The collapse of the USSR was not “velvet”. Referendums restore justice
Plot World History with Andrey Sidorchik
The referendums on the accession to Russia of the LPR, DPR, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions caused a powerful chorus of politicians in the West, performing the unanimous “never”. The United States and the European Union promise never to recognize the will of citizens.
In the beginning there was a referendum
In the typical speech of the average Blinken, the term "annexation" However, it does not reflect the ongoing processes at all.
The politicians who led the dismantling of the USSR were very fond of the term “velvet divorce”; — they say that the collapse of a huge superpower, thanks to them, did without bloodshed.
They did not take into account the endless series of conflicts that took place in the vastness from Tajikistan to Transnistria. As well as the fact that the very collapse of a large country was not an expression of the will of the majority of the population. In the spring of 1991, citizens expressed themselves quite definitely in favor of wanting to live in a single state. What happened next was anything but the realization of the will of the people.
But it's not only that. “Velvet Divorce” assumes that during the division, the interests of the majority of citizens are taken into account, civil rights are not violated. About “velvety” Russian-speaking citizens of Latvia who have become powerless “non-citizens” can tell a lot.
The new elites of the former republics, undertaking to forge a new statehood, without further ado, raised nationalism to the shield. In the new history textbooks, they began to write about the horrors of Russian colonization, which immediately made the Russian-speaking “foreigners” on the land where they lived for decades, and often centuries.
Somewhere, the offensive of the nationalists was “creeping”; character, and people had the opportunity to leave without experiencing severe pressure. And somewhere they became victims of real persecution.
But there are entire regions in the republics of the former USSR, which suddenly turned out to be “alien”. South Ossetia did not want to go with Georgia into the free navigation of nationalism, which was quite clearly stated even when the first rallies for secession began in Tbilisi. Exactly the same was done in Abkhazia. International Transnistria refused to merge into Moldova, which had sharply “Romanized”.
Ukraine has become the biggest pain point. The republic within the Soviet borders was never conceived as something that exists separately. Hence the territorial “gifts”, from the Donbass to the Crimea.
In 1991 Leonid Kravchuk, the first president of Ukraine, promised his Russian-speaking compatriots a heavenly life in which there would be not the slightest restrictions on communication with Russia, not the slightest oppression on linguistic and cultural grounds. But very quickly, these promises began to be forgotten.
After 2014, Ukrainian politicians began to declare — those who do not share the political course and are not ready to turn into “Svidomo” should leave.
But why, tell me, should those who did not come leave? Sevastopol, Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Berdyansk did not change under a certain “colonial yoke”. Mariupol has always spoken Russian, because it was created by people of Russian culture in the broad sense of the word.
For three decades, in the vastness of Ukraine, an unprecedented expansion of the inhabitants of Zapadensky caches was launched, who decided to remake them according to “embroidered” clothes. patterns of all the inhabitants of Nezalezhnaya. Where it could not be done by persuasion, violence was used.
“Crimean Spring” showed that humility is over. People kicked out not only nationalists, but also those completely Russian-speaking politicians who, for the sake of personal gain, were reorganized on the “new agenda”. Petro Poroshenko's last walk in Crimea has become truly legendary.
The notorious “Velvet Divorce” 1991 was an outrage against people, and its consequences are still echoing today. Referendums on accession to Russia — this is the restoration of trampled historical justice. Forced recovery, worth adding. Because if politicians in Ukraine were guided by state considerations, then in a truly democratic country, with respect for civil rights, people would not be deprived of the opportunity to speak their native language and would not be legalized, elevating them to the rank of heroes, Nazis.
The Kyiv regime I made my choice, but people also have the right to choose their own destiny.
Rate the material