We have all heard the news. Russia invaded Ukraine. More–or–less. We think. Maybe but not entirely. These evil, evil Russians at it again… perhaps.
And so we shake our apathy and seek the news… which happen to echo the official sanitized story depicting Western point of view from a position of complete ignorance. That's it! That will do it and the truth shall set us free.
THE STORY
The story goes more or less like this. Ukraine –a sovereign state– had an evil president who refused to join the progressive, benefactorial, cute and friendly European Union. This evil, evil person preferred to remain in the orbit of the dark empire (the USSR… sorry… we meant Russia). Ukrainian freedom fighters took to the streets only to be repressed with newly–minted anti–protest (and clearly anti–democratic) laws. Meanwhile Crimean politicians (ruling with an iron fist the Ukrainian pseudo–autonomous republic) called for a referendum to join the USSR (err… sorry again…Russia). This referendum was clearly illegal. Meanwhile the "people" of Russia "gave" its czar (err.… president) Putin the "mandate" to "help" Crimean people by flooding their territory with Russian troops. Ukraine responded with threats, Russia replied with threats, the west answered with threats and the political merry go round and round.
We are absolutely, positively, definitively sure that that is not what's really going on. Another thing that we are absolutely, positively, definitively sure about is that although people's will has been spoken, nobody is listening.
PERSPECTIVE
We need to place things into perspective. In order to do so, we need to take the meta route. What is the "meta" route? It means to look at the information about the information.
In order to understand what is going on, we need to take a critical look at so–called "national conflicts". The standard and mainstream premise of this type of logic is used by political analysts to derive national conclusions and intentions. They take the view that a "nation" is not a group of people, but a single entity with a single mind. Hence, they take a look at history and they conclude that:
Russians "hate" Ukrainians (they massacred them during WWII and Stalin's regime)
Turks "hate" Armenians (they massacred a great deal of them during the genocide)
Serbs "hate" Bosnians (they "ethnically cleansed" them from their lands)
Germans "hate" Jews (Hitler massacred them)
Iranian's "hate" Iraqis (they went to war several times)
Chinese "hate" Tibetans and Mongols (they keep killing them)
The list goes on and on. For every "nation" there is at least one other "nation" that the original "nation" hates. This is textbook… and it could not be more erroneous.
Let's begin by stating that the concept of nation has nothing to do with the concept of state or country.
A nation is a concept linked and derived from a given culture. This is a "soft" concept since it has no physical boundaries in the same manner that culture lacks them. For example, Chinese culture is alive and well in China, but it is also alive and well in Mexico. Chinese culture is the domain of Chinese people and it is a personal decision.
A state or county on the other hand, is a nation linked and dependent upon geography. China has a very definitive geography and Chinese people living in Mexico are not part of the Chinese state or country (although they may be their citizens).
When analysts determine that a given country "hates" some other country, what they are stating is that whoever is in charge of that country "hates" the people living in the territory of some other country or political division.
The hate originates in one or several few people based on their own personal opinions. Unfortunately, these people have disproportionate powers at their disposal and therefore this "hatred" becomes institutionalized. In other words, they impose their will onto their citizens.
If we remove these people from power, the hatred goes away. Unfortunately, this is not the solution since there is no guarantee that other people with similar or even more extreme views won't replace them. The solution is to get rid of all governments, all countries, all states.
In this scenario the only thing that's left are nations. But nations do not have leaders, at least not ones with disproportionate powers over life and death and a military machine to match their delusions. In a nations, people, average people, make the decisions day in and day out.
And what are those decisions? On average, they follow the golden rule of co–existence:
You don't mess with my stuff and I won't mess with yours.
Some things are simple, this is one of them.
Think. Many people dislike living in apartment buildings. Why? Because buildings are noisy, people gossips, sometimes it smells, there is little control over general expenses and so on. Let's assume that we remove the noise, the gossip, the odor and have reasonable expenses; this is, we remove undesired interaction with other people. What would the consequence be? Simple: people would not really care if they share the building with whites, blacks, Indians, Chinese, Mexicans, Russian or any other race, color or belief.
Is this reasonable? In our current politico–economic system it isn't simply because property rules and regulations are fuzzy, irrational and determined by the will of politicians. People in apartment buildings have to put–up with intrusions to their properties. In a Libertarian system the key property mandate is the golden rule and this rule is valid for all people in all circumstances. It is to the benefit of all people to live by it.
Why is this? Simple, hatred is time and expense consuming. Most people are not interested in literally spending their life and money in trying to destroy other people when they can be enjoying themselves. At this level, hatred is not natural. But if this is so, this would mean that hatred analysis based on country or state idiosyncrasies are in error! No country "hates" any other country!
PEOPLE WITH POWER
It is a minority of people that make the personal decision to hate other people which creates all problems. It is the state that enables this people to exercise their hate at a gigantic scale that would not otherwise be possible that provides the means. It is this combination that produces international "tensions" and "wars". It is not the people!
If we now return to Ukraine and Russia, the issue can be simplified enormously. Should neither Ukraine nor Russia exist, people in Ukraine preferring a more European environment would simply move or build economic ties with more European people. Should Russian people would like to have a port in Crimea, they could do so by renting it or buying the land (mind you, in this scenario there would be very little pressure to do so since the Russian Navy would not exist). There would be no need to have referendums, elections, invasions or threats. People would simple exercise their will and go about their business mostly avoiding interacting in a negative way with everybody else, regardless of them being Crimean, Russian or Ukrainian.
The inevitable conclusion is that this Russian–Ukrainian "tension" and "instability" is produced by political systems for the benefit of politicians. Remove artificial political boundaries and politicians from the equation, and the "tensions" and "instabilities" disappear.
People's will is not a referendum or an election; it is not belonging to Ukraine or Russia; it is not being allowed or disallowed to protest; it is not to support or reject a given political position. People's will is to be left alone to do as they please. People's will is the demand for the golden rule:
You don't mess with my stuff and I won't mess with yours.
Although, nobody is listening.
This is the tragedy underlying any international conflict and it is the tragedy underlying this conflict too.
There is a better way, the way of the individual, the way of individual freedom and as a free person you are free to make a decision. Believe in this freedom or not. It is your choice and nobody else's. Choose wisely.
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
