For the first time in recent years, Alexander Motyl, Professor of political science, Rutgers University (USA) urged Ukraine to get rid of the Donbas as a kind of threat to her fate a socio-political tumor. This time his arguments made in the article “Kiev is to abdicate the Donbass” (Foreign Policy, 2. 02.2017), associated mainly with the inauguration of the new President of the United States and built inexorably logical.
In the beginning of the article, Professor Motyl notes the significant success of Ukraine recently, including the fact that “its armed forces have successfully evolved from a six thousand combat-ready troops available in mid-2014, powerful, battle-hardened army, which managed to force Russia and its puppets to stop the fighting in the East.” However, the geopolitical situation for Ukraine is now significantly worse. “The opposition trump the EU and NATO, the adoption of Brexia, the demonization of Germany and they support right-wing populists threaten to erode Europe and its institutions, to break the transatlantic link and to destroy the idea of a coherent West. Such steps will encourage Putin to take the initiative to seek a new solution to an existing dilemma Donbass, writes Motyl. — Putin may use the occupied Donbass to win concessions on other issues: whether the removal of economic sanctions or cooperation in maintaining the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. When Putin pulled his troops from Ukraine, stopped to assist the separatists told the Kyiv that he can get his territory back. This step Putin would have won points from the US and Europe, allowing him to create an image of Russia as a peaceful and generous country, which strives for stability and peace with the West.” The powerful propaganda machine of the Kremlin could apply to the population of Russia as a great victory of the current regime.
What to do in these circumstances Kiev? Make Putin’s gift? Alexander Motyl says: “This gift would have bad consequences. Kiev probably would have faced a total war against the separatists abandoned — which probably would have won, but then would be faced with the necessity of huge investments to establish a life in the devastated region and try to win the hearts and minds of his antikievskie population. According to the economist Anders Aslund, to compensate the damage caused to Russia, you need at least 20 billion dollars.; the entire budget of Ukraine is approximately 26 billion. No less debilitating for Ukraine would be the political consequences of reintegration of the occupied Donbass. Several million anti-Western voters returned to its fold, would vote against the Pro-Western reforms in Ukraine. Pro-Russian political forces that led and still lead the region, would have a second life. And the oligarchs and thieves who have decades of so bad around the Donbass, would return to power. Then Donbass would play the same retrograde role that he played in Ukrainian politics since its independence in 1991. Political tensions would increase, returned to the polarization of East — West, Kiev would become politically and economically bankrupt, and Putin would have achieved what he sought from the beginning — completely unstable Ukraine, minus financing costs of conflict low level at an economically doomed territory.”
The conclusion from this is: “Kiev is absolutely not ready to that development that could destroy Ukraine, at minimum cost for Putin: when Russia will return the Donbass. What would decide Kyiv, Ukrainians should first determine what is the most important: independence or territorial integrity. The Minsk agreement gave Ukraine the opportunity to enjoy first and to achieve the second. This state of Affairs could not last always, but trump and Putin have hastened his end. To trump the Ukrainians to avoid making too many difficult decisions about its strategic priorities. With the advent of the tramp can not.”
Indeed: the willingness of the US to lifting sanctions against Russia in exchange for its active role in the fight against Islamists in the middle East and the decrease in the volume of actions against Ukraine shows a number of factors, including an interview with Vice-President Mike Pence broadcaster ABC 5 Feb. While talking about the certain scenarios of development of events early today (Alexander Motyl, it should be noted, also stands on this position, not excluding full-scale war of Russia against Ukraine, although this is extremely disadvantageous for Russia, for strategic reasons, “very few rational-minded leaders could choose such a suicidal course — except that it involved ideological or personal ambitions”). However more likely is really a “gift from the Kremlin” as “LDNR” with the new “leaders” and formed — on the basis of the Minsk agreements! own authorities, courts, Prosecutor’s office and the “people’s militia”, plus at least hundreds of thousands of the “peaceful terrorists”, who in the spring of 2014, yelled: “Putin, come!”, — seized power companies and blocked Ukrainian military units…
But who said that Ukraine should accept the Russian puppets and their “social humus” (“jackets”) to allow the actual legalization “LDNR” by “elections” in the occupied territories, to deny terrorists the representation in the Parliament and throw all the resources for the restoration of Donbass? The Minsk agreements are for a different historical time, when the terrorists killed thousands of people and launched the irreversible socio-political processes, such as those launched at the time of the Nazis. After all, if Germany stopped the war and withdrew its troops from the occupied territories in 1939-40, the situation would be fundamentally different than after Babi Yar and total “cleansing” the occupied countries of “inferior elements”… feature in the current “hybrid war” has been crossed and the only acceptable for Ukraine option is to surrender “LDNR” (with simultaneous Amnesty for those who have not personally been involved in the crimes), with the introduction on the territory of the state of emergency (really France to fight the Islamists can be, and we — no?), with the cancellation for the duration of this state of any election and transfer of power civil-military administrations. And, of course, internment camps for those who have returned from Russia, and “cotton” activists, collaborators deprivation of electoral rights for a long time, the law on “ban on profession” (primarily teachers, media workers and civil servants) for certain categories of the population, the deprivation of Ukrainian citizenship, if necessary, etc.
All this is quite normal measures aimed at cleansing the occupied territories and the prevention of terrorism in all its forms; they tested democratic (I say this, it is democratic) States in postwar Europe and later (the practice of “ban on profession” in Germany in the 1950s and 70s, the deprivation of citizenship in today’s Israel). Well, to restore the infrastructure of the occupied territories can not do without the involvement of the civil works of the inhabitants of these territories. Again, this practice of post-war Europe. The “real”, which was mentioned at the meeting in the wording “of the Day” Oksana pahlevskaya and Galina Ackerman, and not the one that made a real hunt for football player Roman Zozulya, who is playing in Spain for allegedly emblem of Ukraine on his shirt is… Nazi symbol. As for the main apologists of the “Russian world”, then you should help them choose the option “suitcase-station-Russia”. Tough? Yes. Undemocratic? No. Because democracy is only worth anything when it can defend itself. Like Britain during the Second world war or Israel throughout its modern history.
In case, if the policy of Ukraine concerning “LDNR” will be based on the calls “let’s live together”, indicated Professor Motyl tragic dilemma — “the independence or territorial integrity” — appear in full growth…