Comments of Novaya Gazeta’s editorial staff
This policy brief has several peculiarities.
1. As we mentioned, it was created before the escape of Yanukovich and prior to the time when new temporary authorities from among the “systemic opposition” came into power. Meaning that it happened before the time that in Moscow was characterized as a “take-over” and became the main justification of its further actions.
2. The policy brief is disparaging Yanukovich who later, in the public environment, will be presented by Russia as a victim of the take-over and the only legitimate leader of Ukraine.
3. The brief is made in a pragmatic – even cynical – style. It does not contain any “moral and historic” justifications of the Russian intervention in Ukraine. There are no thoughts about Novorossia, protection of Russian speaking citizens, about the Russian world and future Russian spring, but geopolitics and cold practicability only.
4. The authors of the document are preoccupied by the “legitimization” of introducing the Ukrainian territories into the “state and legal environment” of Russia. They, particularly, believe that the first step has a legal ground – mixed Russian-Ukrainian European Regions (for example, the European Region of Donbass includes Donetsk and Lughansk, as well as Rostov and Voronezh Regions) being members of the Association of European Border Regions. The authors are sure that using this legal instrument, the Ukrainian Regions with “stable pro-Russian preferences” can be dragged into the direct interstate and contractual relations, followed by “legitimate” referendums regarding self-determination.
5. The policy brief contains a number of gross falsifications of reality that had to show a responsive, forced nature of the Russian activities (the leaders of Maidan are recruited from among football fans and criminal world, they are controlled by Polish and British secret services; the USA and the European Union allow Ukraine’s disintegration, the European Union started the geopolitical intrigue to split Ukraine, etc.). Later, the Russian propaganda used all these reasons intensively.
6. The policy brief also contains many reasons of a geopolitical and economic nature, which had to convince the government in a necessity of immediate intervention into Ukraine and strengthening in such a way the Russia’s positions not only in Ukraine, but in Central and Eastern Europe, keeping its control over the gas pipeline systems through Ukraine, getting at its disposal the Ukrainian military-industrial complex located in the east of the country (to accelerate the re-equipping) and even substituting the “Central Asian” flow of migrants for the “Slavonic”, “western” one.
In general, one can state, that the recommendations of the policy brief authors with regard to the stepwise intervention of Russia into the Ukrainian affairs with the final purpose of capturing a range of territories of Ukraine were mostly implemented in the practical actions of Moscow:
- organization of the disobedience moves to Kiev regime in the regions with pro-Russian climate;
- “political legitimization” and “moral justification” of this process;
- statement by the rioters of demands to simplify the procedure of holding referendums in Ukraine;
- subsequent statement of demands of “federalization” and even “confederalization”;
- a demand of entry by the Crimea and south-eastern regions into the Customs Union independently of Kiev;
- holding “legitimate” and “honest” referendums regarding self-determination and uniting with Russia;
- active PR support of these processes in the Russian and Ukrainian media.
The authors of the document made a significant mistake in their determination of the regions tending more than others towards the integration with Russia: they mention the Crimea and Kharkov Region, believing that the “empire of Akhmetov”, Donetsk Region, is less promising. The reality brought its correctives into these considerations. But in general the scheme was implemented.
Andrey LIPSKIY
Editor of the Novaya Gazeta’s Politics Department
Multi-millionaire Malofeev – a founder and “managing partner” of Marshall Capital Partners equity investment foundation, the largest minority shareholder of Rostelecom (about 10% of shares), a member of the Supervisory Board of the Safe Internet League (he is regarded as an initiator of creating black lists of websites), the Chairman of Basil the Great Sanctifier Charity Fund, as well as the person known for his active support of separatists in the Crimea and the east of Ukraine – with his ideas, money, and staff (particularly, Girkin-Strelkov and Boroday are the persons working in his structures). Actually, Malofeev did a great favour to the Kremlin: his PR experts and “reenactors” sparked and heated up a conflict in the Crimea and Donbass, having handed the baton to volunteer soldiers and “vacationists”, and saved Russia from having a status of “a party to a conflict”, at least, an official one.
But Malofeev is known for other things, too. He is involved in a range of scandals that became a subject of consideration by judicial bodies and came into possession of mass-media. Here are the loudest of them. At the end of 2012 – beginning of 2013, the Russian law enforcement bodies made searches at Konstantin Malofeev’s house and the Marshall Capital’s office since the Investigation Department of the Ministry of the Interior initiated a criminal case under Art. 159 Part 4 (fraud) with regard to stealing more than $200 mln from VTB Bank. VTB accused Malofeev of his failure to return the loan granted to Russagroprom in 2007 to buy Nutritek company (Marshall was its major shareholder at that time). Earlier, in 2009, VTB Capital plc had already filed a lawsuit with the London Court against Konstantin Malofeev as a former co-owner of Nutritek, supposing that it had become a victim of fraud. In August 2011, the High Court of London decided to freeze Malofeev’s assets. Later on, the parties settled the case amicably. Consequently, the VTB’s claim submitted to the Ministry of the Interior was also withdrawn.
The day before the searches, Konstantin Malofeev was removed from elections of deputies to Znamensky Rural Council in Smolensk Region by resolution of Vyazemsky District Court. He intended to become a senator as a result of this election, but the court found him involved in vote buying.
Americans... 