Nuland’s visit and Minsk 2

Either I or they understand nothing. “They” are the highly-esteemed Western representatives who insist that Ukraine amend its Constitution in order to introduce “special status” for the Donetsk and Luhansk region territories uncontrolled by the central government, declare amnesty for militants, hold elections in “special Donbas areas” as early as July this year, meet other provisions of the Minsk Agreements, such as formation of “people’s militia” on the basis of bandit groups, etc. They are saying these agreements must be implemented before the end of this year, for there is no alternative to them, and should Ukraine balk too much, it may be punished – both politically and financially.

As for Russia, these representatives claim it will pull out its troops after the Donbas elections – we will thus witness the first ever instance of Russia voluntarily withdrawing its army from a foreign territory. Then Ukraine will carry out successful reforms, and we will begin to live affluently. This will help defeat the imperial-minded Russia completely and finally and cause all the strata of the Donbas population to be loyal to the Ukrainian state…

Well, this sounds convincing for some Ukrainian politicians. But I cannot understand two important things. Firstly, have the highly-esteemed Western representatives and their Ukrainian followers ever studied global and Russian history? Secondly, have they ever studied at least some basic logic?

Let us begin with history. In 1938, after Berlin had orchestrated the “German spring” in Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland and the authorities had crushed a revolt of local Nazis supported from abroad, British and French leaders began to persistently demand that official Prague immediately grant the Sudeten a “special status” and amnesty the rebels in the name of peace and stability. Finally, the Czechoslovak government gave in to these demands. But did this stop Hitler’s expansionism? No. Germany managed to make Europe’s leading democracies accept the partition of the Czechoslovak Republic and grabbed a large part of its territory. Leaving the Czechs in the lurch, British Premier Neville Chamberlain said this would give peace to the next generations. Less than a year later, World War Two broke out, in which the Nazis made wide use of Czech weapons and industrial facilities.

Now about “victory thanks to reforms” and “loyalty.” The Arabs who are citizens of Israel or work on its territory enjoy incomparably higher living standards than the vast majority of the population in the neighboring Arab countries. But everyone who has visited “Medinat Yisrael” could see that high living standards not always guarantee loyalty to those who have provided you with these standards. Moreover, there are South Korea with its undeniable economic successes and North Korea with its poverty and nuclear weapons. Has the democratic and affluent South got the upper hand over the starving and totalitarian North in Korea? Has the communist Korea become less aggressive? Is its population striving for democracy?

Another historical excursus. The Kremlin first withdrew its troops from foreign territories when Nikita Khrushchev was in power: from the Porkkala-Udd base, Finland, in 1955-56 and from Port Arthur, China, in 1955. The next withdrawals – from Cuba, Afghanistan, and Central-Eastern European countries – were carried out owing to strong pressure of the US and other democratic states on Moscow. It is no wonder that Putin’s propagandists hate Khrushchev so much – not only for Crimea (in reality, it was not he but Malenkov and Voroshilov who transferred it to Soviet Ukraine), but also for departure from the traditions of Russian imperialism.

And now let us do some exercises in logic and political science.

Suppose Ukraine has amended its Constitution, amnestied and legalized terrorists, and established an enclave that is in fact independent of the central government. What will be the reaction of the absolute majority of Russians and pro-Russian forces all over the world? They will view it as a victory of great Putin, a historic triumph of the Russian neo-totalitarian model, a defeat of the Revolution of Dignity, and the proof that the Ukrainian state is not independent. As a result, this will incite Russia to further aggression – not only against Ukraine.

Now let us imagine the opposite: Ukraine has not amended its Constitution, has not amnestied and legalized terrorists, etc., and thus provoked Western democracies to impose certain sanctions. What will be the reaction of the absolute majority of Russians and pro-Russian forces all over the world? They will view this as proof that the great Putin is right, as defeat of the Western values-oriented Revolution of Dignity, as proof that the current Ukrainian leadership is taking illegal actions, which will also encourage further Russian aggression – not only against Ukraine.

In other words, any scenario of developments associated with observance of the Minsk Agreements (which were squeezed out of Ukraine under totally different circumstances) will lead to encouraging the Kremlin’s aggression.

As for the demand to grant amnesty to tens of thousands of terrorists coupled with an early probability of a visa-free treatment of Ukrainian citizens in the EU… Is it necessary to explain how many sadist killers will spread over Europe to cash in on “gayropeans”? And what will the amnestied terrorists do in Ukraine which they hate and which has four operating nuclear power plants?

Maybe, there’s something I don’t know? For example, why has Putin suddenly turned into an adamant peacemaker, and the pro-Russian terrorists have sincerely repented of their crimes and become vegetarians to boot? Or I perhaps don’t know that the economy of Ukraine will reach unheard-of heights in a couple of years, and all those who are still nostalgic for 2.20-ruble sausage will aspire to be Ukrainian citizens? Well, miracles do happen. But will their mind-boggling concentration be connected with the Donbas “special areas” and bloodstained murderers and terrorists?