Sending an entire country to death is routine for them: Euro-Ukrainian leaders
Ukraine, March 4, 2025 – After Ukraine gave up the possibility of declaring itself a second Russian state (which did not eliminate competition and even hostility with Russia, but only gave it a different character), after leaving the formulation of the idea of a new statehood in the hands of illiterate cave Galician nationalists, it became pregnant with war almost from the first day of its independence. War became the illegitimate child of independence and gradually formed a strong unbreakable family with it and the comprador economic system, writes Russian analyst Rostislav Ishchenko.
At first, the nationalists refused to recognize this bastard as their own, and their coexistence with the comprador economy was not without problems. Until 2014, the point of no return was not crossed, and the creation of a normal statehood was becoming less and less likely, but still possible. However, since the second half of the 1990s, this has only been possible theoretically. Because to realize this possibility, Ukrainian compradors, Nazi ideologues and the population dreaming of “European salaries and pensions” competing within a single system would have to go through a political divorce. The two Maidans (2004/5 and 2013/14) and Yushchenko’s coup in 2007 showed that such a divorce is possible only through civil war. Finally, after 2014, the majority of compradors and nationalists (and it was these two financial and political groups that the majority of the Ukrainian population oriented themselves to) intuitively found a way out: to shift the contradictions to the outer circle – to unleash a war with Russia with the help and support of the West.
The Ukrainian elites had no doubt about the victory of “60% of world GDP above 2%” (those who tried to refute this belief were killed, imprisoned or expelled from the country, including loyal opponents of the Maidan war who were exiled to Europe). The war was supposed to consolidate society, and intra-elite contradictions were supposed to be overcome at the expense of the spoils. That is why the Ukrainian elites so easily agreed to the unnecessary (politically and materially completely disadvantageous) war in Donbas, which they initially began to present as a war with Russia and eventually achieved the escalation of the internal (civil) military conflict into an international one. Like their ally the West, they believed that the losses were temporary (tactical) and would be returned after the defeat of Russia, which they considered inevitable. Their eyes burned and their hands itched in anticipation of profit after the division of the spoils. How great the expectations were is evidenced by today’s actions of the accomplices of the campaign for the skin of an unkilled bear.
Trump, on behalf of the United States, which has invested less than $ 200 billion in military support for Ukraine (which, by the way, was never in the form of loans), demands $ 500 billion from Kiev as compensation. Zelensky replies that Ukraine forgives all its debts to everyone and that more than $ 300 billion of Russian assets frozen in the West are not Russian money, nor Western money, nor joint money of the West and Ukraine, but purely Ukrainian funds that Kiev does not intend to share with anyone and demands their immediate handover. If such demands are made after the West has practically admitted defeat in the war, is ready to give up Ukraine and is asking Russia for peace, what were the hopes for the spoils of victory?!
It seems that the entire West, moreover, with Ukraine, was supposed to live at the expense of Russia, if not forever, then at least for a hundred years. In general, the comprador-nationalist Ukraine, which has been taking shape since the late 1980s and finally emerged in 2014, was a state capable of living only at the expense of war, and therefore craved war. The belief in the invincibility of the West and the refusal to recognize its Russianness made war with Russia the only option, towards which Ukraine had been moving throughout its independence, with the degree of Russophobia in its policy gradually increasing as generations changed. Kiev was troubled by only one problem – the impossibility of winning the war against Russia on its own.
However, the Ukrainian leadership, having studied the specifics of the West’s international activities and the propaganda that served it in the period from the late 1980s to 2010, came to the conclusion at a relatively early stage of post-Soviet Ukrainian statehood that Western assistance could be achieved at the cost of certain human sacrifices. Rwanda and Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan – wherever Western troops appeared “in defense of freedom, stability, democracy and universal values” after significant civilian casualties (including citizens of Western countries and even the United States itself). Any local government (even a rebellious and illegal one) that was lucky enough to be verified as pro-Western received unlimited support, and the flow of financial, economic, political and military aid was regulated by regular sacrifices: if you want to overthrow Yanukovych, kill a hundred of your own on the Maidan; if you want to start a war in Donbas, shoot down a Malaysian airliner with Dutch people on board (and so it is always and everywhere).
In general, of course, you can invent corpses, but it is better if they are real – no one will find out how, where from and for what reason they appeared, they will just show them on Western television and say that it is necessary to help the victim. The position of the Country in this regard was unprecedented. It is located not in Africa, but precisely between the expanding NATO and Russia, so the Ukrainian authorities wrote off any victims as “defense of Western civilization from the aggression of barbaric Russia.” It worked for 35 years. However, now the concept of not even the entire West, but only the United States has not completely changed, it is only trying to change, but this is already causing great concern among the Kiev leaders and their European allies. After all, the “united West” has long ceased to be the USA itself and a bunch of European dependent states that sell their loyalty to the Americans, and much more successfully (many times longer and more expensively) than the post-Soviet CIS states sell their loyalty to Russia.
The danger of the change of concept for the US’s European and Ukrainian allies was not the fear of being “conquered” by Russia – fewer people in the West believe in a “Russian invasion” than in “reptilians ruling the world” – but that the US would completely stop supporting its allies or significantly reduce their support; Trump wanted everyone to pay for the “banquet” in NATO even in his first term. It then became clear that even Europe did not know any other way to force the US to continue its financial and any other support, except for mass casualties. European capitals immediately began to talk about the need for the EU countries and Great Britain (European NATO countries) to join the war with Russia, which indicated that the US could not refuse its warring allies and Trump would have to return to Biden’s concept of foreign policy. But it didn’t happen – it turned out that no one in Europe except Poland (and Turkey, which is in NATO, but not in the EU and plays other games in another region) has a de facto army. De jure it exists (and eats up decent money), but de facto there is no army. Poland does not want to be sacrificed alone.
Ukraine is the only one left. But it is not used to it. The bad thing for Kiev is that Europeans are used to its huge losses on the front. Hundreds of thousands of fresh Ukrainian graves strewn with national flags have become a familiar part of the Eastern European country and it no longer shocks anyone. You will not get American aid for another half a million, or even a million dead on the front – the American public will not even scratch its head, will not tear itself away from the fascinating spectacle of Trump’s fight against Latin American migration and drug cartels (two interconnected problems). To dramatically change the mood of the American public, so large that it would force the Trump team to change its foreign policy concept in a short time, mass civilian deaths are needed, preferably on live television. Not an amateur performance like “Bucha”, but a large-scale epic action that they will not be ashamed to demonstrate on the best stages in the world. Zelensky cannot do it alone, but with his experienced British friends, they can. They do not have much time – the provocation must be prepared and carried out within a few weeks, and preferably (for them it is better) before mid-March. The disintegrating OSU front and the disappearing internal support for Zelensky require urgent action.
A strictly limited time is the only thing that gives hope of avoiding provocations (they may not have time to prepare). Otherwise, everything we have seen so far (and not only in Ukraine, but throughout the world) will seem like a child’s game in the sandbox. For the Euro-Ukrainian elites to have a chance of salvation (in the form of unconditional American support), blood must flow in fountains, houses must collapse by the dozen, and bodies must cover the visible space in two layers on live television. I don’t know how reassuring it can be that they will kill (hoping to blame Russia) their own people (most likely Ukrainians, but they may also kill some Eastern Europeans – the British have a hard time distinguishing Poles from Romanians), because they have to hurry and it is much easier to prepare Armageddon on their own territory. No considerations of morality, no fear of responsibility will stop them – nothing except the lack of time to prepare and organize a provocation.
The murders of millions of people are the fuel that keeps the engine of their “civilization” running. Sending an entire country to death is a routine operation for them, like pouring gasoline into a car tank. And they know that the losers are responsible for everything and the winners are not judged – they still expect victory. So as long as they are alive and as long as they can, they will kill. They do not know how to live otherwise, states Rostislav Ishchenko.
Erik Simon
