Putin's Tricky Plan
Today 2 main lines of explanation of the behavior of Russia are as follows:a) Putin merged everything.
b) Putin is implementing a cunning plan.
On the first point, which implies the complete shedding of the Southeast (under pressure from the United States and NATO), these laments are somewhat ahead of events, because according to my information (details of which I cannot yet disclose), some help is provided, although from my point of view, it is only enough for the limited maintenance of resistance.
On the second point, everything that is happening now is explained in such a way that the US wants to draw the Russian Federation into the war, and Putin understood everything and avoided the war, leading a subtle game aimed at seizing the whole / part of Ukraine.
In fact, both points of view are only part of the picture of Russian politics in Ukraine. I could have believed in Putin’s “cunning plan” and even forgot about the cunning plan of Yanukovych that recently echoed on social networks http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1386952.html, if it’s not familiar with previous events.
The fact is that the study of the policy of the Russian Federation in Ukraine demonstrates a number of strategic failures in foreign policy.
Already under Putin (the Yeltsin presidency consisting of various betrayals we omit), Russia suffered a major defeat in the 2004 year, when the stake on Yanukovich and the "Party of Regions" (which Putin himself openly supported) was beaten by the Americans to carry out a coup d'état and the puppet Yushchenko government came to power (where there were quite a few members of the current fascist junta). Russia 5 years had to endure the results of its defeat, after which the "orange" went bankrupt and the same "Party of Regions" broke into power with Yanukovych. It was interpreted in the Russian Federation as a rematch. The Kharkiv agreements and the extension of the agreement on the basing of the Black Sea Fleet were viewed as a strategic success ensuring Ukraine’s entry into the future integration projects based on the Russian Federation.
In 2014, Russia once again suffered a major defeat in the Ukrainian issue, when the Americans implemented their plan to bring to power another puppet government completely dependent on Washington. Together with the “cunning plan of Yanukovich”, the Americans lowered into the toilet the Kremlin’s plans to preserve the non-aligned status of Ukraine and the dependent regime of Yanukovych tied to gas contracts and the loans that were given to them under the Kharkiv agreements. They ordered to live long and plans to include Ukraine in the CU, which was full of 2012-2013 officialdom.
But fortunately for the Kremlin, Washington is also not perfect, and in the plans of the Americans to establish control over the entire territory of Ukraine, significant errors crept in, due to both underestimating the level of local resistance and the idiocy of the performers (including the Ukrainian fascists) . Hurrying with the seizure of power, scaring the population with raids by fascist units and throwing in the hysterical idea of banning the Russian language, the Americans actually allowed an uprising on parts of the former Ukraine, creating convenient opportunities for Russia to compensate for the losses already incurred.
Some believe that this was part of the Jesuit cunning plan of the United States in order to kindle a civil war into which Russia will be drawn and which will suffer a defeat in it.
But story The Crimean Spring shows that the uprising itself in Sevastopol was unexpected for all parties to the conflict, it developed at the beginning without Russia's participation, and its consequences were unexpected for Washington, where after the coup they considered the entire territory of Ukraine - including the Crimea and Donbass as an integral property of that regime, which was brought to power in Kiev.
The uprising in Sevastopol multiplied by local separatism was essentially ignored by Kiev, which did nothing to really keep the city. The Kremlin saw this as a nice opportunity to carry out a "raid on Pristina No. XXUMX", since the local population is most loyal to Moscow, and there were quite a few military units there. A brilliant special operation (without joking) on ensuring the transfer of Crimea to the Russian Federation was planned and implemented. It will inevitably be studied in the textbooks for specialists of "narrow profile". She looked even more impressive than the defeat of the Georgian army in 2 year.
The Americans, and especially Kiev, missed it. The inertia of this success created not only the effect of the temporary consolidation of society, but also generated a certain euphoria in the ruling circles, which looked very strange against the background of the political catastrophe a little earlier. It was announced that after long years of http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/1226976.html "without ideology" and the national idea, finally the idea was found - this is the reunification of a divided people and de facto "gathering lands". In an oppositional patriotic society (and even in terms of a public left-patriotic), what is happening has been perceived as a kind of rupture of the pattern - they say, we have been talking about Putin’s anti-people regime for years, and he ... Crimea is ours! This served as a catalyst for the hurray-patriotic upsurge (in the spirit of the outbreak of the First World War), from whose wheels the events in the Donbas were viewed. The previous political catastrophe of the collapse of the regime of Yanukovych was perceived as an annoying misunderstanding.
But if in the Crimea, the Kremlin acted under the conditions of maximum favor - the Americans did not have time to react, and Kiev slept at all what had happened, then in the Donbass the development of the processes of falling away of Donetsk and Lugansk from Ukraine met certain difficulties.
Now it is fashionable among the pro-government political analysts to blame everything on the wrong population, saying "my hut is on the edge" and "as long as there is no war," so everything is so bad why they say Putin should fight if everyone is home. This is true, but this is only part of the truth that such authors are trying to gloss over so many failures of the Russian policy in Ukraine, including the failures of Putin himself and Lavrov as foreign minister.
The fact is that the self-organization of people in the South-East has been suppressed by the Ukrainian authorities for years, including the “Party of Regions” that Russia has put on and which has achieved even greater success in eliminating pro-Russian organizations than the Yushchenko government. The Kremlin looked at all this with Olympic calmness. The consul of the Russian Federation in the Crimea Andreev, for example, called the local separatists (thanks in large part to which Crimea was ours!) Provocateurs undermining the territorial integrity of Ukraine. With Bandera on the streets of Kiev, except for the Communist Party of Ukraine and Vitrenkovets, practically no one walked around butting. Organizations for these tasks were not created.
The Kremlin believed that the economic and political levers of pressure on the Yanukovych regime were more than enough to fulfill their interests in Ukraine, but the February 20 coup d'état revealed this policy to be untenable. Symptomatic confessions of Pushkov, speak best of some of the causes of the catastrophe that occurred.
Such lessons are usually paid for in blood.
So far, Russian capital has indulged itself with the illusion that the price of enslaving contracts (which became so thanks to Orange), if anyone has forgotten, the price revision was started by Orange, can be realized by basing the Black Sea Fleet, controlling strategic enterprises and influencing the political system. . Cheap gas, closing its eyes on its re-export, various economic preferences, cheap loans, etc. essentially laid down the foundation of a purely anti-Russian and Russophobic public education, for so far in Moscow primitive Chubais’s little ideas on the subject of “liberal empire” and economic control over the former republics The USSR, the Americans for years brought up the anti-Russian elite and youth. Over the 23 of the year, they brought up a whole generation of politicians targeting Washington and Brussels. They brought up a whole generation of youth, for whom Russia is the main ideological and ideological enemy. Extensive information networks controlled by the media, agents of influence were created and control was established over a part of the power apparatus of Ukraine.
We love to make fun of the servility of Bandera in front of the American ambassadors, who by phone distribute instructions to Ukrainian officials. There is actually a little funny. The Americans are engaged in what Chernomyrdin and Zurab should do for good. Compare, say, the level of influence of Teft and Zurabov in Ukraine. This is one of the answers to the question of why the Americans seized the Ukraine, and Russia only the Crimea. Who is responsible for the fact that against the background of Tefta Zurab looks like a pathetic molecule in terms of the presence of levers of influence on what is happening in Ukraine.
Russia, if it tried to do the same thing as the Americans, did it clumsily in the style of “here's money for you, spin as you please” (and that part of the money was stolen locally by the local patriots, so to speak - by reference, the State Duma is 100 000 dollars for the development of the "Russian world", of which 20-30% are being sawn back in Moscow, about the same amount is crammed by local "leaders", and the remnants go to scanty rallies, exhibitions and other events for reporting that created the simulacrum, and not real pro-russian movement) or calling already departing the concepts of "Slavic brotherhood", "friendship of peoples" or amorphous ideas "in the vehicle integration." As a result, when it began to get to the point, as in 2004 or 2014, Moscow simply did not have the necessary tools to counter it. They were not there, because they do not form from the air - they have been prepared for years. This is actually one of the secrets of the success of Americans in organizing such coups - the ground has been prepared for them for years.
Therefore, it is not the fault of the population that these tools were not created. The Americans created them, Moscow did not. And this problem is precisely the time of Putin's rule, when under the stories of "rising from his knees", Russian policy in Ukraine was inadequate to the threats that were ripening here (although that Ukraine (not to be confused with the Ukrainian SSR) exists only and exclusively as the antithesis of Russia wrote many, including me). Moreover, these were threats not only for the local population, but also for Russia itself. Now they are trying to push this capital school into the “extreme houses”, which are also to blame for their present and future misfortunes, but they practically did not work with them. But the Americans in Western Ukraine and the Kiev elite were working for years and decades, which is why there is such a sad picture when they are tugging on the necessary threads again and again they put their own government in Ukraine, and the self-organization of the population of the South-East is only enough for very limited repulse
How it looks, illustrate by example. Even before the referendum in Crimea, major Russian media workers flew to Sevastopol (I don’t give their last names), a meeting was organized for local bloggers, journalists, IT people and other creators who participated in one form or another in support of the Crimean Spring. I was there too. Actually, what was the proposal, “Muscovites” wanted to deploy “anti-Maidan TV” (a full-fledged TV channel like “Gromadskoe TV”) on the basis of local specialists, that is, to create an informational counterbalance to the American “brainwash” at the expense of local cadres, for which even they were willing to give money from public funds. But since all this was supposed to be created from scratch, and there were a lot of difficulties, the idea as such was not realized. The most ridiculous and sad thing in this situation is that this “anti-Maidan TV” should have been created 2-3 a year ago, and not to look for freelancers in the provincial cities who would do what the American and European experts quickly do for 5-10 million euros deploying infrastructure information warfare. It is watching such belated reactions that you understand best of all that the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation, the fruit of extremely well-matched circumstances, under which sometimes there was not any serious and long-term work.
For an adequate response, real pro-Russian parties were required with serious financial support and orientation towards Moscow, long-term programs for educating the necessary personnel, the creation of youth patriotic organizations of a paramilitary nature, which, like the Bandera gangs, could be quickly transformed into armed irregular units. But all this was missed, with the result that - for some reason, there were no real pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. The sad result is 14 years of Ukrainian politics, which there is no one to blame.
Therefore, when they talk about Putin’s “cunning plan” now, then frankly, it’s not at all compatible with the rather mediocre results of the global Russian strategy in Ukraine over the past 14 years. Here you can only recall the anecdote about Chapaev and clay, which is now carefully trying to portray in semi-official analytics.
Owing to the “extreme huts” and jambs of the previous policy, the Kremlin’s euphoria gradually began to dissipate against the background of increasing sanctions from the United States, which, while not being dangerous in themselves, meant an increase in direct conflict with the weakening, but still extremely dangerous world hegemon. Inertia "Crimea is ours!" nevertheless, the Kremlin was attracted to the continuation of actions aimed at the separation of New Russia. There was a certain org.podderzhka, and information pumping (in sizes smaller than the US), but by the end of April in this line there have been some fluctuations associated with the increasing pressure and the threat of real economic sanctions.
Some people forget that already in 2013, according to official statements from the Russian government, the economy was balancing somewhere between stagnation and recession. And the Crimea has not changed and could not change the serious economic problems in the economy of the Russian Federation (no less serious than in the economies of the United States and the EU). Sanctions and their consequences mean that the government will not even be able to gain a foothold at the turn of "stagnation" and the economic recession will become obvious (see the experience of Iran). Therefore, politics by politics, the Russian world by the Russian world, but the threat of an economic recession, which could lead to a breakdown of the political system, began to emerge clearly despite the temporary consolidation of society.
The decisive day, apparently, was 24 April, when, against the background of the assault on Slavyansk, the columns of the Ukrainian army began to move to the Donbass from Izyum and Zaporizhia. On the same day, Russian units that moved to the borders with Ukraine came into motion.
After lunch, in Moscow, a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine began with the participation of Putin, where the issue of the introduction of troops into Ukraine was resolved. And if anyone remembers the story of the failed Putin’s speech, it did not take place precisely because the decision to deploy troops was not made - both as a result of the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops, and in connection with threatening shouts from Brussels and Washington.
That is, at least in the period of April 24, the question of the actual entry of Russian troops existed without any tricky plans and was considered one of the possible reactions without regard to the “extreme houses” and “third levels of sanctions.” It was during the period before 24 the numbers in propaganda were popular theses that the Russian army would easily reach the Dnieper, what to spit on the USA, we would get to Lviv, and so on. Then there was a turn in the direction of "why not fight".
After April 24, external pressure on the Russian Federation was growing, and the support of the population in the Donbas was not growing fast enough. At the same time, the USA put in order the regime installed in Kiev, which in May passed to an open punitive operation in the Donbas in much more rigid forms than April 24, when Russia moved troops to the border.
Therefore, since May, despite the terrifying atrocities committed by the Nazis, the Kremlin has been extremely restrained, limiting itself to some unofficial support and public discontent. When in Kiev they were convinced that the United States was able to put enough pressure on the Russian Federation and that it abandoned the idea of an immediate deployment of troops, the junta immediately began a full-fledged punitive operation, in which all possible means of fire destruction were already used, including Aviation, Tanks, heavy artillery and MLRS.
And Russia was forced to swallow it all, because circumstances have changed. Therefore, instead of troop movements, we see the concern of diplomats, and instead of slogans on the topic of reuniting the people and gathering lands, reflections on a cunning plan. Yes, and wide rallies of support for the DPR and LPR (ala Crimea) are not observed, there is no sign off.
His whole “trick” of the new information policy, besides the information cover of the previous failures of 2004 and 2014 and preserving the face of the threats of the West, is that indirect tacit support (which has been denied and will be denied) will not allow the military to neutralize the New Russia, but with This does not change the overwhelming superiority of the junta in technology.
Therefore, the current scenario is just the most convenient for the United States, since the conflict is being delayed (which Putin is trying to avoid under the tricky plan), forming an unhealing wound near the border with the Russian Federation (the civil war cannot just be stopped — the Americans have already achieved theirs) prerequisites for the deployment of American and NATO troops in Ukraine (NATO base in the Kharkiv region, while maintaining the current junta in power, the case 2-3 years).
At the same time, the Americans have advantages both in the case of the entry of Russian troops, and in the case of complete discharging of Moscow. Despite the loss of the Crimea, when playing the situation with the Donbas, they will benefit in any case, since either Putin collapses his consolidated stability by donating Donbass, or will be forced to get involved in the war on the left-bank Ukraine, carrying out its division, not peaceful, but militarily that the United States is quite satisfied, in terms of the designation of "enemy", under which you can beat the budgets for the Pentagon and the special services.
Russia acts precisely according to circumstances, depending on the changing situation. As a weaker imperialist state than the United States, Russia naturally seeks to evade a direct clash with the hegemon, as does an economically stronger China. Donbass in this matter becomes a hostage of this “policy according to circumstances”, when recharge goes so that the resistance does not end, but this recharge is completely inadequate for the implementation of the Kremlin’s March plans.
All this excites the patriotic public, which anticipates the discharge of Novorossia. Stories about “tricky plans” are designed to delay the moment of an open explosion of discontent that will destroy post-Crimean consolidation (as the crisis of 2008 of the year destroyed the consolidation of society after 888). At the same time, one should understand that the Kremlin is aware of the perniciousness of the fork of the decisions that the Americans are proposing - the war on the left bank will be extremely burdensome for the Russian economy and will allow the Americans to postpone their own collapse. Refusal of war means the gradual death of Novorossia and the subsequent split in Russian society, when a significant segment of the patriotic public will make sure that Putin is a traitor and will oppose the current system in any revolutionary upheavals. Coupled with the leftist, nationalist and liberal opposition, this creates a serious potential threat to the foundations of the Putin regime.
Therefore, instead of a clear drain or an explicit declaration of war, the Kremlin is trying to stay in an intermediate position, between an underlined peacefulness and tacit help, which is a "cunning plan." Like Yanukovych’s “cunning plan”, he has a single, but fatal flaw — he is too obvious and easy to play against him. That is why the fascists are so brazenly and cynically killing people, and the Americans just as cynically approve of it, because there is an understanding of the position of Russia and the steps against this position are quite understandable.
Russia loses about any reaction. Introduces troops - great, we get a comfortable war near the borders of a competitor, where you can earn money and weaken the enemy. It does not introduce — it receives an increase in internal tension and the collapse of right-conservative illusions, as well as the formation of an aggressive Russophobic state at its borders.
The hopes that the economy will catch up and people take to the streets against the junta are understandable, but do not take into account the fact that the regime has already openly turned to open terror against dissenters, which the Americans will close their eyes to, as it did in Egypt, allowing the military to kill several hundred Islamists . As far as possible, Kiev will be given money (as the last dose for a heroin addict) and will turn a blind eye to any atrocities. In the case of the capture of Donbass, the junta will naturally write off all the troubles on Russia and Putin, delaying its inevitable end. During this time, all the more or less pro-Russian and anti-fascist organizations will be cleaned up and under any scenarios, it will be extremely difficult for Russia to rely even on this extremely weak point of support. Therefore, delaying the existence of the fascist junta is clearly in favor of the United States, because every day of its activities, this is another day of the separation of Ukraine from Russia. The consequences of these days will then affect for many years and even decades.
Ultimately, the Kremlin will have to choose where the consequences will be less, and from the point of view of the self-survival of the Putin regime, both options for all their disadvantages are about the same and the basis of the decision whether to merge or not to merge Novorossia will be the question of consequences. All this is not part of some malicious intent connected with Putin’s unwillingness to accept the Donbass into Russia (he would be glad to accept him, but there are a number of foreign policy difficulties). All this is a consequence of the previous policy of Russia in the Ukrainian question. For this, the perishing militias are paying the price now, and Putin himself, forced to take decisions in a situation where there are no more positive steps for Russia. So I wouldn’t be surprised if in the foreseeable future Putin does bring in troops, although it’s not surprising if Moscow continues to “express concern” with the next crimes of the fascists.
Someone will say, is it too pessimistic? No, comrades, this is an objective reality with which it is necessary to reckon, in order not to harbor unnecessary illusions. Does this mean that our business is lost? Of course not. Personally, I am sure that the junta will be defeated and the perpetrators of bloody crimes will pay for them, including with their lives. When the events in Sevastopol began, which brought us all to where we are now - we acted without regard to Russia, because you just had to get up and fight, because sitting on the couches, it is difficult to change the story. As the classics said, in the fight you will find your right.
Regarding whether I am right on the subject of Putin’s “cunning plan”, I can only send them to those comrades who reproached me for criticizing Yanukovych’s “cunning plan”. As they say, well, where is Yanukovych now with his “plan”?
Well, there, time will tell who was right in the end.
Information