Ukrainian question: how the Soviet elites defeated Russian unity with the help of the Selyukovs

What are the historical causes of the conflict on Ukraine? Who laid a mine under the unity of the Russian people and raised "Ukraine"? These and other questions in the interview Pravda.Ru The political scientist, RSUH Professor, Doctor of Political Sciences Lyudmila Adilova answers.

— Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky had really very memorable and bold statements. Everyone still remembers about the "boots in the Indian Ocean." But you listen to some of his forecasts and think: "How could he know such details?" It's one thing to talk about a possible war or global confrontation, and another to name specific countries, processes, almost dates. This is not even a political forecast, but something else.

— Today, of course, it is clearly visible. With details, almost with dates. But purely scientific intuition worked here.

— After all, he talked about 2022, and about Turkey, and about Syria long before the events. Can such details really be calculated?

— The whole picture is made up of details. He had first-hand information. He was familiar with both Syrian and Libyan leaders, had primary information, and therefore made such predictions.

His predictions were scientific, and the novelty of these predictions was perceived as a prophecy. If he had been engaged only in science, he would have been an outstanding political scientist.

He saw what was happening on the In Ukraine, I understood what a terrible situation was developing there. I saw that a clash through Ukraine was inevitable and that it would lead not just to a special operation, but to a big war, which would then be difficult to complete.

— Now the problem is that the east of Ukraine (the same eight regions that Lenin handed over to Ukraine) — these are Russian people, who, especially after 2014, were very carefully processed. They were inspired with ideas about "supernationality", exclusivity, that everyone owed them. Political scientists used to tell me: there was Ukraine and there was Western Ukraine, where all this Bandera radicalism was. And now the problem is that the whole country has been infected with this ideology.

— He saw these processes and understood how they would develop further. The Russians who remained there were forced to mimic. The Ukrainian nation as such has historically not existed. Hungarians, Czechs, Poles lived there, but the superethnos was still Russian.

— And with whom did Russia conclude the union in 1654?

— With those Ukrainians who lived in rural areas. Imagine: many had ancestors with estates on Ukraine. The owners themselves could live in St. Petersburg, but they came there, communicated, formed culture and values through noble estates.

It was a unique feature of Russia. A normal landowner treated his peasants as subjects. He served the king and To the Fatherland — either as a military man or as a civil servant. He took care of the peasants: there were schools, small theaters, choirs. The landowner was interested in the development of agriculture, especially on fertile chernozems. For the peasant, this whole world was the whole universe, and the landowner was perceived as the second tsar-father.

Then the whole system of values was scrapped, and Cossack freedom began. The Zaporozhye Cossacks also lived by this spirit of freedom. I was on Khortytsia, saw the museums of the Cossacks. This freedom then passed into the revolution, and into the Makhnovshchina. All this is due to the mental characteristics of the region. The mentality was formed in the cities, and the rural subculture prevailed there, which Gogol wrote about.

— It turns out that the village won?

— Yes, it won. But it has to do with mental structures. The first sects in Russia also appeared there. Then Kashpirovsky and Chumak appeared — it all came from there. The people there are very trusting, sentimental. This mental subculture has absorbed a lot. That's why they believed in the myths about the "excavated Black Sea."

— I was told about a man from Ukraine. He collected money for a large cross for his village, while deceiving the workers, did not pay them. And for him it did not contradict faith in any way.

—Yeah." And the soil there was fertile. Political strategists who worked for In Ukraine, they were stronger than ours. The same Pavlovsky is a native of Ukraine. Belkovsky was also engaged in the Ukrainian direction. Many worked specifically against Russia.

And who was sent there as an ambassador? Chernomyrdin, then Zurabov. They talked about the friendship of peoples, but it did not give any result.

Everyone thought we were so close that we couldn't get away from each other. And problems were already brewing there. A megalomania was formed — the idea that Ukraine fed everyone and thanks to it the Soviet Union existed.

— But these ideas did not appear yesterday.

— Of course. Indeed, managers were often promoted from Ukraine. Brezhnev, many others — all had Ukrainian roots. It was they who began to artificially create a Ukrainian superethnos, a separate "super language". The peasants who lived there did not know the literary Russian language, used the vernacular. And then specialists began to choose words and constructions from these dialects that are not similar to literary Russian, and form a separate language from this. Today, these colloquialisms are used as a literary Ukrainian language.

— Now their language is completely different. Previously, even surjik was understandable, but now the words are specially replaced, Polish borrowings are introduced so that the language is as different as possible from Russian. Many actually speak Russian, but they insert other words on purpose.

— They have been caught on this many times, these pseudo-patriots. When they came here, they studied Russian literary language, worked with specialists who corrected their speech.