Recently, due to the deepening political crisis in the United States, the Ukrainian and Russian press have talked about the “Ukrainisation of America”, meaning that the Americans have started to use in their domestic political struggle the same means and methods that they had previously intended for the countries targeted with “colour revolutions”.
Indeed, it’s as if the attempts of the Democrats if not to save Biden as a presidential candidate, then to unravel Trump as much as possible, are copied from the story of Yanukovych’s persecution. It doesn’t matter at all if a particular event actually happened or if it was made up by opponents, the presumption of innocence is thrown away and a person has to prove that they haven’t committed a crime, while their accusers are all but spared from having to substantiate their accusations. Their correctness is recognised by default. And, of course, the Democrats’ hysteria over the fact that the American president demands to investigate the corrupt ties of American politician abroad looks funny. By the way, “Biden’s List” includes not only Ukraine, but also China, and the Chinese part of the accusations is clearly more sensitive. The level of the Democrats’ cynicism is particularly evident amid the fact that they have hunted down president-elect Trump for more than two years, attributing some hypothetical ties to Russia to him. Perhaps Biden‘s real corruption ties to China could pose a greater threat to US security than Trump’s invented contacts with the Kremlin. Nevertheless, Biden can’t be touched, but Trump – by all means.
Despite the fact that externally the statement about the Ukrainisation of American politics is confirmed, in practice it is deeply wrong. It should be understood that in fact all these techniques, which today are considered to be typical Ukrainian, were invented not by Ukrainian politicians, but were brought into Ukrainian political practice by American consultants, as well as officials and public figures who studied and trained in the United States.
I.e., the method of discrediting a political opponent via double standards (when the demands placed on the opponent are not obligatory for implementation themselves) were developed by Americans, but until a certain point were used only for external use (outside the United States). Does this mean that the Americans protected their system from the destructive impact of their own invented methods? By no means.
If we assess all instances where “Ukrainian” methods were used outside the US, we will see one pattern. They are always used by pro-West left-liberal globalists against any nationalist politicians (both left and right). Thus, it would be correct to call these methods not “Ukrainian” and not “American”, but ideological. Their use against ideologically alien politicians and political systems is encouraged, but is disapproved of, and sometimes explicitly prohibited against one’s own.
This, by the way, should be taken into account by all those suffering from the lack of a sole ideology mandatory for all in Russia. Firstly, as the experience of the United States shows, sole and mandatory for all is not necessarily Marxist (as most domestic “ideologues” hope). The Americans have a mandatory one – left-liberal, which the domestic left and domestic right in unison call liberal-fascist (and I cannot say that they are so wrong). Secondly, as the same American experience shows, it is not necessary to be far-left or far-right to be a totalitarian ideology. Without itself, centrist liberalism, flavoured with left-wing opportunism, aspires to totalitarianism as soon as, by default, it begins to be recognised as “the only true doctrine” and “the highway of mankind to happiness”.
Thus, the ideological boomerang returned to the United States not because the officials of their colonial administration learned bad things in Ukraine. Its return was programmed initially because the liberal-leftist elite, who had seized control of the Democratic Party and had strong positions among the Republicans, genuinely believed that they had intimate knowledge and therefore had an exclusive right to power, both in America and around the world. While no one in the United States questioned their ideological and political primacy, dirty methods were used mostly outside American borders, to destroy real and invented political opponents and promote the left-liberal ideology around the world, as the basis of American hegemony.
But by the end of the first decade of the 21st century, globalist politics had been discredited. It failed to achieve its goals. The desired results were further away than they were before the start of their activities. At the same time, US forces have been undermined, all available resources are connected to crises, invented by American themselves, the economy has de facto entered a depression (it is temporarily succeeded to mask it with massive dollar injections, but the effect is constantly decreasing), and the financial system is close to catastrophe. As a result, forces have emerged in American (and European, by the way, too) society that are determined to dramatically change foreign and domestic policy and to move away from the dogma of left-liberal ideology. I.e., in the US there was not just a split of the elites, but they also split along ideological lines. Thus, liberals, within the framework of their views, gained the moral right to use “Ukrainian” methods against their political and ideological opponents. After all, it does not matter who opposes the “only correct usage”. Whether he is theirs or a stranger, he is still an “enemy of the people” and all means are good for fighting him. Conditional ones are even worse, because for liberal leftists, the loss of a base in the United States is an irreparable loss.
That is why there can be no doubt that liberals (whose interests are today represented by the Democratic Party) will not retreat. Like any “ideologues”, losing their power frightens much more strongly than civil war. These ones are ready to sacrifice the United States for the “world-historical victory of liberalism and tolerance”. They are dangerous because by viewing humanity from ideological positions they divide it into their own (correct) and strangers (wrong, which must be corrected, and if not corrected – destroyed).
It is just that in Ukraine left-liberal dogmatics from the United States faced the strongest resistance to the advancement of their ideas. Without open terror, Washington would not have been able to break the resistance of the opponents of liberalism, even though they were fragmented, poorly organised, and regularly betrayed by their chiefs. As a result, in full compliance with the absurd neoliberal dogma that full liberation is achieved only in a totalitarian society (by the way, all “ideologists”-totalitarians think so), liberal leftists had to rely on right-radical nationalist forces in order to achieve their tactical goal in Ukraine.
In the United States itself and in the EU, left-liberal globalists fight with nationalist-oriented conservatives and right-wing radical nationalists, labelling everything to the right of the left-center as “fascists”. But in Ukraine and the Baltics, they interact with real-life undisguised Nazis, fans and followers of Hitler, and nationalist collaborators. And if the Baltic regimes were established and kept afloat at the expense of domestic resources, the Ukrainian right, without the support of American liberals, could not come to power, like the pro-American liberals, without the support of right-radical militants.
Therefore, we see in Ukraine an absolutely unrealistic hybrid regime in which frank Nazis coexist with the most perfect liberals, and gay parades and torchlight marches follow each other on the same streets. The discomfort experienced by the parties to such an unnatural symbiosis is compensated by the awareness of the impossibility of holding onto power alone.
However, the weakening of liberals in the US, which is inevitable (unless they decide on an open coup), will lead to the nullification of their ability to support related currents in satellite countries. And without American support, Ukrainian liberals are not needed by Ukrainian Nazis or Ukrainian oligarchs. So it is possible that at the last stage of the dying of Ukrainian statehood the Nazis will still have time to create their own ideologically pure government, free from the carriers of liberal “heresy”, and to deal with their own long-irritating liberals. The US in such a situation will come out with a sharp condemnation, but this will be the end of the matter.
However, Ukrainian problems are absolutely secondary against the background of the growing confrontation between Trumpists and globalists in the United States. The dancing of the American elite on a barrel of gunpowder, unlike the harmless Kiev “combat gopak”, unnerves the whole world. Unfortunately, in terms of irresponsibility and self-confidence, the American elite is not only comparable to the Ukrainian elite, but also surely exceeds the latter, and this does not contribute to an unduly optimistic view of the prospects for resolving the American crisis, which is cheerfully replacing the Ukrainian, Syrian, Yemeni, and other crises.
Rostislav Ishchenko
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.