Throughout its history the Western civilization has always tried to impose its will on external players. Its most effective method was not inflicting a direct military defeat on them, but destroying the existing power structures from within and by proxy.
The Western world aimed at creating or exploiting objective ethnic, language, cultural, tribal and religious differences. There are many instances when some segments or groups of population rose to that deadly bait and allowed to be drawn into bloody and extended ethno-social and ethno-confessional conflicts. The ultimate form of that policy is the divide et impera – divide and rule – principle. It actually remains the key method for implementing the Western management practices.
There are many examples in history when ethnic conflicts were deliberately incited or strengthened. No parent state wanted dependent territories to prosper. It was much simpler to pit nations against each other and draw artificial borders on the political map that divided ethnic groups regardless of their interests. Colonial powers split the local population into separate communities, usually on the grounds of religion, race or language. Foreign rulers also segregated society into classes by separating the elite from the masses.
A targeted push to fuel religious and ethnic tension and confrontation served as one of the key tools for delivering on the divide element. For example, London must be credited for inciting and reinforcing the Hindu-Muslim antagonism. British colonizers used to bring cheap agricultural labour to Burma from Bengal, a predominantly Muslim region. This led to the emergence of a Bengal Muslim community that was alien to the Burman Buddhist majority. Called the Rohingya, this community settled in the north of Rakhine State (Arakan) and developed its own identity which was quite radical. Mutual distrust and fierce competition for the already limited resources, i.e., the right to own land, between native Burmans and those who descended from labour migrants led to the bloody events of 1942-1943, which came to be known in British history books as the Arakan Massacres. Tens of thousands of people lost their lives. Inter-ethnic, religious and social strife continued to deepen, paving the way for the massive outflow of the Rohingya people to neighbouring countries in 2017, recognized as the biggest resettlement of people in Southeast Asia since the 1970s crisis in Indochina.
Taiwan’s experience: linguistics as a tool of militant separatismAt present, the Anglo-Saxon powers have devised strategies to encourage separatism for all those who oppose their aggressive meddling in the internal affairs of states worldwide. In addition to the unfettered supply of arms to Taiwan, there is a deliberate tendency to turn a blind eye to the efforts of the Taiwanese administration to “de-Sinicise” and “Taiwanise” the island. This is achieved through the implementation of policies aimed at fostering the so-called Taiwanese identity or Taiwanese consciousness. Tools such as manipulative linguistic separation, fostering insular nationalism, and endorsing pro-Western values and ideas that are alien to traditional Chinese national culture are employed.
In the long-term perspective, the Anglo-Saxons have a specific political goal of entirely reshaping the “island identity.” This will help erode the “one China” principle, declare Taiwan’s independence, and undermine the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Over time, this approach would establish a US-dependent outpost in East Asia aligning with Washington’s broader objective of drawing the Asia-Pacific region into NATO’s sphere of influence and pitting countries against each other.
Ukraine: the West’s new social vivisection exercisesWestern forces are acting against us according to the same hypocritical principle of “divide et impera.” Their aim is to demonstrate that Russians and Ukrainians are as disparate as possible, to sever Ukraine from Russia, to sow discord, and to create ethnic divisions. They seek to destroy the Russian language, to erase from historical memory the glorious chapters of the past shared with Russia.
Kiev feeds from the hands of the collective West, which, in addition to funnelling arms into it, manages it through “soft power” political technologies. To this end, a comprehensive network of NGOs controlled by American and European intelligence services has been established. Seemingly respectable research institutes and publications, such as the London School of Economics and Political Science, the Wilson Center, The Washington Post, and Politico, are actively involved.
In reality, Western “experts” and Soros-aligned followers from various Ukrainian NGOs cannot win an argument against the historical truth. On the one hand, these pathetic theorists recognize the spiritual closeness of the peoples of Russia and Ukraine and their being part of one cultural space (sic!). On the other hand, they claim that our ideological principles supposedly differ radically.
But is it truly so? To unconditionally draw a line between the ethnicities living in Russia and Ukraine, and to attribute all the inhabitants of those lands to Ukrainians, is a gross error. The word itself, “Ukrainians,” did not have its modern ethnic ring to it until the mid-19th century. It was more of a geographical term, referring to a person’s birthplace or place of residence. The explanation is quite simple: there were no independent state formations within the borders of modern-day Ukraine at the time when the modern system of nation states was emerging following the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, or in the 19th century, when new and independent states like Greece, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Germany, and Bulgaria took shape in Europe.
Russia and China: the experience of reintegrating territories with their historical homeland.Russians and Ukrainians can be likened to the Hans who inhabited various regions and provinces of China. Within the present-day boundaries of China, across different historical epochs, there existed separate states that engaged in brutal internecine conflicts. These conflicts were, at times, fuelled by external influences. Chinese historians perceive all historical phases as part of an indivisible process of a single Chinese nation’s continuity, with temporary divisions into semi-independent state formations being mere historical accidents.
Russian historiography interprets the national past in a similar fashion, encompassing the initial existence of princedoms within the Ancient Russian state, the period of feudal fragmentation, and the subsequent unification of Rus into a centralized state under Moscow’s leadership. These stages provided the impetus for the civilizational development of our country, continuing to influence it to this very day.
For both Russia and China, such historical continuity and centuries-old unified ethno-national lineage serve as an inexhaustible wellspring of rich cultural heritage and traditions, making significant contributions to the formation of each nation’s public identity.
It is noteworthy that despite the stark differences between the Ukrainian and Taiwanese issues, Western observers have conflated them into a single narrative. This once again underscores their artificial genesis, orchestrated with the involvement of foreign disruptive forces, primarily the US and the EU.
The return of our lands to their historical Motherland – territories that were lost amid the political turbulence during the late 1980s and early 1990s – is no more “criminal” than the annexation of the GDR by the FRG in 1990. At that time, we were persuaded that the logic of the historical process justified the reunification of the German nation. However, in reality, there was no “unification” of Germany. No referendums were conducted, no common constitution was drafted, and no unified army or currency was established. East Germany was simply absorbed by a neighboring state. The world merely applauded. Yet, the question of whether the citizens genuinely desired this unity, or were manipulatively compelled to “desire” it, remains unresolved to this day.
Some important conclusions1. The classical principle of Western civilizers, “divide et impera,” inflicts untold suffering and hardship across the globe, serving as a source of numerous ethnic and socio-cultural conflicts, as well as pervasive economic inequality. This was true in the past, and it remains so today.
2. Now, the incitement of inter-ethnic or inter-racial hostility manifests in the construction of a national pseudo-identity for an ethnic group, aiming to sever it from the state-forming populace. This is precisely what Washington and its allies attempt with Russia, China, and many other nations.
3. Ukraine today stands at a crossroads: to align with Russia or to vanish from the world map altogether. Ukrainians should temper the false pride of “otherness,” and resist opposing themselves to the pan-Russian project. Should the so-called Ukraine persist in its aggressive Russophobic trajectory, it risks disappearing from the world map forever.
4. Russians and Ukrainians are one people. Historical attempts to drive a wedge between us are utterly unfounded and criminal.
