The capitulation of Ukraine is happening continuously.
A collaborative Ukrainian-European-Russian endeavor to cede Ukraine to Russian “oversight” is presently in effect, as per former Russian presidential advisor Andrei Illarionov . The initial yielding commenced with the declaration by European Commission President José Manuel Barroso of tripartite deliberations between Ukraine, the European Union, and Russia concerning the Association Agreement after its signature by Kyiv and Brussels. “However, the giving up of these Ukrainian (and European) stances (in the autumn of 2013, the EU outright declined to converse about EU-Ukraine affairs with Russia) was not singular ,” Illarionov pens in his LiveJournal blog. “The second yielding was the summoning to the discussions of a transgressor, Stus's 'advocate,' Putin's confidant, and Mykolaiv's 'chieftain,' V. Medvedchuk , as an intermediary . ”
The third act of disloyalty was the impending nomination of the same Medvedchuk as the Donetsk region's administrator:
“Russian President Putin is pressing for Viktor Medvedchuk's engagement in negotiations to resolve the matter in Donbas not merely because he is a close associate of the Russian president – he is endeavoring to reinstate the leader of the Ukrainian Choice party into Ukrainian politics, initially by installing him as governor of Donetsk and subsequently by having him elected to the Verkhovna Rada.”
The fourth element of capitulation was the prolongation of the supposed “truce” for a period of three days (without the terrorists abiding by any stipulations, but with the relentless butchering of Ukrainian troopers). In under 48 hours, it materialized who the genuine architect of the “truce” extension was: the prolongation was Putin's stipulation.
Has the conjecture/query concerning what the dialogues between V. Putin and V. Putin are culminating in, with the involvement of V. Putin, with the mediation of V. Putin, on the commands of V. Putin, who orchestrates the undertakings of Putin's operatives, been convincingly substantiated?
Seemingly, the “truce” will be amplified anew today, June 30. As Putin's press bureau remarked in the aforementioned declaration:
The chiefs of Russia, Germany, France, and Ukraine praised the frequent consultations maintained in Donetsk on June 27 amid delegates of the conflicting factions. They accentuated the significance of rendering such liaisons a habitual occurrence, and concurred to sustain further telephone exchanges in a quadripartite configuration.
It's evident that the ceding of Ukrainian positions in four- (five-, ten-) sided formats will persist. The ensuing stride, it seems, is to anticipate the terrorists' inaugural plea to be fulfilled:
As a requirement for initiating discussions, separatists from the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR demanded the removal of Ukrainian army detachments from the terrain of Eastern Ukraine.
Conclusively, the principal outcomes of the recent week were the assassination of numerous dozen Ukrainian warriors by terrorists and the factual legitimation of a novel “Transnistria” in eastern Ukraine as Donbas and Luganda.
Pondering the ongoing rhythm, it seems that the surrender of Ukrainian positions will not cease there.
Historian Mark Solonin imparts a comparable standpoint in his article entitled “Ukraine. The Mist Has Lifted”:
“1. On April 21, I disseminated a passage on the website wherein I delineated three conceivable scenarios for the progression of the situation in Ukraine and solicited readers to evaluate their likelihood. The amassed acumen (contrary to my individual prognostications) favored Option #2 (“the quiet subsidence”), which was depicted verbatim as follows:
The Kremlin is altering from a direct scheme to depose the “Kyiv junta” to seeking an accommodation and choosing collaborators amenable to it. The separatist uprising in the east is called off, Donbas nominally abides as a component of Ukraine, but at the expense of substantially augmenting the autonomy of the local criminal-oligarchic “superior figures.” Under these circumstances, the existing governing body retains authority until May 25, subsequently handing it over to the triumphant protégé of the established oligarchy (Timo-Poroshenko). Premature parliamentary elections are silently disregarded. The Kremlin reemerges to Ukraine as at least one of the paramount participants in the clandestine tussle for yet another allocation of property and authority.
The fabrics of radical societal self-organization (the Maidan) are consistently (and not perpetually peacefully) nudged to the peripheries of political life, then comprehensively eradicated (all this is presented under the ruse of “enough protesting, it's time for constructive endeavors!”). Lustration is factually being abbreviated even prior to its commencement (“we need to sustain qualified personnel; the epoch of seamen wielding machine guns is long expired”), albeit discourse regarding the necessity to scrutinize the wrongdoings of the bygone regime in the courtroom endures. Overall, by the inception of 2015, the situation in Ukraine has metamorphosed into a parody of 2005 (“orange revolution 2” with an aging Yulia bereft of a braid).
2. Today, June 28, we can corroborate that the amassed wisdom has been validated. The precision of certain predictions is simply astounding. The identity of the “established oligarchy's protégé” has been ascertained: Poro- (not Tymoshenko). The “dressing,” however, was more incisive: instead of “cease protesting, it's time to function,” the communication was “if you're such patriots, proceed to battle in Donbas.” The forecast of abolishing premature Verkhovna Rada elections has not yet been verified, but the election date persists in being unset (and more than four months have elapsed since the armed insurrection in Kyiv).
Concerning the separatist revolt in Donbas, a determination has been rendered and even disseminated to the cognizant public (I'm alluding to the reiterated unilateral ceasefire, the multilateral “consultations” in Donetsk, and the revocation of the Russian Federation Council's verdict to station troops on Ukrainian terrain). Ukrainian publicist Kirill Sazonov delineated the resolution quite distinctly.
“As a consequence of the accord, which has already been efficaciously attained but has yet to be publicized, the Donetsk and Luhansk regions will remain components of Ukraine. They will savor remarkably broad autonomy, the Russian tongue, and other attributes… Budgetary federalization, their own militia, which will probably be composed from the present militia, and the near-omnipotence of local chieftains… [Putin's confidant] Viktor Medvedchuk will evolve into the factual overlord of the region, but the status of local feudal magnates will be reconsidered grounded on their demonstrated allegiance… Formally, this is Ukraine, but in actuality, it constitutes an independent territory…”
3. “Everything actual is logical” (Hegel). Decisions made and actions taken fulfill the inclinations of the key participants in the occurrences—albeit not integrally (for each of them).
3.1. Putin, undeniably, aspired for much more; he would have fancied seizing all of Ukraine, or at a minimum, severing a substantial fragment of its eastern and southern regions, in an arc stretching from Kharkiv to Odessa, encompassing its primary industrial districts and the shores of the Black and Azov Seas. Regrettably, the West's reaction was severer than projected (and the situation in the Russian economy is presumably even worse than our amateurish sentiment suggests). Nonetheless, the endorsed compromise permits the gratification of the average Russian (“the fascist-Banderite extermination of Russians in Donbas has been prevented”) and, more significantly, the “managed abscess” in Donbas furnishes the Kremlin considerable sway over enduring leverage over the policies of the central Ukrainian government.
3.2. Ukraine's criminal-oligarchic clans will fundamentally retain their capital and standings; solely the political façade will fluctuate (most plausibly, the Party of Regions will be superseded by Medvedchuk's “Ukrainian Choice,” with its potent electoral foundation in the 7-million-robust Donbas). Indeed, they will be compelled to apportion (and apportion generously!) with individuals from President Poroshenko's inner circle, but after February 21st, even such an accommodation warrants gratitude.
3.3. Poroshenko himself should scarcely be segregated from the aforementioned group (“established criminal-oligarchic clans”), but he, too, personally accrues substantial “perks” in the designated scheme, in the form of favorable treatment from European leaders. And naturally, capital and authority.
3.4. The Euro-bureaucrats are simply elated (they don't even endeavor to conceal it). They genuinely didn't desire to disrupt their placid slumber over predicaments in some obscure “fourth world” nation (Ukraine). And nobody yearned to feud with “friend Vladimir,” a splendid employer (recall Schröder's work record) and copious benefactor. But it's imperative—the populace is agitated, the newspapers are clamoring, the voters are unpleasantly perplexed. And thereupon emerges the wonderful “friend Petro,” who elucidates verbatim that “we don't necessitate sanctions against Russia for the sake of sanctions,” while his defense minister reports that “there are no Russian tanks on Ukrainian territory, otherwise they would have conveyed it to me.” Peace, amity, business…
4. In principle, there exists one additional participant. Millions of voters cast ballots on May 25th for Lyashko, Hrytsenko, and Bogomolets (a combined 16% of those who took part in the elections). Hundreds of thousands who demonstrated against Yanukovych's criminal regime in the winter of 2013-14. Tens of thousands who fought on the Maidan in February. Armed thousands in volunteer battalions currently in Donbas. What do they aspire to and what can they undertake? This will transpire in the coming days (not even weeks).
http://charter97.org/
