IMPORTANT: Translation of A. Illarionov's interview.
In this interview with "Ukrainska Pravda" Andrey Illarionov makes the case that Ukraine must fight to preserve what's left of its independence. He does not believe that diplomacy, sanctions, etc, have any hope of success. Besides, Ukraine is running out of time. They need to mobilize and deploy credible armed forces in the next few days - and be prepared to use them in earnest - otherwise the situation will be hopeless. I think he's right when the opponent is Putin, but there are
many people in Ukraine and in the West who are still delusional on this issue. Therefore this is a must-read for authorities in Ukraine and the West. The original was posted in Russian. Nykolai Bilaniuk prepared the translations into Ukrainian and English.
http://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2014/03/17/7019339/
Andrey Illarionov: Nobody will help a victim of aggression, if the victim does not resist
Mustafa Nayem , Sergei Leshchenko UP
Monday, March 17, 2014 , 21:12
Among Ukrainian journalists, today Andrei Illarionov is one of the most widely quoted experts on Russia. Some social networks call him a "provocateur" for his call to resist Russian expansion. It is said that there is no such thing as "a former adviser to Putin." But honestly, on October 10th last year, Illarionov warned by way of an interview in "Ukrainska Pravda" about his former boss' plans: "Putin believes that part of Ukraine should belong to Russia." [ http://www.pravda.com.ua/articles/2013/10/10/6999733/ ]
If anyone has grounds to complain about Illarionov, it is only ideologically hardened Russians. This is because, for example, Illarionov is in his first year of living in Washington, working as a senior research fellow of the prestigious private analytical center The Cato Institute, which promotes economic liberalism. In addition, Illarionov was selected for the program dedicated to the rule of law and democracy established at Stanford University by Michael McFaul.
And a little more biography: Andrei Illarionov was an adviser to Vladimir Putin from 2000 to 2005. He was a Russian "sherpa" at meetings of the G8. He explained his departure from that job by saying that "the country has ceased to be politically free."
What will happen next Ukraine is the subject of a new interview with Illarionov by "Ukrainska Pravda".
- You had been close to Putin for a long time, you know him as a person. What is Putin feeling at this point? Is it revenge, anger, a desire to strike back, or is it just a cold pragmatic and rational calculation of interests?
- I made it a rule not to comment on the personal characteristics of Vladimir Putin. As for recent events - not just the so-called "referendum" in Crimea on March 16, but in general the whole campaign against Ukraine: It will not be over today or tomorrow, or on March 21.
Why is aggression being carried out against Ukraine? There is a purpose and a plan for the attack on Ukraine, which was prepared many years ago. Six years later it was disclosed by Vladimir Putin himself at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, when Putin said that Ukraine did not make sense as a country, and that Ukraine is a occupying a large amount of land that is truly Russian. It follows that sooner or later the return of the truly Russian lands would be on Putin's agenda, or as we now say "reuniting a disunited people".
It was only a question of when exactly this would happen. The revolution, and the overthrow of the former regime, have proved to be a convenient moment to start the program. There are many different items that are contained in the programme of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the regions of Ukraine: there is Crimea, and the South-East, and of course regime change in Kiev. Plus additional things - preparing a new constitution which is being written in the Kremlin, the disarmament of the Ukrainian people, the elimination of the Maidan, and so on.
- In your opinion, is the ultimate goal the annexation of all of Ukraine? Or a puppet regime in Ukraine as a quasi - independent state ?
- Both. Based on the principles of the new constitution prepared by the Kremlin, in Ukraine should be subjected to so-called federalization, which will result in different regions of Ukraine having the right to conduct external external affairs. This means the de facto conversion of regions of Ukraine into autonomous entities with the right to repeat the same procedure as we just witnessed recently in Crimea.
- Yet even U.S. states have no right to a separate foreign policy.
- Why should we talk about other countries? We're talking about a document that is being pushed on the Ukrainian government. According to this plan, any particular region of Ukraine, and perhaps several regions at once, will declare some special status and be transfered to Russia. And furthermore there will be regime change in Kyiv in accord with the Kremlin's vision. Plus, these same demands specify that Ukraine will not become a NATO member under any circumstances. The requirement of neutrality is stated not once, but twice, in this document. It requires the complete disarmament of the Ukrainian people, the annihiliation of the Maidan, and prevention of its re-occurence. And finally, this document is to be guaranteed by Russia, the European Union, and the United States, after which it must be approved by the United Nations Security Council.
You asked whether this was a complete occupation of Ukraine, or the formation of a puppet regime in Ukraine as a quasi - independent state. It means both; the simultaneous dismemberment of Ukraine into pieces, and the formation of a puppet regime in the remainder of Ukraine according to rules and a constitution written in the Kremlin, with a government which conforms to the demands of the Kremlin.
- Does the Kremlin have favorites in today's Ukrainian politics?
- In my opinion, no one either here or in Russia has any doubts about this ...
- Tell us .
- Have you seen the interview Vladimir Putin gave to Russian journalists? A person as welll informed as Alex Venedyktov pointed out the various terms Vladimir Putin used to describe the current authorities in Kyiv ("illegitimate, criminal regime that has staged an anti-constitutional coup d'etat and seized power in Kyiv") and "We have always worked well with Julia Tymoshenko; we have a mutual understanding."
- But Tymoshenko is supporting Yatseniuk and Turchynov. So why does Putin call their rule "criminal", if Tymoshenko backs it?
- Ms. Tymoshenko is not the leader of the current government, at least nominally. Furthermore, I suspect the current government reacted very positively to these Russian demands. Because as recently as on Saturday they published a demand for the disarmament of Ukrainian citizens. This is one of the requirements in the document prepared by Russia.
- But the disarmament of citizens is a healthy demand supported by Ukrainians themselves.
- It's not a healthy demand. A healthy demand for securing a country's freedom and independence is a fully armed people. Switzerland legalized possession of weapons, not just rifles. In the U.S., there are quite a number of firearms, which guarantees the civil and political rights of Americans. In order to ensure that a free person does not become a slave, the freedom to bear arms is one of the most compelling arguments that were produced by mankind for centuries. Humanity has not invented anything better.
- Let's go back to the logic of events. This planned intervention into the territory of Ukraine has been in the works for long, but Yanukovych's escape - was it part of the plan or not?
- I highly doubt that it was planned, considering how sudden Yanukovych's flight from Kyiv had been. Every time he spoke about this action by Yanukovych, Putin was very annoyed. It meant that the plans which had been prepared had to be put into action much earlier than originally intended.
And at the very moment when, in a telephone conversation with Mr Putin, Mr. Obama said that he would not take any action involving U.S. forces, he thereby signed the Munich Agreement of 2014. Translated from diplomatic language to layman's terms, these words from Obama mean "Go ahead and occupy Crimea." After this conversation on the night of March 6th to the 7th, the process of seizing Crimea and its de facto annexation were significantly accelerated.
- The memorandum guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine was signed by the USA and UK. Is this not a signal to the world that it is acceptable to develop nuclear weapons because America's guarantees are worthless?
- It is absolutely clear that hundreds of countries will seriously consider a need to immediately develop nuclear weapons as a necessary tool, the only tool that can guarantee the territorial integrity of these countries. This is because a guarantee from the UK or US is not worth the paper they are printed on. This case with Ukraine is a prime example which everyone is observing.
- It is also worth Ukraine's while to renew its nuclear capability?
- This is a treaty in which Ukraine, on the one hand, accepted an obligation to relinquish nuclear weapons, and on the other hand thare are guarantors that did not deliver. From the standpoint of international law, it is clear that this agreement ceased to have any legal effect. And now it is up to Ukraine whether to abide by this document, or to draw other conclusions.
- Are you plainly agitating for the restoration of Ukraine's nuclear potential?
- This is not agitation. This is just a natural logical consequence of the fact that this document ceased to be in force.
- You previously appeared at the Kyiv Mohyla Academy and made a frank declaration that "If Ukraine wants to rely on U.S. military aid, it must begin to fight."
- You are distorting my position. If a country really wants to defend its independence and territorial integrity, there is no other way to do it except to resist the aggressor. Resistance can take many forms. If a country does not resist, and hopes for help from others, then such a country is making a deep historical error. There are no cases in history where other countries have protected victims of aggression, if the victim of aggression itself did not resist. There are no such examples.
- How should one resist?
- We have at least two historical examples. Czechoslovakia in 1938 acquiesed to the Munich agreement, under which the four countries - Britain, France, Germany, and Italy - guaranteed the new borders of Czechoslovakia.
We know the result very well. First they took the Sudetenland, and then six months later, German troops entered Prague, the historic capital of the millennial German Reich, and in place of the independent Czechoslovakia they formed the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Meaanwhile Slovakia declared its independence. This is the first option, when the victim of aggression does not resist.
There is another example from the same era. On November 30, 1939, Soviet troops crossed the Soviet- Finnish border. Although the balance of power between the aggressor and the victim of aggression was uneven - 200 million versus 3 million - Finland fought back. The result was some loss of territory. However, the country defended its independence and sovereignty.
A similar story happened 6 years ago, during the Russian aggression against Georgia. It was a tough test. Georgian authorities decided to resist. Yes, they lost territory - South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 20% of Georgian territory was occupied by Russian troops. But Georgia has preserved her independence and sovereignty.
- In other words, to develop the analogy, we have two choices: either we resist now and lose Crimea but keep the core part of the country, or we do not fight and Ukraine may cease to exist as a country?
- Resistance is diverse in nature. But from the moment of the beginning of the occupation of Crimea, none of the possible measures were taken. There is also no sign that the Ukrainian authorities are going to go this route. Ukraine has a choice - either go the way of Czechoslovakia, or the way of Finland and Georgia ... - At the cost of the lives of their fellow citizens?
- Ah yes, the lives of their fellow citizens. This is the same situation as the Maidan. The Maidan stood for two months, and there were attacks on the maidan participants that led to some deaths. But Western countries did not provide any real help. Their sanctions against the Yanukovych regime began only after people died, and the people of Ukraine proved their will to resist.
This is the law of the life in the world, the law of diplomacy. No one helps the victims of aggression - external or internal - if the victim does not resist. And concerning victims, if you think that there were no losses in Czechoslovakia, then you are sadly mistaken. Punitive actions against the Czechoslovak population which found itself under the rule of German troops were carried out throughout the time of occupation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Therefore, human and territorial losses are inevitable in both cases. The question is not whether people will be lost, but whether Ukrainian society chooses to resist or to surrender its territory.
- Yet one can understand the logic of the current government. They think : "We have seen what happened in Georgia, which fought and lost its citizens, and the occupation still occurred. Therefore we will not fight. Even if there is an occupation, at least we will save the lives of our people. As for us, Turchynov, Yatsenuk, and others, at least later we will not be accused that we sent Ukrainian sons to their death." In addition, they expect that the West will not allow Russian troops to invade the country's heartland.
- Perhaps that is what they are counting on. But this view is not supported by historical experience. And I never said that it is necessary to open fire.
- But then how can one resist? Blow up the gas pipelines that pump Russian gas to Europe, as proposed by some radicals?
- That you should ask those radicals themselves. The first thing that has to be done is to hold a general mobilization. It was necessary to immediately seal the land border between Ukraine and Russia, to prevent the influx of so-called "Putin tourists." If this were done, people would not have died in Donetsk and Kharkiv.
When the seizure of the parliament building in Simferopol took place, the first reaction should have been raising the alert level of all Ukrainian military units located in Crimea to combat readiness. Naturally, the troops are brought out of their barracks, and take control of major infrastructure objects - airports, train stations, ports, ferries, the isthmus, major office buildings, communication centers. Along the perimeter of the administrative border of Sevastopol, the Ukrainian armed forces should have set up checkpoints, and they should have been checking who is leaving Sevastopol and where they are headed. This should be done directly and immediately.
- What to do today?
- First of all, you need a government for which the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine are not empty phrases. If not, then it is pointless to address all the other questions.
- How do you see the role of Tatars in this story? May Crimea become like Chechnya?
- For now the region is being transformed into a kind of Abkhazia or South Ossetia, a military staging area. As for the Tartars, well, to use the language of science, on the Crimean peninsula there will be significant changes in the ethnic composition. It's absolutely inevitable. Look at the experience of Abkhazia. There was ethnic cleansing, with the elimination of Greeks, Bulgarians, and Estonians, and radical reductions in other ethnic groups. In South Ossetia, the ethnic enclaves Greater Liakhvi and Lesser Liakhvi, which were populated by Georgians, ceased to exist as a class. And Mr Kokoity solemnly declared: "We cleaned everything out over there."
What form this change in the ethnic composition of the population of the Crimean peninsula will take, I can not say. But it is clear that in order ensuring the efficiency of a large new military base in Crimea does not require two million inhabitants. Also unnecessary are those who have repeatedly declared their disloyalty to the new government of the peninsula. First and foremost this means the Crimean Tatars.
- But this has a downside. The Tartars' lands were restored to them recently, and they will resist attacks. Could it really be so easy to dislodge them from this land? - Let me remind you. In relation to the Crimean Tatars, at least three genocides were carried out: the first in the late 18th century, after the annexation of the Crimean Khanate by the Russian Empire. The second genocide was carried out after the Crimean War. Finally, the third genocide was committed onMay 18, 1944, when the Crimean Tatars were deported from Crimea to Kazakhstan and Central Asia.
I am afraid that the Crimean Tatar nation has been abandoned. Today, they have the status of hostages. I do not want to predict what will happen there. But on the territory of Russia there are some areas in which the Russian army and security services for a great number of years engaged in a solution, as you would say, to "the terrorist threat."
- In the event Crimea is annexed to Russia, will Moscow be able to quickly restore electricity and water supplies which are provided from mainland Ukraine?
- First I would like to note that the Dnipro - Crimea canal supplies water primarily to the Crimean steppe, where the main ethnic groups are the Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. Therefore, any interruption in the water supply would lead only to a reduction of the ethnic groups who are disloyal to the new regime. But the issue of elecricity supply will be solved with electricity from neighboring Krasnodar region.
- Can the occupation of Crimea, the war against Ukraine, and the Maidan lead to unrest and overthrow of the current regime in Russia?
- Let's discuss this professionally. You do not understand the nature of the political regime in Russia. It really is akin to Mr. Yanukovych's regime, but the degrees of toughness are absolutely not comparable. In a classification of political regimes, Putin's regime is considered a "strict authoritarian political regime." For example, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria is also "strict authoritarian." And we know that a civil war has been going on there for over three years now. More than 110 or 120 thousand people have died in that country, and the regime is not yet gone.
- After the departure of the Putin regime, can Crimea return to Ukraine ?
- More than once I have heard that Crimea or the South East region might remain part of Ukraine through the actions of the United States, the guarantors of the Budapest memorandum, events in Russia, and so on. I will definitely guarantee you this: If you are counting only on these measures, then Crimea will never return to Ukraine. And not only will Crimea not return to Ukraine, but Ukraine will not be able to protect her independence.
- Is it possible to conclude from your words that the way to hold a dialogue with Putin is using the language of weapons?
- Can you cite examples which prove that making statements "expressing concern" or such frightening things as "we will not attend the G8 summit in Sochi" can persuade tanks and S-300 air defense systems to stay put in Crimea? Have you ever seen such examples?
- But sanctions eventually crippled the regime of Viktor Yanukovych: His supporters began to renounce him. Why can't the same happen with Putin?
- I think the main reason for the victory of the revolution in Ukraine was the Maidan and the resistance of Ukrainians. No statements by the West, no cookies distributed by various diplomats, played any role.
Only the resistance of Ukrainians, only their determination when they said "We will not leave this place until Yanukovych is gone" - this is the one clear example that was demonstrated before your eyes, and to the Ukrainian authorities.
But once again I say - it's your business, not mine, what to do in the present case. The decisions that were taken, or rather were not taken during the past 18 days, show unequivocally that the current Ukrainian authorities have chosen lack of resistance. Well, that is the choice of the legitimate government of Ukraine. But for our part we are obliged to point out where this choice will lead. We urge everyone not to feed the illusion that through the help of declarations or even sanctions, that Russian troops will leave the territory of Crimea. No, this will not happen.
InfoUkes Inc. Gerald William Kokodyniak
Suite 185, 3044 Bloor Street West Webmaster InfoUkes Inc.
Etobicoke, Ontario [email protected]
Canada M8X 2Y8 http://www.infoukes.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 01 2014 - 00:58:29 EST