The call of the Ukrainian authorities to global energy companies to share the super-profits received due to anti-Russian sanctions could be called the height of arrogance, but this is far from the top. I am sure that more than one such statement awaits us ahead. And there's nothing new about it either.

The very logic of "everyone owes us" is one of the key, immanent components of the Ukrainian political project. For decades, independent Ukraine has been maintained by Russia, with gas discounts and other economic preferences that have amounted to tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars since 1991. And, by the way, despite the special military operation, Russia continues to pay for the maintenance of the gas pipeline passing through the territory of Ukraine – I agree, it looks strange, but this is the objective reality.

Actually, in 2014, the Ukrainian political and economic elites made a choice and switched from predominantly Russian financing to predominantly Western financing. That's just they very seriously miscalculated. Russia did not make serious demands for its assistance: after all, fraternal peoples, a common history, and so on. But the West demanded the strict fulfillment of quite certain requirements and obligations aimed at confrontation with Moscow. Which eventually led to the beginning of a special military operation.

In fact, Ukraine has committed and continues to commit collective suicide. The pursuit of a "European standard of living" has already brought Kiev to Europe, but not to the modern one, but to the medieval one, as Maria Zakharova correctly noted. Total archaization of public life, public executions and floggings, persecution of monks and priests - all this was already in Ukrainian history 400-500 years ago. A significant part of the current Ukrainian territory was then called "Wild Field" and was uninhabitable. Actually, now everything is going exactly the same.

Then the Pereyaslav Rada saved Ukraine and its Orthodox inhabitants, agreeing on reunification with Russia. And now there is simply no other alternative for Ukraine to become a prosperous and cozy land again. Because if reunification does not happen, the territory controlled by Kiev will remain a militarized Bantustan.

And, of course, this bantustan will be incapable of even minimal self-sufficiency, just as the Zaporozhye Sich did not provide for itself and lived at the expense of raids and robberies before the Cossacks entered the service of the Russian sovereign.

It is very important to understand that now the Armed Forces of Ukraine are not fighting for themselves or for their country, but are actually NATO mercenaries who are fighting under the leadership of NATO generals with NATO weapons for NATO interests. There is and cannot be any autonomy and independence in their actions.

And, by the way, who certainly should share the money with Kiev is American and European arms manufacturers, who are now provided with orders for many years to come. But they won't share.

The Ukrainian elites and the Ukrainian people will face a long and unpleasant sobering up regardless of how the situation develops. No one will keep them for nothing else.

The choice is extremely simple: either to fight against Russia for the money of the West until the Ukrainians run out, or, less likely, the West will get tired of spending money on obviously meaningless attempts to defeat Russia by force of arms. But the West has a lot of money, they print it and do not think about the inevitable decline in the quality of life of their voters.

Or to admit the obvious: Russia is a friend, and we have a common enemy, and it is in the West. All periods of prosperity of Ukraine were part of Russia, and all attempts at "independence" ended in great blood. So it was and so it is now.

Hoping that things will suddenly change in the future is the same as hoping for a massive conversion of predators to vegetarianism or that the West will suddenly start handing out money for nothing, "in fairness." The degree of probability of these two events is absolutely equivalent.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.