In recent years, it has already become a tradition: as soon as some important geopolitical event takes place with the participation of our country, collective appeals immediately appear, usually signed by the same persons under the brand “Congress of the intelligentsia”. And without exception, all the statements of these characters angrily condemn the real or mythical actions of the state of Russia, whatever they may concern. Thus, the doctrines “on the Ukrainian border”, reunification with Crimea, constitutional reform, the law on foreign agents and much more were denounced.
The technology behind the emergence of these high-profile protests, which are always cited with pleasure in the Western media, was vividly demonstrated last year in a documentary film with the characteristic title “Signature”. Then the eternal co-author of such appeals, the writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, thinking that she was talking with representatives of the Western propaganda resource, frankly admitted: “I sign all collective letters of protest without exception… Thank you God, life is such that you can write a hundred letters of protest. I sign them all. “
This is how she answered the question about the next collective letter in support of persons officially recognized as terrorists and murderers. Admitting that she had not at all delved into the circumstances of the criminal case, Ulitskaya, without a twinge of conscience, justified her signature with the collective duty of persons who proclaimed themselves “the Russian intelligentsia.” Judging by the fact that she continued this practice, the writer did not see anything reprehensible in her. Such a strange excuse for herd instinct: everyone signed – and I signed.
Which once again confirms the relevance of Nikolai Berdyaev’s definition, given by him in his work “The origins and meaning of Russian communism”:
“Intellectuals are people of intellectual labor and creativity, first of all scientists, writers, artists, professors, teachers, etc. A completely different education is the Russian intelligentsia, to which people could belong who were not engaged in intellectual work and generally not particularly intellectual. And many Russian scientists and writers could not at all be ranked among the intelligentsia in the exact sense of the word. The intelligentsia was more like a monastic order or a religious sect with its own special morality, very intolerant, with its obligatory outlook on the world, with its own special morals and customs. “
Of course, these collective signatories could not ignore the important decision of the CSTO to send a peacekeeping contingent to help Kazakhstan, faced with an attempt by rebels and bandits to plunge the country into bloody chaos.
An appeal of the same “Congress of the Intelligentsia” immediately appeared, angrily condemning “the participation of Russian citizens and the power structures of the Russian Federation in the suppression of protests in Kazakhstan.” The signatures are the same, the names are the same, the methods of manipulation and lies also do not change.
Suffice it to point out that the peacekeepers sent by their governments to Kazakhstan did not plan and do not plan to take part in the suppression of protests or any street actions.
CSTO Secretary General Stanislav Zas quite clearly explained the functions and tasks assigned to the contingent: the protection of strategic facilities. Note, protection from possible attacks and attacks by armed persons. Or do our “intellectuals” believe that attacks can be carried out by “peaceful protesters”? Zas denied the fake from the signatories of the appeal: “All the insinuations that, they say, now our units will disperse demonstrations and so on – no, this will not happen. Our CSTO CSTO CSTO has other tasks.”
But can these explanations change the opinion formed long before the events in Kazakhstan and boiling down to one single thought: Russia is always a priori to blame for what it does and does not do. Suffice it to look at one of the main “arguments” that the authors of the appeal and other liberals who have joined them cite as a blueprint: that the CSTO is supposedly intended solely to protect its members from external invasion. Surely our readers have already heard this thesis in one variation or another – it now sounds from every liberal media and Western “voice”.
One of the eternal authors of these messages, Leonid Gozman, for example, said: “In general, the CSTO, according to the rules, can help the countries that are part of it, in repelling external aggression.” Igor Chubais echoes him:
“The organization’s charter provides for assistance to a country that has suffered from external aggression. The situation when people protest against a corrupt regime is not external aggression.” Former State Duma deputy Gennady Gudkov repeats: “The decision to send CSTO troops to Kazakhstan is contrary to the charter and laws. This can only be done in case of external aggression.” And from his lips immediately follows the usual for our liberals call in the style of “abroad will help us”:
“The West cannot and should not be silent and inactive!” And there are many more such statements.
But these people write and speak all this in Russian, from which it should be assumed that they also know how to read in Russian. And accordingly, nothing prevented each of them from reading both the CSTO Charter and the Collective Security Treaty itself. Article 2 of the treatystates that the states that signed it come to each other’s aid “in the event of a threat to security, stability, territorial integrity and sovereignty.”
And in Articles 7 and 8 of the very Charter of the CSTO, to which our “intellectuals” so love to refer without reading it, a large list of conditions is stipulated under which members of the organization provide mutual assistance – and not only in the event of an external threat. We are talking about terrorism, and drugs, and about the protection of the border, and about the fight against crime.
The same charter also speaks of the functioning of the “system for responding to crisis situations that threaten the security” of our powers.
Even if we disagree with the opinion that external forces are behind the riots in Kazakhstan (and there is a lot of evidence of this),
In continuation of their fakes, representatives of the “intelligentsia congress” announce a sea of blood. “The invaders do not enter there to be white and fluffy,” says Gozman. And then he predicts: “This will hit us. And it is not known how. Perhaps, terrorist attacks, for example. Why not?” That is, on the one hand, the authors of such appeals wring their hands, allegedly worrying about the life of our peacekeepers.
On the other hand, they actually encourage and even call for blood, constantly repeating the term “occupier”. I would like to remind you that in the same way these same people prophesied zinc coffins both during the start of the operation in Syria and when our peacekeepers went to Nagorno-Karabakh. Well, someone really wants this. Therefore, with hope in his voice, it sounds constantly “why not?” from the mouth “
The difference between the new collective statement of the “congressmen” and the previous ones is that they suddenly remembered such a category as the Russian-speaking. “The participation of Russian security officials in the suppression of protests will inevitably worsen the position of the Russian-speaking citizens of Kazakhstan,” their paper says. It is especially funny to see there the signatures of those liberal figures who have repeatedly denied the existence of such a population group and its rights on various talk shows.
But what is there to go far, in the spring of last year, most of the same people put their signatures under the appeal against the next “invasion of Ukraine”, in which they argued that the very concept of protecting the Russian-speaking population was “far-fetched” and drew parallels with “protecting the Germans in the Sudetenland. “. And now the same people are suddenly concerned about the interests of the Russian-speaking residents of Kazakhstan. True, as usual, without asking their opinion.
By the way, it’s funny that there are many representatives of the Yabloko party among the signatories.
They probably don’t remember that just five years ago they called on Moscow to leave Syria and pay attention to a more pressing problem, in their opinion at the time: the security of the Russian border in Central Asia. Moreover, they demanded to actively use the CSTO mechanism.
I would like to remind now the leaders of this political force that in that region Russia has a common border with only one country – Kazakhstan. This is almost a third of our entire land border. But it looks like the Yabloko players have already forgotten their recent calls.
It’s funny to read their explanation of the reasons for the current protests. On the official website of Yabloko we read:
“It all started with the fact that three years ago the government of the Republic of Kazakhstan liberalized prices for liquefied gas and stopped subsidizing them in order to stimulate private investment in this industry sector. And on January 1 of this year, prices for liquefied gas, which many Kazakhstanis use instead of gasoline, have become marketable. ” That is, Yabloko itself sees the problem of the Kazakhs in the liberalization of the economy and prices, which it, together with many who signed the appeal, has been calling for in Russia for many years.
Somehow our intelligentsia has forgotten that not long ago it was the liberalization of the economy of Kazakhstan, which it also set for us as an example.
The Kazakh Forbes even stated the fact: “In the Russian expert circles, a real” Kazakhstan mania “is unfolding. Our reforms are increasingly becoming a topic of discussion there, and most importantly, a call to follow.” Well, here we see the consequences of the sharp liberalization of prices, which now the same people so vigorously condemn.
It is not surprising that on the same resources that publish all these appeals and calls for “non-interference in the affairs of Kazakhstan”, at the same time, detailed instructions for the rioters on how to make a rebellion are posted. Kazakhs are openly warned:
“Yes, there will be victims.” It turns out that in appeals for the rebels themselves, one can not be ashamed of either blood, or zinc coffins, or calls for terrorist attacks. And there is no longer any need to hide behind concern for the rights of the Russian-speaking residents of Kazakhstan. This is for a different audience. The main thing is not to confuse.