by Oleg Maslov
A magnificent project to unite the Eurasian continent in a web of pipelines, high speed rail, fiber optic cables, highways, and trade agreements from Lisbon to Singapore is already under construction and, should this project succeed, it will change the lives of everyone living in between and have profound implications on global geopolitics. Mostly initiated and driven forward by the economic might of China, the New Silk Road promises to bring cheap goods, cheap energy, new businesses and potentially hundreds of millions of jobs – essentially promising to deliver peace through prosperity for the largest landmass and the largest collection of people, cultures and natural resources on earth.
The ancient trade routes of Marco Polo which brought the silk and spices of Asia to Europe eventually fell out of favor with merchants largely due to the increased speed and security offered by the sea route, driven by rapid advances in maritime science and industry. Those who controlled the seas, a role played by Europe in the last 500 years and by the USA especially in the last 70, controlled global trade and made the world play by their rules, preventing other nations from using sea routes with their superior naval technology, thus effectively controlling income and development of the victim nation to their own benefit, making the victim nation bow to their demands. However, technology improvement in overland travel and current geopolitical security realities have rekindled hopes in the economic viability of the overland route, called the New Silk Road, as a competitor to the sea routes controlled by the US Navy.
The ancient overland route traveled from the Chinese Pacific coast to the Mediterranean and on to Europe, running underneath the Caspian Sea and through Iran and the Middle East, but another, more northerly route exists. The Northern Route moves through Kazakhstan and Russia and goes to Northern Europe through Belarus and to Central Europe and the Balkans through Ukraine. Serious geopolitical challenges such as the Islamic State, Central Asian radical movements, and the Taliban along with the jostle between Turkey, Iran, and the Gulf States for domination of the region bring huge transit risks to overland operations, and will do so for the foreseeable future, which means the stability of the Northern Route holds more promise in the near term. Major railway and pipeline projects between Russia and China have already started the process of developing the Northern Route and China has already begun to sign transit agreements with European countries such as Hungary.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has laid out Russia’s future strategy numerous times. In echoes of proposals from former French President Chirac and former German Chancellor Schroeder, Putin has reiterated the desire to see a common economic space from London to Vladivostock. China’s regional integration plans would expand this economic zone all the way to Singapore, uniting the entire Eurasian landmass in a series of agreements. Russia has already made significant process in bridging the differences with China, but efforts to further integrate Russia and Europe with trade arrangements have failed so far. Although Russia has significantly higher GDP, standards of living, lower debt, and better finances than many other countries admitted into the European Union, great resistance exists to Russia joining the EU, perhaps because of the fear that Russia, based on its military might, natural resources, and population, will dominate the bloc. All sorts of efforts, including the Third Energy Package, have been implemented to slow the inevitable linking of Russia with Europe. I say inevitable because the alternative is unthinkable – war on the European continent once again. Future relationships between Europe and Russia can take one of two forms, either negotiated partnership as equals or domination by force or subterfuge, and, by now, everyone knows that Russia will not bow.
This brings us to the current topic of Ukraine, a land right in the middle of one of the most important trade routes on Earth that has suddenly been swept up in national conflict. At the core of this conflict is what is presented as a civilizational choice – either to side with Europe through the Association Agreement or to side with Russia and the Eurasian Union project. People in Ukraine have clearly become tired of rampant systemic corruption regardless of which party comes to power and many have a close feeling of “Europeanness” and the craving of the European standard of living, therefore openly rejecting economic relations with Russia, while business, family, and cultural links tie other people in Ukraine closer to Russia. Ukraine is becoming the new meeting point between the European and the Russian world, a role served by the Berlin Wall in earlier times. However, instead of a wall, the best interests of Ukraine are to serve as a bridge between the two, and the best way for this to happen is to give Ukraine membership in both organizations – the choice of either/or is inherently a false dichotomy.
Ukraine has the unique opportunity to serve as a key bridge between Europe and Russia and as a key hub on the New Silk Road, and this opportunity could bring untold wealth to Ukraine while solving the internal conflict at the same time. Those in Ukraine arguing for a European future would have EU membership, EU visas, EU regulations, and EU oversight to tackle the corruption while Ukrainians with close ties to Russia would be able to keep their traditional business links and have the opportunity to build new business around a liberalization of trade flowing to both ends of Eurasia – both the financial and civilizational problems of Ukraine would be addressed. Negotiations between the EU and the EEU centered on the role of Ukraine could serve as a model for other countries to follow, such as Belarus and Moldova, and would open the entire ‘World Island’ for business and peace through prosperity and trade security.
I was born in Kursk, the site of the world’s largest tank battle between the Soviet Union and Germany, a clash between Europe and the Russian world. My family moved to the United States when I was just five years old and I attended American public school and university and learned the American version of World War II, or the Great Patriotic War as it’s known in Russia. Not until I was older did I investigate the role of my ancestors in this conflict. I discovered that Soviet people bore the brunt of the Nazi war machine and that my own great grandfather marched in Berlin and participated in taking the Reichstag. Then, I moved to Berlin and worked right near the heart of the division between East and West, the Berlin Wall. One of the most frequent questions that my Berlin connections ask is whether I feel Russian or American. For a long time, this question was very difficult for me to answer, I felt parts of both inside of me and always attempted to find a compromise answer that would encapsulate my ideas, referring to myself as a ‘hybrid’ or ‘cosmopolitan’.
The Ukrainian political movement to build closer ties with Europe gained steam over the past decade, but the voices advocating this position have always claimed, counter to Ukraine’s history, that this movement is mutually exclusive with Russian ties. Although building a bridge between Russia and Europe will certainly require thorough negotiation, it is far from impossible and could bring untold benefits to Ukraine. Choosing one side with the exclusion of the other is not only a loss of revenue and business, it creates an existential threat to the unified existence of Ukraine as a nation. Choosing one direction over another is blatantly against the national interests of Ukraine, while the idea of acting as a bridge to connect these two civilizations and to connect with Asia can be a national ideology of peace and prosperity that can unite the Ukrainian people and bring the planet on a course to a multi-polar world of respect for other cultures and peaceful coexistence on the Eurasian continent.
Although much blood has been spilt and hatred runs deep on either side, the opportunity still exists for the creation of a Ukrainian political movement centered on the idea of Ukraine as a bridge between Europe and Russia, with respect for the will of the people on both sides of the divide. The opportunity exists for Ukrainians to seize the prosperity they deserve and to play a key role in one of the most important projects in the future of humanity, the New Silk Road. Many problems and barriers exist to the implementation of this divide, especially the idea of the superiority of one nation, people, or genetic makeup over another. National Socialism in Germany was driven in large part by the idea of the superiority of the Aryan race, forgetting that civilizations in Egypt, the Middle East, and India were thousands of years old while Europe was populated with ‘barbarians’. While many have tried to justify the results of the Great Patriotic war with different arguments, the baffling triumph of backward eastern ‘Untermenschen’ against the Nazi war machine of the ‘advanced’ Aryans proved the falsehood of these ideas and that the future must be built on new ideas of mutual respect.
One more important barricade to the successful completion of the New Silk Road is that any sizable shift to overland routes in trade between Europe and Asia necessarily means a decline in the role and power of those who guarantee the security of trade over the seas. Most certainly, these powers have much to lose and will do all in their power to prevent this change from happening, using all tools at their disposal, including military means, to prevent this integration. The objections of these powers must also be met with negotiations and mutually beneficial agreements.
The current moment, the current conflict is a key fork in the road in the history of planet earth. The people should have the ultimate right to decide their political and economic future for the best interest of all citizens. A historic opportunity exists to connect Eurasia from Lisbon to Singapore in a web of infrastructure and treaties that will bring peace and prosperity and link different cultures together with mutually beneficial trade agreements. The process begins with a conversation. Will membership in both organizations satisfy Ukrainians on both sides of the argument? Are the EU and the Eurasian Union able to find enough common ground in Ukraine to make the ends meet? I urge a start to negotiations and public dialogue because the stakes could not be higher. If we miss this chance, if we fail to build bridges and choose to build walls instead, the future will certainly take a much different and much darker course, for the only real alternative to peace is war.
I like the points and ideas in the article.But I’m sorry but it misses the “forest for the trees”. How do you deal and find common ground with someone trying to kill you.If I had an axe in my hand swinging it at your head as you talked.I strongly doubt your major concern would be to sit down and talk with me about trade routes we could both benefit from.In 2013,if this at been suggested at the beginning of maidan.Then I suspect it could have worked.But now after Odessa,and many little Vanya’s in Donetsk.I don’t think as long as the murderous junta holds any power in Kiev there is a chance for a united Ukraine.I know Putin and Lavrov,etc,think differently (or at least they say so).But they and their families don’t live in Pesky,Marinka,Donetsk,Lugansk.They aren’t driving home dodging artillery fire.And wondering if they venture out too far a band of “Tornado” or “Azov” could torture or kill them at any time.They aren’t risking a branding on their backsides,or cut off fingers as long as they are sitting safe in Moscow.It maybe, against their will, they can temporarily force the people of Donbass to accept their orders.But that won’t settle this crisis.Only put a band-aide on a gaping bullet wound.I have yet to see anyone that is living there, and through this horror, that agree’s with returning to the Bandera rule.
Well said.
The War in Europe is on. Acknowledge it. Face it.
in 2015, defeat of the Democratic Republics would be a human catastrophe. By way of historic analogy, a victory of the Spanish Republic in 1939 would have undermined the Fascist powers. The opposite occurred, and we are still picking up he pieces.
Palestinians are the last victims of World War II
The flood of fresh victims of the imperialist New World Order is accelerating. Defeat of the People’s Republics will open the door to World War III, (as the defeat of the Spanish Republic removed all the roadblocks to the worldwide conflagration of 1939-1945).
The choice confronting us is Freedom, or Death. Freedom is defended by the citizens and militias of Democratic Republics, and death, (moral and physical), is pursued by the global fascist network, centered in Tel Aviv, the Stock Markets/Banks, Washington DC, and London.
I agree with what you’re saying, I mentioned in the essay that there are clearly strong feelings, but I think the successful politician in the DNR/LNR will be able to find a way to direct those feelings at specific causes, like the ‘volunteer battalions’ you mentioned or select government officials, while reminding their constituents that the majority of Ukrainians are good, honest people that want nothing more than a better life and are the victims of a terror campaign.
I’m not a fortune teller, I have no way to predict how such a political movement would be accepted by the people, or if any politician clever enough to deliver this message exists on the territory, but I still think it’s the best possible solution to the crisis and that the people will be able to be swayed by logical arguments. I think it needs to be tried and I think that arguments like ‘bah, it will never work’ are not actually arguments at all.
How can you say majority of Ukrainians are good.Was it not majority of your Ukrainians that are good that allowed and put the Nazies in power.is it same people that sit on their ass in safety and watch their military not attacking militia but constantly bombing and killing civilians,while they do nothing but continue to vilify Russia.No,majority of Ukrainians are same as Nazies in power and they deserve everything that they will eventually get.
Also for hundredth time let me repeat,shut off gas to Ukraine and Europe.Stop all trade with Europe and west and watch them all crumble like a house of cards and fraud that they are.
Let the good Ukrainians turn to west,and let the west feed them.
This coming from one born in Yugoslavia (one of the best countries in world ) and now forced to be Croatian through no actions or will of his own.
Branislav
I’m not saying the majority of Ukrainians are ‘good’, I’m saying that this should be a political tactic used by politicians to achieve a political end. I think that creating division and enmity in Ukraine will bring benefit only to powers outside of the old world (USA) and that this is exactly the outcome that these powers want to see (a divided Ukraine and new wall between Russia and Europe). It’s the the movie Se7en, if one acts upon the glaring ethical righteousness of a decision while ignoring the bigger strategic picture, if one allows his emotions to control his actions, one can easily become a pawn for the power he hates the most.
Of course, it’s the political will of the Ukrainian people that allowed this government to come to power, but I believe that the people were tricked and most do support neither the policies or the war of the new government. To condemn an entire people to a slow death by economic starvation is just about the cruelest punishment I can imagine. I understand how Ukrainians became lost in the new political movement which became the current government of Ukraine. They, just like every normal person, want a better life for themselves and their children. Yanukovych was certainly negotiating some interesting deals with the Russians, the Chinese, and the Europeans, but he could not properly communicate these deals to the Ukrainian people. It’s the job of the new political class of Ukraine to be pragmatic. I think that my proposal needs serious evaluation without the blood-colored glasses of emotion. Pragmatism is the pheromone of the new Eurasian millenium.
“I think that creating division and enmity in Ukraine will bring benefit only to powers outside of the old world (USA) and that this is exactly the outcome that these powers want to see (a divided Ukraine and new wall between Russia and Europe).”
Why?
Excellent reply, Branko!
Indeed, it is people who attribute to the West any moral stature whatsoever who need their heads examined. The Ukros come to mind here instantly. When they’re not jumping, panting, and drooling on Maidan Square, they are howling and moaning about their “Holodomor” nonsense. I have a sneaky feeling Western agrobusiness will soon subject them to a real one after having liberated Banderastan from any possibility of subsistence farming. Of course, the Ukros will duly vent their anger “elsewhere”.
Tough sincere and precise words pronounced by an individual personally involved in a historic choice that does not depend on his will. Better listen to him.
beautiful comment to a beautiful essay.
Thanks!
“…the baffling triumph of backward eastern ‘Untermenschen’ against the Nazi war machine of the ‘advanced’ Aryans…”
All wars tend to have a similar outcome. After all, who would start a war unless they were convinced that victory would be certain? And how could victory be certain unless “our people” are definitely known to be superior to “their people” (alternatively described as “subhumans”, “monkeys”, or various other nasty epithets)? So the war starts briskly and optimistically, with the notorious promises that “it will all be over by Christmas”. Then, as battle succeeds battle, our heroes start coming back with various missing body parts and with a profound sense of shock: “you know, those people are every bit as brave, strong, flexible, clever and determined as ours”.
Ambrose Bierce said that “War is God’s way of teaching Americans geography”. Perhaps we could also say that war is God’s way of teaching us all that, fundamentally, we are all pretty much equal. Even when it comes to killing.
Nice… Is this a post-thermonuclear conflict arrangement, with the US out of the picture?
It’s a really good article, great ideas, positive views. The only thing missing from Oleg Maslov’s manifesto is the US.
“peace through prosperity for the largest landmass and the largest collection of people, cultures and natural resources on earth,” that keeps the United States out.
Ukraine is occupied by NATO and run by the US. NATO’s aim is disappearance of Russia. The US wants nothing else, but the continuance of its finance and political hegemony.
Why would they agree to facilitate the prosperity and peace in this region? The US needs chaos and poverty everywhere to prosper.
You say about the US, “One more important barricade to the successful completion of the New Silk Road is that any sizable shift to overland routes in trade between Europe and Asia necessarily means a decline in the role and power of those who guarantee the security of trade over the seas. Most certainly, these powers have much to lose and will do all in their power to prevent this change from happening, using all tools at their disposal, including military means, to prevent this integration.” you betcha…
you say, “The objections of these powers must also be met with negotiations and mutually beneficial agreements.”
Name one, just ONE trade agreement between Russia and the US that is
“mutually” beneficial. Name an agreement that Russia benefits somehow?
What’s wrong with WTO?
Huge benefits to the US from Russia accession to WTO
“By strengthening the rules-based global trading system, WTO accession and PNTR will discourage Russia from undertaking protectionist measures.”
US exports to Russia could double over the next five years—from $9 billion in 2010 to $19 billion—adding jobs in the services, agriculture, manufacturing and high tech sectors.”
“On November 19, 2006, Russia reached a much more extensive bilateral agreement with the United States on market access conditions for its accession to the WTO. This accord of 800 pages and various follow-up agreements were a prelude to Russia’s accession to the WTO. They contain significant concessions of great value to the United States in intellectual property and market access conditions for several important products: meats, agriculture, biotechnology, harvesters, leased aircraft, and goods with encryption technology . ”
November 19, 2006 4:18 pm. US-Russia sign bilateral WTO deal … The agreement was signed by Russia’s Economy Minister German Gref and U.S. … Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush, who both took part …
“Even before these new commitments to liberalize trade were made, U.S. companies, such as Boeing, ConocoPhillips, Johnson & Johnson, General Motors, and Ford, have enjoyed unprecedented profits in Russian markets.”
http://arielcohen.com/permanent-normal-trade-relations-for-russia-would-benefit-the-u-s-and-russia
Huge profits, unprecedented profits for the US companies.
And what about the Russia’s profit and exports to the US?
Not so much.
“But what will happen to US imports from Russia? Commodities account (before WTO) for 90 percent of Russia’s overall exports and this share is even greater in its exports to the United States, with refined petroleum products comprising 65 percent and various metals most of the rest. These imports into the United States are subject to zero or minimal tariffs, and no further reduction is foreseen through Russia’s entry into the WTO.
Therefore, no large rise in US imports from Russia is to be expected. Since US imports of oil and petroleum products have fallen in recent years because of sharply rising domestic production and flat consumption, Russia’s exports of petroleum products to the United States may actually decline over the next few years.”
Russia’s WTO accession contains many valuable Russian commitments.
In agriculture, The limit on Russia’s total trade-distorting agricultural support will be capped at $9 billion in 2012 and then gradually reduced to $4.4 billion by 2018.
Meanwhile no agricultural export subsidies will be permitted.”
When farmers in Russia ask why their government won’t increase support for the domestic agricultural producers, the answer is because of the draconian commitments that Russia’s government took upon themselves in 2006.
Oleg, would be great to hear your ideas on how to neutralize the negative impact of the US in Ukraine, and to bring the end to the NATO Ukrainian war.
thanks anyway…
I think that the role of the US is tied to the success of the current government, which the US and Western allies are able to legitimize by using arguments of popular will and democratic movements which brought these people into power (that’s the argument being made, it’s far from reality in my opinion, but it’s still very important to pay attention to the argument). I also believe that there can be no military solution to this argument and the Ukrainian people are primed (via the economic situation) to be very receptive to a new political movement that addresses all of the shortcomings in modern Ukraine. What this situation needs is a counter argument that will ignite the masses and mobilize political opinion across the country to reach a critical mass. The beauty of this idea is that it addresses both sides of the argument, EU membership and EEU business to keep the lights on, the heat on, food on the table, and a bit of savings in the bank. I personally doubt that the current government has the political resources to convincingly argue against this movement. Why would you not pursue both options at once?
The US, Canada, and Britain are training the army and ‘volunteer battalions’, that’s their last straw to keep their influence in case the influence of the current government erodes considerably. But if such a major political movement, sympathetic to the EU, were to gain substantial traction throughout the rest of Ukraine, I doubt Europe would be able to keep it’s eyes closed to massive police state repressions.
Perhaps it’s all too naive, but I still think it’s the best possible solution, much better than a break-up of Ukraine, and worth a try
EU doesn’t want Ukraine & probably never did. Ukraine meets none of the financial pre-conditions to join EU. I think it’s doubtful that there is any great “feeling of Europeanness” among the Ukrainians. Polling showed that there desire to join EU had already peaked & was starting to decrease when the Maidan started. They had been propagandized to believe that Europe still enjoyed the prosperity of her past & wished to partake of prosperity. A great many, especially among the young, wanted to join the EU in order to LEAVE Ukraine. An EU visa wd’ve enable them to look for a better job in Europe.
It wd cost billions for the Ukraine to comply with all the procedures & standards necessary before being allowed to join.
Ukraine should be a bridge between EU & Russia or West & East? Sounds OK, but that’s probably cuz I haven’t a clue what it means. They should be militarily neutral: That I understand.
On the one hand, this sort of political movement would be ‘calling the EU’s bluff’, because they are certainly acting lke they want Ukraine. On the other, I think that a political idea that excludes EU membership would also alienate a huge part of the population. The goal is to keep what is left of Ukraine as a unitary state to facilitate an agreement between EU and EEU.
Regarding what Russia and the rest of the EEU (and the rest of Asia, as I argue in the essay) has to gain by having a formal relationship with the EU: the EU aß a whole is already one of Russia’s largest trading partners, but the EU as an institution has made life a bit difficult for Russia, like the Third Energy Package. A formalised agreement would prevent any nasty surprises that nearly ruined years of planning from happening again.
My fundamental argument is that this sort of arrangement will facilitate a multi-polar world, and new Ukrainian politicians should also run on a platform of negotiating the best terms for their country (fighting for national interests, something long forgotten in the Ukraine that it might come as a complete shock to the voters, or hopefully as a pleasant surprise).
Please also keep in mind that I suggested that this should be a political platform to unite the people of Ukraine, in no way am I suggesting that negotiations will be successful. In fact, the chances are higher for sabotage than success in my opinion. But the other main point, at least in my opinion, is that the alternatives are less attractive: either continued war and dissolution of the country. In the case of a dissolution of the country, no guarantee of success exists for any of the resulting parts, no matter how the country potentially breaks apart, which results in unnecessary suffering and a continuation of the conflict by other forms. And war in Europe, as history shows, has an unpredictable habit of spiraling out of control.
The political movement of Ukraine acting as a bridge and meeting zone for the EU and EEU holds the most promise of seeing the region develop at the quickest rate. Saakashvili said it would take 20 years to get back to 2013 levels, I think these politics can do it in 5. The other two options entail much longer periods of recovery, lasting damage to EU / Russia trade, and a speed up of TTIP negotiations.
I don’t see any other real alternatives, do you?
Yes I do.The figurative independence of the full Novorossia (around 45% of the former Ukraine).And the figurative independence of the other region.Then negotiations if they wish for a “Federal Union” of the two formed republics.With each side being assured of their language and cultural rights in their republic (and the common Federal State).And the removal of the fascist junta from power of any kind in either republic and the common Federal State.That “might” bring peace to the former Ukraine while keeping a fig leaf of a “united Ukraine” which seems to mean so much to the “international community”.From that basis,all the other points in your article might be possible to make happen.But its a total non-starter as long as a fascist murderous junta retains any power in the former Ukraine.
The author assumes good will on the part of Fascists and the Hegemon.
I suspect that everything that follows from that proposition is flawed and will fail.
Not only is the logic flawed because of the facts, but history tells us that the economics involved in Eurasia will trump all the EU could ever hope to be.
One side of the seesaw is dead weight. The EU and the US are incapable of self-propulsion and growth. They must conquer and control or sew chaos in their competitor.
Russia and China and the Indians and Iranians are going to grow and rise and dwarf the West in any configuration of TPP/TPIP or whatever.
That reality terrifies and invigorates the nazi freaks and Fascists and Hegemon elites.
Ukraine is merely token when seen in the scheme of things.
I like the idea of a split Ukraine. Culturally, the fascists and nazis belong with their ideological brethren in Poland and Lithuania and Brussels.
And that is what is going to happen to them. They will stand in the soup lines and unemployment lines of the EU’s zone of democracy where there is no hope and nothing to do but be used in crime and taking drugs and growing replacement organs and limbs for the industries that pursue those endeavors for profit.
In ancient times there was an East-West Ukraine, set by the river banks.
Things often return to old, useful balances.
Nothing to decide. War will decide it for the plotters.
So, for those who think Ukraine can be as is, but managed, it cannot. Russia must have control of the entity for its own safety.
Getting Ukraine back to submission to what Russia needs, China wants and ironically what is best for Ukrainians is what we are seeing play out on the battlefields and in Minsk 2.
The reality, when done, will be East and West, but also the East will be Greater Ukraine, and the West will be Little Ukraine.
Could be a confederation or they could be separate states; could be a federalized entity. Could be two new independent entities.
Ukraine (and NATO) will not win. Thus, Russia will get what it needs (and we see through the language and limits of Minsk 2) it will get a livable solution next door.
Importantly, Ukraine won’t be an obstacle to Eurasia. Ukraine will have met its destiny, at last.
I think a split Ukraine is exactly the end game that the rulers of the sea would like to see. As mentioned in the essay, that would be a clever way of making new walls instead of setting the ground for trade integration. I don’t doubt that growth rates for India, China, Iran, and Russia have huge potential, but I think to give Europe the wave of the hand by saying that they have no more potential is misleading and dishonest. I fully agree that Europe’s colonial past has definitely given European powers a parasitic nature and that the current high standard of living that Europe enjoys definitely stems in large part from parasitic behavior, but that doesn’t mean that Europe doesn’t have any homegrown economic dynamism.
The Russian think Nikolai Starikov has a very interesting idea about the strategy of the ‘anti-state’ developed by the British and seen in the case of Pakistan being the ‘anti-state’ to India and Taiwan being the ‘anti-state’ to China. Ukraine was supposed to be Russia’s ‘anti-state’, but the Russians cleverly used that same strategy to form the DNR/LNR, which became the ‘anti-state’ to a unitary Ukraine. I think Putin means what he says when he talks about the DNR/LNR remaining a key part of the Ukraine and that there is no military solution. I take that to mean that he also believes that the majority of Ukrainians are not true supporters of the current government and that a clearly defined political movement has the ability to unite all Ukrainians under a new national idea. I also think Putin means what he says when he talks about EU and EEU integration and it seems like Ukraine is the perfect opportunity to ‘tie the knot’ between the two ends, so to speak.
Of course, this represents by far the best case scenario, and it’s fair to call it delusional or naive, but I still think it’s worth the effort to try.
The opponents’ perceived fall back is that Ukraine – largely restricted to the spatial – will reflect its name – borderland. Perhaps a hologram of General Plan Ost in its later stages – say 1943 before Kursk?
The exceptionalists are following strategies within a linear paradigm, the same old same old, but a little wider and faster – ergo strategically they are not exceptional except in the sense of pursuing different strategies than their opponents.
The exceptionalists have been in strategic retreat since 1994 as encouraged/recognised by some at the time, increasingly so by 1998, then increasing again through 2000 and subsequent. The exceptionalists expected control of much of Eurasia and accelerated strategies to this end from at least 1994.
The dream fall back for the exceptionalists has always been, and is Oceania, a more limited version of which they effectively held until 1989 and consistently sought to extend, although likely they have misplaced the memory of “be careful what you wish for” – perhaps slipped down the memory hole as is their wont.
For example the prime target of financial manipulations and sanctions are the economies/populations of the EU as factors facilitating and ideologically underpinning a version of the fallback, as is the extension of NATO.
However unlike in Orwell’s 1984 there will likely not be a community of interest or shared slogans – war is peace, or resort by all participants to group hate sessions and use of schadenfreude.
The exceptionalists are at war with those deemed not exceptional – by which they apparently mean the rest of the biosphere and the majority dependent upon it – they haven’t apparently worked out yet that includes them since such would render them unexceptional.
In all lateral systems if you change one factor you change them all, in differing degrees with differing interactions, trajectories and velocities. A simple illustration is fission.
“Russia must have control of the entity for its own safety.”
Once Russia, control, the entity, own, and safety are defined, can you please consider the following question?
Why must?
“Russia will get what it needs”
Why restrict yourself to the use of the future tense?
Perhaps such restriction is a self-administered blindness or a practice of caution in context?
“The author assumes good will on the part of Fascists and the Hegemon.”
It would be naive to over-extend this assumption to others, as has been the case on various ocassions on this blog, and fortunately by the opponents.
The corollary of over-estimating agency has also been consistently illustrated on this blog; care being taken to discourage exceptionalists from over-estimating agency of their opponents.
It would perhaps also be naive to limit evaluation criteria and evaluation horizons.
Likely a fixation on organisational facades/vehicles will also prove limiting, and best left to the opponents.
The main assumptions behind this essay is that:
1) The current government in Kiev doesn’t speak for the majority of the people. They ‘campaigned’ on an implied promise to increase opportunity and prosperity for the Ukrainian people (I do realize the many, MANY documented accounts of electoral violations, but they’ve been so well documented here and other places that it’s not worth me commenting here)
2) The majority of people of the Ukraine simply want a better life and are open to political movements that have the potential to better their lives and that they are open to logical arguments which support these political movements.
3) The people in the DNR/LNR understand there is a big difference between the government / ‘volunteer battalions’ and the majority of people of Ukraine who were fooled with empty promises and outright lies to enable the current political movement. Others in the army and even some in volunteer battalions must feed their families and follow orders (not trying to justify their actions, just trying to put them in perspective).
Those assumptions outlined, the point of the essay is that I believe a huge potential exists to create a clearly defined political idea from DNR/LNR which could attract the majority of ‘normal’ Ukrainians who are clearly fed up with the poor performance (to say the least) and the warmongering of the current government. This would require a major effort to form and clearly define this type of a political movement, something along the lines of a ‘Eurasian Party’ or a “Ukrainian Trade and Business Party’, to then clearly communicate and sell to the people of DNR/LNR, and finally to form a communication strategy to sell into the rest of Ukraine.
It’s definitely a pipe dream, but that’s no reason not to throw out new ideas and test the waters. I’m not naive enough to believe that such fragile ideas have a good chance of becoming more than text (pending a miracle), and your criticisms are, of course, accurate and powerful, but at least now this idea can get debated and either thrown to the dustbin of history or at least given a try (which I think it deserves).
Oleg: ‘The current government in Kiev doesn’t speak for the majority of the people.’ Of course not, it speaks for the US Government. The USG and certain American corporations & politicians care NOTHING for the Ukrainian people except insofar as how much they can get out of Ukraine.
Overriding this, is that Ukraine is also being used against Russia in line with the original (neocon) wolfowitz doctrine, and PNAC, and keeping the USA the pre-eminent and sole world superpower for the REST OF THIS CENTURY.
There is also an irrational hatred of those Ukrainians outside the Donbass against the Russian speaking people there, so irrational that they hate all things Russian, just because it is Russian. You can NOT reason with these people as they are ideologues, blinded by hatred, and also a sense of – false – superiority.
I dk have friends and contacts in Ukraine with whom I communicate and I definitely did experience that sort of Russophobia in early 2014 from common Ukrainians, but it really seems to have died down now. I would like to say that I don’t believe in the slightest that the outspoken europhile Ukrainian bloggers speak for the majority. There are certainly people who cannot be reasoned with andifferent other people who cynically use the conflict to their advantage and will defend their ill gotten wealth with weapons.
My point is that this sort of political movement is the best option for the territory known as Ukraine as it stands and the hope is naturally that the will of the people will triumph over terror. Followed by a Ukrainian version of the Nuremburg trials of course
I’ve always believed through studies of different peoples and their ethnic origins that “Russians” and “Ukrainians” are the same people.Much as the North and South Germans or North and South French are the same peoples in their countries.The differences are regional differences,no more than in other large (and not so large) nations.Take the Ghegs and Tosks in Albania for an example on “small nation”.I call the peoples of “Ukraine” West Russians, and East Russians for those in Russia proper.Instead of the phony “Ukrainian” as a term for people in the the Western regions of ancient “Rus”.Its only the corrupt nationalist and fascist propaganda that has fed a Russophobia in the region for years now.Aided and abetted by foreign powers,I might add.As an example,I remember a few years ago a German official said (something on the order of) “its not important that history shows Ukrainians and Russians as one people.Its important that they are convinced they aren’t “. If more evil thinking is at work,I can’t think of where at present.The people of that region are in a death struggle for the life of their peoples.And who wins will see those people survive or be destroyed forever.
https://youtu.be/NyCD3LqfbJ8
Thank you for the clip, but please add a few words about the content when you post a link.
What would be so wonderful about Russia joining the EU? It hasn’t been wonderful for Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain or the UK. It seems to have made the Baltics poorer; a large percentage of the working population had to emigrate to find jobs. There were growing movements in all 3 Baltics to leave the EU, but these movements have been swamped under the West’s, “The Russians are Coming,” panic. (Typical strategy of tension to overcome internal dissent.)
Greater freedoms for ordinary people are found through decentralized decision-making. Governments which possess actual sovereignty– including economic– are able to respond to the wishes and welfare of their citizens. We have just been given an object lesson in Greece of how helpless a non-sovereign govt is to respond to its people. Obviously those states which joined EU have lost sovereignty. A country which doesn’t have its own currency is not a sovereign country.
It is perfectly possible to trade without having a common currency, thus reserving monetary policy to the peoples’ representatives. Always supposing that one takes back monetary policy from the Fed and the IMF.
“A country which doesn’t have its own currency is not a sovereign country. ”
Amen Amen Amen.
The budget and money functions are the two cornerstones of sovereignty.
Katherine
“It is perfectly possible to trade without having a common currency…”
Penelope,
By “a common currency” do you actually mean “a reserve currency”? Or simply that they can trade using only their own currencies, without reference to a third? Or?
I know you’re an MMT enthusiast, but in my admittedly limited readings, I’ve not heard a satisfactory explication of how international trade imbalances would be settled using pure sovereign issued fiat.
If you understand that the EU is a CATHOLIC – vatican – plan (with Poland’s EU approved Eastern Partnership), and that the rc church STILL wants the Russian Orthodox church destroyed/replaced by its own, as it will NOT tolerate ANY other religious power.
As an aside, the US Supreme Court has got SIX catholics on it, and 3 Jews, what does that tell you, hmmm?
@Ralph
The US Supreme Court has just federalized gay marriage.
The Vatican is absolutely against it, as it would completely undermine the cornerstone of Roman Catholic teaching, the Humanae Vitae.
So they are certainly not operating on behalf of tho Vatican.
The court is staffed with Zionists – their alleged religious denomination is completely meaningless.
WIth the exception of the very brave and honourable peoples of the breakaway regions, the Ukros are getting exactly everything they’ve been asking for in exchange for a few eatables, courtesy of Victory Nuland. Let them enjoy their “Europeanness” and spare them any real, tangible progress — they’re clearly not worth the effort. Involving them would, in my view, even be outright inexcusable as it poses a mortal danger. The Ukros, on sheer vocation at that, could very well try to wreck the whole thing for the benefit of the Zionazis they’re passionately serving.
As I pointed out in the thread about Ukraine and Africa, that comparison is contrived and inappropriate. Banderastan is a resurrection of Yeltsin-time Russia with no Putin in sight, and further improved by outright Nazi mayhem. Western civilization at its finest.
Thank you so much for writing this. Let’s hope the dialogue takes place as there does exist an opportunity to developing a better world for all peoples. The other fork in the road will only lead to much bloodshed and suffering, and most likely ultimately extinction.
“..The opportunity exists for Ukrainians to seize the prosperity they deserve..”
The oligarchs stole it all.
Realistically, a country cannot belong to two free-trade organisations. It would immediately become a conduit for goods from one organisation to be dumped on the other, which currently may have tariffs against those to protect their own internal industries. This is precisely what Russia fears, and for which the EU has agreed to not open Ukraine’s trading borders until the end of 2016 at the earliest. There are already no tariffs for a lot of good between Ukraine and Russia, opening the path for Ukraine to rebrand Eu goods and flood Russia with them.
It would not work the other direction, because EU won’t import anything that’s not “to EU standards” — and that is not just the product but how and where it is made. The building, work conditions, machinery, equipment, all have to meet EU standards, and that includes irrelevant but costly items like how high a toilet wall has to be tiled. Russian products could not be rebranded as Ukrainian unless the Ukrainian factories were “up to standard” which they can’t afford to do.
This is HOW all the other ex-soviet countries got deindustralilsed. If the industry is needed, it gets sold for pennies to an EU or US company, which spends on the improvements, but makes most of its money on share dealings and reducing the workforce. Profits are off-shored with minimal tax revenue to the government. At least the oligarchs, by not investing in modernising, are providing employment for a lot of people.
Ukraine is now billions in debt, with no way of paying it back. This was a deliberate plan, as now those foreign companies can buy everything even cheaper. The rich will get richer faster. The ordinary workers will become the ordinary starving unemployed, without a free visa for going into Europe to work.
The feasible solution for Ukraine would have been to join the Russian free trade organisation, because their industrial goods were acceptable – even in high demand – in that world…. and many other parts of the world, too, that don’t demand EU standards — Africa, Middle East, South America could all use Ukraine’s robust heavy industrial products. Minus oligarchs skimming all the revenue, they could have built up a good standard of living that let them BUY European goods, if they really wanted them.
Only Russia will help them build an economy that actually worries about the well being of the people. EU only cares about big business. So the only hope is that the war, and being broke, gets rids of the oligarchs and stops the foreigners from replacing them. Then, totally broke, they could start to build a good country based on what they already have, instead of on silly pipedreams. The new Republics are turning themselves into test cases of how to do this, even under fire and blockade.
The USG deliberately got involved in Ukraine – and with the EU and the Poland sponsored Eastern Partnership – to get Ukraine and the other former Soviet states away from Russian influence and into the Western sphere, with nuland admitting that the USG had spent $5 billion + on this (not including other sources of funding), and as part of a 25 year plan for Eastern Europe. The West is so mad they even want the EU stretching as far as into Afghanistan.
And overriding all this, is PNAC: the Project for the New American Century, THIS century.
“The opportunity exists for Ukrainians to seize the prosperity they deserve”
With the exception of the Donbass, I think that’s precisely what is happening on this side of the Maidan Nazi putsch. A beautiful little religious proverb comes to mind: Lord the Almighty works in strange and wondrous ways. Of course, as fitting for people full of themselves, the justice of it tends to escape them. Instead, they put forward somewhat, ahem, optimistic “prosperity enhancing demands” such as instant wage hikes to Western European levels. I suppose that’s the kind of delusions which Soros cultivates by doling out money for fascist hooliganism.
The US-Nato war cabal is pushing ahead to defeat the DPR ( Porohenko pushing a vote to allow foreign soldiers and weapons in nazi Ukraine ) and destroy the Donbass infrastructure along with its inhabitants. The longer the Nuland Nato nazis have to prepare their lines, the less likely they will be defeated. Nuland is conducting the witches mass along with the liar Obama- Kerry is out of favor.
Here, study this first, then go and read this article again. It helps to do things in the correct order.
/the-dark-side-we-should-never-be-like-them/
Of course we should never be like them, but this article by Maslov just smells bad to me.
Imagine someone breaking into your home, burning all your money, documents and photos, raping, then killing your children, beating and torturing you and your wife, raping her, then cutting off most of her fingers because he’d chosen to believe that you are all sub-humans and he wishes to torture and humiliate you before he kills you…Well, you get the picture.
It is hard to imagine anything worse. But if you could, it would likely be in the form of a smarmy almost surreal intellectual coxcomb sauntering in to inform you that you are both wrong, and that you should engage in dialogue to find common ground so you can enter mutually beneficial agreements.
Now, now, lads, calm down, we mustn’t let our emotions get the best of us.
It takes a special high grade of moral degeneracy and pathological self righteousness to try and foist this kind of rubbish on people.
In other words, George, keep pushing the war.
Is this the moderator inserting comments at the end of my comment?
Are you a moderator or an advocate?
You seemed to miss my point.
Being linked to someone who wishes to eliminate you as though you are morally the same is not optimal. it should be avoided. That is what war is for.
George, lumping all Ukrainian soldiers into one unredeemable evil fails to take in account many are not fanatical right sektor types. One of the most laudable views expressed by Novorussiansis this understanding that those sent against them are a varied group and that this needs to be understood and actively acted upon.
It does need to be acted on you are right.But acted on ,by encouraging them to surrender,desert,defect.By calling on them to ditch the junta and leave the “Dark Side”.But remember that in WWII the vast majority of the German troops our side fought,weren’t fanatical nazis.They were men little different than our’s.But still we fought and killed them when we had to.Because if we didn’t those same men would have killed us instead.I don’t hate the UAF soldiers (minus the pro-fascist minority).But I know if they attack our side we have to kill them or we’ll be killed by them.That sadly,is just the plain facts,nothing more or less.
Where did you read me lumping all Ukrainians together?
Where do you read me pushing war?
You seem a bit one dimensional for a “participant -moderator”.
I am making a point as to what position Novorussians are in vis a’ vis a very real, (and particularly nasty) existential threat. and how they must feel as victims.
That does not fit with your (and Oleg’s) groovey peace at all cost mentality,, so you counter arguments (as a moderator no less) that I have not even implied.
I was raised around a lot of Baptists. Their theoretical doctrine is that all sin is equally bad. If I let my head turn when a pretty girl walks by, I am no different from a mass murderer of children.
What kind of society would that doctrine make if it were possible to implement it? Do you suppose it would be functional?
Insisting on everyone playing nice, both attackers and defenders, and even suggesting the defenders begin entering into “partnerships with those that have just tried to kill them is the answer? I disagree with this so I am “pushing for war”?
So are you going to “discredit” my post by adding another admonition against a generalized point I did not make?
I see lots of comments besides mine that disagree with the tone of this article. I noticed you did not add your little remarks to any of them. Should I be flattered?
Cheers.
While man makes his plans, Nature makes hers.
Oleg, thanks for pursuing the conversation.
“a political idea that excludes EU membership would also alienate a huge part of the population.” All kinds of countries are excluded from EU & their alienation hasn’t changed EU’s mind.
“A formalised agreement [with EU] would prevent any nasty surprises that nearly ruined years of planning from happening again” Excuse me, but I don’t think so. As long as Russia hasn’t been crushed and/or dismembered all manner of nasty surprises will continue.
“this sort of arrangement will facilitate a multi-polar world” I can’t believe that anything which extends the EU in its present structure advances a multi-polar world. EU deprives countries of their political and economic sovereignty. In formerly prosperous Europe, EU has produced poverty, desperation, massive unemployment, and suicide. I can’t see any power-sharing there, but only usurpation & illicit power concentration.
Other alternatives? The Ukrainians need a genuinely democratic govt that will express their citizens’ desire for self-help. Ideally, free of Nazis & oligarchs. They don’t need to give up self-governance to the failed EU. Certainly Greece & other S. European countries & the UK have demonstrated that. If giving up your freedom is a condition of trade it’s better to trade elsewhere, or pay the tariffs.
Thank you for a well-written article, Oleg. It was certainly provocative.
The solution proposed above assumes the EU Asociation agreement is a trade agreement.
However the EU association agreement is NOT just a trade agreement. It brings the Ukraine firmly within the EU sphere of influence.
Weird but the EU website to the ASSOCIATION agreement was faulty:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/poli…
When you click on “Association Agreement” you end up nowhere. Guess the EU considered it better to hide the truth.
However Ukraine is always helpful isn’t it?
http://ukraine-eu.mfa.gov.ua/e…
“TITLE II
POLITICAL DIALOGUE AND REFORM, POLITICAL ASSOCIATION, COOPERATION AND CONVERGENCE IN THE FIELD OF FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY
ARTICLE 4
Aims of political dialogue
1. Political dialogue in all areas of mutual interest shall be further developed and strengthened between the Parties. This will promote gradual convergence on foreign and security matters with the aim of Ukraine’s ever-deeper involvement in the European security area.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…