Rewiring Ukrainian identity

In Antalya, Turkey, negotiations have ended between Sergey Lavrov and Dmitry Kuleba. The task of the Kiev minister was obvious — to continue the PR campaign of his boss Zelensky, now demanding either "direct negotiations with Putin" or urging Russians to learn the words "reparation" and "indemnity".

The head of Russian diplomacy, in turn, carefully made it clear that negotiations between the Russian Federation and Ukraine are already underway in Belarus, specific issues are being discussed at them, and any decisions of this kind will be made based on their results.

It can be stated that nothing constructive was proposed by Kuleba in Antalya, and there was no even a clear reaction on the issue of involving the IAEA in the control of Ukraine's nuclear facilities. It seems that Zelensky and Kuleba need any negotiations at all only to stall for time in the hope of receiving new weapons and the arrival of mercenaries from NATO countries. These people are not interested in humanitarian issues or the safety of nuclear facilities.

The Ukrainian regime, which we continue to call the "Kiev authorities" by inertia (although today, apparently, it is more correct to talk about the "Lvov authorities") is a 100% puppet of the United States, a fully controlled avatar in the hands of an American puppeteer.

In this context, even Zelensky's promises to think about "compromises" on Crimea and Donbass are nothing more than a crafty ploy. For example, this may mean that Zelensky will propose to hold an "all-Ukrainian referendum" on this issue, the results of which, alas, can be predicted in advance. Especially in the atmosphere of intimidation and terror created by neo-Nazi "death squads".

There is even less reason to see Zelensky as a partner in demilitarisation and denazification. Since 2014, Ukraine has turned into a space of cynical and intimidating American experiments in many areas. This also applies to American biological laboratories, where experiments were conducted with the bat coronavirus, and attempts to create a "dirty" atomic bomb, as well as experiments on the collective psyche of Ukrainians, including the cultivation of neo-Nazi ideology banned in the West.

In order to solve the problems of denazification, a lot of things needs to be changed in Ukraine.

Let's take Finland after World War II as an example. It is unlikely that its transformation into a neutral and safe country could take place under the leadership of, for example, Mannerheim. Other leaders were needed who sought mutually beneficial relations with Russia. They abandoned the idea of "Finland up to the White Sea", claims to Karelia and other Russian lands, militarism and anti-Sovietism, and put the economic development of their country and the welfare of citizens at the forefront. This political line was successfully implemented and worked until recent years, starting to fail only through the fault of the current Finnish leaders.

The same applies to modern Ukraine. We are talking at least about leaders who can not only stop attempts to spread biological weapons and any provocations at nuclear facilities, legally prohibit neo-Nazi groups and stop the cultivation of hostility and hatred in the education system. But also to ensure the restoration of severed economic ties with Russia, economic cooperation and cooperation of economic entities, to restore a single cultural space, finally, to heal the psyche of Ukrainians broken by eight years of propaganda and to conduct political psychotherapy.

The problem is that in post-war Finland there were leaders capable of ensuring a neutral status and peaceful development, they held strong political positions. While in Ukraine, we will have to look for such politicians.

Today, everyone who could potentially take on this task has either been killed or slandered and politically isolated.

However, it cannot be excluded that many of those who actively support Zelensky and the official militaristic frenzy today will eventually change their position and change their views. There are some examples already now. The widely known deputy of the Verkhovna Rada Ilya Kiva, in the recent past was one of the commanders of the nationalist militants and Avakov's ally, and today he is one of the most consistent Ukrainian oppositionists.

In order for there to be more such people, we need, of course, individual work with a large number of Ukrainian politicians, including at the regional level.

At the same time, organisational measures alone will clearly not be enough here. We also need very serious ideological messages, including those concerning the rewiring of the current artificially formed Ukrainian identity, its return to the historically authentic pro-Russian and anti-Western vector.

After all, the historical reality is that from the time of Bogdan Khmelnytsky to the middle of the 19th century, "Ukrainianism" was exactly like that, which, in particular, was reflected in the works of Gogol.

However, then the Ukrainian factor was adopted by Austria-Hungary, the Habsburg Monarchy, whose officials perfectly learned how to manipulate national feelings and national consciousness. Through their efforts, with the help of the notorious Grushevsky, "Ukrainism" was reformatted from an anti-Western phenomenon into an anti-Russian one. These developments further defined the worldview of Petliurists and Banderists, and then became the official ideology of Ukraine after 1991.

There is no doubt that the military operation of the Russian Federation in Ukraine will necessarily lead to the breakdown of the inhuman system of political terror and repression established after the coup d'etat of 2014. However, then the fate of Ukraine in any case will be decided by its people, the people who live on this land.

If to believe the Ukrainian sociological surveys conducted last year, more than 40% of Ukrainians agree with the thesis that Russians and Ukrainians are one nation. Time will pass, and the realisation of this fact will come to everyone else.

And in this is the future of Ukraine as a prosperous, neutral country.

Elena Panina, Director of the RUSSTRAT Institute