How do they relate to Ukraine in the USA?

Exclusive. Taking into account the remoteness of Ukrainian problems from the everyday problems of average Americans, who are now going through not the easiest times, the attitude towards Ukraine in the USA is very very good. As already mentioned, Americans traditionally sympathize with peoples who are fighting for their freedom, and this sympathy, moreover, not only in words, but also in deeds, is deeply embedded in their worldview and culture.

Illustrative photo

But, due to the same remoteness, this positive, in general, mood is not quite stable. It is possible to shake the ego not in our favor, although it is difficult. But it is quite easy to shake it up little by little, achieving local bursts that can then be used for propaganda purposes. This is also because in the USA there is also a layer of beaten-down leftists who hold strong positions in universities. This part of the population takes an obstructionist position in relation to any actions of the US government outside its borders, and has the ability to significantly influence American public opinion as a whole.

Paradoxically, when I talk to my American friends - and I have a lot of them, and they live in very different layers of society, it is easier for me to explain what is happening in Ukraine today to a 50-year-old bus driver than to a 35-year-old professor of economics. In general, American university leftism is something ... however, we will leave this topic for another time.

And, also, in approximately 70% of cases, when I start a conversation about Ukraine, I encounter the fact that the consciousness of my interlocutor is quite polluted by purely Russian narratives. Here is a fairly typical example, I quote it "as is", without any editing (those who do not know English can use Google Translate):

Sergei, might recall the US state department backed orange revolution, along with all the other color revolutions across Africa, and the middle east backed by our state dept that overthrew democratically elected leaders, like Yanokovich in 2014, because he couldn't broker a deal with the EU without appeasing NATO, and cutting ties with Russia, which would alienate the ethnically Russian Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine, and destroy the campaign promise to unite BOTH east and west with peace and trade, the promise that got him elected? Or maybe he may recall how afterwards members of the neo-fascist Svoboda party took control of Kiev with the nod from Victoria Nuland and the US state department under the Obama administration, where the handling of Ukraine was pitched to Biden at that time? Perhaps he remembers Poroshenko outlawing the Russian language, religion, and trade in Ukraine, and the subsequent Civil War that ensued as ethnically Russian eastern Ukrainians revolted against the persecution from their own government in Kiev that killed tens of thousands of Eastern Ukrainians before Russia stepped foot into Ukraine to intervene? I'm interested to know what he knows about that.

And this is not the most serious case - only of medium severity. Anyone who thinks that this is a country has not communicated with real, stubborn leftists. Moreover, the person who wrote this does not support Russian aggression. He regrets the death of the Ukrainian civilian population. He does not speak, at least clearly, against providing assistance to Ukraine. But someone stuck this rusty nail in his head...

And... what do you think, Elon Musk's opinion about the events in Ukraine is very different from this opinion?

But even these people are not enemies of Ukrainians — and certainly not friends of Putin. And not agents of Moscow. Even the majority of stubborn leftists are not our enemies, they are not friends of Putin, and they are not agents of the Kremlin. They were simply confused. These people need to patiently, without getting irritated, and without being rude, explain the real situation. Moreover, they will explain systematically, tying regional Ukrainian events into the general system of the world and viewing it from the angle that is of interest to the Americans. In the case cited above, I spent about three hours on a detailed explanation of why my interlocutor was mistaken. It seems that he had some doubts. But the conversation is not over, we will continue it if necessary.

And here a question arises: does our propaganda in English exist at all? Not the translation of English articles into Ukrainian, but the reverse action: conveying the Ukrainian position to an English-speaking reader? Personal connections are wonderful. Speeches before Congress are generally luxurious. But not everyone watched Zelensky's speech. More than 330 million people live in the USA for a minute. And to work with each of them individually is good, even if not with every one, let alone with every tenth, there are only 33 million of them, talking for several hours, there is no practical possibility.

We need to convey the Ukrainian vision of the situation in English en masse. Does anyone from Ukraine do this? If so, that's just great. But why then, communicating with the Americans, I do not see traces of the influence of pro-Ukrainian propaganda, which expresses the position of Ukraine, but I constantly see traces of pro-Russian, from the Kremlin's position?

I suspect that I do not see traces of Ukrainian propaganda because this propaganda, as a whole strategy, does not exist, just as there was no sign about the composition of dead blacks in one famous film... There is no unified, at the level of state strategy, position of Ukraine: what, exactly, should be done with Russia and what should victory in this war look like? In Ukraine, there is still not even a single version of the events that preceded 24.02.22/2013/XNUMX, starting with the "bloody Christmas tree" of XNUMX. Versions that would be officially accepted and broadcast to the whole world. There are loosely connected, and even contradictory fragments, which are interpreted by various dubious "advisors" and "experts" as they see fit.

A separate, extremely unpleasant category of these "experts" and "opinion leaders" are the so-called "good Russians". They persistently, like cockroaches, and, unfortunately, unsuccessfully, penetrate into the Ukrainian information field as well. In the absence of a clear position, allowing to separate good Russians from Russians in general, this is not surprising.

Meanwhile, everything has been known for a long time — but there is no official position at the level of state information policy. Representatives of peoples oppressed by Russia, who aim to gain independence, free from the power of Moscow, and who declare this publicly, are not recognized as Russians by definition. And among Russians, namely supporters of the preservation of the Russian Federation, "Russian culture", "Russian world", the construction of a "new democratic Russia", etc., good Russians are defined in one way: they cannot be seen on a thermal imager. There is no other way.

Some of the Russian ones can sometimes be useful and can be used in Ukrainian interests - but only under strict control, and without the opportunity to roam freely in the Ukrainian mass media and territory. Their situational usefulness does not make them good. The last word in the question of good Russians is only behind the thermal imager.

But in Russia there is a single version of the events in Ukraine. It is translated into all the languages ​​of the world and purposefully broadcast in all possible ways, all over the world, including the USA.

Nevertheless, even in such circumstances, which are not the most favorable for Ukraine, everything is not so bad for us. Although not everything is good, because Moscow propaganda still makes itself felt. Thus, according to November polls, 26% of Americans believe that Russia and Ukraine are gradually winning the war, and 46% see the situation as a stalemate. Arms supplies to Ukraine are supported by 65% ​​of respondents, economic aid by 66%, 73% in favor of accepting Ukrainian refugees, 75% in favor of tightening sanctions against Russia. 40% are convinced that the US should maintain the current level of support for Ukraine indefinitely. 27% are in favor of increasing support up to the direct participation of the US in military actions on the Ukrainian border, with the aim of ending the war as soon as possible.

It would seem that everything is not bad, but... 29% - for the gradual refusal of the USA to help Ukraine. And the total number of supporters of supporting Ukraine for an indefinite period, "as long as it takes", at the same level of supplies, or with their increase, decreased from July to November by 10%: from 58% to 48%. The number of those who believe that Washington should strongly recommend Kiev to conclude a truce "within the scope of the possible" increased from 38% to 47% during the same period.

This is an obvious failure of Ukrainian propaganda (if it exists!), which failed to convey a simple idea to ordinary Americans: Russia is a Nazi state, worse than Germany was under Hitler. But the Germans are a great nation, one of the founders of the cultural foundation of the West. They stumbled by accident, only for 12 years, and although the consequences were terrible, they recovered over time.

And Russians suffer from Nazism chronically, starting from the 15th century. Even before the very term "Nazism" and even the concept of nations appeared. Because Nazism is a very old evil, it was simply given a new name in the 20th century.

Point of attraction for all Evil

Indeed, if you read the descriptions of Russia given by foreigners, although the word "Nazism" is not there, Nazism itself is described in detail. In fact, Nazism is a phenomenon of criminal pseudo-culture, which casts feudal orders on their ashes, in the absence, due to the decline of the entire society, of other alternatives. Socially, Russia was burned completely, to the point of complete desolation, and several times. There is no question of any rehabilitation and restoration of this society - there is nothing to restore there. "Russian" is exactly anti-social. Not an ethnos, especially not a nation, and not a culture, but a criminal society that parasitizes the world around it.

This understanding of the real nature of Russia, from which, after deducting what was stolen from enslaved peoples, and, first of all, Ukrainians, there is nothing left at all, is what we must convey to the citizens of the United States and the rest of the Western world. The non-Western part of the world, including China and India, is not yet sufficiently developed culturally and ideologically to accept our argumentation, and therefore there is no point in spending resources on it. We must appeal to the West, to its knowledge and its culture, not shying away from talking about all this. In the core of the West, due to left-wing cultural erosion, they stopped talking about it. We, being, unlike Russia, a part of the West, but a peripheral part bordering on the Russian chthonia and opposing it, have not yet lost the ability to see what often eludes the attention of the central part of the Western world. We are able to recognize a racist hoax imitating "Europe too", while the West, which has moved too far from racist savagery, does not always manage to do this, and the further it moves away from it, the worse it is.

This can be conveyed in one way: by building a single, logical concept of what Russia is today. Backward, absolutely unsustainable and unindependent culturally and economically, but, at the same time, highly resourceful, she, due to the combination of these qualities, became the point of attraction and consolidation of all the world's Evil and Chaos. This attraction makes Russia a global player — an anti-systemic global center. This was tolerated in past eras, but in the era of nuclear weapons it is no longer possible to put up with the existence of Russia. She, like a vacuum cleaner, pulls to herself and includes in her structures all the most disgusting things in the world. All crime, all terrorism, all dictators and corrupt officials sooner or later become friends of Moscow. It's like Armageddon, but without any mysticism. The presence of Russia is a consequence of past systemic crises and a trigger for a new systemic crisis that threatens all of humanity.

What should we talk about openly, clearly and loudly?

If we want humanity to develop further, and not roll back, then Russia must disappear from the political map, and this is the only solution that cannot be diluted or softened by any compromise. It should disappear not for the sake of saving Ukraine, but for the sake of all humanity as a whole, including the United States. The disappearance of Russia does not mean, of course, the killing of all the lost who consider themselves "Russian" - although many who did not want to lay down their arms will have to be killed - and it is necessary to realize the justice and justification of their killing. But the disappearance of Russia as a whole is much more important: as a single country, and as a community to which you can openly declare your membership. Being "Russian" should become indecent and unacceptable in any Western country, and the entire Russian-Nazi history should be condemned and cursed - at least in the West. What non-Western countries will do with Russian biowaste is their business. Most likely, they, following the West, will sweep him away with a bad broom, since they always follow the West with some delay.

This will not be genocide. On the contrary, such an action is valid, because, as already mentioned, the Russians are not a nation and not an ethnos. Ethnic Russians are a chimera, a simulation of an ethnos, with an artificial language, and all stages of its creation, falsification of history and construction of the myth about "ethnic Russians" are easily traced and exposed. In the civil sense, as a single civil nation, Russians no longer exist. Russian culture is a dead effigy, sewn from borrowed fragments, and incapable of developing independently, without permanent ones borrowed from the outside. Russians are an anti-nation united only by Russian Nazism. Nazism, by the way, always negates the civil nation (and there are no others): it glorifies it with words and replaces it with a dead effigy, on which it places the deified leader.

Thus, it is not at all about restoring the borders of Ukraine as of 1991. Of course, they should not only be restored, but also expanded at the expense of the current Russian Federation, compensating Ukrainians for the loss of territories that have become uninhabitable for many decades, as well as other material losses that Russia will not be able to compensate in any other way. But this will not be a victory over Russia, because the scale of the problem is greater: the world is sick with a social cancer called "Russia", and the world needs to be cured of it. Russia is not so much a country as a complex of archaic and anti-social connections pushing humanity towards degradation. So that our world does not turn into an infernal hell on the Russian model, this cancer must be removed.

There is no need to do without an operation here, everything is very advanced and cannot be treated. It is necessary to cut out this tumor, cut out what remains, severing the connections within the remnant, cure the world of Russian metastases, curse the memory of Russia, and return Muscovy, freed from it, to the just borders of 1462.

We need to energetically convey this position to the world in general, and to the Americans in particular.

But the general public thinks concretely. Theoretical constructions and strict explanations of what Russia is can and should be promoted in the expert community. And for American and European voters, it is necessary to model at a level they understand the consequences of the defeat of Ukraine due to insufficient help from the West.

Russia will not stop at Ukraine, as the Third Reich did not stop at Czechoslovakia. Moreover, in Russia they are already talking about this quite openly. And, therefore, the Europeans will still have to build a defense, but it will be more western. And there is also China, similar to Russia in terms of the neo-feudal system: there is no capitalism as such in any of these countries. Such regimes, trying to maintain an acceptable position in the technological race, for independent participation in which they are not adapted, inevitably face the collapse of the development model. Today, China is experiencing the same problems as Russia, although it is much better developed and not so hopeless, since both the Chinese people and Chinese culture are real.

But the drift of Moscow and Beijing towards each other is very dangerous, since Moscow is capable of exerting the worst influence on Beijing, strengthening its most aggressive groups in the Chinese leadership. They are aggressive for the reason that the choice for such regimes is small: either a revision of the concept of development, or a war that pushes back their neighbors and the whole world as a whole. Moreover, if Russia is not capable of election, and it will inevitably have to be defeated by combining military and economic methods, then China can still turn to one side or the other. So, the loss of Ukraine will inevitably lead China to war for Taiwan. And if the USA gives in there too, then China, having entered the Russian path, will also not be able to stop. That is, the loss of Ukraine will turn the current conflict, which is a localized form of the Third World War, into a full-scale WWIII.

We need to talk about this scenario, justifying in detail its inevitability if Ukraine loses. This is quite possible to explain, literally on the fingers, to the average American and European voter. And this should be done without waiting for someone to do it for us.

Having explained this to Western society, we will be able to create conditions for providing us with qualitatively different, much more effective assistance. No longer for waging a long war, with the gradual exhaustion of Russia, but for its energetic push to the borders that Ukraine and our allies will consider expedient. It's time to forget about 1991 as a starting point — Russia was the first to break all the agreements of that era. No peaceful coexistence with it is possible — and since Russia must cease to exist in any case, we need to draw new borders.

It is necessary to prepare the ground for raising the question of the Russian Black Sea Region, the Kuban, and the Kursk and Belgorod regions, which at different times were inhabited by the population brought from the Russian hinterland. How about the fact that the descendants of these immigrants will have to leave for their historical homeland. Today, it is still impossible to talk about it openly, at the official level, but with proper preparation of public opinion, it will be both possible and necessary. And no one will do it for us.

Only in this way can we get stable bipartisan support in the USA, both before and after the 2024 presidential elections. Yes, we are treated well even today, but without efforts on our part, such treatment is not guaranteed forever. In addition, we need even better treatment, and with it even more help. It is necessary to fight for the preservation of a good attitude towards us, and for its improvement.

Sergey Ilchenko, columnist Newsky