"What are you starting, he has just another point of view. He just wants peace. He's just a skeptic. You need to talk to him ".
In fact, you do not need.
Once upon a time I believed in compromises. I considered that people proceed from rational. And then the Russian army came to my Crimea. Then she came to the Donbass and began to shoot my illusions.
It turned out that the entire post-Soviet discussion was not about what Ukraine to be - neutral, pro-Russian or pro-Western. It was about being Ukraine or not being. And it turned out that neutrality is only an intermediate stage for it to become a "Russian".
I do not accidentally write this word in quotes. Because the Donbass has proved - to dream about Russia does not mean to get Russia. After the peninsula, the pro-Russian philistine still had reason to believe in the "Crimean scenario" - when an alien army with small blood brings you ruble pensions. But after the east of Ukraine has turned into Somalia, believing in compromises with the Russian Federation can either be an idiot or a provocateur.
To hope for the "Russian world" in a situation where it has already triumphed on the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk, a person with a discouraged sense of self-preservation. Because the surrender of Ukraine does not mean a return to the era of developed Yanukovych. The loss of Kiev will mean a return to the era of developed "motorola".
We lived 23 years in the borderland and outside the block. We from year to year negotiated with Moscow and made compromises. But the problem is that any compromise is not enough for the Kremlin. He needs a buffer, but what will the destiny of the inhabitants of this buffer look like? It does not matter to him. The fate of Donbass is an illustration.
Sometimes history ceases to be a humanitarian science, and it becomes accurate. Three more than two. Seven seven - forty nine. There is no point in entering into discussions with those who claim the opposite. Some ideas are toxic. Some people will never grow up. Real age does not matter.
They may have different motives. Someone, tired of responsibility, wants a strong hand. Someone is nostalgic for youth and erections. Someone believes in a "rotten West" or is bored with a nomenklatura status. But none of the forms of nostalgia for the past does not make sense if it destroys the future.
And the question is not even to lumpen - they are not as rain-like. The question is to those who seriously invite me to negotiate with them. Who considers their point of view to be equivalent. Who tries to legitimize it at the level of public discussion.
And it does not matter what they are guided by. Someone may believe in a left-wing idea calling for the protection of the weak, forgetting that behind the back of this minority is one-seventh of the land. Someone, probably for so long served the Russian satellites, which cut off their own other ways to employment. Someone and now takes money from Russia. Someone is just a fool.
Discussion is impossible, as it is impossible to compromise between an oncologist and a charlatan. The victory of one will lead to the survival of the organism. The victory of another - to the obituary. The one who considers the earth flat, is legally equal to the one who knows about heliocentricity. But it will not occur to anyone to push them into a talk show to verify the arguments. And even more so - send an adept of elephants and turtles to teach in school.
War sharply narrows the space of the permissible.
Discussion about the Ukrainian future was possible before the Crimea and Donbass - all those years, while Moscow and Brussels were competing for Kiev. Now there is no discussion. Either you resist the aggressor, or do not consider him an aggressor. But then it would be more appropriate to act like Anatoly Wasserman.
Who left.
Editorial site is not responsible for the content of blogs. The editorial opinion may differ from the author's.
Join the group "Browser Blogs" on Facebook, stay tuned!.