January 6, 2015
Anatoly Wasserman – Antifashist.com
Translated from Russian by Kristina Rus
The much talked about “dumping” of Novorossiya, which is notoriously promoted by Ukrainian, Western and partially the Russian press [tr. and State Dep. social media warriors], in reality is unlikely, said in an interview with the news agency News Front a prominent intellectual and political analyst Anatoly Wasserman. The rhetoric about “united Ukraine”, which is really voiced by the Kremlin officials, is fundamentally different from what is meant by the official Kyiv.
And Moscow’s conditions are unacceptable to Kiev, as much as the Kiev regime’s model of “united Ukraine” is absolutely unacceptable to Moscow. Wasserman believes such nuances are too significant to leave them out of discussion.
“A few words about “united Ukraine”. Yes, this slogan sounds from the mouth of Putin and Lavrov almost as often as from the mouth of Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk. But, you know, the medieval scholastics used to say that . In this case, it is important for me that every statement of Putin and Lavrov about “united Ukraine” is accompanied by a description of the conditions under which Ukraine can in principle be united. A list of these conditions shows that the current Kiev usurpers cannot fulfill a single demand from this list. That is, in the words of Putin and Lavrov’s the phrase “united Ukraine” actually means a radical change, constructing a completely new government, capable of ensuring equal rights, bilingualism and much more of what is really needed. Anything similar to what Kiev usurpers consider “united Ukraine” Russia will not accept,” – said Wasserman.
According to the analyst, despite the diversity of opinions in respect to Donbass, which, of course, exists in Russian elites, overall there are no opponents of Novorossia there. Moreover, even pro-Western non-systemic opposition is promoting pro-Ukrainian rhetoric only because it is removed from power. In other circumstances, their screams would have exactly the opposite angle, says Wasserman.
“I’m talking about Russia, as a whole, although in my domestic publications I repeatedly emphasise that the Russian government is divided into two parts, as, indeed, the authorities in most countries of the world. One of these parts represents the interests of manufacturers and is grouped around the security block of the government and is headed directly by the President. Another part protects the interests of the merchants and is grouped around the economic block of the government and is headed respectively by the Prime Minister. The balance of these two parts explains and defines many of the oddities in the behaviour of the Russian Federation. But in relation to Ukraine, as far as I can tell, the positions of both parts of the Russian government are practically identical simply because in case of victory of the U.S. and its puppets in Kiev, not only the manufacturers in the Russian Federation will be destroyed, but a significant proportion of the merchants will pushed aside and they already understand this.
Given all the contradictions in Russian domestic affairs, I am quite convinced that neither Putin nor Medvedev can dump Novorossia. Moreover, even if by some miracle the dreams of, what in Russia is called non-systemic opposition, but, in fact, are mostly ordinary agents of American propaganda, – will come true, even they will be forced to defend the interests of Novorossia and not Kiev”, – said the expert.
At a Ukraine debate in USA a prominent Russian opposition member was asked a question: “How can Putin’s high approval rating be lowered?” His answer was: “By making Putin look weak”. Ironically the Western information machine has changed it’s tune from blaming Putin for supporting Novorossia to blaiming Putin for not supporting Novorossia enough. This battle is raging on Russian internet pages, and is spilling over onto the pages of Western Novorossia supporters. Every event in Ukraine and Novorossia is evaluated by its utility to “Putin is a traitor” claim. Since the West had failed in its mission of nurturing any semblance of Russian opposition, and Putin’s rating took off after Crimea, the West headed by Russia’s main nemesis – the USA, has correctly refocused its attention on the untapped power of Russian patriotism. As a result the US has gotten Putin between a rock and a hard place. He is damned if he helps Novorossia, and he is damned if he doesn’t. Russian patriots have been successfully divided into a pro-Putin and anti-Putin camp. The anti-Putin camp is outraged by negotiations, the halting of hostilities, calling for a march to Kiev, Russian boots on the ground yesterday, condemns any deals with Kiev and says Putin caved to Russian elites, which caved to the West. The pro-Putin camp trusts in the “PSP” (Putin’s Secret Plan, even if evolving), Lavrov’s charm, measured steps, the building of a vertical of power and unified command, invisible aid, Russian resolve, consolidation of elites around the center and the ultimate goal of turning the entire Ukraine Russia-friendly, which would not be achieved by its invasion. The debate rages on, but ironically, Putin’s replacement would be faced with the same tasks as Putin, if he was to hold on to power, according to Vasserman. The question is – would he be more successful?
(PS The above article may and should be used as State Dep. troll repellent)