Military Review

Ukraine: hard today and hard tomorrow

30
Ukraine: hard today and hard tomorrow


The crisis in Ukraine, in which the world community turned out to be multifariously involved, became, perhaps, the number one event in terms of its influence on the development of interstate relations in today's world.

How was it?

The political crisis in Kiev began in November 2013. The reason for the mass action was the announcement of the Ukrainian government to postpone the signing of a document proclaiming the association of Ukraine with the European Union.

Meanwhile, demonstrations and rallies in Kiev’s Maidan departed from both their initial cause and the peaceful nature of the protest.

The situation on Independence straddlers pro-fascist, nationalist and anti-Russian sense. Bloody clashes began.

Molotov cocktails, stones, and metal pipes hit the police and the Berkut detachments. Used and firearms weapon. The forces of law and order used tear gas, water cannons. There were casualties on both sides.

At first, some of the protesters tried to dissociate themselves from the actions of extremists, even calling the Right Sector activists provocateurs.

Indeed, in addition to the "rabid" protests, many of those who advocated democracy were taking part in the anti-corruption regime. February 21 authorities and opposition leaders even signed an agreement that included a return to the 2004 constitution of the year that curtailed presidential rights, the formation of a national unity government, and the holding of presidential elections. The authorities and the opposition pledged to refrain from the use of force.

22 February, that is, the day after the signing of an agreement with the opposition, there was a violent seizure of power. The head of the "Right Sector" Yarosh rejected the agreement, calling it "the next eye wash." On the night of February 22, radical maydanovtsy captured the buildings of the Verkhovna Rada, the presidential administration, the government, the Interior Ministry. At 10 in the morning the meeting of the Verkhovna Rada began. On the frames of the live broadcast it was clear that it was passing under the physical pressure of the Maidan fighters and their supporters. The president, the leadership of the parliament, the Ministry of Internal Affairs were removed from their posts.

The essence of those who seized power became apparent from the numerous speeches in defense of Bandera, other nationalists who had served the Fascist invaders during the Patriotic War, and anti-Russian rhetoric. Facts like the adoption of the law by the Rada (its non-signing by the acting president does not diminish the importance of the fact that the law was adopted by the Ukrainian parliament), aimed at expelling the Russian language from Ukraine, also spoke a lot.

Attention was drawn to the statement of Avakov, newly appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, that the leadership of his department would now include representatives of the Right Sector and Maidan’s self-defense.

I do not want to downplay the blame for everything that happened and Yanukovych. Leading the country, he tried to milk the two queens - both Russia and the European Union, tossing between them. It could not but influence the Ukrainian society and the widespread corruption under its regime, with which it practically did not fight. It is characteristic that immediately after the start of demonstrations on Independence, the world did not hear the voice of the East and South of Ukraine.

Yanukovych has publicly explained this by the fact that in the Donbass and Dnepropetrovsk they work in three shifts, they live from paycheck to paycheck, and they say they don’t care about politics. A ridiculous explanation.

The point, obviously, is that the population of these regions was set up not only against the motley protesters on Independence, but also Yanukovych and his entourage. When bloody clashes began and a coup d'état took place, sentiment in the East and South of Ukraine changed - from silent observation to active rejection of what is happening in Kiev, to developing measures to ensure their own security and their own future.

But such a change, apparently, did not change the attitude towards Yanukovych. Isn’t this the real reason why, in the midst of events, he left Ukraine, and did not stay among law enforcement, fighters against the fascist thugs?

In Donetsk, Kharkov, and Lugansk, supporters of the federalization of Ukraine began to gather for rallies. In response, the Kiev authorities announced a special operation against the "separatists." In the south-east of Ukraine, it was growing, not only accumulated discontent with what was happening in Kiev, but also fear for their own destiny.

In order to understand the reasons for the depth of such concerns, I would like to quote the estimates and forecasts of Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, who presented with amazing accuracy what he now had to face in Ukraine. In 1990, Solzhenitsyn wrote: “I myself am almost half Ukrainian, and in the early years I grew up with the sounds of Ukrainian. And in mournful Belarus, I spent most of my front years ... I turn to those and others not from outside, but all together expired from the precious Kiev, "from where the Russian land began to eat," according to the chronicles of Nestor, from which Christianity came to us. The same princes ruled us: Yaroslav the Wise divided Kiev, Novgorod and all the stretch from Chernigov between sons to Ryazan, Murom and Beloozer; Vladimir Monomakh was simultaneously and the prince of Kiev, and Rostov-Suzdal; and the same unity in the ministry of the metropolitans. "

On the eve of the collapse of the USSR, Solzhenitsyn argued: “Separating Ukraine means cutting across millions of families and people: what a mixture of people; whole areas with a Russian margin; how many people who find it difficult to choose from two nationalities; how many people of mixed origin; how many mixed marriages — no one I haven’t yet considered “mixed.” There is not a hint of intolerance between Ukrainians and Russians in the thickness of the main population. ” At the same time, Solzhenitsyn called it a “fatal mistake” that “will certainly and harmfully affect both the inorganic connection of the western regions with the eastern regions, and the doubling (now triple) of religious branches, and the elastic force of the repressed Russian language, which until now was considered native 63% of the population. How many inefficient, useless efforts need to be spent to overcome these cracks. " These words belong to Solzhenitsyn: “Of course, if the Ukrainian people really wished to secede, no one would dare to keep it by force. But this vastness is diverse, and only the local population can decide the fate of their area, of their area, and every new minority in this locality must meet the same non-violence towards oneself. "

The forecasts of Alexander Isaevich largely come true. The disagreement of Eastern Ukraine with the new Kiev authorities was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that they took a frank course against the federalization of the country. This meant nothing more than a refusal to recognize the special position of the regions of Ukraine with the predominance of the Russian-speaking population. The situation was aggravated because attempts were made to hush those who opposed such a course with harsh force.

In such conditions, in April 2014, the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) were proclaimed. The referendum participants spoke in favor of their creation, which, I must say, were held in parts of the regions of the eastern regions. But pro-Russian sentiments were all-encompassing, which was manifested in the hanging of Russian flags literally everywhere, and in endless appearances in favor of rapprochement with Russia.

However, in the period preceding the proclamation of the DPR and LPR, and even after that, in the south-east of Ukraine, the demands for federalization of the country predominantly sounded. The formation of independent states, which meant leaving Ukraine, became a slogan after the Kiev authorities launched an army punitive operation against Donetsk and Lugansk using heavy military equipment and aviation. In the hostilities, detachments of militants took an active part, manifesting their radical nationalist and anti-Russian essence on the Maidan.

Not apart from what is happening in the south-east of Ukraine, but according to its own scenario, events developed in the Crimea, which, as we know, became a part of Ukraine without the will of the population.

This could not but affect the mood of the Crimean people, who have long been a cause for Russia. In addition, the Russian Black Sea Fleet was based in Sevastopol, which reinforced the pro-Russian mentality of the inhabitants of this city and other areas of the Crimea.

The Crimean-Tatar community stood out from the general flow, but it was not completely homogeneous, although the local parliament of the Mejlis enjoyed power and sufficiently wide prestige, and its leader with his close circle was closely associated with Ukrainian politicians before and after Kiev Maidan.

1 December 2013 was the highest authority on the peninsula - I want to emphasize that it was then part of the general Ukrainian power structure - the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea stated: "Opposition speeches in Kiev threaten political and economic stability in Ukraine." In December and January, 2014, the Crimean parliament repeatedly appealed to the authorities to “not allow an unconstitutional revenge on bankrupt political forces professing extreme nationalism”.

In the Crimea and Sevastopol, the formation of self-defense units began. February 23, the day after the coup in Kiev and on the same day when the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a law that deprived Russian of even half regional status, the 200-thousandth "rally of the national will against fascism" took place in Sevastopol. The sequence of the following events is indicative.

On the night of February 23, against the background of threats to deal with the "separatists" and the opening by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) criminal proceedings in connection with the decisions and statements of the Crimean parliament, the newly appointed head of the SBU Nalyvaychenko and Minister of the Interior Avakov make a blitz trip to the Crimea. Immediately two and immediately after the coup - in the Crimea.

February 26 in Simferopol came to the demonstration of the Crimean Tatars - supporters of the Mejlis in order to block the meeting of the Supreme Council of Crimea, which was expected to make decisions in defense of the Russian language and independence of the region. There were clashes between the participants of this demonstration and another, organized by those who opposed the policies of the Kiev authorities. 30 people were injured, two died. The meeting of the Supreme Council was disrupted.

In the afternoon of February 27, the Supreme Council of Crimea was able to resume work. The leader of the Russian Unity faction, Sergei Aksenov, was appointed prime minister of autonomy. The parliament decided to hold an all-Crimean referendum on 25 with the issue being put in the following wording: “The Autonomous Republic of Crimea has state independence and is part of Ukraine on the basis of treaties and agreements (pro or contra).”

February 28, without coordination with the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Kiev was appointed the new head of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Crimea. On the night of March 1, the appointee made an attempt to repel the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs from the forces of self-defense, but received a rebuff. On the morning of March 1, Prime Minister S.V. Aksenov reassigned all the power structures of the autonomy and appealed to the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin with a request for assistance in ensuring peace and tranquility in the Crimea. Such an appeal could be explained not only by events in the Crimea itself, but also by the desire of the new Kiev authorities to suppress resistance in the south-east of Ukraine by force. On the same day, President Putin submitted to the Council of Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation an appeal on the use of the Russian Armed Forces on the territory of Ukraine. The unanimous consent of the deputies of the Federation Council was received.

March 6 The Supreme Council of the Crimea decided to hold a referendum throughout the Crimea, including Sevastopol, on March 16. A new wording of the question in the referendum was also adopted, suggesting the choice of one of two answers: "Are you for the reunification of the Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?" or "Are you for the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea 1992 of the year and for the status of Crimea as part of Ukraine?" On the same day, the decision to hold a referendum was issued by the city council of Sevastopol. Explaining the reason for replacing the originally adopted wording of the referendum, the deputy chairman of the Supreme Council of Crimea said that this was caused by the reaction of the Ukrainian authorities to the decision to hold a referendum, which at that time was not intended to raise the issue of autonomy from Ukraine.

March 9 in Simferopol, Sevastopol, Yevpatoria and Kerch held rallies in support of the accession of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to Russia.

March 16 held a referendum, in which voters from Crimea and Sevastopol took part. An absolute majority voted for the reunification of the Crimea with Russia.

17 in March, President Putin signed a decree recognizing the Republic of Crimea as a sovereign and independent state, in which Sevastopol has a special status, and already 18 in March in the St. George Hall of the Kremlin was signed by the leaders of Russia, the Crimea and Sevastopol on the entry of the Republic of Crimea into the Russian Federation.

From the very beginning of the crisis in Ukraine, the United States openly supported the Kiev Maidan. The facts of personal and telephone contacts with Ukrainian opposition diplomats from the US Embassy in Kiev and American politicians who are in the Ukrainian capital are well known. Not only they, but also senior US officials expressed unconditional support to the Ukrainian opposition. There is reason to believe that many American representatives were pushing Ukrainian interlocutors to build up anti-constitutional actions. In any case, the Americans engaged in the Ukrainian events were not guided by conciliatory motives.

Russia did not dictate what should be the status of Ukraine. It’s up to the country’s own business to decide what its state structure
The US policy deliberately gained momentum against Russia, which was making efforts to get out of the Ukrainian crisis through the negotiations of the parties involved in it. The culmination was the introduction of anti-Russian sanctions initiated by the United States. Washington has persistently attracted European countries, Australia, Japan, Canada to join these sanctions and, I must say, achieved success.

In pursuing its course, Washington, of course, was aware that the militants who were fighting on Maidan for the violent seizure of power raised the banners of Ukrainian nationalist organizations, which were actively used by Hitler’s Germany in World War II, over their heads. With their hands, the Nazis, in particular, put to death thousands of Jews inhabiting the occupied territories, and Ukrainian fighters against fascism.

What are the hidden springs that pushed Washington to exactly this position due to the crisis in Ukraine?

The main directions in the policy of the United States with the aim of introducing a unipolar world pattern can undoubtedly include the desire to oust Russia from world politics and stifle the centrifugal tendencies that moved the United States from the United States after the end of the Cold War. At the same time, the victory of pro-American forces in Kiev promised the establishment of US military control over the Black Sea, which touched Russia's vital interests. This could also be used to make Turkey more flexible in relations with the United States.

Judging by the position of Washington, the bet was placed on the involvement of the Russian Armed Forces in the south-east of Ukraine. In this case, Europe, taking into account the mood of its public for many decades, would remain in the orbit of US policy. I think that is why there was no positive reaction from Washington to Putin’s decision to withdraw, after the reunification of the Crimea with Russia, the previously received consent of the Federation Council to use Russian troops in Ukraine. The continuing accusations of Russia in military intervention in the east of Ukraine could not negate the effect of such a Putin decision.

Moreover, the well-thought-out decision of the President of Russia was taken, despite the tone of the overwhelming majority of the Russian media, which clearly did not correspond to the restraint shown by V.V. Putin Of course, the tone (mainly of television) was caused by the actions of the Ukrainian security forces - participants of the punitive operation in the east of Ukraine, who were shooting at not only the positions of the militias. In order to break their morale, they beat artillery, volley fire systems in residential areas of Slavyansk, Lugansk, Donetsk. The number of civilian casualties has increased. But I am sure that the propaganda preparation of Russia for military intervention in Ukraine was not in the plans of the Kremlin.

Meanwhile, the United States stubbornly pursued a line to support punitive actions of the Kiev authorities. When the change in hostilities in favor of the Ukrainian security officials, repeatedly promised by Kiev, did not take place, and the attention of the West to the Ukrainian events began to crowd out the war in Gaza between Israel and Palestinian Hamas, as well as the victorious offensive of the Islamic State in Iraq - it was clearly noticeably in the Western media, a Malaysian civilian plane carrying passengers was shot down over Ukraine. Who shot at him was never found out. But it seems that even he has been shot down in order to bring events in Ukraine to the center of attention of the United States and its European allies. By the way, this could have happened without direct instructions from the top leadership in Kiev, where many groups that claimed power were deployed.

The position of the West, dictated by the United States, undoubtedly influenced Russia and its decisions. But it would be wrong to consider such an influence as the main one - Russia did not consider its approach to the crisis in Ukraine through the prism of global confrontation with anyone. If elements of such confrontation appeared, then the United States and their partners initiated it.

The first one. The reunification of Crimea with Russia occurred during and as a result of the crisis that arose in Ukraine - there were no preliminary Russian “preparations” on this score. It never occurred to anyone, even outright opponents, to accuse Moscow of causing the Ukrainian crisis. The idea of ​​reunification was expressed by the almost unanimous vote of the Crimean people, among other things, alarmed by the fact that the anti-Russian actions of the Kiev authorities would be forcibly brought to the Crimea. However, the accusations against Russia focused on its military presence during the vote. Such a presence did take place, but not in violation of the Russian-Ukrainian agreements on the Black Sea the fleet dated May 28, 1997. According to these documents, Russia had the right to deploy in the Crimea up to 25 thousand of its troops. The Russian military really stood behind the Crimean self-defense units. The number of Russian troops was even less than that allowed by agreements with Ukraine, not denounced after the change of power in Kiev. The purpose of the Russian military was to prevent violent provocations against voters at polling stations, to maintain a peaceful situation in Crimea. And most importantly - they did not fire a single shot.

The second. Characteristic is Russia's position in relation to the Crimean Tatars. In an address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation 18 in March, President Putin declared: "The Crimean Tatars returned to their land. I believe that all the necessary political legislative decisions must be taken that will complete the process of rehabilitating the Crimean Tatar people, decisions that will restore their rights, good name in full. " It is known that such decisions, including the proclamation of the state of the Crimean Tatar language, along with the Russian and Ukrainian, were taken. Everything was done to ensure that the entry of the Crimea into Russia created the best conditions for the Crimean Tatars. A major role was played by the visits to the Crimea by the leaders of the Republic of Tatarstan.

Third. The Kremlin’s position on the orientation of Ukraine towards joining the European Union was repeatedly voiced: the choice of foreign economic orientation belongs to Ukraine itself; Russia will take protective economic measures on the manifestations of Ukraine's entry into the EU system, which will damage our country.

Fourth. From the very beginning of the current crisis in Ukraine, Moscow has advocated negotiations, a peaceful solution. The agreement was reached 21 February constitutional power with the opposition, which contained an agreement to a number of opposition demands. The OSCE’s pragmatic settlement plan was supported. Immediately after being elected president of Petro Poroshenko, it was stated that it was ready to negotiate with him. During meetings with him, V.V. Putin insisted on the need for a ceasefire and negotiations of the Kiev authorities with representatives of the south-east of Ukraine. The Kremlin - it was later - suggested that the militias, who surrounded the units of the Ukrainian security forces, open humanitarian corridors in order to release those who want to take advantage of the resulting "boilers". The militia agreed to this initiative of the President of Russia and allowed everyone who laid down their arms to leave through such corridors. Should this not be regarded as Russia's desire to create conditions conducive to internal Ukrainian negotiations.

The leadership of the United States and a number of European countries, while not denying the need for political methods, determined the intra-Ukrainian negotiation process by Russia's unilateral refusal to support the militia. It was clear that Moscow would not and did not go for it, providing the greatest possible, under the prevailing conditions, multilateral assistance to those who in the east of Ukraine are fighting for their rights. Volunteers from Russia also took part in this fight. At the same time, acting in the political field, Moscow achieved direct negotiations between Kiev and representatives of Donbas and Lugansk. Whatever the outcome, this is a breakthrough moment that will sooner or later affect the settlement of the crisis in Ukraine.

The fifth. Seeking to end the bloodshed in eastern Ukraine, Russia played an active role in constant contact, including confidential, with the president of Russia, as well as the minister of foreign affairs with Western leaders. Russia actively participated in organizing multilateral meetings of representatives of Ukraine, Russia, and the European Union — the United States was represented at a number of such meetings, and put forward the idea of ​​forming a contact group to create a road map for resolving the Ukrainian crisis. Personal meetings and telephone conversations V.V. Putin and P.A. Poroshenko had a special meaning for finding ways out of a difficult situation.

The sixth. Russia neither publicly nor "behind the scenes" supported the idea of ​​a southeast exit from Ukraine. This conclusion reinforces the fact that President Putin’s appeal to postpone the referendum, which provided for the possibility of creating an independent state in the south-east of Ukraine. This appeal came at a time when the leaders of Donetsk and Lugansk insisted on the immediate holding of a referendum. Unfortunately, Putin’s call was not heard. The president summed up the position of Russia: “it’s time to start substantive negotiations not on technical issues, but in essence to understand what rights the people of Donbass, Lugansk, the entire south-east of Ukraine will have.” From these words, and on other grounds, it is obvious that Russia did not dictate what the status of Ukraine should be as a result of internal Ukrainian negotiations.

I would like to believe that all these efforts of Russia will bring good luck. In any case, an important step has been taken - the cease-fire protocol signed by the parties has entered into force. It takes into account the balanced, compromise measures of Putin’s plan. Will the next steps, will show the future.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.rg.ru/2014/09/08/primakov.html
30 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Момент
    Момент 9 September 2014 14: 11
    0
    A hangover is always a heavy burden. Whether Russia has acted correctly will show time, but the main thing now is to prevent bloodshed again.
    1. Giant thought
      Giant thought 9 September 2014 15: 07
      +6
      In any case, Novorossia must gain full state independence and sovereignty.
    2. Cherdak
      Cherdak 9 September 2014 19: 34
      +3
      Quote: *
      The position of the West, dictated by the United States, undoubtedly affected Russia and its decisions.


      Most of all, she worked on Yaytsenyuha No.
    3. 1goose3
      1goose3 9 September 2014 21: 04
      0
      Dear, you are confusing something. After sober decisions, there is no hangover. A severe hangover awaits Maidanutuyu Ukraine!
      It is necessary to prevent bloodshed, but unfortunately this will not allow the inadequate leadership of Ukraine.
    4. max702
      max702 9 September 2014 21: 24
      +4
      Forgive me, but it seems to me that Primakov was stuck in the USSR century when politicians were respected and there was no appearance of world law, but now the time is different as moral standards and methods .. everything has become much more cynical and practical, well, the states and their stooges have been caught lying so what ? They’ll come up with 10 times the size and feel good about themselves .. They spit on all the conventions with a brown stick and that’s all. Let's look at the results of this mess, I don’t want to admit it, but the USA has achieved a lot, the ruin is on fire, half the population hates Russia, on the border of the most probable adversary (Russia), a military conflict that draws a ton of resources, Europeans are already preparing money for rearmament and much more that works both for the US economy and for political interests. For this, they spent a penny that has already fought back.
  2. VICTOR-61
    VICTOR-61 9 September 2014 14: 12
    +5
    Smart words of Primakov
  3. vorobey
    vorobey 9 September 2014 14: 17
    +5
    I'm afraid now the screams will begin to merge again ..
    at first, too, such an opinion developed
    quote.
    Russia neither publicly nor "behind the scenes" supported the idea of ​​secession of the southeast from Ukraine. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that President Putin has appealed to postpone the referendum, which provided for the possibility of creating an independent state in southeastern Ukraine. This appeal was made at a time when the leaders of Donetsk and Lugansk insisted on an immediate referendum. Unfortunately, Putin's call was not heard. The President summed up Russia's position: "It is time to start substantive negotiations not on technical issues, but in essence to understand what rights the people of Donbass, Lugansk, and the entire southeast of Ukraine will have." From these words, as well as other indications, it is obvious that Russia did not dictate what the status of Ukraine should be as a result of internal Ukrainian negotiations.


    but ... recently flashed a comment ... which in the mass remained unnoticed nickname I do not remember ... I ask the author if he reads to respond ..

    a plus..

    perhaps this is what we are all missing out on a common action ...

    The comment said that we really do not need either the DNI or LC separately .. we need them as part of all of Ukraine, but as a friendly and fraternal state ..
    I apologize if I lied ... I just ask the author to repeat this idea and develop it.

    I myself shouted sawing, but in my opinion now our people took on a more difficult task .. to save Ukraine and make it close again.
    1. Agat
      Agat 9 September 2014 14: 25
      +2
      Comment is not mine! About the DPR and LPR as part of our friendly state, I read in early spring with some political scientist!
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 9 September 2014 14: 34
        +1
        Quote: Agat
        Comment is not mine!


        here, on the site, there was a comment by a participant in the discussion just the other day .. it is a pity that most of it went unnoticed ... I myself missed it without thinking twice ..
    2. Alibekulu
      Alibekulu 9 September 2014 14: 50
      -4
      Evgeny Primakov: In order to understand the reasons for the depth of such fears, I would like to quote the estimates and forecasts of Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, who with amazing accuracy presented what is now faced in Ukraine.
      Once we quote Solzhenitsyn, in Ukraine, it’s worth bringing (again) and this is his opinion:
      And about the Ukrainians (by the way, the so-called Westerners constituted the main driving force of the Kengir uprising) in the "Archipelago" it is written as if its author was dictating these lines nowadays: "We do not speak for a long time -" Ukrainian nationalists ", we speak only" Bandera ", and this word has become so abusive with us that no one even thinks to understand the essence. And the essence is that although once, in the Kiev period, we were a single people, but since then it has been torn apart, and for centuries our lives, habits, languages ​​have been moving apart and sideways ... Why are we so annoyed by Ukrainian nationalism, the desire of our brothers to speak and raise children, and write signs in their own language? Why are we so annoyed by their desire to separate? Extensive experience of friendly communication with the Ukrainians in the camps revealed to me how painful they were ... It will be extremely painful for Ukraine. But you need to know their overall intensity now. Once it has not been settled over the centuries, it means that it has fallen to show prudence to us. We are obliged to give the decision to ourselves - federalists or separatists, which of them will convince whom. Do not give in - madness and cruelty. And the softer, the more tolerant, the more explanatory we are now, the more hope there will be to restore unity in the future. Let them live, try. They will quickly feel that not all problems are solved by the department. ”
      .
      Quote: vorobey
      I myself shouted sawing, but in my opinion now our people took on a more difficult task .. to save Ukraine and make it close again.
      It’s too late to drink Borjomi ..
      As for Primakov, I already wrote, I think he would not have allowed in principle what happened in Ukraine ..
      As for the DPR and LPR, I recall a phrase from the Soviet film "Balamut": “Trouble, chairman, trouble! Students have harvested the whole harvest! Where, will we store it now? " request
      It is clear that the Kremlin, with the help of its "zaslanets", has stabilized the catastrophic situation in "Novorossiya" in military terms. But the main problem is what to do with this "victory" now. Novorossiya's project is another "white elephant". Like Crimea, this is a huge burden on the RF budget. Moreover, in a normal situation, as part of Ukraine, Donetsk was subsidized, then what can we say about the region destroyed by the war. Moreover, the region unrecognized by the world. And all the costs will have to be borne, you know who ...
      1. Good cat
        Good cat 9 September 2014 15: 53
        +6
        How do you know that Donetsk was subsidized ??? From ukroSMI?
      2. Fish supervision
        Fish supervision 9 September 2014 16: 57
        +2
        I have one question? How and why did all the clackers register on the same day, namely March 5, 2013? I’m not the first to see what
    3. Alfizik
      Alfizik 9 September 2014 23: 52
      +1
      Answer for vorobey
      Perhaps the comment you read was not mine, but I wrote in the same vein many times. There was no reaction. I repeat:
      Under no circumstances should we now strive for the secession of Novorossiya! Why Putin is pulling: Russia benefits, no matter how regrettable it may sound, instability in Ukraine. As long as instability exists, there is a chance to reconquer all of Ukraine. Separate Novorossiya - and it will immediately become the most terrible enemy. And for the Ukrainians and for the West. Go now the militia to Kiev - it will become the aggressor, which ... read the previous one. Only patience! The junta is weakening, Ukraine is weakening ... Who will the other "Russian" regions of Ukraine reach for? To New Russia, which Russia will somehow warm up. That is why the leaders of the DPR and LPR are now talking about preserving the border with Russia as a priority task for Novorossia. Why did Putin intervene when everything seemed to be heading towards victory? To avoid a lot: the toughest sanctions, the anger of Ukrainians from defeat and encroachments, a possible NATO military response. And now we have a new (perspective) cauldron - Mariupol, distraction of ukrovoysk, discontent of mothers and a huge minus for the West - uncertainty and unpredictability. Peter the Bloody hit, but he has not yet understood it. The world is already sobering up, and a terrible, unrecoverable hangover is just sneaking up on it. Patience and Faith! Putin has proved this more than once.
    4. Alfizik
      Alfizik 10 September 2014 00: 02
      +1
      Quote: vorobey
      but ... recently flashed a comment ... which in the mass remained unnoticed nickname I do not remember ... I ask the author if he reads to respond ..

      The answer is below for you from Alfizik
  4. Roman1970
    Roman1970 9 September 2014 14: 20
    0
    All this is sad, but, to be honest, it is already sore ... It’s clear now that Crimea is forever Russian, and also that Lugansk and Donetsk will never be part of Ukraine.
  5. mig31
    mig31 9 September 2014 14: 22
    +1
    No matter how Russia tries to break up with the Department of State in the world, the American business has already planned and partially implements a program for the next round of enrichment for the specially selected capitalists of the world economy ...
  6. Legeida
    Legeida 9 September 2014 14: 23
    +5
    I trust the words of Yevgeny Primakov. Wise, honest man.
  7. afdjhbn67
    afdjhbn67 9 September 2014 14: 25
    +8
    A wise man and a strong man. Like they didn’t pour mud, but turned the plane over the Atlantic, then American puppets ruled us, this was a man’s act, and now, thank God, the norm!
  8. Serge Mikhas
    Serge Mikhas 9 September 2014 14: 28
    +2
    Attention was drawn to the statement of Avakov, newly appointed by the Minister of Internal Affairs, that the leadership of his department would now include representatives of the Right Sector and Maidan’s self-defense.


    Looks like "SS" laurels haunt Avakov ... But his fate along with the Pravosek people will be the same. If they live ...

    German criminals from the concentration camp in Belsen, head of the concentration camp I. Kramer, chief doctor of the concentration camp F. Klein, head of the barracks P. Weingart and G. Kraft in the dock during the Nuremberg trials.
  9. gunter_laux
    gunter_laux 9 September 2014 14: 34
    +3
    March 16 held a referendum, in which voters from Crimea and Sevastopol took part. An absolute majority voted for the reunification of the Crimea with Russia.

    The fact of the reunion took place, this is well understood in Europe, but with full submission to the striped owners, they in every possible way deny the obvious!
  10. Naval
    Naval 9 September 2014 14: 39
    +1
    The truce will not lead to anything, only the victory of the militia, and the surrender of the junta, the third is not given. Only then will Crimea be able to sleep peacefully, and the Krasnodar Territory, Belgorod and Voronezh Regions will cease to be the goals of any nationalist parties. Everything else, this is a postponed conflict, until the time when Dill grow stronger and dare to revenge.
    1. vorobey
      vorobey 9 September 2014 14: 45
      +1
      Quote: Naval
      The truce will not lead to anything, only the victory of the militia, and the surrender of the junta, the third is not given. Only then will Crimea be able to sleep peacefully, and the Krasnodar Territory, Belgorod and Voronezh Regions will cease to be the goals of any nationalist parties. Everything else, this is a postponed conflict, until the time when Dill grow stronger and dare to revenge.


      And you look from the other side ... A truce has been achieved, the conflict has been localized, in my opinion, on the eve of winter, they will simply simply start stopping the tumor so that it either suffocates in the cauldron of internal turmoil or some cells gobble up the others .. consciousness then comes into society ... and then it is already possible not to surgically restore the whole body.
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker 9 September 2014 20: 52
        +3
        Quote: vorobey
        And you look from the other side ... A truce has been achieved, the conflict has been localized, in my opinion, on the eve of winter, they will simply simply start stopping the tumor so that it either suffocates in the cauldron of internal turmoil or some cells gobble up the others .. consciousness then comes into society ... and then it is already possible not to surgically restore the whole body.

        It is still very far from preventive therapy - the crisis is clearly not over yet, the process of "tissue decomposition" continues, the health of the "patient" is deteriorating. Only Mother Nature can help to finally heal from the infection of Bandera-Nazism by lowering the temperature. And after sitting in the semi-cold Ruin, with the transition to a severe financial diet in the spring, the situation itself will unfold in the opposite direction.
  11. frcdkfl047
    frcdkfl047 9 September 2014 14: 50
    +2
    More to us Primakov!
    1. zennon
      zennon 9 September 2014 17: 11
      -6
      Quote: frcdkfl047
      More to us Primakov!


      Not apart from what is happening in the south-east of Ukraine, but according to its own scenario, events developed in the Crimea, which, as we know, became a part of Ukraine without the will of the population.


      Yes? And did the whole southeast from Kharkov to Odessa become Khozlov’s by the will of the people? And is the author Evgeny Primakov, is this not the same as when he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs under EBNut?
      Who called in the 96th to give this very Crimea to the khozls? And here is his pearl:
      Now we must negotiate with all parties to the conflict, as if standing aside, respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine and at the same time trying to protect the rights and lives of people in the Donbass within the framework of “united Ukraine”.


      This one is now dressed as a patriot?! Khazel!
  12. 3vs
    3vs 9 September 2014 15: 01
    +2
    No, Evgeni Maksimovich, in one country these people will no longer live.
  13. Foxtrot-krim
    Foxtrot-krim 9 September 2014 15: 42
    +3
    Primakov, as always, explained everything simply and intelligibly. The article is a long one, but the sequence of what is happening cannot be explained in shorter.
  14. saag
    saag 9 September 2014 16: 02
    0
    "... This conclusion reinforces the fact that President Putin's appeal to postpone the referendum, which provided for the possibility of creating an independent state in southeastern Ukraine. This appeal was made at a time when the leaders of Donetsk and Lugansk insisted on an immediate referendum. Unfortunately, Putin's appeal was not heard. "

    Ah, Yevgeny Maksimovich, you must have lost sight of the fact that this very call of Putin was made right after the conversation with Didier Burkhalter, and not before her, why is it interesting?
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. 23424636
    23424636 9 September 2014 17: 59
    +2
    Quote: Alibekulu
    Donetsk was subsidized,
    you did not understand the essence of this process, simply when the boys eat black caviar with centners and it is extracted with kilograms, this is not a subsidy. Under Yeltsin, Primakov was an inde minister and, of course, knew and allowed the development of Ukraine by robbing Russian gas - he untied the dog. given to feed her neighbors and now when you bind she bites and you're talking about Solzhenitsynv ...
  17. gen-48
    gen-48 9 September 2014 19: 11
    +2
    The further fate of New Russia can be very sad. The creatures will rest a little more, the other creatures will throw something useful and we will not hear about any other peaceful plans. Or we them or they us. But if there is something from above, God forbid to see New Russia independent.
  18. Indifferent
    Indifferent 9 September 2014 21: 57
    0
    The future will show that the war will have to continue. That's just the militia forces will be in an advantageous position. And how the battles go on will depend heavily on Russia. Support, then New Russia will be freed from the fascist yoke. No, that means Crimea will be next!
  19. ivanovich
    ivanovich 9 September 2014 22: 04
    +1
    The third stage of mobilization in Ukraine has ended. This was announced at a briefing broadcast by 112 Ukraine TV channel, the head of the National Security and Defense Council Information Center, Andrey Lysenko, said.


    Ahead of a new murder! Look through the eyes of Poroshenko on the military map of Donbass, what he sees: almost 70% of the territory under the control of his army, reserves are tightened, the number of troops exceeds 2-3 times the militias, NATO supplies, the EU and the USA are on his side, well, how can you not start a new offensive and to crush the center of resistance? wouldn't you do that?
    I think now there will be that very turning point in the war, nor I want to write in a capricious spirit, I hope only that our powerful people will render all the necessary assistance to the people's republics in this fierce confrontation ..... and blessed memory to all the fallen militias!
  20. skeptic2999
    skeptic2999 10 September 2014 00: 07
    +1
    Evgeny Maksimovich in his analysis of already happened events is correct and adequate. But I did not see his forecast for future events. Meanwhile, in the title of the article there was an application for such an assessment - Ukraine: difficult today and difficult tomorrow. Or was the name given by moderators, not Primakov?