NEW – June 9, 2020
A public discussion on the subject of “What’s next?” is increasingly being heard. Meaning: what is actually meant by the denazification and demilitarisation of Ukraine? Are we talking about the whole of Ukraine or a part of it? And if about the whole, then what to do with it then?
Some will say that it’s too early, they say, first we need to complete a special operation, with which nothing is clear yet. However, the answer here is simple: nothing is clear to anyone who does not believe in victory.
Characteristically, “dear partners” are also discussing and guessing, against the background of which, by the way, domestic arguments and forecasts often look much more modest.
From the fresh:
“I do not know what Russia’s strategic goals are, it is a mystery to everyone, but the fact that Russia holds the initiative, has conquered 23% of the territories and expanded control over the Sea of Azov is a fact. I think that Russia’s ultimate goal is to take control of the most industrially developed regions and it will certainly achieve this” (Spanish General Fontenla to El Debate).
“Vladimir Putin’s goal is to destroy the European Union as the first step to the destruction of NATO” (Angela Merkel for Der Spiegel).
However, let’s return to a closer reality, that is, to OUR land.
To begin with, it will be necessary to weed out all intermediate options, such as urgent negotiations and stopping where agreements are found. The stratagem is known: any goodwill will be regarded by Kiev as a crushing victory with the subsequent raising of the stakes, and inside Russia as an obvious betrayal, which no one in the Kremlin will do.
And if so, then, in my opinion, there are no more than five options, from which three are bad, one is more or less acceptable and one is the most preferable, although not at all joyful. In any case, if we hypothetically sum up, nothing else is visible in the public plane at our place, which, however, is not surprising, because everything else that goes beyond the borders of Ukraine, dross and premature self-confidence, and even if it potentially takes place, definitely has nothing to do with it. And if the EU and NATO are destined to collapse, then let them figure out for themselves what kind of misstep they have done.
So, we list these options as preference increases (I suggest omitting some details due to their obvious and unpredictable variability):
- The division of Ukraine into three conditional parts: one (or several) – into the structure of Russia, the second – independent “people’s republics” that separated from Ukraine, the third (what remains) – independent neutral Ukraine.
The essence: to carry out the denazification and demilitarisation of the whole of Ukraine and leave it alone, forcing it to a neutral status for “forever and ever”. Yes, some parts may later become part of Russia, some regions will separate from Ukraine and become, say, independent “people’s republics”, something will remain in the former Ukraine with the same independent status.
This option is bad because, sooner or later (rather sooner), everything will return to normal and on all the “independent fragments”, even if it is only a piece of Galicia, systematic work on the creation of anti-Russia will begin again. Moreover, Poland is laying claim to Western Ukraine and is already climbing with might and main, which does not distance NATO from the borders of Russia, but brings it closer.
- The liberation of the whole of Ukraine and its incorporation into Russia as a republic.
The beginning is the same as in point 1, and then include the whole (exactly all) of the former Ukraine into Russia as a republic.
The variant contains a mine that will explode quickly enough: in a short time everything will return to normal, and in a much tougher form, accompanied by systemic underground work fuelled from the outside, terrorist acts and the loosening of the internal Russian situation. Once again, immeasurable corruption will flourish in the region, corrupting people and institutions, especially given the need for large funds to restore the economy, housing and infrastructure.
- The liberation of the whole of Ukraine and its incorporation into Russia on the rights of autonomy.
That is, to include all (exactly all) of the former Ukraine into Russia, but not on the rights of a republic, but, say, the autonomy of “Ukraine” without any right to self-determination. There may be moments related to the fact that some oblasts and regions (Donbass, for sure) will not want to have anything to do with the very concept of “Ukrainians”, but this is exactly the variability that I suggested above to omit.
It seems to be normal, but the option is fraught with the fact that on the territory of the former independent Ukraine, regardless of its new status and even after successful denazification (at least for one generation), the same systemic processes will still begin as in point 2, also aimed at the internal decomposition of Russian society.
- The inclusion of the former Ukraine into Russia entirely on the rights of autonomy with the exception of the very word “Ukraine” from the name.
That is, we get a kind of autonomous republic (or part of it) with a new name that has nothing to do with the former Ukraine, but with the abandonment of the Ukrainian language as a second language. Call it, say, the Western Federal District (which is optional) and attach another Russian region to it. For example, the Kuban, which first comes to mind. Then it can be called, for example, the South-Western Federal District.
The option is more or less acceptable, excluding a quick return to old problems, but still concealing a time bomb, because there is a possibility that, instead of narrowing the scope of the Ukrainian language, it will quickly take root in the same Kuban, which, quite recently (I remember from my childhood holidays), completely spoke he same surzhik as in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. And not only did it talk, but also at the household level it was sure that it was feeding the whole of Russia. The consequences are predictable: in a couple of generations, when everything calms down, pretensions against the “occupiers” and an unstoppable desire to go somewhere to the blessed West will appear again, out of nowhere, only with a much larger territory and on a larger scale.
- Liberation of the entire former Ukraine, its inclusion into Russia in parts and with the complete cleansing of the concept of “Ukrainism“.
The same as in point 4, but including the complete purging of not only “Ukraine” from circulation, but also the Ukrainian language, as it happened naturally in the Kuban, where surzhik has already become exotic and a rarity. At the same time, there should be internal division into administrative districts, for example, Donbass, Novorossiya, Malorossiya. All together, it should preferably be included in different federal districts (for example, Western and Southwestern) in order to separate them with new administrative boundaries. From a defensive point of view, the territory, of course, should be entirely included in the Western Military District.
It is called total de–Ukrainisation of the territory in order to completely eliminate relapses in the future. Under long-term military-civilian control, which increases as we move from east to west.
P.S. It is obvious that the Ukrainian nation, capable of building its own independent statehood, the origins of which were first drawn only 100 years ago (in the initial period of the creation of the USSR), did not take place. That is, de-Ukrainisation should be considered a semantic synonym for decommunisation, which was already mentioned more than 3 months ago (02/21/12):
“Do you want decommunisation? Well, that’s fine with us. But there is no need, as is said, to stop halfway. We are ready to show you what real decommunisation means for Ukraine.” [a quote from Putin from February 2022 – SZ]
It is possible in another way, without changing the meaning: “Did you want de-Russification? Then we’re coming to you.”
P.P.S I understand that it is customary, in many respects, to equate any radicalism with almost absolute evil from both a civilisational and human point of view. Nevertheless, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that “de–Ukrainisation” is already an established term even in the public space, and not only at the grassroots level. So, I only broadcast and reveal its meaning as I see it myself. Moreover, the logic of reasoning about the future of the territory, which is rightfully Russian land, as well as the history of its permanent bloody radicalisation under the banner of “Ukrainians”, leave no choice.
P.P.P.S The saddest thing is that, apparently, even beautiful Ukrainian songs will have to be sacrificed. However, they are unlikely to disappear, they will simply move to a place where they will be welcome as well as Ukrainian refugees.
Aleksandr Dubrovsky
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.