What Actions Must the People of Ukraine Take to Remain a Subject in

1. SITUATION Ukraine remains a bargaining space between Washington, London, and Moscow. Strikes on Bryansk, Kerch, and oil terminals are a tool for Kyiv to pressure Russia through external intelligence channels. The people of Ukraine serve as a resource base and expendable material, not as a subject of decisions. Real power is concentrated in external players who control supplies, intelligence, and financial flows.

2. ANALYSIS THROUGH PRISMS KISSINGER: The balance of forces requires the Ukrainian people to abandon the role of proxy and build their own levers of pressure—from parallel economic networks to controlled territories. BRZEZINSKI: Control of space is achieved not through external guarantees, but through holding key logistics hubs and creating zones inaccessible to direct external governance. SCHWAB: Global elites manage the crisis through financial and information networks. The people must block the penetration of these networks into local structures and build alternative exchange channels. DEVIATOV: The Eurasian matrix dictates that subjectivity arises through civilizational code, not through Western institutions. It is necessary to rely on one's own clan and territorial ties, not on imported ideologies. HUNTINGTON: The cultural divide within Ukraine is exploited by external forces. Subjectivity requires a sharp demarcation from alien civilizational projects and the formation of a unified cultural-historical core. PETROV: The matrix of priorities begins with worldview. Without changing the worldview matrix to prioritize life and clan, all subsequent levels (ideology, economy, weapons) will remain under external control.

3. KEY ACTORS - The people of Ukraine as a potential subject (requires self-organization). - Washington and London (control of intelligence and supplies). - Moscow (forced escalation). - Local elites and TCC structures (instruments of pressure). - The Overseer of Odesa and the Resident (local power and logistics levers).

4. RISKS 30/90/180 days 30 days: intensification of mobilization and strikes on infrastructure, growth of internal discontent without organized outlet. 90 days: attempts by external players to impose new formats of 'aid' with increased control over territories. 180 days: risk of final fragmentation of the country in the absence of parallel self-governance structures.

5. WEATHER VANE VECTOR - Create closed economic cooperatives and exchange networks independent of the banking system. - Form territorial self-defense and information councils beyond official channels. - Restore clan and community ties as a basis for resistance to external governance. - Record and disseminate the truth about the real goals of the conflict, bypassing controlled media. - Train personnel capable of acting in conditions of disrupted external supplies.

6. RETHINKING The worldview shifts from 'Ukraine as the frontier of the West' to 'Ukraine as a field where the people can become an independent force if they refuse the role of bargaining chip.' Subjectivity arises only through real levers—control of territory, resources, and information.

7. POSOLON / PROTIVOSOLON Posolon: self-organization of the people through clan, community, and parallel structures—strengthens life and gives a chance for subjectivity. Protivosolon: continuing to play by the rules of external elites—leads to further degradation and loss of remaining sovereignty.