In explaining the causes of the peculiar Military Operations, Russian mainstream propagandists usage respective narratives. They most frequently tell the communicative that everything started in 2014, with the celebrated Majdan and the overthrow of the power of Viktor Yanukovych (leader of the organization of the Regions), who tried to implement a policy of balance between Russia and the European Union.
He was forced to flee against the designation of the legitimacy of the presidential election by Russia, France and Germany. Majdan was most likely inspired mainly by secret US services, which had their strategical objectives, both towards Ukraine, Russia and the European Union, but besides by another countries. Majdan, however, would not be possible without the support of Ukrainians, and even any Russian oligarchs and social groups convinced of this by effective Ukrainian propaganda. Majdan, however, was not the direct origin of the war, it was the consequence of processes that have been taking place for decades, was a phase point in the improvement of socio-economic, political and ideological and global processes.
For a change, Ukrainian and Western propaganda would most readily see the beginning of the conflict on February 22, 2022.. Then it would not be essential to explain to 49 people burned alive in Odessa, an “anti-terrorism operation” armed with the usage of tanks and aircraft in 2014 against Donbas, a default with charges for Russia for energy resources. Nor would she gotta explain how the Ukrainian authorities managed to bring her from the country most developed throughout the russian territory to economical ruin even before the war broke out. inactive over COVID, for 10 years GDP in Ukraine has not increased, 3 million Ukrainians worked abroad. Even in 2022, despite sanctions, GDP in Russia fell by 2.2%, and in Ukraine, according to authoritative data, fell by over 40%. GDP in Ukraine is almost 3 times lower than in Russia.
From the point of view of Ukraine, the main thesis about the origin of the present war, adopted straight from the Nattian propaganda, is that Vladimir Putin intends to rebuild the Russian empire and so tries to disrupt Ukraine on her way to the West. This conflict must so be taken as a wake of the main conflict.
In order for Putin's view of the threat to Russia to arise and to be even to any degree true, certain processes and the underlying social contradictions must already develop. There was an expansion of Russian capital, and he tried to take as much as possible and strengthen himself, control and cut off coupons from Russian shares in Ukrainian economics. The another side of this expansion was to corrupt the economical and even authoritative elites of Ukraine, Georgia, another erstwhile republics of the USSR – which was conducive to calculations that since economical tentacles had already taken over these zones, the next easy step should be to vassalize these countries.
But after the first successes, competition was encountered from Ukrainian, German, English, French, Turkish, Chinese and Polish capital. The Russian capital did likewise in the territory of another “brothers” of alleged close abroad countries and there besides encountered sharp opposition from various parties. Ukrainian capital, as the only fair one, wanted to make more and more money on its resources and services and on the transfer of goods from Russia to Western Europe and from Western Europe to Russia. The leitmotiv of Ukrainian nationalism has been the formation of a false belief that Russian capital has bought up all of Ukraine, and Ukrainian capital is powerless and needs the support of the nation, political and military support of abroad capital. And these are the most general causes, the essence of the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine, passionately expressed and defended by both parties.
The average Ukrainians say that they only wanted to live differently, as in the West, and Russia could not bear it, due to the fact that Russia could never become a part of the West. They said that due to the fact that that's how they saw the world, and that's what the conflict seemed to them. But is there any point in Russia proving that Ukraine cannot become part of Western culture? Well, from the point of view of the nation’s right to same - determination, there is no reason for that. This is simply a full understandable quest for a poorer nation to live a better life than before, and in this endeavour it can usage national ideology, equality, freedom, or justice. Any falsified and nonsense ideology is good, if only to accomplish its purpose. But it happened that the causes of the war were not related to the needs, interests and imaginations of the widest masses of society, but to the interests of financial capital, the interests of large corporations and their large states.
The work of the Ukrainian ruling squad was primarily to supply economic, social and political safety for the improvement of the nation as a whole. Even safety in the military field can be ensured by various, not only military methods, and not only mandatory membership in the military bloc, as was and is the functioning of most states outside military structures. But safety can besides be achieved through peaceful, economical and cultural cooperation, common compromises and concessions. Squad Volodymyr Zelensky adopted as a dogma 1 solution – joining NATO, knowing what this could lead to. This, as well as another hostile actions towards Russia, contrary to election promises, was brought to their own country by danger and the pretext of Russia was given to launch a peculiar Military Operation. Tossing their own population as victims in the war against Russia is the eventual proof of the inadequacy of the authorities at the head of Ukraine, or demonstrates their complete moral degradation. Taking hundreds of thousands of victims in the light of another possibilities, even if they may lead to concessions, does not seem reasonable, but is influenced by people's economical and political interests.
Each side of the conflict can in many ways present its reasons and its causes. The causes may be deeper than the average citizen, looking at the problem through the prism of his needs, interests and ideas about the functioning of the modern world. Each organization tries to prove that specified a development, which is called peculiar Military Operations, did not want and did not wish. Thus, war seems to be a historical and nonsubjective necessity for which no 1 is to blame, or the opposing organization is to blame. And those who believe especially powerfully may view it as a divine punishment.
According to Sergei Periesliegin (a well-known Russian commentator for 15 years conducting military planning courses at the FSB Academy), although Russia is not only Orthodox, and not all share the authoritative ideology of the Russian mira, it is nevertheless an unacceptable model of life for liberal democracy with LGBT, transhumanism and euthanasia. Ukraine is besides a Christian and spiritual country, possibly even more than Russia. But Ukraine succumbed to the temptation of the Western model of life, but did not overestimate and overcome this temptation from the point of view of its conditions and possibilities and geopolitical position. By accepting the temptation of the Western model of life, it should accept all that was active with specified temptation. As a result, whether Ukraine wants it or not, it must defend its first position, against what neoliberal culture carries, where the death of billions of people is predicted in the name of the interests of the "golden billion".
Periesliegin stated that anyone who has any humanistic education cannot accept this imagination of the world. But by yielding to the temptation of Europe and the West, Ukraine must play this game to the end and prosecute its alien culture goals. However, regardless of the reign of neoliberals in Russia, they must act as a consolidating force of all forces dissatisfied with inclusive capitalism. Russia and Ukraine, according to Periesliegin, are full symmetrical towards each other, Ukraine has its future and Russia has itss. But there is besides a clear asymmetry – Russia whether it wants it or not, is now fighting as a neoliberal state and together with the church against inclusive capitalism for a Christian model of life. Ukraine, whether it wants it or not, is fighting for inclusive capitalism, for funds that run its territories, for the first image of the world. Ukraine in this war, although it sounds like a paradox, cannot win, and that is due to the fact that in the case of triumph its inhabitants will not like the results of this triumph very much. The joy will then begin with a sea of shed tears. As a consequence of victory, it will receive conditions of its operation far worse than before the war. Gradually more Ukrainians are beginning to realize this.
However, the choice made during the war and sealed with blood in the battlefield can no longer be cancelled, and Ukrainians are forced to proceed in this unfavorable direction. And they will fight “to the last Ukrainian” as long as the West delivers weapons. Therefore, she notes Sergei Periesliegin – it is simply a civilian war with elements of the external war, due to the fact that as always in civilian war they fight each another past and future. And Ukraine should say, “You are the past, you want the return of the erstwhile system, and we lead to inclusive capitalism, and that is the future.” Russia answers: “Your future is so deep in the past that you are even afraid to think about it. And we do not offer anything peculiar in return, but in the end, what you want, we will not let you.”
According to Sergei Periesliegin, the answer to the question: where is the future, and where is the past? – is now decided in the field of combat. And that's what civilian war is all about. Periesliegin, however, reserves that this does not, of course, justify the casualties suffered by both sides of the war. But this is besides a civilian war between a mercenary labour force and corporate owners; unfortunately, the battlefield is covered with various national and political flags that completely confuse the fighters, and many will depend on the results. This should be kept in mind, listening to reports of successes in the attack or in the counterattack. civilian war in the United States besides broke out just due to the fact that the states of the South wanted to separate and live their own way.
All this poisoned Ukrainian-Russian relations, and it could not have been otherwise. This all consisted of the objectives of the peculiar Military Operations as defined by Putin: denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine and its release from a gang of drug addicts.
The main origin of all conflicts...
[Cheeks (First War – 1994-1996; Second War – 1999-2009), Ossetia and Ingushetia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Georgia and Abkhazia, the civilian War in Tajikistan (1992-1997) and Kyrgyzstan (2010), Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Transnistria, and Gagauzia, Ukraine and Crimea, Ukraine vs. Lugansk and Donetsk Republic] is the dissolution of the russian Union, the collapse of socialism and the improvement of contradictions appropriate to capitalism. Strong national and border contradictions existed in Tsarist Russia and the russian Union, but they were suppressed by the fact that 1 state was inhabited. It fell apart due to socio-economic interior contradictions, a fierce class struggle, which the current Russian hurra-patriots do not want to know and do not want to analyze. Meanwhile, the dissolution of the russian Union in a way contrary to the law of the time, without considering past disputes and conflicts, caused conflicts to be inherited by the recently created states and accompanied by them to this day. The strongest has so far been the conflict of the Russian Federation with Ukraine. But all weakening of Russia will consequence in further conflicts of the russian republics with their neighbouring states that were part of the USSR.
The beginnings of these contradictions are found even in alleged reforms Alexei Kosygin, erstwhile socialism began to treat capitalist methods erstwhile a number of economical and political errors occurred, and possibly besides informed actions, in this direction after the 20th legislature of the CPR, as part of the fight against the "cult of the individual". comparatively young socialist social relations began to fall apart. Even within russian society, this steering layer began to form, which later became mostly capitalists (burge), or a political decision created a class later called oligarchs. This did not begin in the years of the perestroika, the "failure" Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Jelcin. The contradictions of russian society were compounded by these contradictions and conflicts, which brought with it a public capitalist transformation. The contradictions brought about by the capitalist transformation throughout the russian territory have been compounded by the contradictions inherent to imperialism.
At the same time, it should be stressed that nationalist sentiments began to make and strengthen comparatively early, even in the times of the USSR, erstwhile individual national republics and regions began to receive the freedom to have the profits they had from businesses in their territory. They began to intensify their particularisms and efforts to keep their profits at home, to keep everything in their own direction, and to “carry on to Moscow as small as possible”. More profitable jobs did not want to share profits with other, little successful ones on the market. At the same time, the blame for all the difficulties was on the “mountain” and “center”. These sentiments, formed first among the governing elite, which could not cope with the inevitable in specified a model of economical governance of expanding contradictions and difficulties, and on the basis of commodity-monetary relations, began to spread very rapidly among the masses of working nations, and were additionally with all power and perfidia fueled from the outside. During the period of the capitalist transition in Russia and adjacent republics, more conflicts were only in Africa and the mediate East, which shows how drastic the capitalist social contradictions were.
The collapse of "real socialism", the dissolution of the russian Union and the transition of fresh states to a capitalist strategy with its own disparity and contradictions, deindustrialisation and privatisation of the economy and social problems have led to a change in the structure of the russian societies, a change in the structure of interests and their tightening. Therefore, whatever happens, the permanent and full overcoming of the current crisis, the transition from war to relationship between nations, as part of inclusive capitalism, does not seem possible.
The dissolution of the russian Union...
had socio-economic and political effects. The social structure and interests of individual classes have changed. Since Russia's war with Ukraine has been fought more than 30 years since the collapse of the russian Union, not everyone sees the link between the 2 events. Ukrainian nationalism has been known and tolerated since the first years after the October Revolution, and has been softened, among another things, by the Ukrainians taking over the most crucial offices in the PCD and the russian state, and Ukraine from a backward periphery belonging to respective states in the past, has been transformed into the most developed republic of the russian Union. It was, of course, due to the persistence of nationalism that made it possible to believe that Ukraine produces more than it keeps to itself. Ukrainian nationalism was perpetuated erstwhile it was essential to repay those drawn before the another republics “long”. Moreover, relations between these countries have been more dynamic since the beginning of the capitalist transition, as there are not 2 parties active in the conflict in Ukraine, but at least 4 parties, and each of them pursues its objectives.
The causes of the war in Ukraine are completely different and frequently opposed to what the Kiev authorities besides say. The awareness of the causes of the war is determined by the alleged information field, i.e. by authoritative propaganda, due to the fact that all opposition in Ukraine has been liquidated and with it all independent sources of information. On the another hand, the awareness of the causes of the war in Russia is confused by ideological references to the “National War”, the maintenance of the “Russian mira”.
The collapse of the russian Union was an economical disaster for all the nations and states that formed it, and Russia as the present centre suffered peculiarly dense losses, with the failure of its position. Enterprises were breaking down, ties between individual republics and enterprises were breaking down. All the russian states have plunged into economical chaos and crisis. Russia was not able to aid individual republics, nor, according to the declared ideology of neoliberalism, had even specified plans. Everyone was looking everywhere for the causes of the difficulties, but not at home.
In the attitude of the leaders of all the russian republics there was a contradiction: on the 1 hand, they called for neoliberal solutions in all areas, and on the another hand, in practice the origin of inertia (inertia) of reasoning prevailed. The inertia of organization structures (forms of articulation and representation of interests, forms and channels of regulation of the functioning of the system) in relation to variable conditions of balance, consistency and continuity of the system, as well as, of course, human mentality, imagination, delusions, pious wishes. specified inertia was the management of the russian economy. The fresh russian authorities did not control from a network of ties to the USSR to economical interactions already on different conditions, while breaking the Russian monopoly in economical trade with erstwhile republics. The inertial character is besides the continuity of imperial self-determination and well-being of the Russian political elite, the nostalgia behind the position of Elder Brother.
Russian management in 1990. he had a misconception of modern capitalism and shared delusions; with the stubbornness worthy of neophytes he practiced the principles of neoliberal bourgeois economy. And in consequence to this, many politicians in the republics were happy to express opinions that Russia as an empire ended eventually, and began to search for the best economical unions and global alliances for its countries. However, from this chaos, respective major directions of action of republics developed. First, direct submission to the West, which was treated as who "can give more".
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were surely among those countries, where the economical crisis was more severe than in Russia itself. But due to the fact that they were tiny peoples countries, so to aid them and to take full control of them, they did not require large financial resources from the West. Taking them under their wing, the losses of the European Union and NATO took into account that they held an crucial strategical position due to the fact that they blocked Russia's connections to the Kaliningrad Oblast and the Russian fleet's exit from Petersburg to the Baltic Sea.
Role of Ukraine
Another function was played by Ukraine. It had immense territory, access to the Black Sea, ports, fleet, well-developed atomic and water power, immense amounts of high-performance arable land, deposits of many natural materials. The standard of surviving and supply of agricultural products was so higher than in another russian countries. Ukraine was in the best economical and industrial situation of all the russian countries, had the best developed infrastructure. The situation in Ukraine in the 1990s was better than in Russia and developed comparatively quickly, with 1 very crucial exception. Ukraine has not put before itself the task of choosing a fresh direction of development, nor for the presidency Leonida Krawczuk (1991-1994), nor Leonida Kuczma (1994-2005). And she was only correct in solving current problems of tactical importance.
The 3rd direction was taken in the first period after the dissolution of the USSR of Belarus and Kazakhstan. According to Sergei Perieslegin, they built a neo-Soviet system, trying to preserve all that remains of the russian Union, businesses, economical ties and social relations. Kazakhstan has implemented a large task related to the transfer of the capital. The implementation of projects in Belarus and Kazakhstan was greatly influenced by individual leaders: Alexander Lukashenko and Nursultan Nazarbayev. But after Nazarbayev left, the situation began to deteriorate rapidly due to the deficiency of a strong successor. Azerbaijan followed the same way as Belarus and Kazakhstan.
According to Sergei Perieslegin, Ukraine did not build anything in 1990, it did not invest, there was a process of deindustrialization and dominance of neoliberal economy. alleged businessmen took care of what the russian Union left them. It was to a large degree at the expense of Donbas, which was developed according to the needs of the full russian Union. For Ukraine itself, Donbas with the developed dense manufacture in these sizes was superfluous and either way it began its liquidation as an industrial center, partially through sale, partially by closing bets. The same happened in Russia, which only intensified problems in Ukraine and fueled Ukrainian nationalism. Everywhere in the 1990s, predatory capitalism was the same. It was a real war against everyone.
Prior to the collapse of the strategy of socialist states, the situation in the West was besides difficult. Among the extremist Russian publicists, there are even opinions that if the russian Union could last for a fewer more years, there was a threat of a large crisis and socialist revolutions in many Western countries. This is evidently a publicist exaggeration, but no uncertainty thanks to the earlier decline of “real socialism” the economics of the European West countries could owe their improvement after 1990 to the takeover of markets and increased exploitation of Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Bulgarians, Romanians, nations of broken Yugoslavia, as well as inexpensive natural materials from Russia. These funds were adequate for the West to sustain capitalism for another 20 years.
But the crisis of 2007-2008 was not overcome; GDP in most of the most developed capitalist countries has stagnated properly. And in view of the stagnation and wealth of the narrow elite, this meant an increase in the exploitation of most societies and an increase in contradictions and threats of social conflict. Now the resources then gained by the West are exhausted. There are a number of inhibitions due to rising prices for energy natural materials. If even the last 7% of Russian gas is blocked, it will become inevitable to crawl into Western Europe. There is no longer specified aid for the Western economy as inexpensive labour and export opportunities to fresh markets. The arrangement of economical and military forces has changed. Now, economical and diplomatic imperialism in Western Europe and the United States are trying to bring Russia to order, master its vast market, and catch up with its natural materials on new, more favourable conditions, and slow down the improvement of China, India, Indonesia and any African countries. Ukrainian black people could supply a supply of inexpensive food. Feared by the imagination of the structural crisis and revived by the imagination of possible gains at the expense of Russia and a number of developing countries, Western countries are so talking about the request to keep U.S. hegemony and reject the anticipation of building macroregions and a multipolar world.
CDN
Dr Edward Karolczuk
Think Poland, No. 37-38 (10-17.09.2023)
