Maxim Rozumny: What should we do with Russia?

Symbolic fortieth day of Russian invasion in Ukraine was been marked with two events in information space that tore the last masks of civilization from "Russian world".

Beastliness of occupiers in Bucha, Irpen, Borodyanka, Yagidny and other towns and villages of Ukraine, which had been  "liberated" by Russians for only one month, shocked the whole world with their senseless animal cruelty. Footage of tortured civilian Ukrainians appeared on the front pages of the world media, provoking statements of world political leaders.

But the second news event, which took place at the same time, went virtually unnoticed by both Western journalists and politicians. And in vain.

Event, at first glance, is insignificant. An article by a certain Moscow political technologist Sergeytsev has been published on the website of leading Russian news agency RIA Novosti. An article entitled "What should Russia do with Ukraine?". In particular, explains what Putin and Kremlin official mean when they talk about "denazification." And that's really important. After all, Russian side is constantly operating concept of mysterious denazification, including that into negotiation process, and what it is, it is unclear to neither Ukrainians nor the world community.

Now it is clear. In short, Bucha was an example of denazification in a Russian way. 

It is clear from Sergeyev's article that Putin's "special operation" aimed to establish an occupation regime based on all the recipes of classical Nazism - "just punishment" (physical destruction) of all conscious Ukrainians and those who took up arms, as well as cruel "re-education" of main masses of population through "ideological repression" and censorship of all manifestations of Ukrainian identity. There are other indicative points - the rejection of "liberal methods", eradication of "Western totalitarianism", etc.

Sergeytsev published the first article of this kind in April 2021. At that time, Russian troops were also standing on borders with Ukraine, and Kremlin was probably close to deciding to attack.

Some Ukrainian observers see Sergeytsev's text as a tool to intimidate Ukrainians. Perhaps there is a reason for this reasoning now. Russia is moving to a decisive military offensive in the east and is threateningly puffing out the cheeks of its imperial greatness. Tactics of  Russians to intimidate the enemy on eve of important talks are already common. Allusion to Konovalets' fate in Dmitry Medvedev's article, which echoes Sergeytsev's thesis, is a signal to our negotiators to be "more talkative."

Emergence of such texts right now is also explained by logic of information warfare. It’s necessary to interrupt Bucha effect with something. But Moscow can't do anything better than to make a terrible face and once again brand “Ukrainian Nazis".

However, for us the articles of Sergeyev and Medvedev are interesting, first of all, as a sample of intellectual products conditional Russian ideological "general staff". Analysis of its content and style shows that we are dealing with is a typical product of Russian political technologists from the school of so-called "methodologists". They have been feeding our political beau monde with something similar since the 1990s, and then, apparently, offered their services to Kremlin to solve the "Ukrainian question." Don't you think that Medvedev and Putin  themselves are writing their own articles about Ukraine?

Budgets for this case were good. Both performers, mediators and political curators, among whom there are grounds to include same Medvedev, Surkov, Medvedchuk, remained satisfied. But today they all have to "be responsible for talks and promises”. 

All Russians' calculations turned out to be wrong, and their "special operation" led to results that were exactly opposite of what was expected. So Sergeytsev and his political patrons have no choice but to pretend that everything is going according to plan. Well, the texts folder "throw mongoose" still remained - they should do something useful.

So it’s possible to understand Sergeytsev, Medvedchuk and Medvedev. Kremlin will ask about failure more harshly than Yatsenyuk's staff following the results of the 2010 presidential campaign, which the same Sergeytsev and a group of "methodologists" created.

Much more interesting is the question arises in context of this article - and what should we do with Russia? It comes naturally after we found out what Russia would like to do with us in theory. And especially after we saw in Bucha, Mariupol and Trostyanets, what Russia is capable in practice.

Russia is still working on the project of denazification. But some key points should be formulated today, in hot pursuit, so to say.

Key point is that Russia should be ashamed. Putin's period of "rising from his knees" must be associated with the disgrace brought to Russia by the kleptocratic regime, which, for its preservation, carried out a grand mystification of the revival of empire.

Russians need to realize that they have simply been robbed of their future. Instead of freedom, development and prosperity, which could come to the country with free petrodollars, they received dictatorship, corruption, propaganda delusion on television, which naturally turned into fear and hatred, blood and tears.

And all this so that complex dwarf with his brood could stay in power.

These obvious things can only come to attention of  Russians when the "iron dome" of propaganda media is removed from duty. Then comes the moment of truth, the truth about the bloody path of the dictator, blown up houses in Moscow, poisoned and shot political opponents and rivals, stolen billions and incompetent leadership of all that can be controlled in Russia.

There is no doubt that the information exposure that has deformed the psyche and human nature of 140 million Russians for twenty years can only be turned off along with the regime's other livelihoods. That is, after economic collapse,  domestic political crisis and  neutralization of  influence of law enforcement agencies.

Path to this may be longer or shorter, but it does, in any case, include stages of international isolation, a radical reduction in resource base, support for all possible opposition and alternative movements within Russia. Regime won’t be overthrown if society doesn’t see alternative. We may not like "another Russia", it may not be our ally, but without it, racism-Putinism will live in the neighboring country for more than a decade.

In front of our eyes, Russia has rapidly reached a level of non-freedom that makes any internal change impossible without external intervention. Examples are China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Libya under Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Putin and his team are deliberately bringing their country closer to this model, using, inter alia,  war in Ukraine.

The only thing that is not part of the regime's plans is military lost. And it must be the starting point for an era of changes.

Now the main work on  transformation of Russia is performed by our military. But very soon time will come for everyone else - diplomats, lawyers, scientists, journalists, entrepreneurs. This will be our civilizational mission,  success of which will determine our survival as a nation and state. And we will definitely manage.