“This is not even the peak of the crisis in Ukraine, but the beginning, and it will only get worse”

Kyiv, March 08 (PolitNavigator, Sergey Stepanov) - The situation in Ukraine is just beginning to deteriorate, the peak of the crisis is still ahead, a political observer believes Alexey Bluminov. He is well known to readers of “PolitNavigator” from his author’s columns. Today Alexey talks about why he was disappointed in the Maidan, and how the situation in Kyiv will develop further. By the way, he left the Ukrainian capital not long ago and now lives abroad.

Subscribe to the news "PolitNavigator - Kyiv" in Facebook, Classmates or In contact with

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

“PolitNavigator”: A year ago you supported the Maidan and the overthrow of Yanukovych, and now you have become a sharp critic of the results of the revolution. Why?

Alexey Blyuminov: I want to be clear. “Support for the Maidan” as a complex of certain slogans and ideas broadcast to the masses (European integration, a break with Russia, the revival of the Bandera discourse of half a century ago, liberal market reforms that were promised by the leaders of the Maidan) is not equal to support for the Maidan as a kind of movement to overthrow Yanukovych.

At that time, as a person of leftist views, there was no reason for me to support Yanukovych and, especially, to fit into the “anti-Maidan”. That is, I looked at the fact that some people were bringing down Viktor Fedorovich, whom I didn’t like, quite indifferently and even with a certain amount of sympathy. That is, if I had been asked about this then, I would have rather wished them success rather than defeat.

In any case, then I did not see anything tragic in Yanukovych’s departure either for myself or for the country. Before my eyes was the experience of Maidan 2004 and there was no reason to think that this time everything would be any different. That is, modeling the situation in advance, I imagined a soft transfer of power from one elite group to another, followed by squabbles between the winners (like Yushchenko-Tymoshenko) and a new revenge of the Party of Regions, or what it mutates into. That is, at that time I did not see any catastrophe in the possible replacement of Yanukovych with Yatsenyuk in itself.

We survived Yushchenko, I thought then, so we will survive this too. And, moreover, I believed that in such conditions it would be more convenient for the left to balance on the contradictions between the weak post-Maidan government and the regionalists entrenched in their base areas. And I suggested to my comrades that they actively participate in protests against Yanukovych and use the then atmosphere to strengthen their positions.

After all, I had no doubt that Yanukovych would leave from the very first days of the Maidan, when the majority of “anti-Maidan activists” believed in “Yanukovych’s cunning plan” and pictured his triumphant victory in the elections in 2015.. None of those with whom I spoke, I couldn’t even imagine how quickly the PR would collapse, thus decapitating the political representation of eastern Ukraine.

This was probably the mistake of my forecasts at that time. Another mistake was that I underestimated the destructiveness of the very fact of the armed unconstitutional coup on February 21. Indeed, in 2004, it was the “third round” that made it possible to save the country from civil war and to comply with formal legitimate procedures for the transfer of power. This also allowed the political opposition to survive and became a guarantee for the latter, which did not allow the winners to roll the vanquished into asphalt.

I am still convinced that if it weren’t for the “thrust” of the Western guarantors, who gave the go-ahead to the opposition to forcefully remove Yanukovych from power, we would not have a war now. Yes, there would be economic problems, squabbling among politicians, corruption, etc., but no one would shoot at anyone.

Because, you see, if elections were held in December, and Yanukovych lost (and he would have lost), but almost half of Ukrainians voted for him, then the fact of the traditional split of Ukraine would once again be confirmed empirically and, therefore, entail the need to take into account the interests of this second half of society and those politicians who represent it.

In reality, something completely different happened. Having removed Yanukovych by force and having come to power without observing the procedure for its transfer, Maidan politicians gave carte blanche to their militants to purge unwanted people on behalf of the “rebellious people.” There was no other half of Ukraine at that time, whose opinion had to be taken into account. But there was only the Maidan, which claimed to express the opinion of the entire people, and on behalf of the entire people was dealing with the “shortcomings of the old regime.”

What happened after February 21 is a real tragedy, and I am convinced that the perpetrators must be punished. Not now, but in the future.

In fact, already in mid-March 2014, I began to increasingly sharply criticize what was happening in the country and point out to my pro-Maidan friends that the country was going in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, they were then caught up in euphoria and soon began to sing about the outbreak of war. But for me, this became the point of irrevocable reorientation in my assessment of what was happening.

“PolitNavigator”: Is there hope for ending the war, what way out do you see?

Alexey Blyuminov: Unfortunately, the way the war is going now makes me assume the worst possible scenario. This will last for years. Like the war between North Sudan and South Sudan. From the very beginning of the protests in the southeast, a mistake no less tragic in its consequences was made. The protests took on a separatist character and agenda. That is, instead of fighting to restore constitutional order in Kyiv and drive out the usurpers of power, activists in the southeast raised the topic of separating their territories from Ukraine. Such a formulation of the question would make sense only if the subsequent decision of the Russian Federation to annex these territories was guaranteed. And without this, everything degenerated into a war between the “supposedly legitimate” Kyiv authorities and the separatists. A war in which the most the separatists can hope for is to retain their territories. Change the government in Kyiv with the slogans “Give it to the LPR and DPR!” unreal.

“PolitNavigator”: But Russia itself insists on preserving Donetsk and Lugansk as part of Ukraine, and reformatting the republic. What about this scenario?

Alexey Blyuminov: This would be the best option, but you understand that it is impossible to implement without removing the current regime in Kyiv from power. These people will never voluntarily start the process of re-establishing Ukraine. That's not why they were put in power. They are providers of a completely different project – anti-Russian and pro-American.

For example, we signed agreements in Minsk. I personally believe that this is the maximum that Donbass could achieve within the framework of compromise logic. These powers and rights are much greater than those of any other region of Ukraine and much greater than those that Donbass has ever had in its history. May God grant you to use these powers wisely. But! You see that Kyiv is not eager to carry out what it signed up for? And there are no mechanisms that would guarantee compliance with the Minsk agreements. So it's war again? I’m telling you, it’s in this form as it is now, for years.

Now American instructors are working with the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The reformatting of the Ukrainian army into a militarized structure, classic for the armies of third world countries, is in full swing. For example, such as Chad, Sudan or Ethiopia. Such an army, of course, will not be able to withstand a direct war with the Russian army, but it will be able to conduct medium or low-intensity combat operations with the separatists for years. And within the framework of the Russian strategy of avoiding a direct military confrontation with Kiev (read with the United States), this means a long war of attrition.

“PolitNavigator”: Is there any hope that the economic crisis will change something in the mood of the population who support the actions of the authorities today?

Alexey Blyuminov: The economy itself does not lead to a change in the orientation of the population. On the contrary, the longer the war goes on, the more the personal family experiences of hundreds of thousands of people are layered onto the government’s propaganda efforts. Someone’s husband or son was killed or maimed in the war, someone was forced to flee from Donbass to Ukraine and blames the “separatists” for everything, someone had “European” illusions and blames “Putin’s aggression” for their collapse, and not your stupidity and naivety.

So, as the crisis and poverty worsen, the masses will become increasingly irritated by this government, and the coming of radical nationalists from the military environment to replace Poroshenko or Yatsenyuk is a matter of time, not a matter of principle. Theoretically, a radical change in agenda could help win the war quickly. First of all, the ideological content of the Ukrainian confrontation. But again, these are real people. And if they are fighting for “Novorossiya,” then it is not so easy to convince them to fight for a new Ukraine. So such ideological work also takes months and even years.

Usually wars end either due to the defeat of one of the sides, or due to the resolution of the contradictions that caused them, or due to some events in the rear that make the idea of ​​​​continuing the war unpopular among the masses to such an extent that agitators “for the war” are simply beaten and dragged from the stands as it was in Russia in 1917

So far, in Ukraine there are no conditions for the implementation of any of these options.

The war has not lasted too long for the masses to have time to hate it. So far, the agenda is that traitorous politicians and incompetent generals are to blame for everything, and we need to fight better.

Plus faith in NATO miracle weapons.

“PolitNavigator”: What do you think about Lutsenko’s statement about the resumption of a large-scale war in May?

Alexey Blyuminov: The way things are going, the war could start again sooner. As I already said, Kyiv does not even think about implementing the Minsk agreements. And in the republics they are just waiting for Kyiv to break the truce. The prevailing opinion there is that “well, now Poroshenko will break it, and we’ll break him in.” That is, a stalemate. Both sides are waiting for war, waiting with joy. And no one is thinking about actually implementing the reforms mentioned in the peace protocols. I got the impression that both Donetsk and Lugansk are calling on Kyiv for dialogue without much faith that Kyiv will respond to this. So to speak, for the sake of form. Both sides think that the problem can be resolved during a new round of hostilities.

“PolitNavigator”: What do your fellow countrymen say? What is the current situation in Lugansk?

Alexey Blyuminov: Everything is just as unstable. No money left. Payments to teachers for October last year have just begun. Only now are movements beginning to pay pensions for October. Yes, there is a humanitarian aid operation. But three quarters there are building materials, fuels and lubricants, etc. Nobody thinks that, for example, it is possible to feed one and a half million people living in the LPR with humanitarian aid. As for moods. People are waiting for war with fear, because in the current configuration of the front, for them this means the resumption of shelling of their homes. But I cannot predict how their attitude towards the continuation of the war will change if the front line moves to a safe distance for the cities.

The worst thing is that maintaining uncertainty about the post-war status of Donbass preserves its current problems and prevents them from starting any meaningful activity to create life support systems. The region cannot live on gummies forever. And, for example, the creation of a full-fledged treasury, financial-banking, currency and other systems is impossible until it is clear whether Donbass will remain part of Ukraine, or become part of Russia, or what. It is clear that while there is still hope to put the pressure on Kyiv in terms of federalization, they will not rush into an economic and financial break with Ukraine. After all, breaking does not build.

“PolitNavigator”: Why did you leave Kyiv, are you going to return there or to Lugansk?

Alexey Blyuminov: Frankly speaking, I do not see any prospects in Ukraine in the foreseeable years. The trend is that the current problems are not even the peak of the crisis, but its beginning, and it will only get worse. And then, even if by some miracle the war stops and everything returns to normal, many years will be spent restoring what was destroyed, and those who a year ago were counting how many months were left before joining the EU are today already dreaming about when they will be able to afford what they could afford in 2014. And if the current Kyiv policy continues, in a year or two the level of 2007 will seem unattainable. It will take ten years just to reach the level of the last years of Kuchma’s rule. These are the “snatched years.” I’m not ready to spend it on sitting in Kyiv as a witness to the increasingly progressive “tryndets”.

But this is only one of the reasons. There is another one. Considering the specifics of my profession, there is simply no place for me in today’s Ukraine, with its prevailing stifling atmosphere, blacklists and persecution of dissidents. I can no longer convey my position through the Ukrainian media. They simply don’t invite me to the channels because they are afraid of problems. I don’t want and won’t make a living from materials about terrorists shooting at themselves. And, given the “reverent” attitude of the nationalist Kyiv crowd towards me, I simply fear for my life. You know, I don’t really want to wake up one day in a SBU detention center based on someone’s denunciation. Or be beaten by “vigilant patriots” right in the center of Kyiv.

Returning to Lugansk is good. And in the future this is exactly what I will do. Unless, of course, the war is over. Because I don’t want to sit under fire either. I'm not a hero, I'm an ordinary peaceful citizen. With his own convictions, but without the willingness to die for any ideas.

I can only fight for my beliefs the way I can - in words, with a pen, with speeches. But not with a machine gun in his hands. I won't be Che Guevara.

“PolitNavigator”: Are there any of your Kyiv acquaintances who would change their attitude to what is happening, like you?

Alexey Blyuminov: I do not know such. There are a few examples of my Kyiv acquaintances who were disillusioned and recovered from the initial euphoria, but they are ordinary people. I don’t know any examples of changes in attitude towards what is happening among journalists or activists. In my opinion, this layer will maintain its illusions until the very end.

“PolitNavigator”: And yet, will there be a division of Ukraine, or will it remain, but without Crimea?

Alexey Blyuminov: For complete happiness, the only thing missing is for Russia to recognize the DPR and LPR as Abkhazia. And it turned out exactly the same as with Crimea. When it seems to be Russian, but no one except Russia itself recognizes this, and the Crimeans themselves suffer a lot of inconvenience. Ukraine can be divided either on the basis of the strong, or by consensus. On the rights of the strong, it’s like the USSR in 1945, having marched to Berlin with millions of corpses and destruction. And by consensus means that the United States must agree with this. But this will not happen. This means that a divided Ukraine will simply fall apart into a series of fragments that will live many times worse than now and curse those who divided them. The fact that Russia recognizes the LDPR does not mean that the rest of the world recognizes them. So we need to fight for all of Ukraine and install a normal government in Kyiv, then carry out constitutional reform and reassemble the state on new principles. By the way, then the issue with Crimea can be closed. Because Ukraine itself will give him “freedom.” If the country is torn in half, the pro-American part of it will be recognized in the world as the legal successor of the former united Ukraine with its claims to Crimea. And this topic risks becoming eternal.