Share Button

Translated by Helga Green


Written by Andrei Babitski


The situation in Ukraine has fully revealed the inhumanity of token approach to matters of justice with its arrogance and disregard of human being and its total incompatibility with the imperatives of the Christian civilization.

The word “propaganda”, which has long fallen into disrepute and is often used by the representatives in our media sphere as bugaboo, in fact has zero infernal implications.  Propaganda represents nothing more than a method of delivery, which, owing to its instrumental value, cannot be evaluated under the notion of “truth versus lie” or “good versus evil” categories.

The competition of meanings starts from the point, when concrete contents and goals are attached to propaganda. It is not the most decent engagement – to advocate hate, hostility, pornography and intolerance – from the point of view of moral as well as from the point of view of the Criminal code, whereas the propaganda of truth, kindness and beauty is quite a charitable engagement.

When the individuals, who are trying to make the concept they advocate most attractive, act on the assumption of total comprehension of what exactly they offer to the consumer — a devilish plot or prescriptions of moral perfection — and their goods are fully up to the stated properties, it is absolutely pointless to raise undeserved grievances against propaganda.

You have been warned that it intends to assure you in the attractiveness of evil or, vice verse, in the inevitability of the triumph of good, and it is doing exactly what it considers to be the right thing. And you can exercise your right to guard your souls and nerves from the pernicious or beneficial influence of propaganda.

Serious problems emerge, when Western propaganda, claiming that it is acting in the interests of the truth, delivers as a final product a set of senseless and false token legal notions.  At that it paradoxically assures itself and the consumers equally that it implies norms and ideals, serving which is the goal of its (propaganda’s) existence. It assures its customers that it has not one jot retracted from its mission: spreading the values of the democratic society, tolerance, human rights, the triumph of law and other common sense notions that realistic people find quite sound and useful.

The situation in Ukraine has fully revealed the inhumanity of token approach to matters of justice with its arrogance and disregard of human being and its total incompatibility with the imperatives of the Christian civilization. In fact similar things happened before, but the machine of political racism started working with maximum performance since the start of Ukrainian conflict.

What I imply is that token approach suggests viewing the events not only on the basis of abstract legal categories — it excludes any possibility of a different take on the events. For instance, we are subjected to the rhetoric claiming that Russia had illegally annexed the Crimean peninsula in the course of three years already. In order for these grievances to seem fundamental and caused by the global concern about the rights and interests of a specific person, they are supplied with comparisons of the event to robbery of one’s neighbor’s property or its forcible extortion, etc. Such examples are used with the aim of transference of the situation from the level of abstract law to the every-day life level, in order for an individual to perceive the story’s likeness to the circumstances of his own life.

Meanwhile the approach itself and the above mentioned analogies have in fact nothing to do with the concern about human rights, as the Crimean population has been a priori excluded from the list of actors having any rights to defend their own interests.

The Ukrainian state is regarded as the victim in need of protection, thus, the discourse totally excludes the people living in Crimea and their needs. The bottom line is that only the territory is implied as the state property that has been annexed.

Inasmuch as the population cannot be regarded as state property, in is on default, automatically taken off the table in this allegedly property dispute. The same trick is pulled off with the analogies, in which it is the states that acquire human traits — they are presented as co-inhabitants of a multifamily unit, having a property dispute. Here human being is also not a subject of the discussion, and the story revolves around property again: the imaginary room of a shared apartment is viewed as an apple of discord.

Hence the astonishing inexplicable indifference to the fate of the people is easily read into the circulated by propaganda demands to return Crimea to Ukraine.

In fact, none among Western politicians and experts is wondering what is going to happen with two millions of the Crimeans, if, God forbid, Ukrainian rule is restored on the peninsula.  Nevertheless the result is very easy to imagine if you look at the current situation in Ukraine and in Donbass.

It is evident that tens of thousands of people will have to flee, rescuing their lives and freedom, thousands will fall victims to the cruelest political repressions: some will face long jail terms; others will perish in SBU secret prisons, and the Crimea will be submerged into bloody Nazi havoc.

The same is true about Donbass. When Merkel interprets the Minsk Agreement in the interest of Kiev — assuming that they are about turning over the border control to Ukrainian authorities – Frau cannot fail to realize that the return of Ukraine to the South-East will result in a bloody bath for its population.

The token approach ignores the seemingly important fact of an absolute democratic character of the Referendum on return to Russia, as it was the direct expression of will of the majority of the peninsula’s population.

Nevertheless, this approach is stubbornly picking on formal voting management failures, as if they can alter the meaning of the Crimean population’s volition.

As a result all the values and ideals claimed as the fundamental ones by Western propaganda and spread by its story, in reality cannot be found in this story: it is devoid of interest to human being and his rights; the value of territory and state order prevails; democracy exercised by the dwellers of the discriminated areas (Crimea and Donbass) is subjected to sneering and contempt, murder of thousand civilians in the South-East is not perceived as an act of genocide or a crime against humanity, complicated by mass war crimes. I mean, have you heard such opinions expressed by Western journalists?

This can also be applied to earlier conflicts – the Transnistrian, Abkhazian and Southern Ossetian. The demands of the West remain unchanged: it is Russia that should return the rebel territories to their former owners. The will of the people, populating the areas, their interests and their fate in the case of reintegration interest nobody.

Why does it happen so that the West, this stronghold of democracy, having reached us in terms of the products of its propaganda, comes out to be brassy barbarian, unwilling to recognize one simple and important truth: the territories, the lands that need to be passed from the wrong hands to the right ones — they are all places, where people dwell?

These people breathe, move, love, enjoy, mourn, raise children and have plans for the future — they want to live.

The answer to this question, in my opinion, lies in the deeply rooted in the Western mentality set of views, which some experts call social or political racism. Earlier I often came across Europeans or Americans, who in private conversations easily stated that the overwhelming majority of the Crimean dweller wanted to live in Russia, and Donbass was predominantly anti-Ukrainian. So what? Their choice is wrong, as it contradicts the only correct model of civilization development. They have no right to make such a choice.

The use of such token approach to law is just a way to deny the right of the people, which insist on possessing of another, different from the Western, subjectivity — cultural, ethnic, and political — the right to their own choice, the right to be recognized as human beings.

In fact, our liberal community, led by the spirit and letter of the Western propaganda, unshakably circulates all the inhuman clichés of political racism. So, let us make honest conclusions, both we and they: Guys! You look upon us without compassion and willingness to understand our otherness. We on our part are sorry for you, who have been lost on the terrains of civilization, having partially jeopardized your human essence and the ability to live according to the commandment: “Love thy neighbor as thyself”. We, certainly, failed as yet to introduce the notions of tactful attitude towards people, worked out by you, to the fundamental state structures, but you have extended such attitude to your folk only, and we apply it to everyone.

The unknown to you Christian avenue has been long formed in our mentality — a human being is a human being everywhere. That is why it is us who is Europe, and not you.

Share Button

Copyright © 2016. All Rights Reserved.