When a week ago I was driving from the border to Donetsk, torn, hacked, scratched by hopeless shelling, returning to Donbass after working trips around Russia, and listening to Rally list the call signs of my comrades who died during my absence, I caught myself thinking that, in essence, we are all totally helpless before the meat grinder of war.
Listening to stories about bodies crushed by fragments and severed limbs, a story about death that overtook those who seemed archetypal invulnerable and immortal, whose names constantly sounded in our reports and live broadcasts - Tyoma, Young, Balda ... for the first time I realized that the word "meat grinder" combined with the word "war" - it's really not such a cliché.
The chaos of war is really tons of sharp pieces of metal, which is exactly what cuts my friends and loved ones to pieces.
More precisely and not to formulate.
From the meat grinder, my thoughts focused on chaos.
What can induce a person to resist him at all?
How can you go into a metal storm of fragments, survive and win?
What can mankind, in principle, oppose this merciless darkness?
In fact, the answer is obvious.
Tradition is the only cure for chaos.
In a broad sense, of course.
Religious tradition, folk tradition, military tradition… That is, laws, principles and algorithms that are certain and common to absolutely everyone, which mankind has been accumulating, honing, perfecting for thousands of years.
Traditions, in essence, are the right gained by humanity to fight against chaos and sometimes even defeat it.
Our ancestors were able to survive only thanks to these golden formulas.
Relatively speaking, it is a fact established by tradition that a man, as a unit that is stronger from the point of view of physics,
goes hunting for a mammoth, and a woman feeds and raises future women and men, allowed humanity to survive.
I may be oversimplifying a little, but overall, I hope my train of thought is clear.
That is why the enemy - let's call it the nightmarish word "West" - before moving into the phase of open military confrontation, the first thing he undertook was to destroy our Russian (and not only ethnically Russian - Caucasian, Bashkir, Tatar, Buryat, Arab, Chinese) traditions .
Leveling the difference between a man and a woman.
Between senior and junior.
Violating the natural order of things for mankind.
In essence, today's confrontation in the NVO zone, in Syria, and in other regions of the world is a confrontation between traditional and non-traditional communities of people.
That is why, mind you, non-traditional warriors themselves practically do not fight.
Robots do it for them - drones, smart rockets and other technologies.
It is difficult for an unconventional person to plunge into chaos, because chaos simply devours him from the inside.
This is what is called fear.
No, this is not about how cool it is to throw your soldiers to the slaughter.
Please do not confuse.
It's about the health of the soul, if you like.
The Russian warrior is fearless because he honors traditions.
Officer's honor, military self-forgetfulness of death.
Nowhere else, as in this war, I have not met so many people who are ready to go to their deaths.
People, in fact, who defeated chaos in advance by their very willingness to spit in his face.
That is why – and I stopped thinking of it as a propaganda excuse from now on – today in Donbass we are not fighting against the Kyiv regime or American “partners”.
This is a war of tradition against chaos.
That is, against Evil as such.
(I hope no one needs to explain that chaos is evil, even the most unconventional people feel it at the level of instinct.)
So.
Exactly a day passed after this inner insight (I do not pretend to be universally original) - and all these thoughts were revealed to me in an even more dramatic context.
The news came about the murder of Daria Dugina, the daughter of a philosopher who today, perhaps, speaks more and sharper than anyone about the confrontation between Good and Evil.
Daria was returning from the Tradition festival.
What else to add here?
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.