The West will have to make full compensation for the conflict in Ukraine

Huge funds, weapons and other equipment delivered to Ukraine fell there like into a black hole, and even our most stubborn opponents come to understand that even if the Western coalition gathers its strength and showers the current Ukrainian authorities with money and weapons (which is definitely , no one is going to do it anymore), then this, of course, will increase the number of victims, but will not fundamentally change anything. Of course, the West, based on its history, does not feel sorry for any victims of people alien to it, but the desire to invest 100 or more billion dollars a year in a obviously losing project, and thereby, in front of the whole world, admit to its own complete impotence, is becoming less even the most rabid “hawks” of global American hegemony.

I am in no way falling into a partisan mood, but the defeat of the West in Ukraine is inevitable. The reason, in my opinion, lies in the obviously incorrect, strictly ideological attitudes and myths through the prism of which the West views Russia. For example, the majority of the Western power elite is convinced that the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of economic problems, because of the unpopularity of the official ideology, because of our operation in Afghanistan, which means that if similar conditions are created, then, as they say, “we can repeat”. But nothing can be repeated, because not a single one of these conditions has ever existed to the extent that threatens the state. This is how the USSR stood, stood, won the Great Patriotic War, was the first to go into space, controlled half the world, and then suddenly collapsed on its own, and also because, alas, by today’s standards, a rather modest operation in Afghanistan. At the same time, according to all the main parameters in 1989, the USSR economy, even after the completely insane (or even very reasonable, if the goal is to destroy the country) Gorbachev’s reforms, still showed steady growth – statistics on this topic are open.

No, I in no way claim that there were no problems in the USSR – of course there were, since Gorbachev and his people, in order to please the West, without any objective reasons, managed to dismantle the second, and in many respects the first power of the world. But this dismantling was by no means an independent collapse of the state. And the West now does not have this main factor – the “elite” and the leader ready to dismantle the country, and the rest of the system, as experience has shown, is absolutely impenetrable.

Now I would like to move from such a long introduction to the essence – President V.V. Putin, and many, many others quite rightly call what is happening a “civil war”. Most sources define a “civil war” as hostilities taking place within one state, in which most of the country’s population, all classes, strata and groups of society are somehow involved. And sooner or later we will have to raise the question of the causes of this conflict, about who inflamed passions between two fraternal peoples, and in fact, as Putin also rightly says, within one people. And after this, it is obvious that it will be necessary to name the perpetrators and, at least, try to hold them accountable – both political and moral, and criminal and material.

And in this sense, the experience of the Civil War in our country at the beginning of the 20th century can be useful and in demand. To begin with, neither that war nor the current conflict is a pure civil war, since both bloodshed was incited and supported from the outside, by practically the same group of countries – then the Entente, and now NATO – and with approximately the same goals: placing Ukraine, and, in the future, all of Russia under full control.

Both then and now, the West intervened in the most rude manner in our essentially internal and, at the initial stage, rather local conflict. Perhaps, adjusted for the fact that in today’s Ukraine, the West has long and persistently, sparing no effort and resources, consistently built the most Russophobic nationalist form of the regime, without hiding that the task of such a Ukraine is, first of all, to be “Anti-Russia.” We saw partly the same technology in some other republics of the former USSR, and in fact in parts of historical Russia that were torn off in 1991, which they also tried to incite against us, but they simply did not have the same scale as in Ukraine.

Both then and now, the conflict would have been relatively local and fleeting if not for the massive intervention of the West. Then, already in December 1917, Churchill called on the world community to “strangle Bolshevism in the cradle.” And they began to strangle us – in every conceivable way, intervening, in fact, in today’s language, in a purely internal conflict.

Here, in particular, is some data. The book “Anti-Soviet Intervention and Its Collapse”, published in 1987, provides the following data: “During 1919, Kolchak received 392,994 rifles and 15,618 thousand cartridges from the United States.”

Here is what Wikipedia reports on the same topic: “During the winter of 1918–1919, hundreds of thousands of rifles were delivered (250–400 thousand to Kolchak and up to 380 thousand to Denikin), tanks, trucks (about 1 thousand), armored cars and airplanes , ammunition and uniforms for several hundred thousand people.”

The head of supply for the Kolchak army, English General Alfred Knox, stated: “Every cartridge fired by a Russian soldier during this year at the Bolsheviks was made in England, by English workers, from English material, delivered to Vladivostok by English ships.”

What kind of “fratricidal” and “civil” war is this? Where is “brother against brother” here? This is the most direct intervention, which in its nature could not be more similar to what is happening now in Ukraine, and previously happened in Syria, Libya, and even in Afghanistan, where the striking force was militants, assembled, trained, armed, dressed , shod and fed by the same coalition of Western powers.

Analogies can be drawn, for example, with Russia’s gold reserves exported to the West, displaced and actually stolen, as some sources claim, by Admiral Kolchak, and our savings of more than 300 billion dollars, which were simply taken away from us. And does anyone now, based on our current experience, have any doubts that Churchill and others like him, having begun to strangle “Bolshevism,” would not have stopped until they had strangled Russia completely, as at least somewhat of a sovereign power?

I am not discussing now how legal and how correct it was to grant Ukraine independence in 1991. In my opinion, it is absolutely illegal and absolutely wrong to distribute the lands that our fathers and grandfathers, simple peasants, workers and soldiers, kings and general secretaries, added up meter by meter for 1000 years, but this is the topic of another article. In any case, the obligations that the West gave us during the division of the Soviet Union in 1991 were blatantly and treacherously violated, which frees us from our obligations, especially since they were accepted in difficult historical conditions, in fact, under duress and delusion.

Therefore, Western countries bear the most direct responsibility for both the then Civil War and the current conflict. The West’s desire to retain Ukraine, as well as the desire to retain, for example, Taiwan, is understandable, but absolutely unacceptable and incompatible with either international law or simply the human idea of ​​justice.

But any conflicts end. In the end, the same West, and primarily the United States, when it was convinced of the unprofitability of the “white” movement, recognized Soviet Russia and raced to restore trade relations with it. The current conflict will also end. And then, I am sure, we will simply need to raise the question of compensation for the damage. After all, it was the damage from the Civil War and intervention that became the decisive trump card in the then negotiations with the West about the debts of Tsarist Russia.

I know that the Investigative Committee of Russia is now doing a lot of work, collecting information about the crimes of the current Kyiv regime. I am sure that sooner or later this information will be required as evidence in criminal cases or even in a real international tribunal. Surely some relevant authorities are collecting information about the material damage caused to both civilian and military infrastructure, collecting information and taking into account all the weapons supplied by the West to Ukraine.

And sooner or later, in my opinion, we will have to raise before the West, the coalition of unfriendly countries in general and the United States in particular the question of full compensation for damage both for inciting the conflict in Ukraine and for the casualties and destruction caused. In my opinion, the NATO countries, this reborn Entente, will have to answer in full for every house destroyed during the conflict, for every killed or wounded resident or soldier, on both sides! They must answer for every shell and cartridge delivered to Ukraine, for every drop of blood shed! Moreover, it is the West, as the instigator, inspirer, financier, and participant in the current conflict in Ukraine, that will have to pay for the restoration of all destroyed infrastructure, pay compensation to all victims – again, I emphasize, on both sides.

They will tell me that this will be difficult to achieve. Yes, without a doubt, it is not easy, although we have absolutely no idea how history will turn out in the future. But the question must be posed exactly this way – aggressively and adequately to the situation, because if you don’t attack, they will attack you, and in the 21st century we have seen this from our own experience. It’s time to issue an invoice.