July 18 Alexander Zakharchenko announced the creation of a new state instead of Ukraine: the Ukraine. The last two days everywhere are comments, reflections and official reaction, everywhere raging debate on the Internet and in real life, from Western countries to Russia and the Donbass.
Some call that statement crazy, others think it is a good idea, while others argue that it does not enjoy broad support.
Make for yourself a clear picture of the situation in the middle of fiery debate, which is dictated mostly by emotions rather than rational judgments, of course, is not easy. So I will try to distance themselves from what happened so we can perform this initiative as the most pragmatic and strategic way.
Alexander Zakharchenko is not a fool, and although his statements may sound emotional, he is not impulsive person who takes such important decisions in the moment. He is the responsible commander and the head of state, who is able to develop both military and civilian strategy.
Having dealt with that, let’s consider the possible reasons for his statements about the formation of the Ukraine:
1. Warning for Kiev, EU, NATO and the United States
The implementation of the Minsk agreements and even negotiations in the contact group is not the first month are at a standstill due to the fault of Kiev. Whether it’s a truce, political action or a prisoner exchange — progress is not visible anywhere. The situation has not moved forward a single step. The representatives of Ukraine in all subgroups in every way try to undermine discussion: permanent changes of delegates, the impermanence of positions, refusing to sign any documents, attempts to backpedal on some points of the Minsk agreements, etc.
This leads to the status quo slipping perfectly satisfied with Kiev: he is happy with this sluggish war, which brings money MIC (including plants Poroshenko), is a neo-Nazi battalions at the front and allows a group of oligarchs, officials, military, and other use of the situation to fill their pockets and keep internal protest with the threat of separatism. The same applies to the EU, NATO and the U.S., which satisfied the non-application of the Minsk agreements.
Only this fixated on the status quo of the world forgets that such a situation cannot last forever. Thus, the first objective statements about the formation of the new state — to stir up the anthill, to recall a number of facts, for example, that Ukraine is on the brink of collapse and collapse, which is fraught with the strongest of the chaos at the gates of the EU. In other words, we need to remind the EU that if he would continue to sit idly at his side may be Bandera analog of Somalia.
If plan a (the Minsk agreement) is not realizable, and the EU doesn’t want the plan In (all-out war in Ukraine), you should think about the plan (little Russia).
2. The proposal for the exit from the crisis
Support for neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine gets U.S., EU and Kiev government to a standstill. Kiev can not deal with the implementation of the Minsk agreements without the risk of getting “night of the long knives” head Poroshenko at the peak in the middle of the Maidan and the subsequent “Balkanization” while limited only by Donbass conflict.
The plan In (all-out war in Ukraine in the absence of the implementation of the plan A) would have meant the end of the country and its complete disintegration, as noted in the announcement of the establishment of Ruthenia. The EU did not need neo-Nazi Somalia on its doorstep. This would mean for the EU disaster and mass migration fleeing the chaos of the Ukrainians.
Both of these scenarios is a stub. Zakharchenko also offers a third option.
“We offer the people of Ukraine a peaceful way out of the difficult situation, without war. This is our final offer, not only Ukrainians, but also to all countries that supported the civil war in the Donbas.”
Times everywhere lined wall, and to move forward you simply have to bypass the obstacle from the top. It is necessary to find a solution that would meet the interests of the majority of the protagonists. This is the plan of the Ukraine: out of crisis on the basis of a pragmatic policy approach with respect to the interests of most of the people and for the salvation of many lives. Read more I’ll explain it all below.
3. A tactical move, a provocation of Kiev, the hype
After the statement Zakharchenko, Sergey Lavrov again called on Paris and Berlin to negotiate and to put pressure on Kiev to implement the Minsk agreements, the project is using the Ukraine as a lever of pressure on the European guarantors of the agreements that finally did the job. The idea is to supply the EU with a fait accompli.
In addition, the aim was to provoke Kiev and force the Ukrainian authorities to respond, preferably in a hysterical way. From this point of view, everything was very good: Kiev responded as expected, saying the Ukraine’s intention to return the Donbass and the Crimea (it is implied, by force of arms), as well as tarnish the project and its author.
Paris, Berlin and Washington with one voice condemned this initiative and recalled the importance of implementing the Minsk agreements. The problem is that given their reluctance to put pressure on Kiev in this issue, their statements sound weak and only further make the situation into a dead end. This once again confirms that they prefer to follow a biased policy, rather than trying to find real solutions. In this example, we see that these countries are not run by a pragmatic and balanced people.
So the answer is Paris, Berlin and Washington made a tactical error: they rejected the sensible decision and ran into the plan, which obviously leads nowhere, given the situation. Subsequently, it can be used against them, since they did not support a peaceful and pragmatic solution, and plunged Ukraine into all-out war, although this could have been avoided.
Anyway, their reaction and the apparent dissonance at the level of Moscow and Lugansk fueling the hype in the media: all have their own ideas about what happened and build their own theory. All this is useful, as it again makes speak about Donbass, and also demonstrates Ukraine and other countries the vision of the world Zakharchenko and Donbass.
If you take a closer look at the statement on the formation of the Ukraine, it sounds like a political project: the rejection of GMOs and the sale of agricultural land, the desire to preserve the purchasing power and well-being of the population (the rejection of raising the retirement age and utility tariffs, etc.), the movement to a more democratic system (referendums, regional and local debates to discuss the future of the device, elements of direct democracy, etc.), the expansion of the fight against corruption, the displacement of the oligarchs, etc.
Hysterical howls of Kiev, Paris, Berlin and Washington have drawn people’s attention to the announcement of the establishment of Ruthenia. This allows Zakharchenko and Donbas to break the information blockade, to talk about their intentions and political ideas, to show what is really happening in the Donbass. Donbass receives the opportunity to win the hearts of people, both in Ukraine and in the West.
4. Preparing for the future and an appeal to other Ukrainian regions
As very rightly said Alexander Zakharchenko statement about the creation of the Ukraine, we are talking about the future. Her formation of Donbass is preparing the future in the future, the catastrophe is unavoidable due to the stubborn unwillingness of Kiev, Paris, Berlin and Washington to make smart decisions is unrealistic plans.
So, why then create little Russia, not to revive the new Russia? The fact that Ruthenia is included in the project more regions of modern Ukraine. And, therefore, to save more people. As noted by one of the close advisers of Putin, Vladislav Surkov, “the main thing here is that the Donbass war is not for separation from Ukraine and for its integrity. For the whole of Ukraine, not part of it”.
In addition, it is a way to show all other regions that the region is worried about their fate, to awaken people who are not happy with the current state of Affairs in Ukraine. You need to push them to action, to say: “If you want to Donbass came to you for help, first help yourself. Here is a viable alternative to Ukraine that you can defend without separatism.” This project could attract a lot more people, including those who did not support the new Russia out of fear of splitting the country.
Finally, a way to prepare in advance rescue what can still be saved after Ukraine will inevitably go the way of war and collapse as a result of the defeat. Preparing a plan in advance, you can avoid hasty decisions.
This utopia, as described by Surkov, is part of the current conflict between Kyiv and Donbass and is a normal process.
“Part of any war is the ideological war, which is opposed to the slogans and utopias. (…) Kiev has eurotopia, Donetsk meets the idea little, it inflames a broad domestic debate in which visible level of organization, arguments and IQ of the disputing parties. But here, speaking in little Russian: Yak power, and IQ.”
Why little Russia — a great idea?
First of all, as noted above, this plan out of the crisis, which combines most of the requirements of the main actors involved in the conflict both directly and indirectly:
1. The preservation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine except for Crimea (little Russia respects spelled out in the UN Charter the right of peoples to self-determination), preventing the country’s collapse and the chaos that it can cause. In addition, it would appease the EU, NATO and the US, showing that Russia is not committed to the invasion and annexation of Ukraine: new state would become an independent, sovereign and neutral. The last moment come for the soul of Russia, which would have received not a member of NATO on its doors, as a buffer zone between themselves and the Alliance. Ukrainians who want to change the system without separatism, would have liked a satisfactory solution with references to the historical foundations of the country. The DNI and the LC can continue to exist within the Federation as the Republic of Crimea existed within the Russian Federation. The country has maintained economic proximity to Russia, restored the membership in the CIS would develop relations with the EU (in particular it could go on tripartite negotiations Ruthenia-Russia-EU visa-free regime). All would be satisfied and adhered to the principles of pragmatic policies based on discussion and negotiation, not guns and force.
2. Implementation of most part of the Minsk agreements. After three years of war and bloodshed in the Donbass population does not want to come under the flag of a country that is more than three years, fired him (and it’s easy to understand). Unity becomes possible only in case, if you start with a clean slate, to change the name, capital, flag and anthem, to make the Donbass has absorbed the rest of Ukraine into a Federation, and not Vice versa. The creation of the Ukraine can put an end to the war in the Donbas to implement the necessary constitutional changes, to hold truly free elections in the new country, to organize the Amnesty and release of prisoners on both sides, to restore border controls. The cease-fire would be unnecessary. Finally, the project of the Ukraine is part of the program of economic recovery not only of Donbass, but throughout the country. Isn’t that enough?
That’s about it, by the way, said Zakhar Prilepin, in an interview to “Komsomolskaya Pravda”:
“The constitutional act, which we have announced and adopted unanimously, in fact, is fits in the Minsk agreement. Moreover, Donetsk received next preference, which we have under the Minsk agreements to create a common state. First, we in fact cease to be the separatists, so we can’t call it, because we stand for a United state. And certainly we cease to be terrorists because we stand for a peaceful solution, and we have even proposed the necessary document”.
3. Saving the greatest number of lives and the prevention of war. Talked about it Alexander Zakharchenko: “in order to stop the war, to save the state, it is necessary that the state was indeed real, the Russian and fraternal, to do these things. Or we wallow in the great war, and there will be many casualties.” Implementation of the plan of the Ukraine will allow to save lives not only in Ukraine but also in other countries, as will prevent the spread of the conflict.
4. The economic salvation of the country with the abandonment taken after the Maidan debt, but with the recognition of others. This will avoid the complete bankruptcy of the country (with consequences), and reindustrialising it and to restore economic ties with Russia.
5. The ideological salvation of the country with the struggle against Nazism and the introduction of the people’s courts to try cases of war criminals. This will allow you to avoid dipping into hell, who has known Germany during and after Nazism. The plan of the Ukraine allows the country to avoid a humiliating defeat and to maintain its integrity and not allow the bitterness of the population of present-day Ukraine, breaking destructive dynamics, which consistently generates a large number of neo-Nazis.
6. Be an example to the world. As can be seen in the strategic plan, such a move allows you to bypass the blockade current of the Minsk agreements by the Ukrainian authorities, making the Donbass as an example of national and international policies. We are talking about pragmatic and realistic course that is based on respect for international law and the interests of each person. It is clearly stated in the statement about the project: “We can build a new society on the basis of friendship and mutual help, not of hatred and envy. The creative genius of our people will be able to bring a little Russia to the forefront of world civilization and to have their say in history. The word’s Goodness and Truth”
Donbass has already set an example of freedom and people’s struggle for their rights. He chose the best path of development, refused GMO and I took aim on the development of ecological agriculture, not the one that promises the rest of Ukraine Monsanto. Now he intends to show everyone the way in the political sphere, where for more than ten years, seeks Russia in the international arena.
So why in Russia do not see unanimous support for the project? For obvious reasons, which reflected the head of the Duma Committee on CIS Affairs Leonid Kalashnikov:
“On the one hand, Russia will require the implementation of the Minsk agreements, but at the same time, we must not forget that they are performed by Ukraine; on the other hand, humanly I understand Zakharchenko”.
“The creation of such a state is possible and probably even inevitable, judging by what is happening in Ukraine. The government, instead of to solve the issue, tighter and tighter draws the noose of the fighting, and the people can not always live in the war — need to do something. So the creation of such an independent state would be an option for these people. (…) I think the population will take it positively, but the international community — the negative and someone will look at it through his fingers, will understand but not approve. Russia will have a positive attitude”.
Russia is forced to exercise restraint to avoid accusations of undermining the Minsk agreements, which she formed and strongly promoted since their signing. As it was with the creation of the DNI and the LC three years ago, this idea looks utopian, and needs to pave its way in the minds before it is accepted as a solution to many problems.
The current situation is a Gordian knot, which could cut the creation of Ruthenia. Politicians and peoples time to think what kind of world they want to build, what example to follow. For those who seek war at any cost, or those who tied for first place diplomacy and dialogue?