So leaked or not leaked?
For a year now, even more, the Russian public has been tormented by the question: has it leaked or not? And more than a year can not find a definite answer.
And it is not possible to find a definite answer because a strict criterion is not defined. It is not defined what is meant by the term "leaked". As a result, everyone assesses the situation in his own way and comes to his own conclusion, on which he stands firmly, he does not perceive the arguments of his opponents, but he himself cannot prove his case.
When there is no common criterion, a common assessment system, one can argue endlessly. In the absence of a common criterion, everyone approaches the question completely subjectively, and tastes begin. And where one claims to see a masterpiece, the other swears that he sees daub with shit on toilet paper and solid material damage.
So what is the "plum" criterion? Is there anyway?
The shelling of Donetsk, which has been going on for a whole year, is it a sink or not? Or is it a necessary sacrifice to change the power in Kiev, and maybe even in Washington?
The surrender of Slavyansk is a drain or a regrouping of forces?
Minsk agreements - treacherous collusion or a subtle diplomatic move?
It’s impossible to come to an unequivocal answer today for the simple reason that a war (and this is a war) is fought not for Donetsk alone, not even for the whole Donbass and not even for Ukraine. The war is fought for the future of Russia, and for the future of Ukraine, and in part even for the future of Europe.
From the outcome of this war depends on what will be the relations between Russia, Ukraine, Europe and the United States. And not only relations, but also the power, economy, political system of Russia and Ukraine depend on the outcome of this war.
It may turn out that in Russia and / or Ukraine there will be a coup, and maybe even a revolution. It may turn so that a big European war will unfold.
There are a lot of options for the development of events, and these events will not end tomorrow or in a month or even in a year.
Therefore, a more or less unambiguous assessment of all the actions of the Kremlin can be made only after many years, looking into the past and tracing the relationship of events. And it will be necessary to evaluate not only the external manifestations of the decisions made, but also the secret materials, the work of the special services, about which we now know a little less than nothing.
After many years, when historians will have access to most of the materials, they will be able to answer the question of who worked for what intelligence, with whom and in what relations he was, what he received for his treachery and why he acted that way.
However, even historians after many years may not always come to an unequivocal assessment of events. A striking example is the 1917 revolution of the year. In Soviet times, it was served as a victory for the Bolsheviks. And now they are increasingly talking about the defeat of Russia because of the betrayal and the actions of foreign agents.
And all because again there is no evaluation criterion. That's what it would be if Russia stayed in 1917, a bourgeois state? Unknown. There are no technologies that allow you to calculate how it would be otherwise.
But after all the time, we can appreciate something.
So, we already know what the abdication of Nicholas II led to - the loss of power by the house of the Romanovs, the fall of the monarchy in Russia and the revolution. For the Russian monarchy and the Romanov dynasty, this is an unequivocal defeat, with no options. You can quite qualify as a "plum". Merged Romanov.
Similarly, the events of 1917 of the year can be described as a defeat of the Russian aristocracy as a whole. The aristocracy has degenerated. Merged. This, of course, did not happen on one day, the degeneration was a long-term process, but it was - this is a fact.
I lead to the fact that on the scale of the whole of Russia, of its entire stories - it is very difficult to define an event as positive and negative.
It happens that even defeats turn into positive changes, because they lead to the realization of mistakes, rethinking and reviving the state and nation.
No wonder there is a saying "There would be no happiness, but misfortune helped." Sometimes it happens that way.
A revolution would not have happened, the Bolsheviks would not have come to power - and it’s not a fact that bourgeois Russia would have won the Second World War.
Khrushchev would not have come to power - a very controversial man, with a lot of flaws, but also a fan of rocket technology - and it is not known whether the Soviet Union would first go into space or not. That's how much to prove that Khrushchev is bad, but his passion for rocket technology is a fact. And to prove that any other leader would have thrown on the rocket science those resources that Khrushchev had thrown cannot be. Unprovable.
But we digress.
Let's go back to the question, leaked or not leaked.
We will not be able to determine whether it has merged or not merged on the scale of the entire Russian history. In any case, not now. But this does not mean that we cannot determine anything at all.
We can determine local successes and failures. What they will lead to in the future is a difficult and very controversial question. But to answer the question "leaked or not leaked" with the localization of time and place can be quite.
Let's give it a try. In order.
Maidan
Why did the maidan happen? Because it was organized. Who organized? Oligarchs dissatisfied with the policy of Yanukovich with the support of the US State Department with the involvement of Ukrainian nationalists.
Of course, the people of Ukraine were also not satisfied with the policy of Yanukovych, but not to such an extent as to make a "revolution from below." This is proved by the fact that after the arrival of Poroshenko, the situation has deteriorated further, but there is still no third Maidan.
Maidan was organized, and not popular action. The people acted as an observer, and some, very few, less than 1% - as extras, extras.
But was Maidan useful for Russia and the Russian people?
In the current segment of the story - no.
Hence the question: why in Ukraine, the former Russian territory, which remains one of the largest and most important neighbors, on whose territory millions of Russians live, is the geopolitical opponent of Russia (USA) successful in organizing coups against the interests of Russia and the Russian people?
You can put the question even more specifically: why did Washington drive 5 billions into Ukraine (according to his own estimates) and gain control of Ukraine, while Russia rolled around 200 billions (according to the Prime Minister) and lose control?
Logically, on the contrary, Russia should have kept control over Ukraine at minimal cost, because millions of Russians live there, including the former military of the Soviet army and the KGB officers, they speak Russian, and Russia has extensive family and economic ties. Everything was in favor of Russia, just manage the competently available resource and keep control. But it turned out very differently, it turned out the opposite ...
What is this - betrayal or stupidity?
This is the result of an illiterate foreign policy.
Those 200 billions that Dmitry Medvedev counted for were not sent to the Ukrainian people, and especially not to the pro-Russian forces — they went to the pockets of the oligarchs, including those opposed to Russia. Discounts on gas, loans, investments, orders — all this was cut by the Ukrainian bourgeoisie. But will the bourgeoisie be grateful for this to Russia? Of course not. The bourgeoisie does what is profitable; gratitude is not about it. In this case, it was profitable to get gas at a discount while flirting with the West. So they did. All in the spirit of the bourgeoisie.
As a result, the 200 billions spent by Russia did not go on strengthening its influence in Ukraine, but on the contrary. And some of this money went directly to anti-Russian projects, including the Maidan.
But the United States acted smarter-they gave money to ideological nationalists, Russophobes and financed specific projects. The United States did not pour money in the calculation of "maybe love it," they paid specific people for specific work, paid for solving their problems.
The result - Maidan.
So merged the Kremlin or not merged?
No, not merged. Banal profukal. Trade.
The largest divided people
Remember those wonderful words about the largest divided people, said on the day of the annexation of the Crimea?
The people took these words as a signal for reunification.
And how else should the people interpret this?
Ah, it turns out the Kremlin did not mean it ... It turns out that this applied only to the Crimea ...
Specific boys (and Putin - he's a particular kid) in such cases, they say: the market should be monitored. Moreover, the speech was read out on paper. And prepared in advance. We had to think in advance about how these words would be perceived in the context of the entire political situation in the south-east of Ukraine. It was necessary to understand that millions of Russians live not only in Crimea, but also in Donetsk, Kharkov, Odessa, even in Kiev.
And if it has already been said, then in this case another principle operates: it is necessary to answer for the market.
Said? Answer me.
You can not - a decent officer in such cases is supposed to shoot himself, but this does not apply to Putin, who violated the oath at the time and committed the act of treason. Therefore, he can only resign. But that is if he was a decent leader. And since he is not a decent leader, and indeed a decent person, all that remains is to count ...
No, do not drain.
It is not a drain, it is a deception of the people, the formation of false expectations, a deception of people's expectations, betrayal, inability and unwillingness to answer for their own words.
And in sum with the actions of Kiev, this provoked a war.
Thus, the Kremlin acted as a provocateur of war, like Kiev. Was this provocation conscious or not - to whom is this easier?
Protection of the south-east of Ukraine
It was such a remarkable statement by the president, which can be briefly formulated as "we will not give an offense to the east." If anyone dares, the president said, we reserve the right to use forces and means.
Was it said? It was.
Who pulled the tongue? No one pulled.
Promised? Do it!
Actually these words can be applied to all the above about speech about the largest divided people. The people understood these words quite unequivocally and, together with the phrase about the largest divided people, interpreted as a signal to action. Like, you act, and Russia, if anything, will cover, support, protect, help ...
You can add to this and specially issued in the Federation Council permission to use the armed forces on the territory of Ukraine. Which also gave many a reason to believe that Russia will protect the Donbass. And do not say that this permission applies only to the Crimea. If it only concerned the Crimea, it should have been mentioned not Ukraine at all, but specifically Crimea. In addition, it should be canceled immediately after the inclusion of the Crimea into Russia, the next day. And everyone would understand what was happening.
Leaked? No, not merged.
Just sbrehnul. He promised - and in the bushes. Head in the sand. I'm not me, not my cow. My leave the right to apply the troops, my troops, my right, I want to apply, I do not want to apply, what a peacock-mavlin? You do not see - we eat ...
Donbass referendum
Remember the request of the President of Russia to cancel the referendum?
And this after the Kremlin strongly supported the referendum in the Crimea and sounded through all channels what a wonderful democratic procedure, the most democratic in the world, realizing the people’s right to self-determination!
Inconsistent happened ...
This is called territorial discrimination. The same discrimination for which the Kremlin itself condemns others. And then he deals with this discrimination himself.
And most importantly - no explanation followed. After all, there was no explanation for him why the referendum in the Donbass should not be held. Just do not spend, that's all. And why?
Well, explain why - then, perhaps, the people will understand and agree. And there was no explanation. Just was not. And all because the reason - the benefit of the Kremlin. The referendum in the Crimea was profitable, and the referendum in the Donbass is no longer. And it is open to state that the Kremlin is engaged in banal businesses, and wanted to put democracy on a high bell tower, - the president could not say that. Therefore, simply, without explanation, asked to cancel.
Although you could declare that Russia does not recognize the results, that the LDNR republics will remain unrecognized, like Transnistria, perhaps this would have affected the situation. But even this the Kremlin did not dare, so as not to cause an uproar in Russian society.
And yet - such things are not done three days before the referendum. If from the very beginning they declared that the referendum is undesirable, then, perhaps, they would not have been prepared for it at all. With individual politicians, such as Tsarev, Pushilin, and Borodai, the issue could be solved informally. No, not decided.
But as a result of a public request to cancel the referendum, the Kremlin received a beautiful excuse: "We asked you."
Is it drained or not?
No, this is not a drain. Just discrimination against the Russian people and unforgivable meanness.
Slavyansk
Who sent Strelkov with a group of fighters to gain a foothold in Slavyansk is a difficult question, and we will not know the answer soon. For a variety of signs, Strelkova was not sent by the Kremlin, not by the FSB or the Ministry of Defense. But it's not that.
The fact is that Slavyansk was somehow controlled by the Strelkov detachment for a very long time. And if the so-called “north wind” blew not in August, but in June, not only Donetsk itself would be under the control of the BCH, but also Slavyansk.
This means that in the case of a truce similar to that of Minsk, now the Armed Forces of Ukraine would have fired not at Donetsk, but of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.
On the one hand, the shelling of Slavyansk for its inhabitants would be no better than the shelling of Donetsk for its citizens. But on the other hand, Slavyansk is still ten times less, which means it would be easier to evacuate. It was possible to evacuate the whole Slavyansk at all, for that matter.
And yet, if they had not retreated from Slavyansk, then several boilers would not have happened. Debaltseve and a number of other settlements would remain whole.
In general, losses on either side would almost certainly be substantially less.
And after all, what is interesting is that all the same, Russian troops had to use, to supply equipment and ammunition. They only did it after the abandonment of Slavyansk, when Riflemen, instead of dying there, as promised, went to Donetsk.
And why? Why exactly?
Why was there no military support before the release of Strelkov from Slavyansk and only then it appeared when the millionth Donetsk instead of the one hundred thousandth Slavyansk appeared under the threat of street fighting and destruction?
Is it a drain or not a drain?
No, this is not a drain. This is a failed plum. They thought that the Strelkov would die, they would put a candle on it and quietly forget about Novorossia with the words "they wanted, but could not defend their independence." But it did not work ...
And to Strelkov not sat down for another three months in Donetsk, and he could, and no one knows what it would lead to - that's why they agreed that Strelkov will transfer control of troops to Russian specialists, and for this the BCH will receive weapon and support vacationers.
Drain? No, do not drain.
This is not a drain, it is an attempt to take control of the situation in order to implement it later ...
Minsk collusion
To assess the Minsk agreements, it suffices to recall how the conflict in the Donbas began. It began with the proclamation of the independence of the DNI and the LC and the referendum.
And for what did the Pitmen fought first by political methods, and then with weapons in their hands?
Fought for independence.
And what is spelled out in the Minsk agreements?
The Minsk agreements spelled out the special status of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions within Ukraine.
The result of the implementation of the Minsk agreements should be the special status of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions! As part of Ukraine! It is written in black and white. Not even autonomy, but simply an area. About independence and not talking. The same areas as before, only with a special status, which the region is endowed with by Kiev and which, if desired, the same Kiev can then be canceled at any time when it gains control over the border and territory of the regions.
Thus, what will receive the LC and the DPR if the Minsk agreements are implemented? The elimination of the LC and the DPR as republics and the special status of the regions, which can be canceled at any time.
By and large, Donetsk and Lugansk will not receive anything from the Minsk agreements for which they fought.
The question arises: why did they fight?
For returning to Ukraine in the previous form? So it was not required to fight for it, it was enough just to surrender.
Is it drained or not?
No, this is not a drain. For the simple reason that the Minsk agreements are not implemented and most likely will never be implemented, because Kiev itself is not interested in them. This means that the drain did not work. But if the Minsk agreements were implemented, there would be a real drain - that is, the rejection of everything that we fought for.
We agreed in Minsk about merging. It just didn't work out. For a variety of reasons.
At the same time, one should not forget that the lack of progress in the implementation of the “Minsk plum” in practice looks like daily shelling of Donetsk, Gorlovka and other settlements. Moreover, on some days, the intensity of the attacks approaches the level of full-fledged hostilities.
That is, they wanted to merge, to merge did not work, but it turned out to organize shelling of Donetsk, Gorlovka and other settlements.
No, this is not a drain.
Only the question still arises why the line of confrontation runs so close to Donetsk? Why neither in September of last year, nor in February, it was impossible to move the APU to 30-50 kilometers further, so that shelling of Donetsk became impossible?
And do not say that there was not enough power and resources to move the position of the Ukrainian Armed Forces further from Donetsk. There was enough strength for several boilers, but not enough for one more? Holiday makers over? Or shells in Russian warehouses? Nothing like that. It was just necessary to force Donetsk somehow to fulfill the Minsk agreements. And the best coercion - constant shelling. The principle is simple - return to Ukraine, the shelling will stop.
But this is not draining.
No one leaked.
It was just that at first they profiled Ukraine, they bargained with the traitors, then they oversold, brained the people, raised them for the struggle for independence, hid themselves in the bushes, waited for the Riflemen with the brigade to die and the APU would clean up the Donbass, it didn't work, then they started to take control of the situation , replaced Strelkov and local commanders with reliable people, put a puppet government, pushed treacherous agreements in Minsk aimed at putting the LDNR under Kiev’s control in the form of areas with some abstract "special status "(I emphasize - it is written in black and white in the official document with the signature of the Russian side), but ... it failed again. It turned out only to leave Donetsk under fire on the verge of the next stage of the war ...
Leaked or not leaked?
No, not merged. I just could not. Even this could not.
Here is such a cool boy and a great ruler.
He bolted for a whole war, added up to an armed conflict, then he was afraid to enter, then he introduced him, but he was afraid to admit, but now he can’t bring out even worse ... He brought Russia to sanctions and a hybrid war with Ukraine, Donbass before the open war and blockade, and Donetsk put under execution ...
But nothing leaked to anyone.
True, not merged?
Information