Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard
Stalker Zone note:
This article contains an element of sarcasm that is used to present how foreign so-called “pro-Russians” and domestic “Ura-patriot” Russians think in terms of geopolitics and politics in general. Due to the nature of the Internet and the translation process, such sarcasm can’t always be made completely obvious. As a rough guide, it should be taken into account that according to their logic, Russia (or more precisely – Putin) must behave exactly like the US (aggressive; carpet bombing foreign countries; general muscle flexing), and there will be no consequences for this. To aid the reader in interpreting the expressions presented below accurately, sections that involve a degree of sarcasm are underlined.
Petro Poroshenko staged an act after which all Russian “patriots” from the right-left fifth column, which is ideologically guided by the theory “the leader is a traitor“, were supposed to put forward precisely this politician as their candidate for Russian President. After all, from their point of view, a real President of Russia who is concerned about the country’s prestige must start three-four wars per day, at the slightest pretext and against anyone, starting with Ukraine – which, in their opinion, should have been conquered long ago (and if we don’t do this, we will perish) – and ending with the US, so that it isn’t tempted to show off. Otherwise, just imagine – as of now they dare to say about us what we say about them, and don’t desire to voluntary cede to us the leading place in global politics. And, heaven forbid, our nuclear missiles still haven’t struck anyone. How disappointing.
“Patriots” don’t notice that they accurately describe the behavior of the US on the international scene, which led to Washington losing its position and hegemony (despite the fact that in the military-political and financial-economic plan the US remains the strongest power on the planet; for now). “Patriots” don’t muse upon this paradox: the strongest are ready at any moment to bomb anyone for the sake of preserving their hegemony, and the more they bomb, the more strongly this hegemony creeps away. Today it is reminiscent of not Trishkin’s caftan*, but of his memoirs about how wonderful the caftan he once had was. “Patriots” state that if the US is ready to resolve any issues by force, and Russia isn’t ready to do the same, then it means that Moscow is afraid and surrendered.
However, the longer Moscow “capitulates”, the more “friends it leaves in the lurch”, but for some reason its position in the world becomes more stronger. But this problem is not for the “patriotic” mind. Russian “patriots” like-for-like copy the reasoning of their Ukrainian brothers, calling to kill (in the best case scenario – to jail) inside the country and beyond its limits everyone who doesn’t please “patriots”. When this “patriotic” ideal is reached, the left-right “patriotic” alliance will split into two irreconcilable camps, which are going to find out during an internecine massacre who of them is more valuable for mother history – “monarchists” or “communists”. In general, the bright future of those who are worthy must be reached via the destruction of all those who are unworthy. The humane option – only those who don’t give in to “re-education” and continue to think independently are subject to elimination.
Scientists claim that Cro-Magnons occasionally mixed with Neanderthals – rarely enough so that the modern population of Homo sapiens could identify itself as the successor of precisely Cro-Magnons, but frequently enough so that Neanderthal genes could remain in the modern human population. I have such an impression that these genes are dominant in these “patriots”.
It is known that Neanderthals surpassed Cro-Magnons by their body mass and strength, and that they were also rather developed. They had social connections, rudiments of culture, religious views, and even basic medical skills. Flexibility was the only advantage of our ancestors. Moreover, if body flexibility was a doubtful advantage (they, in prehistoric times, did not do rhythmic gymnastics), then intellectual flexibility became a decisive argument in favor of Cro-Magnons. That’s why we, their successors, now live, and from the Neanderthals there are only fossilised remains.
Roughly speaking, during the solving of any problem, Neanderthals saw only one alternative: to strike or not to strike. Being strong, powerful, and massive, they relied on force, leaning on which, theoretically, they had to forever cement their own domination. However, it didn’t happen, and the last marginal communities of Neanderthals were forced out to the extreme West of Europe – to Spain, and disgracefully died out 39,000-40,000 years ago. However, some scientists consider that separate forgotten communities could hold on for 30,000-35,000 years ago.
This happens because, while solving these same problems, Cro-Magnons saw the availability of much more than two options. They had a wider choice of strategy. I don’t know whether there were “patriotic” adherents of the “the leader is a traitor” theory among them, who were suffering because of the insufficient eagerness of tribespeople to fight, but Cro-Magnons chose a flexible option of interaction with Neanderthals, avoiding a direct clash. And they won.
Prehistoric people didn’t posses writing and didn’t leave political treatises for us. This is compensated by the fact that the strategies of indirect influence are repeatedly described by historical mankind since ancient Egypt, Assyria, China, and up to now. Actually, all of them are defined by one simple thesis: it is necessary to reduce the number of potential enemies and to increase the number of allies. And for this purpose there is a need to be contractually capable. I.e., ready to compromise, to take into account the position of the other party.
We see how this works in the example of the geopolitical standoff between Russia and the US. Washington, relying on force, never conceded anything to anyone, and didn’t wish to pay for any service. The right to serve a hegemon, shedding blood and sweat for its interests, in itself was considered as sufficient remuneration. Besides this, it was possible to pinch scraps from the table of the hegemon after it devoured its latest victim.
Russia looked for a commonality of interests that allowed all participants of the latest compromise to receive benefits.
The bones from the table of the hegemon weren’t enough for everyone initially. And after the “hunting grounds” became empty by the beginning of the third millennium, it ceased to be enough even for the closest associates. Moreover, the cleverest of them started suspecting that they can become food themselves. At the same time, the friendship with Russia provided a worthy, with a tendency to improve, standard of living. And also, Russia could provide defence for its allies against the encroachments of the hegemon.
No, Moscow couldn’t and had no right to forbid the hegemon from regaling itself with those stupid little animals, which, like Ukraine, rushed to the slaughter. But an open and honest transition to its camp gave guarantees of the preservation of the sovereignty for South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Belarus, and Syria. The elites of certain countries were making their own choices. And they could have changed them – in favor of Russia or the US. But, at the same time, the States and their elites were disentangling themselves from the consequences of their choice.
The situation that developed as a result of the Russian strategy is known: over the past 15 years the US lost a considerable part of its authority, allies, and possibilities. And it found out that even the resources and possibilities of a superpower aren’t enough to provide excess presence and the suppression of potential opposition at all strategically important points of the planet. Moreover, the more the former neutrals and American allies passed into the Russian camp, the more difficult it became for the US to provide at least the illusion of former influence and control.
But, as is known, the historical experience and actual political examples don’t teach anything to anyone. That’s why Russian “patriots” demand that Russia works like the US, thus condemning America for its line of action. And Ukrainian “patriots”, whose Neanderthal instincts since February, 2014, in principle are not restrained by anything, try to impose the Ukrainian policy as a backwards version of the American imperial policy.
It is clear that regardless of how much you try to force imperial habits on Berdichev [“redneck” Ukrainians – ed], it won’t become a factor of international politics. That’s why the ambitions of Ukrainian Neanderthals are being realised in an internal political format.
The attack on Donbass, as a result of which they received a situation where there is “neither peace nor war, and the Minsk agreements should be implemented”, didn’t teach them anything besides the fact that fighting in the East [Donbass – ed] isn’t so profitable as it is dangerous. And they completely plunged into a showdown between the politicians and factions of Maidan. Of course, the main argument in the internal dispute was the big Neanderthal bludgeon.
Against this background Petro Poroshenko for a long time seemed to be a pleasant exception. He diligently, in accordance with the limited opportunities of the intelligence of a provincial confectioner, manoeuvred and tried to not become involved in a direct standoff, pitted enemies against each other, and only pathological greed prevented him from obtaining friends and allies. In general, there was the impression that it’s not a coincidence that the last ambassador of Russia in Ukraine Mikhail Zurabov maintained good relations with him. It looked like Poroshenko indeed learned something from his senior comrade.
However, today it is clear that Zurabov spent his effort and time on ungrateful material [Poroshenko – ed] in vain. Petro’s Neanderthal nature prevailed. As was said in the first phrase of this article, Poroshenko did a courageous act. He deported the irritating-to-him Saakashvili to Poland, as a readmission. Congenital Neanderthal straightforwardness got the better of the flexibility acquired by Cro-Magnons.
It would seem that Poroshenko got rid of an enemy who didn’t hide his desire to remove via impeachment the President ahead of schedule. The person who compromised the Ukrainian State by the very fact of his arrival to and long stay on its territory left Ukraine. The ungrateful international swindler – who was taken in by Poroshenko and who received from him the position of the governor of the Odessa region, and in return called him a corrupt official and a thief – was deported. Poroshenko showed his force. It is high time Russian “patriots” use his Ukrainian Neanderthal excellency as an example of how the Russian authorities should be.
And now let’s see what Poroshenko achieved by satisfying his legitimate desire for revenge. Saakashvili, over time, gathered more and more ridiculous meetings of “extras”. He preferred to eat well, to drink with pleasure, to sleep softly, and to lead a bohemian life and speak about his great plans for the future. “Mikhomaidan” turned out to be the longest and most ineffectual Ukrainian Maidan. Having stretched across nearly five months, in the middle of February, 2018, he was in a worst position than he was at the end of October-the beginning of November, 2017.
Saakashvili became a newsmaker of Ukrainian politics, but he didn’t become a tool to put pressure on Poroshenko. Moreover, over the last 1.5-2 months he split the already-not-so-united Ukrainian opposition. Being employed to work as the official face of the mutiny and a battering ram against Poroshenko, Saakashvili, instead of honestly waiting for the moment when the true beneficiaries of the putsch suddenly spring out from behind his back, began to declare his own ambitions. He reported that he ready to be Prime Minister (and not only Prime Minister) and save Ukraine in general.
I understand why he placed an emphasis on “Prime Minister”. He showed Poroshenko that between them there is nothing personal – simply business. As Petro Poroshenko is the President, Mikhail Saakashvili hinted that he would be satisfied with being his Prime Minister (temporarily, of course, before he grows feathers). Saakashvili showed Poroshenko that he was ready to betray the opposition and switch camps in order to be Prime Minster.
This person was a rare fortune for Poroshenko. He hindered the unification of his enemies, blocked street activity, compromised the idea of an anti-Poroshenko uprising, and gave Poroshenko the hope of lasting until the 2019 presidential elections. But Poroshenko threw him out of the country.
It is possible not to doubt that the ambitious former Georgian, former Ukrainian, and nowadays almost Dutchman will spoil things for Poroshenko, who offended him wherever he could. He will use all remaining ties with European politicians and any communication with the press – anything to form a negative image of Poroshenko in Europe. I.e.,Saakashvili went from being a factor of domestic Ukrainian politics (as a minimum – not dangerous) that is useful for Poroshenko to being a harmful, perhaps even dangerous factor of international politics working against Poroshenko. And Poroshenko did this with his own Neanderthal hands.
But this is not all. He also united the opposition against himself. Firstly, the fact of the expulsion of Saakashvili was absolutely correctly assessed by the internal political opponents of Poroshenko as the beginning of the presidential counterattack, designed to forcibly put an end to the discussion about coming to power. That is, they felt threatened themselves.
Secondly, after Mikhail Saakashvili’s removal to the open spaces of Poland and Holland the position of the people’s street orator became vacant. From the remaining oppositionists only Tymoshenko can fill this void. The others won’t have enough charisma nor qualifications. But Tymoshenko, anyway, is the holder of the highest (albeit a little bit vanishing) presidential rating in Ukraine. She is the main candidate among the leaders of the opposition. Having put street “extras” in her pocket, with her energy she will bear for Poroshenko a much bigger threat than the ambitious, stateless Saakashvili.
So, the unification of the opposition, the more than probable promotion of Tymoshenko as the sole leader, and also the transition to much more active actions against Petro Poroshenko must become the result of Poroshenko’s actions. The situation for the President of Ukraine suddenly and sharply worsened. But actions were done quite in the spirit of the demands of “patriots”. The only thing that doesn’t fit into the “patriotic” picture: the friable figure of a frightened miser billionaire in a wrinkled suit and worn-out boots doesn’t quite stretch to a “leader” in a brilliant uniform, with gold epaulets, on a white horse, under silk battle flags, using their saber to point to the road to victory. But this problem can be solved by the art of a smart portraitist.
But nothing can remove Neanderthal-“patriotic” instincts. Perhaps, 35,000-40,000 years ago, in the caves on the coast of Spain, the last Neanderthal grandmothers described to the last Neanderthal boys and girls the great victories of the Neanderthal heroes who never thought about how to lift up the fighting cudgel. And perhaps collectively they couldn’t understand at all how they were reduced to such a life and why the piteous Cro-Magnons, despite the many achievements of the great Neanderthals, reign all around.
And it isn’t excluded that some of these boys or girls were lucky enough to escape, join the Cro-Magnons population, and transfer their genes to the current generations of “patriots”.
Neanderthals ate each other without shame. Such were the times. This instinct lays dormant in modern mankind, stifled by a coating of high culture. But, as soon as the human’s inner-Neanderthal awakens and their hand reaches for the big cudgel, this instinct awakens in the human too. That’s why Ukrainian Neanderthals rush towards a cannibalistic repast, being unable to share power and influence in their backwards cave. That’s why similarly with pleasure domestic “patriots” – who, exactly like their Ukrainian brothers in mind, always have a minimum of one more candidate for Hetmen than the participants of the assembly of nobility – devour each other.
*A phenomenon that comes from a popular fable in which Trishkin attempts to repair a hole in his jacket, only to have to repair a new hole.
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.