by Edward Birov for Vzgliad
Translated by Gideon
“It is abundantly clear that the crisis will continue until such times as the Ukrainians achieve harmony between themselves and society, instead of being submerged in the roar of radicalism and nationalism, will unite around more positive values and reflect the true interests of the Ukraine”, – from an interview with Vladimir Putin.
“Novorussia, consisting of the pro-Russian Ukraine, Russia and Belorussia together form the Russian world - a multi-layered doll (Matryoshka) where every element forms part of the wider whole”
Whenever the Russian authorities articulate the view that this conflict will end with the establishment of a “united Ukrainian people” the question inevitably arises – And what about Novorossiya – What is the Donbass fighting for, Novorossiya or a unified Ukraine?
This question is regularly used by propagandists of a ‘patriotic’ inclination, who as often as not, are likely to couple it with refrains of “the Kremlin’s betrayal” or the “sell-out of Novorossiya”. However even without the help of these “well-wishers”, Russians are still confused by this artificial conflict between Novorossiya and the other Ukrainian people.
However, the answer is simple and obvious: Donbass struggles for Novorossiya and more widely for a pro-Russian Ukraine and ultimately for Russia and the Russian world pitted against the aggression of the West. All are stages of the same process.
Novorossiya, consisting of the pro-Russian Ukraine, Russia and Belorussia together form the Russian world - a multi-layered doll (Matryoshka) where every element forms part of the wider whole. We fight for every part of it with no element of differentiation. Ukraine as a country and people do not threaten us. However, Ukraine as a Western political project, animated by the ideology of Bandera and Nazism, with its Nazi oligarch elite, does.
Geographical Ukraine, freed from Russophobic propaganda can and should remain part of the Russian world as per its cultural traditions. Those who support the violent de-nazification are in fact on the contrary aiding the process of nazification and the estrangement of Ukraine from Russia.
Yes sure, we have, for now, lost the battle for hearts and minds for the Russian population there. However, in the long term the people will still be ours. The West is using and playing with them and will anyway simply discard them, and when they do that land will remain forever the source of our culture. That is exactly why we should never set Novorossiya against the geographical Ukraine.
There is nothing surprising when the Russian leadership encourages Novorossiya and almost simultaneously the Ukrainian people, as necessary. This is the norm for geopolitical politics. It is entirely possible to, without sacrificing your principles and interests, try different combinations to promote them.
Given that the west (covertly or at least not overtly) has used Fascist puppets to pull the Ukrainian lands away from Russia, Russia has also had to act indirectly assisting the Ukrainian population in Novorossiya in the defense of their interests. This applies to the contradictory tensions between the Banderovites and the Euro-integrationists who also tried to break the Donbass and force her to become part of their Ukrainian vision.
Now, Kiev and the west, after months of bloodshed have broken their (military) teeth on the Novorossiyan army. They now understand that it is impossible to break the will of Donbass through violence, but that to simply let her go will be even more traumatic. Russia will compel Kiev to acknowledge the Donbass as a sovereign subject on Ukrainian territory and the Donbass itself will become a virtual state in its own right within boundaries but still forming its own separate pole of strength within the Ukraine proper.
In summary, Moscow and Donbass are compelling Kiev (which has been taken over by Banderovites and Americans), to take Russian interests into account. The Donbass, in a figurative sense, binds the remainder of the Ukraine to Russia and stops that remainder from forging a definitive break from Russia. Moreover this threatens the main political project, that of ‘The Ukraine is not Russia’, whose driving principle is the establishment of a mono-ethnic Ukrainian State, that is an end point where all citizens of the Ukraine, in one voice hate Russians and are in fact, Nazis.
It goes without saying that an open and more vigorous war of the Russian world in the Ukraine would be preferable to the current cautious moves of the Russian state. The flag of Russia fluttering alongside the flag of Novorossiya with the symbols of the pro-Russian Ukraine flying above armies freeing the territory from Fascists all the way to Lvov, would be closer to the heart of Russian people and patriots.
This is indeed the case and it is easy to understand the patriotic dissatisfaction with the current strategy. But we must restrain ourselves here and accept that Russia cannot act so openly, as to do so would risk a direct confrontation with the US and NATO. Moreover it is critical to delay such a confrontation and to chip away at Washington’s ‘Coalition of the Willing’. Indeed if we look at the recent utterances of France and Germany, even without listing the positions taken by the likes of the Czech Republic, Greece and Austria, there would appear to be signs that this approach is bearing fruit. A direct confrontation with the consolidated western countries when the dollar system is still dominant would be the politics of haste and adventure. Time is on Russia’s side.
‘Well that’s fine’ the naysayers cry, but what happened with the Crimea? How is it a special case but not the Donbass? Is it really the case that the Crimea is more ‘Russian’ than the Donbass? No, of course not. The issue here is not some degree of ‘Russianness’, that’s a fabricated issue – to compare the ‘deservedness’ of the Crimea and Donbass. The examples of Kramatorsk, Slavyansk, Ilovaisk and Gorlovka, the blood-drenched battles with the Banderovites and their punitive battalions, have declared their Russian nature more than anyone else. Crimea does have one outstanding characteristic – Its unique geographical situation and its military status.
As a Russian military base and a peninsular, the Crimea could painlessly secede from the Ukraine, raising its periscope to the north and waving goodbye to the Nazis in Kiev. The return of the Crimea to Russia does not lead to the loss of the whole of the Ukraine from Russia. Similarly, the Crimea for the Banderovites was like the 5th leg of a dog – to amputate it would be painful but it’s completely impossible to do anything with it and moreover at the critical moment there are always those Russian bases.
Should Russia have allowed these American Puppets to take the Crimea and expell the Russian Fleet, this would have been interpreted as a crushing strategic defeat for Russia, having lost its main base on the black sea. However, this was averted because of the Crimean operation. This is where we see the ‘special status’ of the Crimea and the geopolitical meaning of her return to Russia.
However, the Donbass presents a completely different proposition. It’s simply impossible to divorce her so painlessly from Kiev. From all military history it is clear that if we lead an army to the Donbass, then we need to go at least as far as the Dnieper river and with every step to the west the front becomes wider and extends from the Black sea to the Belorussian forests. Finally if we say that after the referendum in the Crimea, that that was the best time to undertake such a campaign, the Kremlin chose not to take that path and now it is so much more difficult to do that as to be impossible.
A different course has been chosen. Donbass as a dead-weight for the pro-western Ukraine and as a staging point for Pro-Russian Ukraine. The task ahead for Donbass is complex and will demand enormous effort – The future Novorossiya has to become a beacon for the rest of the east and eventually a Nazi-free model for the whole Ukraine. This can be achieved by war, diplomatic or economic means.
At the moment only the military solution is in motion, which, tragically, is leading to enormous fatalities amongst the civilian population. In order to progress to a non-military phase a truce and a real cease-fire is required. Moscow is trying to achieve this through the Minsk agreement.
Ultimately it must be understood that the redemption of the Ukraine is dependent on the results of the global confrontation between Moscow and Washington, the US and Russia between the West and everyone else.
The trump cards of the west are the dollar and resultant financial colonialism. If this collapses the Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan and the rest will be freed. The whole world will change beyond recognition.
Showing posts with label future status of Novorussia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label future status of Novorussia. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Putin's counter-intuitive 8 point peace plan for the Ukraine
There is a lot of speculation about Putin's end goal. They range from "Putin wants ton conquer the Ukraine and then Moldova, the Baltic States and (who knows?) even Poland" to "Putin's wants to back-stab Novorussia and sell it in exchange for Crimea". And these are not just empty speculations, because your assessment of what is happening today will largely depend on what you believe Putin's end goal is. For example, if you believe that "Putin is about to sell-out" theory, then the Minsk agreement is just the first phase in a general surrender of Novorussia to the Nazis. But if you believe that Putin's end-goal is to regain control all (or most) of the Ukraine, then the Minsk agreements are just a way to keep the junta at bay while giving it the time to commit economic suicide before striking. So what is Putin's end goal?
Putin's 8 point peace plan:
The Ukrainian newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli, UA, has recently published a fascinating article entitled "Blood Topography" which made a detailed analysis of the line of separation agreed upon in Minsk and whether it should have included the Donetsk Airport or not (it placed the airport on the Novorussian side). But at the end of the article, the author, Tatiana Silina, writes that according to her sources, Putin's real peace plan for the Ukraine is composed of all of the following elements:
Now here is where it gets really interesting. Consider this: how is it that Silina begins by listing 8 goals which (apparently) are designed to separate the Donbass as much as possible from the Ukraine and then concludes that these goals are designed to attach the Ukraine to Russia? This is a crucial question, so let me repeat it again:
Why does separating the Donbass from the rest of the Ukraine attach the Ukraine to Russia?
The second question is not less important, and it flows from the first one
Why does Putin not simply demand the full secession of the Donbass or even its reunification with Russia?
To understand, let's us make a simple but crucial thought experiment. First, let's consider if the Donbass fully secedes from the Ukraine and joins Russia and then compare it with Putin's solution.
Novorussian secession:
We assume that Kiev agrees with this (out of political, economic or even military necessity). The Donbass follows Crimea's example and pretty soon becomes the southwestern region of the Russian Federation. The first obvious consequence is that he war stops and that the rump-Ukraine becomes much more unitary. Having lost the potential support of Crimea (gone!) and the Donbass (gone!), other "trouble" regions (Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhie, Chernigov, Kharkov) soon basically give up any notion of resisting Kiev and those who cannot accept a Nazi junta are forced to either shut up or relocate ("encouraged" by the Ukie-Nazi slogan "suitcase - train station - Moscow"). Furthermore, the regime at this point will say that Russia betrayed the Ukraine whose sovereignty she had promised to guarantee when the Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons and that joining NATO is the only way to preserve the rest of the country. The population will mostly agree. There is no Russian language constituency left, so Ukrainian becomes the only language, the Russian language media disappears. The multi-billion effort to rebuilt the Donbass becomes "Russia's internal problem" while the US and EU "aid" is directed only at the comprador elites of the rump Ukraine (aka "privatization" and "opening up of the economy"). This new Ukraine completes the NATO encirclement of Russia from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
Novorussian autonomy inside the Ukraine:
Formally, de jure, the Donbass remains part of the Ukraine and thus it remains represented at the state level: the Rada. Because the LNR and DNR are free to chose their vector of economic development (i.e. join the trade union with Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia), they begin to have a "gravitational pull" on the entire Ukrainian economy. There us *much* more money made in lucrative contracts with Russia then there is by trying to sell something to the EU. The Russian language and culture remain vibrant in Novorussia and the effects of that are felt throughout the Ukraine. In contrast, the Ukrainian language becomes the "dialect of the loser", the sign of the pauper. And because the Ukraine remains constitutionally neutral, NATO simply cannot get in. The economies of all the regions listed above (Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhie, Chernigov, Kharkov) become more and more dependent on the "Novorussian special economic zone". Since the West has nothing to offer economically, it can only rely on the west-Ukrainian minority to promote the Empire's interests, which is wholly inadequate to counter the effect of the political and economic power of the eastern Ukraine.
Which of these two scenarios make more sense to you?
The first one basically hands over the Ukraine to the Empire and while the second one uses Novorussia as an unbreakable tether tying the rest of the Ukraine to Novorussia and Russia. In other words, Tatiana Silina is absolutely correct "Putin's methods may have changed, but not his goal: to attach the Ukraine to Russia".
The fact is that to truly (de jure) cut-off Novorussia from the rest of the Ukraine is tantamount to hand over the rest of the Ukraine to Uncle Sam and his EU puppets. Keeping a nominally unitary Ukraine with the Donbass de facto independent makes it possible for Russia to "reel in" the entire Ukraine. And since there can be no safety or security for either the Donbass or Russia with a NATO run Nazi regime in power in Kiev, regime change and the full de-nazification of the entire Ukraine is the only viable long term solution to this conflict. That goal can only be achieved if Novorussia remains nominally part of the Ukraine.
The Saker
Putin's 8 point peace plan:
The Ukrainian newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli, UA, has recently published a fascinating article entitled "Blood Topography" which made a detailed analysis of the line of separation agreed upon in Minsk and whether it should have included the Donetsk Airport or not (it placed the airport on the Novorussian side). But at the end of the article, the author, Tatiana Silina, writes that according to her sources, Putin's real peace plan for the Ukraine is composed of all of the following elements:
- The federalization of the Ukraine (even if under another label such as "de-centralization").
- A special status for the LNR and DNR which would include the creation of a purely local political authority not subordinated to Kiev.
- A full budgetary autonomy.
- Full freedom to chose the official language
- Full cultural freedom
- The right to "chose the vector of economic integration"
- The Ukraine must be declared a neutral state
- All of the above must be explicitly stated in the Ukrainian Constitution.
Now here is where it gets really interesting. Consider this: how is it that Silina begins by listing 8 goals which (apparently) are designed to separate the Donbass as much as possible from the Ukraine and then concludes that these goals are designed to attach the Ukraine to Russia? This is a crucial question, so let me repeat it again:
Why does separating the Donbass from the rest of the Ukraine attach the Ukraine to Russia?
The second question is not less important, and it flows from the first one
Why does Putin not simply demand the full secession of the Donbass or even its reunification with Russia?
To understand, let's us make a simple but crucial thought experiment. First, let's consider if the Donbass fully secedes from the Ukraine and joins Russia and then compare it with Putin's solution.
Novorussian secession:
We assume that Kiev agrees with this (out of political, economic or even military necessity). The Donbass follows Crimea's example and pretty soon becomes the southwestern region of the Russian Federation. The first obvious consequence is that he war stops and that the rump-Ukraine becomes much more unitary. Having lost the potential support of Crimea (gone!) and the Donbass (gone!), other "trouble" regions (Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhie, Chernigov, Kharkov) soon basically give up any notion of resisting Kiev and those who cannot accept a Nazi junta are forced to either shut up or relocate ("encouraged" by the Ukie-Nazi slogan "suitcase - train station - Moscow"). Furthermore, the regime at this point will say that Russia betrayed the Ukraine whose sovereignty she had promised to guarantee when the Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons and that joining NATO is the only way to preserve the rest of the country. The population will mostly agree. There is no Russian language constituency left, so Ukrainian becomes the only language, the Russian language media disappears. The multi-billion effort to rebuilt the Donbass becomes "Russia's internal problem" while the US and EU "aid" is directed only at the comprador elites of the rump Ukraine (aka "privatization" and "opening up of the economy"). This new Ukraine completes the NATO encirclement of Russia from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
Novorussian autonomy inside the Ukraine:
Formally, de jure, the Donbass remains part of the Ukraine and thus it remains represented at the state level: the Rada. Because the LNR and DNR are free to chose their vector of economic development (i.e. join the trade union with Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia), they begin to have a "gravitational pull" on the entire Ukrainian economy. There us *much* more money made in lucrative contracts with Russia then there is by trying to sell something to the EU. The Russian language and culture remain vibrant in Novorussia and the effects of that are felt throughout the Ukraine. In contrast, the Ukrainian language becomes the "dialect of the loser", the sign of the pauper. And because the Ukraine remains constitutionally neutral, NATO simply cannot get in. The economies of all the regions listed above (Odessa, Nikolaev, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhie, Chernigov, Kharkov) become more and more dependent on the "Novorussian special economic zone". Since the West has nothing to offer economically, it can only rely on the west-Ukrainian minority to promote the Empire's interests, which is wholly inadequate to counter the effect of the political and economic power of the eastern Ukraine.
Which of these two scenarios make more sense to you?
The first one basically hands over the Ukraine to the Empire and while the second one uses Novorussia as an unbreakable tether tying the rest of the Ukraine to Novorussia and Russia. In other words, Tatiana Silina is absolutely correct "Putin's methods may have changed, but not his goal: to attach the Ukraine to Russia".
The fact is that to truly (de jure) cut-off Novorussia from the rest of the Ukraine is tantamount to hand over the rest of the Ukraine to Uncle Sam and his EU puppets. Keeping a nominally unitary Ukraine with the Donbass de facto independent makes it possible for Russia to "reel in" the entire Ukraine. And since there can be no safety or security for either the Donbass or Russia with a NATO run Nazi regime in power in Kiev, regime change and the full de-nazification of the entire Ukraine is the only viable long term solution to this conflict. That goal can only be achieved if Novorussia remains nominally part of the Ukraine.
The Saker
Sunday, January 18, 2015
A Grim and Fatalist Post-Holiday Sitrep for the Dream that Was "NovoRossiya" and the People of the Donbass
by Mark Sleboda
Russia will obviously not allow the West-backed and installed Kiev regime to conquer the rump "NovoRossiya" by military means. This latest "offensive" of theirs will either peter out quickly or will end very badly for them if it expands in the Spring.
But the NAF is even less a coherent and organized force than the UAF/batallions (and that's saying a lot because Kiev has very limited control of its warlords and their death squads ie the "battalions) - with no real offensive capability or logistics network. They are only really a defensive force thus far, though it must be said competent at that. The Kremlin, further, purposefully and when necessary, brutally, weeds their leadership and retards their supplies and growth to make sure they cannot become truly independent of either Russia or Ukraine.
The Kremlin has gone out of their way to prevent the NAF from seizing even the rest of Donetsk or Lugansk Republics, letting them keep only this tiny rump principality which is only a third of the territory of the respective two Republics. They wouldn't even let the NAF take Donetsk airport for over 7 months. This was obviously a signal to the West of their limited intentions and an attempt to prevent the conflict from spiraling into anything bigger. The West either appears to have not gotten that message or completely ignored and taken advantage of it. The people who truly suffered from this policy of the Kremlin's are the people of Donetsk and the rank and file NAF. They have hid and died under regular Putsch regime shelling directed through the airport into the residential districts of the city since the summer.
The NAF being "let off the leash" and, after far more of a struggle than it should have been, finally taking their own city's airport tells us two things. First the Kremlin is growing frustrated with both Kiev and the West as negotiations are going nowhere. This is a signal of their discontent, but a very limited one in scope. Second it is painfully obvious that the NAF without greater Russian support than the Russian government has ever given them, or intends to give them (whatever the hysteric and regular pronouncements from Kiev or the Western MSM and governments to the contrary), has NO offensive capability to speak of.
The Kremlin has no intent to either annex Donetsk and Lugansk and take economic responsibility for them and their people - nor to let them expand and become independent. Novorossiya literally has NO economy at all - nor do they have the ability to develop one without massive outside investment which neither the Kremlin nor the West has any intent of giving them. This is very important as NovoRossiya can NEVER be independent nor is it even sustainable in the medium term without one. There is literally NO money, no paying jobs, no economy. Even the standard of life under Putsch neoliberal "austerity" in Ukraine is far better at this point. The people of Donbass are suffering and the vulnerable literally starving to DEATH, and they cannot continue much longer like this.
The NovoRossiya "project" was NOT dreamed up in the Kremlin. It was an organic idea with historical roots that grew out of the desires of the people of the Donbass to get out of the post-Maidan Ukrainian madhouse and encouraged by various Eurasianist and nostalgic-Imperial/Orthodox elements of Russian civil society. Perhaps a few in the Kremlin inner circle of the more conservative patriotic bent tried to pick it up and run with it for a while - but it is obvious that for Putin it was never anything more than toy for leverage with the West to force a negotiated settlement in Ukraine. A "bad cop" approach. But it was never more than a bluff - and it appears that the West has (correctly) called him on it - whatever their public rhetoric on the matter to the contrary.
The Kremlin is very set on forcing rump Donetsk and Lugansk back into Ukraine at some point in the future under federalized conditions that suit the Kremlin's interest and influence. That is no longer enough in the minds of many of the NAF ranks or the people of Donetsk and Lugansk, who, rightly, have no desire to being forced under the Putsch rule or back in the same country with those who have been indiscrimately massacring them in their homes and on their streets for most of the last year (equivalent to asking the Kosovar Albanians to go back to Serbia after being bombed into independence by NATO) - but they may not have a real choice in the matter. The desires of the people of Donbass and the NAF and the interests of the Kremlin widely diverge on this. IMHO the Kremlin is playing a very cynical and coldly pragmatic game with the people of the Donbass. It further says a lot that they still prefer even that to rule or cleansing by Kiev. Pity the people of Donbass that they are not Crimea. The sad truth is that the people of Donbass want Russia much much more than the Kremlin wants them...
The Kremlin still keeps the NAF and NovoRossiya firmly under its leash. They truly are not getting much support from the Kremlin beyond that limited military aid assistance preventing them from being further military conquered from Kiev - but they are completely dependent on even that. The people of the Donbass are actually getting very little in the way of economic/humanitarian aid either from the Russian federal govt. The convoys are really a token effort only for PR purposes, and represent only a tiny tiny fraction of what the people of Donbass need or even are actually getting from Russia. The majority of what they are getting comes mostly from either Russian civil society (donations, organizations, the Church, and the Russian Republic's local governments like Kadyrov) or from the native oligarchs of the Donbass like Akhmetov who are still playing a cautious double game to try to come out ahead when this is all over and the dust settles.
The ONLY hope for NovoRossiya to ever become a real "independent" rump-state protectorate of Russia (like Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria) is from stupidly escalated and protracted military attempts from Kiev to subjugate Donbass, directed and armed by the West. But even then, after what has been going on for last half a year, it is almost impossible to imagine the level of bloodshed and carnage that would be necessary to push the Kremlin past the threshold on that score. So, no, not much hope for the people of "NovoRossiya" at all. Stillborn and still dying...
-------
Note by The Saker:
Just in order to avoid a deluge of misunderstandings, and even though I often post articles I disagree with, I will spell it out again: I do not share Mark's analysis of the situation, but he might be right and I might be wrong. I therefore find it very important to give his analysis as much visibility as possible. I am also personally grateful to Mark for accepting that he and I have different views and not turning that into a reason for personal hostility. I consider Mark a friend. The Saker
Russia will obviously not allow the West-backed and installed Kiev regime to conquer the rump "NovoRossiya" by military means. This latest "offensive" of theirs will either peter out quickly or will end very badly for them if it expands in the Spring.
But the NAF is even less a coherent and organized force than the UAF/batallions (and that's saying a lot because Kiev has very limited control of its warlords and their death squads ie the "battalions) - with no real offensive capability or logistics network. They are only really a defensive force thus far, though it must be said competent at that. The Kremlin, further, purposefully and when necessary, brutally, weeds their leadership and retards their supplies and growth to make sure they cannot become truly independent of either Russia or Ukraine.
The Kremlin has gone out of their way to prevent the NAF from seizing even the rest of Donetsk or Lugansk Republics, letting them keep only this tiny rump principality which is only a third of the territory of the respective two Republics. They wouldn't even let the NAF take Donetsk airport for over 7 months. This was obviously a signal to the West of their limited intentions and an attempt to prevent the conflict from spiraling into anything bigger. The West either appears to have not gotten that message or completely ignored and taken advantage of it. The people who truly suffered from this policy of the Kremlin's are the people of Donetsk and the rank and file NAF. They have hid and died under regular Putsch regime shelling directed through the airport into the residential districts of the city since the summer.
The NAF being "let off the leash" and, after far more of a struggle than it should have been, finally taking their own city's airport tells us two things. First the Kremlin is growing frustrated with both Kiev and the West as negotiations are going nowhere. This is a signal of their discontent, but a very limited one in scope. Second it is painfully obvious that the NAF without greater Russian support than the Russian government has ever given them, or intends to give them (whatever the hysteric and regular pronouncements from Kiev or the Western MSM and governments to the contrary), has NO offensive capability to speak of.
The Kremlin has no intent to either annex Donetsk and Lugansk and take economic responsibility for them and their people - nor to let them expand and become independent. Novorossiya literally has NO economy at all - nor do they have the ability to develop one without massive outside investment which neither the Kremlin nor the West has any intent of giving them. This is very important as NovoRossiya can NEVER be independent nor is it even sustainable in the medium term without one. There is literally NO money, no paying jobs, no economy. Even the standard of life under Putsch neoliberal "austerity" in Ukraine is far better at this point. The people of Donbass are suffering and the vulnerable literally starving to DEATH, and they cannot continue much longer like this.
The NovoRossiya "project" was NOT dreamed up in the Kremlin. It was an organic idea with historical roots that grew out of the desires of the people of the Donbass to get out of the post-Maidan Ukrainian madhouse and encouraged by various Eurasianist and nostalgic-Imperial/Orthodox elements of Russian civil society. Perhaps a few in the Kremlin inner circle of the more conservative patriotic bent tried to pick it up and run with it for a while - but it is obvious that for Putin it was never anything more than toy for leverage with the West to force a negotiated settlement in Ukraine. A "bad cop" approach. But it was never more than a bluff - and it appears that the West has (correctly) called him on it - whatever their public rhetoric on the matter to the contrary.
The Kremlin is very set on forcing rump Donetsk and Lugansk back into Ukraine at some point in the future under federalized conditions that suit the Kremlin's interest and influence. That is no longer enough in the minds of many of the NAF ranks or the people of Donetsk and Lugansk, who, rightly, have no desire to being forced under the Putsch rule or back in the same country with those who have been indiscrimately massacring them in their homes and on their streets for most of the last year (equivalent to asking the Kosovar Albanians to go back to Serbia after being bombed into independence by NATO) - but they may not have a real choice in the matter. The desires of the people of Donbass and the NAF and the interests of the Kremlin widely diverge on this. IMHO the Kremlin is playing a very cynical and coldly pragmatic game with the people of the Donbass. It further says a lot that they still prefer even that to rule or cleansing by Kiev. Pity the people of Donbass that they are not Crimea. The sad truth is that the people of Donbass want Russia much much more than the Kremlin wants them...
The Kremlin still keeps the NAF and NovoRossiya firmly under its leash. They truly are not getting much support from the Kremlin beyond that limited military aid assistance preventing them from being further military conquered from Kiev - but they are completely dependent on even that. The people of the Donbass are actually getting very little in the way of economic/humanitarian aid either from the Russian federal govt. The convoys are really a token effort only for PR purposes, and represent only a tiny tiny fraction of what the people of Donbass need or even are actually getting from Russia. The majority of what they are getting comes mostly from either Russian civil society (donations, organizations, the Church, and the Russian Republic's local governments like Kadyrov) or from the native oligarchs of the Donbass like Akhmetov who are still playing a cautious double game to try to come out ahead when this is all over and the dust settles.
The ONLY hope for NovoRossiya to ever become a real "independent" rump-state protectorate of Russia (like Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria) is from stupidly escalated and protracted military attempts from Kiev to subjugate Donbass, directed and armed by the West. But even then, after what has been going on for last half a year, it is almost impossible to imagine the level of bloodshed and carnage that would be necessary to push the Kremlin past the threshold on that score. So, no, not much hope for the people of "NovoRossiya" at all. Stillborn and still dying...
-------
Note by The Saker:
Just in order to avoid a deluge of misunderstandings, and even though I often post articles I disagree with, I will spell it out again: I do not share Mark's analysis of the situation, but he might be right and I might be wrong. I therefore find it very important to give his analysis as much visibility as possible. I am also personally grateful to Mark for accepting that he and I have different views and not turning that into a reason for personal hostility. I consider Mark a friend. The Saker
Monday, September 1, 2014
Novorussia: independent, associated or (con)federated?
An important disclaimer, caveat and clarification
First, I will begin by a clear disclaimer which I ask you all to please carefully read and then keep in mind: I personally am not advocating any option for the final status of Novorussia. That is for the people of Novorussia to decide and any option that they will chose I will support. Furthermore, at this point in time I am not even personally sure what option I would recommend if asked to do so simply because the devil is in the details, not the big words. What I propose to do below is to look at a number of issues related to this question but that analysis should not be interpreted as a personal endorsement of any solution.
Second, I have carefully parsed the news out of Minsk, Novorussia and Russia and I am left with the strong feeling that nothing has really been decided, hence the apparent zig-zags and changing interpretations over the terms offered by the Novorussian delegation.
Third, I urge everybody to be extremely cautious with Russian news sources including Russian TV channels and RT. Why? Because Russia has a major stake in this fight and that I am absolutely certain that the Russian elites are split on what the best solution would be for Russia. There are also informal, shall we say, "groups of like-minded people" inside the Russian media who are trying to promote the interest of their patrons and supporters. And while it is would be an oversimplification to say that, for example, NTV stands for "position A" while RT stands for "position B", I know for a fact that inside RT, NTV, Rossia, REN-TV and the rest of various groups have various agendas: one editorial board might have a very different position than another one, even inside the same media outlet.
Fourth, Russian interests should not be automatically conflated with the interests of Novorussia, just as the interests of the Russian and Novorussian elites should not be conflated with the interests of the Russian and Novorussian people. Seems obvious, but I feel that this should be clearly stated again because any agreement on the final status of Novorussia will be the resulting vector of the goals many very different interests groups and almost certainly end up being a compromise from which nobody will walk away with everything they want.
Having said that, now let's look at how this all began.
How did we get here?
Six months ago all the eastern Ukrainians wanted were a) guarantees for the Russian language and b) fiscal autonomy. That's it. Nothing else. As for Russia, her position was equally clear: a united and neutral Ukraine respectful of the civil rights of all its citizens. Sounds like a no-brainer, right?
As for the Ukrainian opposition, it officially wanted to remove an oligarch-controlled government and sign an Association with the EU. Again, pretty straightforward.
Now, think of it, a compromise solution was rather obvious: the election of a new, non-oligarch controlled government which would sign an Association agreement with the EU and commit itself to the civil rights of all Ukrainians, including the cultural and linguistic rights of the eastern Ukrainians. Yanukovich even went as far as to offer Iatseniuk the post of Prime Minister. So why did it not happen?
Because the protest movement was completely co-opted, hijacked, manipulated, controlled, financed, organized and run by the USA who used EU political elites and a group of bona fide Nazis to achieve regime change and draw the Ukraine into the AngloZionist sphere of influence. What they wanted was a Ukraine economically exploited by the EU and militarily owned by the US via NATO. This plan centered on not only severing away the Ukraine from Russia and its economic union with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and others, but to also on severing the economic ties between Russia and Europe (an old US goal dating from the Cold War when the US did everything it could to prevent the USSR from selling gas to western Europe).
You can think of the Nazi freaks as the Ukie equivalent of al-Qaeda or ISIS: rabid hateful murderous lunatics who literally cannot contain their hatred and desire to oppress and murder. Of course, under US pressure, they tried very hard to act like sane and civilized people, but time and again they failed, hence the references to Russian speakers as sub-humans/non-humans, Timoshenko's desire to use nukes to exterminate the "accursed Moskals", the apparently crazy insistence that only Ukrainian be an official language or the equally imbecile categorical refusal of any form of federation. Needless to say, as soon as these crazies got to power, they immediately passed a series of fantastically stupid and provocative laws such as the re-authorization of Nazi propaganda or the repeal of the official status of the Russian language. Unsurprisingly, the folks in the east freaked out and correctly concluded that "the Nazis are back".
As a result, a double dynamic was created: the crazies in the USA (the Neocons) directly threatened the vital/existential interests of Russia while the crazies in Kiev (the Nazis) directly threatened the vital/existential interests of the population of eastern and southern Ukraine. In doing so they left the Donbass and Russia no other option than to react and directly respond to that danger.
This is important because what has been done cannot be simply wished away and undone. Both Russia and Novorussia are now in a "survival mode" in which nothing short of a full elimination of these vital/existential threats will do. In other words, the US Empire's AngloZionist project AND the Ukie Nazi experiment must absolutely and definitely be defeated and conditions must be created which will forever prevent it's reemergence.
Where do we stand now?
First, I would argue that the Junta repression force (JRF) has been defeated. Not strategically (if only because it enjoys an immense strategic depth and still huge human and material resources), but operationally. All the signs are that the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) are careful not to over-play their hand or push too far to the west, so things look very good for Novorussia right now. Second, the Junta has also been defeated politically: if in the past the Ukrainian people had an oligarch-controlled government, now they have a government of oligarchs. And they know it. Furthermore, the Nazis have shown their true face (Odessa, Mariupol, MH17, MLRS and ballistic missiles used on civilians with white phosphor and cluster munitions, etc.). Third, predictably, the Ukie economy is in free fall and for all practical purposes the Ukie industry is dead. I would call that a full-spectrum failure for the Junta.
Uncle Sam is not doing much better: Crimea is lost forever, the Donbass is also lost for all practical purpose, Putin is more popular than ever, the EU tensions with the US are up (the Czech and Slovak republics have both announced that they will veto any further sanctions against Russia), and the US puppet-junta in Kiev has completely lost control of the situation.
As for the EU, it truly screwed-up badly. The recent election of Donald Tusk and Federica Mogherini to the positions of President of the EU Council and EU Foreign Policy Chief is definitely good news, but it is also too little too late. The mess left behind by Catherine Ashton and Herman Van Rompuy will take years of painful efforts to clear. Besides, that other crazy, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is still there, every bit as crazy and pathetic as always. But for all the hot air blowing out of Rasmussen and a few more EU politicians, the EU has no stomach for more sanctions, much less so an ugly sanctions war with Russia. The Russians know that, and so all they have to do now is wait for the fruit to become ripe (or rotten, really) and fall down on their lap.
There will be a NATO summit next week in Wales were Obama and his Neocon coterie of foreign policy advisors will most definitely push for a series of anti-Russian measure backed by very loud and macho statement about how Russia must be stopped, Europe protected and the NATO recognized as absolutely indispensable. More men, more guns, more threats and, last but not least, more dollars for the US military-industrial complex. Russia, however, will remain unimpressed for a very simple reason: the US and the EU have already been at the maximal anti-Russian policies for many years already. In fact, the only anti-Russian policies which the AngloZionist Empire has not adopted yet are those which would hurt it more than they would hurt Russia. Put differently, from now on any anti-Russian sanctions adopted will, by definition, hurt the AngloZionists more than they will hurt Russia (which they still will, of course). The conclusion is obvious: the West simply cannot afford a sustained sanctions war against Russia.
There is still a real danger out there
The problem with the AngloZionists is that they are arrogant and stupid enough to stumble into a variant of the Israeli "Samson Option": to strike out at their enemy even if that means bringing down the entire building on themselves. Contrary to many analysts, I don't think that the Americans are actually dumb enough to deliberately start a war against Russia, much less so a nuclear one, but they are arrogant enough to paint themselves into a corner in which the only way to save face is to use military force. They are also capable of creating an extremely dangerous military situation in which even a firecracker can set off a shooting war (remember the insane USN posturing in the Strait of Hormuz or in the Taiwan Strait?). The Russians must absolutely remain aware of this danger and thus never assume that the Americans are rational or prudent. History proves that they are reckless and happy to create a situation resulting in war (US policies towards Japan before WWII are a perfect example).
Now let's look at the options for Novorussia
As I have mentioned already, the devil is in the details, but there are basically to main options for Novorussia 1) full (de facto and de jure) independence 2) practical (de facto but not de jure) independence. I honestly believe that any other option which would fall short of de facto independence is simply impossible to achieve. The Novorussians will not live under Kiev's police or military, they will not pay Kiev more than purely symbolic taxes and they will most definitely not accept any limitation of their cultural, linguistic and economic rights, including the right to do business directly with Russia. I consider that option as so unlikely, short of a massive and sustain bloodbath, that I won't even consider it any further. So let's look at the two remaining options.
a) Full (de facto and de jure) independence: Novorussia
Advantages: Security: possibility to either join Russia or sign a mutual assistance treaty which could include the basing of Russian forces in Novorussia. This would provide the ideal and maximal protection from any future attacks from the Ukies. Economy: no taxes paid to Kiev, association with Russia, full access to the huge Eurasian market, work for the Russian industry, social rights paid for by Russia (as part of an aid package). The joy of having fully won and to not have to deal with the crazies in the western Ukraine. Full and total de-Nazification.
Disadvantages: maximalist position which leave no face saving way out for the crazies in Kiev and Washington, major difficulties in being internationally recognized. This option also leaves all the rest of the ex-Ukraine in the hands of the AngloZionists and Nazis who will constantly sabotage, subvert and disrupt the life of Novorussia. There is a real chance that this might mean leaving cities and regions like Odessa, Dniepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Chernigov, Nikolaev and many other historically Russian part of the ex-Ukraine to whatever regime is in power in Kiev. Constant military danger: the current Ukie Minister of Defense promised a victory parade for the Ukie forces in Sevastopol, I kid you not. You can imagine what folks like him will have to say to an independent Novorussia. Key problem: this maximalist position leave no incentive whatsoever for Kiev to negotiate.
b) Practical (de facto but not de jure) independence: "Ukraine v2"
Advantages: Novorussia already gets much more than what it wanted six months ago (see above). By preserving the fiction of a unitary Ukraine this solution leaves everybody a face saving way out and the major outside actors (Russia, US, EU, UN, OSCE) can all sign the deal and be declared guarantors. Also, if Novorussia is nominally part of the "Ukraine v2" then it gives the people of the eastern Ukraine (who are the richest, best educated majority of the Ukrainian population) a chance to counter-act and challenge the rule of Nazis in Kiev and maybe serve as a basis to bring down the current "Banderastan" and replace it instead with a "Ukraine v2". Furthermore, a united Ukraine would be in a much better position to receive desperately needed international aid and money to rebuild. Considering that at least initially the Nazi freaks would remain in power in Kiev we can be pretty sure that they will further destroy even the little left of "Banderastan" and that, sooner or later, some regime change will occur. If the new regime in power is more or less sane, the eastern Ukraine could demand that those responsible for the mess be brought to trial and that a "truth and reconciliation" type commission be formed.
Disadvantages: There is a real risk that the Poroshenko regime will fall and be replaced by a Iarosh dictatorship. Alternatively, southern Banderastan might break away from Kiev and for a "Kolomoiskistan". Either way, the collapse of the Poroshenko regime risks sucking in the Donbass into a 2nd phase of the civil war with no option for overt Russian aid (covert aid would, of course, be provided). Even the notion of being represented by Nazi freaks in Kiev or to put up with a Ukie flag would be sickening for all those who died in defense of Novorussia. Furthermore, if the deal does not look solid or stable, far from coming back home from Russia, even more Novorussians would "vote with their feet" and emigrate to Russia. Nowadays, even the people of Crimea are still nervous and Russian politicians, including Putin, have had to constantly tell them "no, this time it's forever, we will never abandon you, this is not something which will ever be overturned". If the folks in Crimea are worried about their future even though they are now legally part of Russia, you can imagine how frightened and unsure the people of Novorussia would be in any kind of "association" with Kiev, even a purely formal one.
These are only a few examples, there are many more which could be listed as advantages and disadvantages for both the independent Novorussia and the "Ukraine v2" option.
My very highly speculative and personal guess
Russia's preferred option
I think that Russia would prefer a Ukraine v2 version. From the point of view of Russia, it has a lot of advantages (like forcing the "Ukraine v2" to adopt a completely neutral, non-aligned, status). As I have always said, Russia does not want or need the Ukraine. What it wants is a stable, neutral and prosperous Ukraine, and not because Putin and the rest of the folks in the Kremlin are saints or Ukrainophiles, but because that is for the objective best interest for Russia. The only thing Russia needed it already got: Crimea.
To those of you who might be appalled at the notion of a less-than-fully-independent Novorussia or a "Ukraine v2" I will say that I very much doubt that Russia can impose such an outcome on the people of Novorussia. Sure, I am not naive, Zakharchenko and current Novorussian leaders got their power in a Moscow-backed change of leadership, so their ties to Moscow are very close, but the real power of Zakharchenko & Co. is that they have the support and consensus of the vast majority of the people of Novorussia, especially those fighting in the NAF. I never believed in a "sellout" of Novorussia (even though I always feared it), and I am confident that should such a "sellout" occur the only real force in Novorussia - the NAF - will never let it happen. Likewise any such "sellout" would trigger a severe political crisis for Putin.
All this is to say that while I do believe that, given the choice and option, Putin and his advisors would prefer a de-facto but not fully de-jure semi-independent Novorussia inside a very loose "Ukraine v2" I do not believe that a "sellout" is either what they want or even something they could do: the ultimate guarantor of the de-facto independence of Novorussia is not Putin or Russia, but the armed men of the NAF.
Novorussia's preferred option
What would the people of Novorussia and, especially, the NAF prefer?
I honestly don't know but I suppose that full independence is their preferred goal. Still, the situation is complex and there are very solid argument speaking against such an option and for a "Ukraine v2" (as there very are solid arguments speaking in favor of a fully independent Novorussia and against a "Ukraine v2").
One could also make a case that right now is not the correct time to make this choice. For one thing, nobody knows who will be in power in Kiev in just a few months. The winter is coming and the gas negotiations are becoming huge. Depending on what NATO does or does not decide, one of the other option might become a clearly better choice (just imagine NATO forces in Kiev!).
We have to give time to time (French expression)
The examples of Korea, Cyprus, Kosovo, Transnistria and many others show that sometimes the only solution is not solution at all. The examples of Ireland or Chechnia show that some solutions are not at all the ones initially considered. Furthermore, I would want to add here that the real end-goal of Russia in the Ukraine is not getting Crimea or saving the Donbass, but to achieve real regime change in Kiev. Only that option would be an outcome which would really please Moscow and, if we keep that in mind, it is not at all clear to me that full independence for Novorussia is the best way to get there. And let us also ponder this question: what is better for the people of Novorussia, full independence from the Ukraine or real, lasting, regime change in Kiev?
Just as in chess, time and timing are crucial pieces on the board. Those who over the past few months were hysterically accusing Putin of being a traitor who will backstab the Novorussians simply failed to appreciate the importance of time and timing in strategy. I am sorry to say that, no offense intended, but many people in the West have been raised, educated and trained in a culture of instant action-reaction, of immediate, almost kneejerk, responses. They are used to consider only short-term rapidly achievable options. Russia, and even more so China, are very different in this prospect. These two nations build their immense countries by slow and steady progress, not by short pushes. And though the Russian in the street might also prefer a fast solution to the Ukrainian problem, the folks in the Kremlin, especially former intelligence officers like Putin, fully realize that the "Ukrainian problem" is 400 to 800 years old, depending on how you define it (please read this and this if you are interested) and that it will not be solved in a few months. This is especially true considering that in the current situation the real cause and force behind the current Ukrainian crisis is the AngloZionist Empire.
The real, "real", goal of Putin (and Xi Jinping!)
As I have mentioned it here many, many times, the real "real" end-goal of Russia is not even regime change in Kiev: it is regime change on the planet. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that both Russia and China want to create a New World Order, but one very different one from the one envisioned by Bush, Fukuyama, Obama and the rest of the AngloZionist 1%ers. Russia and China want a complete deconstruction of the AngloZionist Empire, they want to de-dollarize the world economy, the want an multi-polar international world order in which the rule of law is respected because it is understood that it is the most advantageous way to deal with problems. Russia see its future in her North and in Siberia, China wants its economy to go global, including the Far-East Asia and the Pacific region, Africa and Latin America. Russia also wants to role of Latin America and Central Asia to become more important because without these continents and regions there can be no truly multi-polar world. I would also argue that both Russia and China are rejecting the western civilizational model and it's key dogmas (I won't list them here lest I offend or infuriate new readers, but my longtime readers know exactly what I mean) and that they are both seeking to create not only a different world order but a different civilization. All this is much, much bigger than the Donbass or even the entire Ukraine. Yes, at this moment in time, the frontline of the global civilizational war is going straight across the Ukraine, but this is only one battle in a much bigger and wider war.
Judging by some very telling statements of Zakharchenko in his recent press conference, I am confident that he understands that very well. I have no doubt whatsoever that Putin does.
Conclusion
The main conclusion I hope that you all will draw from the above is that we should not jump to conclusions and avoid making big sweeping judgments. If I have convinced you that this is a very tricky, complex and multi-dimensional issue then I am satisfied. If I get another deluge of one sentence slogans in favor of either option, then I failed. As I said, I am not sure that anybody really knows were this is all taking us. For one thing, the Ukies and their western patrons have reneged on every single agreement they have signed since last Fall and there is really no rational reason to expect them to stick to anything they might sign this time. Or maybe these negotiations will lead nowhere and the chaos and "somalization" of the ex-Ukraine will continue. The other day Putin said this: "no matter where the US gets involved they always achieve the same result: Libya". That is quite true and maybe a libyalization of Banderastan needs to happen before everybody comes to his/her senses. Or maybe, this is terrible to say, is the situation more similar to the one in Chechnia in 1999 when a lot of people had to be simply physically eliminated, killed, before any solution could be found (sadly, but Nazis and Wahabis have that in common that the only way to deal with most of them is to kill them). I honestly don't know.
So let us keep an eye on this incredibly fluid, complex and dangerous situation and not pretend like it is simple and the solution obvious.
Stay tuned, as always, I will do my best to keep you posted.
Kind regards and many thanks,
The Saker
PS: this is yet another one of my "written in one shot between several other committments" posts, so please forgive the bad grammar, spelling, syntax and style. I simply physically do not have the time to correct this. Sorry, gotta run :-) The Saker
First, I will begin by a clear disclaimer which I ask you all to please carefully read and then keep in mind: I personally am not advocating any option for the final status of Novorussia. That is for the people of Novorussia to decide and any option that they will chose I will support. Furthermore, at this point in time I am not even personally sure what option I would recommend if asked to do so simply because the devil is in the details, not the big words. What I propose to do below is to look at a number of issues related to this question but that analysis should not be interpreted as a personal endorsement of any solution.
Second, I have carefully parsed the news out of Minsk, Novorussia and Russia and I am left with the strong feeling that nothing has really been decided, hence the apparent zig-zags and changing interpretations over the terms offered by the Novorussian delegation.
Third, I urge everybody to be extremely cautious with Russian news sources including Russian TV channels and RT. Why? Because Russia has a major stake in this fight and that I am absolutely certain that the Russian elites are split on what the best solution would be for Russia. There are also informal, shall we say, "groups of like-minded people" inside the Russian media who are trying to promote the interest of their patrons and supporters. And while it is would be an oversimplification to say that, for example, NTV stands for "position A" while RT stands for "position B", I know for a fact that inside RT, NTV, Rossia, REN-TV and the rest of various groups have various agendas: one editorial board might have a very different position than another one, even inside the same media outlet.
Fourth, Russian interests should not be automatically conflated with the interests of Novorussia, just as the interests of the Russian and Novorussian elites should not be conflated with the interests of the Russian and Novorussian people. Seems obvious, but I feel that this should be clearly stated again because any agreement on the final status of Novorussia will be the resulting vector of the goals many very different interests groups and almost certainly end up being a compromise from which nobody will walk away with everything they want.
Having said that, now let's look at how this all began.
How did we get here?
Six months ago all the eastern Ukrainians wanted were a) guarantees for the Russian language and b) fiscal autonomy. That's it. Nothing else. As for Russia, her position was equally clear: a united and neutral Ukraine respectful of the civil rights of all its citizens. Sounds like a no-brainer, right?
As for the Ukrainian opposition, it officially wanted to remove an oligarch-controlled government and sign an Association with the EU. Again, pretty straightforward.
Now, think of it, a compromise solution was rather obvious: the election of a new, non-oligarch controlled government which would sign an Association agreement with the EU and commit itself to the civil rights of all Ukrainians, including the cultural and linguistic rights of the eastern Ukrainians. Yanukovich even went as far as to offer Iatseniuk the post of Prime Minister. So why did it not happen?
Because the protest movement was completely co-opted, hijacked, manipulated, controlled, financed, organized and run by the USA who used EU political elites and a group of bona fide Nazis to achieve regime change and draw the Ukraine into the AngloZionist sphere of influence. What they wanted was a Ukraine economically exploited by the EU and militarily owned by the US via NATO. This plan centered on not only severing away the Ukraine from Russia and its economic union with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia and others, but to also on severing the economic ties between Russia and Europe (an old US goal dating from the Cold War when the US did everything it could to prevent the USSR from selling gas to western Europe).
You can think of the Nazi freaks as the Ukie equivalent of al-Qaeda or ISIS: rabid hateful murderous lunatics who literally cannot contain their hatred and desire to oppress and murder. Of course, under US pressure, they tried very hard to act like sane and civilized people, but time and again they failed, hence the references to Russian speakers as sub-humans/non-humans, Timoshenko's desire to use nukes to exterminate the "accursed Moskals", the apparently crazy insistence that only Ukrainian be an official language or the equally imbecile categorical refusal of any form of federation. Needless to say, as soon as these crazies got to power, they immediately passed a series of fantastically stupid and provocative laws such as the re-authorization of Nazi propaganda or the repeal of the official status of the Russian language. Unsurprisingly, the folks in the east freaked out and correctly concluded that "the Nazis are back".
As a result, a double dynamic was created: the crazies in the USA (the Neocons) directly threatened the vital/existential interests of Russia while the crazies in Kiev (the Nazis) directly threatened the vital/existential interests of the population of eastern and southern Ukraine. In doing so they left the Donbass and Russia no other option than to react and directly respond to that danger.
This is important because what has been done cannot be simply wished away and undone. Both Russia and Novorussia are now in a "survival mode" in which nothing short of a full elimination of these vital/existential threats will do. In other words, the US Empire's AngloZionist project AND the Ukie Nazi experiment must absolutely and definitely be defeated and conditions must be created which will forever prevent it's reemergence.
Where do we stand now?
First, I would argue that the Junta repression force (JRF) has been defeated. Not strategically (if only because it enjoys an immense strategic depth and still huge human and material resources), but operationally. All the signs are that the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) are careful not to over-play their hand or push too far to the west, so things look very good for Novorussia right now. Second, the Junta has also been defeated politically: if in the past the Ukrainian people had an oligarch-controlled government, now they have a government of oligarchs. And they know it. Furthermore, the Nazis have shown their true face (Odessa, Mariupol, MH17, MLRS and ballistic missiles used on civilians with white phosphor and cluster munitions, etc.). Third, predictably, the Ukie economy is in free fall and for all practical purposes the Ukie industry is dead. I would call that a full-spectrum failure for the Junta.
Uncle Sam is not doing much better: Crimea is lost forever, the Donbass is also lost for all practical purpose, Putin is more popular than ever, the EU tensions with the US are up (the Czech and Slovak republics have both announced that they will veto any further sanctions against Russia), and the US puppet-junta in Kiev has completely lost control of the situation.
 |
| art by Josetxo Ezcurra |
There will be a NATO summit next week in Wales were Obama and his Neocon coterie of foreign policy advisors will most definitely push for a series of anti-Russian measure backed by very loud and macho statement about how Russia must be stopped, Europe protected and the NATO recognized as absolutely indispensable. More men, more guns, more threats and, last but not least, more dollars for the US military-industrial complex. Russia, however, will remain unimpressed for a very simple reason: the US and the EU have already been at the maximal anti-Russian policies for many years already. In fact, the only anti-Russian policies which the AngloZionist Empire has not adopted yet are those which would hurt it more than they would hurt Russia. Put differently, from now on any anti-Russian sanctions adopted will, by definition, hurt the AngloZionists more than they will hurt Russia (which they still will, of course). The conclusion is obvious: the West simply cannot afford a sustained sanctions war against Russia.
There is still a real danger out there
The problem with the AngloZionists is that they are arrogant and stupid enough to stumble into a variant of the Israeli "Samson Option": to strike out at their enemy even if that means bringing down the entire building on themselves. Contrary to many analysts, I don't think that the Americans are actually dumb enough to deliberately start a war against Russia, much less so a nuclear one, but they are arrogant enough to paint themselves into a corner in which the only way to save face is to use military force. They are also capable of creating an extremely dangerous military situation in which even a firecracker can set off a shooting war (remember the insane USN posturing in the Strait of Hormuz or in the Taiwan Strait?). The Russians must absolutely remain aware of this danger and thus never assume that the Americans are rational or prudent. History proves that they are reckless and happy to create a situation resulting in war (US policies towards Japan before WWII are a perfect example).
Now let's look at the options for Novorussia
As I have mentioned already, the devil is in the details, but there are basically to main options for Novorussia 1) full (de facto and de jure) independence 2) practical (de facto but not de jure) independence. I honestly believe that any other option which would fall short of de facto independence is simply impossible to achieve. The Novorussians will not live under Kiev's police or military, they will not pay Kiev more than purely symbolic taxes and they will most definitely not accept any limitation of their cultural, linguistic and economic rights, including the right to do business directly with Russia. I consider that option as so unlikely, short of a massive and sustain bloodbath, that I won't even consider it any further. So let's look at the two remaining options.
a) Full (de facto and de jure) independence: Novorussia
Advantages: Security: possibility to either join Russia or sign a mutual assistance treaty which could include the basing of Russian forces in Novorussia. This would provide the ideal and maximal protection from any future attacks from the Ukies. Economy: no taxes paid to Kiev, association with Russia, full access to the huge Eurasian market, work for the Russian industry, social rights paid for by Russia (as part of an aid package). The joy of having fully won and to not have to deal with the crazies in the western Ukraine. Full and total de-Nazification.
Disadvantages: maximalist position which leave no face saving way out for the crazies in Kiev and Washington, major difficulties in being internationally recognized. This option also leaves all the rest of the ex-Ukraine in the hands of the AngloZionists and Nazis who will constantly sabotage, subvert and disrupt the life of Novorussia. There is a real chance that this might mean leaving cities and regions like Odessa, Dniepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Chernigov, Nikolaev and many other historically Russian part of the ex-Ukraine to whatever regime is in power in Kiev. Constant military danger: the current Ukie Minister of Defense promised a victory parade for the Ukie forces in Sevastopol, I kid you not. You can imagine what folks like him will have to say to an independent Novorussia. Key problem: this maximalist position leave no incentive whatsoever for Kiev to negotiate.
b) Practical (de facto but not de jure) independence: "Ukraine v2"
Advantages: Novorussia already gets much more than what it wanted six months ago (see above). By preserving the fiction of a unitary Ukraine this solution leaves everybody a face saving way out and the major outside actors (Russia, US, EU, UN, OSCE) can all sign the deal and be declared guarantors. Also, if Novorussia is nominally part of the "Ukraine v2" then it gives the people of the eastern Ukraine (who are the richest, best educated majority of the Ukrainian population) a chance to counter-act and challenge the rule of Nazis in Kiev and maybe serve as a basis to bring down the current "Banderastan" and replace it instead with a "Ukraine v2". Furthermore, a united Ukraine would be in a much better position to receive desperately needed international aid and money to rebuild. Considering that at least initially the Nazi freaks would remain in power in Kiev we can be pretty sure that they will further destroy even the little left of "Banderastan" and that, sooner or later, some regime change will occur. If the new regime in power is more or less sane, the eastern Ukraine could demand that those responsible for the mess be brought to trial and that a "truth and reconciliation" type commission be formed.
Disadvantages: There is a real risk that the Poroshenko regime will fall and be replaced by a Iarosh dictatorship. Alternatively, southern Banderastan might break away from Kiev and for a "Kolomoiskistan". Either way, the collapse of the Poroshenko regime risks sucking in the Donbass into a 2nd phase of the civil war with no option for overt Russian aid (covert aid would, of course, be provided). Even the notion of being represented by Nazi freaks in Kiev or to put up with a Ukie flag would be sickening for all those who died in defense of Novorussia. Furthermore, if the deal does not look solid or stable, far from coming back home from Russia, even more Novorussians would "vote with their feet" and emigrate to Russia. Nowadays, even the people of Crimea are still nervous and Russian politicians, including Putin, have had to constantly tell them "no, this time it's forever, we will never abandon you, this is not something which will ever be overturned". If the folks in Crimea are worried about their future even though they are now legally part of Russia, you can imagine how frightened and unsure the people of Novorussia would be in any kind of "association" with Kiev, even a purely formal one.
These are only a few examples, there are many more which could be listed as advantages and disadvantages for both the independent Novorussia and the "Ukraine v2" option.
My very highly speculative and personal guess
Russia's preferred option
I think that Russia would prefer a Ukraine v2 version. From the point of view of Russia, it has a lot of advantages (like forcing the "Ukraine v2" to adopt a completely neutral, non-aligned, status). As I have always said, Russia does not want or need the Ukraine. What it wants is a stable, neutral and prosperous Ukraine, and not because Putin and the rest of the folks in the Kremlin are saints or Ukrainophiles, but because that is for the objective best interest for Russia. The only thing Russia needed it already got: Crimea.
To those of you who might be appalled at the notion of a less-than-fully-independent Novorussia or a "Ukraine v2" I will say that I very much doubt that Russia can impose such an outcome on the people of Novorussia. Sure, I am not naive, Zakharchenko and current Novorussian leaders got their power in a Moscow-backed change of leadership, so their ties to Moscow are very close, but the real power of Zakharchenko & Co. is that they have the support and consensus of the vast majority of the people of Novorussia, especially those fighting in the NAF. I never believed in a "sellout" of Novorussia (even though I always feared it), and I am confident that should such a "sellout" occur the only real force in Novorussia - the NAF - will never let it happen. Likewise any such "sellout" would trigger a severe political crisis for Putin.
All this is to say that while I do believe that, given the choice and option, Putin and his advisors would prefer a de-facto but not fully de-jure semi-independent Novorussia inside a very loose "Ukraine v2" I do not believe that a "sellout" is either what they want or even something they could do: the ultimate guarantor of the de-facto independence of Novorussia is not Putin or Russia, but the armed men of the NAF.
Novorussia's preferred option
What would the people of Novorussia and, especially, the NAF prefer?
I honestly don't know but I suppose that full independence is their preferred goal. Still, the situation is complex and there are very solid argument speaking against such an option and for a "Ukraine v2" (as there very are solid arguments speaking in favor of a fully independent Novorussia and against a "Ukraine v2").
One could also make a case that right now is not the correct time to make this choice. For one thing, nobody knows who will be in power in Kiev in just a few months. The winter is coming and the gas negotiations are becoming huge. Depending on what NATO does or does not decide, one of the other option might become a clearly better choice (just imagine NATO forces in Kiev!).
We have to give time to time (French expression)
The examples of Korea, Cyprus, Kosovo, Transnistria and many others show that sometimes the only solution is not solution at all. The examples of Ireland or Chechnia show that some solutions are not at all the ones initially considered. Furthermore, I would want to add here that the real end-goal of Russia in the Ukraine is not getting Crimea or saving the Donbass, but to achieve real regime change in Kiev. Only that option would be an outcome which would really please Moscow and, if we keep that in mind, it is not at all clear to me that full independence for Novorussia is the best way to get there. And let us also ponder this question: what is better for the people of Novorussia, full independence from the Ukraine or real, lasting, regime change in Kiev?
Just as in chess, time and timing are crucial pieces on the board. Those who over the past few months were hysterically accusing Putin of being a traitor who will backstab the Novorussians simply failed to appreciate the importance of time and timing in strategy. I am sorry to say that, no offense intended, but many people in the West have been raised, educated and trained in a culture of instant action-reaction, of immediate, almost kneejerk, responses. They are used to consider only short-term rapidly achievable options. Russia, and even more so China, are very different in this prospect. These two nations build their immense countries by slow and steady progress, not by short pushes. And though the Russian in the street might also prefer a fast solution to the Ukrainian problem, the folks in the Kremlin, especially former intelligence officers like Putin, fully realize that the "Ukrainian problem" is 400 to 800 years old, depending on how you define it (please read this and this if you are interested) and that it will not be solved in a few months. This is especially true considering that in the current situation the real cause and force behind the current Ukrainian crisis is the AngloZionist Empire.
The real, "real", goal of Putin (and Xi Jinping!)
As I have mentioned it here many, many times, the real "real" end-goal of Russia is not even regime change in Kiev: it is regime change on the planet. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that both Russia and China want to create a New World Order, but one very different one from the one envisioned by Bush, Fukuyama, Obama and the rest of the AngloZionist 1%ers. Russia and China want a complete deconstruction of the AngloZionist Empire, they want to de-dollarize the world economy, the want an multi-polar international world order in which the rule of law is respected because it is understood that it is the most advantageous way to deal with problems. Russia see its future in her North and in Siberia, China wants its economy to go global, including the Far-East Asia and the Pacific region, Africa and Latin America. Russia also wants to role of Latin America and Central Asia to become more important because without these continents and regions there can be no truly multi-polar world. I would also argue that both Russia and China are rejecting the western civilizational model and it's key dogmas (I won't list them here lest I offend or infuriate new readers, but my longtime readers know exactly what I mean) and that they are both seeking to create not only a different world order but a different civilization. All this is much, much bigger than the Donbass or even the entire Ukraine. Yes, at this moment in time, the frontline of the global civilizational war is going straight across the Ukraine, but this is only one battle in a much bigger and wider war.
Judging by some very telling statements of Zakharchenko in his recent press conference, I am confident that he understands that very well. I have no doubt whatsoever that Putin does.
Conclusion
The main conclusion I hope that you all will draw from the above is that we should not jump to conclusions and avoid making big sweeping judgments. If I have convinced you that this is a very tricky, complex and multi-dimensional issue then I am satisfied. If I get another deluge of one sentence slogans in favor of either option, then I failed. As I said, I am not sure that anybody really knows were this is all taking us. For one thing, the Ukies and their western patrons have reneged on every single agreement they have signed since last Fall and there is really no rational reason to expect them to stick to anything they might sign this time. Or maybe these negotiations will lead nowhere and the chaos and "somalization" of the ex-Ukraine will continue. The other day Putin said this: "no matter where the US gets involved they always achieve the same result: Libya". That is quite true and maybe a libyalization of Banderastan needs to happen before everybody comes to his/her senses. Or maybe, this is terrible to say, is the situation more similar to the one in Chechnia in 1999 when a lot of people had to be simply physically eliminated, killed, before any solution could be found (sadly, but Nazis and Wahabis have that in common that the only way to deal with most of them is to kill them). I honestly don't know.
So let us keep an eye on this incredibly fluid, complex and dangerous situation and not pretend like it is simple and the solution obvious.
Stay tuned, as always, I will do my best to keep you posted.
Kind regards and many thanks,
The Saker
PS: this is yet another one of my "written in one shot between several other committments" posts, so please forgive the bad grammar, spelling, syntax and style. I simply physically do not have the time to correct this. Sorry, gotta run :-) The Saker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
