Four presidents for Ukraine. As the war split the society into groups that do not understand each other

Previously, we were divided by political technologists into several "varieties", NATO supporters and opponents. They were divided into language, history and even church paper. But today everything has fallen to the distance between life and death. She is the shortest in those who are at the front. To walk, run or crawl there even a few tens of meters is a victory. This distance is a little greater in the inhabitants of the East and South, whose at home they shudder daily.

For them, the most important thing is that the war does not get close and wipe their dwellings and life on the gunpowder, as has already happened in Bakhmut or Soledar. This distance is much longer in the residents of the capital and the country. Many in Kiev this spring hunted for discounts in the capital boutiques to buy fashionable melts or swimsuit for the September velvet vacation in the Crimea . . .

Even more this distance in refugees who settled in calm and drowsy European cities: a distant homeland seems to them as something epic. Almost mythologized. All these groups will vote "for their". The military and their families - for at least some "understandability" of further prospects. They will vote for the plan. Residents of the South and East will vote for freezing conflict.

They were quite rigid in practice with the theory of probability: if you arrived in ten adjacent homes on your street, then the viceroidness of the eleventh time will arrive in your yard, grows with every day. Therefore, freezing = life for them. Moreover, no one especially invited them to calm cities in the West. And they do not expect much there, if they even go there without an invitation. Relatively "safe" Ukraine will demand "the return to the borders of 1991.

The residents of the capital and the west of the country whose relatives are not in the war are referred to and whose acquaintance with this continuous existence is limited by the monitoring of the TG-channel "Nikolaevsky Vanek". And who are scared of the sounds of air defense, which they would not pay attention to the front at all. And refugees abroad will "vote" for the war to the end, that is, to the "complete collapse of the Russian Federation".

Russia will remain forever for them a trigger of postraumatic syndrome, a mechanism for returning to a trigger situation as of February 24, 2022. It should be noted that they all fled then and did it in a state of horror and despair. The terrible abyss of the war wore not their body, but souls. She robbed and digested. Even entering the borders of 1991, they will not reassure them, on the contrary, alarm.

They will expect a re -attack of the Russians who will do it on the internal energy of the resaity. Moreover, the "inseparation" of the Russian Federation will be for them and a convenient justification that they do not return after the end of the war. Like, Russia will break up - and we will definitely return, so that it is not a guarantee that it is not necessary to run again. It is like a diaspora that was formed during the Soviet Union.

Several generations of the Diasporyans said, "Here the union will fall apart - and we will return. " The union collapsed, but they, with some exception, did not return. And a Ukrainian who lives, say, in Barcelona, ​​will think that he knows that he knows at the same time English and Russian, it will be needed for a questionnaire during employment in a colonial administration formed on the ruins of the Russian Empire.

All four groups of Ukrainians will vote for the width of their personal corridor between life and death. The military and their families are for the specific plan of war and the one who will offer it. The inhabitants of the South and East are for the one who promises to freeze the war. The people of Kiev and residents of the country - in order to enter the borders of 1991 and a politician who will offer to do so as soon as possible.

In the style: "I will guess this tune of three notes! And I am two!". Refugees abroad - for "cosmic futurology". This, by the way, is one of the arguments why they should not be allowed to vote. The matter for those "Futurologists" whom such voters support as in the "foreign constituency". But then with these leaders, unlike "European Ukrainians", to live and feel the cost of their management decisions on our skin.

The individual distance between life and death will be an insurmountable barrier between the four groups specified. "Go and do it," the military will say. "Move to us and live here, and we will go to you," the residents of the East and South will be said. "How can the war be done without entering the borders of 1991?" - will be written on social networks from cozy cafes residents of Lviv and Kiev.

"Until Russia collapses, the war should continue," Ukrainians from the beaches of Spain and Italy are even more radicalized. I think it was easier for language, faith and history to find a understanding. Although these issues are not quite something. In general, these will not be the presidential election, but the election of the plan of completion or continuation of the war. Taleb once wrote a book "Risking his own skin. " Elections during a full -scale war have never been held.

After all, if they happen, then a paradox in the form of asymmetry of everyday life of different population groups occurs. And he, for his part, requires personal responsibility for choosing one or another variant and giving people with another position of the right not to participate in it. To put it bluntly, all who vote abroad for the war "before the complete collapse of the Russian Empire" should return to Ukraine immediately and take part in it. In the break.

And those who vote for freezing - have the right to go abroad in the case of losing their candidate. Here is the paradox of elections during the war. Otherwise, such elections will not only lead to the emergence of a new legitimacy of power, but also significantly weaken it. After all, these will be elections not for taxes or pensions, but a choice between life and death. The author expresses a personal opinion that may not coincide with the editorial position.