Ukrainian politics of the last days. Savchenko, the radicals and the search for "nuclear weapons"
The release of Nadezhda Savchenko, which became one of the most notorious events of May 2016, to some extent can be considered significant. This action led to a noticeable “revival” of political life in Ukraine, since it changed the balance of power in the country. First, the Ukrainian radicals from the so-called “street opposition” became more active. Secondly, Ukrainian politicians holding important posts in the government and the Verkhovna Rada began to make “loud” statements. Of course, in the past, Ukrainian politicians made not entirely adequate statements, but now their number and frequency have clearly increased.
One of the first was made by Petro Poroshenko himself, who did not fail to emphasize in his speech devoted to the meeting Savchenko: "As we returned Hope, so we will return the Donbass and the Crimea." However, for Poroshenko, these words are more likely to be on duty, since the Ukrainian president simply cannot fail to mention ingloriously lost territories. At the same time, many Ukrainian politicians, as we see, really took Savchenko’s release, which was a manifestation of humanism and concern for the exchange of Russian citizens, for a kind of “weakness” that allows for “pushing” and other indulgences for the Kiev regime. Simultaneously with the confidence in their capabilities, the level of general aggressiveness of the Kiev regime is growing. With the warlike statements, however, so far all the same persons speak.
30 May 2016 The press service of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDC) issued a statement by Council Secretary Oleksandr Turchynov. The politician, known for his active participation in Euromaidan and subsequent aggressive remarks against Russia, said that the situation in the Donbas could again develop into full-scale hostilities. This statement Alexander Turchinov made at a meeting with the chairman of the Lithuanian Seimas Loreta Grauzhinene. Secretary of the National Security Council of Ukraine still expects to receive military-technical assistance from NATO countries. Turchinov admitted that at present Ukraine is not able to cover its needs in all types of weapons, so the West should help it. In turn, the speaker of the Lithuanian Seym again promised Ukraine full support from Lithuania in the desire of the “Square” to become a “full member of Europe.” True, the “European heavyweights” doubt this, moreover, doubts about the need to continue to adhere to the policy of anti-Russian sanctions are growing in European countries. Therefore, the words of Turchinov appear rather addressed to the domestic consumer - the militant part of the Ukrainian society.
Another Ukrainian leader, Andrei Biletsky, made an even more impressive proposal. Recall that this person is not only a deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, but also commands the notorious Azov regiment. On May 20, 2016, Biletsky brought several thousand heated young radicals to the streets of Kiev, who demanded an immediate breakdown of the Minsk agreements and the resumption of hostilities in the Donbass. Recall that Biletsky is one of the veterans of the Ukrainian nationalist movement. Despite the fact that he is only 37 years old, Biletsky’s participation in the Ukrainian nationalist movement is approaching two decades. In 2001, he graduated with honors historical Faculty of Kharkiv National University. V.N. Karazin and even then his thesis was devoted to the Ukrainian rebel army. Then Biletsky actively participated in mass protests of Ukrainian nationalists and even came under administrative arrest. Then he became the leader of such right-wing organizations as the Patriot of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly, and
September 17 2014 became commander of the Azov regiment. In the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Andrei Biletsky is the Deputy Head of the Rada Committee on National Security and Defense, and is also a member of the inter-parliamentary relations group with Georgia, the United Kingdom, Israel, the United States, Poland and Lithuania. Thus, despite its ultra-radical views, Biletsky is a rather significant figure in Ukraine. Moreover, it can be considered as one of the leaders of the radical wing of Ukrainian nationalists, which today is putting pressure on the Poroshenko regime in order to change the policy in the Donbas and in relation to the “Crimean issue”. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the bellicose statements of Biletsky and on the nuclear potential of Ukraine.
Biletsky called on the Ukrainian authorities to create their own nuclear weapon. According to Biletsky, if Ukraine restores its nuclear potential, then the threats of neighboring states will not be terrible for it (the allusion to Russia is obvious). And the United States of America will no longer have any need for asking for anti-tank missile systems. By the way, Biletsky stressed that the United States does not have the right to demand that Ukraine renounce possession of nuclear weapons, since they themselves in the 1990s contributed to the destruction of the nuclear potential of the Ukrainian state. Interestingly, the commander of "Azov" is confident that the Ukrainian state will be able, if necessary, to recreate the nuclear potential of the country in almost six months. On the website of the President of Ukraine Poroshenko, a petition appeared demanding the restoration of the nuclear status of the Ukrainian state. The petition appeared on Monday 30 May. The process of collecting signatures is marked at ninety-two days. Recall that the former presidents of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma also spoke in favor of Ukraine’s withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Thus, they showed that even such high-ranking people at one time agreed with the opinion of the Kiev ultra-radicals.
It is significant that as early as March of this year, the head of the Radical Party of Ukraine, Oleg Lyashko, came up with the idea of rebuilding nuclear weapons in Ukraine. He also stressed that Kiev has all the possibilities for renewing the nuclear potential. The truth is, where a country that cannot even feed and clothe the army units, will find the means to build nuclear weapons is not very clear. Moreover, neither the United States nor the European Union will support this idea - they do not at all want such a weapon to be in the hands of an unstable Kiev regime. Rose Gotmüller twenty-two years ago, back in the year 1994, was the US representative in the negotiations on Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament. In 2014, twenty years after the talks, she gave an interview to the “European Truth” publication, in which, in particular, she emphasized the correctness of ridding Ukraine of nuclear weapons. “If nuclear weapons inherited from the USSR remained in Ukraine, it would have continued to be a source of instability and conflicts throughout the Eurasian region for 20 years,” Gotmüller said in an interview with reporters from European Truth. Further, the American official directly emphasized that if Ukraine today wants to follow the path of resuming the creation of nuclear weapons, then it is awaited by the fate of Iran or North Korea.
It should be recalled that Ukraine got rid of nuclear weapons on its own, already being a sovereign state. And can this nuclear weapon be considered Ukrainian? After all, it was developed in the Soviet Union, was part of the Soviet defense system. If modern Ukraine considers its Soviet past as a period of occupation, does it have the moral right to say that the weapons of the alleged "occupiers" belong to itself? Moreover, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, agreements were reached on Ukraine's renunciation of nuclear weapons. And these agreements were concluded not without the active participation of the very United States of America, from which modern Kiev requires support, including military-technical support. In December 1994, representatives of Ukraine, together with Russia, the United States, and Great Britain, signed the Budapest Memorandum, according to which Ukraine joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1996 as a country that does not possess its own nuclear weapons. Throughout the crisis years of the 1990s, Ukraine has diligently rid itself of strategic aviation and cruise missiles, since they did not have the material and organizational capabilities of maintaining and servicing such weapons. A part of the country's nuclear weapons was transferred to the Russian Federation, another part was disposed of. In addition, publications periodically appeared in the media about the possible transfer of Ukrainian weapons to “third” countries, among which, most often, were the DPRK and Iran. However, this information remained unconfirmed.
On the other hand, the Ukrainian side itself is in panic afraid of the presence of nuclear weapons in Russia. Sometimes this fear goes into outright paranoia. So, back in January, Alexander Turchinov said that Russia threatens Ukraine with its own missiles. 30 in May 2016 with the next loud statement was made by the Central Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. His representative, Vadim Skibitsky, said that the Russian Federation allegedly was practicing the use of nuclear weapons, and not just anywhere, but directly on the Crimea peninsula. Why conduct such exercises on the resort peninsula, which, moreover, is very often visited by Russian high officials, the Ukrainian military did not say. But Skibitsky reported that allegedly the use of nuclear weapons is regularly practiced in military exercises. There is one more thing. After the free expression of the will of its inhabitants, the Crimea peninsula became part of Russian territory, and, consequently, Russian troops can be deployed there with their own weapons. In addition, the aggressive policy of the Ukrainian authorities simply makes it necessary for the Russian armed forces units on the peninsula: land, naval and air.
Meanwhile, back in 2014, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Valery Geletey directly accused Russia of using tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Donbass, although there was no reason for that. Nevertheless, at that time, the Ukrainian and many Western mass media gladly replicated such statements without even thinking about their authenticity. In the end, if someone used nuclear weapons against the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the course of the armed conflict in the Donbass would be fundamentally different, and it is possible that in Kiev already in the same 2014 year there would be a completely different political regime. Therefore, such statements by Ukrainian politicians can only be perceived as provocative statements aimed at inciting anti-Russian sentiments.
Recently, worried about the possible easing of sanctions against Russia by the European Union and the leaders of the Crimean Tatar nationalist organizations. So, Mustafa Dzhemilev declared that the European Union can give in and weaken sanctions. At the same time, Dzhemilev stressed that he did not consider it necessary to have an armed solution to the “Crimean issue”. Obviously, Mustafa Dzhemilev, who is familiar with the real mood in the Crimea, understands that if he also speaks in favor of starting a war, he will completely lose his influence even among that part of the Crimean Tatar public that is in Ukraine and is cool towards the reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation.
The overall intensification of political forces of the most varied sense in Ukraine is connected, among other things, with the return of Savchenko, which promises some changes in the current political situation, which, it is likely, will also affect the situation in the Donbas. Of course, the return of Nadezhda Savchenko to Ukraine was another trump card for those Ukrainian forces who have long been “sharpening their teeth" on President Petro Poroshenko and the bureaucratic and oligarchic clans associated with him. Savchenko’s “Honest Officer” is an ideal figure for them that can be used for political purposes, including in order, if not to “dump” Petro Poroshenko, then at least create additional problems for him.
It is noteworthy that although Nadezhda Savchenko is “raising to the shield” volunteer battalions, yesterday’s prisoner herself is acting from more moderate positions. Since Savchenko is actively supported by Yulia Tymoshenko’s “Batkivshchyna” party, from which she received the deputy’s mandate, her appearance promises an increase in this particular political force. It is possible to predict the weakening and so precarious positions of support Poroshenko. It is likely that Ukrainian nationalists will take advantage of the media reason for the release of Savchenko for the next buildup of the political situation in the country. To do this, they do not forget about their favorite methods, above all - about provocative statements against Russia, including arguments about nuclear weapons, which look, to put it mildly, ridiculously.
Of course, Poroshenko and his entourage will try to prevent Savchenko from becoming a political figure threatening the system that has taken shape in Ukraine. And here the above-mentioned demarches of Ukrainian radicals, which create an unfavorable impression of Ukraine from “American and European partners”, are not at all in the topic. Petro Poroshenko is not at all profitable new round of conflict in the Donbas, because it threatens his political positions and may damage the preservation of power. Accordingly, the confrontation with the radical opposition will continue. It is very interesting what role Nadezhda Savchenko herself will play in it.
One of the first was made by Petro Poroshenko himself, who did not fail to emphasize in his speech devoted to the meeting Savchenko: "As we returned Hope, so we will return the Donbass and the Crimea." However, for Poroshenko, these words are more likely to be on duty, since the Ukrainian president simply cannot fail to mention ingloriously lost territories. At the same time, many Ukrainian politicians, as we see, really took Savchenko’s release, which was a manifestation of humanism and concern for the exchange of Russian citizens, for a kind of “weakness” that allows for “pushing” and other indulgences for the Kiev regime. Simultaneously with the confidence in their capabilities, the level of general aggressiveness of the Kiev regime is growing. With the warlike statements, however, so far all the same persons speak.
30 May 2016 The press service of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDC) issued a statement by Council Secretary Oleksandr Turchynov. The politician, known for his active participation in Euromaidan and subsequent aggressive remarks against Russia, said that the situation in the Donbas could again develop into full-scale hostilities. This statement Alexander Turchinov made at a meeting with the chairman of the Lithuanian Seimas Loreta Grauzhinene. Secretary of the National Security Council of Ukraine still expects to receive military-technical assistance from NATO countries. Turchinov admitted that at present Ukraine is not able to cover its needs in all types of weapons, so the West should help it. In turn, the speaker of the Lithuanian Seym again promised Ukraine full support from Lithuania in the desire of the “Square” to become a “full member of Europe.” True, the “European heavyweights” doubt this, moreover, doubts about the need to continue to adhere to the policy of anti-Russian sanctions are growing in European countries. Therefore, the words of Turchinov appear rather addressed to the domestic consumer - the militant part of the Ukrainian society. Another Ukrainian leader, Andrei Biletsky, made an even more impressive proposal. Recall that this person is not only a deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, but also commands the notorious Azov regiment. On May 20, 2016, Biletsky brought several thousand heated young radicals to the streets of Kiev, who demanded an immediate breakdown of the Minsk agreements and the resumption of hostilities in the Donbass. Recall that Biletsky is one of the veterans of the Ukrainian nationalist movement. Despite the fact that he is only 37 years old, Biletsky’s participation in the Ukrainian nationalist movement is approaching two decades. In 2001, he graduated with honors historical Faculty of Kharkiv National University. V.N. Karazin and even then his thesis was devoted to the Ukrainian rebel army. Then Biletsky actively participated in mass protests of Ukrainian nationalists and even came under administrative arrest. Then he became the leader of such right-wing organizations as the Patriot of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly, and
September 17 2014 became commander of the Azov regiment. In the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Andrei Biletsky is the Deputy Head of the Rada Committee on National Security and Defense, and is also a member of the inter-parliamentary relations group with Georgia, the United Kingdom, Israel, the United States, Poland and Lithuania. Thus, despite its ultra-radical views, Biletsky is a rather significant figure in Ukraine. Moreover, it can be considered as one of the leaders of the radical wing of Ukrainian nationalists, which today is putting pressure on the Poroshenko regime in order to change the policy in the Donbas and in relation to the “Crimean issue”. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the bellicose statements of Biletsky and on the nuclear potential of Ukraine.
Biletsky called on the Ukrainian authorities to create their own nuclear weapon. According to Biletsky, if Ukraine restores its nuclear potential, then the threats of neighboring states will not be terrible for it (the allusion to Russia is obvious). And the United States of America will no longer have any need for asking for anti-tank missile systems. By the way, Biletsky stressed that the United States does not have the right to demand that Ukraine renounce possession of nuclear weapons, since they themselves in the 1990s contributed to the destruction of the nuclear potential of the Ukrainian state. Interestingly, the commander of "Azov" is confident that the Ukrainian state will be able, if necessary, to recreate the nuclear potential of the country in almost six months. On the website of the President of Ukraine Poroshenko, a petition appeared demanding the restoration of the nuclear status of the Ukrainian state. The petition appeared on Monday 30 May. The process of collecting signatures is marked at ninety-two days. Recall that the former presidents of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma also spoke in favor of Ukraine’s withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Thus, they showed that even such high-ranking people at one time agreed with the opinion of the Kiev ultra-radicals.
It is significant that as early as March of this year, the head of the Radical Party of Ukraine, Oleg Lyashko, came up with the idea of rebuilding nuclear weapons in Ukraine. He also stressed that Kiev has all the possibilities for renewing the nuclear potential. The truth is, where a country that cannot even feed and clothe the army units, will find the means to build nuclear weapons is not very clear. Moreover, neither the United States nor the European Union will support this idea - they do not at all want such a weapon to be in the hands of an unstable Kiev regime. Rose Gotmüller twenty-two years ago, back in the year 1994, was the US representative in the negotiations on Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament. In 2014, twenty years after the talks, she gave an interview to the “European Truth” publication, in which, in particular, she emphasized the correctness of ridding Ukraine of nuclear weapons. “If nuclear weapons inherited from the USSR remained in Ukraine, it would have continued to be a source of instability and conflicts throughout the Eurasian region for 20 years,” Gotmüller said in an interview with reporters from European Truth. Further, the American official directly emphasized that if Ukraine today wants to follow the path of resuming the creation of nuclear weapons, then it is awaited by the fate of Iran or North Korea.
It should be recalled that Ukraine got rid of nuclear weapons on its own, already being a sovereign state. And can this nuclear weapon be considered Ukrainian? After all, it was developed in the Soviet Union, was part of the Soviet defense system. If modern Ukraine considers its Soviet past as a period of occupation, does it have the moral right to say that the weapons of the alleged "occupiers" belong to itself? Moreover, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, agreements were reached on Ukraine's renunciation of nuclear weapons. And these agreements were concluded not without the active participation of the very United States of America, from which modern Kiev requires support, including military-technical support. In December 1994, representatives of Ukraine, together with Russia, the United States, and Great Britain, signed the Budapest Memorandum, according to which Ukraine joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1996 as a country that does not possess its own nuclear weapons. Throughout the crisis years of the 1990s, Ukraine has diligently rid itself of strategic aviation and cruise missiles, since they did not have the material and organizational capabilities of maintaining and servicing such weapons. A part of the country's nuclear weapons was transferred to the Russian Federation, another part was disposed of. In addition, publications periodically appeared in the media about the possible transfer of Ukrainian weapons to “third” countries, among which, most often, were the DPRK and Iran. However, this information remained unconfirmed.
On the other hand, the Ukrainian side itself is in panic afraid of the presence of nuclear weapons in Russia. Sometimes this fear goes into outright paranoia. So, back in January, Alexander Turchinov said that Russia threatens Ukraine with its own missiles. 30 in May 2016 with the next loud statement was made by the Central Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. His representative, Vadim Skibitsky, said that the Russian Federation allegedly was practicing the use of nuclear weapons, and not just anywhere, but directly on the Crimea peninsula. Why conduct such exercises on the resort peninsula, which, moreover, is very often visited by Russian high officials, the Ukrainian military did not say. But Skibitsky reported that allegedly the use of nuclear weapons is regularly practiced in military exercises. There is one more thing. After the free expression of the will of its inhabitants, the Crimea peninsula became part of Russian territory, and, consequently, Russian troops can be deployed there with their own weapons. In addition, the aggressive policy of the Ukrainian authorities simply makes it necessary for the Russian armed forces units on the peninsula: land, naval and air.
Meanwhile, back in 2014, the Minister of Defense of Ukraine Valery Geletey directly accused Russia of using tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Donbass, although there was no reason for that. Nevertheless, at that time, the Ukrainian and many Western mass media gladly replicated such statements without even thinking about their authenticity. In the end, if someone used nuclear weapons against the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the course of the armed conflict in the Donbass would be fundamentally different, and it is possible that in Kiev already in the same 2014 year there would be a completely different political regime. Therefore, such statements by Ukrainian politicians can only be perceived as provocative statements aimed at inciting anti-Russian sentiments.
Recently, worried about the possible easing of sanctions against Russia by the European Union and the leaders of the Crimean Tatar nationalist organizations. So, Mustafa Dzhemilev declared that the European Union can give in and weaken sanctions. At the same time, Dzhemilev stressed that he did not consider it necessary to have an armed solution to the “Crimean issue”. Obviously, Mustafa Dzhemilev, who is familiar with the real mood in the Crimea, understands that if he also speaks in favor of starting a war, he will completely lose his influence even among that part of the Crimean Tatar public that is in Ukraine and is cool towards the reunification of Crimea with the Russian Federation.
The overall intensification of political forces of the most varied sense in Ukraine is connected, among other things, with the return of Savchenko, which promises some changes in the current political situation, which, it is likely, will also affect the situation in the Donbas. Of course, the return of Nadezhda Savchenko to Ukraine was another trump card for those Ukrainian forces who have long been “sharpening their teeth" on President Petro Poroshenko and the bureaucratic and oligarchic clans associated with him. Savchenko’s “Honest Officer” is an ideal figure for them that can be used for political purposes, including in order, if not to “dump” Petro Poroshenko, then at least create additional problems for him.
It is noteworthy that although Nadezhda Savchenko is “raising to the shield” volunteer battalions, yesterday’s prisoner herself is acting from more moderate positions. Since Savchenko is actively supported by Yulia Tymoshenko’s “Batkivshchyna” party, from which she received the deputy’s mandate, her appearance promises an increase in this particular political force. It is possible to predict the weakening and so precarious positions of support Poroshenko. It is likely that Ukrainian nationalists will take advantage of the media reason for the release of Savchenko for the next buildup of the political situation in the country. To do this, they do not forget about their favorite methods, above all - about provocative statements against Russia, including arguments about nuclear weapons, which look, to put it mildly, ridiculously.
Of course, Poroshenko and his entourage will try to prevent Savchenko from becoming a political figure threatening the system that has taken shape in Ukraine. And here the above-mentioned demarches of Ukrainian radicals, which create an unfavorable impression of Ukraine from “American and European partners”, are not at all in the topic. Petro Poroshenko is not at all profitable new round of conflict in the Donbas, because it threatens his political positions and may damage the preservation of power. Accordingly, the confrontation with the radical opposition will continue. It is very interesting what role Nadezhda Savchenko herself will play in it.
Information