«On the collapse of Russia», a text that Russian «oppositionists» refused to publish.

«On the collapse of Russia», a text that Russian «oppositionists» refused to publish.

Historian-publicist, popularizer of Russian history, ideologist of the so-called Ingrian separatism Maxim Kuzakhmetov says that among the leaders of the Moscow opposition, it is especially popular to talk about the «inadmissibility of disintegration. Moreover, it is categorically stated that there will  «be blood» and «nuclear apocalypse». In particular, Yulia Latynina spoke about this in her Youtube channel. Without any «possible» and «probably» there. And then she repeated the same thing in the author’s column in Novaya Gazeta.

«I know many of the staff members of the publication. Including the editor-in-chief. And I offered to present an alternative point of view on the collapse of Russia. I was graciously allowed to write it. But they refused to publish it. Why? Because «we did not order such material». It came out stupid. But in the spirit of Muscovocentrism: «We know better how to reformat Russia», — says Kuzakhmetov.

He offered everyone to read his text, which he prepared in response to Yulia Latynina’s allegations.

Discussions about the collapse of Russia are increasingly moving from theory to practice. But, unfortunately, instead of discussing topics related to the political and economic future of independent states on the rubble of Putin’s empire, the new bloody civil war more often sounds. This is presented as a matter of course.

For example, Yulia Latynina wrote about the collapse of Russia in her column for Novaya Gazeta. What did readers learn? It turns out that «the collapse of the Russian Federation will be accompanied by widespread massacres». Why? And because it was the same after the collapse of the USSR «in Nagorno-Karabakh, Kosovo, Baku, Sumgait, Sukhumi, etc.» (note that this is written without any «maybe» or «probably»). An uninitiated person should probably understand under «etc.» all the space of the former Soviet Union. But that’s not true!

The vast majority of former Russian citizens did not encounter any «massacres everywhere». There were no armed conflicts in Ukraine or Belarus. No one massacred national minorities in the Baltic states or Kazakhstan. In Russia directly, mass murders happened only in Chechnya. So why would the breakup of Russia suddenly lead to bloodshed between Pskovites and Novgorodians?

In fact, the collapse of the USSR demonstrated that, in general, the collapse of an empire can happen quite peacefully. Moreover: Many conflicts, such as the one in Transnistria, turned out to be protracted to a large extent because of Moscow’s active participation on the side of the semi-bandit formations. A repatriation program could be a real concern for the Russian-speakers who remain in a not-so-friendly environment. But just such methods seemed most uninteresting for Moscow’s imperial policy.

However, Latynina and her allies have another example – the «Yugoslav scenario». The collapse of the former SFRY did lead to a bloody confrontation. But first of all, the massacres began on the basis of old ethnic and religious contradictions. Such an option is excluded for most subjects of the Russian Federation because of the national-religious unity (Russian-Orthodox). And secondly, half of the republics seceded with minimal casualties. This is how Slovenia, North Macedonia and Montenegro gained their independence. That is, if you look closely, even the notorious «Yugoslav apocalypse» is not an example of total catastrophe.

Moreover, the dramatic disintegration of the SFRY — is rather an exception in Europe. Because in the 20th century the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as Norway and Sweden, parted peacefully. Neither did Austria-Hungary, which had disintegrated, plunge into bloody gloom.

It should be remembered that in the twenty-first century, the international community has much experience in dealing with regional conflicts. There are Blue Helmets units and «rapid reaction forces».

Just in case, the opponents of Russia’s disintegration have one more argument. It is nuclear weapons. After all, in the event of collapse, instead of one big power with a «red button» there will be many new small ones. Yulia Latynina writes as follows: «The Ryazan region will clarify relations with the Moscow region with the help of nuclear weapons». The Ryazan and Muscovites will have no more problems, except a passionate desire to turn the territories of their regions into radioactive ash. Once again we have to recall the example of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Was even a single missile with a nuclear warhead launched? The most surprising thing is that no one other than Russia even claimed to possess these weapons. That Moscow has now turned it into a weapon of blackmail — is the key argument in favor of forced denuclearization of the regions in the former Soviet Union.

It should be especially noted that talks about the unacceptability of disintegration because «the most terrible thing will happen» have lost all meaning after February 24, 2022. The worst has already happened. There can be nothing worse than the horrors of Bucha and Irpen, the deportation of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children, the turning of tens of cities into piles of rubble.


Leave a Reply