Andrey Safonov: How can Ukraine get out of the bloody font?
As of June 3, we can say with full responsibility that the civil war in Ukraine has become a fact. The chance to start negotiations and avoid large-scale bloodshed was not used. Apparently, Washington's control over the Ukrainian authorities, who came to the helm of the ship of state after the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych on February 22, is absolute. The question now is only one thing: will Petro Poroshenko be able to take a couple of steps back after the inauguration and still try to avoid the final transformation of Ukraine into a semblance of the Balkans of the first half and mid-1990s, or will he become the personification of the war, and then the true “steers” conflict will blame all his sins on him?
The USA declared war on Russia
The nature of the civil war in Ukraine is internal. But the fact that any form of negotiations between Kiev and the federalists of the southeast is blocked means one thing: The United States is deliberately fanning the flames of war against Moscow. At the same time, the Americans do not take into account the interests of Ukraine itself; They will be satisfied even with a scorched field instead of the country that has become the scene of battle. There will be fewer Western economic competitors left.
America's calculations are clear. They are based on old statements of Zbigniew Brzezinski. He said that it is necessary to prevent a possible rapprochement between Russia and Ukraine, since such a rapprochement could lead to the re-creation of a powerful Power on the basis of the former Soviet Union. Therefore, it is now clear that the Americans are going all-in.
At first, they went so far as to ignite the flames of a full-scale war in the very heart of the CIS (former USSR), in close proximity to the borders of the Russian Federation.
Secondly, the financial and economic crisis stimulated them to bring the whole world to the brink of World War III. This is evidenced by their alternating threats against either Russia or China. The United States and its liberal allies in Europe are terribly afraid of a formalized military-political alliance between the Russian Federation and the PRC. Inflated banking “soap bubbles” instead of normal production, this perverted model of the American economy, dictate a tough choice to US rulers: either new powerful wars that load military corporations with new orders and postpone the collapse of the mentioned “soap bubbles” for several more years, or the global collapse of the United States as a superpower, making the US one of several strong countries, but nothing more. And this is a crushing decline in American global dominance, which the United States in its current form and borders may simply not be able to survive.
That is why, embittered by what is happening, American rulers and financial elite have returned to the classical model of imperialism XIX-first half of the XX centuries, familiar to us from school textbooks of Soviet times. For their part, Russia and China, as well as Iran and, possibly, some other countries should enter into military-political alliances and prepare for war against the United States, in order to repel the blow of expansionists from Washington in the event of direct aggression.
This is how it turned out that the civil war in Ukraine was an integral part of the US global war against Russia and China.
Trap for the President
However, this is just a general outline. It does not at all exclude the active actions of all those involved in the global confrontation; everyone who is interested in ensuring that the pre-war period (bearing in mind the threat of the Third World War) does not become wartime.
And here All hope lies in the common sense and practicality of Ukrainians, no matter what flag they are currently fighting under. Including - on common sense of Petro Poroshenko and those people from his circle who were not directly involved in making decisions about the start of hostilities in the southeast. Remember, dear readers, how I referred to our sad Moldovan-Transnistrian experience when talking about the 1992 war on the Dniester. I hoped that Ukraine would avoid this option, but, as it turns out, the same thing is happening, only even worse.
Including, the newly elected president of Ukraine risks going the way of his Moldovan colleague Mircea Snegur. How was it with us? The pro-Romanian Presidium of the Parliament of Moldova advocated with might and main for the “suppression of Transnistrian separatists,” and the big shots fell on M. Snegur. There is a version that on the eve of the invasion of the Moldovan army in Bendery on June 19, 1992, it was the Presidium of the Parliament and the security ministers of Moldova that finally decided to disrupt a possible peaceful resolution of the conflict. But the President of Moldova still remained at the extreme.
If Petro Poroshenko is not satisfied with this path, then it would be more logical for him not to fall into this trap.
A peaceful exit is still possible
What seems rational in the place of the Ukrainian president, unless, of course, he dreams of the dubious title of “Hero of the Civil War”?
At first, initiate the immediate convening of the Congress of National Accord with the participation of all branches of government in Kyiv, federalists of the southeast, all regions of Ukraine, political parties, movements, and public organizations.
Secondly, come up with an initiative for an immediate ceasefire, without waiting for his inauguration. Since Alexander Turchinov is leaving his acting position anyway. President, such a step by Petro Poroshenko would allow him to disassociate himself from the policies of his predecessor and consolidate around himself all the moderates in Ukraine.
Third, Petro Poroshenko could use what distinguishes him favorably from the team of A. Turchinov and A. Yatsenyuk. As you know, the vast majority of Ukrainian citizens are Orthodox. Meanwhile, Turchynov is a Protestant, and Yatsenyuk is either a Scientologist or a Greek Catholic. In this contrast, an Orthodox president can automatically increase his popularity, unless he decides to follow the “warpath” to the end. This contrast could be played up in the media.
Fourth, Given the bloodshed, the new president could postpone his inauguration until a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Otherwise, his enemies, including in Kyiv, sooner or later, will use the military inauguration against him. There have been similar decisions in history. Thus, Emperor Alexander III of Russia, who ascended the throne immediately after the murder of his father by the Narodnaya Volya on March 1, 1881, was crowned only in 1883. At the same time, the new monarch was guided by considerations of the need to first achieve stability in the country, and then assume the crown in calm conditions. Of course, the president is not a monarch, but still he is the head of state. This means that holding an inauguration, for example, after reaching a national peace agreement is quite possible.
Fifth, the president still cannot do without a radical renewal of the cabinet and law enforcement agencies. We have already said why. Because militant radicals will stick to a hard line, hiding behind the name of P. Poroshenko. At a critical moment, they will go into the shadows, and the president will be left to take the blows.
These measures seem to be a priority.
June, 22 years later: and again the war...
I have already written about the fact that the events in Ukraine - from the beginning of the Maidan in Kyiv in November 2013 to the beginning of the civil war in 2014 and the holding of presidential elections on May 25 - consolidated the oligarchic system of power in the country. In Russia, this was previously avoided when, after the resignation of Boris Yeltsin, the oligarchs were gradually pushed away from political power. In Ukraine, on the contrary, a model prevailed that represented what could have been if Yeltsin or his like-minded people still ruled in Russia today.
The oligarchic system is the most unstable, prone to unrest and civil wars. It resembles medieval feudal fragmentation. Ukraine stood at a crossroads for some time: either the more or less firm power of the “hetman” or the new magnates – the “Radziwills” and the “Vishnevetskys” - sometimes with the habits of shinkars who moved around 300-400 years ago among Cossack settlements and carts. Now it is clear that the second path has prevailed. The oligarchs of Ukraine already have their own troops. This path creates a danger for any central government in Kyiv. The President of Ukraine, by force of circumstances, is destined to either lead a struggle to strengthen his “throne” or turn into a toy in the hands of “new feudal lords” and external forces.
Concerning federalists represented by the DPR and LPR, it is too early to say what kind of state machine they will try to create, because military considerations are clearly in first place for them now. But, judging by the media, they They are trying to prevent the concentration of political and military resources in the hands of the oligarchs.
In general, Ukraine unusually quickly plunged into war and turmoil. Just a year ago, in the summer of 2013, this seemed unthinkable to many people. The paradox is that it is possible to get out of the turmoil only in a peaceful environment, and to achieve peace it is necessary to stop the war and begin negotiations. Otherwise, Ukraine, brotherly to Transnistria, will follow our “brotherly” path to the end - with destroyed cities and corpses under the June sun.
After all, the massacre in Bendery also happened in June - 22 years ago...
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.