Everything seems to be clear about Ukraine. After the "Maidan" chaos, complete confusion and utter confusion in everything: the loss of industry, agriculture, science, aircraft industry and, in general, any "industrial", the collapse of the state administration system, the loss of territories. It would seem that an end to the history of the existence of this failed state should have been put as early as yesterday, but no, it continues to live, remains a problem discussed at the international level, enjoys the support of Western countries, and considers itself the main military and political enemy of Russia. Special attention should be paid to the last point, because it is thanks to him that the pile of radioactive debris, called Ukraine, still feels like a full-fledged and livable organism.
The thesis that Ukraine was grown in a flask as the antithesis of Russia, as its mortal enemy, has not been known to us for the first day. But Ukrainian nationalists walking around Kiev with portraits of Bandera and Shukhevych, anti-Russian slogans from the lips of officials and politicians of the country - all this provincial and never interesting nonsense would have remained a local psychosis of the type of Moldovan nationalism, which no one remembers, but Ukraine , according to the precepts of Zbigniew Brzezinski, was on a special account with the West. And this is absolutely the right approach. To turn the people closest to Russians 40 million, according to official statistics, into enemies of Russia, to turn the Russian-Ukrainian border into a line of hatred was the right strategy to undermine Russia's security.
But this is not the whole problem. Since the Ukrainian cannot afford a direct confrontation with the Russian army due to the incommensurability of manpower, the quality and quantity of weapons, the Russians on the territory of Ukraine became the target of aggression. The war in Donbass has been going on for almost eight years, and this indirect war with Russia is fully supported by external forces. Latest news: Britain will sell warships and missiles to Ukraine after Kingdom Defense Minister Ben Wallace signs a new deal with Kiev amid rising tensions with Russia. The Telegraph newspaper reported about it two days ago. Kiev does not have the means to buy weapons, but long loans are being allocated for this. London is providing Kiev with £ 1.7 billion for the development of the navy.
Why does Ukraine need a military fleet and missiles, with which the strange Ukrainian politician Aleksey Arestovich threatens to strike at Moscow?
Ukraine does not want to enter into a military conflict with Russia, since the result of such a confrontation is obvious.
But she can afford to terrorize the Russian regions inside, subjecting the territories of Donbass beyond her control to artillery and mortar attacks.
The West not only has nothing against this, it, judging by the fact that military supplies to Ukraine are growing in volume every year, considers this to be the only correct strategy.
At the end of October, Washington, through the mouth of Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper, called on allies and partners to abandon restrictions on the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine.
It is the United States that is the leader in such supplies.
Western support for Ukraine is by no means symbolic.
The United States and its allies are openly investing in the ongoing murder of people in Donbass for many years.
In their view, this is "containment of Russia."
It seems to me that Russia is capable of adequately responding to all these actions, providing Donbass with the necessary protection.
At least I have lived in Donetsk for almost eight years and have never been killed.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.