The dangers of dehumanization

There is nothing more pitiful than beating one’s own breasts in vain. And I’m saying this because a common theme in current Western propaganda is that of Western guilt. And what does the West have to answer for? Evidently, Russia has been treated too leniently. Instead of isolating and suffocating Russia in every way possible, the Western establishments brazenly traded with its companies and government, funding ‘the Russian war machine,’ as the fashionable phrase goes. Through my fault, through my most heinous fault! Or something along those lines.
Of course, such a stance implies that

Russia is inherently evil.

It is an axiom that we must accept. That’s just the way things are. The West is simply good, whereas Russia, by contrast, is evil, and thus must be eliminated. It’s as simple as that.

But you don’t want to jump to conclusions and accuse the West of anti-Eastern chauvinism, do you?
Thankfully, there is no shortage of good forces in the East. In the East, everything that is pro-Western, i.e. anti-Russian and anti-Soviet, is exactly the good. In fact, the pro-Western East is superior to the Western West! Because, you see, the Western West is resting on its democratic prosperity laurels, whereas the Eastern West is proudly waving the banner of democracy and human rights and fighting valiantly for European values within the dark hole of Eastern despotia, thus embarrassing the effeminate, pseudo-pacifist Brussels bureaucrats and leading European politicians who are treacherously looking for any chance for peace, instead of rolling up their sleeves and loading the thickest killing tonnage on the battlefield.

Those who are willing to kill in the name of European values, not some cowardly rot looking for compromises, are the true representatives of European values! With Russian evil, there can be no compromises!

Within the current paradigm, the aforementioned treasonous peace seekers are considered pseudo-pacifists, because true peace, within contemporary Western understanding, necessitates no less than the actual physical annihilation of all Russians, as well as any pro-Russian traitors and collaborators anywhere on the planet.

Let’s switch gears for a moment. The concept of dehumanization, particularly as applied to LGBT people, enriched the lexical resources of mainstream Western discourses some time ago. It is rightly claimed that organizing various anti-LGBT campaigns, such as Poland’s ‘LGBT-free zones,’ dehumanizes LGBT people. That’s correct. The problem however is that these new discourses clearly fail to recognize that the West’s seemingly universalist ideology is nothing more than a massive ritual for dehumanizing Russians.

The West takes great pride in its democracy and human rights. However, various misunderstandings can arise from the Western concept of human rights. Someone, for example, a layperson, may believe that human rights are the rights of all humans, which leads to some highly undesirable conclusions. For example, Ukraine may have violated the rights of some human being during its ‘special operations’ in Donbass (obviously with the best of intentions!), such as a person who was killed, tortured, intimidated, forcibly Ukrainianized, or ‘disappeared.’ To avoid such unwelcome conclusions, it is necessary to state unequivocally that Western human rights are simply the rights of non-Russian and non-Donbass people; furthermore, these are not  arbitrary rights of such non-Russian and non-Donbass people, but rights that can only be violated by a Russian or a Donbas person. This second provision shields us from another thought-crime, namely the notion that the rights of some non-Russian and non-Donbass individual could be violated by, say, the CIA.

It’s the same with democracy,

by the way. A layperson may believe that democracy is the power of the people or something along those lines. This is why the West never tires of saying that democracy is something that does not exist in Russia but does exist in the West.

But let us return to human rights. Russians and Donbassians, as well as Transnistrians, Abkhazians, Gagauzians, Ossetians, and Serbs, are excluded from human rights protection because, by definition, only they can violate them.

What is the manifestation of this? Well, it cannot be said that Ukraine is violating human rights when it takes actions against Russian and pro-Russian populations that resemble human rights violations. It is important to emphasize that this is simply defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity, which is a democratic and legal sanctity. In comparison to Ukraine’s sacred territorial integrity, what is a pro-Russian or pro-Soviet man? A meaningless speck! And a very inebriated one at that. Organic material like this should be labeled as traitors and collaborators! It should be either Ukrainianized or disposed of, because its very presence on eternally Ukrainian soil is a flagrant violation of democracy and human rights. This is all very sensible, but it’s also a little risky. Mostly because the Chinese might hear it and not realize that China’s territorial integrity is not the same as Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The Chinese may believe that if the Uighurs or Tibetans attempted to establish their own separatist republics, they could be Sinicized or disposed of as traitors and collaborators. Well, I’m never tired of saying that

the analogy principle never applies!

Because it is a cunning and reality-defying principle devised by Russian trolls to undermine democracy and human rights! I hope you’re all aware of that!

Returning to the original theme of the West’s guilt now. Yes, it’s our fault, we were too soft on Russia, the West bemoans. We gave it money, and greed drove us to forget European values! Until, thanks to the Azov Regiment, the bravest spreaders of European values of our time, these values were restored to us, and we are once again good. We’re mowing down the Russians; the problem is that our weapons are getting to Ukraine a little too late, so the process of introducing democracy and human rights isn’t moving as quickly as it should, but it’s still moving. Let’s just hope there are enough Ukrainians to run them. However, we do not need to bring this issue up in front of the public because the official line is that only Russian soldiers and Ukrainian civilians are dying in this conflict. Because Ukrainian soldiers are so capable and motivated to defend democracy, one Ukrainian can blow away a hundred Russians in a minute! Russians fleeing the battlefield in herds, unable to bear the humiliation, turn on civilians and rape children.

The West should be lauded for the very fact that it is apologizing, i.e., for acknowledging that it may have committed some wrongdoing. It should, however, be chastised for the kowtowing’s deceptive direction. This war could have been easily prevented if the West had not dehumanized Russians and pro-Russian or pro-Soviet people, i.e., if it had recognized that these individuals are also human beings deserving of protection from violence. Ukraine would then have to sit down with the separatists at a table and come up with a compromise solution. A broad autonomy for Donbass, for example, could be considered — the kind of autonomy that 90% of residents of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions voted for in the 1994 consultative referendum (this would assume a transformation of Ukraine from a unitary to a federal state).

In 2014, Ukraine experienced the so-called

Revolution of Dignity,

which actually trampled on the dignity of Ukrainian citizens who did not identify with strict and rigid Ukrainianness and the narrative of Ukrainian nationalism, which made Stepan Bandera a positive hero, but rather with Russia or the multinational and multiracial Soviet nation, proud of the victory over fascism in the Great Patriotic War, or with the Donbas (as the only homeland) or the Don Cossacks tradition. All of these people were defined as third-class citizens, material for Ukrainianization or disposal.
The Odessa massacre, which the West totally ignored, was a direct result of this great symbolic rape of a large part of the Ukrainian population called the Revolution of Dignity. And it also revealed its potential to be utilized in ways desired by the Ukrainian far-right. After that horrific event, the autonomy of Donbass, which had been demanded since the 1990s, became a moral imperative. This rape elicited a reaction in the form of a largely bloodless separatist uprising, which Russia partly supported but also contained in order not to jeopardize diplomatic solutions.

The authorities in Kiev retaliated by declaring war.

Russia took a cautious approach, not officially recognizing the two separatist republics (until 2022) and not providing them with the level of support required to defeat the Ukrainian army and nationalist formations. Ukrainian forces were able to reclaim a large portion of the seized territory from the separatists, but they were unable to complete the victory. Although people continued to die, the conflict slowed somewhat.

The West may have intervened, forcing Ukraine to engage in genuine peace talks. However, this would have required the West to make a clear case for Donbass’ right to self-determination, i.e. to reject optics that dehumanize the pro-Russian population. Obviously, the West has not done so. Yes, Western politicians have taken steps to promote peace, but they have always assumed that the people of Donbass have no rights that could jeopardize Ukraine’s territorial integrity and unity. Maintaining a paradigm that dehumanizes the (non-identifying with Ukraine) population of Donbass cannot produce positive results. And Putin waited, and waited, without taking any decisive steps toward resolving the Donbass issue forcefully. He gave the West eight years to change its axiological position. Eight years to recognize that Russians and pro-Russians are also people, and thus beings whose well-being is important.

And he didn’t have to wait, and he could have solved the problem by force — especially since the Ukrainian army was much weaker back then than it is now, and soldiers didn’t want to shoot at their fellow citizens. A large portion of society and the army did not support the aggressive approach taken against the separatists. The subsequent Zelensky electoral victory reflected a part of Ukrainian society’s fatigue with aggressive nationalist rhetoric, as Zelensky appeared to be a man of peace who could work with Putin on the Donbass issue.

Putin could have won easily, but he chose to wait because he either cared about economic interests (which required that relations with Ukraine not deteriorate) or he believed that the West would actually recognize Russians as human beings. It never occurred.

At this point, it should be clear that the West’s approach to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict was consistent in some ways and inconsistent in others. Parts of the West clearly desired peace in Ukraine because its absence was detrimental to the West’s economic interests, particularly those of German capitalists. The Normandy Format appears to have been a deliberate peace initiative. In contrast, the US, particularly after Biden took office, was clearly oriented toward a war with Russia waged at the expense of the Ukrainians. Such a war could have brought the United States numerous economic benefits, about which entire books could be written, but in the context of the West’s inconsistent policy, the issue of US-German rivalry deserves to be highlighted above all.

Well, from an economic standpoint, the war against Russia is a war against German capital, which has successfully restrained American capital’s drive to rule over Europe under Merkel. The dismantling of German-Russian economic ties was, of course, crucial in dealing a decisive blow to German capital. That is precisely what is happening. Under intense pressure from the United States and Eastern European clowns parroting the Western hawks, Germany has been forced to pursue a policy that is very unfavorable to itself. In a nutshell, Germany is the war’s primary loser in the West. Of course, German capital will pass on the costs of its defeat to the people. Let us be clear: Germany, like France, worked for peace for as long as it was possible, not out of noble ideals, but because a war between the West and Russia was unprofitable and even counterproductive for them. Unlike the United States, which sabotaged the Normandy Format and gave Ukraine clear permission to commit atrocities in the Donbass.
Nonetheless, the West’s policies in general, with the exception of Israel, have remained consistent on a more general, axiological level. Russians and pro-Russians have no right to be shielded from violence by countries such as Ukraine, Latvia, and others. Russia and the pro-Russian movement are, by definition, wrong. Any rationale is always pro-Western. Conflicts involving Russians and pro-Russians are never conflicts of rationales that can be weighed. If peace is worth pursuing, it is not because the Russians could actually have a point, but because war with them may be unprofitable.

The Russians are expected to sit quietly and express their gratitude for still being able to exist.

Putin has finally realized, after eight years, that regardless of what he does, the West will continue to consider him to be in the wrong. If he had attacked earlier, when things were easier, one could argue that he would have prevented diplomatic efforts. He attacked later, when he could have acted (until the invasion) as a restrained defender of those experiencing protracted violence. But it made no difference because anti-Russianism is ingrained in Western ideology. The entire ideology that legitimizes Western regimes is based on the opposition of the Western order of good versus the Russian or Soviet empire of evil.

From Russia’s perspective, playing diplomatic games with the West makes no sense. It is not worthwhile to strive for a positive reputation in the West. The West must simply be pushed back as far as possible so that it can no longer support violence against Russians and pro-Russians.

If Russia is defeated militarily, resulting in a Ukrainian occupation of the entire Donbass, including Donetsk and Luhansk, the separatists and their supporters will be in a horrendous situation. They will not be treated as defeated soldiers. Ukraine and the West will treat them like the worst criminals. They will perish in prison or as a result of raids or torture. Consequently, they have no choice. They must prevail. In the event of defeat, the Russian Federation will find a way to survive. They will not.

The Russian aggression, which has been roundly condemned, reflects the frustration of people who have not been invited to join the human race. It is a desperate revolt of the dehumanized against further dehumanization. Russians living in the Russian Federation may be unconcerned about this dehumanization. They can regard the West as an adversary comparable to the Nazi enemy, which is exactly what is happening. They can behave similarly to LGBT people who, in order to avoid confrontation with homophobia, isolate themselves in ghettos or bubbles. This comfort, however, is not available to Russians or people who identify with the Soviet nation, who are dispersed across various countries in the West’s orbit. For them, victory in the struggle against the West is a matter of being or not being.

Except for some elements of the radical, hardline left,

Pope Francis

is the only man in the West who has not failed the moral, humanistic test that the current war poses to Westerners. He could have played to the audience, hurled threats at Russia, threatened Putin and Kirill with the full gamut of hell’s punishments, effectively silencing his previous critics. Francis, on the other hand, made the unlucky decision to follow the path of truth and peace. Biden’s useful idiots are pouring dishwater on him, complaining about Russian agents in the Vatican, or spitting downright insults at him, claiming that he is an old idiot out of touch with reality because of his Latino heritage. To put it mildly, the Pope is either a Putin agent or a person who is misinformed. That is the only conclusion permissible in Western discourse.

Francis’ detractors are unconcerned about the fact that the institution he leads has long supported various forms of human oppression. They rushed to attack when the head of this institution took a truly humanistic stance and condemned – albeit half-heartedly – the ‘barking of NATO.’ Francis refused to legitimize an openly criminal institution by translating its current propaganda messages into ‘spiritual’ language. He did not give his blessing to the howitzers or drones. It was, by the way, amusing to see Poland’s Catholic propagandist-in-chief, Tomasz Terlikowski, a distinguished swordsman of all manner of discrimination and dehumanization, nearly cry in disbelief that his pope criticized NATO. For is there any greater sanctity for a Catholic than NATO?

Don’t believe those who claim the Pope is misinformed. The Pope and Vatican diplomacy have far greater access to information about the true course of the current war and its origins than the propagandists of all Western media combined. The latter only receive information from the secret services that they believe can be made public. And because Francis is of Latino origin, he understands capitalism and American imperialism and can correctly interpret this information.

Finally, a few words about Poland and how the war is perceived there. The current Polish mainstream’s attitude toward Francis demonstrates clearly where we are in Poland’s ‘fascistization’ process, which has been ongoing since 1989. We’ve come a long way in this process. I’m not advocating blind trust in authorities, but I do lament the fact that there is no longer any authority capable of stemming the rising tide of anti-Russian racism. Even presumably subdued publications like Polityka refer to Russians as “orcs” and the Donbas as “forest people with unshaven hair bands.” Pogroms are brewing, and anyone who publicly opposes this pogrom atmosphere will be publicly spit on and stripped of their authority. The current situation is reminiscent of the Kielce pogrom, but also of the atmosphere that prevailed throughout Europe prior to the outbreak of World War I, when so-called civilized European nations subjected each other to ritual dehumanization.

Francis infuriated warmongers by claiming that Russians are also suffering. The pope stood on the seemingly obvious humanistic principle that, in the context of armed conflicts, calls for actions to minimize victims and suffering. Meanwhile, the ostensibly civilized West’s mainstream now openly supports the anti-humanist principle of maximizing Russian victims. We should be unconcerned about Russian casualties. The greater the number of Russians who die, the better. Every Russian’s death is a small human move, but a huge step for democracy. Every Russian’s death is joyfully and humorously celebrated, and images of Russians dying are disseminated by Ukrainian propaganda in order to make us feel better and encourage us to fight for European values.

Proponents of

the principle of maximizing Russian casualties

(by arming Ukraine) pretend not to notice that implementing this principle is the same as implementing the principle of maximizing Ukrainian casualties. The more weapons that arrive from the West in Ukraine, and thus the longer this war lasts, the more people will die, both on the Russian and Ukrainian sides. Ukrainian soldiers are dying in large numbers in this war, despite what the all-encompassing war propaganda fails to reveal. The only way to protect human lives is for Ukraine to withdraw its troops from Donbass and engage in genuine peace talks. Someone will be outraged: why should Ukraine withdraw its troops from Donbass rather than Russia? Because if the Russian army abruptly withdraws from Donbass, there will be massive retaliation, hunts for so-called collaborators and traitors (it is unclear where the DPR and LPR armies will withdraw to) — in short, the violence will continue.

No one in Poland would dare to say something so obvious as, for example, that the city of Mariupol was destroyed due to the senseless obstinacy of the so-called ‘defenders of Mariupol.’ These defenders are primarily concerned with defending themselves, at the expense of the city and its inhabitants. Despite this, there is a mindless cult of Mariupol’s heroic defenders that triumphantly calculates how many Russians and separatists they killed. It makes no difference how many Ukrainians died in the process; what matters is that many Russians died. What stands out here is an abhorrent disregard for human life, including Ukrainian life. The principle of minimizing Ukrainian victims does not apply; Ukrainians must die in order for as many Russians to die as possible. Praise be to Pope Francis for being the only influential Westerner who refuses to label this criminal axiology.

Dear, delusional Westerners, if you don’t want wars, don’t dehumanize! That’ll be a good start!