Putin's Point of view

Putin's Point of View

I recently discovered, more-or-less by accident, Putin's recent (July 2021) essay, on Ukraine-Russian relations; lengthy but honest and personal; his view of the relations that he thinks should subsist between Russia and Ukraine. I realised (by extrapolation) that there must be a very large number of people in the English-speaking world who do not yet know of this important document and I consequently felt a duty to point to it, and attempt to evaluate it as fairly as I am able. The Kremlin's official ENGLISH TEXT CAN BE FOUND HERE [1].

It is Putin's amplification of an off-the-cuff response to a question raised at his annual question-and-answer session.  Dated 12th July 2021, it clearly represents the thoughts building in his mind, that led eventually to the invasion of Ukraine on 24th February 2022.

My precis 

Mr. Putin used 2000 words traversing the history of Ukraine/Russia from AD 800 to the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, covering much the same ground as I covered in my recent posts [2-6], and I think Putin and I agree rather well. 

He uses another 2000 words to cover the Bolshevik period (1917-1990), and in this he is much better informed than I; but seems balanced and fair. In the Soviet Union  "borders between republics were never seen as state borders; they were nominal [borders] within a single country". He is not pro-Bolshevik; he admits the famines, and the social experimentation.

In the last 2000 words Mr. Putin covers developments since the break-up of the Soviet Union, and the formation of the present Ukrainian state. In 1990 Russia and Ukraine were "natural and complementary partners"; their trade was considerable and mutually beneficial. Even in 2013 the two countries were close allies, with: 

"hundreds of agreements and joint projects .... aimed at developing our economies, business and cultural ties, strengthening security, and solving common social and environmental problems. They brought tangible benefits to people – both in Russia and Ukraine. This is what we believed to be most important. And that is why we had a fruitful interaction with all, I emphasize, with all the leaders of Ukraine."[1] 

It all went wrong in February 2014, when it turned out that the people of northern Ukraine were far more enamoured of the European Union than was their more-pro-Russian government [7]. It seems (to  Putin) that 'the people' of Northern Ukraine have been seduced/fooled by the free-running, capitalist, West. 

"This is also a disguise for the takeover [by the West] of the rest of the Ukrainian economy and the exploitation of its natural resources. The sale of agricultural land is not far off, and it is obvious who will buy it up. From time to time, Ukraine is indeed given financial resources and loans, but under their [the capitalists] own conditions and pursuing their [the capitalists] own interests, with preferences and benefits for Western companies. By the way, who will pay these debts back? Apparently, it is assumed that this will have to be done not only by today's generation of Ukrainians but also by their children, grandchildren and probably great-grandchildren." 

In southern Ukraine, and along the border with Russia, there are (no doubt) more Russian-speakers, and more commercial links with Russia.  

"and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are coming to us to work, and they find a welcome reception and support" [1].

Mr. Putin objects to the  government-imposed  hostility to Russia and to the Russian language; 

"And the most despicable thing is that the Russians in Ukraine are being forced not only to deny their roots, generations of their ancestors, but also to believe that Russia is their enemy." 

Comment

It seems to me that any arguments that support the right of Ukraine to free itself from Moscow, must also support the right of the Donets Coal Basin (Donbas) to be independent from Ukraine. Whoever governs the Donbas should do so with that in mind.

The southern and eastern sections of present-day Ukraine contains a Black Sea coastline, Zaporizhzhia's nuclear power plant, and the Donbas coal fields (though at fearsome depth). There is a lot at stake. For Ukraine to loose ¾ of its coast and all of its coal might render the state non-viable. It may seem to Kyiv to be worth fighting for, even if that south eastern region is Russian-speaking and hostile to Kyiv. 

There were right-wing paramilitary elements in the February 2014 rising, and there were pro-Russian paramilitary elements in the Donetsk and Luhansk [7]. There has been a lot of assistance/interference from Russia in the form of heavy weapons and advice, and maybe also personnel; and now also a lot of assistance/interference from The West to the government in Kyiv.

The Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 [8] were serious attempts by third parties to de-escalate the violence in the Donbas Region between pro-Russian separatists and the Ukraine state. Such a de-escalation would require both of the warring parties to see benefits. In the event,  neither party seem sufficiently to want peace. On that point Putin seems correct.  

        It is not at all clear how strong the indigenous pro-Russian sentiment is, in the disputed areas. Pre-emptive, illegal, and un-monitored referendums are unconvincing and unhelpful. 

I believe the world would like to see a Minsk-type cease-fire and some well-monitored referendums.

References

[1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

[2] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/03/kyiv-1.html 

[3] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/03/kiev-2.html 

[4] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/04/alexei-razumovsky.html 

[5] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/03/kyiv3.html 

[6] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/04/kyiv4.html 

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity 

[8] https://occidentis.blogspot.com/2023/05/the-minsk-agreements.html 

Please address comment to cawstein@gmail.com

Kicking

Kicking

A man (in a green pullover) by the bus stop is watching his two children playing on the grass some twenty yards away; and I watch all three. My mind wanders.

"Robbie! No kicking!", and the slight, weary, lift in his voice suggests that this is not the first time he has said those words.

I look more carefully at the children; the boy, a sturdy four-year-old, the girl considerably taller and perhaps six. The check seems to work. "Skilfully done Mr. Man-in-green." 

My mind wanders again. What a lot a child has to learn, about bullying, about getting your way, about consequences and avoiding consequences. What a lot of civilising goes into parenting; the making of a citizen. I am reminded of the books and offprints on Freud, Psychology and World Order that Father left us; his legacy, our inheritance [1,2]. Is selfishness primary? Is aggressiveness? Is conscience inherent, or acquired as vestigial traces of early training from childhood or even infancy? Is 'God' indeed little more than 'our father in heaven' writ large?

Robbie might wonder what is wrong with kicking; his sister usually gives way. Of course, he may get a walloping from his dad, or smouldering resentment from his sister. He may conclude that, all-in-all, kicking is counter productive. Or he may conclude that it is best not done in public.

Britain spent 180 years 'kicking' weaker countries into submission, till 1956, when, with the French and Israelis, Britain thought it could recapture the Suez Canal from the Egyptians. By the end of November 1956 these allies found that they had won the war but had alienated all the world (except for Adenauer [3]). They withdrew, humiliated. In April 1975 the USA had to accept their humiliating retreat from Vietnam, and again in August 2021 their retreat (with their allies) from Afghanistan. 

Perhaps 2023 will see the humiliating retreat of Putin and his Wagner allies from Ukraine. But he need not be too embarrassed; we can see this as an integral part of growing up; we might even say "Join the club". Anyway, his wasn't a war. (It is amusing to note that, in 1956, Prime Minister Eden apparently said "We [are not] at war with Egypt now.[…] There has not been a declaration of war by us. We are in an armed conflict." [3]).

Reference:

[1] West, Ranyard (1942) "Conscience and Society", Methuen & Co., London.

[2] West, Ranyard (1945) "Psychology and World Order", Pelican, Harmondsworth, London.

[3]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis 

 Please address comment to cawstein@gmail.com