Putin left the G20 summit without waiting for the end of the programme. Of course, the President of Russia has the right to sleep on his arrival in Moscow, all the more so as he had ‘to work on Monday’.
It is possible that Putin cannot sleep on the plane which flies for ‘eight hours to our Far East and another eight from there to Moscow’. It is hardly believable that the cabin of the leader of a superpower is not equipped with a bedroom—such an option exists even on ordinary run-of-the-mill business jets. For people who spend much of their lives in the air (often for many hours), crossing several time zones, this is not just whimsy, but a necessity. And it is impossible to assume that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Head of the Presidential Protocol did not inform him of the summit’s programme in advance.
Thus, Putin knew perfectly well when the summit would come to an end. In such cases the programme used to be served until the very end. It is impossible to imagine that the hosts prepared, planned and coordinated the event whereas the guests simply departed when it suited them. All the more so, as dinners and cultural events also are used for negotiations.
That is to say, the Russian president pointedly left the Summit without caring about even a more or less polite explanation of his actions. One could, after all, have said that the President had an illness; but the desire to sleep after a sixteen hour flight—such an explanation would have been insulting to the Australians, yet the insult was defiantly given.
What caused such a reaction from Vladimir Vladimirovich? Even if the Australian Prime Minister had not spent the whole week announcing his intention to aggressively question Putin about the Malaysian Boeing; even if the press-service of the Canadian Prime Minister had not leaked to the media his “fearsome” demand to withdraw from Ukraine; even if the Russian media, just in time for the Summit, had not miraculously “found” a photograph of a jet fighter shooting down the Boeing; even then, it would have been obvious that the main subject of negotiations between the Russian President and Western leaders had to be the Ukrainian crisis.
Actually, the only interest for Russia, in this respect, is the position of the USA. The rest of the West still only breathes and moves in the mode defined by Washington.
Considering the build-up of explosive social energy in a rapidly destabilised EU, the latter will not last long, although it remains for now. Since the USA are not giving Ukraine money and weapons, are not permitting them even to try to stabilise the situation in the country, by concentrating power in a single hand (firstly they did not allow Yatsenyuk to be elected president, then Poroshenko was denied a majority in the Rada and thus the ability to appoint his chosen candidate as Prime Minister), it has been clear for some months now that Kiev has been written off. That is to say, it would make sense to discuss with Washington the situation “after Ukraine”, as well as the problem of mutually financing the economic recovery and the disarmament of Nazi gangs.
What is Russia able to offer? Putin always leaves the possibility of face-saving for his opponent. Consequently, the Russian proposals had to be in line with Putin’s theses of February-March. Ukraine should be preserved as a state formation, but reorganised on a federal (in practice—on a confederal) basis. The West and Russia should jointly guarantee its full and comprehensive neutrality. The rights of the Russian population should be protected by amending the Constitution, including the introduction of official bilingualism.
The problem of Crimea will be solved by reinstating a Ukrainian state which is already without it. Russia and the West would jointly bear the costs of restoring the Ukrainian economy, including through the cancellation of old bad debts, opening their markets to Ukrainian goods, reducing prices of critical imports, including energy, as well as granting financial assistance—in the form of either direct or highly concessionary loans.
Clearly, this would be only a soft form of transferring Ukraine to the Russian sphere of influence, however, the USA and EU could save face, focussing on the fact that they managed to ‘save’ the Ukrainian state from a loss of sovereignty, as well as on ‘confirmation’ of Ukraine’s neutral status.
Since Putin pointedly left the Summit early, we can say for sure: the USA rejected any compromise on Ukraine. Hence, in the coming days, a week at most, a full-scale war will begin on the entire territory of the vanishing state. This war will be conducted in two formats.
Not in vain has the Militia, through the months of truce, been continuously looking for (and finding) heavy armoured vehicles in the Donetsk steppes; been attracting and training thousands of volunteers, including those possessing the specific knowledge and skills to be able effectively to use modern technology. All eyewitnesses testify that the density of troops in the DPR/LPR reads ‘off the scale’ and that those troops are concentrated in a few groups with a strongly pronounced offensive formation. And these troops have been cherished—they have not been sent to the front. They should strike a deadly blow to the Kiev authorities that would at once bring down the front. This is the first format—the collapse of the front, followed by a gradual occupation of the territory (not just of Novorossiya, but the whole of Ukraine). But this will be a slow process, depending on the readiness of the Militia and of the regions.
The second format should bring the Central and Western regions into the desired degree of readiness (Novorossiya is already ready) That is a civil war within the Kiev authorities (Yatsenyuk against Poroshenko , Kolomoyskyi against all, the Nazis against the oligarchs, the Army against the National Guards, peasant “self-defence” against urban food expropriators of the “supply detachments”, etc.). This is the most terrible conflict, capable of rapidly decimating the population of Ukraine by twenty-five to thirty percent, and making those remaining willing to do anything just to stop the horror.
Putin tried to prevent this very horror, offering the West, needless for Russia, preservation of Ukraine under conditions of federalisation and neutrality. This very horror is being provoked by the USA. Actually, it is not being provoked—it has been provoked. The coup and civil war became inevitable in Ukraine two months before the parliamentary elections, when it became clear that Turchinov, Yatsenyuk and Avakov were going to the polls not alongside Poroshenko, but against him. The US has long been waiting for when the Kiev leaders and their Nazi-henchmen finally begin killing each other.
Studious Yatsenuk, obedient Avakov and Turchynov, now bereft of the last shreds of adequacy, are ready to start shooting. But their second-tier henchmen are still afraid. Most of the Army still stands for Poroshenko. To put it mildly, it is not friendly towards the Nazi volunteer battalions. The collapse of the front, which after the failure of the Australian negotiations became inevitable, eliminates this foothold. Moreover, Poroshenko, as the supreme commander, will lose his credibility in society and in the security agencies.
The US get what they want—a full-scale, bloody civil war in the Ukraine with the liquidation of the remnants of the economy and the state, and the collapse of communal and social services. The territory will be plunged into the Stone Age in a matter of days.
The USA is hoping that, having finally formed ‘the Ukrainian people’, it will forever separate Russia and Ukraine. In addition, they know that the restoration of normal living conditions for the survivors will have to be done by Russia and the EU, which should tie up the resources of Moscow and Brussels, creating a competitive advantage for Washington.
These calculations are just as erroneous as the February-March attempt to forge an anti-Russian, Nazi battering ram out of Ukraine. Most of the personnel who are to form a ‘Ukrainian people’ will perish and will soon finally be lost on the fronts of the civil war. Those ‘leaders of public opinion’, who have been shaping a discourse of Russophobia in Ukraine in last twenty years, who are particularly lucky, will be able to emigrate to the West and quietly live out the rest of their days in obscurity. The majority will die, not least because the USA does not have any need of witnesses to its own crimes. Even that part of the people who still begin their mornings spitting in the direction of Moscow and prostrating themselves towards the West, after a short but effective blood-bath organised by pro-Western politicians under pro-Western slogans, and, most importantly, once the West has dissociated itself from the fate of Ukraine (soon it will be obvious to even the most euphoric Maidan-arbeiters), will hate the West for its betrayal (corresponding articles and blogs written by the most discerning Euro-integrators have already begun appearing in the Ukrainian mass-media).
The remains of the population of Ukraine will meet the troops (either Novorossiyan or Russian) just as the Germans met the Red Army in 1945—lining up in the queue to the field kitchens and absorbing the new ideology with their porridge. We should not forget that a totalitarian society was built in Ukraine, and that totalitarian propaganda has one feature—people begin to love what they cursed yesterday as soon as the focus is changed.
Let me remind you that Ukraine was the most loyal republic of the USSR (even more loyal than RSFSR), and that in one stroke, after the declaration of independence, the vast majority of members of the CPSU (including Kuchma, Kravchuk and Yushchenko) suddenly became Ukrainian patriots and almost clandestine anti-communist fighters. The attitude of the people has changed just as quickly. Yesterday’s conscious builders of communism became no less conscious carriers of ideas of Ukrainisation—Russians, Jews, and even Tajiks became more hardened Ukrainians than most thoroughbred Ukrainians.
Thus, the USA’s refusal to compromise on Ukraine at the G20 Summit in Australia means a short, bloody nightmare for the population of that already former-state, followed by the accession of the territory to Russia.
The sense in retaining formal sovereignty has disappeared completely and utterly. In principle, there is no point even in sharing territory with the neighbouring EU countries (Poland, Romania and Hungary). Giving Banderite Galicia to Poland would now only serve as a subtle revenge. Yet it would be a pity to lose the territory, as the Banderites can be pushed out to Poland anyway.
Hopefully, for objective reasons, the Militia will move to the West slowly, so that whoever wants to will have time to run to the EU and join Europe in a person capacity.
In general, the shorter the liquidation period, the more lives can be saved, but that the bill for corpses, already above thirty thousand, will go to the hundreds of thousands—this is almost inevitable. Just as inevitable as two to three million emigrants to Europe. This, in the best case; at worst, Ukraine may lose up to a quarter of its pre-war population (and not all of the lost will be emigrants).
Well, everything should be paid for. For stupidity, immaturity, cookies from Nuland, envelopes from the US Embassy, grants and trips, many years of lies, the inadequacy of the political elite and the inability of the people to put forward a different elite—payment will be with blood, and more blood. Because the USA has decided. Project Ukraine closed.
Rostislav Ishchenko, president of the Centre for System Analysis and Forecasting