Making sense of Ukraine and Novorossia

Reflections on Novorossia, Putin and Banderastan

Seemorerocks

On reading the Communist Party of Russia's leader Gennady Zyuganov's article yesterday it took me back to Soviet times. The text was as heavy as granite and reminded me of how the Communist Party almost destroyed the Russian language. However, for all that and its quasi- Marxist interpretation his article provided perhaps the most comprehensive and truthful analysis yet of the situation in the Ukraine, the civil war and the rise of Novorossia.

For quite a while there has been a great admiration for Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin amongst some alternative circles in the West and quite a lot of hope has been pinned on him as an alternative to the American Empire.

It looked quite promising as Putin stood up to the West over the events of the Maidan pushed as they were by Nuland, McCain and others and as he took decisive actions to protect Russian interests as well as the majority of people in Crimea – the “invasion” the lying western media calls it.

In March he made a promise to defend the Russian-speaking people of Lugansk and Donetsk. However, he urged them not to go ahead with a referendum.

Since then as the Kiev junta launched its “anti-terror operation” which in fact was an operation to terrorise the civilian population by launching Grad missiles against the civilian population while avoiding direct confrontation with the defence militias that quickly arose in response.

We have seen the spectacle of the most terrible war against a civilian population we have seen since the battles with nazi Germany during World War 11. Western governments cheered on the fascists and provided moral and physical assistance while the mass media ignored the catastrophe that the civilian population faced.

The response of the Kremlin was to literally sit on its hands and keep an hands-off stance in the face of a humanitarian disaster.

The reponse of much of the Russian media and people was anger at the evolving situation although recent polls have indicated the Russian public has not stomach for military intervention.

The more Moscow talked about international law and sought a dialogue the more Washington blamed Putin for the situation and introduced more and more sanctions.

Igor Strelkov

For a while the military situation in Lugansk and Donetsk looked perilous especially as the militias under the leadership of Igor Strelkov were forced to fight their way out of Lugansk and retreat to a position that was more easily defended.

In August the military situation reversed (a result, I understand of the Ukrainian government forces being overextended, an increasing unwillingness of recruits to fight against their brothers and a determined defence force that had nothing to lose.

Instead the Ukrainian army was encircled and on the run and in panic. Really all the Novorussian forces needed to achieve a victory and independence was to continue the advance and take the Black Sea town of Mariupol.

It was the greatest military rout of modern history.

At some stage in the midst of this Strelkov disappeared and was replaced by a new military leader. It appears (as I understand it), that Strelkov was sacked and replaced at the insistence of Moscow.

Poroshenko and Putin talked. It was obvious that Poroshenko was desperate for a ceasefire, and this was announced before being repudiated an hour later. Moscow distanced itself declaring that it was not part of the conflict.

Putin put forward a 7-point peace plan and just a few days ago a ceasefire was signed by Zakharchenko (for the DNR) and Kutchma (an ex-president of Ukraine). At the time the conditions of the ceasefire were not announced.

It quickly became obvious that any a ceasefire would not hold and within 24 hours shelling by the Ukrainians commenced in Donetsk and Mariupol.

Several things were clear. The first that the Ukrainian forces needed a break in hostilities. The ceasefire could and is being used to help Kiev regroup. The second is that Petroshenko, presuming he was genuine in his intentions, is not necessarily in charge. Even his PM, Yatsenyuk expressed revulsion at the ceasefire and the ultra-nationalist nazis (Kolomoisky and the Right Sector) would have no intention of observing a ceasefire.

That, in brief, is the situation as far as I can ascertain.

I am really more interested in the bigger picture.

The historic roots

The first is the historical roots of the conflict.

Ukraine has never had any separate national existence of its own. The modern state of Russia has its origins in Kievan Rus' and so there are links that go back  a millennium and continue even today.  The central and eastern part of Ukraine were absorbed into the Russian Empire and formed Malaya Rus' ('Little Russia').  The other part, the West, centred around Lvov was severed fromRussia and absorbed by its neighbours, Poland and the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Despite Zyuganov's language and talk of "proletarians joined in action", it is perfectly true that Ukraine only gained a national identity with the formation of the USSR in 1922.

On the one hand Ukraine, as the bread basket of Russia suffered the most from Stalin's war on the peasantry and policy of starving the countryside to industrialise  the country (Holodomor).  Ironically it was the 'pro-Russian' part of the country in the East (Lugansk, Donetsk and Kharkov) that suffered the most, while the anti-Russian West (that shouts the most) escaped this fate by being part of Poland.

On the other, the area that is now Novorossia was industrialised and became centres of heavy industry and mining.

Right throughout, it is true there was little real difference in the context of a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Russians and Ukrainians (and other nationalities) intermarried and within the rather concocted borders of  Ukraine both languages were spoken (in addition to those of other minorities).

Perhaps this is symbolised by the fact that two Soviet leaders, Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev,  hailed from Ukraine.

When the Soviet Union was abolished through a secret agreement between Yeltsin and the leaders of Ukraine and Belorussia, the previous, artificial Soviet borders were maintained. That goes for Crimea that was transferred from Russian control to Ukrainina by fiat of Ukrainian Nikita Khrushchev - the move didn't mean much in the Soviet context. It was a bureaucratic measure.

Those people in Lugansk, Kharkov and Donetsk who spoke Russian as their first language found themselves in the new Ukrainian state.

For the first 24 years this was not much of a problem until the events of last November - and until the Kiev junta started bombing them - were, by-and-large happy to stay in Ukraine in a federalised structure.

The events of the last six months did not just appear all of a sudden, out of a vacuum.  They arise out of the history of the region and find their ideological roots in the Second World War.

According to Zyuganov a Ukrainian nationalist movement arose in Western Ukraine as a result of Ukrainians' second-class status in Poland. What he doesn't mention is that Lvov was absorbed into the Soviet Union in 1929, as a result of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Whatever the complicated history the resistance movement of Stepan Bandera became one that was anti-Soviet in nature. Bandera not only co-operated with the Nazi invaders but surpassed the Germans in their ferocity and cruelty killing the Jewish populations as well as their fellow Ukrainians.

Stepan Bandera

There is no doubt that a minority of Ukrainians looked on favourably (or participated) at the massacre of Jews at Babi Yar and more than one Ukrainian leader's grandfather was a member of the Polizei  or SS.

It would be no exaggeration to say that the Soviet Union (including Ukraine) rose as one to defend their country against Nazism and to this very day the majority of Russians look back to the anti-fascist struggle as one that shaped their future.

On the other hand, it seems that a minority of Ukrainians, hailing largely from Lvov and western provinces look back to the extreme nationalism of Bandera for inspiration and identify with him today.The following I would hold to be a fairly accurate characterisation:

The Bandera-style nationalism did not evolve into a national liberation idea but into a totalitarian sect of crazed fanatics who killed primarily native Ukrainians. Characteristics of an analogous totalitarian sect are inherent in West Ukrainian Uniate church, which is formally in communion with Rome. Sticking with it were the Bandera followers who did not want to take into account the fact that the vast majority of Ukrainians embraced Eastern Orthodox Christianity. The ideology of the Uniates (Eastern Rite Roman Catholics) has in fact very little to do with Catholicism. It is rather an extreme, sectarian form of Protestantism mixed with Baptism

Ukraine, since independence has been  dominated by oligarchs who have amassed great wealth in their hands while the mass the population suffer.  It is not surprising that extreme nationalism that takes in nazi forms should take hold in some sections of the population in an era where right -wing radicalism appears to be the order of the day.

Ukraine, being in large part an artificial creation in the first place is a deeply- divided country

Zyuganov says correctly: "The people of Central and Eastern Ukraine are, in fact, connected with Russia in a much stronger way than with West Ukraine. Any attempts to steer Ukraine into a pro-Western, anti-Russia channel are directed not only against Russia, but against most of the Ukrainian people. They are inherently anti-Ukrainian, anti-national actions cloaked in nationalist demagogy....the Bandera-style nationalism is an extreme form of Russophobia"

This difference has been exploited by the Untied States, by McCain, Victoria Nuland and others, to draw a wedge and bring the western alliance to Moscow's back door.

This however is not my main subject of interest in writing this.

Putin, Russia and Ukraine

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989-90 there was no transition to what may have been a more desirable outcome - one of social democracy that combined market reform with social welfare and political democracy.

Instead the wealth and assets of the Soviet state were acquired and flogged off by the previous members of the bureaucracy and Party and KGB members who were looking for a new career path. This was characterised by the two terms prikhvatizatsiya (grab-ization) and der'mokratiya (shit-ocracy) - word plays on the Russian words for privatisation and democracy.

Just look back at the 1990's and the era of the Mafia dominating every aspect of Russian life.  

Democratic forms reached their highest point during the deeply-unpopular Gorbachev era and have receded under both Yeltsin and Putin.

1999 when Russian was struck by economic crisis and reneged on its debt had to be the lowest point in Russia's post-Soviet history.

Putin, who took power as an unknown ex-KGB colonel has been responsible over the last 14 years for wresting some of the power back from the oligarchs - this is what the struggle over Yukos and the jailing of Khodorkovsky was about- and restoring the Russian national economy.

As Zyuganov characterises it, there was a struggle between state officials and the oligarchs. "In the 90's the oligarchs dominated the bureaucrats. Then the top officials took precedence, but later the higher bureaucracy and oligarch merged". 

Putin fits squarely into this scenario and is first and foremost interested in increasing the wealth of the Russian state and modernising the economy and combining some level of economic national self-interest with integrating with the international economy

"Meanwhile, Russia’s ruling group saw and still sees Ukraine primarily as a territory in which a gas pipeline is laid. Therefore, the policy of the upper RF authorities focused almost exclusively on ensuring a smooth flow of gas to Europe. Public sentiments in Ukraine were not only a mere subject of interest and influence for the Russian “elite”, but were completely ignored as a factor fully irrelevant against the background of intrigues around the gas pipeline at the “top” of the authorities of the two countries, for which the peoples of the fraternal republics subsequently had to pay a heavy price"

Not only that but Putin, along with, I would say a majority of Russians (understandable given their history) has a deep aversion to revolutionary change and is a strong advocate of status quo combined with a cautious foreign policy based on observance of international law.

When was the last time you saw Russian power directed beyond its very immediate sphere of interest?

Remember the assistance that Putin gave the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks? Or the ongoing assistance in America's war in Afghanistan?

The Maidan was celebrated in the western media as a "revolution".  In fact the real revolution is happening in Novorossia, where there is not only an anti-fascist battle for the people to live independently from the fascist catastrophe that is Ukraine; it is also a popular struggle against the status quo,  against the oligarchs that have so totally dominated the scene in Ukraine since independence

Have a listen to commander Alexei Mosgovoy and his denunciation of the faux-ceasefire and this will become clear.

There is a sense that the Kremlin has a sense of the limitation of its powers with regard the Empire, but the above shows that Putin might regard the militias of the DNR and the leadership with suspicion and this might explain why he has sat on his hands and allowed genocide to continue.

His actions show that gas supplies and gas pipelines trump over the rights of a Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine, why his response to western sanctions have been to move his attention to the East.

These are very strange times and it is very hard to discern the motivations of the players in this drama.

As for Putin some people talk of replacements.There is no credible alternative to Putin. If Putin goes I believe we will see a ;Maidan' in Moscow in no time.

Whatever the case, what is certain is that the west is in terminal decline and is aggressively looking for resources and ways to maintain its dominance and ultimately - its existence.

A dying empire is a dangerous beast. When finally cornered it might use its ultimate defence - thermonuclear weapons.

Things don't look so rosy for Russia. Here is Zyuganov:

“The developments in Crimea and Novorossiya are a specific example of how a liberal course is disastrous for Russia. With the public sector reduced to a mere 10 percent of the whole in the wake of the total privatisation drive, our country has found it extremely difficult to counter the challenges of the time. Its economic potential, for example, is hardly sufficient for integrating the Crimea. Dominance of private capital in the financial sector leaves the country without the necessary funds at the very moment when it is necessary to mobilise resources. It has to take money from private pension funds and it takes great efforts to form an armed fist required under the current circumstances, because the army has been reduced almost to paralysis by the liberal gentlemen."

Russia and China's prospects in the longer term don't look better for they will also go down at the same time.

When push comes to shove Nature bats last.

See also: Gennady Zyuganov gives the US game away