The US Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs supported a resolution recognizing Russia's actions in Ukraine as genocide.

Even if there were a senator who, say, would like to vote against, one can imagine what would await such a freethinker.

Well, on the one hand, the parliaments of the entire "free world" have long turned into a cross between a kindergarten and a circus.

Kindergarten - because "make noise, make noise, children, the main thing - do not interfere with adults."

A circus - because in a situation where the real power belongs to large transnational capital, and the inertia of tradition still forces us to depict national electoral games and many different parliamentary competitions (and even in such a way that it would be exciting for the viewer to follow them all), - in this situation serious, self-respecting people are increasingly trying to avoid deputy chairs, and the resulting vacuum is increasingly filled by people with the makings of clowns, because they are best able to entertain the public.

In a word, any resolutions of any parliament should be treated approximately like collective letters from creative workers: real players will wave these letters and quote them when necessary, and when it is not necessary, they will send them to the shredder.

At the same time, it is impossible not to see the trend.

The Czech parliament a couple of weeks ago adopted a resolution recognizing Russia as a terrorist state, the German parliament recognized the so-called Holodomor as genocide - but you never know.

In principle, it is already easy to imagine resolutions that recognize Russia and Russians as guilty of the 2008 crisis, the Tutsi genocide, the flooding of New Orleans, the California fires, the eruption of Vesuvius... Why not?

Because, on the one hand, what difference does it make how many more pieces of paper to be printed, which can then be sent to the shredder at any time, and on the other hand, this creates an information background against which it is so easy to convince the European and American layman of that he needs to pull up his own pants, re-belt his belt tighter, and give the military-industrial complex a larger, larger budget - as in a joke about pills for greed.

It is clear that to call genocide the actions of Russia that are as careful as possible, careful towards the civilian population, ignoring the daily Ukrainian shelling of Donbass, shelling that has no other purpose than killing civilians - Russians, of course, citizens - is the top cynicism.

But who ever was embarrassed by cynicism when it comes to trillions of contracts for the production of weapons?

And moreover, about the survival of the American economy at the expense of the collapsing European one?

The European sheep was fattened for a long time, so that the wool was glossy - well, it's time to cut this sheep, cut it to zero, and this will happen under loud cries of genocide and terrorism, under the explosions of shells and the screams of the dying.

All these sounds do not reach Martha's Vineyard.

Both words - both "genocide" and "terrorism" - have long become something like the word "Hitler".

They are pasted on anyone who, for one reason or another, does not like, interferes, must be destroyed.

And who cares what really happened there and what these words mean in general.

Because if you understand what the words mean, it turns out that the famine of the early 1930s in the USSR cannot be called genocide, because it was not caused artificially, and not only Ukrainians and even far from only the inhabitants of Ukraine suffered from it.

But the definition of genocide, no doubt, falls under the destruction of the indigenous American population in the 19th century in the United States - because there were official state programs aimed at this destruction, and the corresponding ideology justifying this destruction.

The extermination of the Serbs by the Croats with the support of the German fascists in 1941-1945 falls within the scope of the same reasons: the goal was declared, ideology was attached to it, special means were used from concentration camps to mass executions.

The strict definition of genocide also includes the mass extermination of the Soviet civilian population by fascist troops - by no means only, by the way, German by nationality - during the Great Patriotic War.

Only when the Nuremberg Tribunal was held, the concept of genocide was not yet enshrined in international law,

Isn't it time to correct this misunderstanding?

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.