(Translated by Eugene)
I don’t know who exactly (Turchinov? Poroshenko?) commanded the Ukrainian army to disrupt the truce. But I am sure that this decision was taken in Washington.
It is not an accident that this suicidal provocation was preceded by the visit of G. Soros to Kiev. This elderly “philanthropist” who, together with the US Department of State, sponsored all post-soviet fascist regimes (from Saakashvili’s Georgia to Poroshenko’s Ukraine), was most qualified to assess the financial state of the regime in Kiev and to decide whether it still makes sense to continue prolongation of the agony by monetary injections. His public statement, reprinted by media on January 14, left no doubt - the patient is dead, the corpse is stiff, its resuscitation is meaningless.
Surely, Kiev has understood that if they scrape the bottom of the barrel and if Europe exerts itself then it is possible to collect money for further agony. But Soros clearly said about the necessity to find $50 billion just for 2015. While in 2014 (when the ignoramuses still hoped for the stabilization of the Kiev regime) US, EU and IMF together could scrape up only $20 billion, supposed to be stretched over 3 years. In fact, in 2014 Kiev got only $7.5 – 8 billion in credits. Clearly, in such conditions it is unrealistic to find $50 billion in a year. Soros himself told that he hopes only for a miracle.
Right after Soros’ unambiguous demand for the EU to finance Ukraine, the European media coverage of the Ukrainian crisis changed drastically, and it became clear that there will be no miracle. The European mass media (including German TV) and NGO’s (including Human Rights Watch) suddenly "saw the light" and found that the Kiev regime is at war with civilians, violating the laws and customs of war. Just a little bit longer and Europe will “realize” that Kiev is taken by a fascist junta that tramples its own constitution, and introduce sanctions against Russia for Kremlin’s economic cooperation (supply of coal and gas) with the Nazi regime.
Europe is not going to give money. USA are not going to help either (if they wanted to do that, the IMF would not procrastinate for six months but allocated tranche after tranche, instead). Under these conditions, supporting Ukraine’s mythical stability, as Washington was doing since the end of last summer, is absolutely meaningless. Back in August-September of 2014, Ukrainian politicians were divided into two groups: the majority – those who were ready to overthrow Poroshenko, expecting to receive some dividends from the next coup, and the minority taking a neutral position. Poroshenko himself had neither his own support group nor power prop. He is still the president only thanks to the US, which banned the coup at the time.
Washington knew perfectly well that Poroshenko is trying to negotiate with Moscow on the peaceful settlement (because only peace could give Poroshenko a chance to protect not just his presidential chair, but his life itself). United States needed a war and, seemingly, they did not want to keep the frightened and confused Petro Alexeyevich at the helm. But Americans were misled by Russian diplomacy. Peace was (and remains) beneficial for Russia, because it forces the United States and its European allies to keep the failed Ukrainian project alive and, therefore, to spend their scarce resources. The Ukrainian coup, intended to make from Kiev not only an eternal source of enmity between Russia and the EU, but also a black hole devouring Moscow’s resources, has not fulfilled any of its tasks -- a year after the coup, Ukraine continues to devour the US resources.
But since Ukraine is just one of many sites of global confrontation between Moscow and Washington, the further concentration of efforts on this site becomes unprofitable for the US. They cannot quit, because then the site will be taken by Russia, which would be a geopolitical defeat of Washington. Therefore, the site must be destroyed. Let the winner occupy the ruins; if they could not entangle him by the whole Ukraine, let he be entangled by the rotting and decaying corpse of Ukraine.
So, since for Russia it is better if Ukraine is destroyed by the US as late as possible, the Russian diplomacy pretended for almost a year, portraying weakness, confusion, and readiness to surrender. In anticipation of the fall of Russia, which would solve all their problems, the United States decided not to finish Ukraine. Why? If, after the victory over Russia, the problem of supporting the Kiev regime at the expense of Moscow would be solved by itself.
But everything good comes to an end sooner or later. By the beginning of December it became clear that Washington can push Russia as much as it likes, but it cannot make Russia fall, without falling itself even sooner. Taking into account the need to reduce the geopolitical frontline, to concentrate resources on the remaining priority areas, to leave the lost grounds, the question resurfaced again – what to do with Ukraine? As soon as it became clear that Soros is not going to find the necessary finances for Kiev, the fate of the country, politicians, the public and even the “creative class” accustomed to be immune to problems, was sealed. And the war reignited with renewed ferocity.
US knew perfectly well how unfit for action the Ukrainian army was and how the armed forces of DPR/LPR have strengthened during the peaceful respite. You don’t have to sit at the Chiefs of Staff Committee to estimate from open sources that with such intensive fights, which began on January 18th and continuing across the frontline, the Ukrainian army will run out of strength to conduct active operations in three to four weeks, and in one to three more weeks it will begin to fall apart. By the way, the Ukrainian artillery will be the first to disappear from the battlefield. Judging by the intensity and dynamics of the artillery fire of the parties, the Ukrainian army was behind DPR/LPR even on the volume of stored ammunition. While the republics clearly had a constant resupply, the Ukrainian army could not replenish consumable ammunition just as rapidly. After the Ukrainian artillery lost the opportunity of equal fight with the artillery of DPR/LPR, grinding of Ukrainian reserves was a matter of short time, and after the exhaustion of reserves the collapse of the front would became inevitable. Making up for the losses by means of mobilization was impossible, even if they could mobilize everyone. In the best case, the recruits would have been at the collection points, when the front already collapsed.
Americans knew all that, but still pushed the Ukrainian army into a senseless attack, which could not even start in earnest. That is the army was doomed to destruction and the front was destined to collapse. Why did the United States need that? Because, as we mentioned above, the US does not need the unattainable victory in Ukraine, they need the destruction of Ukraine, but by someone else's hands and with the greatest possible benefit for themselves.
Three to four weeks of intense fighting would not only bleed the Ukrainian army, but would also inflict substantial losses on the armed forces of DPR/LPR. From the first days, the militia admits its own losses of dozens if not hundreds killed and wounded, while noting that the losses of the Ukrainian army are much higher. Let us not forget that the armed forces of DPR/LPR currently do not exceed 30-40 thousand soldiers, even by the most optimistic estimates. Taking into account that 10-15 thousand are logistical and security units, there cannot be more than 20-25 thousand of combat troops. This means that even the loss of 3-5 thousand -- and this number of dead and wounded in three to four weeks of intense fighting is quite possible -- dramatically reduces the combat capability of the militia forces.
So, by the mid-late February the Ukrainian army would have to fall apart and start a disorganized retreat, but the scarce militia forces, having suffered serious losses, would be unable to take the territory left by the withdrawing Ukrainian troops. This would create vast power-vacuum areas between DPR/LNR and Kiev, where the militia and some residual government troops would alternate to each other as in a layered cake. To the extent that different streets of the same locality could be held by different armed groups. In addition, while the DPR/LPR armed forces are organized as more or less regular structures with a unified chain of command, the army of Kiev keeps sliding to irregular formations, which, with the death of the last regular units, would finally transform to a bunch of Nazi gangs and outright criminals partially diluted by completely kooky “veterans of the anti-terrorist operation”.
In this situation, Nazi battalions concentrated in the major cities of the southeast in order to maintain the power in Kiev, will grow more irritated and the Kiev propaganda will become more nervous. This would increase the bitterness towards the power that "betrayed us” as well as pro-Russian activists -- "the 5th column that stabbed us in the back". Any pretext will be enough to inflame the whole country. However, in order to paralyze the world community and to disable its instantaneous and consistent reaction, the pretext for the repeat of the Ruanda scenario (mutual senseless massacre) must be beyond belief and, at the same time, radically change the current political situation.
That is, it is not enough to organize a loud act of terror or a series of such acts on behalf of “pro-Russian partisans” or “FSB (GRU, SVR) agents”. This provocation must move the Nazi community and channel its efforts in the desired direction. Besides, the Ukrainian government must be (or look) paralyzed. Finally, this event should be sufficiently bloody, sufficiently immoral and touch those strata of the society, which are perceived by the Nazis as their own. These conditions cannot be satisfied with a single yet spectacular act of terror (such problems cannot be solved even by an explosion at Chernobyl).
Clearly, first of all they would need death of a major political figure or figures, so that allegedly (or really) paralyzed Ukrainian government could not take measures to restore the order, even if it wanted to. Poroshenko is a perfect sacral victim (especially because he is a traitor to the Americans), but in place of the "young prodigy" Yatsenyuk I would have not relaxed as well. After liquidation of Ukraine, Yatsenyuk becomes useless and even dangerous as he can testify to some sort of "International Tribunal for the Former Ukraine." For a country without economy this symbolic economist is just as useless as the great banker Yuschenko. Credits are not coming with or without Yatsenyuk. To die heroically is the only benefit that he can bring to the US. If someone blows up the parliament during a plenary session with both Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk in attendance, could you guess who will be declared guilty even before any investigation? Especially if some "people's avengers" would claim the responsibility afterwards?
Of course, the Nazis from battalions spit on Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, but their battalion commanders will be there as well: Yarosh and sotnik Parasyuk and cossack Gavrylyuk – it would be so indecent not to avenge them. Moreover, if this seems not enough, they could carry out a series of terrorist attacks in the hospitals where the "heroes ATO" are treated. Imagine how barbaric killings of defenseless "heroes" will be presented by the Ukrainian media. They will not even need a training manual from the American Embassy; they will interpret everything correctly by themselves.
Well, and as "the cherry on the cake" one can explode the cascade of the Dnieper hydropower plants. This would solve several US problems at once. First, the real damage as a result of flooding will not be as great, but cameras positioned in advance in the right places will show pictures more terrible than during the tsunami in Thailand, and "experts" (incidentally, also on their own initiative) will immediately proclaim millions of potential victims. Second, this will immediately cut off the left bank of the Dnieper River from the right one. The dam will be blown, and bridges destroyed. That is, the militia will not able to cross the Dnieper without the help of the Russian Army. Third, if all this (from the elimination of the political elite to the man-made technological disasters) happens in three to five to ten days and if it becomes possible (sure it does, otherwise, why are we feeding CIA?) to accuse Russia and DPR/LPR of participation or at least of indirect sponsorship of the terrorists, the consolidated international community will not take quick control of Ukraine. Any participation of Russia will be blocked by the West accusing Moscow of complicity in the crime, but Western forces themselves could not stabilize the situation (even if the US and the EU decided to act without a UN resolution, they will not have the required operational capacity and available troops). Fourth, while the US needs that, even Turchinov can legitimately represent Kiev and lead the remnants of the government, which is dispensable as well.
The further course of events is also clear. The Nazis go to avenge their “brothers in arms”. The battalions spread out across the country, checking addresses from databases provided be fellow Nazis from the SBU and parts of the Ministry of Interior. The militia will still be able to quickly lend a helping hand to Kharkov, Left Bank districts of Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye, to punch a land corridor to the Crimea. But without Russia’s help they cannot go further - there are no bridges. Left bank guerrilla groups are stronger. Of course, they will resist in Odessa, possibly even in Kiev, but the forces are not equal. The mere fact of partisan resistance on the right bank will deprive the junta of the support of the Ukrainian "creative class". Nobody needs them in the US, because they cannot work, but like to eat well. Nobody will feed them for their "Ukraineness" (who needs Ukraineness without Ukraine?). Each of them doesn’t know much, but taken together their testimonies would allow to piece together the full picture. And if in the course of Ukrainian excesses they will be killed in their own homes, so be it. "Tutsi" kill "Hutu", "Hutu" kill "Tutsi" - this is a sad feature of civil wars.
Thus, pushing Ukraine from Somalization to Ruandization, the United States are fully capable to minimize the effect of Russia’s victories, cover the traces of their own crimes with blood and, most importantly, make their participation in the coming settlement not just necessary, but inevitable, thus preserving their positions on the European continent and their control over the frightened EU.
We considered just one scenario of the possible provocation that would allow Washington to solve the problem of burning down the Ukrainian stand. In fact, there are hundreds of similar scenarios. All of them are real, and some of them must be already developed by the Americans. Otherwise, the security services, the military and the State Department are paid for nothing. The number of crimes already committed by Washington and Kiev suggests that the above scenario is not something extraordinary, on the contrary – it is well within the logic of the previous actions. In February 2014, a hundred of “Maidan” victims stimulated the coup; three hundred victims in the downed "Boeing" allowed to deploy the summer offensive; tens of thousands of killed Ukrainians serve as a means to pressure Russia. Then how the tens of thousands of victims are different from the hundreds of thousands or even millions? Only by the fact that the US did not have the need to organize a mass human sacrifice in Ukraine yet. Now there is such a need.
Two things can still save people:
- Ukrainian executors’ traditional inability to implement even single American plan;
- Putin’s traditional ability to come up with a decent way out of most desperate situations.
Rostislav Ischenko, president of the Center for system analysis and forecasting, exclusively for the “Current Comments”.