Andrei Illarionov: Nobody will help the victim of aggression, unless the victim resists
Andrei Illarionov, is today one of the most quoted experts on Russia among Ukrainian journalists. Some social networks called his "agent provocateur" for the call to resist Russian expansion. It is said that "Putin's former aides did not happen." However, in fairness, even on October 10 last year, Illarionov warned through interviews "Ukrainian Truth" about the plans of his former boss - "Putin believes that part of Ukraine should belong to Russia" .
If there is reason to express claims Illarionov, just ideologically hardened Russians. Because Illarionov, for example, the first year of living in Washington, working as a senior research officer of the prestigious private analytical center - Cato professing economic liberalism. Moreover, Illarionov was selected for a program dedicated to the rule of law and democracy, created at Stanford University, Michael McFaul.
And a little biography: Andrei Illarionov, was an advisor to Vladimir Putin from 2000 to 2005 - the Russian "Sherpa" meetings "Big Eight". His resignation has explained that "the country has ceased to be politically free."
What awaits further Ukraine - in a new interview Illarionov "Ukrainian Truth".
- You had long conversation with Putin personally, you know him as a person. Putin feels that at this point? It is the revenge, anger, desire for revenge or just a cold and rational calculation pragmatic interests of Russia?
- I made it a rule not to comment on the personal characteristics of Vladimir Putin. As for today's events - not only the so-called "referendum" in the Crimea on 16 March, but in general the whole campaign against Ukraine - today or tomorrow, or March 21, it will not end.
Why carried out aggression against Ukraine? There is a purpose and a plan for an attack on Ukraine, which was produced many years ago. Six years ago it was made public, including by Vladimir Putin at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, when Putin said that Ukraine is not as a state that Ukraine occupies a large number of native Russian land. Which meant that sooner or later the question of the return of the native Russian land - or, as we now say, "reuniting disconnected people" - will be on the agenda of Putin.
It was just about when it will happen. Revolution and the overthrow of the former regime were considered opportune moment to start this program. There are many different items that are set forth in the position of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in relation to the regions of Ukraine: Crimea it is South-East, and, of course, a change in power in Kiev. Plus another extra things - preparation of the new Constitution, which is written in the Kremlin, the disarmament of the Ukrainian people, the elimination of the Maidan, and so on.
- In your opinion, the ultimate goal - is joining the whole of Ukraine? Or puppet regime in Ukraine as a quasi-independent state?
- And then, and more. Based on the principles of the new Constitution, drawn up in the Kremlin in Ukraine should be carried out so-called federalization, which resulted in different regions of Ukraine have the right to receive external relations. De facto, this transfer in the regions of Ukraine autonomous status with the right to repeat that same procedure, witnesses which we have just started in the Crimea.
- It seems that even the American states have no right to a separate foreign policy.
- Why do we talk about other countries? We're talking about a document that proposed the Ukrainian authorities. Where, according to a predetermined schedule, a particular region of Ukraine, and perhaps several regions will proclaim certain status and go to Russia. And where, of course, requires changes of government in Kiev, in accordance with the vision, which is at the Kremlin. Plus, in these same requirements stated that Ukraine in any case does not become a member of NATO. The requirement of neutrality is prescribed not one, but even two times in this document. Requires complete disarmament of the Ukrainian people, requires demolition Maidana and apparently avoiding it. And in the end, this document must ensure Russia, the European Union and the United States, then all must be approved by the UN Security Council.
You asked for it - full occupation of the Ukraine or the puppet regime in Ukraine as a quasi-independent state? This means both cutting pieces of Ukraine, and the formation of the rest of the Ukrainian puppet regime established by the rules, according to the Constitution, which was written in the Kremlin and the government, which is formed at the request of the Kremlin.
- Some today Kremlin favorite in Ukrainian politics?
- In my opinion, no one, neither here nor in Russia there is no doubt about it ...
- Tell us.
- And you have not seen the interview Vladimir Putin Russian journalists? Such an informed person as Venediktov noticed how different lexical means used to describe Vladimir Putin present authorities in Kiev ("illegitimate, criminal regime has committed an unconstitutional coup, seized power in Kiev") and "Yulia Tymoshenko, which we always worked well, we have a mutual understanding. "
- But Tymoshenko is behind and Yatsenyuk Turchynov. Then why Putin calls their power "criminal" if it stands for Tymoshenko?
- Ms Tymoshenko is the leader of the current government, at least nominally. And, as I think the current government reacted very positively to these requirements, Russia. Because as recently as Saturday was published require the disarmament of Ukrainian citizens. This is one of the requirements is recorded in a document prepared by Russia.
- But the disarmament of citizens - is a sensible requirement, and the Ukrainians themselves.
- This is not a sensible requirement. Robust demand for freedom and independence of the country - is a complete arming of the people. In Switzerland legalized possession of a weapon, and not even just small. In the U.S., a sufficiently large number of firearms, which provides civil and political rights of Americans. In order to free man shall become a slave, there is one of the most convincing arguments, which was conceived by mankind for centuries - a free gun ownership. Nothing better mankind has not invented.
- Let's go back to the logic of events. This plan to invade the territory of Ukraine was planned well in advance, but his escape Yanukovych - is part of the plan or not?
- I very much doubt that it was planned so sudden flight from Kiev Yanukovych. Putin, each time saying this action Yanukovych was heavily annoyed. And developments had prepared to do much faster than they had planned.
And at the very moment when Mr. Obama in a telephone conversation with Mr Putin said that he was not going to engage in any action involving the armed forces of the United States, thus he signed the Munich Pact in 2014. Translated from the usual diplomatic language these words mean Obama: "Take the Crimea." After this conversation the night of 6 to 7 March Crimea capture process and the de facto annexation of substantially accelerated.
- Under the memorandum guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine were signing the U.S. and UK. Is not that a signal to the world that it is possible to develop a nuclear weapon, because America guarantees are worthless?
- It is clear that from now to hundreds of seriously think about that in terms of what they need immediately to develop nuclear weapons as a necessary means of which alone can guarantee the territorial integrity of these states. Since no guarantees UK nor the U.S. worth the paper they are written on. Ukraine in this case is a prime example, look at all that.
- So, too, is to restore Ukraine's nuclear capability?
- This is a contract in which one side has Ukraine, which has taken a commitment to abandon nuclear weapons, and there is a guarantee that this is not provided. From the standpoint of international law, it is clear that this treaty has ceased to have any legal effect. And now the case of Ukraine, to adhere to this document or make any conclusions from this.
- You are right agitiruete to restore the nuclear potential of Ukraine?
- This is no agitation. It's just a natural logical consequence of the fact that this document has ceased to exist.
- And before that you were in the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and the right called "If Ukraine relies on U.S. military aid, it must begin to fight."
- You are misrepresenting my position. If the country really wants to defend its independence and territorial integrity, there is no other way to do it than to resist the aggressor. Resistance can have different types. If a country does not resist, and hopes other uncle, the country committed grave historical error. There was a history of cases that other countries would protect the victim of aggression, if the victim does not resist aggression. Such cases are not.
- And how can I resist?
- We have at least two historical examples. Czechoslovakia in 1938 went to the acceptance of the terms of the Munich agreement, in which four countries - Britain, France, Germany and Italy - to guarantee the new borders of Czechoslovakia.
The result we all know. Initially took the Sudetenland, and then six months later, German troops marched into Prague - in the historical capital of the millennial German Reich - and in place of independent Czechoslovakia formed the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. And Slovakia declared its independence. This is the first option - when the victim does not resist aggression.
There is another version of the same era. November 30, 1939, Soviet troops crossed the Soviet-Finnish border. And although the balance of power between the aggressor and the victim of aggression was incomparable - 200 million versus 3 million - Finland resisted, resulting in lost some territory. However, to assert their independence, state sovereignty.
A similar story occurred six years ago during the Russian aggression against Georgia. It was an ordeal. Georgian authorities decided to resist. Yes, they lost territory - South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 20% of Georgian territory is occupied by Russian troops. But Georgia has maintained independence and state sovereignty.
- That is, if we draw an analogy, we have two choices: either we resist now, lose the Crimea, but keep the steel part of the country - or we do not fight and Ukraine may cease to exist as a country?
- Resistance is the most diverse in nature. But since the beginning of the occupation of the Crimea none of the possible measures had been made. And it is not visible to the Ukrainian authorities were going to go this route. Ukraine has a choice - either go the way of Czechoslovakia, or the path of Finland and Georgia ...
- Lost lives of their fellow citizens?
- ... Yes, and the lives of their fellow citizens. This is the same situation as the Maidan. Maidan was two months, there were attacks on "maydanovtsev" that led to the death. But Western countries did not have any real help. Their sanctions against Yanukovych began only when people died, and the people of Ukraine proved that he resists.
This - the law of universal life, the law of diplomacy. Nobody helps the victim of aggression - internal or external - unless the victim resists. As for the victims, if you think that there were no losses in Czechoslovakia, then you are sadly mistaken. Punitive operations against the Czechoslovak population was under the control of German troops, conducted during the time of occupation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. Therefore, the loss of both human and territorial inevitable in both cases. The question is not how to lose if the population, but in the Ukrainian society chooses resistance - or surrender territory.
- But the logic of the current government can understand. They think: "We have seen Georgia, which fought and lost their fellow citizens, and the occupation still occurred. Therefore, we will not fight. Occupation Let it be, but at least we save people's lives. And us Turchinov Yatsenuk and other then not will be blamed for the fact that we sent Ukrainian sons to death. " Plus, they expect that the West will not allow Russian troops to move inland.
- Perhaps this calculation is. But it is not confirmed by historical experience. And I never said it was necessary to open fire.
- But how to resist? Blow up pipelines, pumping gas from Russia to Europe, as some radicals?
- Well, you have to ask radicals. The first thing to be done - is to hold a general mobilization. It was necessary to immediately cover the land Ukrainian-Russian border to prevent the influx of so-called "Putin's tourists." If this was done, people would not have died in Donetsk and Kharkov.
When there was a capture the parliament building in Simferopol, the first reaction was to be climbing all combat alert Ukrainian military units stationed in the Crimea. Naturally, military units out of the barracks, take control of basic infrastructural facilities - airports, train stations, ports, ferry, Isthmus, major office buildings, communication centers. Along the perimeter of the administrative border checkpoints set Sevastopol Ukrainian armed forces, and they check who go from Sevastopol and where directed. This is done directly and immediately.
- What should I do today?
- First of all, you have the power to which the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine are not empty sounds. If not, then all the other pointless questions to solve.
- How do you see the role of Tatars in this story? Crimea could become Chechnya?
- While Crimea turns into a kind of Abkhazia and South Ossetia into a military base. As for the Tatars, I think, to put it in scientific terms, on the Crimean peninsula will be significant changes in the ethnic composition. It is inevitable. Look at the experience of Abkhazia - ethnic cleansing, elimination of Greeks, Bulgarians, Estonians, radical reduction of other ethnic groups. In South Ossetia, ethnic enclaves and Liakhvi Liakhvi populated by Georgians, ceased to exist as a class. And Mr. Kokoity said solemnly: "We cleaned out there
everything. "
What form will acquire this change the ethnic composition of the population of the Crimean peninsula, I can not say. But it is clear that to ensure the efficiency of a major new military base in the Crimea do not need two million inhabitants. As well as do not need those who have repeatedly declared his disloyalty to the new government on the peninsula. First of all, the Crimean Tatars.
- But it also has a downside. Tatars received their land recently, they will resist the attacks may begin. Could be so easy to drive them out of the land?
- Let me remind you. With respect to the Crimean Tatars held at least three genocide in the late 18th century, after the annexation of the Crimean Khanate by the Russian Empire, the second genocide was conducted after the completion of the Crimean War. And finally, the third genocide was done May 18, 1944, when the Crimean Tatar people were deported from Crimea in Kazakhstan and Central Asia.
I am afraid that the Crimean Tatar nation was thrown. Today they are able hostages. I do not want to predict what's going to happen. But in Russia there are some areas in relation to which the Russian army and security services for a number of years engaged in the solution, as you say, a "terrorist threat."
- In the case of the Crimea to Russia, whether Moscow quickly restore
electrification, water supply, which are now provided from mainland Ukraine?
- First, I would like to note that the Dnieper-Crimea supplies water primarily steppe plains of Crimea, where the main ethnic groups are Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. Therefore, any water shortages will only lead to a reduction of those ethnic groups that are not loyal to the new regime. And the question is solved electrification supply of electricity from neighboring Krasnodar region.
- Can the occupation of the Crimea, Ukraine and the war against Maidan lead to unrest and the overthrow of the current regime in Russia?
- Let's talk professionally. You do not understand the nature of the political regime in Russia. It really is very akin to Mr. Yanukovych regime, but they are completely hardness comparable. Putin's regime in the classification of political regimes he called "hard authoritarian political regime." For example, the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria is too rigid authoritarian. And we know that there are already over three years of civil war. In the country, killing more than 110 or 120 thousand people, and the regime is not yet gone.
- Can the Crimea after the departure of Putin's regime to return to the Ukraine?
- I do not hear it the first time that the Crimea or South-East will remain in the Ukraine by the actions of the United States, the guarantors of the Budapest Memorandum, events in Russia and so on. I guarantee you exactly: if you are looking for is only Crimea never return to Ukraine. Crimea is not only not return to Ukraine, Ukraine will not be able to assert their independence.
- Can your words be concluded that the only way to dialogue with Putin - the language of weapons?
- Can you give other examples which would prove that using statements and expressions of concern such terrible things like "we will not go to the summit of G-Sochi" can persuade tanks or air defense system S-300 to leave the Crimea? Have you ever seen such examples?
- But sanctions eventually crippled mode Viktor Yanukovych: from him began to renounce his own associates. Why can not 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 the Ukrainians. No other statement of the West, no cookies distributed by various diplomats did not play the appropriate role.
Resistance only Ukrainians, but their determination when they said that "we will not leave here until until Yanukovych leaves" - this is a clear example that was shown in front of you, in front of the Ukrainian authorities.
Say it again - it's your business, not mine, what to do in this case. The decisions that have been taken, or rather were not taken within the last 18 days, show unequivocally that the current Ukrainian authorities opted for non-resistance. Well, it is the choice of the legal authorities of Ukraine. But we have a responsibility to say what will the choice of this option. And call no illusions that using applications, or even sanctions, Russian troops leave the territory of Crimea. No, this does not happen.
translate.google.com
pravda.com.ua
|
