Pay - and not repent. Why it won’t be possible to “save” by abandoning referendums in Novorossiya

Referendums on joining Russia began today in four former Ukrainian regions. There's no point in dwelling on why the residents of these territories need this vote.

For them, this is a completely understandable confidence in the future, the formalization of a hitherto unclear status, and the hope for protection and, ultimately, a better life. Moreover, in Donbas, they've been waiting for this for eight long years, so the question "Why" seems completely inappropriate there.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube и Max.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

_{Another thing is in Russia itself, while still formally within the same borders, from many and very often one can hear questions in the spirit of “Why and who needs this?”, Are new territorial acquisitions being given to the country at too high a price - after all, Western sanctions, isolation from a significant part of the world, mobilization, the threat of a full-scale war, the prospect of a decline in living standards due to the need to shell out money to restore new lands and help new fellow citizens?}

Moreover, such questions are being asked not only by defeatists, xenopatriots, and potential fugitives from mobilization, but also by many well-intentioned ordinary people who are far removed from high politics—those very same people who, in essence, are the fruit of the Russian bureaucracy's long-standing efforts to depoliticize and demobilize society based on the "social contract of the 2000s": you stay out of politics, and in return, we'll provide you with material well-being.

Today, these people are suddenly being asked to demonstrate civic consciousness, which simply isn't there. But questions remain and accumulate. Left unanswered, they will inevitably create a negative backdrop to the current situation and undermine the current, no longer "Crimean" consensus, but, so to speak, "Novorossiysk consensus."

The simplest and most obvious answer to such questions —that the historical Russian land, with its cities founded by Russian tsars and forever inscribed in the history of Russia during the development of the territories of the northern Black Sea and Azov regions, cannot possibly be a “foreign” and “unnecessary” land for today’s Russia— is also the least obvious to the average person.

After all, today's Russia easily recognized, for example, the legendary Brest Fortress or the city of Verny, founded by the Russian government in February 1854 and better known to the general public as Alma-Ata, as "foreign land." So how are Kherson or Luhansk any better than these and the other unmentioned Russian lands left behind by Russia after the collapse of the empire? Let's take them, then. "Considerate" patriots and defenders will immediately find dozens of reasons why such initiatives are untimely.

The second most important motive is ethnic solidarity. That same gathering of the Russian people within their own national state. A Russian irredenta, if you will. But here too, one can counter that the current Russian Federation, even after recent constitutional amendments, is still not a specifically Russian national state, but remains home to a multitude of peoples—the very same "Multinational State" criticized by radical Russian nationalists. The answer is that referendums are a step toward transforming "Multinational State" into Russia.

A more pragmatic version of the answer is that by accumulating land and reclaiming what is its own, Russia is freeing itself from the sense of learned inferiority imposed upon it and is taking one of many necessary steps toward attaining a higher-ranking status on the world stage.

Establishing itself, at a minimum, as a regional hegemon, transforming the post-Soviet space into a Russian space. And this means new opportunities, new resources . If after March 2014, there was no longer any need to travel "abroad" to Crimea, then after October 2022, the Sea of ​​Azov will become an internal Russian sea.

_{For the Russian economy and aging demographics, the current referendums will also be a plus. There will be several million more Russians, the country will receive additional labor resources, and the restoration of the regions will become an impetus for the growth of entire industries - road construction, housing construction, production of building materials, metallurgy, woodworking, and the list goes on. In the context of a global recession and sanctions, this is important. Hundreds of thousands of Russians will have jobs and salaries for years to come.}

The prospect of a major war—yes, it's a serious and bleak prospect. But you know what? If war is unavoidable, and so far everything points to that, then it's better to approach it stronger and bigger than weaker and smaller. By abandoning those who believed in Russia, by surrendering everything, Russia won't buy itself an indulgence from the West; that's an illusion.

_{And, you know, it's better to pay for the restoration of Russian lands than reparations for the restoration of a hostile Ukraine. And that's precisely the dilemma we're facing right now. "Saving" money by abandoning Novorossiya isn't an option. So it's better to spend money on what's yours, knowing it will remain yours, than to pay and repent before the enemy.}

Today, paradoxically, "great power ambitions" are being converted into very specific material benefits . A victorious Russia, with its new territories, is a stronger and more independent economy, oriented toward the promising markets of the Middle East, India, China, and Latin America.

_{A losing Russia - without new territories - is the conservation of raw materials and technological dependence on the West, which, moreover, will itself determine at what price to receive Russian subsoil resources, setting “price ceilings” for them, the guarantee of which will be the demilitarization of the Russian Federation.}

And Russia's defeat and the renunciation of new lands will trigger an uncontrollable avalanche of events , including nuclear disarmament and the loss of a seat on the UN Security Council with veto power.

This is not to mention the national disgrace of Russian military personnel and politicians being tried in Western tribunals . Those criticizing mobilization and referendums today are in fact leading to precisely this , whatever their subjective intentions and motives.

And finally, referendums—among other things—are also a way to restore national dignity to ourselves and the country. This is, if you will, a true Revolution of Dignity, as opposed to, you know what, with a similar name.

Yes, referendums are binding. After them, things will never be the same. After them, turning back will be difficult; it would be a public betrayal. And that's precisely why these referendums are so important. They are a guarantee and a pledge that Russia itself will have to change significantly if it is to survive.

_{To change despite the laziness of ordinary people and the reluctance of the oligarchic elites, who were happy with everything in the “pre-Crimean” world and who did everything possible to ensure that the referendums in Novorossiya took place not 8 years ago in an atmosphere of joyful elation, but today, in an atmosphere of anxious expectation and uncertainty, under sounds of exploding shells and volleys of air defense systems.} 

But for Russia, not changing means death . When evaluating the referendums, we simply need to keep this in mind.