Putin's Ukraine Strategy Brilliantly Explained by Top Russian Politician (Video)

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Rising politician, leader of the Great Patriotic Party of Russia and writer Nikolai Starikov offers interesting explanation why annexing or recognising Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic would not be in Russia's best national and geopolitical interest and why they have to stay within Ukraine.

Russia Insider - Russian News Without the Anti-Russian Bias

The transcript is below

Before we talk about what’s going to happen, I suggest we agree that feelings don’t factor into this. Because we’re going to talk about serious matters and emotions will only be a hindrance.
Let me take a pen to draw some things… So, what have our geopolitical opponents been doing for many centuries? They have a specific routine, check this:
India, year 1949. Our British “partners”, due to USSR winning WWII, are getting pushed out of the country.
Yes, the Indian people were clamoring for independence, but they could keep clamoring for another century if not for Soviet tanks in Berlin - and, more importantly, Soviet tanks in nearby Korea.
So in this situation, England and other colonial powers had to also show they’re for freedom and equality, so they had to free India
So what do they do? They divide India into two parts. They create Pakistan. For those who don’t know, Pakistan never existed before, it’s an artificial state
The very name “Pakistan” was made up by Indian college students - in London, of course. The country was torn in half according to religious affiliation:
Hindus go to “India”, Muslims go to “Pakistan”. So, people get displaced, national tragedy…
What was actually done? India [broke free] - they created anti-India. And called it Pakistan. So when they lose control over a country, they make a counterbalance.
And then, simply sic them on each other, support terrorist organizations, and so on. Pakistan it a hotbed of [Islamic terrorism] even now, India has local terrorists and separatists as well…
I’ll point this out again: When a land slips from their control, they make a counterbalance. India - anti-India.
Same year, 1949, China is gripped by a three-year civil war. In 1945, Japanese were kicked out, they talked for a year, and started fighting.
USSR supports Chairman Mao, USA supports Chiang Kai-Shek. Mao wins. What do the Americans do?
They make anti-China. They evacuate remainder of Chiang Kai-Shek’s men, shield them with their navy, and create Taiwan… On the island of Fomosa. China - anti-China.
There are plenty of other very similar examples, I won’t get into them now… Russia, 2011 elections. What did they do?
Navalny, Bolotnaya protests, “white bands” everywhere, discord in all political parties - Russia is on the verge of a coup…
The whole thing ended positively - Putin [was democratically elected] president. They lost the influence over Russia. What do they do? They make anti-Russia.
Where? In Ukraine. As soon as Putin became president, as soon as they realized they can’t destabilize the country from within, they started making anti-Russia in Ukraine.
But, you know, they use “free market” principles. Controlled by them, yes, but still “free”. So they were planning use the [Ukrainian] elections in 2015 and make them “free”
But, you know we forced their hand, Yanukovich refused to sign Euroassociation, so they had to go with the bloody, illegal coup instead - to blame Russia for it, and create anti-Russia
So what are the prospects? Same as everywhere else. They make a counterbalance, give it money, weapons, and eventually - force it to attack
So, after the coup they started preparing Ukraine for a war with Russia. Is it weaker? Of course. But it’s not a small state, it has over 40 million population!
If USA arm and indoctrinate them enough, it could work very well. And it’s important to understand that they don’t need Ukraine to win, they just need the war to happen.
The more Russians and Ukrainians eliminate each other - the better for Americans, so that’s what they want.
What can Russia do? In Ukraine, forces appear that do not want this scenario to happen - DPR and LPR.
So, Ukraine was made into anti-Russia, and DPR and LPR are anti-anti-Russia.
But they appeared on their own - that’s important. We support them, however, because while they exist they prevent Ukraine [from attacking Russia].
While the people of Donbass are fighting to change the course of Ukraine, it can not turn to attack Russia.
And this is exactly what happens. Yes, the Kiev regime is screaming that Russia is the aggressor, that Russian troops are invading - but they did not declare war or martial law, did not sever diplomatic ties,
they even, according to some Orwellian logic, buy [discounted] coal and electricity from the “invaders”.
Can you imagine USSR buying Ruhr coal from Hitler during the war? Of course not.
So, let’s sum this up - without emotions. If we don’t counteract the American plans of creating anti-Russia from Ukraine, they’re certainly sic it on Russia.
Together with the ISIS advance through Central Asia, we’d have on two fronts, the same way we were set up in 1930s - Japan advancing through Mongolia, and Hitler through Poland
By the way, for a long while Poland was supposed to be his ally on the path to Moscow - but then plans changed, so to speak
So, if we betray DPR/LPR, if they are destroyed militarily - the American plan will be brought into action
The fall of Donetsk and Lugansk would mean Russia is next, within 5 years or so. Direct attack, or some sort of border conflict. They have the perfect excuse - “Give back Crimea, [damn its population]!”
And the West will support this excuse. So, Russia’s [geopolitical] interests, even without considering our nation’s moral obligations - supporting our brothers, the oppressed, etc, -
without emotions, purely pragmatically, Russia can’t throw Donetsk and Lugansk to the wolves for these reasons.
Now, another very important question: Can Russia officially recognize these territories?
If we do, the [Anti-Russia] scenario will be put into action: Ukraine will say - they are now separate states, we will deal with them later, first we have to deal with their masters in Russia and take back Crimea!
So, when DPR and LPR separate from Ukraine, this whole American scenario becomes viable again.
So, even if this opinion is unpopular, in the common interest of Russian world [all Slavic countries] , DPR and LPR have to stay part of Ukraine.
They are holding Ukraine back from being dragged into a war with Russia.
This is where our foreign minister’s declarations about Ukraine’s territorial integrity stem from, this is why we keep trying to get them to settle things by negotiation…
Because Americans aren’t doing that great financially, either. We have to support Donetsk and Lugansk - that’s 2-3 million people, and they have to support the rest of Ukraine - that’s 40 million.
So, those that understand the rules of this game know what has to be done, and the hotheads among our patriots do not.
That is the difference between a commander on the ground, who has to take a specific objective, and the general in charge, who has to win the war as a whole, not focus on one spot.
Currently, D/LPR are fighting not just for their interests - they are fighting for the lives of 40 million Ukrainians who, if D/LPR lose, would be sent to fight Russia and die by the hundreds of thousands, even millions.
So Donetsk and Lugansk are protecting the Russian world as a whole - both Ukraine and Russia. So we can never “betray” them [and let them be defeated] - that would be the same as betraying ourselves.
Just like denying Crimea the right to reunification would be [betraying ourselves] - it would lead to riots in Moscow within a couple months.
So, when you try to understand geopolitical actions - don’t judge based on emotions.
President of Belarus flies to Kiev - no emotions, calculate why. He says something about the dollar - same. If you try to understand what’s going on in D/LPR based on emotions, you won’t be able to.


Anonymous said...

Well, Russian policy in Ukraine was a failure. I support Russia, so I'm not biased against Russia. I feel Russia is needed to counterbalance the West, especially on moral issues.

But Russia has made innumerable mistakes in Ukraine going back to the breakup of the Soviet Union. Firstly, you had a country of over 50 million people in 1991 which decreased to 44 million last year. Russia grew significantly between 1999 and 2014. Ukraine's economy has been stagnant and is worse today than it was at the time of the Soviet breakup.

Ukraine and Moldova, two countries Russia has had enormous influence over are two of Europe's poorest and most demographically troubled countries. Russia has done nothing to help them benefit from it's own economic emergence. You can't expect countries to sit in their own mess, hurting from policies enacted in Moscow or by pro-Moscow politicians and not expect people to feel alienated. Look at Armenia and Belarus. Why is Armenia revolting right now?

Because of electric price hikes. Which company was behind those price hikes? A Russian company.

I'm not saying the U.S and West don't interfere and create conditions with NGOs to support revolutions and anti-Russian policies. It is obvious that they do, but Russia itself does enough to cause anti-Russian sentiment.

In Ukraine, Russia made a crucial mistake by annexing Crimea. Had Russia not been in a rush to annex Crimea the counter revolution that was for a time spreading all over Est Ukraine could have been much more successful. Instead it is now limited to pockets of eastern Ukraine where the pro-Russia and Russia supported rebels took power before the Crimea annexation. Even those pockets aren't exactly bastions of pro-Russia sentiment anymore, there are protest in Donestk against the pro-Russian separatist all the time.

Before Russia annexed Crimea it's supporters i Ukraine were gaining ground against the new government. It had taken over major cities like Odessa, Mariupol, and Kharkiv. Annexing Crimea hurt Russia' image and made people come to the conclusion that the crisis in the East was supported by Russia and that this was indeed a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, not between local forces opposed to Kiev.

Russia's policy during the crisis, but particularly the annexation was stupid and probably cost it any chance at regaining influence in Ukraine without invading Ukraine outright to reassert it's power.

There was no reason to annex Crimea, at least not at that point. Crimea should have joined the DPR and LPR anti-Kiev forces against Ukrainian forces. If it did, Kiev authorities could not point to Russian involvement in Ukraine's conflict and it would've been a lot harder for the West to sanction Russia or spread fear about Russia aggression. Russia not only lost in Ukraine because of annexing Crimea, it lost at home because of sanctions and isolation, but it also lost in it's international relations and strengthened anti-Russia sentiment throughout the region, including Poland, Latvia, Estonia, countries were anti-Russian sentiment was decreasing and pro-Russian parties were making gains. Even the nationalist of these countries, who focused more on the Soviet past (aka monuments) had largely moved on from Soviet era anti-Russia sentiment. Now Russia is back to square one, both in Ukraine and with it's relations to neighboring countries. All because of Annexing Crimea, had Russia supported a counter revolution or even war without annexing Crimea, it would be far harder to paint Russia as having a hand in the conflict, and far harder for NATO to justify it's drive towards Russia's borders.

HungarianAmbiance said...

“All because of Annexing Crimea, had Russia supported a counter revolution or even war without annexing Crimea, it would be far harder to paint Russia as having a hand in the conflict, and far harder for NATO to justify it's drive towards Russia's borders.”

As far as I know, Crimea wasn't annexed but the peninsula joined Russia in a democratically held referendum.

Post a Comment

Comments using obscene language, or comments calling for hate and violence will be deleted.