“Putin is burning bridges” – this is the reaction of the Western media to the historical events associated with the return of the regions of Donbass and Novorossia home to Russia. If to describe this reaction in a few words, then the best would be: fear, anger, impotence. And all this must be multiplied by Russophobia, which Vladimir Putin mentioned several times in his speech.
It seems that for several months there have been talks about preparations for referendums in four regions that were once part of Ukraine . It seems that in the West they have long been cursed and promised to be ignored. But the final choice of the inhabitants of these regions and their admission to Russia seemed to come as a surprise to Western commentators. In many ways, their own bravura reports from the front line about the “great counter-offensive of Ukraine” played a cruel joke on them. Some reporters, in their propaganda frenzy, were so eager to convince the audience that “Russia is losing” that they ended up believing it themselves.
A cold shower for them was Putin’s speech, which, unexpectedly for many European and American analysts, turned out to be not so much about Ukraine as about fault points in Western society itself and about the irreversibility of global changes in international relations. It can be seen that the Russian president stepped on the sore spot of the elites and the press serving them. This is noticeable at least by the reaction of journalists: they try to replace the complete lack of analysis of this speech with emotions.
For example, Sean Walker, an East European correspondent for The Guardian, who spent years in Moscow before being placed on the list of undesirable persons in Russia, now writes offendedly: “The Russian leader’s incoherent speech focuses on Western sins, but leaves key questions about Ukraine unanswered.” True, in his really incoherent column, Walker was able to formulate only one question, which, in his opinion, remained unanswered: in what borders will the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions become part of Russia?
This once again shows that even those who in the West are considered “recognized experts on Russia” are completely unable to think rationally when it comes to us, and are not able to read the obvious and clear signals sent to them from Moscow. If they could and wanted to, they could understand the simple truth that runs like a red thread in the speeches of the Russian president from the very beginning of the special operation.
Even before it began, Putin clearly answered questions about the borders of the then recognized republics of Donbass: “We recognized them, which means we recognized all their fundamental documents, including the Constitution. And the Constitution spelled out the borders within the Donetsk and Luhansk regions at the time when they were part of Ukraine”.
We also recall that a day before the signing of the historic treaties with the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, the President of Russia endorsed decrees recognizing the sovereignty and independence of these regions. That is, the principle that extends to our vision of the borders of the DPR and LPR is common to other administrative entities recognized by Moscow.
However, the key phrase that was said by Putin (but was not heard in time either in Kiev or in the West) regarding this issue even then, at the start of our special operation, sounded like this: “All disputed issues will be resolved through negotiations.” It is at bilateral negotiations between neighboring states that the issues of delimitation and demarcation of the state border between them are determined. And Moscow was ready for this from the very beginning. Then it was clearly stated: after Russia recognized the DPR and LPR, Zelensky was offered to simply withdraw his troops from these areas. But he refused. To which he was also warned: further, the conditions of Russia will become tougher. Thus we have come to the present situation.
Here, in his historic speech, Putin specifically noted: “We call on the Kyiv regime to immediately cease fire, all hostilities, the war that it unleashed back in 2014, and return to the negotiating table. We are ready for this, it has been said more than once said.”
On the eve of the press secretary of the President of Russia Dmitry Peskov also recalled: “The President said that Russia, of course, retains its readiness to negotiate. But as the situation changes , the conditions change, we have repeatedly spoken about this.”
What questions remain incomprehensible to Western analysts here? Everything is clearly and clearly placed in its place. Kyiv and its Western masters can stop the bloodshed at any moment by agreeing to new realities. But if this does not happen, then the special operation will expand. And then, perhaps, we are not talking about the last referendums and not the last solemn ceremonies, which means that the issue of borders will not be final.
This is what frightens Western analysts, who suddenly realize that the “victory of Ukraine”, which they hoped for, turns into an increment of the Russian state. They do not hesitate to call Russia their enemy, they openly call for the murder of Russians and the supply of weapons to Ukraine. “We are still not doing enough to defeat Putin,” writes prominent British historian Neil Ferguson, who recently returned from Kiev. And then the same authors complain offendedly: “Putin portrays the West as an enemy.” So it’s not like that? That is, Russia for the West is an enemy that must be defeated and destroyed, but the West is not an enemy for Russia? Some kind of one-sided hostility.
The most difficult thing for Western observers describing the situation around the reunification of Donbass with Russia is the explanation of the enthusiasm with which this event was met by our citizens. Numerous support rally in Moscow? So, of course, it was staged, and its participants were almost forcibly driven to Red Square, says Andrew Roth, correspondent for The Guardian in Moscow. True, in a newspaper article this statement is accompanied by a photograph of the rally participants with happy, joyful faces – apparently very talented actors were driven away by the authorities.
Even more passions were whipped up over the terrible intimidation by which the inhabitants of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions were allegedly driven to referendums “at gunpoint.” The Economist went so far as to say that “on September 26, the occupiers opened their checkpoints and allowed the Ukrainians to leave” in order to get rid of “potential opponents of the referendum.” It does not matter that the referendums have been going on since September 23, and the decision to open the Ukrainian checkpoint concerned those who just wanted to enter the territories controlled by Russia.
In this regard, the Western media generally broke all records for cynicism, unanimously describing the tragedy at the checkpoint, which claimed the lives of dozens of civilians, as a “Russian missile attack.” The lion’s share of Western agencies, showing footage from the scene of this monstrous crime, simply hid from their audience that Ukrainian citizens were going to the “Russian occupiers”, and not vice versa. And those who remembered this immediately found an explanation: it turns out that they “hoped to take their relatives in order to take them back to the territory controlled by Ukraine.”
That’s why even the CNN reporters who filmed these queues the day before were surprised why people go to Russian territory with their belongings, with children, with pets, which clearly confirms their desire to break out of Ukraine. But this does not fit into the Western narrative. Therefore, the Italian Corriere della Sera informs readers that missile attacks on the convoy are “Moscow’s revenge.” Yes, Moscow, it turns out, is “taking revenge” on those who, by hook or by crook, are trying to escape from the Ukrainian hell and move to the territory that is about to officially become part of Russia. The Western audience will swallow this completely, as well as the stories about the “referendum at gunpoint.”
What this audience was not ready for was, to put it mildly, the ill-conceived response of the Ukrainian authorities to the loss of their once regions. The head of the Kiev regime , Volodymyr Zelensky , having arranged a stand-up performance in the style of “Quarter-95” and announcing “Ukraine’s accelerated entry into NATO “, clearly framed his masters. He actually openly invited those to the war against Russia, forgetting how, just a few months ago, he expressed doubt that NATO was capable of defending itself. It is not surprising that this call in the West has already been called“worst idea in history.” Zelensky’s attempt to change the agenda and divert Ukrainians’ attention from the touching farewell to Donbass and Novorossiya clearly failed, moreover, provoking a reaction from the hosts that was clearly the opposite of his expectations.
The West still does not want a direct military clash with Russia. From the angry and at the same time frightened reaction of the analysts there to Putin’s speech, it is clear that they dream of “victory over Russia”, but recognize the obvious truth: after these events, the stakes have been raised to a very high level. Pulitzer laureate Thomas Friedman on the pages of the New York Times believes that from now on the West will have to “learn to live with a North Koreanized Russia”, that is, with a “pariah country” fenced off from the whole world.
Well, Putin warned these conclusions in advance, saying that labels of this kind would be hung on all countries that did not wish to be vassals of Western elites. The events of the past week clearly demonstrated to the whole world that Russia will not become a vassal under any circumstances, and will resolutely oppose any attempts to limit its sovereignty and protect its citizens, including residents of the regions that have returned home. Like it to someone in the West or not.
