May 29, 2015
Translated from Russian by J.Hawk
That the current bandero-fascist Ukraine faces a collapse is a matter of time, not principle. Therefore many are asking an almost Solzenitsyn-like question “how are we to rearrange” what remains of it.
Some are promoting the idea of a people’s government of Ukraine, a government in exile, or something similar. These are rational ideas, but also belated ones: the time to worry about that was already during the February coup, when the euromaidanites have not yet established even the appearance of legitimate succession, and the country still had a president, a toppled one, to be sure, but who has not yet lost his legitimacy.
The hopes to transform the Donbass into a motor for rebooting the Ukraine project in a bandera-free format look mistaken. Unfortunately, many of our colleagues support that idea.
Here’s what Zakhar Prilepin, a well known publicist and media expert, writes: “Imagine how glorious it would be to jpropose, say, in about a year, when Europe is completely fed up with Ukraine (and even today there is a sense of fatigue), the most fair elections in the world (thousands of couriers, a million observers) and have Zakharchenko, a citizen of Ukraine, run in them. Which he’d win. And then I would laugh, with a happy laughter of childhood…”
Let’s start with the fact that Ukraine has been right from the beginning an anti-Russian (both in the national and international sense) project which the West has been pursuing for over 150 years. Therefore any idea that it might be transformed into a pro-Russian one smacks of utopia: history has shown that, sooner or later, the descendants of Petlura and Bandera will again raise their heads.
Donbass is fighting for the Russian World, it became its frontier, an unassailable fortress and, what’s most important, the keystone if not the foundation of the new Russian imperial project. Will there be a place for Donbass in the “renewed” Ukraine? That’s a rhetorical question.
Let’s recall that a year ago the Donbass spontaneously broke ranks with this anti-Russian project, into which it was forcibly pressed by the powers that be. Today the chasm between the coal miner country and Ukraine is so wide that its integration with Kiev is simply impossible.
LPR and DPR are forming their own elites which will hardly want to share power with Ukraine’s masters.
The self-established republics are adopting Russian standards, building infrastructure integrated with Russia’s, and the symbols of the Ukrainian era are already perceived as a leftover from a bygone age which will vanish over time.
I wrote once before that the Donbass, which has suffered so much in its struggle for freedom, will hardly want to resolve problems of Ukraine, which is wholly alien to it. The upcoming capture of Kiev by the militias and the destruction of banderism in its lair ought to be performed in the interests of the Donbass, not the former “parent state”, just as the Soviet soldiers who stormed Berlin in 1945 were solving USSR’s problem, not Germany’s.
Ukraine must share the fate of the Third Reich: Nazism must not remain unpunished. Not only the Ukrainian state must be disbanded, but also the hothouses of banderism such as Kiev, Lvov, and Dnepropetrovsk. They must not only stop being administrative centers but also cease being unified territories.
Regions of Ukraine should come under political patronage of the victorious Donbass and undergo a strict process of denazification that would legally marginalize all agents of neo-nazism. Regions ought to be granted the right of self-determination, but only to such an extent which does not contradict the interests of the Russian World.
The most painful question concerns former Ukraine’s debts: it may be that the Washington-Brussels curators of the junta will want to link diplomatic recognition of Novorossia, Malorossia, Galicia, and everything else that comes after the “Independent Ukraine.” In other words, we may face blackmail in the form of non-recognition, but the Donbass did not incur the debts to the west, and it is not the Donbass that should pay them back.
J.Hawk’s Comment: This is obviously a maximalist manifesto which has relatively few chances of being realized (except maybe in a milder format–anything seems possible right now). However, it seems almost a foregone conclusion that, since the EU is unwilling to exercise patronage over Ukraine, by default it will be exercised by Russia or its proxies (i.e., Novorossia). The prospect of Donbass resuming its existence as part of Ukraine as if nothing had happened is likewise illusory, as maxfux points out. So what’s left, exactly?
The final paragraph is especially intriguing. It may be that Russia is in no hurry to trigger Ukraine’s default because it is hoping to make a deal with Ukraine’s Western creditors of the sort maxfux intimates. A lot depends, of course, on which of the two parties (i.e, Russia or the West–Ukraine is no longer an independent international actor) is less interested in seeing Ukraine default.
Now, as to denazification: the other possible reason why Russia doesn’t seem interested in a Ukraine default is that, in order for Ukraine to denazify later, the Banderite ideology has to fail in as spectactular fashion as possible, and moreover in a manner that makes it difficult to blame Russia for the failure. Banderism was able to make a return because it was never given a chance to fail before–it was nipped in the bud just as it was taking root. Now it’s blossoming and bearing fruit so bitter than nobody who has one bite will ever want another.
Which brings me to the final aspect of MaxFux’s argument, namely the nature of the Ukrainian project. Just because the “anti-Russian” aspect of the project is ascendant doesn’t mean that’s all there is to Ukraine or Ukrainianism. Ultimately Russia’s policy does not appear to be aimed at discrediting the concept of Ukraine. It is aimed at those specific anti-Russian versions of Ukraine which, once obliterated, will allow the original, earlier, pro-Russian ones to come to the fore again.