In my past articles about the Ukraine (see here, here, here and here) and in many posts in the comments section I have expressed my complete disgust with Yanukovich whom I see as absolutely immoral, weak, stupid and corrupt. Every move he has made so far has only strengthened my absolute loathing for this man whose role in igniting the current chaos in the Ukraine cannot be overstated. But I have to admit that his latest move has caught me by surprise.
Following days of intense rioting in which many government buildings were stormed, in which over 100 riot cops were hospitalized and 2 kidnapped and 1 killed, following clear and unequivocal threats by the leaders of the opposition to “go on the attack” and overthrow the government, Yanukovich did not send in the cops to clear the center of Kiev, neither did he order the opposition leaders arrested for sedition, attempted coup, conspiracy to commit terrorist attacks or anything like that. No, Yanukovich met with the leaders of the so-called opposition and offered them the following “concessions”:
- To change the Constitution back to its pre-2004 model
- To allow early Presidential and Parliamentary elections
- To repeal all the anti-rioting laws recently passed
- To grant a full amnesty to all the folks arrested since the riots began
- To appoint Klichko Vice-Prime Minister for Humanitarian Issues
- To appoint Iatseniuk as Prime Minister of the Ukraine
No, alas, this is not a joke. He actually did that.
And you know what the opposition’s reply was?
“Well, we will think about it” and “we agree to changes, but not on your terms, but on our terms”.
Guys, I am serious. This all really happened.
So Yanukovich’s idea of negotiations is “as soon as you get to the table, cave in on every single demand”. How is that for an opening position?
By the way, I think that the opposition did the right thing. When you are dealing with such a spineless idiot who begins the negotiations with a full surrender the correct reply is to look disappointed, keep a poker face, and say that you need time to formulate a counter-offer. Why? Because if your opponent begins with a surrender, you can clearly squeeze him for everything he has got and since the opposition has already de-facto won everything they wanted and, frankly more than in their wildest dreams, the opposition leaders might as well take a slightly annoyed look and express disappointed over the unconditional surrender they have been offered. At the very least, that will give them the opportunity to further humiliate Yanukovich who, frankly, richly deserves any humiliation these clowns can now heap on him.
Why do I say “clowns”?
Think of it. Klichko is just a dumb gorilla. Iatseniuk is a little Jewish weasel who has no compunction working with a notorious Jew-hater like Tiagnibok (whose supporters have already attacked Jews in Kiev triggering a concerned note from the Israeli government), while Tiagnibok himself is your typical neo-Nazi racist punk as only the Ukraine and Croatia can produce. These are the folks to whom Yanukovich is essentially handing over full power. The fact that nobody has given Yanukovich to change the Constitution or even repeal laws is besides the point. After all, who could object, right?
Well, there is somebody who might: the southeastern regions of the Ukraine.
This has, of course, not been reported in the western Ziomedia, but the eastern Ukraine is now also bubbling with political actions. To make a long story short, the folks in the southeastern Ukraine have no desire whatsoever to let folks like Iatseniuk, Klichko or Tiagnibok rule over them. In fact, several local assembles – including the Parliament of Crimea – have adopted resolution calling on the President to restore law and order and warning that they would never accept a “regime change” in Kiev.
Now, as I have mentioned many times before, it is wrong to believe the western Ziomedia that the folks in the southeastern Ukraine are “pro-Russian”. They are not. They are not demanding to be reattached to Russia, they are not claiming that their nationality is Russian and not Ukrainian, and when the organize a meeting they always fly the (West) Ukrainian yellow-blue flag. No, these guys are not pro-Russia, but they are pro-Ruble: their wealth (and that is the wealthiest part of the Ukraine) fully depends on economic ties with Russia. Besides being pro-Ruble, they are also strongly anti-Nazi and they are fully aware that the kind of nationalism currently represented by the opposition is the nationalism of the “Zapadentsy” – the West Ukrainians whose national hero is Stepan Bandera. In other words, even though most southeastern Ukrainians are hardly Russia or even pro-Russian, they are resolutely opposed to what is going on in Kiev because they really have everything to lose and nothing to gain from the EU.
It is hard to tell, but my sense is that when the local authorities in the southeastern Ukraine threaten not to accept any regime change in Kiev they probably do really mean it. This very much reminds me of the repeated warnings of the Bosnian-Serbs that they would not accept to live in an Islamic state run by an rabid fanatic like Itzebegovich. At the time, and just like today, nobody took these warnings seriously and we all know how that ended. The big difference between Bosnia and the Ukraine is first and foremost one of dimensions: Bosnia has an area of 19,741 square miles and a population of 3,791,622 while the Ukraine has an area of 233,090 square miles and a population of 44,854,065. That is a huge difference which make a direct foreign intervention a much more complicated endeavor. Second, the entire “Bosnian project” was a US State Department PR move to try to restore some pro-Islamic credibility to the USA. The root causes of the events in the Ukraine are far more complex and while it is true that Hillary Clinton did clearly indicated that any re-integration of the Ukraine into Russia was absolutely unacceptable to the West, it would be wrong to say that the West, the EU, Soros or any other external factor is the prime cause of the events in the Ukraine.
The real cause of the crisis in the Ukraine can be found into two basic facts:
1) The Ukraine is a completely artificial country
2) The Ukraine is completely bankrupted by oligarchs
These are the two fundamental truths about the Ukraine which most observers and politicians – even from the southeastern Ukraine – are trying to avoid mentioning. Why? Well, simply because it is very very painful to the national ego of the Ukrainian people. These are the folks who welcomed the breakup of the Soviet Union and their separation from Russia with the idiotic slogan “Тому бідні, що невільні” (we are poor kuz we are not free) only to now find themselves both very вільні (free) and very бідні (poor). In contrast, the hated Moskals (derogatory word for “Russians”) have enjoyed an economic boom and Russia has essentially fully recovered her superpower status in the 2000-2014 period while Forbes gave Putin the title of most powerful man on earth. But make no mistake, if after the collapse of the Soviet Union the Ukraine had done very well economically, nobody in the southeastern Ukraine would have shed a tear about being torn away from Russia. This is why I can only repeat that the southeastern Ukraine is not pro-Russia, but pro-Ruble and anti-Zapadentsy. Still, the southeastern Ukrainians are becoming acutely aware that they now risk finding themselves cut-off from the Ruble and under the political control of the Zapadentsy, and that is something which they are willing to resist.
So what could happen now?
The first scenario is that Yanukovich will eventually yield to the pressure of the southeastern Ukraine and a few key politicians and finally crack-down on the rioters and restore law and order. It is hard to know for sure, but my sense is that he probably has the resources to do so in Kiev. However, the northwestern Ukraine is likely to rise up, reject such move and basically slip out from under the authority of the central government.
The second scenario is that Yanukovich full caves in the the opposition and that the latter essentially takes over the reigns of power. At which point it will be the southeastern part of the Ukraine which will rise up, reject such a move and basically slip out from under the authority of the central government.
Frankly, I do not see any room for real compromise between Yanukovich and the opposition for a very simple reason: by opening the negotiation with with complete surrender which Yanukovich offered the opposition Yanukovich essentially closed the door to any compromise: why would the opposition accept any kind of compromise when it has already been offered it all? With his mind-bogglingly stupid move Yanukovich has, paradoxically, made any form of compromise impossible: from now on it is “all or nothing” for both sides. Yanokovich can either withdraw his offer and crack down on the opposition, or he can fully cave in. But he cannot offer less and hope that this offer will be accepted.
The really scary thing is that the opposition is of the same “quality” as Yanukovich: absolutely incompetence, spineless ideological leaders who can’t even control the demonstrators on the Maidan square, nevermind restoring order to the entire country. And that brings me to one more possible solution of sorts, but a weird one: getting Timoshenko out of jail and into power.
Yes, I know, it does sound crazy. But think again. For one thing Iulia Timoshenko is smart. And for all her fancy hair-styles and inclinations to theatrics, she can be a very pragmatic negotiator. By all accounts, she had an excellent rapport with Putin. Furthermore, her basis of popular support is probably pretty good, especially in light of the recent events. Finally, I would not put it beyond Putin, Lavrov, Obama and Kerry to “gently suggest” that getting Iulia out of jail might be the “least bad” solution. But yeah, I know, this is most unlikely to happen.
So then what?
If either the northwest or the southeast both threaten to break out from under the control of the central government, what can happen after that? Violence, for sure. But keep in mind the figures for the size and population of the Ukraine above. It will be very difficult for the folks on one side to actually get across the country to put down a local movement. For one thing, the southeastern Ukrainians will only be delighted to get rid of the northwestern part of the Ukraine. After all, it is the southeast which feeds the northwest this is why the northwest is so totally and categorically opposed to any partition. So really the question is can the northwest really crackdown an impose its will on a potentially secessionist southeast? I am not so sure, mainly because of the distances involved.
Right now, the entire “theater of operations” is composed of a few streets in central Kiev. And just to hold on to that, the nationalists had to bus in people from all over the western Ukraine. But anyway east of Kiev the Zapadentsy would run into “hostile territory” which could make things very difficult very fast.
Of course, if the Ukrainian military decided to move in support of the nationalist regime it could definitely reach any part of the Ukraine. But the problem with that is that the military is probably split as badly as the civil society. Finally, the Ukraine is not Bosnia were the distances were measured in kilometers and Banja Luka (pop. 150’000) is considered a big town. The Ukraine is big and it would require big, very big, forces to try to control it. This is also the main reason why I think that NATO will stay out of it, at least militarily. Bosnia or Kosovo are “NATO-sized” “bites”. Not the Ukraine. That is the good news. The bad news is that terrorism and local clashes are very likely, especially if the nationalist movement continues to enjoy the unconditional support of the West.
And Russia in all that?
I can only repeat that Russia should stay out of whatever happens in the Ukraine. The Russian government should prepare for an influx of refugees and the Russian military should be placed on high alert to avoid any provocations or cross-border violence. A special goal for Russia should be to use all the means possible to avoid any violence on the Crimean Peninsula because of the presence of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol which can find itself in the position of the 14th Army in Transdniestria when it simply had not other choice than to get involved due to the high number of officers with relatives living in the republic. If, God forbid, the nationalist try to militarily take over the Crimean Peninsula or Sevastopol I don’t see how the Black Sea Fleet could stay uninvolved – that is simply impossible and this is why that situation needs to be avoided at all costs.
As for the Ukraine, there is no good outcome. Whatever side “wins” it will find itself at the head of a ruined and bankrupt country which the EU will not help – if only because it simply does not have the money to do so. In terms of resources, all the Ukraine has to offer to the EU is cheap labor and agricultural products (mostly chernozem). It’s potential for economic collaboration with Russia are much better (although even they are dwindling), but that is not something acceptable to the nationalists.
For all these reasons I see no other outcome (notice, I did not use the word “solution”) to the current situation besides a breakup of the country into two or three separate entities each going its own way. As a concept, as a project, the Ukraine inside the ex-Soviet administrative borders has clearly outlived outlived its resource. As things stand right now, there is nobody out there with the qualities needed to try to salvage this country and we can be confident that whoever wins the current contest between Yanukovich, Klichko, Iatseniuk and Tiagnibok will only make things worse.
The interesting thing is that, at least officially, nobody, and I mean nobody, wants that. Not the regime, not the opposition, not the US, not the EU, not even Russia or any major political figure in Russia. Of course, not all of them are always honest about their real goals. Still, it will be interesting to observe whether anybody will be capable of avoiding what appears inevitable to me: a breakup of the Ukraine within the next few years as a result of what I can only call a “Ukrainian national suicide”.
The Saker
Like always, very informative. Full of facts (meat), no bs. Thank you.
Mindfriedo
Hi Saker,
If I may, you are mixing “north-west” with “north-east” and “south-east” with “south-west” in few places. Clearly, you mean “north-west” vs. “south-east” division.
The situation is somewhat similar to Bosnia, but there are major differences as well. It’s more like Croatia, or, as someone already pointed out on the previous topic, Czechoslovakia before Hitler’s invasion.
Anyhow, blaming Yanukovich for “igniting the current chaos” is not fair to the man.
Take in consideration the timing. Chaos was coming, one way or another. If he followed a pro-Russian stance more openly, i.e., turning away from the EU, this would have happened much earlier.
BTW, it’s a conflict 400 years old with the Zionist factor mixed in.
His concessions are, me thinks, based on the Syrian experience which he wants to avoid by all means. Remember when Putin talked about Assad, he mentioned that Assad was partially guilty for the situation because he refused to talk to the opposition at the beginning, and his strong-hand response just exacerbated the conflict.
Why do you suggest Yanukovich should have made the same mistake?
Don’t you realize who actually the “opposition” here is? He is talking to London & Fashington, not to the disillusioned cutthroats in the streets and their would-be zion/neo-Nazi oligarchic masters.
Ok, let’s say, they humiliate him and take power. What legitimacy would such a government have? Let the ziofascists take responsibility for the looming civil war. I doubt they’ll go that far though.
As for the south-east of Ukraine, I thought that the largest ethnic Russian population outside of Russia proper is precisely there? We are talking about tens of millions of Russians. Aren’t we?
Seems the rioteers do have som backing among a greater mass of protesters_ http://zyalt.livejournal.com/984735.html
The key problem here is the fact that Russia is being drawn into the conflict in order to be blamed for aggression, and all that comes along (see the former YU scenario). Otherwise, if the sides in Ukraine peacefully could negotiate some kind of (con)federation on their own, that’ll be a way out. Scandinavians talked to each other for 12 straight years before reaching an agreement about borders while the WWI was going on in full swing around them. This will suit Russia’s interests perfectly as well. Guess, however, who would be opposed to such a solution? Talking about “external causes” not being primary ones:).
I.e., this has everything to do with Russia, and the ziofascists don’t even hide it. The good thing is, however, that the west is collapsing, and collapsing fast, which does give hope.
Thank you for another great analysis.
I totally agree with you.
Just one question and one thought.
The question: When you say “or three separate entities”, which is the third one you have in mind?
The thought: Could it be, that split-up of Ukraine has been planned since the outcome of the Georgian conflict already? It was rumored back then and presently, events have been escalated in a way, where the split would in fact be the “Hegelian solution.”
Pleased that you mentioned the sad case of the former Yugoslavia because the threat of partition may be the only thing that brings the thugs of the “nationalist” movement to their senses. Yours is a pessimistic take, but I think that another, more hopeful, way of looking at this is that the West is powerless. Think of it, no talk of UN troops or promises of bushels of money coming from Brussels, Washington or any of the other complicit capitals of the West. Why? They don’t have the money and they can’t force a resolution through the UN. The best the mighty West can do offer is cookies! So despite the incompetence of its leaders Ukraine may have no other choice than to accept the Russian offer and let the EU inspired temper tantrum play itself out.
Perhaps Ukraine needs this period. It was only after Russia suffered through the horrors of Yeltsin that Putin was able to emerge. The pro-Western advocates need to be de-legitimized and the best way to do that is for them to actually wield power and run the Ukraine into a ditch. They are corrupt, petty and incompetent. That can’t help but fail. The EU is still not offering anything that would put food in their mouths or heat their houses. Their country will be raped, no different from when Russia was raped. Perhaps than a true Ukrainian patriot will emerge to put the oligarchs in their place and put that nation back on track. Of course the risk to Russia in that course of action is too great, but it does fire the imagination thinking of Ukraine finding itself and re asserting its sovereignty.
To me the best course of action would be to keep the police in a defensive position, to protect the normal operations of government but other than that let the opposition protesters sit in the cold and shiver. They must understand that their violence will not change a thing and that the processes of government will be respected. If they want change then the only way is to win at the ballot box. All of this gives the southeastern part of the country, and Russia, time to consider and plan for contingencies. If the opposition is really as weak as you say, a firm sign from government that it will not be cowed will cause this to fizzle. Of course it will take time for the banality of normal life to re-assert itself, but children will have to go back to school, bills will have to paid, life will carry on. Then the notion of bringing down a government by sitting in a public square, waving flags and singing songs, will lose its romanticism. And Ukraine will have won.
BTW, good article on the topic:
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/01/26/ukraine-destabilization-know-how-put-into-practice.html
Thanks, good post.
What do you think of this rumour?
Rada deputy Andriy Parybiy, of the Batkivshchyna Party reports having received information about the arrival of Russian Spetznaz Troops in Ukraine.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov had previously pledged that Russia was ready to help regulate the crisis in Ukraine.
“There is information that at 1400 Russian Spetznaz troops were disembarking at [Kyiv local airports] Boryspil and Zhulyany dressed in civilian clothing and that they were going to dress in [Ukrainian riot plice] Berkut uniforms and proceed to the Madan” said Parubiy.”
came across this by a Russian blogger.
An interesting read…
http://zyalt.livejournal.com/984735.html
Very interesting food for thought as always; merci bien Saker.
Granted, the opposition is utter garbage from top to bottom. What awaits them is poetic justice at its finest: even a Western Ukro, after all, should be able to master toilet cleaning and commodified sex — especially for the Greater Good of the EU.
However, at the risk of boring you: Ukraine today is like Czechoslovakia of 80 years earlier. Nazi Germany brought about insurrection and chauvinism in the Sudeten region with the short-time goal of grabbing the entire country and the long-term goal of moving its genocidal war machine right up to Russia’s doorstep. Hence, the braindead opposition doesn’t have to think for themselves; they just have to follow their liberators’ advice, come what may.
Yanukovich, for his part, is exactly what you described him as: a criminal coward. And in this regard, he is exactly like Czechoslovakia’s Eduard Beneš. This makes it quite likely that Yanukovich too will go into exile somewhere in the West after having duly betrayed his country to curry favour with the monster.
Lastly, Russia too will have to re-live the 1930s and, most notably, 1940s. Whether it likes it or not, given the violent fanaticism of Western imperialism, Russia once again has no other options than to take down the beast in a ferocious, merciless battle.
An ominous sign?!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-peace-doves-attacked-at-vatican/
@Saker: But I have to admit that his latest move has caught me by surprise.
Whenever an event catches you by surprise, it means that the framework you are using to analyze events is deficient and needs to be rethought (I take it as an axiom here that one needs a framework for sound analysis, which seems to be not widely understood judging by what I read in most “analyses”).
In the framework I am using, this cave-in by Yanukovich was expected and predicted. I can elaborate the arguments, if there is interest. Here are a few additional predictions for the near future, based on the same framework (some of them are completely opposite to your conclusions, which means that our frameworks are incompatible, but they will be tested by unfolding events via these predictions):
– There will be no wide scale civil war.
– There will be no partitioning of Ukraine at this point (and Crimea will not try to separate).
– Yanukovich will end in complete surrender, but may survive politically in some capacity like a leader of a parliamentary fraction.
– He and government will be replaced by puppets fully controlled by the US. Tymoshenko is a good candidate and here I agree with you that it is likely that she will be released and will become the next president of Ukraine.
– EU association agreement will be signed in the next few months (certainly by summer).
– South-eastern Ukraine will suffer a strong economic decline in the next few years, which will reduce its influence in Ukraine’s internal politics.
@Anonymous:When you say “or three separate entities”, which is the third one you have in mind?
Mostly one hears of western vs eastern Ukraine or, I put it above, northwestern vs southeastern Ukraine. But it would be more accurate to speak of the northwestern eastern and southern Ukraine as the south Ukraine is culturally distinct from the eastern Ukraine. Distinct does not mean opposed, however, and I am not suggesting that they are. ALl I am saying is Dniepropetrovsk is very different from Sevastopol and Donetsk is different from Odessa.
@Anonymous: Rada deputy Andriy Parybiy, of the Batkivshchyna Party reports having received information about the arrival of Russian Spetznaz Troops in Ukraine.
Absolute and total bullshit
@Andrey:which means that our frameworks are incompatible
Not at all. The only difference is in working hypothesis. You assume that the eastern/southern Ukrainians will not reject the nationalist coup. I wrote my analysis based on the assumption that their current threats to do so are more than hot air and grandstanding. But if they cave in, then I fully agree with every single element of your analysis, point by point. I don’t think that this is a difference in framework, just that we use different inputs/working hypotheses. I based my on what I hear coming out of Donetsk, the Crimea and other part of the east/south were some very strong statements were made these days. But you are quite correct, these guys can also simply cave in, in which case I would endorse all your predictions.
Cheers,
The Saker
Hi Saker,
With regard to Yanukovich is it possible that
A) He fully expected the near total surrender to be rejected and thus gaining support for a crackdown?
B) To what degree does he have the support of the army and police? Perhaps he fears an order to crack down will be ignored or result in a break up of the security forces.
Which might bring us back to A. He is giving the opposition enough rope to hang themselves. While western media will attack any move Yanu make to restore order, within Ukraine I imagine eventually even the western parts will grow weary of “protesters” burning Kiev to the ground.
And if all fails, then let the opposition take over and own the result 5 years from now.
I would tend to agree with Saker in most of his analysis.
Ukraine is an artificial country. The dividing line is between Orthodoxy and Uniatism, which is extremely virulent in Ukraine. It is this dimension that adds irrational hatred to the mix. Uniates hate Orthodox, this is a fact. A separation would be rather beneficial – there are exactly 360 years since the Pereiaslavl Rada! Bohdan Khmelnitsy aimed at liberating the Orthodox from the terrible effects of the Union of Brest, from the Polish masters and their Jewish exactors. We are told that “the Poles considered the Ukraine part of Poland” and that the Jews would curse Khmelnitsky eversince.
WizOz
@ Anonymous said… 26 January, 2014 16:48
> came across this by a Russian blogger.
> http://zyalt.livejournal.com/984735.html
Any serious analyses of the events in Ukraine should start with an answer to the salient point expressed in 16-th comment from the website – “Why they do not”.
That’s all.
Speaking of nazis, though not the western run nazis trashing Ukraine, I came across this a few minutes ago:
Book claims Hitler died in South America, not Berlin, aged 95
http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_01_26/Book-claims-Hitler-died-in-South-America-not-Berlin-aged-95-1035/
I’m not endorsing the book or the theory, it was the last paragraph in the article that caught my attention.
“Simoni is now planning to use DNA tests using a relative of Hitler living in Israel, after been given permission to exhume Adolf Leipzig’s remains from his alleged final resting place in Nossa Senhora do Livramento.”
Those Israeli connections are always popping up when one least expects them.
BTW, while the Israelis may publicly balk at supporting nazis, such as the ones running amok in Ukraine, they have a long history of doing so, and the nazis in Ukraine are are as much a part of zionazi strategy as their running of “al CIAda” terrorists against Syria and creating such freaks as Anders Behring Breivik.
вот так
@Saker: Not at all. The only difference is in working hypothesis. You assume that the eastern/southern Ukrainians will not reject the nationalist coup.
Working hypotheses are part of the analysis framework. ;)
Anyway I did not assume that south-east Ukraine will not reject central government. It is part of prediction. In your analysis you seem to think that either 1) Yanukovich caving in to pressure from the south-east and cracking down on protesters or 2) Yanukovich caving in to protesters and then south-east rising up.
In my analysis framework 1) is impossible and my prediction is that Yanukovich will cave in and effectively cede power in one way or the other, but south-east will do nothing at all. I do not assume it. It follows from my understanding of what is happening and who are the main protagonists.
I may be wrong, of course, but it should not be long before these predictions are tested.
I concur with the Scenario 1:
Yanukovich will eventually yield to the pressure of the southeastern Ukraine and a few key politicians and finally crack-down on the rioters and restore law and order. . . Northwestern Ukraine is likely to rise up, reject such move and basically slip out from under the authority of the central government.
My reasons for this conclusion are different. The surrender Yanukovich offered was never designed to be accepted. It was made mobilize South-East local leaders in threatening cessation. Then Yanukovich would make a claim that the opposition never had any intention or ability to control crowds and therefore he has to preserve territorial integrity of Ukraine, impose Marshall Law and use force to Pacify the protesters. At the same time Russia and (Donetsk area Billionaires who stand to lose everything) will arm SouthEast and the real civil war will start. Russia is better equipped for proxy war then NATO or EU, so SouthEast will prevail militarily. Then, two results are possible: Yanukovich will consolidate his power or Russia and Donetsk area Billionaires will achieve the cessation of SouthEast to keep the fleet and factories there intact.
“came across this by a Russian blogger.
http://zyalt.livejournal.com/984735.html
…
“Any serious analyses of the events in Ukraine should start with an answer to the salient point expressed in 16-th comment from the website – “Why they do not”.
I agree. I would also add that any solid analysis should also ask why protesters focus on this little piece of the European square. I.e. what the hell are they trying to accomplish there.
So why don’t they?
People who could give order to clear the protest cannot do this. If Berkut moves to clear the maidan, it will be met with armed resistance and so any such attempt will be accompanied by lots of blood. It will also be accompanied by widespread armed attacks on police (and probably their families) in Kiev and elsewhere in Ukraine. In this case 1) West will freeze assets of Yanukovich’s backers: Akhmetov, Firtash, etc. (such explicit threats by the US have already been made this past week), 2) Yanukovich will be completely de-legitimized and open season will be declared on him and his associates. The most important factor here is 1. The oligarchs behind Yanukovich cannot allow this possibility.
2 is less important probably but may figure in Yanukovich’s thinking. I think SBU is thoroughly infiltrated and I’ve heard that Yanukovich is quite smart so he probably knows this. So I he probably does fear for his safety.
I thus think that the only option left for Yanukovich now is to negotiate his surrender. As we could already see from the initial offer in negotiation, his position is extremely weak and he has no other options. The final surrender will be some sort of full capitulation, but perhaps with some face saving elements for Yanukovich. He himself will of course declare that he did not want to shed blood, split the country, wanted to prevent civil war, etc…
What protesters are trying to accomplish on the European square standoff? Very simply: provoke the police and generate lots of dramatic images of the kind gathered on this page. This must be one of the most brilliant and efficient PR actions I have ever seen.
Another interesting analysis.
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/58713
I do agree, actually Russia should not put even the little finger in this mess, watch and wait how it turns out.
Andrey,
We shall see. I remember the same kind of talk about “best PR ever” early in the case of the Syrian situation, and most definitely how Assad had to simply choose his terms on departure. Some folks see the West has dominant, and some see it in decline. I’m not so impressed with Western PR in the current mess. Besides, the number of folks watching things like CNN or the BBC seem to have fallen dramatically as they’ve turned into non-stop propaganda.
An additional question is what would happen if the rebels won. If the economy went down significantly, you seem to be expecting that nothing dramatic would then happen. Is that realistic? A big reason for the current mess is a dysfunctional economy.
Paul
Hi Bot Tak, The DNA will prove nothing. The (always unnamed) relative in Israel is not Hitler’s blood relative. After his mother was born, his grandmother divorced his grandfather to marry Hitler’s half-brother, and the two later disowned his mother, an opponent of Nazism, who bore him illegitimately. He became a pacifist, and converted to Judaism in the 1970s while studying theology to evade military service. Interestingly, he calls his militantly Israeli son a fascist. Tanya Gold wrote about him in The Guardian.
Eastern Ukraine is fighting back …
http://tauroggen.blogspot.ch/2014/01/die-ostukraine-wehrt-sich.html
http://www.chartophylakeion.de/blog/2014/01/27/ukraine-vor-dem-exorzismus
Both articles are in German. Use Yandex or Google translate if you’re interested in this.
It seems that in some parts of the country common people are waking up to the threat foreign sponsored thugs pose to their elected government. In Luhansk, Kryvyi Rih, Odessa, Sevastopol, Simferopol, Zaporizhia, Kharkiv and other places masses of people have turned up in support of the local police and prevented violent EuroFans and fascists from taking over their municipal buildings. If this is what Yanukovych has been waiting for then he has shown more wisdom and cunning than we’ve been giving him credit for.
So, if you were advising the Western strategists, how would you go about getting the Russian fleet out? This is just part of the war on Russia, and the broader attempt to create a bankster-led dictatorship before other things, such as a prosperous Eurasian sphere stop them.
Paul
@Paul: how would you go about getting the Russian fleet out
I would not. I honestly think that Crimea is a special case and even though Russia did recognize it as part of the Ukraine, this was done with a clear understanding that Russia did consider the Peninsula of national strategic importance. Besides, Russia simply cannot move the fleet out because besides the ships themselves there is a lot of infrastructure on the land. Also, Russia and the Ukraine have an agreement on Russian basing there for which Russia paid. But finally, and honestly, the Crimea and Sevastopol are truly Russian and if the Russian population more or less agreed with the separation of the Ukraine after 1991, there is no way that the nationalist neo-Nazis are going to impose their rule on the Crimea without the shit hitting the fan in a major way. Sevastopol is a “hero city” who suffered horrendously during WWII from the Nazis and there is no way the local population or the Kremlin are going to stand by while the heir of Stepan Bendera will impose their rule on the peninsula. So to answer your question fully, I would recommend a maximal amount of restraint for the Black Sea Fleet, they should stay away from any and all political demonstrations, the commanders should shut up and refuse all interviews and should it come to a crisis the Crimean local authorities should try to defend themselves using only local police and security forces. But if that is not enough, and if the nationalists are truly determined to seize control of the Crimea in a coup, the Black Sea Fleet will have no option but the take control of the Peninsula and should that happen, I think that they will do that in coordination with the rest of the Russian military. The operation will be presented as a “interposition” and “peacekpeeing/peace enforcement operation” but what it will do in reality is return Crimea to Russia.
So to reply to your question, I would advise Western strategists not to try to get the Russians out of Crimea simply because politics is the science of the possible and that goal appears impossible to achieve, at least in my opinion. Now in the long term and in theory, if the Ukraine can remain stable, it probably would be possible to negotiate a full Russian withdrawal over a long period of time. But just to have some Klichko or Iatseniuk order the Black Sea Fleet out is not going to happen.
Does that answer your question adequately?
And,of course, the events in the Ukraine are totally part of a war on Russia. Nobody needs the Ukraine in the West, what they need is to weaken and hurt Russia as much as can be. It is all about not letting Russia become united and powerful.
Kind regards,
The Saker
I don’t think that answer will get you a job offer from the Western forces trying to take over. One would imagine that disrupting life in that area with provocateurs or cutting off water or food might be a start. A fake massacre in which the local authorities would be blamed, but couldn’t access the area in question would be useful. The national authorities would go along and allow the usual Western intel-Hollywood types to do their thing. In fact, they should get the studio sets and fake videos ready as soon as possible.
And anything that could be stirred up should be a win-win thing. If Russia has to bring in troops or weapons and threaten the neo-Nazis, relations between Russia and the EU would go into the deep freeze. McCain would be dancing in Kyev at this point.
Paul
@Paul:I don’t think that answer will get you a job offer from the Western forces
I agree. In fact, giving the wrong answer to another question cost me my career as a military analyst. But if I lost my career, my former employer soon lost 6 of its employees who where killed because my warnings were ignored. So if my advice cost me my career, it was still the right advice. Likewise, the plan you suggest would probably result in people trying to execute it getting caught. There is *a lot* of security in the Crimean Peninsula, not only Ukrainian or Crimean, but even the Russians have extensive networks and the place is very “hardened”. Besides, even if the Kiev authorities, or even the local ones, told the Russians to leave, that would not work because a) there is a signed agreement between the two countries and b) the Ukies don’t have the forces to move the Russians out by force. So, while I agree with you that my answer would not get me a job, I would have to insist that this is the correct one, whether that makes me popular or not :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
I think we’re misunderstanding the latest Yanukovich move. It seems that he is actually trying to disunite the opposition clowns (not to say that they were so obviously united). The offer of PM post to Yatseniuk as opposed to Klitschko, who seems most eager and ambitious for power, is designed to split the three (add Tyahnibok) and force competition among them, thus weakening them, and ultimately discrediting them. I doubt this will change things though. The situation is now far beyond the control of these “leaders”…
What good is a signed agreement? This is an information war. If the national government says the earlier agreement was signed by criminals who received bribes, and a fake made-on-TV massacre is said to take place in the Crimea, Russia will be in an awkward position – and it’s hard to catch people who only exist on TV or who were actually murdered in a different part of the country. Yes, Russia won’t back down, but the infowar will be a big problem. Indeed, one could argue that the Russians and the Eastern Ukrainians have not participated in the infowar, so it’s to be expected that they will be defeated in it at the end of the day.
Besides, the goal is not really to get the Russians’ fleet out, it’s to cause problems for Russia. And the suckers in the Ukraine don’t see that they are just European versions of Libyans or Syrians.
Paul
@Paul: We shall see. I remember the same kind of talk about “best PR ever” early in the case of the Syrian situation, and most definitely how Assad had to simply choose his terms on departure.
Assad is an actual real leader, Yanukovich is a figure head. West had insufficient levers of influence on Assad and his team (although it had some judging by a few defections), while they have more than sufficient levers of influence on the people behind Yanukovich.
An additional question is what would happen if the rebels won. If the economy went down significantly, you seem to be expecting that nothing dramatic would then happen. Is that realistic? A big reason for the current mess is a dysfunctional economy.
A pro-western figure head, such as Tymoshenko or Klichko, will be installed as the president. We will see more of what was happening 2004-2010. Social unrest and decline will continue, but there will be no immediate civil war or partitioning of the country.
>> And the suckers in the Ukraine don’t see that they are just European versions of Libyans or Syrians >>
Well, my take on these Western Ukros actually is that, in the sentence above, they’d put utmost emphasis on the word EUROPEAN and feel immensely proud as such. In short: A Western Ukro is a piece of grovelling filth but very haughty, nonetheless.
Andrey,
The Sunni business community backed Assad. The Ukrainian business community will probably cave into Western pressure, but it will be suicide for their businesses, so it isn’t totally clear, is it?
The question isn’t whether a pro-Western leader is installed, it’s whether a hard-line stance against Russia in economics will be taken. The reason Yanukovich went with Russia was not a love of Russia, it was the financial destruction that would go with what the EU was offering. Now, maybe the EU will make a far better offer to whoever comes after him. Or maybe not. If not, the decline is likely to be much more significant than just a continuation of the last ten years.
Perhaps we just disagree with what the West’s goals are. I think they want to create a true mess, not simply have a pro-West leader.
Paul
Yes,it is a very sober description by the Saker, oligarchs, coruption and totaly brainwashed naive West – holding dream holders about nothing, just an empty primitive promises and new world order slavery. My neighbor is from Ukraine and he has confirmed that all of the troublemakers on the main square are paid in cash to do this mess. By whom??? is the question, we can guess….
It is a very old dream about to own the all world lets have a look what the humanity was forced to endure for the sake of the owning the world
Napoleon,World war 1;2;Asian war – Japan;Korea;Fascist regime in Chile;Argentina;Brazil;Venezuela;Quatemala;Sudan;Kenya;Syria;Iraq;Afganistan;Pakistan;Serbia;Kosovo;Croatia;Hungary;Czechoslovakia; Ukraine and so on… The question is how long the humanity is going to tolerate this mess orchestrated by the small group of psychopaths?
@Paul: The Sunni business community backed Assad. The Ukrainian business community will probably cave into Western pressure, but it will be suicide for their businesses, so it isn’t totally clear, is it?
Assad has a wide power base. Power base of Yanukovich are his clan and clans of Akhmetov and Firtash, plus some others. All of these are completely susceptible to direct blackmail by the US because they have a large fraction of their assets and businesses in the West.
Caving in to the West will be bad for their businesses, but they are between the rock and the hard place and are choosing the lesser evil in their view. Plus they probably think they can adapt to the EU association conditions.
Just look at the “chocolate king” Poroshenko as an example. It is clear that his chocolates will not be competitive in Europe and it’s not clear whether they’ll remain competitive in Ukraine. Plus, he may lose russian market if Russia follows up on its threats last August. However, the guy is at the forefront of the pro-EU maidan and is financing it heavily. So go figure.
@Paul The question isn’t whether a pro-Western leader is installed, it’s whether a hard-line stance against Russia in economics will be taken. The reason Yanukovich went with Russia was not a love of Russia, it was the financial destruction that would go with what the EU was offering.
Economic decline that will happen due to opening of the markets is only part of the story. It is loss of russian markets that will hit the hardest. However, it is not clear whether russian market will actually be lost.
Russia has made threats (I suspect that in addition to public threats there were some serious secret threats) and they seemed to work. However, Russia’s economy will also suffer if the trade is cut significantly. So it goes both ways. Russia can ill afford such big hit to its economy, which is teetering at the edge of recession as it is.
In addition, I think ultimately Russia’s threats will prove to be ineffective. That is Ukraine will sign EU association agreement this year. In this case, economic links and trade will be the only level of influence left at Russia’s disposal and they will not just cut them off (except for minor ones like banning import of Poroshenko’s chocolates).
If not, the decline is likely to be much more significant than just a continuation of the last ten years.
Yes, people will continue suffering and political unrest will continue. There is no way around it. Recall though that in the early 1990s people in Ukraine and Russia have suffered even more (industrial collapse and decline of economy that rivaled that of 1941-1943) and have carried through stoically…
Perhaps we just disagree with what the West’s goals are. I think they want to create a true mess, not simply have a pro-West leader.
I don’t know what you think about these goals. From what I know about events in the past 20 years, US is hell-bent on controlling Ukraine. This is not surprising, because it needs this control to be able to disrupt development of economic ties between Germany and Russia and ultimately move NATO into Ukraine. This is why US is carrying out a coup in Ukraine now (I have no doubt that we are witnessing a CIA operation), while Germany is dragging its feet and is largely silent (leaving most of the public fighting to Russia, as in other cases such as Syria).
The only way Russia can survive without collapse and dismemberment in the medium term is if Ukraine stays out of NATO and economic ties between Ukraine and Russia remain strong. The only way Germany can be independent in the future is if Russia can stay independent, because Russia is the only independent source of hydrocarbons for Germany not controlled by the US. Plus, it has an absolutely huge potential for development and investment for German capital, comparable to what the US was for British capital in the 19th century. This was one of the main reasons for WWI and WWII. None of this can happen, however, with US in control.