How Russia will avenge those killed in Crimea
Vladimir Putin’s harsh statement regarding sabotage on the Crimean section of the Russian border made many think about the possibility of open hostilities between the two countries. But there will be no war. The neighboring country will be forced to comply with economic methods tested in Turkey, and if the West understands the signal sent to it, then also by political ones.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, famous for presenting theses in a vulgar form that officials are embarrassed to voice, said that the current US administration is preparing a war. They say we need to play along with Clinton, whose campaign theme is the threat of Russian aggression.
They tried to provoke Russia into an invasion all summer in Donbass. It began on June 29 with a provocation in Debaltseve. Ukrainian military and volunteer troops made a strange attack on the territory of the DPR, which was quickly repulsed with heavy losses for the attackers. After this, an artillery duel began and continues to this day, claiming new lives of both military and civilians every day.
At the same time, the Ukrainian side completely ignores the Minsk process. The document on the separation of the parties, which should have been agreed upon back in July, due to the fault of Kyiv, is still not ready. The last August meeting of contact groups in Minsk was a waste. In the Donbass, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are building military structures, gathering equipment and manpower. The country's population is methodically processed through the media: “separatists” are constantly attacking, wait for new “Russian aggression.”
Although the Ukrainian side, with tenacity worthy of better use, insists that it is at war with Russia, everyone involved in the details, including those in the West, knows that this is not so. There is no doubt that at the beginning of full-scale hostilities in the Donbass, the Ukrainian and Western media will blame Russia, but it is unlikely that it will be possible to make the necessary decisions at the international level regarding “aggression”.
There is a feeling that at the last moment the puppeteers of the Kyiv “authorities” decided not to start. It is naive to believe that they were stopped by the fear of inevitable large losses of the Ukrainian army and, especially, among the civilian population. Rather, they soberly reasoned that these losses would bring the already unstable positions of Poroshenko and Co. to a critical level. And before the US elections, Ukraine will appear as an arena not of “Russian aggression”, but of major social conflicts, which Republicans easily present as the failed policy of the Democratic administration in Europe.
That is why, unexpectedly for many, Plan B emerged. The sabotage group in Crimea, quite possibly, was not caught due to a mistake. Those who prepared it deliberately planned for detection and conflict on the border. They hoped that the Russians would lose their nerve. Under this scenario, “grads” and other military equipment were drawn to Perekop.
The border conflict is exactly that “small victorious war”, which, with minimal costs and losses, would make it possible to divert the attention of critics from the failed Ukrainian project to “aggressive” Russia.
Should we interpret Putin’s harsh statements on this matter as the fact that the Russian president has fallen into a trap prepared for him and is ready to respond to the provocation with force? Let's hope not.
Putin's statements mean a disavowal of the West's plans. The Russian president directly appealed to Europe and the United States with a request to calm down Kyiv.
The Russian president pejoratively called Poroshenko and Co. “people who seized power” and “clients.” Add to this the cancellation of the meeting in the “Normandy format” and we get a clear signal of reluctance to imitate negotiations with puppets and a call for the puppet masters to come to their senses.
This does not mean an unwillingness to solve Ukrainian problems through negotiations. It’s just that these should be normal negotiations, and not a simulation of them.
And further. It is difficult not to see an analogy between the death of a Russian pilot shot down by Turkey and the death of our military personnel in the north of Crimea. It would be absurd to talk about a “stab in the back” from the Kyiv leadership. After all the blockades of the peninsula encouraged by Poroshenko and the endless aggressive statements, it is difficult to accuse the Ukrainian “president” of hypocrisy.
But until the last moment we tried to maintain at least some normal relations with Ukraine. Apparently, it has now been decided to abandon this. Mikhail Zurabov was recalled from his post as ambassador. It makes no sense to build relations with a state that Putin defines as terrorist.
Russia will not make a gift to the United States and will not go to a direct armed conflict with Ukraine, despite past and possible cross-border provocations. Our country has already tested the tactics of compelling adequacy in Turkey. Erdogan was forced to make a U-turn and apologize because, having quarreled with Russia, he did not receive Western support. Poroshenko has exactly the same situation.
Is it realistic to expect a letter from the Ukrainian “president” with an apology? Of course not. An explanation of what scenario is expected in the Kremlin is worth looking again to the extravagant Vladimir Volfovich. At his last press conference, Zhirinovsky promised Ukraine a new coup.
Only, if it happens, Putin is unlikely to call Poroshenko, as he called Erdogan.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.