The Minsk “Ceasefire” Protocol and Russian Diplomacy’s Masterful “Sabotage”
If Flaubert achieved for me his acme with three or four simple words “She pretended to think,” Saker reached his peak with this marvellous description of the politically and diplomatically atrocious “Minsk ceasefire protocol“: “Knowing the degree to which Russian diplomats are normally maniacally fastidious and pedantic with words, I can only conclude that they have deliberately sabotaged this agreement and that it’s sole use what to deflate the bellicose mood of the NATO summit.” (Link to the original article at The Vineyard of the Saker)
In other words, the implementation of Putin’s 7-point initiative was written so poorly and badly that Saker concluded not only that it must have been written by Russian diplomats, but that Russian diplomats must have composed the Minsk Protocol so terribly on purpose. For how could someone comparatively intelligent and reasonably well educated produce something so horrible and awful? One does not make something so bad by mistake. One has to be a master to be able to do that.
And why would Russian diplomats deliberately sabotage the document and made it so poor and thus making themselves appear as bad as the document they made? According to Saker, this was not because they had any intention to sabotage Novorossiya or its struggle, but because they wanted to sabotage “the bellicose mood” of NATO by appeasing NATO and its bellicosity with the sabotage of the ceasefire agreement.
And why exactly would NATO, receiving such awful provisions for Novorossiya, find its “bellicose mood deflated”? Because of being in awe of the horrible work of the Russian diplomats? Or just being stunned by it? Or because in some way this sabotage made their “bellicose mood” much happier and relaxed?
So does this mean that we have at last found the secret for deflating NATO and its aggressiveness–by sabotaging our own work, by promising to keep Novorossiya dissolved into several “special regions” for which the Nazis might at some point write their “Law” and run their “new elections”? Is it really by sabotaging genuine peace and actual principles that friends of Russia and Putin can appease, deflate and defeat NATO’s intelligence and plans, which were decades in making, as Avakov said the other night?
Does this mean that the worse their work Russian diplomats do, the more they “sabotage,” the more NATO will be deflated and the better and more effective Russian diplomacy is actually going to be?
I am just simply getting overwhelmed. So, in a situation like this, I think I need a drink or one or two. And after few more drinks, I must start to understand at last that the best strategy, writing, and thought, when it comes to such serious matters as the fate of Novorossiya and Russia, might be, as Saker teaches, that very bad and awful is better and even good!
Drunken with tears,
Yours Vlad, Czechmate
The Divinity of Omniscient Teenagers
When one feels omniscient, then even one’s blunders must appear to be a stroke of a genius.
Of course, we knew that the Kiev regime would use the teenagers’ ceasefire “just to regroup again” so that we can advance against a stronger and better armed enemy even further. Every single mistake or miscalculation we make is not just deliberate, it is also omniscient in a sense of being conscious of being no mistake, but unfathomably clever and smart.
Thus when we seem to act like a teenager, that’s when we are becoming nearly divine. The assumed ceasefire was ingenuous, indeed: we assured the enemy that we are stopping our offensive, while we knew all along that the enemy will be violating the ceasefire anyway, knowing that we will not make a move until he really hits us very hard.
So giving the enemy a free hand in attacking and choosing how and how much to freely violate the one-sided ceasefire, we have confirmed our genius by telling ourselves that we knew all this before anyway. We even know all our blunders beforehand–well, except that our omniscience would never allow us to call blunders blunders. No genius can do that to oneself.
The Revolutionary Manifest of Novorossiya
Alexey Mozgovoy, commander of the Prizrak Brigade and a key political leader of Novorossiya, issued on September 8 an “Address to ‘Volnye’ People.” It is a revolutionary declaration. It is the revolutionary manifest of Новороссия/Novorossiya.
The address was made as a reaction to the forcible removal of Igor Strelkov as Novorossiya’s commander in chief and to the Minsk “truce” (trusov – cowards’ in Russian) agreement which the current leaders of the two people’s republics were to sign with Leonid Kuchma, the godfather of Ukraine’s oligarchic elite, who is, otherwise, in his retirement today merely a private person. Still Kuchma was till 2004 one of the key movers who played a great role in bringing Ukraine into the hands of new Banderites united with the Ukrainian oligarchs.
With respect to the term “volniye lyudi” used by Alexey Mozgovoy. Literally, it means “free people.” But it can also be rendered as “volunteers” or those who are of their own free will on the side of Novorossiya—and now we can also say the revolution, which Novorossiya embodies. Thus, volniye lyudi are not only free people, they are also those who fight for Novorossiya freely and for free—without compulsion and without having to be paid to do so for they are mature and committed lovers of freedom and freedom fighters who have risen up against oligarchs and their Nazis.
They fight for out of love—out of love for the common good.
Now the essence of Mozgovoy’s Address, which is nothing less than a declaration of revolution and Novorossiya itself as a revolution:
1. The signing of the “Minsk Protocol about Truce” was an act of treason. The leaders of the people’s republics who signed it must resign.
2. 90% of the people of Novorossiya and 100% of the Army of Novorossiya are against the Truce Protocol and the conditions (of surrender) which the Protocol contains.
3. Ceasefire does not exist. There is no peace. The alleged ceasefire is farce.
4. Kuchma’s signature means nothing. That also means that the Kiev junta itself did not actually sign anything. Only the two leaders of the people’s republics took unilaterally certain obligations on behalf of the people’s republics, usurping and abusing their positions to do so.
5. In creating and signing the Protocol (resembling the Munich Deal of 1938), the given leadership had no interest in asking those, the soldiers and the people of Novorossiya, who fight for the right to be free and to have their will respected, what they think.
6. The battle has to be carried to its victorious end. There is no other way.
7. Oligarchic power in Ukraine must be destroyed
8. No “special status” for Novorossiya, as stated in the Minsk Protocol, within a “united,” “indivisible,” Nazi, Banderite, oligarchic Ukraine! Novorossiya already has its special status—it is its vision of a dignified, just society. Society based on narodovlastiye—power and freedom of the working people!
9. To this effect, the Military Council of Novorossiya must be convened as soon as possible. Its task is to reaffirm the unity of Novorossiya and the continuation of its revolutionary program.
10. We all need to be united! The separate people’s republics must finally form one strong united state of Novorossiya. Only in this way, victory can be achieved.
11. Novorossiya does not need those who sold themselves and who want to sell Novorossiya.
12. Novorossiya and her revolution is a struggle for our honor, dignity, and justice. That’s what we are fighting for. Let it honour with freedom or death!
13. Honor belongs to those who win it!
14. Victory will be ours!