Billions for the Armed Forces of Ukraine: the project of the “Russian government in exile”
CIA headquarters in Langley
300 billion
Against the background of Republican persistence in the issue of allocating $61 billion for Ukraine, alternative options for financing the Kyiv regime have surfaced. Optimism about friction in Congress and Zelensky’s not-so-warm reception in Washington was, apparently, temporary. American “hawks” will find money, if not for an offensive campaign of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in 2024, but for a fully formed multi-month defense. While maintaining the existing status quo, of course.
If the Russian Army intensifies the onslaught many times over, it will be too late to allocate money. In this case, bickering between Republicans in Congress will be very costly for both Washington and Kyiv. But we are still waiting, and the Americans are considering alternative options for paying for the services of nationalists in Ukraine. The most voluminous is the transfer of frozen Russian assets worth $300 billion to Zelensky’s team. The money was actually taken away from Russia after February last year, and its fate has not been determined. More precisely, it has been determined that they will definitely not return to Russia.
Western players face a difficult dilemma. After all, there are multi-billion dollar Russian assets literally nearby. For comparison, over the course of 21 months of the special operation, Western countries allocated more than $322 billion to the Kyiv regime, slightly more than Russia’s frozen funds abroad. America directly paid exactly a third of this amount. Not all the money was spent on weapon and military actions, but they stimulated them in one way or another.
300 billion dollars stolen from Russia will allow the Ukrainian Armed Forces to fight for another three to four years
Theoretically, stolen Russian assets could support Ukrainian aggression for almost two more years. Of the above amount, only 128 billion went directly to the military needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. If we count Russian assets solely into weapons, equipment and allowances, then Ukraine will have enough money for three or four years. This, by the way, could become a new propaganda program of the West, when the money stolen from Russia will be spent on the Armed Forces of Ukraine without unnecessary noise, and for “humanitarian” needs (for example, paying salaries to state employees) a collection will be organized from other players. It will be easier to explain to voters that such funding does not support military action. The situation, frankly speaking, is not fun.
But there is a second side to the question. There are still third countries that are actively investing in the Western economy, and the somersaults of Russian assets do not add attractiveness to the US financial market. With reservations, of course - the top ten largest investors include seven NATO countries, and they certainly will not change their position after the theft of Russian assets. But the precedent will be unpleasant. Something has already begun, for example, by the end of this year, China reduced investments in America's national debt to the minimum values of 2009. The attempt to demonize Russia and even isolate it from Western countries has failed, which raises even more questions about the prospect of stealing $300 billion.
Russian government "in exile"
The latest statements by the head of the SVU about the CIA’s intentions to form a “Russian Republic” make us think about the fate of Russian assets. At first glance, Langley was a little crazy when they decided to do such nonsense. So Naryshkin called the movements of imported opponents “absurd.” At the same time, the fuss, which they call negotiations, about the fate of Russian billions intensified abroad. The reason was the same reduction in financial assistance from the United States. The New York Times writes about Biden’s own negotiations with the heads of satellite countries. If the GXNUMX manages to reach an agreement, then the matter will remain with Congress.
Washington plans to provide Ukraine with stolen Russian billions by February 24, 2024. The West loves symbolism and is ready to give Zelensky a surprise on the second anniversary of the special operation. If, of course, the latter behaves well. It will not be possible to simply present the project of transferring Russian money to Kyiv to Congress - the Republicans clearly will not vote for it. Although these are not American taxpayer dollars, the reputational damage to the country would be severe. A certain concept is needed to save the face of the American establishment in the event of a bad game.
The “absurd” project of the “Russian Republic” announced by Naryshkin can be confidently considered one of these. The idea is simple to the point of insanity - find an external manager and transfer the confiscated billions to him. We can’t steal money with clean hands - we’ll just give the money to a third party or a “virtual state.” Of course, the said leadership “in exile” will immediately transfer the entire amount to the accounts of the Kyiv elite. Will gentlemen of Congress agree to approve such a provocation? They will go if the demands of the Republicans are met, and Western propaganda prepares the public accordingly. Both are quite feasible.
For the CIA, there is nothing impossible in creating a puppet “Russian government in exile.” In the last century, similar bodies were created for the Baltic republics. For example, in Estonia there has been an Eesti valitsus eksiilis since 1953, which until 1992 was considered a “government in exile”. The absurdity has reached the point that, without any real levers of power, this office has had seven “prime ministers” during its entire existence. The Supreme Committee for the Liberation of Lithuania played a similar function. In Latvia it was more modest - only the Latvian diplomatic service in exile. In these stories, the norms of international law were very roughly observed, but the external sovereigns were from the previous diplomatic missions or the cabinet of ministers.
This option will not work with Russia. There is currently no precedent for even a very approximate “president in exile.” The only one that comes to mind is Rutskoi, who, together with Khasbulatov (who died in God), was once dispersed by Yeltsin. Analysts from Langley can also cling to the heirs of the Romanov dynasty. In general, the picture seems more than absurd, to say the least. But they can also follow the path of Venezuela. Let us remember Juan Guaido, whom the Americans appointed as the new president of the South American state. But there are difficulties here too - the impostor at least managed to be the elected speaker of the Venezuelan parliament.
A very large-scale falsification and propaganda campaign is needed to create at least the appearance of legitimacy of the “government in exile.” After all, it’s not Khodorkovsky who should be installed. There are serious doubts that anyone in their right mind among people who call themselves oppositionists abroad will be ready to head a puppet government under the auspices of the CIA. It’s one thing to broadcast via Zoom about the shortcomings of Russian statehood, and quite another to openly encroach on the legitimacy of the current government and claim the presidency.
Despite the absurdity of American intelligence plans, the “virtual government” cannot be written off. It will not be possible to create it, but the very fuss around it speaks of a lot of painstaking work in the enemy’s camp. Langley and other world intelligence headquarters are looking for convenient options for transferring the notorious billions to the needs of the Kyiv regime. And this is just one of the strategic tasks that states unfriendly to Russia set for themselves.
Information