Alik Bahshi
Verified User
Alik Bakhshi
Losers of Western Democracy
Losers of Western Democracy
The victory in the Cold War, the collapse of communist ideology in the Warsaw Pact countries and the subsequent collapse of the USSR convinced the West that from now on the era of the triumph of Democracy and justice for all peoples equally had arrived in the World. However, the reality turned out to be very far from desired. In this regard, the West made the same mistake as the communists, who tried to create a new man, not taking into account the individual characteristics of each person associated with heredity, considering genetics a pseudoscience, mockingly calling it a whore of imperialism.
I would like to again refer to my article "The People's Destiny, or Each Cricket Has Its Own Hearth" (1), in which I linked the fate of the people with heredity, which in turn is reflected in the mentality and other elements characteristic of each nation separately, which affects their differences, both in the visual sense and in the behavioral one. Humanity consists of many nations. It is no accident that we say "Western democracy", thereby involuntarily emphasizing that for others, for example, the nations of the East, an attempt to introduce it into public consciousness in its pure Western form, and even more so to present it on the bayonets of marines, as was done in Iraq, will fail, or it will be rejected, as was the case in Russia. Western, or more precisely Western European democracy is suitable for the nations of Europe, and even then not for all. Thus, the Slavic nations, especially the Eastern ones, experience significant difficulties with the introduction of democracy. After the collapse of the USSR, it was precisely the non-Slavic nations, the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians who accepted it without problems. A completely different effect is in the case of the Russian people, who were spitting bloody tears from democracy until Putin appeared, transforming Western democracy into a new, but acceptable for Russians hypostasis, calling it sovereign, that is, democracy for the sovereign, in other words, returned the Russian people to their usual state of serfs under the Master, whose decisions are unquestioningly carried out, thereby freeing the people from any social problems. It is not for nothing that Putin accuses the West of intending to encroach on the sovereignty of Russia, that is, on his personal Putin's sovereignty. In short, for Russia as an empire, and Russia was an empire and remains one to this day, democracy is nonsense. (2)
The Ukrainian people, as ethnically close to the Russian people, instead of democracy faced monstrous corruption, however, as happened in Russia. Instead of joining the EU and NATO in time, following the example of the Baltic nations, Ukraine played a long game of democracy, choosing between parliamentary and presidential forms of government, until they waited for Russia's military intervention. And yet, the main mistake of the Ukrainians was that they succumbed to the temptation of political crooks who literally bought them with promises, including cash rewards, for seats in parliament and government. The only goal of these would-be democrats was to enrich themselves by selling off everything that could be sold, former state property, including weapons. The greed of the people's representatives for the loot was often accompanied by swearing and fighting right in parliament. They were not concerned about the country's security; how could they lease out the naval base in Sevastopol, which, as I predicted back in 2006, served as the trigger for Russia's invasion? (3) Western leaders were so afraid of these parliamentary hucksters that they persuaded Kyiv to hand over nuclear weapons to Russia so that they would not, as was assumed, end up in the hands of Islamic terrorists. Far from understanding the mentality of the Russian people, seasoned with Great Russian chauvinism and an imperial worldview, they believed so much in Russia's choice of democracy that they forgot about the main sponsor of international terrorism, which the Kremlin had been for the entire 20th century. (4,5) This was their colossal strategic mistake, which led to tragic consequences. Moreover, the guarantors of Ukraine's security, the United States and Great Britain, were obliged to take military action to protect Ukraine from the war unleashed by Russia in accordance with the Budapest Memorandum, but so far, 12 years later, nothing of the sort has been undertaken on their part. Thus, Barack Obama, when the Russian army was already on Ukrainian territory, flatly refused to provide assistance to the Ukrainian people in the form of lethal weapons. This was a real betrayal on the part of the United States. It is interesting that even after the Sochi Winter Olympics, which were shameful for Russia, the West could not be convinced that Russia had not changed at all after the collapse of Communism and remained the same country with an authoritarian government and a totalitarian regime, which Ronald Reagan very accurately defined at the time, calling Russia the Empire of Evil, which has always been such, and remains such to this day. (6) It should be noted that, thanks to Putin's efforts, Russia can also be called the Empire of Lies. (7) Well, just like Victor Hugo said: "Lies are the embodiment of Evil".
If the American presidents who followed Reagan had understood and taken into account the importance of the national mentality in history, in this case the mentality of the Russian people in its historical past, which is projected onto the present and future (1), then, foreseeing the impossibility of democracy in Russia, they would not have helped at a time when the catastrophic state of the economy could not stop the already begun process of the collapse of the empire, then many circumstances associated with Moscow's aggressive policy could have been avoided. In my article “Ukraine as a Victim of the West’s Immorality towards Russia,” written in December 2013, I predicted that “the euphoria that Russia has chosen the democratic path will, I think, soon give way to deep disappointment” among the suckers of Western democracy. (8)
I also wrote in explanation:
“Using the unwillingness of the large Russian population of Ukraine to live in a democratic environment and the separatist sentiments associated with the imperial worldview, Putin, under the pretext of protecting their rights, can send troops and split Ukraine, presenting the West with a fait accompli. The main question is how ready will the West be to swallow this bitter pill? Of course, a war will not start over Ukraine, Putin understands this perfectly well, but what actions, most likely of an economic nature, will follow, and are they so terrible for Russia? Will the West show integrity or will it surrender Ukraine, as it surrendered Chechnya, allowing Putin to cruelly deal with the Chechen people? Or will it continue to buy Russian energy resources, preferring a purely pragmatic approach, not taking into account Sakharov's fair words that the most pragmatic approach is a moral one. One thing is clear here, Russia will not invade Ukraine before the Sochi Winter Olympics, so as not to repeat the failed Moscow Olympics of 1980. Therefore, the Ukrainians need to hurry up with joining the EU before the end of the Sochi Olympics."
Unfortunately, the elected representatives of the Ukrainian people were not concerned about the fate of the country, two months after the publication of this article, the Russian army invaded Ukraine with the complete inaction of the guarantors, who, as it turned out, in the most shameless way simply deceived the Ukrainian people, leaving them alone in front of a treacherous and impudent enemy who decided to destroy the country together with its people, if we proceed from the frank admission of the Russian Fuhrer that Ukraine as a country was created by Lenin, and the Ukrainians are in fact Russians.
It is time for the West to understand that the World Evil is hiding behind the walls of the Kremlin, the current owner of which has set himself the goal of restoring the empire within the borders of the Soviet Union, using a significant superiority in weapons over the countries of Russia's former colonies. The only thing that caused Putin's concerns was how adequate the reaction of NATO countries would be. And here, it must be said, Putin turned out to be an excellent and calculating strategist.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the West, inspired by the victory in the Cold War, reduced its defense spending. Seeing its main enemy defeated, a sense of serenity took hold of Western politicians, they lost sight of the internal social processes taking place in Russia. The expected democratic changes in Russia did not happen, for the simple reason that Democracy cannot take place in a society of serfs, burdened with a relict imperial worldview. The emergence of the Master of the Slaves was fateful for the Russian people and, moreover, it was in demand, which was immediately reflected in the forced return of the breakaway Chechnya to the bosom of the empire. This suppression of freedom was not considered significant by world democracy. Tolerant Western democracy did not care about the fate of the Chechen people. Well, so what, a small Chechen people, and Muslims at that, again found themselves in the "prison of nations". The Russian people quite rightly perceived the victory over the rebellious Chechnya as Putin's personal merit, which undoubtedly ensured the support of the Russian public in the war he started with Ukraine.
The West's conviction in the irreversibility of the democratization process in Russia was so great, despite the gradual zeroing of democratic institutions, that it allowed "friend Putin", as the narrow-minded Bush Jr. called him, to calmly prepare for revenge without complaints from the West for 15 years from the moment he came to power. Democratic countries, especially European ones, which had curtailed their military programs, found themselves completely defenseless against Russia's colossal quantitative advantage in tanks, artillery, missiles and other necessary weapons for waging a conventional war. In order to provide military assistance to Ukraine, it was necessary to reopen the production of shells, missiles and bullets, which had been closed after the victory in the Cold War. I am sure that Putin, when he started the war, foresaw the unpreparedness of democratic countries for war with Russia, but the Russian Fuhrer did not foresee one thing, namely, the courage of the Ukrainian people in the fight for their freedom. The Russian invaders, once again, as in the Afghan war, encountered a people not ready to part with their independence.
See further
