Francesco Cundari is right: “There is a qualitative leap, but above all there is a moral abyss that separates the discussions on the war in Ukraine from all the previous ones, however grotesque they might also be”. Above all, I cannot understand how one can be or have been, in the course of one’s life, on the left and be, today, on Putin’s side.
Because this is what happens – even if it is admitted that Russia is the aggressor – when – I quote Cundari again – when the object of the dispute concerns the invasion of a free and democratic country, that is, when the debate takes place while they are in progress mass murder, torture, mass rape and many go “on TV to accuse those who would like to stop all this of not wanting peace and jeopardizing dialogue with the torturers”. When we go to desperate remembrance of explanations, of others’ responsibilities in order to invoke peace under the banner of neither-nor.
Yet it would be enough to read what the Tsar of the Kremlin said on February 22 in the speech that resulted in the declaration of war on Ukraine. In more than 3.6 thousand words, the acronym NATO does not appear even once; and not even the words “threat” and “encirclement”. Another major absentee is the term “Nazi” (there is only one mention of “aggressive neo-Nazism”).
Putin accuses Ukrainians of nationalism. And it is really difficult to understand why the Italian translations claim the right to overlook a major difference like this. How does one become a Nazi in the 21st century? There is no trace of anti-Semitic propaganda in Ukraine, also because the tribute of pain and death that that country has given to the Shoah is among the highest and cruelest.
Putin’s doctrine has been explained several times: Ukraine is not an autonomous nationality but is part of Russia and it is right that the Great Mother returns to take it back, also because the Ukrainians from the Maidan onwards have been clever by playing on two tables , showing a guilty ingratitude towards the aid that Russia had been lavish on.
Dialogue with the Russian Federation would be used “as a bargaining chip in its relations with the West, using the threat of closer ties with our nation to blackmail the West in order to secure preferences”, claiming that otherwise Russia it would have had a greater influence in Ukraine. In essence, the bad Ukrainians would have also exploited the West.
Then the speech ends with criticisms of the management of the economy, while “the so-called choice of pro-Western civilization made by the Ukrainian oligarchic authorities was not and does not aim at creating better conditions in the interest of people’s well-being but at retaining billions of dollars that the oligarchs have stolen from the Ukrainians, who keep their accounts in Western banks (as the Russian oligarchs do, ed) while they indulge Russia’s geopolitical rivals with reverence ”.
Come to think of it, Putin’s indictment is nothing more than the secular version of the crusade of Moscow Patriarch Kirill. Basically the Ukrainians need to be re-educated; and this is a task that falls to Mother Russia, guardian of the values and traditions of centuries of history. Unbeknownst to them, Putinians frequent the opium dens of talk shows, it is good to point out some passages of the speech that are strongly critical of the PCUS and the USSR.
According to Putin, «Soviet Ukraine is the result of the policy of the Bolsheviks and can rightly be called the Ukraine of Vladimir Lenin. He was its creator and architect ». But it gets worse: “In the course of the struggle for power within the Communist Party itself (a century has passed, ed), each of the opposing sides, in an attempt to expand their support base, has begun to incite and recklessly encouraging nationalist sentiments, manipulating them and promising their potential supporters whatever they wanted. ‘
We know that Putin dismissed the October Revolution which was celebrated with great pomp of armaments and delegations and replaced it with the anniversary of May 9, the day of victory in the Great Patriotic War. But the Tsar goes further in claiming the reconstruction of the Empire. In the text there is a radical criticism of the humiliating (sic!) Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, with which Russia, after the fall of the Tsarist regime, negotiated a separate peace with the Central Empires, thus emerging from the conflict “despite the military situation and economic conditions of the Germany of the Kaiser and its allies were dramatic and the outcome of the First World War was taken for granted ».
In essence, revolutionary Russia should have continued to fight alongside the capitalist countries. And here is another indictment against Lenin and his companions. “After the revolution, the main aim of the Bolsheviks was to remain in power at any cost, absolutely at any cost.” They went to great lengths to achieve this by satisfying any requests and wishes of the nationalists within the country.
Start a new Thread