Post-hegemonic destructive counter-translation

We have been through a destructive post-hegemonic reactionary revolution. We witnessed post-hegemonic globalisation (not global) and post-socialist new wars, nearest to (post-)colonial wars. Subalternist Indian researchers talked about domination without hegemony, where the direct violence of domination is deadlier. In larger international political movements, attempted hegemony turns to war. In some cases, post-hegemonic patterns prevail. The EU seems to accept USA hegemony. Locally (from the Ukrainian perspective) hegemony is not tolerated any more. The counterpart: Putin?s Russia, pretending to re-establish the former hegemony with domination, ends up opting for sheer domination with no hegemony. General silence about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, after the destruction of Gaza. This requires much political translation. According to the preceding tacit translation contract, I would call this counter-translation. If ideally translation is a relation with the other in a process, counter-translation strives to change translation codes and the value of words. Switching codes, it attempts to give reality another political garb. Hegemony wanes away if neither side accepts it, ushers in dominance, violence and war, trying to morph into a lower level less stable hegemony. If it cannot - we may have civil wars. It boils down to the hegemonic language, which is also the national language. A negotiation for hegemony is attempted between available languages. But hegemony is not working, and sheer violence is employed in separating the once common language into two, like in Ukraine, or into four or more, as in the Yugoslav space. Self-renaming of the dissident language becomes mandatory at a narrower level, and works as a war declaration. A comparison between gender and rival languages negotiations is attempted in the paper.