Russia reaching civilizational deadlock

As expected, the Ukraine issue dominated the live phone-in with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week. The Russian president claimed again that the Ukrainian government was illegitimate and that there is a single nation which outside forces are trying to divide. Besides, having accused the West of double standards, the master of the Kremlin pointed to the necessity of trust and transparency in foreign relations and stressed that Russia attaches great importance to international law (?!). The latter sounds particularly cynical because it is Russia that broke a number of treaties by annexing Crimea from Ukraine.

Putin said Russia had been forced to take this step (annexation of Crimea) because the life of ethnic Russians on the peninsula was in real danger. But this is a wrong claim, which a UN report on the human rights situation in Crimea and Ukraine confirmed. Putin admitted that Russia had never nurtured plans to annex Crimea – it just took advantage of the situation to take hold of the peninsula so that no NATO ships appeared in Sevastopol, the “city of Russian glory.”

“Russia did not annex Crimea by force. It only used the armed forces’ special units to create conditions for a free expression of popular will in Crimea and Sevastopol. The Crimeans decided on their own to be part of the Russian Federation, and Russia just responded to the people’s calls,” the Russian president said. He thus confessed that the “little green men” were Russian servicemen who made it possible – on gunpoint – to hold a referendum which not a single country recognized. At the time, Russia was denying the presence of its soldiers in Crimea, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov even said that Russian soldiers never cover their faces.

Now Putin is rejecting claims of Russian forces’ presence in eastern Ukraine as “nonsense,” while the Ukrainian special services detained 23 servicemen of Russia’s General Intelligence Directorate the other day.

And Putin’s claim about illegitimacy of the Ukrainian government can be called the acme of cynicism. “We really consider the current government illegitimate, for it has no national mandate to rule the country,” he said. Nevertheless, the Russian leadership immediately recognized the illegitimate government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the rigged referendum, and now recognizes the militia in eastern Ukraine, who are in fact terrorists. Should a similar situation arise in Russia, its authorities would wipe out this kind of armed “militia,” as they did in the case of Beslan or Nord-Ost acts of terror.

Putin is urging the Ukrainian authorities, which he does not recognize, to heed the demands of eastern Ukrainians and guarantee the protection of their rights.

“The question is in guarantees. We must prompt them to solve the problem of guarantees. Residents of eastern and southern Ukraine are also saying today to us and to the Kyiv rulers: OK, there will be elections on May 25, you want us to recognize them, but tomorrow you will forget and send oligarchs again to Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv,” Putin said and added that we must find an answer to this.

Then Putin decided to plunge into history to show again that Ukraine is not a full-fledged state. “New Russia, which includes Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, and Mykolaiv, was not part of Ukraine in the tsarist era. All these territories were handed over to Ukraine in the 1920s by the Soviet government. Only God knows why they did so,” he said.

What also seems rather strange is Putin’s comment on the situation in Ukraine, when he alleged that the presidential race is being held in absolutely inadmissible and objectionable forms. “Should things continue to follow this course, we will naturally not be able to recognize all that will occur after May 25 as legitimate. Is it a legitimate election if eastern candidates are being beaten, splashed over with ink, and so on, and barred from seeing their voters? Is this an election campaign?” Putin asked. He also said that, unless the current Constitution of Ukraine is changed, it is impossible to hold fresh elections “under the legitimate President Yanukovych.” All this can be viewed as nothing but interference into the internal affairs of Ukraine.

And the greatest discovery of Putin was the way he explained the origin of Ukrainian nationalism. In his words, the source of it is western parts of Ukraine, which were partially incorporated into Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary, and western Ukrainians had never been full-fledged citizens of those countries. “It is a bit forgotten that they were second-rate people in those states. But this is hidden in historical memory, under the crust, somewhere deep in the heart. Hence are the sources of this nationalism,” he said. But some of these regions were under tsarist Russia, too. In Putin’s opinion, central and eastern Ukrainians have a different mentality. “As people began to live in a Ukraine put together bit by bit in the Soviet era, they found it difficult to understand one another,” he said and added that, as a good neighbor and close relative, Russia will help in this. But Russia never explained to the Ukrainians why it had to seize Crimea by force if nobody threatened its population. “But we needed to help them. What is our role? The role of a good neighbor and close relative,” the master of the Kremlin said.

“RUSSIA IS BEING OFFERED POTTAGE TO SATISFY ITS PHOBIAS AND RESOLVE ITS COMPLEXES”

Lilia SHEVTSOVA, senior research associate, Moscow Carnegie Center:

“The format of this communication – a live call-in between the president and the people – mirrors the essence of the current leadership which has eliminated all political institutions but sometimes tries to legitimize itself by this autocratic method.

“So far, none of Putin’s communications with the people has produced any results. This is a single-use communication. But it does have a certain sense: it is not just the replacement of institutions and the very system by such an interesting dialog between an authoritarian leader and society. The sense is as follows: Putin confirms by this press conference that he is trying to offer Russia a new social ‘contract.’

“The previous social ‘contract’ between Putin and Russia was based on one principle: Russia has exchanged its own political rights for stability. And, by this social ‘contract,’ Putin suggests exchanging the economic wellbeing and future of Russian society for a life in a military state. Ukraine plays a tremendous role here as the main object, a legitimizer of this social ‘contract.’

“Ukraine is used not only as a whipping boy, but also as a confirmation that there is a foreign and a domestic enemy. For Ukrainians are linked to Russian national traitors. But the Ukrainians themselves are not, naturally, a real enemy. They can become one if they are ‘fed’ by the West and NATO.

“At the same time, Ukraine is also becoming an occasion for pride because the Russians have no other pride. They cannot be proud of their wellbeing or any other achievements. The conquest of Crimea is being presented as an act of justice, Russia’s revival and victory. In essence, Russia is being offered artificial pottage to satisfy its phobias and resolve its complexes. Ukraine is becoming sort of a multifunctional medicine, drug, excuse, stimulus, impetus, etc., to justify a new rule and a new system of military authority in Russia.

“What are Putin’s concrete proposals about Ukraine? They can be ignored, for they are shrouded with a host of lies, inaccuracies, deceit, manipulations, and misinterpretation. These responses should be revealed, and truth should be sought. Sometimes this search can lead you into an altogether different direction.

“The main thing is that these proposals are addressed to neither the world nor Ukraine. They are addressed to Russian society and offered as a ‘side dish’ to the chief lie, the new concept of legitimization. On the whole, they bear no serious messages because each of the arguments conceals another lie.

“‘We wanted to ensure a free expression of popular will in Crimea and, therefore, sent our soldiers there…’ This is not a lie but an absolutely absurd statement – as if a free expression of will could be achieved by means of the army. He sometimes says the truth, but it is accompanied by fantastic cynical constructions.

“For this reason, what President Putin said during the call-in should be viewed as arguments for domestic consumption. It makes no difference for him how you will take these arguments – with tears or with laughter. And it no longer makes any difference for Putin what the West will say to these arguments.

“Something serious has happened: the Kremlin and the Russian authorities have ceased to care about how they are looked upon outside Russia. They no longer care a fig. They do not care about their image. It is only important for them to find justifications – no matter convincing or not – for their own society.”

“HE TRIED TO JUSTIFY WHAT WAS GOING ON IN UKRAINE AS DICTATED BY THE RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP”

Yurii SHCHERBAK, diplomat, political writer:

“Putin’s televised questions and answers session in fact became an opportunity to popularly explain his doctrine about the events in Ukraine. He tried to sound convincing and justify what was going on in Ukraine as dictated by the Russian leadership.

“There are several focal points in this doctrine. It is a mixture of cynicism and outright lies, geopolitical dreams about Russia’s grandeur, and imperial complexes. This doctrine comprises interference into the internal affairs of another state, an attempt to forcibly impose a vision of the world, and turn Ukraine into Russia’s protectorate which will become unnecessary when this country loses all signs of statehood. This resembles, of course, the protectorate that Nazi Germany set up after seizing Sudetenland in 1938. A full-fledged and very democratic Czechoslovak Republic gave way to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.

“What is Mr. Putin calling for? Firstly, he says that Ukraine and Russia are a single nation but then he says we are close relatives. A single nation and close relatives are different things. But still this assertion is totally false because even in the tsarist era it was known that these were different peoples, but the Ukrainian people did not have a state of their own. Yet it was a separate nation with its own ethnic history and geography, an original language that differed from Russian, and customs. It is a separate nation, and to raise now the question that Ukrainians and Russians are a single people is buffoonery and a downright lie.

“Secondly, Mr. Putin claims that Ukraine received its territory from the Soviet government in the 1920s. It is an absolute lie which has nothing to do with understanding historical processes. I would like to remind him that in 1917, when the Central Rada was established, the Provisional Government in Petrograd recognized the autonomous status of Ukraine with five – Volyn, Kyiv, Poltava, Podillia, and Chernihiv – gubernias. In November 1917 the Central Rada extended its authority to Kholm, Katerynoslav, and Kherson gubernias, a part of Kursk and Voronezh gubermias, and Tauris without Crimea. Crimea became part of Hetman Skoropadsky’s Ukrainian State in 1918. I also want to recall the Act of Unification between the Ukrainian National Republic (UNR, Dnieper Ukraine) and the West Ukrainian Peoples’ Republic, which legally sealed the Ukrainian people’s statehood and unity – practically in today’s geographic configuration. In other words, the Soviet government in fact never presented any gifts to Ukraine. Ukraine achieved this on its own in the course of a great revolution that brought down the Russian Empire. It should be recalled that the territory of Ukraine, almost the same as today minus western Ukraine, was confirmed by Trotsky on behalf of Soviet Russia at the Brest peace negotiations with the Central States and during the talks between Germany and Austria-Hungary and the UNR. Ukraine thus had a legitimate territory with a large part of today’s eastern Ukraine.

“Moreover, in 1924 the territory of Ukraine was cut short, following the claims of Russia, and we ceded Shakhty and Taganrog districts of Don Gubernia to Russia. So the current encroachments of Russia on Donetsk and Luhansk are not mere chance. It is continuation of the imperial policy of Soviet Russia which in fact took possession of 30 percent of the ethnic Ukrainian territories. Russia took over a part of the territories of Voronezh, Kursk, and Belgorod oblasts populated by Ukrainians. As a result, Russia’s expansionist policy curtailed the Ukrainian territory.

“Mr. Putin’s third thesis that Galicians were second-rate inadequate people on the territory of Austria-Hungary and then Poland and Czechoslovakia is just shameful. I want to remind the president, who has no idea of history, again that some Ukrainians were members of parliament and outstanding statesmen in those countries. There were educational centers there.

“In a word, it is an awesome insult to the people who are the heart of Ukraine now. They are an integral part of the Ukrainian people, nation, and state. This claim of Putin is a blatant lie. When he explains the sources of Ukrainian nationalism, he looks in a wrong direction.

“Putin’s assertion that the current leadership of Ukraine is illegitimate does not hold water, all the more so that he contradicts himself because Russia agreed to hold talks with this leadership. Putin himself says that he is in touch with and gives signals to Ukrainian presidential candidates and even characterizes them in a certain way. However, this raises some suspicions about why he is doing so.

“Yet it is common knowledge that the Verkhovna Rada legitimately elected the government and the speaker, who is now the interim president of Ukraine. Therefore, Ukraine’s leadership is absolutely legitimate after the deposition of a horrible regime of Russia’s puppets in the person of Yanukovych and his team.

“Putin’s claim that the Ukrainian leadership is committing a crime against the people is also outlandish. It is an act of propaganda and a warning that Russia may use military force. This claim runs counter to reality because these crimes are being committed by special-purpose commandos that have crossed the border of Ukraine to organize a separatist movement here.

“We can cite many other statements of the Russian president, which run counter to reality and are in fact aimed at justifying the terrible events that have occurred in contravention of international law.

“Putin’s lies are flexible and changeable. While Putin used to say a month ago that there was not a single Russian serviceman in Crimea during the seizure, now he is saying that “the Russian military acted behind the back of Crimean self-defense forces courteously but resolutely to ensure a free expression of popular will.” It is only Hitlerite occupiers that could say they were ensuring a free expression of will by means of SA and SS assault units. When the president of a great country is saying this, it is a shame for him and his country.

“Also noteworthy is Putin’s thesis that Russia may not recognize the presidential elections in Ukraine. Russia is doing its utmost to this end and will recognize the elections on its terms only. And the latter means destruction of Ukrainian sovereignty and humiliation of Ukraine which will have to kiss the Moscow’s tsar’s hand. Only this way of Ukraine’s existence can satisfy Russia.

“It should be clear to everybody today that mere concessions about the Constitution and the language will produce no result. They will only humiliate Ukraine and bring along war. Winston Churchill once said: ‘England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame and will get war.’ This must not be done, for it is the line behind which nobody has the right to retreat.

“We must demand that the Russian commandos be withdrawn from the territory of Ukraine and the aggression be deescalated.

“I would also like to draw your attention to the political views of Russia’s president who is an overt follower of Gen. Denikin. He quotes Denikin and says that even the Whites did not even imagine the separation of Ukraine from Russia. Indeed, they did not because Denikin said there was a ‘united and indivisible Russia,’ so there must be no Ukraine. But they also refused to recognize sovereign Finland, Poland, and Georgia. Could an independent Ukraine have had a place in the ideology of people who represented the White movement and the tsarist regime? This statement of Putin characterizes his speculative horizons. They rest on the three pillars: the White ideology of Denikin, the Hitlerite methods of seizing other countries, and the geopolitics of Dugin who is pushing Russia with a paranoid zeal towards a conflict with the West, particularly the US.

“Putin compares the events in Ukraine to those in Yugoslavia. This means he wants the scenario to repeat. Like Milosevic before him, Putin is trying to blow the smoldering coals of a civil war in Ukraine into a flame. The new Ukrainian leadership must display all its wisdom to avert a Yugoslav scenario in Ukraine, all the more so that there are no objective reasons for this.

“Now about Putin’s claim that the rights of eastern Ukrainians are being infringed. The recent Ukrainian revolution was both in the west and the east. It was a revolt against a gangster-type corrupt regime. It was a revolt of embittered and poor people who had lost every hope for justice. But Russia used this protest to destabilize the situation in the east and thus achieve its geopolitical goals. It is the Ukrainian government and the lawful regional authorities that are supposed to protect the rights of people. The ‘little green men’ and ‘Colorado beetles’ [pro-Russian activists wearing striped ribbons. – Ed.], who have come to our territory, have no right to protect citizens of a different state.”