This article was prompted by the further rising of tensions within the Donbass region regarding Ukrainian and Russian forces. Both nations remain steadfast in their obstiance despite both sides stating their 'desire' for peaceful resolutions. More can be read here about the now 7+ year-long fight for ideological freedom on one end and the preservation of chauvinist pride on the other. As Husky often says, make up your own mind and think freely.
Keep reading and enjoy!
In a 2017 interview with GQ Russia, Husky was asked ‘What is impossible for you?’ Instead of inspirational banalities, Dima chose a high-octane answer which would add fuel to a career-long, paradoxical conflagration built out of the dichotomous ideologies of the mortal with the fragmented face made of a thousand pieces [a purposeful rearticulation of the notable novel by Joseph Campbell]. He would state, “Splitting my country into some parts, into independent or semi-independent banana republics, is impossible for me.” Hence, this overtly jingoistic admittance of his [disputed] nationalistic allegiances can be seen as the more conservative side of the philosophical elegist, despite all his protestations at the conventionalized, political dichotomies of left and right, certainly does have concertized beliefs on many key issues. However, this contradictory constitution is rationalized by the rapper as being the embodiment of his autonomous disposition, choosing to believe what he wants and in the manner he see’s fit, “Since I am a creative person, I even perceive politics through the artistic system...I feel something, that’s all” [The Village, 2016].
[PC: Donetsk News Agency]
But the heart of the matter surrounds his controversial views on the acidic state of Ukrainian/Russian relations, in particular Russia’s ongoing, expansionist pursuits in the Donetsk/Donbass regions, as well as the 2014 Crimean annexation which the rapper outright champions on the position that the area never truly belonged to Ukraine and was distributed to them in the wake of the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Prepare for a bitter pill. As uncomfortable as this belief may sound, what is revealed through a preliminary investigation into Crimea’s history shows that Dima is indeed correct in his gauche statement, however there is substantial nuance as Russia only became a player in the game of ‘Who owns Crimea’ in the late 18th-century at the behest of Catherine the Great. Unfortunately, following suit was a three-year fight for ownership between French and Russian forces, quickly triggering massive instability and the eventual destruction of any inclination of self-agency once thought possible for Catherine’s Taurida Oblast, or as it was known to the agrarian-based Taurians, one of two autochthonous tribes to the small Peninsula, Taurica.
Current relations between western-focused Ukraine and isolationist Russia have grown only more tenuous, despite the presence of a bilateral push to end the gruesome border dispute, the ‘solution’ taking the form of a 12-point ceasefire agreement called the ‘Minks Protocols,’ originally created in 2014 but substantially amended in 2015 [Mins