HISTORY DOES REPEAT ITSELF
THE RUSSIA DESK | GAITHER STEWART
NOVOROSSIYA, UKRAINE AND CRIMEA
Novorossiya map. A highly strategic region., key to many powers to this day. (Click to enlarge)
(Rome)
[I]t has been said that a nation is simply the spiritual body that a people acquires during the course of its history.
Novorossiya or New Russia, so absent in mainstream media and so present in alternative news sources today, is popularly believed to be a fleeting matter, simply a new name created ex-novo for effect by the local militias of southeastern Ukrainians today fighting and defeating the Ukrainian regular army troops invading their territories. In doing so the people of Novorossiya are also shattering the dream of American President Obama. The truth is the people of this region are closely linked to the history of their lands.
According to Alexander Zakharenko, field commander and Prime Minister of the Donetsk Peoples’ Republic (DPR) in southeastern Ukraine speaking at a recent press conference, invaders from West Ukraine run or surrender at the first shot. The American-financed troops, conscripted by force by the puppet state in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, simply don’t measure up to the warriors of the southeast Ukraine who are defending their lands, their cities and villages, and their families. The point is that the regular army troops are demotivated and scared and want to return to their homes in West Ukraine. Besides, many Ukrainian soldiers do not want to shoot at their fellow countrymen. Therefore they either desert to the so-called Separatists of the DPR, or flee.
For three centuries the West has assaulted Russia with regularity, in almost 50 year intervals, always seeking to contain her, conquer her, occupy her, exploit her and above all destroy her.
However, the reality is that Russia is not Oriental, but also part of Europe, in this case however, a Europe of the East. Despite Arab influences in Europe, Cervantes, Weidlé noted as an example, was not a Moor, nor Pushkin a Mongol. In the same manner the centuries of Tartar occupation of Russia, likewise Lenin with his face of Mongolian cast was not a Tartar. Nonetheless, today Russia’s eyes have turned eastwards because of pressures from the West.
Still, the geographical situation of Russia has pointed the path of its expansion and the very shape of the empire, but not the direction its cultural development has taken. Weidlé believed that the invasion of Russia by Asian Tartars changed the very roots of Russia, yet such non-European elements do not really belong to her history but to the raw materials of her nature. The Russian language shows certain analogies to the languages of Turco-Tartary; but Russian developed from Greek, to which was added the influence of the literary languages of Western Europe. The Asiatic influences that appear from time to time in Russia have thus far been fleeting. Here, again, its geographical position on the map assumes important historical importance.
When Tsardom finally collapsed in the early 20th century, it had crushed one revolutionary movement after the other during most of the 19th century. Trotsky wrote in his autobiography, My Life, that “the best elements of that generation went up in the blaze of dynamite warfare” (that is, in the blaze of revolutionary terrorism). Tsardom fell to continuing revolutionary fever spread throughout Russia and to the pressures of WWI and the huge losses Russia suffered. In fact, it was the very force of the history of European capitalism and the Russian Revolution that changed everything in Russia.
The Novorossiya territory is internationally considered as sovereign territory of the Ukrainian state. Western media write of a southeastern Ukraine run by “terrorists” and moreover backed by the great “Satan” of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Despite Washington’s frustration because of the failure to bring Ukraine into NATO, its neocons remain intent on intervening in Ukraine against Russia, subduing the Novorossiya independence movement, and placing US/NATO Lily Pad-style military bases along Russia’s borders.
THE CRIMEA
On a trip backwards through the events of over 150 years we arrive at the Crimea recently annexed by Russia and the Crimean War fought by Russia against the intervention of the first major coalition of Western powers in alliance with the Ottoman Empire to attack Russia. No one should believe easy accusations of Russian guilt in the Ukraine crisis. Western intervention against Russia is an old story. A tradition that has continued until today.
Russians had inhabited the territory of southeastern Ukraine between the state of Ukraine and Crimea in the 19th century, shortly after the Crimean War (1853-55) which, by the way, some historians call the real World War I. Also those Russians of the 19th century referred to their home territory as Novorossiya, New Russia.
The descendants of those first colonists in Novorossiya in today’s southeastern Ukraine have declared their independence from the Ukraine of the West and its capital of Kiev and established the “Donetsk Peoples’ Republic”. Last May it joined with the “Lugansk Peoples’ Republic” to form a new Novorossiya as a confederal “Union of Peoples’ Republics”. The lands of Novorossiya are rich in natural resources—light and heavy industry, minerals and agriculture—and borders on both Russia and on the once again Russian Crimean peninsula and other Russian lands such as Transnistria quite near Odessa.
Who today knows much about the almost forgotten Crimean War? In fact that war is often confused with the second Allied Intervention in Russia against the new Communist regime, just the memory of which triggers knee-jerk reactions in Western capitals, especially in Washington where many people and their leaders tend to think of Russians as Communists who fall outside the New World Order. The very idea of Novorossiya constitutes a menace to US strategy for world hegemony. After the Russian Revolution of 1917 while the new regime was struggling for its very survival, the Russian Civil War broke out which pitted the reactionary and privileged Whites—who in general favored the ancien regime of the Tsars—against the Bolshevik-led Reds. The already difficult situation of the revolutionary forces was then further complicated by the second Allied intervention in Russia within a century.
So here a few words about the Crimean War are in order. The Crimean War began as another of the series of 19th century wars between the crumbling Ottoman Empire on the one hand and an expansive Russia seeking an exit from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean on the other. The key part of that war began in September 1854 when the coalition of Britain, France, the Ottomans and later the small Kingdom of Sardinia, the core state of the future Italy, landed troops in Russian Crimea located on the north shore of the Black Sea.
As the historical name indicates, most of the war was fought in Crimea. The Allies began a year-long siege of the Russian fortress of Sevastopol. However, besides Sevastopol, the Anglo-French fleet attacked areas on the adjoining Azov Sea and in the Caucasus. In a forgotten part of the forgotten war, the Allied fleet, obsessed with the destruction of the Russian navy, sailed also to the Baltic Sea to attack the proudest bastion of the Russian Bolshevik, the seaport of Kronstadt near St. Petersburg and to destroy the Russian fleet stationed there. Three British warships then left the Baltic for the White Sea where they spread destruction. Naval skirmishes also occurred in the parts of the Far East where the Anglo-French naval force besieged Russian forces and attempted a land invasion around the Kamchatka Peninsula.
The major Crimean battle fought at Balaclava in the Crimea was commemorated by the great English poet, Alfred Lord Tennyson, in his The Charge of the Light Brigade which, by the way, school children in Great Britain often learn by heart. Tennyson’s poem, published in December of 1854 in The Examiner first praises the bravery of the Brigade:
“When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made.”
At the same time the poet then mourns the futility of the charge, the futility of war in general:
“Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blunder’d.
Finally, on September 11, 1855, the Russians blew up their forts and sank their ships and evacuated Sevastopol, defeated by western armies. They had won the battle of Balaclava but lost the war.
Concerning the causes of the Crimean War, British historian A.J.P Taylor notes that there were deeper causes than blocking Russia’s historical need for an exit from the Black Sea through control of the strait Dardanelles strait near Istanbul:
“The Crimean war was predestined and had deep-seated causes. Neither Nicholas of Russia nor Napoleon III of France nor the British government could retreat in the conflict for prestige once it was launched. Nicholas needed a subservient Turkey for the sake of Russian security; Napoleon III needed success for the sake of his domestic position; the British government needed an independent Turkey for the security of the Eastern Mediterranean….Mutual fear, not mutual aggression, caused the Crimean war.”
In the eyes of some historians the major point is that the Allies fought the Crimean war not in favor of the Ottoman Empire, “the sick man of Europe”, but against Russia. Britain feared Russia would modernize its navy and threaten British naval supremacy in the world and was intent on giving Tsarist Russia a lesson. The war might have ended earlier but war fever had been whipped up by the press in Britain and France so that politicians were afraid to propose ending the war.
But with the passage of time public sentiment in Britain changed to anti-war, and France which had suffered major casualties wanted peace. The signing of the Treaty of Paris brought an end to the war but not to Western hostility to Russia. The Black Sea was demilitarized, which weakened Russia, no longer a naval threat to Britain. Sevastopol and other occupied cities were returned to Russia which however had to give up some of its Danubian principalities and its aspirations to unite with its Slavic cousins in Bulgaria and Serbia still under the yoke of the Ottomans.
TSARIST RUSSIA
Meanwhile in Russia great events, world-shaking events, were taking place. Yet for Russia the two preceding centuries of her history were more tragic than glorious. The history of the now more than two centuries was marked by the mingling of Russia and the West, above all by the drive of the West into Russia which ended in the many Western interventions in Russia several of which, as we have seen, were armed interventions that in the long run aimed at the total conquest of that new world. Weidlé notes that though Russia’s history had been full of movement, rich in events and achievements, it had never solved the problem of the integration of the various social groups into a common life. This integration, by the way, was also lacking in ancient Russia, in the new Soviet Russia and again today in a new Russia. Yet Russia attained a blend of order and disorder that fostered the normal development of a nation. In Russia that blend led directly to the Great Russian Revolution, perhaps because of the degree of those old separations of the masses from the hierarchy of the elite. Western observers have noted how in Russia the governing class and the people seem quite distinct. In fact, there have traditionally been two cultures in Russia: that of a very small elite and that of the masses, which lasted until the revolution and the enormous changes it wrought. When thinking of the Russian revolution, you should keep in mind that, desirable or not it eliminated the old elite and formed a new one.
In the decades following the Crimean War revolutionary fever was growing in Russia. Finally Russian Socialists and Social Revolutionaries led the 1905 revolution that forced Tsar Nicolas to grant the establishment of the Duma, a legislative assembly, which marked the start of a kind of Constitutional Democracy and weakened the total power of the Tsarist regime. It seemed that Russia was truly destined to be part of Europe. Trotsky notes that despite the counter-revolution, an industrial boom came in 1910 and with it the strikes. The shooting of workers in 1912 gave rise to protests all over the country and by 1914 beautiful St. Petersburg had become an arena of workers’ barricades. It has been said that governments come and go but the police (soldiers too) remain. Moreover, policemen are conservatives because of the nature of their work. Trotsky knew that new ideas (he was referring to Socialism) always come early.
In reference to the 1917 revolution Trotsky wrote a paragraph that reminds me of Giordano Bruno four centuries earlier, which, I believe, is well worth quoting. I made a very few cuts for purposes of brevity:
Marxism considers itself the conscious expression of the unconscious historical process. But the unconscious historical process, in the historico-philosophical sense of the term, coincides with its conscious expression only at its highest point, when the masses break through the social routine and give victorious expression to the deeper needs of historical development. At such moments the highest theoretical consciousness of the epoch merges with the immediate action of the oppressed masses that are furthest away from theory. The creative union of the conscious with the unconscious is what one usually calls ‘inspiration’. Revolution is the inspired frenzy of history.
In fact, as Trotsky had predicted there began a series of mutinies in the navy and the army. During the revolution, every fresh wave of strikes and of the peasant movement was accompanied by mutinies in all parts of Russia. Already during the revolution some Western Ukrainians became aware of the dangers to the central government in Kiev of the movement for Donetsk separatism from the Ukrainian state. The Novorossiya idea had never died.
UKRAINE – A People but No Nation
Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny “Yat” Yatsenyuk announced to a conference of European politicians meeting in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev that “Putin wants to destroy Ukraine as an independent nation and restore the Soviet Union.” He added that his country is in a state of war and that Putin is the aggressor. “Putin’s aim is not just to take Donetsk and Lugansk. His goal is to take the entire Ukraine. Putin is a threat to the global order and to the security of Europe.” Yat does not want Russian to become the second state language. He wants European Union membership for Ukraine and opposes Ukrainian membership in the new Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, which Yatsenyuk believes would mean the restoration of the Soviet Union, albeit in a slightly different form and name. He accuses Russia of wanting to construct a new Berlin Wall, this time on the western border of Ukraine and the European Union. Before Russia annexed the Crimea, Yatsenyuk said the decision of Ukrainian membership in the European Union should be decided by referendum.
Ukraine watchers were taken by surprise when Russian President Vladimir Putin used the term “Novorossiya” to refer to some regions in southeastern Ukraine: Kharkiv, Luhansk Donetsk and Odessa. “They were not part of Ukraine in Tsarist times, they were transferred in 1920. Why? God knows.” His idea could have been to ready Ukraine for absorption of those territories into Russia. At the same time “Novorossiya” is also the slogan of pro-Russia activists in southeastern Ukraine where people are chanting the Novorossiya theme. Such an event today would devastate the already shaky economy in Kiev with no money in its coffers. After all irredentism is the effort to reunify lost territories inhabited by ethnic kin with territories also inhabited by ethnic kin. Most certainly the USA, the EU and the IMF would not consider bailing out a country much, much worse off than was Greece. And if came down to the wire, sanctions and resolutions would not stop the unification of areas of ethnic Russians in Novorossiya, or the Transnistria republic and most likely also the whole of Moldova.
As efficacious and unifying as the word “Novorossiya” and its very conception are for ethnic Russians in southeastern Ukraine today, it is a foul and loathsome term for the phantasmal and already disintegrating puppet government and its adherents in Kiev—as well as for Washington, the EU in Brussels and the morally corrupt International Monetary Fund. But only a minority of Americans as well as most of Asia and Africa are even aware of what has happened here: that the USA instigated and organized a coup against the legally elected President of Ukraine and then sent Ukrainian troops to the southeastern part of the nation, where the local militias have beaten the shit out of the regular troops from Kiev. Few people even know the name of Novorossiya and its significance as explained here. As Pope Francis said in a recent sermon, that war in general is pure madness. Yet, he added, the world is unfortunately infected with what he called “the globalization of indifference”.
A Fleeting Triumph? Kagarlitsky (Click to enlarge) [N]o, that’s not a mistake. On March 18, Crimea annexed Russia. There were no insidious schemes or imperial ambitions involved. There was, however, a spontaneously developing situation, together with the usual, everyday willingness of the Crimean bosses, who saw a unique chance in the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. With the Ukrainian state on the brink of collapse after the flight of President Yanukovich from Kiev, the Kremlin authorities were understandably concerned to protect their interests and strengthen their position, but the most they counted on was turning Crimea into a second Trans-Dniestr enclave or Republic of Northern Cyprus – that is, into a de-facto Russian protectorate with formal independence. The presence in Crimea of “polite people” in green camouflage uniforms in no way prevented this scenario from playing out, any more than did the presence of NATO soldiers on the territory of the former Yugoslavia or of Turkish troops in Cyprus. In Sevastopol and Simferopol, however, the authorities decided differently. Taking advantage of the confusion and disarray in Moscow and Kiev, the Crimean leaders drew up their own agenda. In the course of a few days they took several irreversible steps. The period before the referendum was cut to a minimum, so as to prevent both the Ukrainian and Russian authorities from getting their bearings. The Kremlin was presented with a gift it could not refuse. After having set the propaganda pendulum swinging, and amid a patriotic upsurge within Russia, our rulers were simply unable to say “no” when Crimea officially demanded unification with Russia. And so it happened. THE RUSSIA DESK TRUTH PROTECT RUSSIA AND THE WORLD The main difference between informal control over the territory and official unification lay in the fact that Moscow thereafter would bear responsibility for everything that occurred on the peninsula, especially on the material level. The Russian authorities are now obliged to take care of pensions, roads and the wages of state employees, assigning money directly to Crimea from the federal budget. Not surprisingly, the internet began immediately to feature joking appeals from other Russian provinces, whose residents also wanted to be annexed to Russia on the same conditions as Crimea. The budget deficits of these provinces are constantly increasing, and the federal treasury takes far more money from them than it doles out. The liberal press in turn is predicting general ruin as a result of the costs of fitting out the new territory. Valuable acquisition CLICK TO ENLARGE. The Ukrainian state stands to profit from this as well, since it is now able to supply electricity, water and other resources to Crimea at international prices; Ukraine thus has a negotiating lever to compensate for its dependence on Russian raw materials and gas. But for these aces to be employed, there needs to be a stable and flexible government in Kiev – and the wait for this, more than likely, will be very long indeed. When Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev annexed Crimea to Ukraine, he was motivated not in the least by personal “caprice”, but by completely practical economic considerations. From the point of view of transport logistics, energy supplies and even the sale of its products, Crimea was strongly connected to Ukraine. These economic considerations were in contradiction to historico-cultural and ethnic realities, but this did not make them less telling. Further, it was no accident that with all these problems and contradictions Crimea got on fine within the independent Ukraine for more than two decades. The peninsula fell out with Ukraine not so much because Crimeans found life within the framework of the Ukrainian state particularly bad, as because of the progressive collapse of the Ukrainian state itself. In perfectly rational fashion, the population of the peninsula reasoned that Russian rule, with all its shortcomings – which Crimean residents knew intimately – was nevertheless better than the chaos and collapse that were afflicting Ukraine. This was especially true since Moscow was now compelled to make the peninsula a sort of shop window for the national economy. It was because they understood this that the Crimean leaders rejected the “Trans-Dniestrian” variant that Moscow was offering them, and confronting the Kremlin with an accomplished fact, forced the leadership of the Russian Federation to adopt the solution the Crimean chiefs wanted. Aksenov and Chaly should be given full credit for their guile; they scored a brilliant victory over both Kiev and Moscow. Now resources will start flowing into Crimea. Economic methods Russia has enough money not only for Crimea, but also for many other provinces that are now short of finances. The problem is not one of money, but lies in the economic model and methods of rule that our country has adopted. The annexation of Crimea should remind us once again that all this needs to change. Meanwhile, the sense of triumph that has seized not only the common people in our society, but to a significant degree those on top as well, is making any changes extremely difficult. The authorities view the present situation as the outcome of their own wisdom and as proof of their effectiveness. Why should they make changes, when everything in our country is going fine? Russia will not be rescued from its crisis by free-market policies, or by unsystematic attempts at state intervention that end in massively redistributing public funds to the benefit of the same large firms that dominate the market. The answer to the crisis can only lie in national and regional planning that can make it possible to optimise the resources of the state sector and orient them directly toward dealing with social challenges, above all on the local level. The centre, however, will not permit either a redistribution of funds to the regions, or the creation by the regions of their own independent financial base. As a result, the money allotted to the regions will be insufficient. This will have nothing to do with Crimea (the money was also inadequate before), but will result from the fact the system as a whole is dysfunctional. In such a situation, however, decorating the Crimean “shop window” may turn out to have unpleasant psychological consequences for the rest of the country. Sanctions? The liberal press is now setting out to frighten the public with the threat of economic sanctions on the part of the West, but the main danger to our economy stems precisely from the fact that there will be no such sanctions. If the West were in fact to impose serious sanctions, this would open up enormous opportunities, creating the preconditions for a growth of employment, for wage increases and for creating new jobs. Suspending Russia’s membership in the World Trade Organization would be a gift to our industry. Placing a blockade on technology transfers would make it necessary to revive Russian enterprises. We are in acute need of sanctions, since they would provide a chance for us to restore our industry, to diversify production, to wage a struggle against capital flight and to conquer our own internal market. But the ruling layers in the US and European Union have no intention of aiding Russia, so there will be no serious sanctions, merely symbolic acts aimed at calming public opinion in the USA and Europe and at giving moral support to the “patriotic” pretensions of the Russian elite. The Central Bank will, of course, press ahead with the policy of lowering the ruble exchange rate that it has already been pursuing since last year. On this level, the Ukrainian crisis and Crimea have proved extremely opportune, since they have allowed the bank to accelerate the process. Whether the bank’s hopes of raising the competitiveness of the Russian economy solely through devaluation will prove justified is, of course, a separate question. Contrary to the ideas of liberals and conservatives (who suffer, surprisingly enough, from the same hallucinations), the policies of the Russian authorities do not stem from any conscious decision to enter into confrontation with the West, but from an attempt to keep this confrontation – which is objectively inevitable, and does not depend on the will of the Kremlin – to a minimum. Nevertheless, an intensification of the conflict is predetermined by the overall logic of the economic crisis, which inevitably is sharpening the struggle for markets, destabilising international relations and strengthening the rivalry between the West and the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Meanwhile it is obvious that Russia, as well as being central to the BRICS chain, is also its weakest link. While lagging in its economic and especially industrial growth rates, and lacking a functional national elite, Russia nevertheless remains the only European country in this potential bloc, and retains a scientific, diplomatic and military potential that other societies will need decades if not centuries to accumulate. As a result, the policies of the Western elites toward our country are marked by a fundamental duality: while taking every opportunity to weaken Russia, the Western powers simultaneously do not allow Russia to take its distance from them, and in the process, to undergo a definitive rapprochement with the non-Western world. The Russian elites are themselves allies and hostages of these policies; the whole policy course of our ruling circles can in essence be reduced to a mirror image of the same formula. Russia’s opposition But while the situation confronting our elites in this respect is more or less straightforward (they cannot enter actively into confrontation with the West without dealing crushing blows to their own interests, to their own capital holdings and to their own networks, methods of rule and way of life), the position of the Russian opposition is truly catastrophic. When our oppositionists (including a significant number of people on the left) denounce the policies of the government, they speak and act not in the name of Russian society, but effectively in the name of the West, to which they attach all their hopes. Worse still is the fact that in orienting to the West, our oppositionists disdainfully ignore Western society and the peoples who make it up, just as they ignore and treat with contempt the society and people of Russia itself. The Russian opposition raises on high the same stars-and-blue European Union flag to which, on countless city squares within Europe itself, people are setting fire. By virtue of their consistent, fundamental, ingrained anti-democratism, our oppositionists are just as hostile to the values of the European Enlightenment as are Putin, Yatsenyuk and Merkel. A hundred years after the First World War, there is no point in alluding to Lenin, to the Zimmerwald conference or to anti-imperialist “defeatism”. First of all, this is for the reason that, unlike the case in 1914, there is no war, will not be and cannot be. Second, the “defeatism” of the early 20th century was anti-systemic and anti-bourgeois, while we are confronted now with an ideology that is bourgeois to the core, and that is oriented toward advancing the same neoliberal politics that every honest socialist is obliged to combat. However we now assess the positions of Lenin or Martov in 1914, they did not march in demonstrations beneath German and Austrian flags, and did not write pamphlets appealing to these empires to step up their pressure on the Russian army. The chauvinist hysteria that has taken hold of Russian society within the context of the Ukrainian events will soon pass. Annulling it will be the everyday trials of the crisis and of a disorderly world, the commonplace social problems from which virtual wars cannot distract people. The lustre of the Crimean triumph will fade, and today’s triumphant leaders will again be seen by society for what they really are – small-time political intriguers who have happened to hold a winning hand. But even after all this, society’s attitude to the liberal oppositionists will not have changed and will not have improved. That is because a more rational view of events will simply allow the population to see more clearly: there is no point in expecting help from those who wish ill to their own country and its people. Boris Kagarlitsky is the director of the Institute of Globalization Studies (Moscow). Translated by Renfrey Clarke.Crimea Annexes Russia
CROSSPOST W. COUNTERPUNCH
Patrice Greanville Director
Gaither Stewart Managing Editor
AlevtIna Rea Deputy Editor • Paul Carline Deputy Editor
SPECIAL ADVISOR
BORIS KAGARLITSKY Institute of Globalization Studies
The truth is that Crimea is an extremely valuable acquisition both strategically and economically. For any country, territorial expansion opens up new opportunities – for an expansion of its internal market, of its tax base, skills base and natural resources. It is no accident that so many wars have been fought over this peninsula, and it was not by chance that the ancient Greeks, Byzantines, Genoese and Turks established outposts there. Provided matters are handled competently, there is potential in Crimea for the development of tourism, agriculture, viticulture and many other sectors. But the qualifier is all-important: “provided matters are handled competently”. There are no guarantees that the Russian administration, in essence merely a cover for corrupt self-rule by local bureaucrats, will prove more effective than Ukrainian rule. Meanwhile, a key condition for realising Crimea’s potential within the Russian Federation is precisely that relations of solidarity and neighbourly goodwill are maintained with Ukraine.
Strelkov: from swimming with Piranhas to swimming with Great White sharks
RUSSIA DESK: The Saker Reports
Dateline: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
[T]he Strelkov press conference on Sept. 11 (2014) is, I believe, a historical moment because it marks the move of Strelkov from the Novorussian military struggle into the much larger, and far more dangerous struggle, the struggle for the political future of Russia. This in itself is no necessarily unexpected, but the way he did it was a surprise, at least for me. But before I zoom out to the bigger picture, I think that it would be helpful to try to summarize some of the key points of his presentation (thanks to Marina, you can download the full English transcript by clicking here and the Q&A is here).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0-jtNKlpWU
Here is how I summarized what I saw as the key elements of his presentation:
External factors (staging) – symbolic message:
- He is clearly alive and well
- The reason for his departure was infighting inside the Novorussian leadership and the fact that he was told that supplies would only be delivered if he left.
- The photo of Putin in the back on the wall
- He is sitting behind a Russian monarchist flag on the table (and a Russian and Novorussian flag in the back (no Soviet or Communists symbols)
His view about the ceasefire agreement:
- This ceasefire has now created military situation is now worse than this spring
- What is disgraceful is not the ceasefire by itself but “the conditions which are now being discussed in Minks”
- There is plan to blame the betrayal of Novorussia on Putin
- There are powerful interests which want a never ending war which would create a bleeding ulcer for Russia
His description of the 5th column:
- The roots of this 5th column go back to the Eltsin years
- The liberation of Crimea took the 5th column by surprise
- The 5th column is around President
- There is a local 5th column in Donbass which has been and still is negotiating with Ukie oligarchs
- The 5th column is composed of “liberals”
- Putin is a moral threat to them because he has massive popular support
- They want to overthrow Putin
- They want to dismember Russia
- This will be a long war on Russia
- We are dealing with another 1905 and 1917 like situation
- By saving Novorussia Russia can save itself
- Western sanctions will hurt Russia and they will use them to discredit Putin
Strelkov’s plans
- Strelkov wants to fight inside Russia in support of Putin (only option)
- Strelkov’s main objective is to denounce the real traitors inside Russia
Comdr. Strelkov. (Click to enlarge)
This is my personal rendition of the key elements of Strelkov’s presentation, and I might have missed or misunderstood something, so I therefore encourage everybody to watch the video again and read the transcript.
ZOOMING OUT TO THE GREATER CONTEXT
Before going further into my analysis of Strelkov’s statements, I think that it is crucial to keep the bigger context in mind. His words are not just the words of a man speaking for the Novorussian Armed Forces (NAF) or a Novorussia hero, this time Strelkov is diving straight into the big and dangerous world of Russian “deep state” politics (though the term “deep state” does not really apply to Russia). So I will now return to a topic I have been covering for many years now.
Long-time readers will probably recall that I often spoke of a behind-the-scenes struggle between what I called the “Eurasian Sovereignists” (ES) and the “Atlantic Integrationists” (AI). I will not repeat it all here, but I do encourage you to read the following articles:
- http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/02/russia-and-islam-part-three-internal.html
- http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/03/russia-and-islam-part-six-kremlin.html
- http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-power-struggle-inside-kremlin-is.html
- http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/10/1993-2013-is-twenty-years-long-pas-de.html
- http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-new-cold-war-has-begun-let-us-embrace.html
The two first articles are part of a much longer seven-part series on Islam, but they introduce the historical context of the development of the ES and AI factions. The next two I would consider mandatory reading if you are not familiar with the topic and the last one is just a more recent discussion of the role of these two factions in the current Cold War v2. Having said that, my key thesis is this:
The “5th column” Strelkov refers to are the very same people I call Atlantic Integrationists.
Strelkov names no names, but he describes them very accurately (see above) and he adds that they only value “money and other material resources”. They are the Russian equivalent of the AngloZionist 1%ers. Their main political goal is to fully integrate Russia into the AngloZionist international system on a financial, political, economic and cultural levels. They see Russia as “European” and they believe that “the West” (i.e. the AngloZionist Empire) and Russia need to stand together against Islam, China and any other non-imperial ideology, religion, nation or alliance. They believe in capitalism and they are opposed to a “social state” (to use Putin’s description of modern Russia) and they are systematically contemptuous of the “masses” though they try hard not to show this aspect of their worldview. These are the folks who gradually took power during the 1980s and who had the predatory instincts to seize the moment in the early 1990s to rapidly and ruthlessly acquire an absolutely unimaginable amount of wealth, stolen from the Russian people.
Now, it is true that due to an absolutely brilliant move by the Russian security services during the late 1990s and thanks to the chaos in which Russia was plunged, these AI (aka 5th columnists) did make a fatal mistake. Their plan was to put forward a rather uninspiring and dull bureaucrat into power and surround him by men coming from their own circles. What they did not foresee is that this rather uninspiring and dull bureaucrat would turn into one of the most formidable statesmen in Russian history – Putin – and that he would immediately set out to decapitate the top layers of the AI – the so-called “oligarchs” and the thugs who enforced their rule – and their armed branch- the Chechen Wahabi insurgency. Putin acted so fast that he rapidly ended up in full control of the so-called “power ministries” (state security, presidential security, internal affairs, armed forces, emergency services) and, which is crucial, an immense popular support. In a way, this combination of state power and popular support made Putin untouchable, but that also limited his power.
While the top and most notorious AI columnists either left Russia (Berezovsky) or were put in jail (Khodorkovsky) or died, the system they had created was still very much in place. Banking, the natural resources industry, the weapons trade, financial services and, of course, the media were still very much in their hands. So when the most arrogant one of them, Khodorkovsky, was jailed the two factions (ES and AI) achieved something of a compromise, a temporary ceasefire if you wish. The deal was this: first, as long as they don’t try to take over the Kremlin and generally stay out of politics, the AI would be allowed to keep their wealth and continue to make huge profits; second, the top power would be shared between the ES (Putin, Rogozin, Patrushev, etc.) and the AI (Medvedev, Kudrin, Surkov, etc.).
The first big blow which Putin delivered against the AI was the firing of Serdiukov and, even “worse”, his replacement with Shoigu. The second massive blow was, according to Strelkov (and I agree), the operation to liberate Crimea. According to Strelkov, this operation was a huge blow to the interests of these 5th columnist because they immediately realized that it would set Russia and the AngloZionists on a collision course. They therefore gathered all their forces to a) prevent a Russian military intervention in the Donbass and b) make a deal with the oligarchs now in power in Kiev. I fully share this analysis.
Russian vs Novorussian strategic interests
Here comes the tricky part. There are a few assumption made by many bloggers which are the result of a fundamental flaws in logic:
- Russian and Novorussian interests are one and the same
- Anything supported by the AI is bad for Russia
- Putin is in full control and can do whatever he wants
- Novorussian leaders are always right by virtue of their heroic struggle
- Disagreeing with Novorussian leader is a sign of stupidity, betrayal or dishonesty (including for Putin himself)
Reality is not quite that simple. For one thing, Russian and Novorussian interests are not only one and the same, they are in direct opposition on a crucial matter: Novorussia wants full independence from Kiev(whoever is in power) while Russia wants regime change in Kiev and maintain a unitary Ukraine. Second, while the fact that Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs are trying to hammer out a deal to stop the war and maintain a unitary Ukraine this might or might not be bad for Russia. Now, before I get accused of God only knows what, let me explain:
During the late 1980s and the 1990s a bizarre kind of “partial fusion” took place between the Russian mob and the KGB. I know, sounds crazy, but it is nonetheless true and yours truly has personally seen it and personally met ex-KGB officers working in the Russian mob. However, as some say, there is no such thing as an “ex-KGB” officer. Well, in reality there is, but in most cases, at least informal contacts are maintained. So here is how I would very roughly summarize this bizarre association:
In the 1980s: corrupt KGB officers realize that a lot of money can be made in the underworld and some official of the internal security branch of the KGB (2nd Main Directorate) found ways to profit from tight contacts with the mob.
In the early 1990: a lot of young and smart KGB officers realize that their skills are useless in the KGB, they resign and immediately find very good positions in the “New Russian” world (at that time 100% mobsters) and use their skills (language, education, work capability, courage) to make loads of money
These were terrible years for the KGB/FSB, but they also had one positive impact: the more corrupt and less patriotic officers left leaving many idealists behind them, idealists which would, with time, climb up the ranks.
Now here comes the really interesting part:
In the mid 1990s-2000: the successor to the KGB, the SVR and FSB came to realize that they had a fantastic network of potential collaborators in the newly created world of Russian business, finance, commerce, tourism, etc. They act on this and begin use this mostly “ex-mob now turned legit” worldwide network for state security purposes and industrial/commercial espionage. Even the military intelligence service, the GRU, begins to do the same with ex-officers now working in aerospace, electronics, communications, etc.
[Off-topic but interesting sidebar: there is another most valuable network which the SVR/FSB/GRU also began to use during this period: the huge number of Jews from Russia who emigrated to the USA and Israel. Keep that in mind when you think about Russian-Israeli relations]
2000-today: Putin and his backers begin their behind the scenes secret but ruthless war on the Atlantic Integrationists who are fundamentally oppose to the Eurasian Sovereignists who are now firmly behind Putin. Most importantly the security services who are controlled by Putin allies develop a network of potential supporters inside the basis of power of the Atlantic Integrationists. See how complex that becomes?
So while some superficial analysts are correct when they say that the Russian oligarchs are generally 5th columnists and dangerous enemies of Putin, what they are missing is that a) not all oligarchs fall into this category and b) that Putin has the means to influence or even coerce some anti-Putin oligarchs thanks to his control of the security services and their network inside the oligarchs power base.
So here is the crucial point: the relationship between the Kremlin and the Russian oligarchy is a verycomplex one. Yes, by and large, it is correct to say that we have Putin, the security services, the military, the common Russian people on one side and the oligarchs, the liberal intelligentsia, big business, banking, finance and CIA agents on the other. But in reality, this is a primitive model, the reality is infinitely more complex. I know I am going to get even more hate coming my way for saying that, but some oligarchs are (for whatever reason) Putin allies or Putin controlled-individuals. I have met some personally in the late 1990s and I am quite sure that they are still there. Why?
Because there is a lot of money to be made in Russia by being on Putin’s side. For one thing, if you are in good terms with the Kremlin, you become untouchable for the rest of the more-or-less legal “business” world. You also get juicy contracts. And the tax authorities might not be as meticulous when you file for taxes. Again, the black-and-white Putin vs oligarchs image is generally true, but only as a primitive model.
ZOOMING BACK IN TO STRELKOV’S PRESS CONFERENCE
Let’s remember where Strelkov came from. While little is certain about him, he appears to be an ex-FSB Colonel (in anti-terrorism), who fought as a volunteer in Yugoslavia, Transnistria and Chechnia. He is also a historian, a columnist and he likes to participate in military recreations. He is a monarchist, an Orthodox Christian and and admirer of the White movement during the civil war. In Novorussia, however, he entered a totally different level jumping in one rapid, gigantic most successful leap from anti-terrorism Colonel to what could be roughly described as an divisional or even army corp commander who turned a volunteer militia force into a more or less regular army. That is a huge feat: From almost nobody he became the #1 hero and commander of the entire Novorussian resistance. And yet, Novorussia is tiny compared to Russia and big Novorussian politics are tiny compared to big Russian politics. And yet, in yesterday’s press conference Strelkov made yet another huge leap – he jumped from Novorussian military issues straight into the single most complex and dangerous struggle I can imagine: the secret behind-the-scenes struggle for power in the Kremlin. It is far too early to tell if this move will be as successful as his previous one, Strelkov went from swimming with Piranhas to swimming with Great White sharks, but I am cautiously optimistic. Here is why:
Strelkov’s potential in the Russian struggle for power
Putin is acutely aware of the fact that his official power base (the state apparatus) is chock-full of 5th columnists. The best proof for that is that he did two very interesting things:
a) He created the All-Russia People’s Front (ARPF) which unlike the official party in power, United Russia, was not created with a strong Medvedev/Atlantic Integrationist component, but was created by Putinalone. Officially, the ARPF is not a party but a “political-social movement” which is supposed to bring together a large segment of generally pro-Kremlin organizations and individuals and to provide a way for the common people to convey their concerns to Putin. In reality, however, it is also a “political party in waiting”, very large, very well connected and which Putin can “turn on” at any time, especially if challenged from inside United Russia.
b) Putin’s security services have contributed to the creation of a plethora of “near-Kremlin entities” (околокремлевские круги) which officially have no subordination to the Kremlin, but which can get a lot of things done without the government involved or, even, informed. These near-Kremlin entities include some news outlets, some commercial entities, a number of clubs, some youth organizations, news agencies, etc. There is no formal list, no admission procedure, no one leader. But somehow, there are always people with contacts to the security agencies near or in these circles.
This is were Strelkov fits in.
Strelkov will first and foremost represent the interests of the people of Novorussia, but since he correctly identified the Russian 5th column as the main threat to Novorussia, he also is objectively becoming an ally of Putin in a common struggle against the Atlantic Integrationists. Now, let us be clear here. Strelkov and Putin will not agree on a number of issues. Strelkov clearly indicated that when he said
“No matter how critical I am about certain internal or external policy decision of president in conditions of war started against us, I consider it necessary to support him as the only legitimate superior commander the main guarantor of freedom and independence of the state”
- Putin’s Address to the Federal Assembly (March 18th)
- The press conference by by Alexander V. Zakharchenko (August 26th)
- Yesterday’s Strelkov’s press conference (September 11th)
Putin, Zakharchenko and Strelkov all three fully realize that what is going on is nothing shot of a war on Russia, but waged, at least for the time being, by non-military means. All three know that the biggest threat to Russia is an internal one. But all three can claim that the other two do not speak for him. After all, one is the President of Russia, the second one is a top representative of Donetsk and Novorussia, while the third one is, technically speaking, a retired officer and a private individual. Yet all three together are politically encircling the Russian 5th column into a “political cauldron” in which they either support Putin or look like traitors. A potentially very effective technique.
The second role of Strelkov is to denounce and discredit the Putin-bashers who are constantly declaring that “Putin is backstabbing or betraying Novorussia”. I predict that in a near future the very same circles who until now had taken the position that Putin is a villain and Strelkov a hero will declare that Strelkov is a villain and a traitor too. Some of these guys are manipulated by western PSYOP specialists, others are simply paid by them, but their goal is to convince the world that Putin is the bad guy and that a “real” patriot needs to replace him. In other words, that Russia can only be saved by making the AngloZionist dream of a regime change in Russia come true. But then, these are the very same people who wanted to save Novorussia by making the other AngloZionist dream, of having an overt Russian military intervention in the Donbass, also come true. My advice in regards to such “sorrow-patriots” as they are called in Russia is simple: beware of those who want to save Russia by making an AngloZionist dream come true. If you keep that in mind, the enemies of Russia will be fairly easy to spot 🙂
CONCLUSION
I was amazed and tremendously encouraged by Strelkov’s very sophisticated presentation of his position yesterday. Though this might be too early to conclude, and I might be uncharacteristically optimistic about this, I believe that Strelkov has the potential to become the Novorussian leader I was hoping would emerge. If that is so, then I will gladly plead guilty of having underestimated him. Still, I will also admit that I am very concerned for him. The fact that apparently the Russia media has given his press conference little or no attention combined with the rumor that he had killed himself is a powerful message sent to him by the 5th column who is showing how powerful it still is. In particular, I consider the rumor about his suicide as a very serious death threat. Even worse, and maybe these are my paranoid inclination speaking here, there are a lot of people on both sides who might be interested in seeing Strelkov killed. The Atlantic Integrationists and their 5th column would want him dead because he is so openly denouncing them, but make no mistake, there could also be Eurasian Sovereignists who might want him dead to have him as a martyr and symbol of Russian heroism. Is that cynical and ugly? Yes. And so is the struggle for power in Russia. Most people in the West have no idea how ruthless this struggle can be. Unlike Putin, Strelkov is not protected by an extremely powerful state security apparatus and, considering that he can be hit from either side. He better be very *very* careful.
Just for accepting to play the role he is playing now (and he, being an ex-FSB colonel, fully knows the risks) I consider him a hero and he has my sincere admiration. “They” will try to use him, threaten him, manipulate him, discredit him and use every dirty trick possible to either control him or crush him. Truly, his fate is already a tragic one and his courage remarkable. Fighting the Ukie Nazis, the Chechen Wahabis or the Croat Ustashe was a relaxing vacation compared to the kind of “warfare” going on in the struggle for the control of Russia. Since Russia is the de-facto leader of both the BRICS and the SCO the struggle for Russia is really a struggle for the future of the planet. I believe that Strelkov understands that.
—The Saker
Listening to Lavrov giving up on the West
THE RUSSIA DESK | A DISPATCH FROM THE SAKER
The longstandting mendacity, bellicosity and sheer bad faith evidenced by Western politicians for generations has finally exhausted Russia’s patience. It may be for the better.
[Y]esterday, I watched with interest a talkshow called “The Right to Know” which featured an hour long interview with Sergei Lavrov (those who understand Russian can watch it here). It was an interesting exchange between Lavrov and five Russian reporters. It was not important enough to warrant translating it all into English, but I want to share with you something which I had noticed in the past but which was powerfully expressed during this conversation.
Predictably, the topics included the civil war in the Ukraine, the status of the investigation about the shooting down of MH17, sanctions against Russia, the expansion of NATO, the negotiations in Minsk and Russia’s engagement with the BRICS countries.
All all these topics, the Q&A had a similar format. One of the reporters asked Lavrov to comment on what appeared to be a dead-end situation and Lavrov confirmed saying “we tried our best, but to our great regret, that had no effect”. What was so interesting is that while the reporters were expressing bafflement that things had gone so far, Lavrov’s reaction was “yes, you are right, this is truly hopeless”. The overall effect was one of a PTA meeting discussing some hopelessly stupid and incapable student. Except the “student” in this case was the entire West.
For example, about MH17 the reporters voiced their amazement at the sterility and vagueness of the recently released report. They noticed that while the entire western media went into a full hysteria mode with headlines like “PUTIN THE TERRORIST!!!!” or “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!” they all apparently totally forgot that the investigation was still ongoing.
The main obstacle is the thick wall of disinformation built over more than 100 years by the West, exploiting knee-jerk anticommunism in many quarters, and using a massive media apparatus that has lost all pretense of journalistic integrity. Beware one and all: The Big Lie is momentarily triumphant, but the world is changing nonetheless.
Touching upon the sanctions, the reporters said that many countries were surprised at the speed at which Russia turned away from the West and began building relations with Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Indian Subcontinent and, again, Lavrov replied “yes, we were even surprised by the pace of events ourselves, but we had no choice”.
This is not the only show which sends the same message. The sense that I am getting is that Russia has given up on the West. Sure, she will continue talking, and she will try, against all evidence, to elicit some adult [honest] responsible behavior from western politicians, but nobody in Russia is holding his/her breath.
On another show (Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev) the participants remarked that Germany had taken the lead in putting pressure on Finland, the Slovak Republic and the other nations who did not want to adopt more sanctions. Again, the message was “forget about the Germans, they are hopeless”.
I believe that there is a sincere and widespread sense of disgust and hopelessness in Russia towards the EU countries. As for the USA, they are mostly seen as a hate-filled messianic lunatic who will do anything and everything to harm Russia in any way it can, no matter how crazy, absurd, useless and hypocritical.
All this builds up to a consensus that while war with the USA and NATO must be avoided, of course, there is nothing much else to be gained from making much efforts. Many politicians now say “our foreign policy has been way to fixated on the West and that needs to be stopped – our future is elsewhere”.
The recent adoptions of sanctions against Russia are a perfect example of that. While I few hardcore pro-US liberal figures complain, I kid you not, that the French ‘belon‘ oysters will not be available in Moscow, most people see that these sanctions are a blessing in disguise as they force Russia to sever links with the West, something they believe should have been done long ago. In the short term, the western sanctions will “bite”, especially on some high-tech items, but by and large most people understand that being dependent on the West for such items was the real mistake in the first place.
Again, the prevailing sense is one of disgust, bewilderment, and fatigue. Though somebody as diplomatic as Lavrov will never say, the general reaction is clearly “you guys are both hopeless and in decline; we don’t need you, goodbye”. This is said without anger, mostly with sadness, really.
I don’t think that Russian diplomats will make a big anti-western statement at the UN or anywhere else. The opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference. And Russian officials will continue to speak of “our partners” or even “our friends”, but while this nice sounding rhetoric will continue, relations with the West will gradually cease to be a priority for the Russian diplomacy, business community and even general public. In fact, Russia is already building a multi-polar world and if the West wants no part of it – tough. The Russians know that the West cannot prevent the emergence of this new world, and they don’t really care if they refuse accept this reality or play by the new rules.
Many Russians see the USA as a hate-filled messianic lunatic who will do anything and everything to harm Russia in any way it can, no matter how crazy, absurd, useless and hypocritical. Sadly, they are not wrong.
One more thing: the Russians are most definitely upset about the very aggressive NATO stance because they – correctly – interpret it as a sign of hostility. But, contrary to what a lot of bloggers say, the Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO. Their reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military threat. As one Russian deputy said “5 rapid reaction diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile”. A simplistic but basically correct formula. Putin said the very same thing when he clearly spelled out that in case of a massive conventional attack by “anybody” Russia would engage tactical nukes. In fact, if NATO goes ahead with its stupid plan to deploy forces in Poland and/or the Baltics I expect Russia will withdraw from the IRNF Treaty and deploy advanced successors to the famous RSD-10 (SS-20). As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway. You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10’000 strong NATO force by bringing her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36’000 to 72’000. Having thus taken care of the threat, the Kremlin will simply turn to more important business elsewhere.
Among the many misconceptions we absorb during our indoctrination (I cannot call it “education) we, in the West, [especially in the US] have a tendency to view our part of the world as the center of the planet, some even would say the indispensable and only truly important one. This can be seen in our systematically Europe or US centered maps of the world, to our quasi dogmatic beliefs that nobody matters as much as we do. This is wrong. In fact, while the AngloZionist Empire is on slow but steady and ineluctable decline, the rest of the world pays it the needed lip service and basically moves on. If the training facilities we call “schools” had any educated educators we would start hanging China-centered maps of the world in our training rooms, and we would tell out young trainees that nobody takes the so-called “western values” seriously anymore. Not because they are not good, but because clearly we, in the West, don’t take them seriously in the first place.
Obama announced a “pivot” towards Asia but, in a typical AngloZionist manner, all this pivot really meant was more military forces and more pressure to obey the Empire’s demands. Unlike the US, Russia did not announce any “pivot”, but Putin already met with Xi Jinping four times this year and both sides have declared that their strategic partnership was the strongest it had ever been in the history of their relationship.
Russia is really turning her gaze to China, Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. Her diplomats will continue to talk, smile, speak of “partners” and “friends”, but I believe that we are witnessing a historical event: for the first time since the 13th century, Russia is turning away from the West again and betting her future with Asia (and the rest of the planet).
—The Saker
Igor Strelkov directing operations in the field—a rare moment.
Novorossiya’s first defense commander in the field. Note that they are operating in the open, a sign that hostile aviation has been largely neutralized.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2Ii5x01Mg