret schism, so that he, fearfully looking around, muttered that he was against separatism and federalism, for a united catholic Ukraine.

The feeling of fear was provided by the SBU - probably the strangest intelligence service in the world, which successfully coped with only two functions: the ethnic repressive police and the disinformation bureau.

Psychological preparation for the Russian spring went under the slogan "Give everything ours and bring down." Russians are Russians. Ukrainians are Ukrainians. Ukraine has every right, with complete indifference of our neighbors, to join even Europe, even the United States of Brazil.

But ... within their ethno-cultural boundaries. Ukraine cannot steal from Russia and the Russians what is part of the Russian world, the Russian heritage, and was inherited by Ukraine exclusively within the framework of territorial reshuffles within the USSR. The Russians do not claim any imperial domination over the Ukrainians and will not tolerate Ukrainian imperial domination over the Russians.

Such a ruthless surgical approach, one hundred percent Russocentrism of the Russian spring, came as a complete shock to Ukrainian chauvinists. And they turned on the usual hysteria "you are not our brothers", hoping to get the usual and expected reaction: "brothers, brothers, let's live together!" - in order to start blackmailing again.

But it turned out to be something exactly the opposite - the Russians willingly pick up and emphasize the indications of the contradictions between the two ethnic groups, seeing in this a confirmation of the fact that Russians cannot be juniors “in Ukraine”.

In this sense, the fate of Anastasia Dmitruk's funny poem "We will never be brothers" (written, by the way, in a non-brotherly language) is characteristic.

It aroused interest clearly disproportionate to its poetic merits, a kind of delight and a sea of ​​answers in Russia precisely because it quite clearly expressed just the Russian mood - a complete unwillingness to further maintain family ties with the hateful "nebrat", a desire to emphasize the superiority of the Russian developed urban civilization, which is equally both Great Russians and Little Russians built over the short-sighted farm world of the “Ukrainian”.

The rocking of the topic of “non-brotherhood” and alienation from Russians by the Ukrainian side led to the self-determination of the already Russian identity through the denial of Ukrainians.

And the very first results of this self-determination were impressive - Russia began to treat the fictional, project-based Ukraine coldly and dispassionately. As with an object. It was no longer the Russians that became the fuel for the Ukrainian national building, but Ukraine became the fertilizer for the blooming of the Russian national building.

Russia is no longer “concentrating”. It overflows the banks of artificial compression to its natural boundaries. The air of the Russian spring intoxicates and fills the chest with delight. I want this to continue.

Germany threatens that it will support sanctions against Russia "in the event of a division of Ukraine." Even I will support sanctions against the Russian Federation in the event of the division of Ukraine! Just share, please.

No need to be smart. Divide simply.

Ukraine - Ukraine.

Russia - Russia.

To each his own.

Ukrainian politicians and journalists with nationalist views, and after them the mass of ordinary citizens who supported the Maidan, like to label their opponents as “Ukrainophobes”, “Ukrainophobes” and haters of “everything Ukrainian”. An apt description of this unpretentious propaganda trick was given by Bulgakov's professor Preobrazhensky in his famous speech about "counter-revolution".

In fact, all our imaginary "Ukrainophobia" stems only from a sincere keen interest in the culture of Ukraine, and those who take caricature sharovarism or exotic Banderaism as genuine Ukraine feel an acute dislike for us.

Archetypes of the Ukrainian revolt

For example, such a vivid episode in Russian history as the Koliivshchyna - the uprising of the Cossacks and peasants in the Polish lands of Ukraine in the middle of the 18th century. Who among the citizens of well-known views does not identify with her heroes? At the start of the electoral campaign to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in 2012, opposition candidates, priests of the non-canonical UOC of the Kyiv Patriarchate and representatives of the national intelligentsia even held a knife consecration ritual in Kholodny Yar (Cherkasy region), sung by Taras Shevchenko in the poem "Gaidamaki". And in Odessa, one of the most comical characters of the local Euromaidan - a gentleman by the name of Gutsalyuk - refers to himself as "ataman of the Black Sea Haidamak Association."

And now let's put off the sharovarshchina together with the machine that is inappropriate in the Dnieper Ukraine. What will we see? The uprising begins with the fact that the Zaporozhye Cossack Zaliznyak travels around the cities and towns and brandishes the "golden letter" of Tsarina Catherine, seeing which the then "quilted jackets" and "aunts" grab their knives. I suddenly remembered this episode when I read on Facebook the status of the famous Moscow publicist Dmitry Olshansky that Russians, unlike Ukrainians, do not cope well with their problems without a state. They say that the uprising in Sevastopol without "polite people" would have drowned in the same way as the uprising in Donetsk.

“It's funny and sad,” writes Olshansky, “that in Ukraine our government is hindered by exactly the property of the Russian people that helps it so much in Russia. The Russians are not buzzing enough. Not because they feel good (...). But because there is no ORDER. As the Okhotny Ryad butcher told Nikolai Pavlovich in 1848: you give us orders, sir, and we will arrange such a revolution for you that it is dear to you. "

So, in 1768, in order to raise an uprising, Zaliznyak falsified such an order! Imagine, it's the same as if Pavel Gubarev, the current Ukrainian political prisoner №1, read the order of the President of the Russian Federation on Donetsk square: "Rise and go to take power!" From the point of view of the current "Haidamaks", the real Haidamak Zaliznyak is a traitor and collaborator who, at a difficult moment for the country, came out to the square under the flag of an "aggressive neighbor". And then what happened? Against the traitor and separatist Zaliznyak, a detachment of "National Guard" headed by Gonta was sent, so to speak, to "restore order." What did he do instead? That's right, changed the oath! Traitor and shame of the armed forces of Ukraine! Shame!

Further more. Catherine, in the end, brought in troops precisely under the slogan of protecting the humanitarian rights of fellow believers. An occupation! Moreover, if we swap “here” and “then”, then an indestructible wall of Poles, Jews and Haidamaks, who were besieged in Uman, who were known to do with the first two categories of citizens, should have stood against the Russian army. But in the 18th century there was still no Kiev media, so in reality everything turned out quite the opposite. Even the Haidamaks, who started this whole thing, were unable to withstand the regular army of the European type, which in this part of Europe at that time was only in Russia.

The nerve of history

This whole story, our native domestic history, is a direct analogy to the current return of Crimea, and not at all the "Anschluss" and "Munich agreement". Just in order to make this obvious conclusion, you need to know and love this very dear story at least a little.

And what a basis for analogies is provided by another key episode of Ukrainian national history - the Khmelnytsky region! Bogdan-Zinovy ​​Khmelnitsky is just a “level 80 separatist”! Even the annexation of Galicia by the Soviet Union in 1939 lies within the framework of the same historical logic, when the Ukrainian population of "similar Kreses", exhausted by the polonization and pacification, greeted the Soviet ones with optimism.

The main nerve of Ukrainian history is that every time the humanitarian, political and social pressure of the West ends with a surge of popular anger and the arrival of more or less polite, but always well-armed people from the northeast. And as a result, the territory engulfed in the uprising, in whole or in part, is part of Russia. That is why the real historical heirs of Khmelnytsky and Koliivshchyna are not self-styled mummers clowns, but the current popular uprising of the Ukrainian South-East, which has already received the name "Russian Spring".

There are serious suspicions that the site "Russian Spring" rusvesna.su is an American provocative project.

The site itself is of high quality. The newsgroup is also good, but there are some serious worrying points.

1. It is absolutely unclear who is behind this site. The "Contacts" heading has recently been absent.
2. When the "Contacts" heading existed, an e-mail address was specified at gmail.com. Now this address is shown at the very bottom of the page. This is the American postal service, to which, according to Snowden, specials have access. service of the United States. The naive militias sent the news, and after that the US probably reported on the pro-Russian citizens of Ukraine's SBU.
3. Pavel Gubarev says on his Facebook page that near Volnovakha "Right Sector" shot the Ukrainian military, and "Russian Spring" that the militia did it. An unknown "who" speaks on behalf of the militia and delivers the decisive news in the most unattractive way.
4. There were DDOS attacks on the site. At first glance, this indicates a pro-Russian mood of the site, however, during these attacks, a message was displayed that the site was protected by the American service CloudFare. Then on the site itself it was admitted that the attack was on the hosting, where the site itself is located. You can find out where this hosting is located only if you have administrative access to CloudFare. The DDOS attack was carried out at a time of information uncertainty. At the very moment of the attack, the Ukrainian media was flooded with news that Strelkov was desperately breaking into Russia, and the militias were defeated.
This looks like a clever tactic of knocking down urgent real information about the situation - to make "Russian Spring" the main resource, and then turn it off at the right time in order to confuse the militias.
5. The site has never collected any donations for its existence. What does it say about the available funding (?!).
6. One of the headings of the site is called "Uvaga!" (!) And it is on the Russian-language site !!! In Ukrainian it means "Attention". This suggests that the site was made by Ukrainians, not Russians.

There is another option: site administrators are idiots who trust Western services, but they don't believe in such simplicity.

Defeat of the National Guard Army, Novotroitsk Blagodatnoye. (Yesterday, contrary to the statements of the junta and the site "RUSSKAYA_VESNA", Strelkov's militias did not retreat and were not surrounded. This is a lie of this site)
Combat actions Volnovakha 22 05 14:

Only it is not clear who the turntables were fired upon, if the self-defense had gone entirely? Finished off pravosekov?

And this is the defeat of the National Guard and the army, Novotroitsk; Blessed ...:

There are less than a thousand of them, according to Strelkov. And this is out of 7 million inhabitants ?!

This is Slavyansk, there is also the Donetsk region and the Lugansk region, people are also needed there. Now battles are underway near Lysychansk, this is the Luhansk region. Tanks are going to Luhansk in the city of martial law.

Draw your own conclusions. And if something like that happens ... All the blame will lie with the inhabitants of the Republic and this SHAME will never be washed off to you.
Nahapurik: http: //www.site/users/4955658/post325340247/
22.05.2014