Belarus and Kazakhstan: Ukrainian lessons
There are clear indications that some new aspects of the Kazakh military doctrine appeared in response to completely different threats. Unlike the 2011 doctrine of the year, Kazakh military strategists are now preoccupied with the possibility of applying “hybrid methods”. Also mentioned is the threat of “encouraging and escalating armed conflict on the borders of the Republic of Kazakhstan”.
The new Kazakh military doctrine is clearly connected with Ukraine. It is very similar to the doctrine of Belarus adopted in 2016, but Minsk more openly pointed out the lessons learned from the events in Ukraine, ”said Deirdre Tynan, director of the Central Asia project in the International Crisis Group organization.
Interesting. Informative. Freshly. But the author just lives in Russia itself, and it is infinitely interesting, as it were, what kind of “lessons” the Kazakh / Belarusian politicians managed to extract from the Ukrainian events.
In principle, the “lessons” could have been started much earlier. Our dear Western "partners" are changing / trying to change governments with dismal consistency. Suffice it to recall the “Tulip Revolution” in neighboring Kyrgyzstan. And, oddly enough, Mr. Lukashenko there also “actively participated” (already post factum).
That is, the whole technology of the coup has already been tested many times and repeatedly demonstrated to everyone. But for some reason neither the “revolution of roses” in Georgia, nor the “revolution of tulips” in Kyrgyzstan, nor any “change of military doctrine” in the Republic of Belarus / RK did not cause. And why? That is, it should be understood that in Russia after the Georgian events of 2003 and the Ukrainian events of 2004, the danger of a violent change of power during the “popular unrest” inspired from abroad was recognized as a priority.
The “active struggle” against this threat began. And really, what's the use of having combat-ready armed forces, if the power in the capital changes without prior arrangement? If all of the above categorically did not concern Kazakhstan and Belarus, then some other understanding of the situation would have been present. But, as we well know, the organization of mass riots took place both there and there.
And these very “disorders” were organized quite to themselves without any participation from Russia. I hope no one will argue with that? No, you can, of course, push the version that the “cookies Nuland” in the entire post-Soviet space was distributed by the “hand of the Kremlin”, but somehow it is too “conspiratorial”, don't you find? This is what the trouble is: both in Kazakhstan and in Belarus there is almost no honest assessment of events. first phases of conflict in Ukraine. That is the Maidan-2 in Kiev, actively supported from abroad.
People do not understand something? Are they afraid of something? They basically do not want to quarrel with the West, who arranged the same coup? But then what could be that “new military doctrine”?
In a strange way, neither in Georgia (where the coup of 2003 brought terrible consequences), neither in Kyrgyzstan, nor in Ukraine (where two coups took place) no one claims to the West. Do people take such a rude intervention from an "enlightened Europe" for granted? Then what, I'm sorry, is their sovereignty, which we have been told about for so long?
That is, that “sovereignty”, it seems to be a double bottom: with respect to Russia, it seems to be there, but with respect to the West, it doesn’t seem to have it ... And only on the third day the keen Eye noted that the prison cell was not enough the fourth wall ... It is incomprehensible to me, how can one argue about some kind of “threats to sovereignty and security”, without actually having so much sovereignty? That is, the fact that in Ukraine the Americans felt more and more at home (long before Maidan-2), for some reason, is diligently ignored by all interested parties in both Minsk and Astana.
From a certain moment Russia “finally ceased to respect” that very “Ukrainian sovereignty” simply because it finally turned into a fiction. You know, one gets the bad impression that both Belarusian and Kazakh elites see their “independent future” as if “a little bit” under the American protectorate. Well, how? At the same time, both here and there, interested people with foaming at the mouth are demanding that Russia respect that “sovereignty”.
In Mr Poroshenko, Russia did not like and dislike, first of all, that he is not the president, but is the “chocolate hare of the State Department”. That's the whole problem. For Moscow, it would be strange to conduct "equal negotiations" with the sixes of the West. And de facto, and Grybauskaite, and Poroshenko are precisely in this category. That is, the question of some kind of "sovereignty" of different Georgian and Estonian countries and the "honesty" of "righteous" all sorts and its respect from Russia should be reformulated as follows: "When will you learn to respect the American sixes and gosdepovsikh sang along?" Probably never.
The problem lies precisely in this: the Georgians did not really need a war with Russia, but the Americans didn’t really. And the decision was made just by the Americans. Georgia in 2008 was not in the full sense of the word "sovereign state". And, by the way, for some reason, the war in Georgia, despite the obvious parallels with the Ukrainian conflict (the first stage is a coup, the second stage is a conflict with Russia at the suggestion of the West), did not become an occasion to adopt a series of new military doctrines in the post-Soviet countries.
But even then, in 2008, the Russian Tanks we stopped very close to Tbilisi (which, as it were, hints!), but no one in Minsk or Astana rushed to write new military doctrines, oddly enough.
But after the events of 2014 ... Russia actively, including with the use of the Armed Forces, began to protect its own interests. And, actually, what is unusual in this? Normal steps for a sovereign state. The trouble is that due to the serious pro-Western orientation of the elites in both Belarus and Kazakhstan, stand up and say clearly about the inadmissibility of coups gunpowder neither here nor there is not enough.
All this very much resembles the “discussions” of European politicians on rocket / antimissile issues: they are strictly forbidden to discuss and condemn the plans of Americans, therefore they actively discuss and condemn the “threats” coming from the Russian rocket weapons. That is, the plans and actions of the Americans to place something “winged / ballistic” there are in the “silence zone”, and as a result the discussion becomes frankly degenerative: why are you placing Iskander threatening Europe?
Some reasonable discussion makes sense in a parallel discussion of the activities of the Russian Federation and the United States, but then it becomes immediately clear that with their rocket plans the United States is very good at substituting Europe ... therefore, the “silence figure”.
In the case of “color revolutions” in the post-Soviet space, the situation is similar: criticizing the United States today is somehow not very accepted, so it is pretended that everything happened “by itself”. The actions of the Russian Federation in the Crimea and in the Donbas can be assessed very differently, but they were the answer, the answer to quite the US / EU interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine. That is, as with a missile defense system in Europe / Russian response to it, the situation should be considered as a whole, only this way you can understand something.
Imagine two wrestlers on the carpet: so we will carefully cut one out of the record, well, we will begin to discuss the actions of the second ... Something like this, the discussions are held “on Ukraine” in Belarus and Kazakhstan. That is, bold attacks on the “Russian aggression” in the Crimea would have been even more courageous if the same people so openly condemned the coup in Kiev and the snipers on the Maidan.
The honesty and courage of those “commentators” personally reminds me of an “honest and courageous” Zhvanetsky, who did not hesitate to criticize the Soviet government. A kind of "truth-seeker", "a fighter with the regime." But. However, there was a burning of people in Odessa. And how did our “great Odessa comedian” react? He said nothing. And by the way, he is not one of the “Odessans” working on the Russian stage. Somehow no one rushed to speak. They like fear.
So what about honesty and principles: they are good when they are. Many here do not understand this and prefer the “principles” of a pocket character: it’s necessary — it’s got it, it’s not necessary — it is hidden (somewhere in shorts, alongside pride). That is, here and now (in a specially selected place and at a time strictly reserved for this) I will show you how honest and principled I am, but my daily life does not concern you at all.
That is, after the coup and before the “Russian aggression in the Crimea”, we did not hear “honest, bold and tough” assessments of what is happening either from the Belarusian or from the Kazakh leadership. And, strictly speaking, why? What prevented? What prevented the evaluation of a coup in Kiev? Fear? "Uzhos" before the great American democracy? Then why all these “bold” statements about “Russian aggression”? Excuse me, do you want to fool anyone? Russian Foreign Ministry? State Department?
In fact, both the leadership of Kazakhstan and the leadership of Belarus have taken a politically restrained / “ostrich” position in many respects. Say, all that happened - it is "Russian aggression in the Crimea and the Donbas." Hence all the problems. The “discussion” revolves around this “aggression” itself. Aggression, and how to resist it ...
Something like the situation in the global economy as presented by Soviet ideologues. We are telling this, we are not telling it ... the reasoning is customized to “ideologically verified result”. In other words, it’s honest to admit that they cannot fundamentally oppose Ukraine’s relatively independent Ukraine (they don’t fit into the ideological framework of the “Holy West”). Therefore "history the Ukrainian turmoil "begin to tell from the moment of" capture "of the Crimea. And on the basis of such a curtailed and “ideologically verified” history, they begin to build “national security.”
So at one time, Mr. Lukashenko entertained himself by conducting “anti-terrorism exercises” on the border with Russia. All the bullshit of the situation is that the first part of them is thrown out of the “Ukrainian lessons”: the riots (supported and inspired by the West) and the armed coup in its final phase. That is, there is no point for Mr. Lukashenko and his entourage to conduct such “anti-terrorism exercises”: in the second phase of the “Ukrainian scenario” they will no longer be in power. The problem of a hypothetical “Russian aggression” will be solved (with adequate support from the American embassy) by completely different people.
And even not Mr. Makei. Alas for him, alas. Then what's the point? After the gosdepovskogo coup state leadership and the leadership of the security forces is changing almost completely. So it was in Serbia, and in Georgia, and in Ukraine. Why, for example, Belarus or Kazakhstan will be an exception? Where do these illusions come from? Americans bet only and exclusively on "their sons of bitches", but no one else. A striking example is Ukraine, where the same “Lady Ti” would gladly take to serve their interests (and compared to Saakashvili, she is much more Ukrainian politician). But she is not their “bitch daughter,” and that says it all.
That was when the Soviet Union in the West, such a "science" - "kremlevedenie", so today it would make sense to create a science to study Anglo-Saxons. "Anglo-Saxon", and that sounds! Just somehow people actively deal with them, the principles and customs of the Anglo-Saxons themselves are not imagining at all.
In Ukraine, "pro-Russian politicians" as such did not have. There were some widespread myths about them, but the politicians themselves were not. The Party of Regions was never pro-Russian. And yet, after the coup, heads flew. And the removal from the post - it was not the worst: mass arrests began, torture ... murder and "suicide."
"Flights from the upper floors of apartment buildings" began. Here I am talking about the former Ukrainian elite, which lost. And that was not “pro-Russian”.
Here it is customary to argue about ancient eras (especially about those when writing did not exist). But events in Ukraine took place in the Internet era! And yet, for the analysis in the same Belarus / Ukraine / Kazakhstan, the fairy-tale model is actively used, where mass popular performances in Kiev led to the fall of the “pro-Kremlin puppet” gang, and the angry Putin took the Crimea and invaded the Donbass.
Again and again: there were no “pro-Kremlin politicians” in Ukraine of the 2014 model of the year. Politicians were varying degrees of pro-Western, but all is one thing - a coup and a murder.
“The analysis of the lessons of Ukraine” is of a very limited nature and, most importantly, it immediately goes to the “phase two” - “hybrid Russian invasion”. They say this is the main threat. Absolutely incomprehensible the main thing: how so "advanced" Kazakh / Belarusian elites plan to go through the "phase number one". Or they do not consider it a threat? Or plan to "slip"? Or something else? Or someone undertakes to deny that NATO and Western special services officers are openly driving around Ukraine today, and the country is actually under external control?
Such a strange logic: Donbass and Crimea are occupied by Russia, but Ukraine itself is not occupied by anyone. Such a free power and completely independent ... The fundamental difference is precisely in this - in the assessment of the current political situation in Ukraine: from the point of view of Russia, the radicals are in power, nationalists and criminals, and the country is under external control; from the point of view of Minsk / Astana - all is well. The existing regime is quite legitimate and worthy of dialogue. And Russia is pursuing an “aggressive policy” towards Ukraine. Both Lukashenko and Nazarbayev actively offered their “services” in reconciliation between Russia and Ukraine (that is, for them Putin and Poroshenko are quite equal values, such “two captains”).
In fact, the “lessons” that should have been “learned” from the Ukrainian crisis and the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Kazakhstan are quite simple: in the event of any internal crisis, the American embassy (the embassies of the EU countries) and everyone associated with them should be extremely tightly blocked. And generally, following the Russian experience, we must begin to slowly take by the scruff of various “foreign agents” there. Do it in advance. Very advance is the only way to preserve sovereignty.
Was it done after the Ukrainian events in Kazakhstan / Belarus? The answer, it seems to me, is obvious: the risks have arisen, they have been evaluated, but ideological / political narrow-mindedness in principle does not make it possible to adequately respond to the threat. It is contrary to the "Western vector." But something needs to be done? It is necessary! Therefore, these very “games for repelling the Russian hybrid threat” begin. Honestly, to call things by their names in both Minsk and Astana is hampered by the fear of western partners and the fear of one’s own (exclusively pro-Western oriented "opposition").
To a normal person who is outside the ideological “matrix of democracy”, it’s quite difficult to understand: what is the point of preparing for the second stage of the crisis, even if the first is not theoretically overcome? And, most importantly, absolutely incomprehensible How overcome it.
Here in Russia we do not quite understand this problem, but we still have an anti-Western population in the majority. But in the same RB / RK the internal situation is somewhat different ... That is why such paradoxical “lessons” are extracted. If Mr. Yanukovych (with the support of the Ukrainian elites) had successfully figured out Maidan-2, then no Crimea-Donbass would have happened. Successfully overcoming the first stage of the crisis means that the second simply will not.
But the failure in the first stage meant only that the legitimate Yanukovych suddenly lost power and lost the ability to defend the borders of Ukraine. Even if Yanukovich and Co. had 10 plans to defend the state frontiers of Ukraine, then after February 22 they could only have a fire set up in the forest.
That is the fact of the presence in the presidential chair in March 2014 of the well-fed and “three times non-convicted” would mean the complete impossibility of any gestures in the Crimea from Russia. And with these “new military doctrines” everything is quite ridiculous: people “diligently seek the key not where they lost it, but where it is light”.
Information