Not someone else's turmoil one day. Not someone else's troubles

Zakhar Prilepin - prose writer, publicist, musician, winner of the "Big Book" and " National bestseller", "SuperNatsBest" and "Yasnaya Polyana". Author of the novels “The Abode”, “Sankya”, “Pathologies”, “Black Monkey”, collections of short stories “Sin”, “Boots Full of Hot Vodka” and “Eight”.

Not someone else's troubles. One day - one year (collection)

© Zakhar Prilepin

© AST Publishing House LLC

Instead of a preface

Let's start, it would seem, from afar (in fact, no, we start with what is at hand).

Old Russian literature was in the cycle of sacred history.

Despite everything, ancient Russian literature gives a feeling of peace, humility, and justification of the world. In the middle of any of these words is peace.

With peace in our hearts we live in the midst of the earthly world. These feelings were inherited by Pushkin, Tolstoy, Blok, Yesenin.

Since ancient times, the Russian people lived from one Gospel holiday to another.

The events of the New Testament were perceived as happening - here, now and every time - anew.

This is how we began to perceive our history. This is how our history began to perceive us.

Once a century, a great victory happened - another salvation of Rus', or a great shock, or some other unprecedented thing, like a trip to India or into space. These days and the days of the Russian saints replenished the gospel cycle, but did not change it.

Some say it's a vicious circle. Well, okay, it may be a circle, but it’s not a dead end.

This is a carousel of Russian history that never gets boring.

In the fourteenth year of the third millennium, it once again seemed to us that we were flying into tartarar. And we just entered another circle.

The weather was clear, and everything around was especially sharply outlined.

Squinting a little, you could see all the same faces familiar to us from our so young, so ancient history: warriors, righteous people, rebels, publicans, nobles, holy fools.

Thank you that we were not surrounded by this cup again.

There is no need to dwell in detail on certain events of the past year. The more you look at them, the more clearly you realize that they have already happened more than once.

It’s just that we haven’t seen them yet in our earthly life - but now they have shown us a lot.

In this book, much more often we will talk about how the same events looked before.

There is no point in being responsible for someone else’s history, but we now once again know for sure about our own - it has no “progress”. The word itself is funny and inflated, like a balloon. Touch it with a sharp one and it will burst, to the children’s laughter.

Can there be “progress” for eternity?

Spin, carousel.

Before everything

This year was brewing, and one day it fell like hail.

I wrote a short dystopia about how Ukraine has split into two parts and there is a civil war going on there back in 2009.

I won’t say that I was the only one tormented by such premonitions. Any sighted person could have foreseen this.

In May 2013, we sat in the middle of sunny Kyiv, not far from Khreshchatyk, with Ukrainian “leftists” and other reasonable guys from among the local intelligentsia - who, however, due to their lack of “Orangeist” illusions, were considered marginalized by the patented Ukrainian elitists .

Then, six months before the Maidan, we talked a lot about everything that six months later came true in a strange and terrible way.

Our conversations were recorded and soon made public.

When the events, now known to everyone, began, we did not have to invent our speeches in order to turn out to be the most perspicacious after the fact, and shout: but we knew, but we knew!

We knew it.

Perhaps I’ll give a few quotes from our conversations - you can easily check that their publication took place when not a single tire was smoking in the center of Kyiv.

You sometimes come, I said, to some not very distant country - one of the republics of the USSR or the countries of the Warsaw bloc, and after some time you catch yourself with one painful feeling: in this country there is a quiet rehabilitation of fascism. Does no one notice anything?

Do not think that this is expressed exclusively in Russophobic rhetoric, often characteristic of other foreign media - we have long been accustomed to such things. They don’t have to love us, and there’s also a reason not to love us: we’ve inherited, we’ve accumulated.

The problem is different. For some reason, these countries are looking for their own identity in those times when they wore fascist uniforms, caught local Jews and transported them wherever they were ordered, and then fiercely fought with the “Bolshevik occupiers.”

And at the same time, as soon as, for example, I find myself in Europe, the local press immediately begins to bully me about “Russian despotism”, all sorts of National Bolsheviks and the latest Stalinism.

“Fear God,” I want to say every time, “here in half of the neighboring countries the police dress in such a way that you can’t tell them apart from the policemen of 1941, they erect monuments to pro-fascist thugs - and all of you in Russia are looking for what you yourself have under your belt.” sideways".

But they don’t really want to see what they have at hand - all these countries are gradually creeping into various European Unions, and in general, unlike Russia, they are perceived as completely civilized.

Another surprise of mine is related to the fact that if you meet a Russian liberal in the country described above - either at a civil forum or in a cafe - he often sits in the circle of the public, among whom he, in principle, should not be.

In Russia, our patented liberals have done their best in the fight against “fascists”: they look for (and find!) them under a bench, in the attic, in a newspaper, or at a rally; but as soon as they get out of the cordon to the nearest neighbors, their sense of smell disappears.

Or, on the contrary, is it getting worse?

In our country, all they do is talk about “authoritarianism” and “nationalist revenge”; outside its borders, they do not distinguish anything like that upon the closest examination.

…While drinking Kiev draft wine, we discussed all this with one Ukrainian guy from the “left,” Viktor Shapinov.

“Russians generally don’t understand Ukrainian politics; they think in clichés,” said Shapinov. – Fans of the UPA, the Nachtigal battalion and the SS Galicia division are often written about in the Russian liberal media as “democrats.” We even sent an open letter to the editors of Echo of Moscow when the news service of this respected radio station wrote about masked Nazi militants wearing masks and carrying knives who came to the meeting room of the Kyiv City Council as “civil activists.” These “civil activists” also unfurled a banner there with a “Celtic cross” - a well-known European neo-Nazi symbol. So, “Echo” never answered us... At anti-Putin opposition rallies, I myself saw the banner of the “Svoboda” organization a couple of times - and this is an ultra-right, neo-Nazi party. One of its leaders, now a member of parliament, published a collection of articles by Goebbels, Mussolini, Röhm, Strasser and other fascist criminals for “party study”.

– What prompts some of the Ukrainian political elites to look for their predecessors in those times? - I asked, referring to the Second World War and direct defectors to the side of our then common enemy.

I knew the answer in advance, but I checked my feelings with what my Ukrainian friends thought.

“The key point here is anti-communism,” they answered me. – Everyone who fought against communism should be heroes and “fathers of the nation.” And in the thirties and forties, the flagship of the fight against communism was Nazi Germany. This is why Bandera, Shukhevych and other collaborators are heroized. The history of the Ukrainian state must be traced back to these “heroes.” Otherwise, we will have to admit that today’s Ukrainian statehood is a product of the late Soviet bureaucracy of the Ukrainian SSR, which found it beneficial not to obey the all-Union center in the conditions of the beginning of the division of public property. Simply put, the Ukrainian part of the Soviet bureaucracy wanted to determine for itself what and who would get on the territory under its control. It was this selfish motive, far from national spirituality, that was the basis for the creation of independent Ukraine. And nationalism was just a convenient screen to cover up a massive redistribution of property.

– What do they think here about Russian liberal figures? Why do they need all this? – I asked.

– I think that the same anti-communism is the cementing link here too. The cooperation between Russian liberals and the far right in the former Soviet republics is not an accident, it is a system. For us, the saddest thing is the support, primarily from the media, of the Svoboda party, the former Social National Party. The xenophobic and racist program of the Svoboda party, the aggressive rhetoric of its leaders, who in different years called on their supporters to “fight the Jews and Muscovites”, who advised Russian-speaking children in kindergartens in Lvov to “pack their bags and go to Muscovy”, are known to everyone in Ukraine. Why they turn a blind eye to this is a big question.

Our so-called opposition is a bloc of liberals (Klitschko), national liberals (Yatsenyuk) and, frankly speaking, fascists (Svoboda Tyagnybok). By concluding such an alliance, the liberals dragged the fascists into big politics. The government also supported the arrival of the fascists in parliament, giving them a place on TV that was disproportionate to their then rating. And directly financing them - there is evidence of Tyagnybok receiving money directly from the Administration of President Yanukovych. There are facts when the events of the VO “Svoboda” were held in premises belonging to deputies of Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. The problem with the authorities is that they think to outwit everyone, to “divorce” everyone using some cunning political technology technique. The fascists have long acquired their own dynamics; this is no longer just a “power project”, as many thought a year ago. The rise of fascists to power is more real than we think.

Soon Andrey Manchuk, one of the leaders of the Ukrainian “left” party “Borotba”, joined our conversation:

“Nationalist ideology has always been the other side of the coin of Ukrainian capitalism,” Manchuk shared. – It is designed to assert the right of the bourgeoisie to dominate in our country, bringing the tradition of its power straight out of Trypillian pots and from the trousers of Cossack hetmans – and also legitimizing the results of the privatization of Ukrainian productive assets, created by the labor of millions of people in “totalitarian” times.

It must be understood that in Ukraine propaganda demonized the “left” to a much greater extent than in Russia, where the bourgeois elites use certain images or fragments from the ideological heritage of the Soviet era. The leftist idea itself appears in Ukraine as something a priori alien to everything Ukrainian, brought here at the bayonets of the “Moscow horde.” An entire generation is growing up here, which was taught that communists are insidious, cruel, depraved strangers who brutally and deliberately destroyed the Ukrainian people, their language, culture, and so on through hunger and repression. This position is the basis of the right-wing liberal consensus, which is the alpha and omega of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie.

Of course, these statements are false - because most of the classics of Ukrainian culture, including Ivan Franko, Lesya Ukrainka, Kotsyubinsky, Tychyna, Vinnychenko and others, were people of socialist convictions, Ukraine gave a brilliant galaxy of communist revolutionaries, the Ukrainian lower classes actively supported the Bolsheviks, and victory Soviet power became a prerequisite for the unprecedented flowering of Ukrainian culture, for the first time emancipating the Ukrainian language and putting Ukrainian education on its feet. But now this is being hushed up in the most cynical way - and shameful myths are being used that the communists allegedly shot a congress of kobza musicians specially assembled for this purpose, that in the fifties Kharkov students were executed for demanding to take exams in Ukrainian, that Ukrainian soldiers were given before the attack on the Germans with bricks instead of weapons, and so on. But the level of education is low, the level of propaganda is high, and there are those who believe it.

A month later, in September, we discussed the same topics with a Kyiv literary critic named Efim Goffman.

They talked, still laughing, still joking, about a very strange phenomenon: “Kiev Russian Orangeism” - that is, about people who were brought up within the framework of Russian culture, but, going out to the Maidan (I remind you that there were still a few months left until the Maidan itself), lead themselves as inveterate Russophobes.

“I still remember the times when the concept of “liberalism” among the intelligentsia did not mean what it means now,” said Efim. – It was about respect for human rights, about freedom as the most important universal value, about pluralism, tolerance... It is no coincidence that the adjective “liberal” in everyday life is associated with manifestations of gentleness and tolerance. But the current liberal-party mentality is completely different. From the entire set of human rights, one single thing is isolated, regarded as the main one: the right to private property and its inviolability. The guarantee of its observance is a stable market economy regime.

As for the remaining rights, a very interesting situation is emerging. The newly minted liberals hate everything that smacks of “scoop” and are tuned in to the wave of total anti-communism. But the logical-conceptual apparatus of these people works in the mode of... the so-called Marxist way of thinking, which they so vehemently reject. In fact, it is not Marxist, if we mean genuine Marxism. The whole question is that they think in the spirit of simplified schemes from the Soviet university barracks course of social disciplines. They believe that there is a base - the market economy, and there is a superstructure - everything else. If a stable market is established, then the remaining freedoms and rights will automatically come into effect.

It is absolutely clear that the United States of America is a strict reference point for today’s Russian-speaking-Ukrainian liberals. It is significant that neither the disastrous results of the Russian Yeltsin-Gaidar experiment of the nineties, nor the fate of many “third world” countries that have been in a situation of “wild capitalism” for centuries, did not sober up the Russian Orangemen. This environment is not prone to doubts. Independent thinking among Russian Orangemen is not prestigious...

Well, it would seem: the same Internet now makes it possible to access a variety of information sources. So many new points of view have appeared, calling into question the system of ideas at the turn of the eighties and nineties. The Orangemen don’t give a damn about all this! They prefer to hold on to the old dogmas, artificially inflating both themselves and each other.

Returning to America, its foreign policy course for the Orangemen is also a non-negotiable issue. Be equal - at attention! This implies their a priori dissatisfaction with Russia, and their a priori loyalty to the “Ukrainian idea.”

* * *

“It’s all obvious,” I said, but I also tried, almost jokingly, to explain what was happening with at least some rational things. – Some mercantile considerations – do they have a place? – I asked. - Grants, this and that?

– Partly, yes. But only partly,” answered Hoffman. – Among the Kyiv Russian Orangemen there are quite a lot of disinterested fanatics. Those who do not pursue any personal benefits and do not belong to the category of successful people. And, most importantly, completely resigned, accepting as the norm the process of discrimination against their native Russian language, their native Russian culture. In Ukraine, this process has been taking place for more than two decades, but under the rule of Viktor Yushchenko, the anti-Russian propaganda bacchanalia reached its apogee.

In Kyiv today there are only a few Russian schools. Opportunities for obtaining higher education in Russian are blocked. That is, opportunities for spiritual, professional, creative realization of a significant part of the population. And the Kyiv Orangemen, who speak exclusively Russian in everyday life and have no intention of switching to Ukrainian, look at such things with some amazing Olympic calm.

Take last year’s speech by the famous Kyiv film director Roman Balayan in one of the Kyiv newspapers...

“This is one of my favorite directors, I must say,” I clarified. – I’ve watched all his films, starting with Biryuk, and half of them are masterpieces. He still films them, as I understand it, at Mosfilm.

– Yes, the man produces his films exclusively in Moscow, at Mosfilm, works with the most famous Russian actors, and adapts Russian classics. And in an interview he states that the need for the Russian language in Ukraine is felt only by people over forty years old, who “cannot read instructions for medicines, tax payments, bills utilities»…

– But now it’s not the orange ones who are in power, but Yanukovych. How are your notorious Kyiv Russian Orangemen doing?

– Our influential groups are still orange, nationalist.

In their hands - not in power! – leading electronic Ukrainian media: both television and radio. And most Ukrainian newspapers.

The mood among the Kyiv Orangemen did not waver at all. In the foreseeable future, most likely, only the surname in Orange election chants will change: it was “Yu-schen-ko!”, It will become “Ya-tse-nyuk!” And another surname fell into the same rhythm: “Pull-to-side!”

“The absence of a serious layer of the aristocracy, and then of the intelligentsia, had a detrimental effect on the development of Ukrainian culture,” continued Yefim. – Whatever talented phenomena may happen there, they, unlike the Russian situation, do not yet have a chance of becoming self-sufficient and influential world-class events. This requires a corresponding powerful atmosphere within Ukrainian society, but it does not exist. Because there is no social environment that creates such an atmosphere. The formation of such an environment is a matter of the future. But this formation cannot occur either through isolation, or - especially - through clamping and ousting other, developed cultural traditions from the territory of the country. Nothing productive will come of this!

– Will the situation in terms of relations with Russia only get worse in the near future? Is there a chance that the Russian language and Russia as such – not the current one, but Russia in general – will no longer be perceived as a harmful hell next door?

“In essence, the general political situation in Ukraine has not changed at all,” Hoffman answered. – Half the country is for the nationalists, half the country is strongly against it. This means: these second half of the country do not at all perceive Russia as, in your words, hell next door. Let us also take into account that this half includes a significant part of the population of Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk, and Simferopol. By the way, in Kharkov today there are much more real intelligentsia than in Kyiv. Both scientific and creative. Even in Donetsk, from which the Orangemen create some kind of inadequate scarecrow, there is an excellent intelligentsia.

But Kyiv, although it has the formal status of a capital, is in fact a very middle-class city.

As for the broad masses of the Ukrainian-speaking population, it seems to me that they would not at all perceive Russia as an enemy if such sentiments had not been instilled by influential nationalist politicians and ideologists. And they implement it. And they provoke.

I would very much like the Russian enlightened and creative environment showed more sensitivity to our problems. It did not demonstrate, as is often done in liberal circles, an inaccurate picture: Ukraine is a ray of light in a dark kingdom. I did not selectively listen to the voices of only those forces that stroke the fur of the liberal, party consciousness.

In fact, the forces in Ukraine who do not want to understand what is really happening in Russia, and the equally different Russian forces who do not want to understand what is happening here, are mirror images of each other.

It is hardly possible to dispute that all the events of the approaching year were, in one way or another, touched upon in these conversations: the persistent Ukrainization of a country that was by no means entirely composed of Ukrainians, but best case scenario half, and the crafty behavior of the intelligentsia - both Russian and Kiev - who do not want to see the obvious nationalist tilt of the newest Ukrainian opposition, and even the key names of the impending Maidan are named, and a line is drawn along which one half of the country differs from the other, and a specific Donetsk and a specific Lugansk, which already then caused irritation in the Kiev environment, and the trend towards total anti-communism, behind which elementary Russophobia and economic redistribution was hidden, was also indicated - there was very little time left until monuments to Lenin began to be felled all over Ukraine, and at the same time and destroy memorials to Soviet soldiers-liberators.

I don’t know about others, but for me - six months later, when the cry began that Russia was fooled by its own seething propaganda and is to blame for everything that is happening in Crimea and Donbass, and Ukraine is united as never before and is not to blame for anything , and new people came to power here, but there is no trace of Bandera’s followers here - ... I was both funny and sad.

No one heard us in time, and when everything happened, they didn’t bring us a glass of vodka with the words: oh, guys, it’s a shame we didn’t pay attention to your words earlier.

Yes, now there’s no time for that anymore.

Since the end of 2013, I have been keeping records of someone else’s turmoil, which has become my own turmoil, not so much describing events as considering my feelings, the main one of which was: “This has already happened to us! It's not the first time!" – and immediately published these notes wherever necessary, most often on his own blog.

It turned out that a wide variety of events from Great Russian and Little Russian history are directly related to what is happening, even if they took place a hundred, two hundred or a thousand years ago.

That Russian literature, poetry and prose, the views and judgments of national classics amazingly illustrate everything that we saw, heard and experienced during the year.

I made a lot of haters and made even more friends.

At first I looked at what was happening as a person in love with Kyiv, considering it the best and most beautiful city on earth and worried about my kindred people.

Then I looked at it point-blank, close up - getting to my brothers, militias and separatists in Donbass - either with risky fellow travelers put on the wanted list by the new Ukraine, or in my own car, at the head of columns with humanitarian, and not only humanitarian, cargo .

Entries appeared literally every day - nothing stood inside for a long time, there was no time for that: I wanted to quickly draw the contours of the future.

The future came and, unfortunately, again confirmed all the fears expressed.

When preparing the book for publication, I did not correct anything - everything in the notes remained as it was.

I am not ashamed of what I said - and I am still convinced that my eyes were sober and my judgments were reasonable.

To those who think completely differently, I will say one thing: I look at everything through the eyes of the people to which I have the good fortune to belong.

There is no truth that can be pulled over everyone at once, like a blanket.

If another mother had carried me and given birth to another father, everything might have been different.

But everything is as it is, and so it will continue to be.

Introduction to the topic. "Let them finish their dreams"

Our mystical idea of ​​Europe is extraordinary, charming, inexplicable.

Ukraine is striving to join the European Union as if it were boarding a huge, comfortable barge and sailing away from Russia, across the seas and oceans: goodbye, unwashed, goodbye! Now you, damned one, can’t reach us! Goodbye!

There is something childish in all this, something sweet, naive, wonderful.

If Ukraine had joined the European Union, it would have gone to bed in a tired but satisfied state, woke up in the morning (you can feel the gentle sun through your eyelashes), stretched, slightly groaning with happiness, t-i-iho opens your eyes (the European Union should be lying next to you - calm, with a beautiful stubble, self-confident, kind, generous, smells of cologne) - and there, damn you, lies Russia anyway. This horse and its rider both smell, both neigh, both have huge teeth, and this monster has many more hooves.

How touching is this religious faith in papers and unions, in press and regulations, in the civilized European world, which will not give offense, will feed, take care.

Ukrainian students don’t understand some things, they get beaten, it’s terrible, there’s no need to hit anyone. But are there adults in Ukraine? There must be.

Europe is on the verge of a civilizational European crisis: it has just begun, but several countries have already gone bankrupt, Europe is plunging into pessimism and chaos, and even more or less prosperous France is aware that everything is going somewhere wrong.

Outraged Ukrainian citizens are making noise that Yanukovych is dragging Ukraine into the Soviet Union.

Oh my dears. Even more fun.

Marie Le Pen (I hope you know this name - a woman is certainly no less passionate than your Yulia Tymoshenko, but she understands some things a little better than Yulia) not so long ago said: “The European Union is the USSR in its worst form.” .

Do you understand? Not even in its usual form, but in its worst form.

But no, of course you don't understand.

Ukraine, headlong, is striving for a place where there will be no happiness, but something else.

Listen carefully, we will once again give the floor to French politician Marie Le Pen: “The European Union does not correspond to the interests and aspirations of Europeans. We have no sovereignty, no freedom, something is being imposed on us from Brussels, which we have nothing to do with at all...”

Maybe Ukraine also wants to have nothing to do with itself? Well, let them tell her about it, otherwise she won’t know where she’s going.

And then Marie Le Pen continues: “We were fed the European Union as supposedly the only way to be economically and politically strong in confrontation with the USA, China, India and Russia. However, we have never been weak as we are now! France had nothing left: neither its money, nor sovereign territory, nor the ability to make independent economic or political decisions. We are in a vassal position. France is no longer a nation, but an appendage of the European Union and the dying euro.”

When Ukraine, breaking its soul, screams about freedom, at least someone needs to explain what it will look like.

If France is an appendage, then under what conditions will Ukraine end up there?

The European Union will not save this wonderful country, will not give prosperity and peace, but will wear it out, torment it and, sooner or later, will turn away.

Meanwhile, this Russia with its teeth, with its hooves, with its neighing and snoring - it is not going anywhere.

It's a shame, unpleasant, but there's nothing to do.

Writer and revolutionary Arkady Babchenko is eager to go to Kyiv: for our and your freedom, in general. Maybe he's already there.

When I hear such news, I look around helplessly: people, what is happening? What's happening to you?

Tired of itself, the beautiful and sunny country of Ukraine strives to climb onto a barge and go on a voyage. The Russian liberal sits her down, helps her, says: quickly, quickly, before the regiments of our guardsmen, the KGB divisions, and the columns of the Black Hundreds arrive.

We also don’t like either the Russian government or the Ukrainian one – but what does that have to do with it, liberal citizens?

This barge is already drinking water, it still won’t take away any Ukraine.

He will drown somewhere along the way, a hundred meters from the shore. You'll have to swim back.

It’s a pity that Ukraine will not have any European Union.

How nice it would be if Ukraine returned in a year, or three, damp, barefoot, discouraged, with cold appendages, maddened by what happened to her - she would unexpectedly crawl out onto her shore and, as if, ambushed the Russian well-wisher (he still stands on shore, waving a handkerchief, peering into the blue distance) at his teeth.

- Hey, what are you doing? - he would ask. - I wanted the best for you.

“Nothing,” Ukraine would answer, and move on.

To have such an experience, you need to live it. Otherwise, Ukrainians will dream that they are sailing around the world, and all around them is the sun, European values, seagulls, democracy, and the sea is not salty, but sweet.

Let them finish this dream. You still have to wake up later.

To us, to them, to everyone.

Part one. Maidan. Winter entries

* * *

And we, brothers, will begin, the cry of the damned Muscovite.

Our Western Ukrainian neighbors repeat in every possible way: get away from Putin’s Russia.

And they look at us in such a way that if you don’t nod with understanding, it means you’re Putin’s lackey.

It is understood that the definition of “Putin’s” is the main thing in this phrase.

As if there is some kind of Russia that would be attractive to the current Western Ukrainian people.

And if it had been the Russia of Peter I or Catherine II, would the Maidan have liked it more? Russia of Ivan the Terrible, Alexander the Liberator, Lenin, Brezhnev, Yeltsin – which one of them are you drawn to making friends with?

Yes, it doesn’t fit with anything, there is no such Russia and there never was.

The word “Putin’s” is just a trick for the gullible.

Although I can imagine the response of my Ukrainian comrades, they would now say: it is possible to deal with civilized Russia.

With a Russia that will be like Europe - and Europe is hypothetical, almost illusory. A Europe that doesn’t meddle in anyone’s business, a prosperous Europe.

But the most powerful European countries meddle in other people's affairs.

And not everyone is prosperous.

Poland, Romania, Hungary, the Czech Republic are also Europe. Did they create some kind of extraordinary civilization there, unlike the Russian one? No, give or take the same countries, only fifty times smaller.

However, Russia has never been considered civilized in the European sense of the word, we were never accepted into the company, and will not be accepted again - too big, too, in the words of the philosopher Vladimir Bibikhin, “disheveled”, even though in terms of the level of contribution to world culture - Russians one of the five to seven leading nations - among hundreds of nations. But who cares: they said “uncivilized”, then so be it.

The head of the country in this whole story is the tenth thing. Today there is one, tomorrow there will be another. Far-reaching goals are more important.

If translated from Ukrainian into Russian, then “Away from Putin’s Russia” simply means “Away from Russia,” let’s admit it to ourselves.

The forces that are decisive on the Maidan are oriented towards the West, towards the further de-Russification of eastern Ukraine, towards depriving the Russian language of at least some significant status.

And how could it be otherwise, when almost the entire (or is it still the entire?) heroic iconostasis of the current political Ukraine is people who fought with the Russians (sometimes simultaneously with the Russians and the Germans, or with the Russians and the Poles - as if this should reassure us: “...oh, well, if that’s the case...”).

No one is shouting on the Maidan: let’s drive out this president and create sincere, not mean, good-hearted relations with Russia, put Bandera’s portraits away, establish the firm status of the Russian language, hug our brother, forget the old things.

On the contrary, for some reason Yanukovych’s corruption is perceived as if this corruption was imported from Russia. It seems that if there is no Russia, there will be no corruption.

Come on: did you have less corruption under Kuchma or under Yushchenko? Why are you turning everything upside down? This is your own corruption, you created it without any Putin. Putin seems to be friends with Lukashenko - somehow Lukashenko doesn’t have such corruption. There is a lot of other things, but such corruption (that is, squandering public funds for purely personal purposes and transferring assets abroad) does not exist.

Yes, Russia is meddling in Ukraine’s sovereign affairs, many people don’t like it. But what kind of position is this: let anyone interfere – as long as it’s not Russia.

Klitschko goes to Munich, they are waiting for him there, Yanukovych reports to Obama about the situation in Kyiv - the Ukrainians from the Maidan are least concerned about this. What would happen if they reported to Putin like this?

Emissaries and commissars from all over Europe gathered - if only Russian consultants were wandering around the Maidan like that.

Many people are infuriated (and I would be enraged) by the “big brother” attitude of the Russians. But let’s ask ourselves: isn’t the United States behaving like an older brother towards Ukraine? Without the slightest reason! Well, yes, the Americans are a great people, but who are they anyway in this situation?

Isn’t Maidan Ukraine striving for Europe on the grounds of, excuse me, a younger sister who has gone astray through the fault of Russia? I’m so screwed up, I’m so screwed up, I want to live like a human being.

Why is this position devoid of self-sufficiency (“we want to live like you, together with you, in one union” - otherwise they won’t wait there) is not humiliating?

Why do Maidan Ukrainians prove to us that they have no nationalism only for the reason that Armenians, Jews, Tatars and the same Russians stand for their freedom? An incorrect (and, God forbid, it will not be a correct) example, but in Chechnya, Arabs and Balts also fought for freedom, and our Ukrainian brother occasionally met, and there were even Russian degenerates. Does this mean that there was no national movement in Chechnya?

And the topic is endlessly thrown in: it’s not our “Berkut”, it’s not “Berkut”, it’s all “Vityaz” brought from Russia, it’s all “Vityaz” from Moscow beating our guys on the Maidan. Have you found at least one knight?

It’s amusing to hear stories about how Russians are treated well on the Maidan, many thank Russians for their support, but what’s up: everyone saw how happy they were about the open letter from Russian writers for a free Ukraine. But is there at least one Ukrainian who knows all these names? And is there even one Ukrainian who can imagine that such a letter would be signed by others? famous writers- well, are there Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy, Chekhov, Mikhail Bulgakov, Akhmatova, Brodsky?

All this “good attitude of Ukrainians” is deceit: only those Russians who support the slogan “Away from Russia” are treated well.

There are also Russians, this is normal: who doesn’t live here? However, they are a glaring minority; if desired, you can list them by name.

But, as a rule, Russians are different.

It's long overdue to call a spade a spade. Russia is meddling in your affairs, not a specific president.

That is, everyone is coming at you, including Russia, because this is normal, this is politics, this is the economy, this is security, this is life.

All countries influence each other, wherever the aforementioned Americans, Chinese, Japanese interfere, Romania interferes with Moldova, and with you too, Germany has many complex ramified interests, even the most seemingly peaceful and friendly countries have their own army and intelligence , a spy network, their corporations, public organizations, their subsidized fascists and anti-fascists, green, orange, whatever.

Strangers swim into strange sea waters, into a strange bed, into a strange mentality - this is how the world exists, the most civilized one. Because the world is a constant conflict of interests, and everyone has different interests.

And why then this naive face, this constant indignation about the dominant Russia?

Putin gave several billion in debt to Ukraine - he’s “crashing.” If I had climbed, I would have taken twelve “yards.” And then he gave, what an aggressor.

If Russia had invested one hundredth of the Sochi budget into Anti-Maidan, there would have been a civil war in Ukraine long ago.

As if it would not have started without Russia.

In the meantime, Russia is behaving modestly, peacefully, almost unobtrusively.

But you yourself called what was happening Maidan: you have bargaining, a celebration, a party there.

We also want to participate in all this, we are attracted by the noise, lights, fireworks.

You are fighting for your destiny - but we have a personal interest: we, it seems, are not completely strangers, as it seems to us from here. Does Russia really care less about Ukraine than the Germans or Romanians? Well, really? Where in Ukraine more people who speak Russian than English, French, German or Polish combined. Do you want us to pretend that they forgot about it here? Russia would be worth nothing.

We don't like your president either. Moreover, we don’t always like ours either. Just don’t confuse irrelevant politics with relevant history.

Presidents are just people at a specific point in history. The history of Russia and Ukraine will not end here.

It’s a pity, of course, that states or individual regions are not allowed to exchange apartments, like people. I would take Maidan Ukraine and change my living space, settling on a comfortable island near Latin America. And the topic would be closed.

And so it will be open. Always - until death do us part.

This is a message to you - from Russia, with love. For our and your freedom. But Pasaran, Slavic brother. Victory to you in your war against corruption and the “family”. Defeats to you in your fight against our kinship and the Russian language.

But you won’t have any serious and final victory in the first point as long as the second one is secretly attached to it with an extra carriage.

* * *

In the 9th century, Ancient Rus', if you look at a map, resembles the head of an elk sniffing at Europe. Kyiv is the nostril, Novgorod is the eye, Beloozero is the ear. The Korelyans are on their horns. In the very center is Smolensk.

In Europe, the Franks, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Denmark and the Bulgarian Kingdom are visible. And then - the devil knows what, a whole vinaigrette of small principalities, not a single modern European country can be recognized.

But at the same time, it is believed that Russians have a young statehood, while in Europe their statehood is old.

Crimea then belonged to the Roman kingdom, and the Dnieper up to Pereslavl was nobody’s, there was no one there, no Slavs.

If there were any, they were hiding in the reeds. We were waiting in the wings.

* * *

At the very beginning, Rus' was not a “normal” country and lagged terribly behind enlightened Europe.

The fact is that there were few slaves here (mainly from among prisoners, who were often released after a certain period of time) - and the slave-holding formation, in principle, did not take shape.

We missed a huge stage, never catching up with the great Roman Empire, etc. “real” countries.

That's where all the trouble comes from, I think. Immediately everything went wrong.

Maybe we should unscrew everything to the beginning? Slave someone and begin the “normal path of civilization.”

* * *

It seems that we have a serious anniversary: ​​in 1014, that is, exactly a thousand years ago, Ancient Rus' was faced with a disaster unheard of. A joint German and Polish army came to its land; they invited the Pechenegs to join the “united Europe” company, paying them extra.

The matter, however, traditionally ended in nothing: they took a walk and went home to Europe (and the Pechenegs went home, awaiting the next target transfer). The first time they were not caught up.

Needless to say, Europe naturally already had civilization and some European values ​​that were alien to us.

So, everyone who loves the theme “would Napoleon have captured us” (Hitler, Reagan, etc.) can start from 1014. If they captured it, they would live like people. There would be no need, for example, to learn foreign languages. And that’s how they would be spoken.

And the fact that there would be no iconography by Rublev, monasteries, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, “The Tale of Law and Grace”, “Zadonshchina”, the Life of Archpriest Avvakum, Lomonosov and Derzhavin - so I even know the counter-argument: “It would be even better art".

No, really, that's what they think. I read a thought from one famous progressive wizard: if Dostoevsky had not been an anti-liberal, his novels would have been even better.

This thought is so deep that your head begins to spin when you think about it.

When I try to imagine what my heart looks like, I feel about the same. Mild nausea and futility of thoughts.

Dostoevsky would have written much better “Crime and Punishment” and “The Brothers Karamazov”, and Pushkin would have done better poetry, and Gogol’s “Taras Bulba” would have been a success, and Leskov, and Rozanov, and Yesenin...

But everything went wrong for us. Oh, they should let the progressives correct and polish up these klutzes. That would be a picture.

* * *

The Ukrainian drive is nice, of course. Just like a drive. But even the victory of this Maidan will lead to what the last Ukrainian Maidan led to: in three years the country will end up in the same place where it was. Like that moose from the joke: I drink and drink, but I’m getting worse and worse. Ukraine can get much more real freedom from Russia if it goes “to the left” and not to the European Union. But she won't go there. Because oligarchs, scumbags and thieves do not go “to the left”.

We see: the Ukrainian people are tough, passionate, stubborn. If they don’t overthrow Yanukovych, the civil war will continue. The trouble is that if Yanukovych is overthrown, the civil war will not stop, but will continue.

The winter air is filled with this feeling.

* * *

A good poet and, by the way, Russian nationalist Igor Panin writes:

“The Soviets are terribly sickened by the Maidan. And the point is not in ideological differences and not in the fact that “Ukraine is full of Russians” (you Soviets always didn’t care about Russians), but in the fact that...

There people dared to speak out against the authorities.

This, in the eyes of the Soviets, is the most terrible sin.”

The famous journalist Aider Muzhdabaev, one of the leaders of the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, an outspoken liberal and a big fan of the Maidan, makes an immediate repost, he really likes the words of the Russian nationalist.

Soviet - the purest Soviet quality! - crowds of millions of people destroyed the entire country in 1988-1993. There have never been anything more “Soviet” than those in nature. They opposed the authorities for ten years in a row so that the earth shook.

But everything is not enough! If you are told that you are “Soviet”, then die with this brand on your forehead.

We are faced with the usual, this time already nationalistic double standard: The Patriotic War was won not by the Soviets, but by the Russians, and then they became Soviet again. When necessary - Russian, when necessary - Soviet, like a checker, you can turn it over: right now we were playing checkers, and now I’m already playing Chapaev! - Why didn’t you warn me? – Why warn, everything is clear already!

In general, this trick of calling ordinary Russians “Soviet” in necessary cases was not invented by Panin. This is what Konstantin Krylov, a writer, publicist, nationalist, the smartest man, does, and Dmitry Galkovsky, the philosopher, “endless dead end,” the smartest man, and many of their pompous henchmen. And this is exactly the point where Russian nationalists agree with local liberals.

In fact, this is typical Russophobia, my brothers. There are no Soviet ones, and if there were, they died out. For you, a slave is a “Soviet”, but for liberals it’s quite common: an autocratic is a slave, and an Orthodox is a slave, and there are many other varieties of slaves. The poet by the name of Pushkin, probably, when he welcomed the partitions of Poland, was not “Soviet”. He just sporadically showed a slave-imperial consciousness.

And finally, observing my “Soviet” acquaintances, I want to say that in general it doesn’t bother anyone. People are hurting, people are worried. They have some reason to worry not only that Yanukovych’s gang will leave Ukraine, but also that another gang will not get into power, in order, by the way, to expel Black Sea Fleet and close all Russian schools in Ukraine. And if this happens, I don’t know what Igor Panin will write about the “Soviet” then. And will it happen at all? He will write, perhaps, that this is “another story” and that “bad people took advantage of the freedom of Ukraine.” And it will be exactly the same story.

* * *

The following dialogue happened at night on social networks with one of the leaders of the MK newspaper, with the participation of the progressive blogger Mikhail Bolotovsky, who stopped by.

The reason for the dispute: the shooting and death of people on the Maidan.

In essence, there is no need to comment: everyone will draw their own conclusions. Time will draw the main conclusions.

Only one thing is characteristic: any of the Russian progressive figures would say, I am sure, exactly the same thing as Aider.

So, Aider Muzhdabaev writes:

“Aren’t you ashamed, people (people?) who support the murderer Yanukovych?

After all, he will soon be gone, and you will remain. How will you live as accomplices to murder? How will you speak and breathe? After all, all his victims are also on your conscience (conscience?).

Before it’s too late, while you can still remain human, think. Renounce the fascists. You can’t wash it off later.”

My comment appears here:

“Aider, and still. Yanukovych is a scumbag. But I will still ask one question. Did you support Boris Nikolaich Yeltsin in 1993?”

The answer was simple: “Yes, Zakhar, he supported.”

“Thank you for your honesty, Aider,” I write. - No questions".

Aider Muzhdabaev: “Zakhar, why are there no questions - please ask. I will answer. I remember everything perfectly: Yeltsin and those who were against him then. And I, unlike NTV journalists, did not receive money from anyone, so I can answer honestly. Actually, it's just two words. Those who were against Yeltsin promised to immediately revive the Soviet Union and censorship. They said it in plain text. I wasn't ready for this. And now I’m not ready, I thought it was the end of my whole life, so I was against it. Did you answer honestly?

Zakhar Prilepin: “Why explain, I already know the explanation in advance. It just turns out that sometimes you can still shoot. From tanks to unarmed people. A huge number of whom did not want to revive the “soviet society and censorship,” but, like the Ukrainians, wanted to drive out the swindlers who had done exactly the same thing as Yanukovych: divided the country and earned billions from it.”

Mikhail Bolotovsky intervened in the conversation and turned to me: “You remembered Yeltsin here. Strange. Do you want to compare him with the Yanukovychs? Yeltsin was pushing like a supertank with an idea, yes, it hurt him, and he was drinking heavily, but he kept going because there was an idea for Russia - as he saw it. Which will actually appear two hundred years later - a bow to Gogol. And these Yanukovychs of yours, who are for money, well, this is not at all interesting. This is for The Hague. And Yeltsin is for history.”

“History will resolve this,” I wrote, “who is for The Hague, who is going where. The question raised is elementary: is it possible to support people who shoot unarmed people? Answer: yes, you can. Aider was especially quick to explain why it was possible: because, horror, for censorship. You want censorship: but catch it out of a cannon. And according to official estimates, 500 people were killed, including women and children. Yanukovych was bypassed once. But in general, as knowledgeable people say, it’s five times more. As for the “scoop,” the democrats Rutskaya and Khasbulatov would never restore any “scoop.”

Muzhdabaev, apparently, felt some instability in his position and decided to explain himself once again: “I don’t justify human sacrifices, it was simply horror, I myself wrote about those events for my newspaper, I was almost killed on the roof of the house near the database where we my colleague and I climbed up - a helicopter hovered above us, but we got down the fire escape in time. Then I was in front of the White House when there was a shootout, bullets flew about fifty centimeters from the top of my head. Branches from the tree fell from the queue. I remember it all.

Zakhar, you’re saying this now, but then I was absolutely sure that the scoop would return, it was clear from everything that Rutskoi and Khasbulatov said.”

“Well, now I’m absolutely sure,” I answered, “that in a certain situation it will be very bad in Ukraine not only for Yanukovych and his family, but for many of my comrades, including good writers, who opposed the Maidan, that Russia will lose the Black Sea Fleet, and that the last Russian schools will close in ten years, and that exactly the same thieves as Yanukovych will come to power, only tightly grabbed by the button by overseas friends, and much more. For example, the fact that freedom fighters can destroy their own country without any Russia... The difference between us is one thing: you were for Yeltsin then, and now I am against Yanukovych. But this difference is not partial, but explains a lot. Not in you and me, but in us and you.”

“Zakhar, no one will touch your friends,” Aider reassured me. “Ukrainians will build a normal country without murderers and bandits.”

End of quote.

It is significant that Aider wisely remained silent about the Black Sea Fleet and Russian schools. Well, at least thank you for your friends for taking care of them. True, a certain non-local guest immediately joined the conversation, promising that they would definitely punish my friends.

* * *

I finished reading the interesting book “A Week in December” by the modern English writer Sebastian Faulks. It was done very restrainedly, in places witty, unhurried, and unpretentious in English.

I noted one funny moment. There, a Russian girl named Olga appears among the heroines. The author writes about her like this: a “Russian girl.” A football player’s girlfriend, she’s filmed for all sorts of erotic sites; several characters in the novel look at her (in their laptops) in their leisure time – she’s like a unifying, uh, factor in the novel. At a certain point on her body, the views of the main male characters periodically converge.

Then it suddenly turns out that this Russian girl was born and raised in a Ukrainian village. That is, she is not a Russian girl, but for a modern English writer (very famous in England) there is no difference between a Ukrainian girl and a Russian one - for him they are all “Russian girls”.

In general, this is not a sign of the delusions of a particular Faulks: at the height of the Maidan, I talked with a German director, then with an Italian publisher, then with a French writer - they all admitted to me one by one that they really learned about the existence of Ukraine only after there was thunder and smoke in Kiev, – before that, they were sure that this place on the map was occupied by someone like Russia.

Actually, my only point is that when crocodile tears are shed in Europe today about Ukraine, all these people are being a little disingenuous: they began to feel sorry for Ukraine only for the reason that it is allegedly tormented by Russia. And only because it was explained to them that these are two different countries. They are unaware of any clear differences between one and the other. Or rather, they know nothing at all about one of them.

* * *

The Russian state behaves rudely towards the liberal intelligentsia, but it asked for it, it was hard not to notice.

However, when there is a choice with whom it is easier for a lonely artist and master to quarrel, for example, words, this master will gladly choose the state, because it is more expensive for himself to quarrel with the liberal intelligentsia.

Let’s say, I can guess about Tatiana Nikitichna Tolstoy’s attitude to Ukrainian events. Oh, it would be powerful if she said it out loud.

But she will talk about all sorts of flowers, Olivier salads, mock the Russian Duma - but about uh-this... About this - never!

This is its own environment. She lives there. No, in general she lives in Russian classical literature, there’s nothing you can do about it - despite her cannibalistic journalism, she is a writer of serious strength. At least there was. However, making a gesture against the environment in this environment is a nightmare, sir.

I remember in Paris watching Tatyana Nikitichna in the most tender voice calls Rubinstein at breakfast: “Lyovochka, come to our table!”

What would she call Lyovochka if she told us about the Maidan, the Right Sector and her attitude towards the Ukrainian language? Rubinstein would not have gone to her table. Or I would go, but with a bad, unkind, tired face.

No, it’s better for Tatyana Nikitichna to remain silent - that’s what Tatyana Nikitichna may have decided to herself.

And if someone asks her directly about this, she, naturally, will only say about “imperial slime” and about “ochlos,” meaning, of course, the Russian-language ochlos. About this ohlos - you can always, he doesn’t care.

* * *

In this troubled winter, forty times a day I have to read: “...Russians want to be loved - but why love them?” There is no problem with what they write about us. The problem is that a certain attitude must be met. Therefore, I derived the formula.

Russians should be exactly the same as they are not loved.

They wanted an impudent mug in a fur hat who meddles in other people's affairs - here's an impudent mug for you. So that no one will be offended later. So that cognitive dissonance does not arise, as is now commonly said in enlightened circles.

Otherwise I see quiet, intelligent people everywhere, what kind of Russians they are - indistinguishable from an Italian, and almost indistinguishable from a Spaniard, too, somewhat prone to moralizing, to overestimating their own importance, but not at all evil, well-mannered, well-mannered, expressing themselves well on free topics, but to them: “arrogant mug, earflaps, aggressor, why love you.” Not good, sir. The discrepancy is obvious.

Go get earflaps, in short.

* * *

There is one topic that is probably familiar to you and is often discussed. Its essence boils down to the following statement: “Russia is a born slave, three hundred years of the Horde yoke have shaped the people’s character. Rub any Russian and you will find a Tatar.”

(It’s strange that no one says: rub any Tatar and you’ll find a Russian.)

It seems that while the evil Horde kept the Russians on a leash, all the other European peoples frolicked on their lawns, exhausted from freedom, which is why they grew up so democratic.

But let's look a little closer.

For example, who should we start with? Romania?

Romania is, in fact, three principalities - Wallachia, Transylvania, Moldova.

From the 11th century Transylvania was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. In the 16th century, all of future Romania fell under the Ottoman Empire.

Romania itself became a separate state only in the 19th century.

Would it occur to anyone here to say: Romanians have never been a sovereign country, rub any Romanian and you will find a Turk? Or Hungarian?

No, it wouldn’t occur to anyone to say that, they’re not Russians.

By the way, Hungary. In terms of age, it is slightly younger than Rus-Russia (it has existed since about the 10th century).

But in the second half of the 17th century. Hungary became part of the Habsburg dominions, and this continued for two hundred years until the Austro-Hungarian Empire emerged.

Bulgaria was part of the Byzantine Empire, and then the Ottoman Empire - the Bulgarians are also three as many as you want, you can rub anything.

The Czechs were first owned by the Franks (from the 9th century), then the Poles came there, and from the 11th to the 14th centuries. The Czechs were ruled by German emperors (rub the Czech too, please). In the 17th century the Germans returned again; in short, the Czechs seriously gained independence in 1918.

Italy in its current form did not exist at all until 1861, so if you rub an Italian, you can find God knows who. But no one rubs. No one doubts that there is a national Italian character. In the 16th century Italy was controlled by Spain. In 1805, Italy came under Napoleon's rule for some time. By the time Italy was united, the Italians did not yet know how to think of themselves as a single people; and since then we haven’t learned much.

Portugal first part of the 16th and 17th centuries. was subject to Spain in the 18th century. - became politically and economically dependent on England.

Can you imagine the following reasoning: “The slavish nature of Portugal, rub any Portuguese and you will find a Spaniard,” how do you like it? You can get punched in the ear for such stupidity; That's right, this is not Russia.

Spain at certain periods was ruled by Arabs and French.

Norway became a state in the 9th century, but already in the 14th century it lost its independence, and was ruled by the descendants of the Vikings - the Danish kings. Hundreds of years! Thoughts about independence appeared among the Norwegians only in the 19th century, but in the end Norway came under the protectorate of Sweden. Rubbing will not grind the Norwegian either.

Since the 12th century, Ireland has been persecuted by England in every possible way, until in 1801 it became part of the kingdom.

Poland was periodically divided and cut into pieces by its closest neighbors.

Finland was part of Sweden from the 12th to the 19th centuries, for seven hundred years. Nothing wrong, right?

We are not even talking about states that never, even hypothetically, were sovereign until their sovereignty awoke in those difficult days when they were under the yoke of Russia.

But if suddenly the conversation comes up about Russians, then - despite dozens of neighbors who lived for centuries under a foreign flag, spoke foreign languages ​​and gave their best women to strangers - they will definitely say: Horde, this and that, serfdom, a young people, not yet mature enough, independence is not their thing.

In the world, in addition to Europe - in Africa, Asia, Latin America - there are dozens of countries that gained independence only in the 20th century. Until that moment they belonged to someone. And not for a hundred or two hundred years - but always. Always. They were beaten, crushed, scattered, led in chains, forced to work on plantations, driven from one end to another.

But no one will ever dare to say out loud about most of these peoples even one bad word. “African American slave consciousness” – what do you think? Aren't you afraid that you will be lynched for making such a joke?

That's right, for the third time we'll tell you, these are not Russians.

Choose for yourself: people who: a) consider you idiots, will talk about the Horde and the slave consciousness; b) they themselves are not very healthy; c) both points are correct.

* * *

Boris Berezovsky superficially, but in some ways accurately defined the main features of the world's leading countries: Germany - order, USA - freedom, Russia - maximalism.

From here, however, it becomes quite clear why Germany has the greatest philosophy (order and orderliness), while the USA has the most attractive Mass culture(freedom, yo), and Russia has the greatest literature (towards a person and into a person at maximum speeds, no matter what).

The offended party in this story too is Ukraine. It would never occur to anyone in the world to look for the line that defines Ukraine. Now in one, now in another, now in the thirty-third book of a European or American writer one encounters a wide variety of explanations: Russians are like this, Russians are that, the main thing about Russians is this.

You can find definitions of Finn, Serb, Spaniard, Pole, Irish, almost anyone. But no one has ever cared who a Ukrainian is and what his characteristics are.

They say that Bismarck identified the main feature of Ukrainians as a tendency to betray, but then it turned out that this was a fake, a lie. Bismarck wrote a lot during his life, but the word “Ukrainians” does not appear even once in his writings.

“It would be better if he scolded me,” as women say.

The only ones who seriously loved Ukraine, admired it, and wrote poems and novels about it were the Russians. Russian literature is the only place in Europe where Ukrainians exist in full power, as part of European culture.

* * *

In the preface to one book I noticed the phrase: “Five hundred years of Russian history.” The author of the foreword is a Russian politician, a cheerful guy.

I have seen a similar figure more than once (last time from Dmitry Lvovich Bykov, and in general from time to time, from any cunning public). Well, I met him once - he shrugged his shoulders, he shrugged his shoulders twice, but in general - why shrug?

Why these comrades of ours are afraid to measure Russian history since 1500 is completely incomprehensible. Should it be shorter, or what?

Andrei Rublev, Alexander Nevsky, Sergius of Radonezh, Dmitry Donskoy, “The Tale of Law and Grace”, “The Tale of Igor’s Host” - what history does this all have to do with? To the Polish one, or what?

Between 1237 and 1480, monasteries such as Trinity-Sergiev, Kirillo-Belozersky, Savvino-Storozhevsky, Spaso-Kamenny, Solovetsky, Ferapontov Belozersky, Pafnutev Borovsky, Troitsky Ipatievsky, Tolgsky, Joseph-Volokolamsky were created - which preserved the unity of Russian culture throughout times of any strife. Or are these not Russian monasteries? And whose? French?

What kind of fucking habits, by God. If you like to trim something, trim it yourself. If you like to be younger, introduce yourself to your new girlfriends as students of a circus school.

They say to Ivan III: “You know what, Vanya, Russian history begins with you, and we won’t take your grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather there.” - “What, and Ivan Kalita?” - “And him too.” - “And half of the Russian Orthodox saints?” - “And half of the Russian Orthodox saints!” - “And Yuri Dolgoruky, the founder of Moscow?” - “And him.” - “Go to such and such a mother.”

Russian history is quite linear. People have lived here for one thousand two hundred years who:

– spoke the same language; from the very beginning they were called “Ruses”, “Rusichs”, “Russians”;

– the song and epic codex was passed down from generation to generation (by the way, it was preserved in the northern Russian lands, but in the forcibly separated Kiev region and Galicia it was practically lost); traditions of icon painting and architecture; the great Orthodox tradition itself; and a number of pagan traditions related only to this people;

– occupied approximately the same core territory (from Ladoga to Pereslavl from north to south and from the upper reaches of the Dnieper to the upper reaches of the Volga from west to east); had (before the Romanovs) one dynasty that came from Novgorod to Kyiv, from there, even during Ancient Rus', moved the capital to Vladimir and Suzdal, and from there later to Moscow.

Actually, this is why the Russian princes up to Ivan the Terrible had a direct relationship with the Rurikovichs, and the Zaporozhye Cossacks, who became the basis of the Ukrainian nation, naturally had nothing to do with the Rurikovichs.

Therefore, roughly speaking, the fact that in Ukraine they paint Vladimir the Red Sun on money and erect monuments to Svyatoslav is, of course, sabotage, because they glorify the Russian princes, the direct parents of those very demons who took on faith the words “Moscow is there will be a third Rome, but there will never be a fourth.” It was from this attitude that Vilnius Ukraine had all sorts of problems all its life and, apparently, will continue to have them.

This, however, is a personal matter for Ukrainians. But the job of Russian thinkers and writers is not to drive away any blizzard.

...In general, only in Russia can such nonsense happen. Any shabby nation extends its history by five thousand years and then fools around under the covers with its stupid comic books (“the Incas lived here, the ancient Chinese lived here, and here we are, the invincible Indians”), but we have things that are obvious to everyone, and were completely immutable for everyone. , say, Lomonosov, Karamzin and Pushkin - suddenly began to become confused in the eyes of our contemporaries.

* * *

One young writer in an interview through his lip repeats what he has already heard a hundred times about the fact that “today there are no writers of the level of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.”

Listen, guys, there are never any writers “at the level of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.” With the same success one can say “today there are no writers of the level of Homer and Shakespeare.” And what?

You can also say: “today there is no God at the level of God.”

Moreover, in the times of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky it was impossible to say that this one and that one were writers of the level of Pushkin and Lermontov. Because this is, at the very least, stupid. Listen: “Turgenev and Leskov are writers on the level of Derzhavin and Zhukovsky.” This is some kind of nonsense.

Or the Silver Age has begun. What, we can say that “Mayakovsky, Mandelstam and Yesenin are poets on the level of Nekrasov, Polonsky and Fet”? But this is also some kind of nonsense.

And so on. From decade to decade this nonsense about “there is no Tolstoy and Dostoevsky” is repeated, but in the meantime there are Andrei Platonov, Mikhail Sholokhov, Leonid Leonov, Joseph Brodsky and Yuri Kuznetsov. Take it and enjoy.

There is no Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, and there never will be again.

But time will pass, and people at universities will study Valentin Rasputin, Andrei Bitov, Eduard Limonov. They will be surprised that Alexander Terekhov, Dmitry Bykov and Alexey Ivanov lived here at the same time.

Then they will come across a statement by one young writer about the fact that we “don’t have Tolstoy and Dostoevsky,” and they will say: what an eccentric man, he was engaged in some nonsense, and Khlebnikov and Mayakovsky walked past him arm in arm.

...It would be better to take it and say: “I will be your Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.” This is an application. And then they bore, they bore.

* * *

I don’t want to offend anyone, it makes sense to remember the events of 1917.

First, the February revolution occurred, and voices began to be heard in the Central Rada about the need for federalization, and then secession.

The country began to collapse, the front collapsed, anarchy began.

Do you know what the first thing local activists did in Kyiv was? They toppled the monument to Stolypin.

Next came the October Revolution.

In one way or another, Poland and Finland, the Baltic countries, gained independence for themselves - two of which, like Ukraine, did not know their statehood until then, but were still able to find their way.

And only the huge Ukraine (the size of France!), having, in the words of the Ukrainian publicist Olesya Buzina, “a whole horde” of former servicemen of the Russian Imperial Army - Ukrainians by origin: 700 generals, 60 thousand officers and almost 2 million soldiers - in a strange way lost to everyone and everything.

“The only independent success of the Ukrainian armed forces,” writes the Ukrainian publicist Oles Buzina on this occasion, “was Petlyura’s capture of Kyiv in December 1918, which was recaptured from the Ukrainian hetman Skoropadsky! It turns out that it was a victory over our own people in a dwarf civil war. And all other “feats” - both previous and subsequent ones - were accomplished only with the help of external forces. In the spring of the same 1918, Grushevsky and Petlyura entered their own capital in a convoy German army. Two years later, Petlyura alone, without Grushevsky, showed up in the same Kyiv - thanks to the Poles.”

This approach still reminds me of something.

Only the Germans and Poles have become more restrained, more modest (after all, there is someone to look after them today). But how some of them would like to seriously profit from Ukraine.

...To be fair, it is worth saying: the people who inhabited Ukraine, unlike the Finns or Poles, for the most part did not want any independence at that time, and generally did not really understand from whom they should be independent.

They did not understand to such an extent that the founding father of the Ukrainian People's Republic, Mikhail Grushevsky, after February 1917, wrote the work “Who are the Ukrainians and what do they want?”

The Ukrainians, frankly speaking, were not yet very aware that they were a separate people, and in connection with this they did not want anything special. Including fighting.

Interesting figures for that year (cited by the Ukrainian historian Taras Hunchak): in Yekaterinoslavl, in the elections to the city duma, out of 110 seats, Ukrainians received 11, in Odessa, out of 120, 5, in Zhitomir, out of 98, 9, in Kherson, out of 101, 15, in Kyiv, 125 – only 25.

It was still necessary to work and work on the creation of a unified Ukrainian people.

A hundred years have passed and there is still a lot of work left.

* * *

As we predicted, the victory of the liberation revolution was marked by the demolition of the monument to the Soviet soldier. True, not in Lviv, but in the city of Stryi.

Today is February 23, Defender of the Fatherland Day, so – happy holiday to everyone, thanks to grandfather for the victory, and what else is supposed to be rattled off.

We offer in advance a list of responses to this wonderful event for the Russian progressive public, they also need to react somehow:

– These are the costs of growth (euphoria, freedom)

– We don’t like it ourselves

– What to do if for them he (the soldier) is an occupier?

– A country has the right to those monuments that it needs, and not its neighbors.

– Don’t incite discord

What is characteristic is that none of our democratic friends reposted the photo of the demolition of the monument. Not a single Russian progressive media responded to this. Why spoil the holiday? They demolished and demolished.

Maybe someone will at least write: “Freedom is a complicated thing. But it can’t be any other way” – this is exactly the statement I read from one of my democratic comrades quite recently. We need to remember this phrase, we will also have a chance to say it in response.

...yes, I came up with one more point. For the most ardent guardians of other people's freedom:

“I don’t care about this monument, I hate them myself, and if there was an opportunity, I would demolish them myself.” But when others demolish them, I experience a quiet and sweet gloating.

My friends, just don’t ask “Why?” later when a cobblestone comes to you in response. The world is fair, everyone gets exactly what they ordered in the heavenly ozone.

* * *

News from Kyiv!

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, in honor of the Maidan victory, repealed the law allowing the widespread use of the Russian language.

Progressive community, we are happy!

Maybe you should all be given Ukrainian citizenship, my dears? Somehow you need to be rewarded.

...And how our progressive figures shouted to us that the Russians on the Maidan are side by side with the Ukrainians, that Russian speech is everywhere, that this is not a fight against Russia - this is against a bad government. So what did they immediately start with monuments to the soldier-liberator and the status of the Russian language?

...How many Ukrainian women have come to me with the words: “Oh, we are fighting against the Russians? I’ll go to the Maidan and tell you – they’ll laugh!” Where are these women, why don’t they come in today?

...Where is this Russian guy who lives in Kyiv, whose open letter, where he wrote: “I’m ashamed that I’m Russian,” was passed on from mouth to mouth: how is he doing? You, guy, write this phrase on your chest and now walk with it, it will be more reliable for you.

...And, in fact, the rest of the Russians and not quite Russians who fought there side by side for freedom - and here, on the vastness of the world wide web - how do you feel there? All according to plan?

* * *

It’s no secret that the overwhelming majority of the Russian liberal intelligentsia and a significant part of the nationalists came out with full and unconditional support for the events on the Maidan.

Exceptions are rare.

In a liberal environment, it is difficult to discern any kind of critical attitude towards the Maidan.

In the nationalist environment, the situation is similar, plus or minus - just remember that about two dozen Russian nationalist organizations immediately came out in support of the Maidan, and some activists went there as volunteers, and there are already deaths.

Which, at some point, could be explainable: people who were aware that Russia had the same type of corrupt regime as in Ukraine tended to consider the people gathered on the Maidan as their comrades-in-arms.

Moreover, news has repeatedly come from the Maidan that there is an amazing, unprecedented unity in Ukraine: Ukrainians, Russians, representatives of other nationalities, liberals, nationalists, and “leftists” are fighting on the same barricades.

However, the situation in recent days has shown that the situation is somewhat more complicated.

It started with the fact that monuments to Lenin began to be demolished throughout Ukraine. If the first barbaric act on the Maidan itself still caused some consternation even in the ranks of the participants in the popular uprising themselves, then later it seemed to become commonplace - well, yes, they demolish it - they have the right.

“It feels like Lenin has ruled Ukraine for the last twenty-three years,” someone wittily remarked about this.

Already in the very focus on the monuments to Lenin, one could read the anti-Russian orientation of the uprising - after all, in Ukraine no one is calling for building socialism, and in Russia there is no smell of socialism at all: we are run by people deeply hostile to all this.

That is, the first, to put it mildly, to be deceived on the Maidan were the Ukrainian “leftists.” Later they tried to resist the demolition of monuments to Lenin, and some of them suffered because of this - in other words, they were beaten. (Naturally, the ranks of the Russian liberal intelligentsia paid absolutely no attention to this - what else.)

Then events began to develop with even greater speed: literally the next day after the victory of the Maidan, the monument to the soldier-liberator near Lvov was demolished and the law of Ukraine “On the principles of state language policy” was repealed, which guaranteed the Russian language regional status, as well as the right to open Russian classes in schools.

It became clear to all sane people that a trend towards de-Russification of Ukraine has been identified.

So the Russian activists of the Kyiv revolution were also deceived: well, they did not fight for the demolition of monuments and the infringement of the Russian language.

Maidan supporters are trying to explain the demolition of the monument by the Holodomor - as if it is a monument to the Holodomor, and not to the millions of fallen soldiers who liberated the world from fascism.

As for the Russian language, we are assured that “as they spoke Russian, that’s how they will speak it.”

All this does not stand up to criticism. Naturally, an immediate ban on the Russian language will not be introduced - but the results of the new Ukrainian policy will make themselves felt a little later: for example, when in fifteen years a new generation of people grows up who did not learn Russian at school, since it was not taught. In addition, the very possibility of conducting paperwork, participating in court proceedings, and so on, and so on, and so on, in Russian, will disappear.

The arguments of radical Maidan supporters are clear: they consider Ukraine their country, and do not see any need to share their influence, in the broadest sense, with Russian-speaking citizens.

But these are their arguments!

It is shocking that virtually all the leading players of the Russian opposition and the absolutely overwhelming number of the liberal intelligentsia not only do not react in any way to the current situation, but find it completely normal. You hear: normal.

But what is normal in the fact that a person - all his relatives, all of whose ancestors lived on Ukrainian soil for a hundred, two hundred, three hundred, or even more years - suddenly loses the right to study and, in the broadest sense, to use his language - in all cases, except for domestic and family ones.

Russian-speaking people living on the territory of Ukraine have always lived there, worked for this land, fought and died for it - who has the right to prohibit them from doing anything if they make up the majority of the population in many cities?

Yes, yes, yes, a hundred times “yes” - the Ukrainian side has the right to its point of view on this matter. But why should we separate it? We do not prohibit, say, the Tatar language here and do not prevent this people from erecting their monuments - why shouldn’t we serve as an example in this matter?

And here we come to a very simple conclusion.

And Ukraine, and other former republics of the USSR, and European countries that fought against their own communist power or liberal-bourgeois corrupt regimes, have intelligentsia and opposition that always clearly and strictly put the interests of their country, their language and their people above all else.

And only in Russia has an amazing, incomprehensible class emerged of the overwhelming majority of the liberal intelligentsia and a serious part of the opposition, which with paranoid zeal acts as a prosecutor for the interests of its people and a lawyer for the peoples of others.

Who are these people? Where were they brought here from?

Why are thirty thousand people on the Kiev Maidan perceived by the Russian opposition as comrades-in-arms, and thirty thousand people who came to the rally in Sevastopol as opponents? These are not titushki, you see - these are people asking for help in your own language.

Our “rulers of thoughts” deny these people passion, willpower, beauty, honesty - and give these rights exclusively to those gathered in Kyiv.

This is not fair. This, after all, is not democratic - you are democrats, aren’t you?

Moreover, this is even vile.

The Russian liberal intelligentsia could at least speak out with a note of protest: they say, Ukrainian brothers in arms, what is happening there, let’s not go too far...

But they didn’t even remain silent - most of them were in favor! And they found arguments for this!

Let us, reader, assume today, February 24, 2014, that tomorrow the new Ukrainian government will decide to use force to resolve the situation in Odessa or Kerch. Question to answer: In the event of a confrontation, on whose side will the Russian liberals or the Russian ideological colleagues of the Right Sector be on?

An answer is not needed due to the obviousness - they will oppose the “separatists”.

All this opposition, as it were, and the intelligentsia, as it were, defends not the Russian people and not the Russian language, but their own values. For them, liberal values ​​(as they understand them) or nationalist values ​​(as they have difficulty understanding them) are more important than values actually Russians. This kind of opposition has no analogues in the world.

Acting in this direction, our heroes reach amazing depths and heights of demagoguery.

I especially liked the explanation of one liberal publicist who tried to explain the meaning of the use of the words “Muscovites” and “Jew” in the speech of a famous Ukrainian politician.

"Moskal" in in this context- this is a Russian imperial who climbs into all the cracks where he is not invited. And a “Jew” is someone who does not disdain to deceive people of other faiths and foreigners, despises them, puts profit above honor,” explained the liberal publicist, by the way, in other circumstances – well, that is, in the case of an unplanned meeting with Bandera’s followers – who had chances of falling under both of these definitions.

But he decided that since he does not deceive foreigners and is not an imperial, it means that this is not his thing.

And what should we do with all this? Who should I call? The doctors?

In Russia, the chances of knocking out the near-government hundred-foot thieves sitting on our necks are minimal, not at all for the reason that the people are slaves, but for the reason that you, gentlemen, are aliens. You were brought here from the Moon.

Who would take you back now! We would have done everything here without you, and then invited you back. They would build you a Ministry of Tolerance and Psychiatry, and you would manage it quietly, in starched straitjackets.

Well, what does it cost you?

Part two. Spring in Crimea

* * *

“O bright and red-decorated Russian land! You marvel at many beauties: many lakes, you marvel at rivers and locally revered springs, steep mountains, high hills, frequent oak groves, marvelous fields, various animals, countless birds, great cities, marvelous villages, honest boyars, many nobles - you are filled with everything, Russian land, O true Christian faith!

Written in Vladimir around 1240. "The Word about the destruction of the Russian land." Statehood is three hundred years old - and what an already established feeling of the Motherland.

It looks a little like Alexander Prokhanov’s editorial, right?

Lately, step by step, they have been trying to shorten Russian history, by about five hundred years. So that we can still talk with the same keen feeling about “young people” and “young literature” and all that jazz.

Don’t believe it, people like us lived here eight hundred years ago. Against the backdrop of enlightened Europe, with its own habits, with its own patriotic fervor and strange feeling for nobles. And with an excellent literary style, that’s what else should be noted.

The only thing: then, perhaps, they did not yet know that the destruction of the Russian land was its usual state. She always dies. We should have gotten used to this after a thousand years.

* * *

“The history of Russia since ancient times” S.M. Today Solovyov is read (and republished) much less often than Karamzin or Ilovaisky.

Never met comparative analysis voluminous works of our classical historians, although there is something to talk about here.

Solovyov is more complex than many of his colleagues, he is in every event as if inside, and does not strive to soar and constantly look at it all from above: he rushes as a messenger here and there, eavesdrops on reports to monarchs, collects all sorts of noble gossip, retells conversations at court, draws in chalk brush, generously sprinkles characters - an unprepared person is immediately frightened by a host of names and dates and stops reading.

I’ve been reading Solovyov since childhood, this time I was naturally interested in the moment when Bogdan Khmelnitsky dies, and Ukrainian ambassadors come to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich and make a speech.

“The ever-given power of your most illustrious royal majesty is now established OVER OUR LITTLE RUSSIAN TRIBE<…>I bring to my memory what was spoken by the reigning prophet: this came from the Lord and is wonderful, truly the union of small Russia and its attachment to the Great Power of your Most Serene Majesty the Tsar's Scepter, LIKE A NATURAL BRANCH TO A DECENT ROOT.<…>When Little Russia became scarce in help, then God moved your Tsar’s Majesty’s pious heart, which from his high throne looked upon us and blessed our Zaporozhye army with the generosity of his acceptance.”

But Bogdan died, and traditional Ukrainian history began.

Solovyov writes: “Joining Moscow was the work of the popular majority, and this majority had no reason to repent of their deed. The minority at the top had a different view: for this minority and especially for the gentry, the union with the gentry state, with Poland, had more charm<…>but it was impossible to directly, immediately declare oneself against Moscow and unite with Poland: Poland was weak, it had not yet recovered from the blows inflicted on it by Moscow and Sweden, while the army and people were against citizenship of Poland; it was necessary to be cunning and rely on some other alliance, more effective than the Polish one, and Vygovsky (Khmelnitsky’s heir) turned to the Crimean Khan.”

There is also a very funny moment about the Crimean Khan. The fact is that Alexey Mikhailovich signed his messages modestly, in our usual modest tradition: “of the eastern and western and northern countries, father and grandfather, heir and owner.”

The Crimean Khan wrote in response: how is the east?! How's the West?! – Do we have one Russia everywhere? - and, further, I quote: “Are there not many great states between East and West? It is unsuitable to write so falsely and obscenely.”

I was offended, look at you. (He, by the way, had reasons: he ruled Little Russia for seven years and also seemed to have a claim.)

Nice one, Khan. That's the only way it's more beautiful.

...All this to the question that “times have changed, times have changed, we live in a different world!” (these phrases must be pronounced in a high, squeaky voice, in the manner of a parrot).

Times have not changed. Well, not counting the fact that the support group of the gentry now sits in the best Moscow cafes, and some guys from among the Crimean Tatars sit with them.

The words they utter, meanwhile, are the same: see the above letter from the khan to the Russian guarantor, heir and owner of the eastern, western and northern sides - “False, obscene! Indecent, deceitful!

* * *

Recently, several times among progressive figures we have come across a boorish attitude towards Pushkin’s poem “Slanderers of Russia”. One well-known progressive comrade wrote about this: “Shameful poems.”

Let us remember that the poem is dedicated to the Polish uprising of 1830. Poland was then part of Russia (and it entered there together with Warsaw for the reason that the Poles, as it seemed to the Russian autocracy, participated too effectively in Napoleon’s campaign against Russia, for which they paid the price).

What are we talking about? The fact is that in addition to Pushkin, Lermontov ("Again People's Revolutions"), Boratynsky, Chaadaev, Kireevsky, Gogol and even the Decembrists also reacted purely negatively to the Polish uprising. Mikhail Lunin, for example, wrote: “In the Warsaw uprising one can find neither signs nor evidence of a popular movement. It did not put forward a single organic idea, no public interest..."

That is, roughly speaking, Lunin wrote that it was a revolution of the gentry, or, as they would say today: the oligarchy, the financial aristocracy.

By the way, the Poles did put forward ideas during the uprising: for example, returning Kyiv to Poland.

...Everything is beautiful in this old story.

To begin with: support for the position of the state by the Decembrists. Here the association lies on the surface: the National Bolsheviks, who had more than two hundred people in prison and at least six people were killed, are even comparable in number of victims to the Decembrists. The progressive public cannot understand how the National Bolsheviks can now, in connection with the Ukrainian events, support the state. Two hundred years have passed, but the public still can’t handle it.

Then, what a list of those who shared Pushkin’s “shameful” position! Oh, these are disgraceful figures. Ulitskaya, Rubinstein and Yuri Shevchuk would have behaved differently, not so shamefully. Cultural figures were too small back then.

Finally, I recently read an interview with a Ukrainian Russian-speaking writer, my once friend, Andrei Kurkov, about how ashamed he is of Russia (in Kurkov’s place you can put, for example, the writer Zhadan or the writer Nesterenko). And then, willy-nilly, I remembered how Pushkin, already in 1834, wrote about his friend the Polish poet Adam Mickiewicz: “Our peaceful guest became our enemy - and poison / He fills his poems, for the sake of the violent mob. From afar, / The voice of an evil poet reaches us, / A familiar voice!.. God! Sanctify / His heart with your righteousness and peace.”

Pushkin generally has a lot of “shameful poems.” Russia, by the way, occupied Poland - and this poet still teaches his Polish comrade “peace” and “truth,” you see.

What would they say to Pushkin in our time? That he was fooled by propaganda. That “believe me, everything is much more complicated.” That “he can’t see the situation from Russia.”

But you can see everything.

* * *

But, of course, not everyone shared Pushkin’s position.

Some representatives of the enlightened environment of that time simply stopped saying hello - for example, the granddaughter of Field Marshal Kutuzov Dolly Fikelmon.

That is, Pushkin, Boratynsky, Lermontov, the Decembrists - being in agreement with the actions of the state - immediately fell low in the eyes of the “world”.

The poet Vyazemsky, by the way, a friend of Pushkin, was simply furious because of these poems, the Turgenev brothers condemned the “barbarism” of the poet; yes many, many.

Publicist Nikolai Melgunov wrote about Pushkin that “... I was so disappointed as a person that I lost respect for him even as a poet, for one thing is inseparable from the other.”

Have you guessed yourself, your disgusted expression, my dear contemporary? Come on, look, didn’t you guess right?

Dolly, darling, you haven't changed at all. And you, old Melgunov, are still full of strength.

Ah, gentlemen. Oh.

* * *

And, of course, one cannot help but recall another quilted jacket, Denis Davydov, in his hussar uniform - he was the spitting image of a Colorado. He has a poem “Modern Song”, written back in 1836. But really, it’s ridiculously modern.

“There was a stormy century, a wondrous century, / Loud, majestic; / There was a huge man, / A waste of glory: / It was the age of heroes! / But the checkers got mixed up, / And midges and insects crawled out of the cracks.”

What's it like, comrades?

“Every mama’s boy, / Everyone robbed, / A fool of fashionable nonsense, / Makes a liberal.”

Why would he squirm like that? Davydov doesn’t understand either.

"Well? – Perhaps our hero / Tired his genius / And with the care of battle, / And with the fire of battles? / Well? – Perhaps he is rich / With the happiness of a family man, / Replacing the brilliance of his armor / With that of a citizen?.. / No; impudently, arms akimbo, / He prowls around the dachas / And in theatres, lounging, / Everything hisses and whistles.”

And a few stanzas later there is a brilliant description of the progressive community:

“Here is the living room in the rays: / Candles and kenkets, / On the table and on the sofas / Bales of newspaper; / And the august congress / Of two deaf countesses / And two pitiful baronesses, / Prim and skinny; / All the offspring of sin, / Passionate newness; / The conspiratorial flea / With the Jacobin fly; / And the goosebump - / An elderly girl, / And a speckled dragonfly - / Noteworthy gossip; / And a dry spider with glasses - / A long lazaroni, / And a shabby beetle with glasses, / A stink-carrier; / And a mosquito, a lame student, / In a coachman’s hairstyle, / And a cricket, a night screamer, / Krylov’s friend Moska; / And a goosebump philanthropist, / And a hungry worm, / And Philip Philipich - a bug, / A husband... effeminate. / Everyone around the table - and gallop / Into the boiling meetings / Utopian, ideologist, / President of the meeting, / Confessor of old ladies, / The little abbey, / That in the living rooms he’s used to beating / On the little alarm.”

...Well, have you recognized everyone? It is characteristic that Korney Chukovsky’s poems “A small mosquito is flying from somewhere, and a small flashlight is burning in his hand” clearly grew from here, from this charming ode. Davydov has a “jump around the table” and a mosquito too - Korney Ivanovich was a very well-read person.

Davydov’s poems from two hundred years ago could well be published with illustrations, otherwise we won’t find ideologists, effeminate husbands, zealous elderly girls and others among us.

Russian classics are a dangerous thing. You can hang a sign “Don’t get in, he’ll kill you.”

* * *

In the European film adaptation of War and Peace, Hélène Kuragina is infected with syphilis by a Frenchman. Interesting approach. This is not in the book. The traits of her father as a complete, as one of my friends says, “liberal nit” are also very emphasized in the film, which, by the way, was made by Germans, Poles, Italians and... the French themselves.

The behavior of some of the current progressive public - under certain circumstances - really resembles the behavior of the Kuragin father and daughter from War and Peace. We mean not only the film adaptation, which strangely emphasized this point, but also the original source, naturally. Lev Nikolaevich, like Tyutchev, knew the customs of individual representatives of the world very well.

(Remember this phrase from Tolstoy: “If only the government were smart and moral, if only it were at least a little Russian!”)

(Then this entire aristocracy, a considerable part of which had long since degenerated and was, in fact, anti-Russian, was en masse considered to be among the best people of Russia and, naturally, called innocent victims of Bolshevism. Which is not entirely true, to put it mildly.)

Moods similar to those of the Kuragins were widespread at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War: there were Kuragins of their own; they always get divorced, no matter the regime. We waited for the German with our fingers crossed in our pockets.

And Stalinism, as we understand, had absolutely nothing to do with it: tradition.

In the most terrible dream, the current guarantor cannot be compared with the Kremlin highlander - but has there been fewer Kuragins?

It’s just a shame that the progressive public can no longer be frightened by the fact that a Frenchman will appear and infect it with syphilis, like Princess Kuragina in the movies.

In a sense, the Frenchman had already infected her long ago. It makes her happy.

* * *

It’s curious: in 1822, that is, actually two hundred years ago, one American figure - Thomas Jefferson - wrote to another - John Adams (both, for a moment, were presidents of the United States): “It seems that the European barbarians are again going to exterminate each other. No matter who destroys whom, there will be one less destroyer in the world. The extermination of madmen in one part of the world promotes prosperity in other parts of the world. Let this be our concern and let’s milk the cow while the Russians hold it by the horns and the Turks by the tail.”

Learn real, national politics, gentlemen. Americans have known a lot about this for two hundred years. Milking a cow. You have to be able to hit them on the hands. Let them milk themselves.

By the way, in 1838, the brilliantly perspicacious Tyutchev (the same great Russian poet and at that time diplomat) wrote an excited report from Turin to Russia that the goal that the Americans would pursue “is to establish themselves in the Mediterranean Sea,” seeking "to the final installation there." And, naturally, we must fight this, Tyutchev understands.

I wrote this down in connection with the fact that one young writer tried to explain to me through the capital’s newspaper: you shouldn’t remember the names of Pushkin, Tyutchev and Dostoevsky and try to guess how they would react to current events.

No guys. It is worth remembering the names of Pushkin, Tyutchev and Dostoevsky, because if your mind is temporarily clouded, you can borrow your mind from the classics. The classics have a lot of brains.

At the same time, Pushkin wrote that Europe’s attitude towards Russia is characterized by two things: “ignorance and ingratitude.”

The world traditionally stands at the same point as it stood. This is fine. Ethics, aesthetics, politics - things are much more stable than we think.

But in fairness, let us note that for some reason the United States has been wanting to go to the Mediterranean Sea for two hundred years in a row, and we swim into their underbelly much less often.

Those in Russia who say “the world has changed” are absurd people. Don't listen to them, they will teach you bad things. Tyutchev would not have liked them, I’m sure.

...Yes, this story has a continuation.

Tyutchev was soon fired from the diplomatic service (as was Gorchakov, later one of the strongest Russian diplomats).

Behind the dismissal of Tyutchev and Gorchakov was Foreign Minister Nesselrode - who, as you know, was very seriously engaged by Austria.

Much later, Nesselrode himself was finally fired, and Gorchakov was put in his place. When the sovereign was asked what the reason for his choice was, he answered irritably: “Because Gorchakov is Russian!”

Conclusions? Not only have times not changed, the players are the same.

* * *

Do I understand correctly that the reaction of the Russian progressive public, in the event of the entry of Ukrainian troops into Donetsk (this is their land) and the forceful suppression of the uprising, will consist of four words: “This is an internal matter of Ukraine.”

That is, first, “you should never shoot at your own people, Berkut!” - and then (silent): “Sometimes it’s still possible.”

If Yanukovych, who was losing power, brought tanks to Kyiv, it would be “fascism, fascism, fascism,” but here it will be something completely different, completely.

Let us repeat once again: the position of the Ukrainian side is transparent and clear - they are FOR their state, and if necessary, they will reject all humanism at once.

But what about our humanists? Will our musicians sing us a song? Will our poets write poems for us? Is it really possible that no one will say anything?

* * *

Why do the same people not want the return of Crimea to Russia even with a referendum, and why do they propose giving the Kuril Islands to Japan without it at all? I’m generally silent about Chechnya. In 1996, Boris Nemtsov, at that time the governor of the Nizhny Novgorod region and Yeltsin's likely successor, collected five hundred thousand signatures for the independence of Chechnya. Today I would gladly collect, if I could, the same amount for the independence of Crimea. In this case, there is one thing in common: both territories must be independent of Russia. And the Kuril Islands, the Kuril Islands.

How can you not love them, tell me.

* * *

Traditional situation: there is a continuous cry from progressives that a concert of the Belarusian group “Lyapis Trubetskoy” was banned in Pskov, and at the same time there are proposals from the same people to ban entry to the West and not allow Fyodor Bondarchuk, Pavel Lungin, Oleg Tabakov, Vladimir Bortko and Gennady Khazanov - in general, everyone who supported the right of Crimea to independence from Ukraine. (Leonid Yarmolnik also spoke quite transparently about Crimea - don’t forget Yarmolnik.) This is our democracy.

A separate “my charm” is a direct and public appeal to the Ukrainian people by the former minister of the Yeltsin government, Alfred Koch, to start guerrilla warfare against Russian occupiers in Crimea. Kill the Russians and Europe will come to the rescue: that’s what it says.

You can understand when Ukrainians write this (a divorce is a divorce, why bother, I have no complaints against them at all, it would be stupid, and I don’t hope for reciprocity) - but this is written by a guy who worked in the government and lives in a village near Moscow .

The conclusion of the Russian progressive public is simple: our creative figures are scum, and they like Koch with all their might.

Beauty! I understood everything a long time ago, but I never cease to be surprised. What an amazingly even and honest world people have in their heads.

* * *

So, Crimea chooses with whom to live.

Exit poll data: 93% for life with Russia. Even the Crimean Tatars seem to have let down some of their hopefuls. Crimean Tatars are a wonderful people.

Naturally, we are waiting for a song on the topic of “mass falsification”, as without it.

Seriously though: you can’t come up with any massive falsifications in a week and a half. Moreover, there was no such need.

My advice to Ukrainians, which no one needs, is: to love, before it’s too late, the South-East of Ukraine with all your heart, to give the rights to broad autonomy, to immediately accept the Russian-second-state, to moderate anti-Russian rhetoric, to cover up all kinds of “Right Sector” with a big cast iron, to humble , as far as possible, your indisputable rightness and understand that everything that happened and is happening is not accidental.

Then there will be a chance for peace and mutual understanding, which your country so needs.

And there is no need to talk about “titushki” and “Donetsk cattle”. Take care of your country. They can hear you there. Every day and for weeks now, your frantic voices have been heard by everyone.

* * *

There was already a funny joke “Why 93% and not 150%,” and other ridicule on this topic. Better go and look at your Southeast, it's sobering. There, some wrong Ukrainian people are starting a guerrilla war against the Ukrainian army. They are probably 0.00001% of all correct Ukrainian people. Just like in Crimea. But they are very active, and the police come over to their side.

If only one Ukrainian, instead of a crowd of scoffers, came in and said: “You Muscovites are assholes, of course, but we really haven’t looked into something in the economy.”

Right now, he'll come in. Everyone has an hour of fun. Progressive public, come to the table as soon as possible. It's more fun together. So, I remind you of the joke: “Why 93% and not 175%??? Oo-ha-ha, o-ha-ha."

Healing laughter.

* * *

As expected, sadness reigns in the Russian progressive community regarding the Crimean referendum, mourning and a day of shame have been declared (“remember this number - this is the beginning of the end”). The only hope is for Obama's speech tomorrow (“Obama, come and punish them!”).

And the fact that everything here will suddenly collapse (“well, please, let it collapse”).

All this once again recalls those very scenes in “12 Chairs” (and not only), when the audience “from the former” gathers and feeds each other rumors about the brewing coup in Moscow and intervention (even in “Virgin Soil Upturned” this is present).

Boris Nemtsov is a bit like Ostap. Valeria Novodvorskaya looks like Ostap's mother. She generally turned out to be prolific, she has thousands of evil children, unfortunately, deprived of the charm and wit of Comrade Bender, but politicized.

Russian classics, how reliable you are.

* * *

I wrote this article six months ago, now it’s appropriate. Here's a snippet:

“Liberals feel so comfortable at the head of Russian culture that there is something fascinating about it. They collected other people's letters into a pile, built their own alphabet, their own morality, their own existence. Now people look at familiar letters, read, understand - everything seems to be the same as in Pushkin, but the meaning is the opposite. How so? Try typing “Slanderers of Russia” from this dictionary, you’ll get gobbledygook. “Kaklemtiven Sirosi.” Is this a medicine?”

Why did I remember this text? And I just read a remake of Brodsky’s anti-Ukrainian ode by my peer, the wonderful young poet Igor Belov. The meaning of the remake is completely opposite to what Brodsky had.

Brodsky had: “There is no point in spoiling the blood, tearing clothes on the chest. / It’s over, you know, love, since it was in between. / Why bother poking around in vain with torn roots with a verb? / The earth, the soil, the black soil with podzol gave birth to you. / Completely download the rights, sew us one thing or another. / It is the earth that does not give you, the kavuns, peace. /<…>/ With God, eagles, Cossacks, hetmans, guards! / Only when it comes to you too, you big guys, / will you wheeze, scratching the edge of the mattress, / lines from Alexander, and not the nonsense of Taras.”

Now people who swear by the name of Brodsky are responsible for Taras, such a calico came out.

The other day I read a poem of the same type by a good Russian writer, only this time to Tyutchev’s melody. The melody is the same, the meaning is turned inside out. “Russia, shame on you” – something like that, but in different words.

Remakes urgently need to be written for a huge number of texts of classical Russian literature, because in the new, wonderful world it looks terrible with all its “militarism”, “obscurantism” and “chauvinism”.

What is happening now in literature is a scam no worse than privatization. To swear by the names of Pushkin and Dostoevsky (and further down the list) - and in the same language, in the same intonation and with passion borrowed from elders - to say exactly the opposite - what does it feel like?

Do you think the gendarmes were kinder then, the barracks smelled of flowers, and they didn’t flog you with rods? In the villages near Ryazan they ate honey, and near Pskov they snacked on honey with hams? No, there was nothing like that - there was the same Russia, which was “feared” and “despised” by “the entire civilized world.” But these fucking classics in the fatal days consistently took the side of their wild power.

Now the world knows about us as we are described in their books.

If Russia achieves the ideal that Voinovich and Viktor Erofeev currently see, there will be no Russia. Nobody needs her in such a damaged state. The funny thing is that all these poems and all their “Chonkins” will fall into tartarar. There will remain essays about the captain's daughter, about the Arab Peter the Great, about Taras Bulba, about Sevastopol. The Karamazovs and their brother Smerdyakov, Quiet Don, the White Guard, the diaries of one writer, the diaries of another writer will remain - this will remain.

People will read it and say: here were people, here were times - the Iliad, the Odyssey, the titans, the demigods...

“What happened then?” Something - a “normal European country”. Leftovers.

Take Kamclectivin Sirosi, one drop per day.

* * *

As we have already noted, Russian classics and modern heirs of the classics often perceive identical events in a strictly opposite way.

The progressive community offers at least two explanations for this strange circumstance. Both options have already become ingrained in our teeth, but since they are pronounced time after time, we will have to say a few words.

First option: “Where did you get the idea, if Pushkin promised to strangle the tsar with the intestines of a priest, Lermontov wrote about “unwashed Russia,” and Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy also permanently “could not remain silent.”

Everything here is clear and just indicative. Experiencing the most difficult feelings about Russian statehood, Russian classics in difficult times (or rather, during the days of Russia demonstrating its “imperial complexes” and other militarism) did not think for a minute on the topic that now our unfortunate people (and I, the Russian classic , personally) will go to fight against “European values” and for “sovereign whims”.

Therefore, the greatest pacifist (from a certain time) of Russian literature, Leo Tolstoy, cried when they lost Port Arthur. He would like them to win.

The concepts of “honor” and “Fatherland” for Lermontov or Gumilyov (if you like, Derzhavin or Tyutchev; re-read Zhukovsky’s journalism - and it is incredibly relevant) were inseparable - it’s bad form to talk about this, pathos, this and that, but in general from “ "all-seeing eye" these guys were hiding "behind the wall of the Caucasus" (well, or in other similar places where the Russians shot at other good people), and not on the peace march.

Second answer. “A lot of time has passed since then, and now the classics would have behaved differently.”

This, you know, is as if in the 19th century Pushkin would have said: a lot of time has passed since the time of Lomonosov, all these heroic odes to the seizure of foreign territories - to no avail, the world has changed.

And then Dostoevsky would say this about Pushkin: they say, this curly-haired guy lived half a century ago, now the time has come for humanism and enlightenment, but our blackamoor has never been abroad, what did he understand at all - if he had seen how people live, he wouldn’t would carry his imperial nonsense. And then Bulgakov and Sholokhov would say the same thing about Dostoevsky. And then Valentin Rasputin - about Bulgakov and Sholokhov.

Although there were those who said something similar from time to time.

I want to say that when Viktor Erofeev mercilessly criticized the raznochintsy, who climbed into literature and began to teach “aristocracy,” he simply did not recognize his parents. However, the commoners were frantic, furious people, some were in prison...

It is not a fact that even they would recognize such heirs.

* * *

In one liberal newspaper, I first read about the fit of chauvinism and militarism that has engulfed Russia, and then, a page later, about the fact that a significant number of Americans consider Russia a “threat.”

I really don’t understand: the country is on the other side of the globe, there are no Russian military bases near it, and in general there are very few of them - while the United States has 800 bases in 128 countries of the world, including in the former republics of the USSR, on the border with Russia, and one transshipment base even in Russia itself. Now they are going to quickly admit Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova into NATO (not because of Crimea, no need - NATO has been entrenched near us for a long time, we are all aware) - and at the same time they feel a “threat”.

But there is a fit of “militarism” and “paranoia” in general in Russia, and Americans just “feel” like that.

And there is no contradiction.

* * *

Historian and political scientist Andrei Zubov predicted the immediate outbreak of the third world war due to the annexation of Crimea.

Have you noticed that the political analysis of the liberal public is, as a rule, not an analysis at all, but a set of letters to Grandfather Frost: firstly, grandfather, I want a war to start for the sake of my being right, secondly, let the economy collapse and as soon as possible, thirdly, let Crimea be left without water and cry about its stupidity, and fourthly, let the sharply impoverished slave people crawl to us on their knees, screaming about our righteousness. Grandpa, hello, did you write it down?

* * *

Andrei Zubov, they say, was fired from his job. "For views." This is discussed at every corner, in the usual context: damned despotism forbids thinking.

However, I remember exactly what kind of “views” they hounded (and also expelled from office) Igor Froyanov.

The contribution to science of Froyanov and Zubov is generally incomparable: the first is a major historian and thinker, the second, alas, is not.

Nevertheless, it never occurred to anyone among the democratic public to stand up for Froyanov - on the contrary, the democratic public in those days supported all kinds of persecution at the proper level and even, believe it or not, wrote collective letters (but, of course, “at the call of the heart”).

These people, in a situation where events are mirrored, will never recognize themselves under any circumstances.

As for Zubov, even in the days of his “exile” I am forced to say the following: he has the right to express any views, write his books and articles, as he wrote before. But teaching historical science to the “younger generation” to such characters is categorically not recommended. I would see how in Ukraine they would tolerate a historian at a state university who would begin to tell that, for example, there was no Ukraine, and the Ukrainian language does not exist either, because the syntax of this language is identical to Russian. Such a historian would have been eliminated in no time, and no one here would even have raised a voice in defense.

Although why am I in the subjunctive mood: surely such cases took place, but this is “their internal matter” and “they will sort it out themselves.” Well, here they “figure it out themselves.” As you love.

* * *

If the progressive public is really for peace (we don’t believe it, but we’ll assume it) – it should now, today, immediately and comprehensively speak out for the need for an urgent OSCE presence in the South-East of Ukraine. The cheerful leaders of the new Ukraine already promised yesterday to crush and strangle all the separatists - well, in fact, they declared a civil war on a serious part of their country (“they will figure it out themselves,” as Yuri Yulianich Shevchuk admonished me at the very beginning of this story - now they will start to figure it out).

So that there is no war, but one continuous democracy, as you like: let observers come, and the South-East chooses its future.

However, I think that the progressive public has come up with another, never tiring activity for the near future - repeating: soon, soon, soon everything will collapse, soon you will all regret it, oh, soon.

Well, that’s the same thing, of course.

* * *

Regarding the Crimean War. Toy, mid-19th century, where Leo Tolstoy fought (after he fought in Chechnya).

Where did it start?

Russia then sent troops into Moldova and Wallachia, which belonged to Turkey (which at one time, accordingly, captured what did not belong to it.)

But, sensing that “enlightened Europe” condemned the “Russian military” (a massive campaign began in the European media, all “civilized humanity” demanded to condemn the aggressor), Nicholas I, imagine, withdrew his troops.

“Screw it, screw it,” decided Nicholas I. “Maybe they did something wrong.”

Although he knew very well that he had done everything right, trying to stop the British advance to the East.

(By the way, exactly half of the population of Turkey at that time was Slavic peoples, who, to put it mildly, found this state of affairs somewhat unpleasant.)

He brought out the troops and the Tsar-Father thought: well, everything worked out.

Meanwhile, England, France and Italy were already preparing to fight against Russia. (All these enlightened countries experienced the problems of such a sweet, kind and even dear Turkish people very painfully.)

And what do you think, enlightened Europe has changed its mind about fighting? No matter how it is.

The French Emperor Napoleon III said then: “I don’t care whether Russia wants to cleanse the principalities or not, but I want to weaken it and will not make peace until I achieve my goal.”

No give or take - Barack Obama. They definitely have the same speechwriter.

By the way, the expression “colossus with feet of clay” in relation to Russia was invented precisely then. Who? German liberals.

...Yes, we must recall that England, France and Italy were joined, of course, by Austria and Prussia.

Do you know what Tyutchev wrote then? Oh, this is very relevant for Russia in recent decades: “Our weakness in this situation is the incomprehensible complacency of official Russia, which has lost the meaning and sense of its historical tradition to such an extent that it not only did not see its natural enemy in the West, but tried only to serve it lining."

And also, on the same occasion, in a letter Tyutchev wrote: “Only fools and traitors did not foresee this.”

* * *

It is curious: during the Crimean War of the 19th century, in 1854–1855, in addition to the “democrats” of that time, who painfully perceived the successes of Russia and with some joy the failures, there were also Slavophiles. In general, the Slavophiles were incomparably smarter and deeper than most modern nationalists, but...

But here’s an amazing fact: some Slavophiles seriously believed that defeat would be more useful for Russia than victory, because Russia did not fully meet the ideals of the Slavophiles.

In general, they really wanted to publish their own magazine.

They were allowed to publish their own magazine - and this completely brightened up the loss of Sevastopol. Why Sevastopol when you can bring ideals to the people. Correct, Slavophile ideals!

There have always been very few sane people. Tyutchev, who lived abroad for many years and knew Europe and all its “European values,” was very angry with the Slavophiles.

Tyutchev was like, you know, like Limonov. Gray-haired, hot-tempered, sarcastic. Thin lips. Wives, mistresses. Very passionate. I read newspapers (that is, I lived in current politics and could, as Vadim Kozhinov noted, see in this politics the movement and pulse of history). He had contacts with both nationalists and liberals. He mocked both liberals and nationalists. He put the interests of the Fatherland above all else.

Tyutchev, of course, was an aristocrat, everything is clear. And Limonov is kind of like a teenager Savenko from Kharkov. But Tyutchev was also not allowed to engage in politics - they kept him at a distance: they say, you are too hot, Fedor.

In fact, they are both, of course, aristocrats.

* * *

Alexander Herzen, one of the pillars of Russian democratic thought, wrote in 1851:

“All of Europe in every way, in parliaments and clubs, on the streets and in newspapers, repeated the cry of the Berlin “Krakehler”: “The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!” And, in fact, they are not only coming, but they have come... No one really knows what they are these Russians, these barbarians, these Cossacks...»

“Caesar knew the Gauls better than modern Europe knows Russia... This arrogant ignorance no longer suits Europe.”

“...every time she starts reproaching the Russians because they are slaves– Russians will have the right to ask: “And you, are you free?”».

“I’ll say it again: if it’s terrible to live in Russia, then it’s just as terrible to live in Europe... The privilege of being listened to and fighting openly is decreasing every day; Europe is becoming more and more like St. Petersburg every day; there are even countries more similar to St. Petersburg than Russia itself.”

“I feel in my heart and mind,” Herzen wrote later, in 1857, “that history is pushing precisely into our (Russian) gates.”

And one more thing: “The Russian people,” said Herzen, “are more than our homeland for us.”

You can find other quotes from Alexander Herzen about reactionary Russia, the flayer Suvorov; and he felt sorry for Poland being divided into pieces... but in general he was a type of deeply Russian person, bright, inspired - and certainly what he was able to say about Europe and Russia a century and a half ago - today's democrats will never say out loud. The tongue will dry out.

* * *

There was such a thinker, Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky, who wrote great work“Russia and Europe” and had a serious influence on Spengler and Toynbee. By the way, he lived in Crimea for many years (he bought himself an estate there on the South Coast), the Slavophiles Aksakov and Strakhov, and Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy came to visit him.

“Russia and Europe” begins with the following reflection. “How does it happen,” Danilevsky asks, seemingly in surprise, but in fact not in surprise, “Prussia and Austria not so long ago attacked Denmark, the most liberal state in Europe, and no European democracy stood up for this Denmark, no one did not consider this a problem worthy of military involvement. They attacked and attacked. But as soon as Russia started a war with Turkey, England and France immediately became outraged at the terrible actions of the barbarian empire and rushed to the defense of the Turks.

“Where does this indifference to humane Denmark come from... and this complete disrespect for the most legitimate demands of Russia?” – exclaims Danilevsky.

From the camel, where.

Danilevsky, however, himself knows where exactly it comes from. More than a century and a half has passed since then.

* * *

Danilevsky, by the way, uses the phrase “our enlightened 19th century” with some irony.

Have you noticed that people who have climbed, for example, to 2014, seem to be at the pinnacle of civilization, which in the 17th and even 20th centuries was still a long way to reach, not to mention some kind of antiquity.

In fact, a person who, all pouting, says: “...we live in the 21st century, my friend, it’s time to wise up,” - in a funny half century, will look like the same eccentric that people sometimes seem to us from the pages of the crumbling press of the end, say , the 19th century with its “progress”, horse-drawn cars, trams with bells and the “highest stage of human development”.

In some 23rd century, China will overflow, or someone will conquer, for example, half of Europe, or Latin America will fight with the USA - and all these blogs with progressives, if they catch anyone’s eye, will be read as jokes . However, even that will not happen.

People have written to me a hundred and forty times in the last month that empires used to be “progress,” but now empires are regression.

You know, people will build themselves some kind of sugar house, walls made of cotton candy, stick a lollipop instead of a light bulb, pick up some concepts - and believe in them. The world outside is not at all sugary or candy-like, empires, American and Chinese, rule there, as usual, the world is striving for unification, some Romania is simply incapable of setting the prices for bread in its own country, a host of sovereign countries dream that their NATO saved - alien imperial troops! – and at the same time – at the same time!!! – these same people say, as if under a spell, that empires are not fashionable, and in the 21st century “they don’t wear it that way.”

One of the undoubted achievements of the 21st century: concepts and ideas have become stronger than reality. In some heads, at least.

* * *

The philosopher Konstantin Leontyev in his work “The Average European as an Ideal and Instrument of World Destruction” has a funny moment when he writes what inspired the previous creators: “One depicted the miraculous passage of the Jews across the Red Sea; the other is the struggle of the Huns with the Romans; the third - scenes from the wars of the consulate and the empire; fourth - scenes from the Old Testament and Gospel history..."

It’s much more difficult for a modern, “progressive” creator, Leontyev mocks:

“If what in the 19th century belongs to him exclusively or predominantly: cars, teachers, professors and lawyers, chemical laboratories, bourgeois luxury and bourgeois debauchery, bourgeois moderation and bourgeois morality, polka tremblante, a frock coat, a top hat and trousers - are so little inspiring for artists, then what should one expect from art when... neither kings, nor priests, nor generals, nor great statesmen... Then, of course, there will be no artists. What should they sing about then? and why paint pictures?

Leontiev lived for a long time, he did not know why they would paint their paintings. I'll explain why.

You can paint pictures from your own navel. Or, say, get a splinter in your finger and describe the splinter as a central world catastrophe. The frock coat and trousers can also be described, especially the trousers.

Or look around with disgust and constantly, as if from a hose, use irony. And then you can write about anything at all.

You can also be a conceptualist.

But the most important thing for a progressive local artist is not to love Russian imperialism. Eternal topic! You can eat around it for centuries.

Because as long as Russia is alive, there will always be generals, tsars and priests - and this is a constant reason for the creative outbursts of the Europeanized bourgeoisie.

That is, these bourgeois still live in the great tradition, only turned inside out. The Iliad and the Odyssey continue, and all the time they despise, spit, giggle and say: what a shame it is not to engage in such nonsense in our progressive age, brutes, slaves, servants.

And that's what they get paid for. We often pay ourselves. First, about five times a century, we give them the Iliad and the Odyssey, and then we pay for their pathetic banter about it.

* * *

The fact that Russia in its history goes in circles (with amazing zigzags and pitch-perfect jumps over abysses or trenches) is precisely the guarantee of its long history, which continues and continues.

The writer Alexei Varlamov in his new novel “ Mental wolf“There is a throwaway idea that historical space is limited - there is no long way forward exclusively.

Therefore, many, many civilizations have disappeared, thousands (think about it!) of peoples have disappeared, and most of the countries we know are on an inertial path (what are Spain, Portugal, Poland, Great Britain and beautiful Serbia - in comparison with what they were?.. “normal countries”, as they are now called).

Europe, not wanting to enter another circle (it was terribly burned in the 20th century), entrusted its path to the young empire - the United States (although now it is angry with them, it still looks in that direction).

And Russia has gone into another circle, shaking its wings. Or a wing. Or one tail.

The Gogol troika knows where it is rushing. Everything is there. But quickly. And what beautiful landscapes outside the window.

* * *

Today, the liberal part of society is experiencing a certain pressure from the pro-government media and the state. In this situation, it becomes kind of indecent to speak out against liberals, because they are already “persecuted.”

People who, due to, for example, age, have not closely followed what is happening in Russia over the past twenty-five years, are worried about the bearers of “progressive views” and ask to reduce the degree of mutual accusations.

Forced to explain.

The Crimean situation is just a continuation of a long history of relations, when the now persecuted liberal figures consistently acted as victors, and sometimes as persecutors.

It was they who, for several years, from 1987 to 1991, with tons of revealing materials, infuriated a huge part of the population of the USSR to such an extent that the entire people fell into the ecstasy of suicidal masochism.

It was they who prepared, to the best of their ability, the collapse of the USSR, naturally, saying that it “collapsed on its own,” although today for some reason they do not say that the collapsed USSR “is being restored on its own.”

It was they who generally justified the events of 1993 and the shooting of parliament.

It was they who insisted (and insist) on the legitimacy of the killer reforms of the nineties, which had catastrophic consequences for millions of Russians.

It was they who supported the “national fronts” in all the former republics of the USSR, and then, when regimes professing Russophobia to varying degrees reigned in these countries, they in no way repented of what they had done.

It was they who falsified and legitimized the 1996 elections.

It was they who, during the Transnistrian, Chechen, and Abkhazian events, consistently acted as supporters of forces oriented not toward Russia, but against Russia; and in the Yugoslav case too.

The list is much longer, but we will not settle all scores - and this was not our goal.

The fact that today they preferred “global values”, “law and justice” (in their understanding), “sovereign interests of Ukraine” - to the obvious will of millions of citizens who consider themselves Russian and want to link their fate with Russia, no matter what Russia this moment, is a traditional story.

The only surprising thing is that this time life itself turned out differently.

Believe me, if the situation had developed traditionally (in favor of “progress”), the liberal public would not have felt any pity for this whole “Russian spring”, would not have stood up for the interests of the Russian-speaking population, for some Chaly and some Aksyonov, who would certainly have been imprisoned - but would joyfully celebrate her victory, as she had celebrated more than once.

And all her current rhetoric about the fact that “it’s vile to sow discord in society”, “it’s vile to act on the side of force” (as if they weren’t the ones who called on NATO and the OSCE just now - so that they themselves could act on the side of force) and “it’s vile to push already persecuted,” it would not have happened.

There would be a pure feeling of rapture, regardless of, of, and of.

I have lived most of my life observing this ecstasy.

I have very little strength left to feel sympathy. There is some left, but not much. And not only for me. A quarter of a century is a long time. Try to understand this.

* * *

The endless dispute between different parts of the Russian intelligentsia has reached its next apotheosis in connection with Ukraine.

In Lviv, people who storm the prosecutor's office - as they explain to us here - are “exercising their democratic rights” and “have the right to riot.” If the same thing happens in Lugansk or Donetsk, we have “separatists”. They are called separatists not only by the Ukrainian media, which is generally understandable, but also by many Russian media of a certain kind.

Russian performer Yuri Shevchuk calls on the South-East not to make a fuss and not to rebel, but he doesn’t call on Kyiv and Lvov. I try my best and I just don’t understand why. Probably because Kyiv and Lvov are for everything good and peace, and Donetsk and Lugansk are for everything bad and war?

We have noticed such aberrations for a long time. When they took over the administration in Kyiv, they explained to us that it was the Ukrainians who were forming into a “political nation,” and when they took over the administration in Sevastopol, the same people told us that it was the Russian “vatniks” who remembered their “slave nature” and wanted to go back to “ scoop".

When the anthem of Ukraine and the anthem of UNA-UNSO were sung on the Maidan, all the good and peaceful people cried, being present at the “rise of the national self-consciousness of the Ukrainian people,” and when the anthem of Russia was sung in Sevastopol, and Moscow sang along with them, the same good and peaceful people winced from disgust.

If the concert of the group “Okean Elzy” in Russia was cancelled, we were immediately told about the “iron curtain”, and if Denis Matsuev’s concert in Kyiv was cancelled, they explained to us that this was a natural reaction to aggression, and there was no curtain.

Yuri Bashmet was deprived of the title of honorary professor of the Lvov Conservatory, they answered us: “what did he want?” - but if Roman Balayan were deprived of all his Russian awards and degrees, then there would already be: “what are you doing?”

In Russia, the concert of the pro-Maidan-minded Lyapis Trubetskoy was closed down - and we immediately heard that “now the Russians will sit on their chanson”; but “Alice” is not coming to Ukraine - why don’t the same people tell the Ukrainians that their chanson is just as monstrous?

The weekly newspaper “Svoboda” is closed in Kyiv, Ukrainian providers cut down Russian sites - this is again “a personal matter of Ukraine” and “support for information security”, but when “Kasparov” is being pressed in Russia. ru” - it’s our freedom of speech that is being suppressed.

They really are pressing. But why we have “freedom of speech” and there “information security” is still unclear.

Russian TV channels are switched off in Ukraine because “we need to resist the alien propaganda machine.” But when Ukrainian TV channels were not turned off in Crimea until the referendum, they explained to us that people “must have all the information.”

Can someone explain how Kiselev, who is in Russia, differs from Kiselev and Shuster, who work in Ukraine? I know one difference for sure: the first one had their exit visas closed, but the second and third ones did not. But this says much more about the West than about the difference between Kiselyov and Kiselyov. Is this not clear to anyone?

If during the Maidan every day you write a post on LiveJournal about how Russian special forces are shooting at Ukrainians, and today you still confidently talk about the fact that Russian planes are already flying to Kiev, then you are simply “trying to tell the truth” , which, however, tomorrow turns out to be not entirely true. Not true at all. But if you give a link to how a huge crowd of Ukrainian students in 2013 was jumping in the student courtyard shouting “Whoever doesn’t jump is a Muscovite,” then you are “inciting discord” and “provoking.”

Singer Makarevich and director Zvyagintsev write a letter “against the war” - which can well be interpreted as “why the hell do we need one and a half million of these Russians, let the Ukrainians deal with them according to the law”; this is a position. Position with a capital letter. But when director Lungin and jazzman Butman come out in support of Crimea, this is “conformism” and generally “shame.” Because only the right and good people have a “position”.

For twenty-five years, certain circles have been telling us that empires are bound to fall apart. But then they began to defend the Ukrainian empire from collapse with such passion that it’s hard to believe that the same people said the day before yesterday: it won’t be a problem if Russia breaks up along the Urals, the Kuril Islands are given to Japan, and Kaliningrad to Germany.

If Russia’s position on Crimea is supported by ten countries (and an even larger part of the planet abstains on this issue) – this, they shout to us, is “isolation”, and in general “the whole planet is ashamed of Russia.” And if other decisions on some Israeli affairs are supported by no one at all except Israel itself and the United States, then there is nothing to discuss at all.

Russia parted ways with Crimea twenty-three years ago - such, God, a long period of time that we should completely forget about correcting this situation, even if virtually the same people live in Crimea who were once separated without asking. And if some people suddenly decide to return and build their own statehood on the land where they supposedly lived several thousand years ago, then again there is nothing to discuss, otherwise you will be discussed so much that your head will be turned to the side.

It can be discussed that Kosovo differs from Crimea in that there was a massacre in Kosovo, and, therefore, outside intervention was required there - and Russia at that time slept through everything and did not intervene. It just so happened that the Americans had to.

But, following this logic, I would like to ask why this time it was impossible not to wait for the massacre and, having prevented it, to make a peacekeeping intervention?

“But there was no massacre in Crimea!” - they will tell you.

“But it could happen,” we say. “In the South-East, there are dozens of people arrested, and there are more dead.”

“These are separatists,” they will tell us.

And such a dispute can continue ad infinitum, to tedious and dreary infinity, for any reason.

Writer Anna Starobinets says that she does not have the strength to forgive the patriotic society, which “likes” the posts of the publicist Dmitry Olshansky - where, among other things, Olshansky expresses satisfaction that the liberals will be squeezed, and maybe even expelled from the country.

But, Anya, you and I both know the names of famous public figures, who in different voices called on the United States to intervene in a military conflict against Russia, explained to Ukrainians how to wage a guerrilla war against Russian federal troops (these same people, under other circumstances, talk about “what a shame to send boys to die for imperial interests?”), and even , you remember, they called for dropping a nuclear bomb on Sevastopol, or asked the Americans to transfer nuclear weapons to Ukraine - and there was no irony in their words.

Have we witnessed how thousands and thousands of subscribers of these figures leave their magazines? Not really. No one left, only new ones came. The total number of likes on these “anti-war” posts about nuclear weapons and partisan liberators is actually equal to the number of people who attended the Peace March in Moscow.

Don't you think this situation is a bit strange?

Olshansky, you say, is carried away - but the people who walk next to you, calling everyone to “peace”, are carried away much stronger and more terrible - why don’t you talk about this? Why has no one among you ever spoken about this?

Because you personally do not support their positions?

And a hundred likes on Olshansky’s posts apparently means that mass deportations will soon begin in Russia?

The painful feeling of being in different logical and conceptual systems with the Russian liberal opposition was present before. But only in the case of the Ukrainian events did it reach an amazing concentration.

I sincerely want the topic of a split along the lines of “patriotic” and “liberal” (“pro-Western” and “Slavophile”) to be closed forever. There is no split. In general, we live in different worlds, are registered in different departments and do not strive to visit each other.

We can hardly explain ourselves once we meet. There are, however, several gestures that can help us understand where to go and where to go.

One problem: we have nowhere to go. We live on the same land.

* * *

They don’t cry when they take off their hair, and yet.

The USSR offered $450 billion for the reunification of Germany.

Under Gorbachev, a broad gesture was made: we don’t need anything, let them reunite. We are generous.

We were given 5 billion marks of credit - with a return.

In Germany they know very well the value of their reunification, and those who deserve it know who they owe for the demolition of the Berlin Wall.

Did this somehow influence Germany’s official position on Crimea?

A rhetorical question.

We are the only generous ones here.

We need to return Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev to big politics. Let him sit there all day in Merkel’s reception room, and, in his Little Russian manner, catch her coming out after a hard day by the sleeve, and, despite her ignorance of the Russian language, say: “There can’t be two opinions here, definitely.” . I myself worked for a long time in Ukraine, and you know, I remember how it all ended...”

And she makes a sign with her face to the guards: “Get this freak out of here, get him out immediately.”

* * *

Ukraine’s best friend, reserve sergeant major and progressive journalist Arkady Babchenko told the world that his grandfather was 100% Ukrainian, and some related things about his relatives. On this occasion, he has fraternization on his blog and there is universal (within the circle) love.

I never wanted to take this seriously, but all recent events, unfortunately, have proven that ethnicity is a largely determining thing, and blood, quite often, dictates a person’s behavior.

I have always respected the speeches of the writer Bykov about the fact that immanent connections are the most shameful, but, dear Dmitry Lvovich, here you observe so many immanent connections around you that there is no need to talk about shame - it’s just a given.

I especially like people who vehemently deny any reference to immanent and ethnic connections as far-fetched, vile and deceitful, and with the help of their own intellect they prove seemingly objective truths, which, in turn, have exclusively immanent foundations.

But they say: what makes you think that I am saying this because I was born in a certain environment? - no, I came to this with my own mind, regardless of the environment.

And we all believe it. It cannot be otherwise.

This Babchenko stands for the freedom of Russians on Bolotnaya. But he stands for the freedom of Ukrainians on the Maidan. And that means he is simply for freedom. Grandpa has nothing to do with it. And the fact that he does not stand for freedom in Sevastopol and Donetsk is only because people there stand not for freedom, but for lack of freedom. See how simple it is? Everything coincided.

Well, I mean, for my opponents everything coincided.

But with us, as before, everything is awry and nothing matches: some kind of soil, blood, other shame.

And there it is a personal choice. Purely personal choice. Civilizational, I would say.

* * *

Holy Fathers, Babchenko answers me in detail for the third time about his grandfather and his grandmother. This time Arkady swears a lot.

Arkady, let me answer you to the point.

End of introductory fragment.

How bad I feel now! If only you knew, good people, how bitter and sad I am. I am now in such a terrible, depressed state that I cannot even write a solid, coherent review of this book. My brain was in a state of wild shock for several days, even at night it had no time to sleep, my brain worked hard, thought, wrote and rewrote the review of the novel several times. I woke up after a short sleep with a calm and peaceful mood, with a feeling of accomplishment, but suddenly I realized that I did not remember anything from my nightly thoughts. Panic and stupor! I was not ready for this behavior from the author. How could you, Zakhar Prilepin, do this? You turned out to be not at all who you said you were, and not who I saw in you (such words are usually said by girls to their lovers during a bitter parting). I envy those readers who can perceive the writer himself and his work separately from each other. But I can't do that. It’s like in school, if you like the teacher, then the subject he teaches gives you pleasure. I probably won’t change myself anymore, but will continue to see the creativity and character of writers together. I have just begun to admire the works of the young author Prilepin, but my adoration and admiration has already faded. I now remember my teenage views. Then I was an ardent patriot who did not recognize halftones. I considered emigrants to be traitors to their homeland who should be executed or go to prison. Now, of course, it’s fun to remember all this from the height of your age. But Zakhar, it seems, despite his forty years, thinks much like me in my teenage state. And I don’t understand much of his worldview. I understand my thoughts well, because no matter how absurd they may be, they are mine, I scrolled through them and came up with them in my young head. I still consider myself a patriot of Russia, I love my country, this huge power that occupies a vast place on the world map. Russia is the most beautiful, original and wonderful country. Now, being far from my homeland, my attitude towards her has become even more tender and reverent. Therefore, it is natural that certain phrases of Evgeniy Nikolaevich sank into my soul and found a response in it. I read and thought: how subtly he feels the Russian language and how correctly he reasons. And at one time everything collapsed, as if the ceiling had collapsed on me. Prilepin began to do such horrors. For example, he first writes about what is good and correct, and then abruptly moves on to youthful delusions or begins to throw mud at all the people who contradict him and disagree with his position. It seems to me that such behavior is characteristic only of teenagers, but not of a man of forty years of age. I became more and more irritated, each publication added fuel to the fire of my patience. It’s amazing how one-sided the author thinks, how narrow-minded his view of real things is. Prilepin resembles a hooligan boy running around the yards and trying to subjugate all the other boys. What is still missing is a motto like “He who is not with us is a bug.” It’s an amazing thing, but even Prilepin’s fair expressions, which in another situation would have caused me delight and agreement with the author, infuriated me, made me nervous and seemed unreliable, since Evgeniy Nikolaevich, as I understand it, has the ability to radically change existing situations. I didn't expect such a turn. I became so curious that I watched several TV shows where they interviewed him. A clear picture of everything that happened formed in my head. So I wrote everything I was thinking about, as they say, I poured it all out on paper and I seemed to feel better. But the taste of disappointment and melancholy remained... Prilepin’s other artistic creations sadly stand on my bookshelf, but I don’t want to pick them up. I have cooled down, and it seems for a long time, and maybe forever. That’s the kind of person I am: if I’m disappointed, then forever, if I love, then also forever. I cannot believe that the characters and situations described in the book are not a reflection of the writer himself. After all, when we read a novel, we perceive everything through the prism of the narrator’s consciousness, we see everything through his eyes. A book is the author’s thoughts, just like a painting is the artist’s perception of the world, music is the composer’s worldview, etc.

This book is one of the heaviest of the works of Zakhar Prilepin. Although, if you analyze his work, it becomes clear that he does not have easy books, such simple ones - for a couple of hours to distract from serious thoughts. This piece is worth your time. Much becomes clear and understandable. Many secrets and political intrigues concerning Ukraine and our homeland were revealed to me. Unfortunately, not all discoveries were pleasant, not all of them... It is clear from the book that the author loves our country and believes in its bright future. Prilepin is confident that Russia is now in its most active period, the stage of super-passionarity. I sincerely wish that his faith becomes true, that Russia will perk up and show the world its power. God grant that everything comes true... It’s just that our miserable reality is capable of extinguishing any outbreak of national self-awareness.

Good afternoon, visitors of the livelib website. I finally read Zakhar Prilepin’s book. This is a kind of confession of an idealist. The author accuses and condemns all states except Russia, which he loves selflessly and values. But at the same time, Prilepin is falsifying the facts, apparently without noticing it. He writes about Russia, which does not exist and never existed, and is unlikely to exist. It seems to me that the author simply daydreamed and wrote a plot that appeared thanks to his wild imagination and faith in the primacy of his homeland. The cover of the book depicts a professional gopnik, and if you look closely, you can see the facial features of Prilepin himself. I don't know what alternative illustration I could come up with for this piece. You probably won’t find anything better than this one. I lost respect for the author after this failure, so now I’m in some confusion and don’t know what exactly I should write a review about. I’ll try to steal the style from our popular reviewer - the Guru of this site, maybe in this case I’ll be able to get a lot of likes for my review and reach home page site. Well, I'll try. “Hey, listen! Buddy! I’m telling you! I just found out the other day that there is such a writer, Prilepin Zakhar. Well, I decided to read it too. I came across the first book, and it’s all about Russia, about dill and about the boys who are shedding blood in the Donbass! Absolutely correctly, he says about all sorts of liberals that supposedly who are all these people, who are they, vile, stinking enemies, brought them here? Like they were brought here from the moon! And rightly so! We need to knock out everything this stinking bastard, before it's too late! Look, the fifth column is divorced! And Zakharka wrote a year ago, man, he understands everything correctly, since the Holy Russian People need it! Well done! So he also says that some kind of Crimean khan, stinking Tatar, more than three hundred years ago, he was indignant at the signature of Our Sovereign the Great Alexei Mikhailovich, allegedly he wrote: “to the eastern and western and northern countries, father and grandfather, heir and owner,” - what a nit, he said, bitch, that “Between "Are there not enough great states in the east and west? It’s no good to write something so deceitful and obscene!" That's how right Zakhar is! Our Tsar is great and could save the whole world, and therefore he has the right! Now we know for sure that Russia is a Great Country and we will destroy everyone, and America with Obama the monkey, and the filthy geyropa rotten! Herzen was right! Danilevsky was right! Konstantin Leontyev was right! The current “normal countries” like England and Germany are no match for Russia, which is rising from its knees! And in general, the current leadership of Russia is right, because it opposes the rest of the “civilized world”, and it doesn’t matter what the liberals think about this! Prilepin supports Olshansky, who says that all this abomination needs to be expelled from the country! And our Great President Vladimir Putin, who called them national traitors and a fifth column, was absolutely right - hang them all necessary, that's what I think! In general, Zakhar Prilepin is great writer, because he supports our boys fighting in Donbass! We must protect the Russian Language and the Great People, keep it up!!! From the bottom of my heart, Zakharka, keep it up! I'll buy your books and read them someday! Well, if I don’t really want to drink beer, as always, then I’ll definitely buy it and read it! I, Russian Patriot, wish you good luck! I would like to drink vodka with you, Zakhar. I respect you, brother! Write ischo!" You probably won’t believe it now, but I couldn’t finish reading this book. The whole reason is that I knew exactly what the author would write about on the next pages. What a bitter irony! I think other readers were also able to predict subsequent events of the work. And it’s terribly boring to read and know what will happen next. How would he surprise me? If in the first half of the book I didn’t twitch even once, then the second part wouldn’t have done the same for me. Prilepin first writes about something - then, he introduces facts and draws conclusions that are completely inconsistent with previously written arguments. He ardently defends and justifies the chauvinist quotes of representatives of classical literature, he does this not because he really agrees with their views, but because they are classics and that says it all No, no, enough talking about this book. Everything was so disgusting that I want to close this topic as soon as possible. Dear readers, don’t pick up this book, don’t read it, please. And if you are eager to read this trash, then do it for free. It's a great honor to feed Zakharka! Did not deserve! And the circulation is huge - 15,000 books were released around the world, and people buy them in the hope of a pleasant reading. Well, that's enough. I've already said too much. I'll go and rest.

The book “Not a Stranger’s Troubles” includes new, previously unpublished separate publication essays and journalistic speeches by Zakhar Prilepin. Sharp, relevant topic. The texts will certainly cause widespread controversy. Russian culture and Russian history through the prism of the Ukrainian tragedy. New bestseller by Zakhar Prilepin.

What is this book about?

This book, of course, is about the latest events in Ukraine – but not only. It contains a lot of texts from the last year - both analytical reflections and reporting notes, sketches directly from the scene. But the thematic coverage is broader than contemporary events in Ukraine. And about relations between Russia and Ukraine in general. And about our common history. And in general about the Russian world - in cultural, historical, geographical and other aspects.

• Name: Not someone else's troubles. One day - one year (collection)
• Author:
• Year:
• Genre:

• Download
• Excerpt

Not someone else's troubles. One day - one year (collection)
Zakhar Prilepin

The book “Not Someone Else’s Troubles” includes new, previously unpublished essays and journalistic speeches by Zakhar Prilepin. Sharp, relevant topic. The texts will certainly cause widespread controversy. Russian culture and Russian history through the prism of the Ukrainian tragedy. New bestseller by Zakhar Prilepin.

What is this book about?

This book, of course, is about the latest events in Ukraine – but not only. It contains a lot of texts from the last year - both analytical reflections and reporting notes, sketches directly from the scene. But the thematic coverage is broader than contemporary events in Ukraine. And about relations between Russia and Ukraine in general. And about our common history. And in general about the Russian world - in cultural, historical, geographical and other aspects.

Zakhar Prilepin

Not someone else's troubles. One day - one year (excerpt from the collection)

Instead of a preface

Let's start, it would seem, from afar (in fact, no, we start with what is at hand).

Old Russian literature was in the cycle of sacred history.

Despite everything, ancient Russian literature gives a feeling of peace, humility, and justification of the world. In the middle of any of these words is peace.

With peace in our hearts we live in the middle of...

Let's start, it would seem, from afar (in fact, no, we start with what is at hand).

Old Russian literature was in the cycle of sacred history.

Despite everything, ancient Russian literature gives a feeling of peace, humility, and justification of the world. In the middle of any of these words is peace.

With peace in our hearts we live in the midst of the earthly world. These feelings were inherited by Pushkin, Tolstoy, Blok, Yesenin.

Since ancient times, the Russian people lived from one Gospel holiday to another.

The events of the New Testament were perceived as happening - here, now and every time - anew.

This is how we began to perceive our history. This is how our history began to perceive us.

Once a century, a great victory happened - another salvation of Rus', or a great shock, or some other unprecedented thing, like a trip to India or into space. These days and the days of the Russian saints replenished the gospel cycle, but did not change it.

Some say it's a vicious circle. Well, okay, it may be a circle, but it’s not a dead end.

This is a carousel of Russian history that never gets boring.

In the fourteenth year of the third millennium, it once again seemed to us that we were flying into tartarar. And we just entered another circle.

The weather was clear, and everything around was especially sharply outlined.

Squinting a little, one could see all the same faces familiar to us from our so young, so ancient history: warriors, righteous people, rebels, publicans, nobles, holy fools.

Thank you that we were not surrounded by this cup again.

There is no need to dwell in detail on certain events of the past year. The more you look at them, the more clearly you realize that they have already happened more than once.

It’s just that we haven’t seen them yet in our earthly life - but now they have shown us a lot.

In this book, much more often we will talk about how the same events looked before.

There is no point in being responsible for someone else’s history, but we now once again know for sure about our own - it has no “progress”. The word itself is funny and inflated, like a balloon. Touch it with a sharp one and it will burst, to the children’s laughter.

Can there be “progress” for eternity?

Spin, carousel.

This year was brewing, and one day it fell like hail.

I wrote a short dystopia about how Ukraine has split into two parts and there is a civil war going on there back in 2009.

I won’t say that I was the only one tormented by such premonitions. Any sighted person could have foreseen this.

In May 2013, we sat in the middle of sunny Kyiv, not far from Khreshchatyk, with Ukrainian “leftists” and other reasonable guys from among the local intelligentsia - who, however, due to their lack of “Orangeist” illusions, were considered marginalized by the patented Ukrainian elitists .

Then, six months before the Maidan, we talked a lot about everything that six months later came true in a strange and terrible way.

Our conversations were recorded and soon made public.

When the events, now known to everyone, began, we did not have to invent our speeches in order to turn out to be the most perspicacious after the fact, and shout: but we knew, but we knew!

We knew it.

Perhaps I’ll give a few quotes from our conversations - you can easily check that their publication took place when not a single tire was smoking in the center of Kyiv.

You sometimes come, I said, to some not very distant country - one of the republics of the USSR or the countries of the Warsaw bloc, and after some time you catch yourself with one painful feeling: in this country there is a quiet rehabilitation of fascism. Does no one notice anything?

Do not think that this is expressed exclusively in Russophobic rhetoric, often characteristic of other foreign media - we have long been accustomed to such things. They don’t have to love us, and there’s also a reason not to love us: we’ve inherited, we’ve accumulated.

The problem is different. For some reason, these countries are looking for their own identity in those times when they wore fascist uniforms, caught local Jews and transported them wherever they were ordered, and then fiercely fought with the “Bolshevik occupiers.”

And at the same time, as soon as, for example, I find myself in Europe, the local press immediately begins to bully me about “Russian despotism”, all sorts of National Bolsheviks and the latest Stalinism.

“Fear God,” I want to say every time, “here in half of the neighboring countries the police dress in such a way that you can’t tell them apart from the policemen of 1941, they erect monuments to pro-fascist thugs - and all of you in Russia are looking for what you yourself have under your belt.” sideways".

But they don’t really want to see what they have at hand - all these countries are gradually creeping into various European Unions, and in general, unlike Russia, they are perceived as completely civilized.

Another surprise of mine is related to the fact that if you meet a Russian liberal in the country described above - either at a civil forum or in a cafe - he often sits in the circle of the public, among whom he, in principle, should not be.

In Russia, our patented liberals have done their best in the fight against “fascists”: they look for (and find!) them under a bench, in the attic, in a newspaper, or at a rally; but as soon as they get out of the cordon to the nearest neighbors, their sense of smell disappears.

Or, on the contrary, is it getting worse?

In our country, all they do is talk about “authoritarianism” and “nationalist revenge”; outside its borders, they do not distinguish anything like that upon the closest examination.

…While drinking Kiev draft wine, we discussed all this with one Ukrainian guy from the “left,” Viktor Shapinov.

“Russians generally don’t understand Ukrainian politics; they think in clichés,” said Shapinov. – Fans of the UPA, the Nachtigal battalion and the SS Galicia division are often written about in the Russian liberal media as “democrats.” We even sent an open letter to the editors of Echo of Moscow when the news service of this respected radio station wrote about masked Nazi militants wearing masks and carrying knives who came to the meeting room of the Kyiv City Council as “civil activists.” These “civil activists” also unfurled a banner there with a “Celtic cross” - a well-known European neo-Nazi symbol. So, “Echo” never answered us... At anti-Putin opposition rallies, I myself saw the banner of the “Svoboda” organization a couple of times - and this is an ultra-right, neo-Nazi party. One of its leaders, now a member of parliament, published a collection of articles by Goebbels, Mussolini, Röhm, Strasser and other fascist criminals for “party study”.

– What prompts some of the Ukrainian political elites to look for their predecessors in those times? - I asked, referring to the Second World War and direct defectors to the side of our then common enemy.

I knew the answer in advance, but I checked my feelings with what my Ukrainian friends thought.

“The key point here is anti-communism,” they answered me. – Everyone who fought against communism should be heroes and “fathers of the nation.” And in the thirties and forties, the flagship of the fight against communism was Nazi Germany. This is why Bandera, Shukhevych and other collaborators are heroized. The history of the Ukrainian state must be traced back to these “heroes.” Otherwise, we will have to admit that today’s Ukrainian statehood is a product of the late Soviet bureaucracy of the Ukrainian SSR, which found it beneficial not to obey the all-Union center in the conditions of the beginning of the division of public property. Simply put, the Ukrainian part of the Soviet bureaucracy wanted to determine for itself what and who would get on the territory under its control. It was this selfish motive, far from national spirituality, that was the basis for the creation of independent Ukraine. And nationalism was just a convenient screen to cover up a massive redistribution of property.

© Zakhar Prilepin

© AST Publishing House LLC

Instead of a preface

Let's start, it would seem, from afar (in fact, no, we start with what is at hand).

Old Russian literature was in the cycle of sacred history.

Despite everything, ancient Russian literature gives a feeling of peace, humility, and justification of the world. In the middle of any of these words is peace.

With peace in our hearts we live in the midst of the earthly world. These feelings were inherited by Pushkin, Tolstoy, Blok, Yesenin.

Since ancient times, the Russian people lived from one Gospel holiday to another.

The events of the New Testament were perceived as happening - here, now and every time - anew.

This is how we began to perceive our history. This is how our history began to perceive us.

Once a century, a great victory happened - another salvation of Rus', or a great shock, or some other unprecedented thing, like a trip to India or into space. These days and the days of the Russian saints replenished the gospel cycle, but did not change it.

Some say it's a vicious circle. Well, okay, it may be a circle, but it’s not a dead end.

This is a carousel of Russian history that never gets boring.

In the fourteenth year of the third millennium, it once again seemed to us that we were flying into tartarar. And we just entered another circle.

The weather was clear, and everything around was especially sharply outlined.

Squinting a little, one could see all the same faces familiar to us from our so young, so ancient history: warriors, righteous people, rebels, publicans, nobles, holy fools.

Thank you that we were not surrounded by this cup again.

There is no need to dwell in detail on certain events of the past year. The more you look at them, the more clearly you realize that they have already happened more than once.

It’s just that we haven’t seen them yet in our earthly life - but now they have shown us a lot.

In this book, much more often we will talk about how the same events looked before.

There is no point in being responsible for someone else’s history, but we now once again know for sure about our own - it has no “progress”. The word itself is funny and inflated, like a balloon. Touch it with a sharp one and it will burst, to the children’s laughter.

Can there be “progress” for eternity?

Spin, carousel.

Before everything

This year was brewing, and one day it fell like hail.

I wrote a short dystopia about how Ukraine has split into two parts and there is a civil war going on there back in 2009.

I won’t say that I was the only one tormented by such premonitions. Any sighted person could have foreseen this.

In May 2013, we sat in the middle of sunny Kyiv, not far from Khreshchatyk, with Ukrainian “leftists” and other reasonable guys from among the local intelligentsia - who, however, due to their lack of “Orangeist” illusions, were considered marginalized by the patented Ukrainian elitists .

Then, six months before the Maidan, we talked a lot about everything that six months later came true in a strange and terrible way.

Our conversations were recorded and soon made public.

When the events, now known to everyone, began, we did not have to invent our speeches in order to turn out to be the most perspicacious after the fact, and shout: but we knew, but we knew!

We knew it.

Perhaps I’ll give a few quotes from our conversations - you can easily check that their publication took place when not a single tire was smoking in the center of Kyiv.

You sometimes come, I said, to some not very distant country - one of the republics of the USSR or the countries of the Warsaw bloc, and after some time you catch yourself with one painful feeling: in this country there is a quiet rehabilitation of fascism.

Does no one notice anything?

Do not think that this is expressed exclusively in Russophobic rhetoric, often characteristic of other foreign media - we have long been accustomed to such things. They don’t have to love us, and there’s also a reason not to love us: we’ve inherited, we’ve accumulated.

The problem is different. For some reason, these countries are looking for their own identity in those times when they wore fascist uniforms, caught local Jews and transported them wherever they were ordered, and then fiercely fought with the “Bolshevik occupiers.”

And at the same time, as soon as, for example, I find myself in Europe, the local press immediately begins to bully me about “Russian despotism”, all sorts of National Bolsheviks and the latest Stalinism.

“Fear God,” I want to say every time, “here in half of the neighboring countries the police dress in such a way that you can’t tell them apart from the policemen of 1941, they erect monuments to pro-fascist thugs - and all of you in Russia are looking for what you yourself have under your belt.” sideways".

But they don’t really want to see what they have at hand - all these countries are gradually creeping into various European Unions, and in general, unlike Russia, they are perceived as completely civilized.

Another surprise of mine is related to the fact that if you meet a Russian liberal in the country described above - either at a civil forum or in a cafe - he often sits in the circle of the public, among whom he, in principle, should not be.

In Russia, our patented liberals have done their best in the fight against “fascists”: they look for (and find!) them under a bench, in the attic, in a newspaper, or at a rally; but as soon as they get out of the cordon to the nearest neighbors, their sense of smell disappears.

Or, on the contrary, is it getting worse?

In our country, all they do is talk about “authoritarianism” and “nationalist revenge”; outside its borders, they do not distinguish anything like that upon the closest examination.

…While drinking Kiev draft wine, we discussed all this with one Ukrainian guy from the “left,” Viktor Shapinov.

“Russians generally don’t understand Ukrainian politics; they think in clichés,” said Shapinov. – Fans of the UPA, the Nachtigal battalion and the SS Galicia division are often written about in the Russian liberal media as “democrats.” We even sent an open letter to the editors of Echo of Moscow when the news service of this respected radio station wrote about masked Nazi militants wearing masks and carrying knives who came to the meeting room of the Kyiv City Council as “civil activists.” These “civil activists” also unfurled a banner there with a “Celtic cross” - a well-known European neo-Nazi symbol. So, “Echo” never answered us... At anti-Putin opposition rallies, I myself saw the banner of the “Svoboda” organization a couple of times - and this is an ultra-right, neo-Nazi party. One of its leaders, now a member of parliament, published a collection of articles by Goebbels, Mussolini, Röhm, Strasser and other fascist criminals for “party study”.

– What prompts some of the Ukrainian political elites to look for their predecessors in those times? - I asked, referring to the Second World War and direct defectors to the side of our then common enemy.

I knew the answer in advance, but I checked my feelings with what my Ukrainian friends thought.

“The key point here is anti-communism,” they answered me. – Everyone who fought against communism should be heroes and “fathers of the nation.” And in the thirties and forties, the flagship of the fight against communism was Nazi Germany. This is why Bandera, Shukhevych and other collaborators are heroized. The history of the Ukrainian state must be traced back to these “heroes.” Otherwise, we will have to admit that today’s Ukrainian statehood is a product of the late Soviet bureaucracy of the Ukrainian SSR, which found it beneficial not to obey the all-Union center in the conditions of the beginning of the division of public property. Simply put, the Ukrainian part of the Soviet bureaucracy wanted to determine for itself what and who would get on the territory under its control. It was this selfish motive, far from national spirituality, that was the basis for the creation of independent Ukraine. And nationalism was just a convenient screen to cover up a massive redistribution of property.

– What do they think here about Russian liberal figures? Why do they need all this? – I asked.

– I think that the same anti-communism is the cementing link here too. The cooperation between Russian liberals and the far right in the former Soviet republics is not an accident, it is a system. For us, the saddest thing is the support, primarily from the media, of the Svoboda party, the former Social National Party. The xenophobic and racist program of the Svoboda party, the aggressive rhetoric of its leaders, who in different years called on their supporters to “fight the Jews and Muscovites”, who advised Russian-speaking children in kindergartens in Lvov to “pack their bags and go to Muscovy”, are known to everyone in Ukraine. Why they turn a blind eye to this is a big question.

Our so-called opposition is a bloc of liberals (Klitschko), national liberals (Yatsenyuk) and, frankly speaking, fascists (Svoboda Tyagnybok). By concluding such an alliance, the liberals dragged the fascists into big politics. The government also supported the arrival of the fascists in parliament, giving them a place on TV that was disproportionate to their then rating. And directly financing them - there is evidence of Tyagnybok receiving money directly from the Administration of President Yanukovych. There are facts when the events of the VO “Svoboda” were held in premises belonging to deputies of Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. The problem with the authorities is that they think to outwit everyone, to “divorce” everyone using some cunning political technology technique. The fascists have long acquired their own dynamics; this is no longer just a “power project”, as many thought a year ago. The rise of fascists to power is more real than we think.

Soon Andrey Manchuk, one of the leaders of the Ukrainian “left” party “Borotba”, joined our conversation:

“Nationalist ideology has always been the other side of the coin of Ukrainian capitalism,” Manchuk shared. – It is designed to assert the right of the bourgeoisie to dominate in our country, bringing the tradition of its power straight out of Trypillian pots and from the trousers of Cossack hetmans – and also legitimizing the results of the privatization of Ukrainian productive assets, created by the labor of millions of people in “totalitarian” times.

It must be understood that in Ukraine propaganda demonized the “left” to a much greater extent than in Russia, where the bourgeois elites use certain images or fragments from the ideological heritage of the Soviet era. The leftist idea itself appears in Ukraine as something a priori alien to everything Ukrainian, brought here at the bayonets of the “Moscow horde.” An entire generation is growing up here, which was taught that communists are insidious, cruel, depraved strangers who brutally and deliberately destroyed the Ukrainian people, their language, culture, and so on through hunger and repression. This position is the basis of the right-wing liberal consensus, which is the alpha and omega of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie.

Of course, these statements are false - because most of the classics of Ukrainian culture, including Ivan Franko, Lesya Ukrainka, Kotsyubinsky, Tychyna, Vinnychenko and others, were people of socialist convictions, Ukraine gave a brilliant galaxy of communist revolutionaries, the Ukrainian lower classes actively supported the Bolsheviks, and victory Soviet power became a prerequisite for the unprecedented flowering of Ukrainian culture, for the first time emancipating the Ukrainian language and putting Ukrainian education on its feet. But now this is being hushed up in the most cynical way - and shameful myths are being used that the communists allegedly shot a congress of kobza musicians specially assembled for this purpose, that in the fifties Kharkov students were executed for demanding to take exams in Ukrainian, that Ukrainian soldiers were given before the attack on the Germans with bricks instead of weapons, and so on. But the level of education is low, the level of propaganda is high, and there are those who believe it.

A month later, in September, we discussed the same topics with a Kyiv literary critic named Efim Goffman.

They talked, still laughing, still joking, about a very strange phenomenon: “Kiev Russian Orangeism” - that is, about people who were brought up within the framework of Russian culture, but, going out to the Maidan (I remind you that there were still a few months left until the Maidan itself), lead themselves as inveterate Russophobes.

“I still remember the times when the concept of “liberalism” among the intelligentsia did not mean what it means now,” said Efim. – It was about respect for human rights, about freedom as the most important universal value, about pluralism, tolerance... It is no coincidence that the adjective “liberal” in everyday life is associated with manifestations of gentleness and tolerance. But the current liberal-party mentality is completely different. From the entire set of human rights, one single thing is isolated, regarded as the main one: the right to private property and its inviolability. The guarantee of its observance is a stable market economy regime.

As for the remaining rights, a very interesting situation is emerging. The newly minted liberals hate everything that smacks of “scoop” and are tuned in to the wave of total anti-communism. But the logical-conceptual apparatus of these people works in the mode of... the so-called Marxist way of thinking, which they so vehemently reject. In fact, it is not Marxist, if we mean genuine Marxism. The whole question is that they think in the spirit of simplified schemes from the Soviet university barracks course of social disciplines. They believe that there is a base - the market economy, and there is a superstructure - everything else. If a stable market is established, then the remaining freedoms and rights will automatically come into effect.

It is absolutely clear that the United States of America is a strict reference point for today’s Russian-speaking-Ukrainian liberals. It is significant that neither the disastrous results of the Russian Yeltsin-Gaidar experiment of the nineties, nor the fate of many “third world” countries that have been in a situation of “wild capitalism” for centuries, did not sober up the Russian Orangemen. This environment is not prone to doubts. Independent thinking among Russian Orangemen is not prestigious...

Well, it would seem: the same Internet now makes it possible to access a variety of information sources. So many new points of view have appeared, calling into question the system of ideas at the turn of the eighties and nineties. The Orangemen don’t give a damn about all this! They prefer to hold on to the old dogmas, artificially inflating both themselves and each other.

Returning to America, its foreign policy course for the Orangemen is also a non-negotiable issue. Be equal - at attention! This implies their a priori dissatisfaction with Russia, and their a priori loyalty to the “Ukrainian idea.”

* * *

“It’s all obvious,” I said, but I also tried, almost jokingly, to explain what was happening with at least some rational things. – Some mercantile considerations – do they have a place? – I asked. - Grants, this and that?

– Partly, yes. But only partly,” answered Hoffman. – Among the Kyiv Russian Orangemen there are quite a lot of disinterested fanatics. Those who do not pursue any personal benefits and do not belong to the category of successful people. And, most importantly, completely resigned, accepting as the norm the process of discrimination against their native Russian language, their native Russian culture. In Ukraine, this process has been taking place for more than two decades, but under the rule of Viktor Yushchenko, the anti-Russian propaganda bacchanalia reached its apogee.

In Kyiv today there are only a few Russian schools. Opportunities for obtaining higher education in Russian are blocked. That is, opportunities for spiritual, professional, creative realization of a significant part of the population. And the Kyiv Orangemen, who speak exclusively Russian in everyday life and have no intention of switching to Ukrainian, look at such things with some amazing Olympic calm.

Take last year’s speech by the famous Kyiv film director Roman Balayan in one of the Kyiv newspapers...

“This is one of my favorite directors, I must say,” I clarified. – I’ve watched all his films, starting with Biryuk, and half of them are masterpieces. He still films them, as I understand it, at Mosfilm.

– Yes, the man produces his films exclusively in Moscow, at Mosfilm, works with the most famous Russian actors, and adapts Russian classics. And in an interview he states that the need for the Russian language in Ukraine is felt only by people over forty years old, who “cannot read instructions for medicines, tax payments, utility bills”...

– But now it’s not the orange ones who are in power, but Yanukovych. How are your notorious Kyiv Russian Orangemen doing?

– Our influential groups are still orange, nationalist.

In their hands - not in power! – leading electronic Ukrainian media: both television and radio. And most Ukrainian newspapers.

The mood among the Kyiv Orangemen did not waver at all. In the foreseeable future, most likely, only the surname in Orange election chants will change: it was “Yu-schen-ko!”, It will become “Ya-tse-nyuk!” And another surname fell into the same rhythm: “Pull-to-side!”

“The absence of a serious layer of the aristocracy, and then of the intelligentsia, had a detrimental effect on the development of Ukrainian culture,” continued Yefim. – Whatever talented phenomena may happen there, they, unlike the Russian situation, do not yet have a chance of becoming self-sufficient and influential world-class events. This requires a corresponding powerful atmosphere within Ukrainian society, but it does not exist. Because there is no social environment that creates such an atmosphere. The formation of such an environment is a matter of the future. But this formation cannot occur either through isolation, or - especially - through clamping and ousting other, developed cultural traditions from the territory of the country. Nothing productive will come of this!

– Will the situation in terms of relations with Russia only get worse in the near future? Is there a chance that the Russian language and Russia as such – not the current one, but Russia in general – will no longer be perceived as a harmful hell next door?

“In essence, the general political situation in Ukraine has not changed at all,” Hoffman answered. – Half the country is for the nationalists, half the country is strongly against it. This means: these second half of the country do not at all perceive Russia as, in your words, hell next door. Let us also take into account that this half includes a significant part of the population of Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk, and Simferopol. By the way, in Kharkov today there are much more real intelligentsia than in Kyiv. Both scientific and creative. Even in Donetsk, from which the Orangemen create some kind of inadequate scarecrow, there is an excellent intelligentsia.

But Kyiv, although it has the formal status of a capital, is in fact a very middle-class city.

As for the broad masses of the Ukrainian-speaking population, it seems to me that they would not at all perceive Russia as an enemy if such sentiments had not been instilled by influential nationalist politicians and ideologists. And they implement it. And they provoke.

I would really like the Russian enlightened and creative community to show more sensitivity to our problems. It did not demonstrate, as is often done in liberal circles, an inaccurate picture: Ukraine is a ray of light in a dark kingdom. I did not selectively listen to the voices of only those forces that stroke the fur of the liberal, party consciousness.

In fact, the forces in Ukraine who do not want to understand what is really happening in Russia, and the equally different Russian forces who do not want to understand what is happening here, are mirror images of each other.

It is hardly possible to dispute that all the events of the approaching year were, in one way or another, touched upon in these conversations: the persistent Ukrainization of the country, which is by no means entirely composed of Ukrainians, but at best half, and the crafty behavior of the intelligentsia - both Russian and Kiev - unwilling to see the obvious nationalistic tilt of the newest Ukrainian opposition, and even the key names of the impending Maidan are named, and a line is drawn along which one half of the country differs from the other, and specific Donetsk and specific Lugansk are named, which even then caused irritation in the Kiev environment, and a trend total anti-communism, behind which was hidden elementary Russophobia and economic redistribution, was also indicated - there was very little time left until monuments to Lenin began to be toppled throughout Ukraine, and at the same time, memorials to Soviet soldiers-liberators began to be destroyed.

I don’t know about others, but for me - six months later, when the cry began that Russia was fooled by its own seething propaganda and is to blame for everything that is happening in Crimea and Donbass, and Ukraine is united as never before and is not to blame for anything , and new people came to power here, but there is no trace of Bandera’s followers here - ... I was both funny and sad.

No one heard us in time, and when everything happened, they didn’t bring us a glass of vodka with the words: oh, guys, it’s a shame we didn’t pay attention to your words earlier.

Yes, now there’s no time for that anymore.

Since the end of 2013, I have been keeping records of someone else’s turmoil, which has become my own turmoil, not so much describing events as considering my feelings, the main one of which was: “This has already happened to us! It's not the first time!" – and immediately published these notes wherever necessary, most often on his own blog.

It turned out that a wide variety of events from Great Russian and Little Russian history are directly related to what is happening, even if they took place a hundred, two hundred or a thousand years ago.

That Russian literature, poetry and prose, the views and judgments of national classics amazingly illustrate everything that we saw, heard and experienced during the year.