A Conversation About the Western World’s Values and Russia’s Attitude to Them

A Conversation About the Western World’s Values and Russia’s Attitude to Them

The conversation will be about the prices and the values: these unite and divide at the same time. An individual, his or her life, freedom and guarantees, and human rights in the state are the main European values as well as the values of the Western world. As a person and as a citizen, an individual together with the same people around united by the community is motivated to create actively a state, the state of one’s dreams. It turns out or it does not to be a very good issue of democracy existing for more than one thousand years, but nevertheless, a better mechanism has not yet been invented.

There will never be democracy in Russia. This is an autocratic, often totalitarian state of the Eastern type, where the ruler-dictator is endowed with all powers and no one regulates the system of citizen-state relationship in the person of this dictator. The system of checks and balances regulating the interaction, the powers, and the boundaries of different governmental branches is not built here and will be never built. It is simply alien to the population and does not work, since the power is concentrated in a single pair of hands, in the hands of one person, and the other branches are just decoration and imitation.

This is the fundamental difference between the Asian model and the coordinate system of Muscovy with the rest of the European democracies, including the Ukrainian one, although the last one is still far from a perfect one. Although over time, it is well-positioned to become one of the most advanced states in the democratic community with the support and exchange of experience. But in addition to the systematic work for this, it is necessary to win the war with the successor state of the androphages (cannibals, cannibals). 

And if we speak about the war that is still ongoing, or, as the Russian Fuhrer calls it, “special operation” against Ukraine, this is where the most unpleasant issue embarks on both for Ukrainians and for their partners.

The outbreak of the war showed the complete inability of international institutions aimed at reacting quickly, and promptly, in order to prevent the outbreak of war. We have the logy UN, OSCE, IAEA, and, of course, the Red Cross. A cohort of “respected” international organizations engaged in easy imitation and complete profanation entrusted to them by the international community.

All these international institutions have succeeded only in one thing, namely in tremendous budget disbursement for wages. They turned out to be unprepared for the challenges presented by the Russian Federation. None of them worked out immediately. The leaders of individual countries but not international organizations reacted adequately, effectively, and quickly. The United Kingdom and the United States reacted immediately. The European Commission responded more or less quickly. NATO’s participation and at least their first steps would not have been possible without the direct intervention of the United States and Great Britain.

And this is NATO! An alliance that has had more than three decades to model geopolitical structures, plan forces and means, choose the optimal model of relations, deepen integration, combat coherence and manoeuvrability of multinational forces, logistics chains, forecast threats, risks, and possible options for the development of action scenarios. And where is the result? Let me remind you, at the same time, for the sake of Russia, the NATO alliance did not accept Ukraine for decades, which is one of the most combat-ready armies on the continent and the largest European country! But at least now just barely, they began to understand and help. 

Putin’s attitude to these institutions is the same as to the Western leaders. That is the contempt, the disgust, the boredom, and the disrespect. Let’s recall the visit of UN Secretary-General António Guterres to Kyiv, who arrived to negotiate for the export of Ukrainian grain to Africa and Asia: traditional export markets. It was not the war nor its condemnation that brought the Secretary-General here, because at the very beginning even such a term was banned in the UN, nor the shameful inactivity of the Organization’s Security Council, but the concern for third countries. At the same time, so far, the UN has not excluded the Russian Federation, which has NEVER joined the UN from the list of its full members, nor has it expelled an aggressor country from the UN Security Council.

Let me remind you, if someone forgot, this is an aggressor against Ukraine, and the last one is a co-founder state of the UN. The Secretary-General’s office has not developed a single mechanism for an effective response to similar challenges in the future and has not strengthened the international security system and its configuration. But one of the highest officials in the world was interested the most in the food issue, and who will ensure food security for the states in need of Ukrainian grain exports. And what harm will be done to the environment, whether the next harvest will grow at all, who will control this territory — no, this is not about the UN, these issues interest him the least, and pushing back against the war is not his business at all. That’s the level of the official.

Therefore, the UN Secretary-General arrives in Kyiv, and at that time Putin launches a missile strike on Kyiv, expressing all the contempt for both the Organization and its leader, in particular. And where is the reaction?! And there isn’t one. And this is a landmark.

The topic raised by the Ukrainian ambassador to the UN about Russia’s (which even did not pass the enlistment procedure) membership as well as about membership in the Security Council remained without an answer from the Organization even after these actions of Russia. Although being a member of the UN Security Council, the Russian Federation itself insisted that Serbia should go through the procedure completely, and not as a legal successor of Yugoslavia. Even though Serbia seems to be a friendly country to Moscow. Until it realized what is behind the “friendly” speeches of the descendants of cannibals. 

As per the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the procedure was completed in the same way. So why didn’t Russia pass it. Who gave the right to the Russian Federation to take the place of the Soviet Union? The Ukrainian SSR and the Belarusian SSR are the co-founders of the UN. It is clear that the successor countries are Ukraine and the Republic of Belarus, with the same borders, capitals, and the same names.

But why are the “Russians” recognized as the full legal successor of the Soviet Union? And were the interests of Kazakhstan, Moldova, the Baltic states, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, or Kyrgyzstan with Tajikistan, and Georgia after all taken into account? There were 15 republics. But that’s not the question. The question is why the UN Charter and the procedure for gaining membership have been violated? The question is why the UN Security Council has become completely impotent and unable to make any decisions.

A veto on a Security Council decision has to be circumvented by a general vote of the General Assembly. And this is wrong, it takes time, and does not allow making fast decisions. And when one of the states of the UN Security Council is an aggressor (as usual, as it has been throughout its all history), lies, but utilises the UN as a platform for its lies, then what is a purpose of such an organization, or what for do we need such a member that has not even passed the enlistment procedure?

The organization does not correspond to modern realities; it urgently needs to be reformed; it is vital, otherwise it is unclear why this body was created at all if its work is paralyzed? Where are the unlock mechanisms? Where is the position of the Secretary-General?

As for the food crisis, arranged for poor countries (primarily in Africa and Asia), this is a very clear consideration of Putin to make it mandatory to negotiate with him. This is how he humiliates the leaders of states and international institutions, and therefore this is the personal prominence for him. After all, it was considered to release deep-sea mines in a free solo voyage across the Black Sea, so that bulk carriers could not take out Ukrainian grain; it was also considered to steal this grain, as it was in the thirties of the XX century, when red Russian soldiers and NKVD troops completely raked out all the food supplies, condemning Ukrainians to starvation and certain death.

And the purpose was to accommodate then their colonists in the still warm houses of Ukrainians. This is how the millions were killed. The genocide of the Ukrainian people, of the Ukrainian nation, and its murder by starvation occurred once a decade, in three terrible stages: 1921-1923, 1932-1933, and 1946-1947. But at the same time, the reaction was the same as it is now: grey-haired powerful, but silent indignation, concern, condemnation for a show and … the complete absence of any actions, punishments, and, as a result, amazingly quick forgetfulness and silence, over a short time.

Is there any pride? Does it still need to be postponed? What and who are you afraid of?! The UN held aloof. The bilateral calls began. Some gestures of Putin seem to be a progress of their diplomatic activities for some leaders. You leaders who have agreed on something with him, you should go to the store and buy yourself a gold star! In general, you do not understand how to negotiate with Putin, and with any Russian leader.

With any Moscow leader, at any time, it should be mutual; the most important thing is humiliation and contempt, a disgust from the domestic and foreign policy are the most effective methods (ideally together with brute force), then they know their place, then they do not stick out actively, do not act nasty surreptitiously around the world in a small and in a big way, then they don’t start a war against anyone. Then, they break inside, arrange terror inside the country and break away on their population. Androphages (cannibals) can’t be changed, remember this.

OSCE. This is a separate story. The mission, which has been working in the Donbas since 2014, they openly rode and drove quasi-republic militants in their cars, along with disguised Russian “mercenaries” and military personnel. They had never seen anything, nor log jam of equipment, nor manpower, nor bomb drops, nor their trajectory and the angle of incidence. The impression is that all of them did not pass the ophthalmologist’s examination, but were assigned to the mission.

They have always tried to blame both sides of the conflict without noticing where the equipment and weapons are coming from, or what is being brought and taken away forever by the “humanitarian convoys”. Even before the immediate invasion of Ukraine, they again saw nothing, although some of them even suffered. After all, the majority of the Kherson direction was taken away via Crimea and sent to Europe from Georgia, while in Luhansk several people were put on trial, allegedly for their work for Ukrainian field intelligence. 

IAEA. It expressed the concern for several months. In general, this term should be removed from all official documents.  What is the concern? What steps have been taken, and what are the direct actions, and decisions taken directly? It’s high time to change the terminology. The world, its development, does not stand still, everything should develop, everything should have its own dialectic, otherwise there will be revolutions.

The term “we express concern” says only one thing, we know what we are doing at our workplaces, we have forgotten at all how to think, we have no answer to anything, and perhaps everything will somehow resolve itself. It stands for something like this and has exactly the same meaning, the characteristic of impending dementia. And this is with respect to all of these organizations.

The IAEA has been “concerned” for six months about the occupation of two (!) nuclear power plants in Ukraine, one of which is the largest in Europe. The silence was periodically interrupted by the presentation of something generally intelligible. Then, the pause of inaction dragged on. It was necessary to justify somehow its own budget and its existence. The problem did not resolve itself, and Ukraine did not fall. Well, then let’s start the show.

With a cavalcade of heavy SUVs, the IAEA, under the leadership of Director General Rafael Grossi on a combat horse (excuse me, on an iron one) “heroically” broke through to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. They rushed to the station, passed where the aggressors allowed, talk to those who were brought by the military invaders (previously, hedging threats for possible excesses in the interview), and just as hastily, on the same day, they left in a cavalcade, either forgetting or leaving several of their employees.

Guess what was the result of the “high visit”, which was postponed for six months? “We express concern,” and we can see the key points. Where do you see them in, Mr. Rafael Grossi? All seven criteria developed by your organization were violated by the Russian troops. They are trying to reconnect the station to another power system and steal electricity. Where is the alarm at all bells about the possible accidents? Was it not enough to have Chornobyl and Fukushima? Have you seen the fields when you were driving to the station with a convoy of SUVs? Have you also seen the mighty river?

The cities, while still with people, have probably also come into view. Are you able to realize the scale, and assess the reality and possible damage? Now, we will call for a few more years to provide a “security zone” around the station, without specifying who caused the worldwide threat and who is the aggressor. Maybe it is worth calling Guterres together with the subordinated FAO and telling him that simply there may be nothing to feed the countries in need next year. But no. With a “purposeful” look into the distant future, penetrating both time and space, Grossi was honoured to express “deep concern.”

The Red Cross, or rather its International Committee. What is this all about? The Ukrainian Red Cross Society has been forced to apologize for the International Committee for many months already and emphasizes that these are different organizations. The principle of non-interference in the conflict zone and not dividing into victim and aggressor is still somehow justified, but… Taking out Ukrainian people right after the shelling under their own auspices of humanitarian corridors to the lair of the occupiers and to their own territory is a complicity in the war, which they officially call “supporting victims of the “Ukrainian crisis”.

Dear Red Cross employees, you have a crisis in your heads. You help to kidnap Ukrainian citizens leaving them without water, food, or medicines.  None of you took part in the inspection of the Ukrainian prisoners’ detention in the Russian slaughterhouses. Are you afraid to see them tortured, their genitals cut off, starved, killed, and strangled? Are you afraid to get under the skin or are you afraid of responsibility for the truth in the reports? Please, find yourself a less nervous job or share, finally, the principles of non-interference and support that you have declared.

Authors: Alex Labris, Bogdan Mirnyy

Related Posts