Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard
Michael Kofman from the RAND research center published a big analytical report devoted to the Crimean events of the spring of 2014. As a reminder, this organization develops solutions to problems of the State policy of the United States. And when the White house doesn’t know that to do in certain international and internal issues, it addresses the analysts from RAND, and they send to the President recommendations, on the basis of which the administration prepares decrees. It remains only to add a signature, and the head of State even doesn’t need to read what is written there.
The outsourcing of political decisions is quite widely developed over the ocean. After all, the US President is not a God that knows everything that is going on in the huge, operated by America world, claims the experts of RAND.
So, in Kofman’s report the events in Crimea that occurred from February to May, 2014, are systematized. By the way, the client of the analysis was Barack Obama, to whom conclusions were provided already in the autumn of 2015. And now with the new President Trump the results of research was at last published. This report received the unique identification ode HQD146843.
If to read the preface to the report, the thought involuntarily arises that the last administration was so impressed with the events in Crimea that they insistently recommended to a number of leading departments of the US army to study this experience.
Apparently, in the US there is the clear understanding that the coup d’etat is for any State fraught with essential risks. There is no need to go far to obtain facts. The actual overthrow of Mikhail Gorbachev from the post of the President of the USSR led our country to a loss of huge territories, on which the national elites took advantage of the central powerlessness. By and large, the emergence of modern Ukraine as a separate State was a result of Moscow’s “revolution of dignity”.
Thus, planning the overthrow of Yanukovych, the curators in the White House realized that Ukraine during the days of Maidan will stop being a State in the true sense of the word, at least until the national election of a new President. The matter is that the illegal overthrow of the leader in any democratic country is the most flagrant violation of the Constitution. For this purpose there is impeachment, as it, for example, was in South Korea or Brazil. That’s why those who came to power in Kiev in February, 2014, de jure were international criminals.
However, Michael Kofman, and, therefore, Barack Obama were interested in other question: how and why did Moscow take advantage of these circumstances so successfully.
After all, at the time of the overthrow of the lawful President Yanukovych, rather powerful forces of the Ukrainian army were based in Crimea, including 41 tanks, 160 infantry fighting vehicles, 47 artillery systems, and also 2000 “patriotic” soldiers and 2500 nationalist-orientated military personnel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of “independent” Ukraine. It was considered that it will be enough to cause a small bloody war with a large number of victims among civilians. Only then the term “annexation” would receive legal justification. While like that — it no more than rhetoric in the next question of disputed territories, of which there are dozens in the world.
However, on February 26th, the President of Russia Vladimir Putin ordered to stage drills with the participation of 150,000 military personnel from the units of the Western and Central military districts. Washington drew incorrect conclusions about a possible invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army through Donbass. In fact, this step of the Kremlin outright frightened Washington, after which the infinite and useless meetings began in the White house. The peninsula dropped out of the field of vision of the curators.
In the same time, in Crimea the local population self-organized, and “polite people” blocked the Ukrainian units in barracks and in bases. Even the politically engaged RAND center recognized that everything happened without violence, almost “by mutual consent”. In fact, for Kofman the inaction of soldiers and officers of the UAF and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of “independent” Ukraine is the question of all questions, even now, three years later. He wrote that the probability of success of Russians increased day after day as a result of a lack of any resistance of the Ukrainian troops.
And all this occurred when the new “local leadership of Crimea probably didn’t coordinate its steps with the Kremlin,” recognizes the analyst of RAND. “The lack of integration (with Moscow – ed) was evident in the scheduling of a plebiscite on Crimea’s fate”. And this also was trouble for curators and conspirators who organized the coup d’etat.
It happened because on February 23rd, 2014, the Rada cancelled the legislation that guaranteed the official status and protection of the Russian language. This extremely stupid vote caused criticism even from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Radosław Sikorski, one of the Polish curators of Maidan who stated that instead of russophobia it is necessary “today to eloquently signal to ethnic minorities that they are welcome in Ukraine”. In brief, you will hang them later.
Under the pressure of Washington, the interim President Aleksandr Turchynov didn’t sign the anti-Russian law, but his legislative initiatives caused extensive damage to the interests of the US. In the report of RAND these steps of the Rada are called the first mistake of conspirators.
The second mistake occurred on February 24th when one of the leaders of nationalists Igor Mosiychuk publicly threatened to bring into Crimea his militarized fighters to punish those who spoke against the overthrow of Yanukovych. Fighters of the radical party of Oleg Lyashko openly called for violence against those who disagreed with the fact that selective votes of 2 million Crimeans were annulled by several thousand aggressive hooligans. So fighters of “Berkut” were called the instigators of street riots in Kiev.
By the way, the US considered one of the potential risks of overthrowing Yanukovych to be the European legislation on human rights. As a reminder, the ECHR in its scale of conventional values attaches special importance to electoral rights, the violation of which leads to property losses. In particular, under this article the ECHR ordered to pay compensation to the sum of €13,000 to each of the claimants from Azerbaijan. Now the “Rescue Committee of Ukraine“ intends to have legal proceedings in Strasbourg for the purpose of recognising Maidan as a coup d’etat.
In other words, any citizen of Ukraine can submit to the ECHR a claim that as a result of Maidan their electoral right was violated, which led to a loss of property, for example, a house in the zone of the “anti-terrorist operation”. It is clear that in the ECHR there isn’t much of a chance to achieve justice, but the fact of the claim itself will cause huge political damage to the “illegitimate tsars of Ukraine”.
Thirdly, in the spring of 2014 the provisional government of Ukraine, to its surprise, found its powerlessness in preventing the transferring of Russian reinforcements to Crimea, stated RAND distressfully. It also is clear why. The leaders of Maidan shared the power that was taken away from the lawful President, without paying attention to the recommendations and even objections from America at all. However, it is quite probable that none of the ministers of the new Cabinet of Ministers and the party leaders of “independent” Ukraine simply didn’t want to give a military response in Crimea. The present elite of Ukraine was absolutely unscrupulous, both in relation to the curators and to the people they summoned on Maidan. In any case, such a conclusion arises after studying the report of Kofman.RAND_RR1498 (1)
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.