Quo Vadis, Ukraina?
Konstantin Maler
2014
__________________________________
After remaining silent about Ukraine for over two weeks, on 7 May, President Putin came out with a sensational statement. Many opponents of Russia already regard this as his surrender of the southeast Ukraine; however, in reality, this is just one more step towards the realisation of Russian interests in Ukraine. The goal is to minimise potential damage.
The President’s Goals
After meeting in Moscow with the OSCE Chairman, President of Switzerland Didier Burkhalter, President Putin made a series of unexpected comments concerning the Ukraine. In particular, he asked patriot elements in the southeast not to hold a referendum, expressed his support for presidential elections in Ukraine on 25 May, and announced the withdrawal of Russian troops. Several anti-Putin personalities interpreted this speech as evidence of the surrender of the southeast Ukraine, as well as showing Putin’s weakness of Vladimir Putin and that of the entire Russian régime, which fears additional sanctions. However, in reality, in speaking this way, the president had two objectives.
Firstly, he showed the world Moscow’s willingness to honour the commitments that it made in Genève to de-escalate the Ukrainian crisis. This greatly reduces the risk of having economic sanctions imposed against Russia… at least, the USA will have an even harder time trying to convince European politicians of the need for such a step after Putin’s speech. The market reacted very positively to Putin’s statements… the Euro fell below 49 Roubles, and the US Dollar to below 35, and the indices on the stock exchanges increased by 5 percent. In addition, by taking this step, Putin actually pushes the Ukrainian authorities to become more active. Until now, the strategy of Kiev was very simple… escalation of the situation, confrontation with Russia, and constant complaints to Washington and Brussels. Now, Putin set Kiev a more complicated task… the need to respond to proposals put forward by Moscow. Now, if Putin’s plan succeeds, the answering moves by the Kiev authorities will either bury them completely or lead to a de-escalation of the situation and the federalisation of Ukraine. Both of these options would satisfy Russia.
Detailed Scenario
Let’s look at the main points of Putin’s speech. Putin spoke against the holding of referendums on regional autonomy in Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts on 11 May. However, one shouldn’t regard this statement as a refusal to provide protection to people in the Donbass. Firstly, Putin effectively tied the cancellation of the referendum to the cessation of the junta’s military actions. He said, “The prerequisite for starting a dialogue is the unconditional cessation of all violence… this means not using armed force, something that’s absolutely unacceptable in the modern world, and not using any illegal armed groups”. Thus, he presented Kiev with an extremely unpleasant dilemma. As we already know, on 6 May, the Rada voted against holding a referendum on decentralisation. Now, Ukrainian deputies will either have to change their minds and overcome their anti-Russian phobias, or publicly take responsibility for the failure of the peaceful approach to solving the problems proposed by Putin. After all, a number of international actors, including UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the head of the OSCE actually support Putin’s demands. Moreover, no matter which of these options the Rada takes, it plays in favour of Russia.
Secondly, the obligation to take action in response to Putin’s statement falls only on the Kiev authorities… the patriot elements aren’t obliged to listen to him. If the Donetsk authorities decide to go ahead with a referendum, then, blaming Putin won’t be easy. Patriot elements correctly interpreted Putin’s speech, and presented the Kiev authorities with the conditions under which they would abandon their planned referendum. Oleg Tsaryov, a Rada People’s Deputy, said, “These include an immediate cessation of anti-terrorist operations (sic) and withdrawal of all units of the armed forces and the MVDU to their places of permanent deployment; the disbanding and disarming of all illegal armed groups, the release of all political prisoners, including those detained on trumped-up criminal charges”.
One could view Putin’s statement concerning the Ukrainian presidential election in a similar vein. Having stated, “The presidential election, in itself, is a move in the right direction”, Putin demonstrated to the West, and Kiev, that Moscow isn’t going to disrupt it, and, perhaps, might recognise its results. However, he added, “This election won’t decide anything, if all Ukrainian citizens don’t feel assured that their rights would be guaranteed after this presidential election… we believe that a direct dialogue between the Kiev authorities in Kiev and those in the Ukraine is the key element of any future settlement”. Some political analysts regard this statement as a demand to adopt a new constitution before the holding of the elections. Moreover, they don’t rule out the possibility that Moscow already agreed with the West that the Ukraine should postpone the election.
Finally, Putin said that Russia’s no longer concentrating troops near the Ukrainian border. Moscow never intended to send its army into the Ukraine… the imposition of extremely harsh sanctions and political consequences would follow such, not to mention the undesirability of having to wage war. Rather, it sees sending in troops as a last resort, a tool to achieve the real goal… to keep the southeast under patriot control. Now, it seems, new tools have come into play to achieve this goal… reports come in from the Donbass about the arrival of groups of armed Russian “volunteers”. Thus, keeping troops on the Ukrainian border is politically and even economically unprofitable.
The Ukrainian authorities seem to understand Putin’s game plan, and they’re trying to neutralise his latest moves. So-called junta “Prime Minister” Arseny Yatsenyuk said, “Dear Vladmir Vladimirovich, trying to sell us air is somehow unbefitting of the president of a large country. In answer to the statement that Russia is asking to have the 11 May referendum postponed, we’d like to inform the Russian president that no referendum was ever planned in the Ukraine for 11 May”. However, if Putin’s really vetted his statement with the Europeans, then, very few people will care about Kiev’s opinion.
Editor:
The delivery of the two Mistral helicopter carriers from France to Russia is still on. That says it all. The Uniate filth had best prepare their boltholes in exile. The junta’s sinking and the European members of NATO REFUSE to save it. NO AMERICAN SOLDIER WILL ENTER THE UKRAINE. I’d say that the USA had best remove all “Ukrainians” from its forces in Europe, for the time being. There’s a real risk of them trying to involve the USA in the potty Russophobic violence of the junta. It’s best to be safe… for one can’t be sure. Sad to have say such, isn’t it? However, the diaspora Uniates and “Ukrainian Orthodox” refuse to silence the fascist elements amongst them, so, the rest of us have to take sensible precautions.
BMD
8 May 2014
Gevorg Mirzayan
Russia Beyond the Headlines
http://rbth.com/opinion/2014/05/08/putin_puts_kiev_behind_the_eight_ball_36535.html
Voices from Russia 
Archpriest Receives Death Threats for Giving Communion to Berkutovtsy in Kiev
Tags: Christian, Christianity, Crimea, Eastern Orthodox Church, Kirill I of Moscow, Moscow Patriarchate, Orthodox, Orthodoxy, Patriarch Kirill, Patriarch Kirill I, political commentary, politics, Religion, Religion and Spirituality, Russia, Russian, Russian history, Russian Orthodox Church, Ukraine, Valentin Lebedev
______________________________
Archpriest Aleksei Yefimov, rector of the Cathedral of Ss Antony and Feodosy of the Pecherskaya Lavra, in Vasilkovo near Kiev, told Izvestiya, “Clergy opposed to the Euromaidan are under threat of physical violence. I, along with many of my associates, am on local lists of those slated for elimination. Last year, I asked the MP to transfer my cathedral to the direct authority of the Patriarchate. For example, I’m on a local list for elimination because I visited the Maidan on several occasions to bring communion to VV MVDU soldiers and Berkut spetsnaz. There’s no question. That’s a restriction of my right to free speech. Alas, a man under threat sees the world differently than one who sits in a comfy chair in a nice warm office”.
Lately, there are increasing reports of harassment of clergy in the Ukraine. On 8 May, in Donetsk Oblast, someone shot Fr Pavel Zhuchenko, “Chaplain to the opolchenie”, as he was preaching to the Donbass People’s Opolchenie. Valentin Lebedev, Chairman of the Union of Orthodox Citizens, told Izvestiya, “Many priests fled to the Crimea from the Ukraine because of such threats. Such activity comes from the Western Ukraine, as the religious factor plays a greater role there than in Russia. This has only one purpose, to create a schism in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which already experienced a schism in the 1990s”. Fragmentation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church/Moscow Patriarchate in 1992 led to two unrecognised bodies emerging, the so-called UPTs/Kyiv Patriarchate and the so-called Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.
Consistently, Fr Aleksei Yefimov advocated pro-Russian positions. In February 2014, there was a video on the web showing him giving communion to the Berkut spetsnaz defending government buildings on Grushevsky Street. Whilst confessing the soldiers, he urged them to resist calls from Euromaidan terrorists to desert and he called on them to remain faithful to their oath. Soon, his actions and speech received criticism in the Kiev Metropolia, which said that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church didn’t authorise it, labelling it an example of “political orthodoxy” and noted that he shouldn’t air his political views whilst performing his priestly duties. Prior to this, in July 2013, he published an open letter to Patriarch Kirill Gundyaev of Moscow and all the Russias, in which Fr Aleksei, along with the Cathedral community in Vasilkovo requested to be directly subordinate to the Patriarchate. They made this decision, as he wrote in the letter, ”in view of the existing crisis in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church”. In the petition, the priest also noted, “The UOC’s creation was solely a geopolitical project, aimed at dismembering historical Rus, to end the spiritual protection of the Russian Orthodox Church”.
The Moscow Patriarchate gave Fr Aleksei’s appeal a confused reply. The press service of the Patriarchate asked the believers to be subordinate to the Patriarch, but to remain in their Metropolia. In fact, the parishes and monasteries in the Crimea are still part of the UOC/MP. Fr Mikhail, the rector of All Saints parish in Feodosiya told Izvestiya in an interview, “The churches in the Crimea continue to wait for orders from above”. The conflict goes on at the highest levels. On 9 May, the junta detained Metropolitan Ilarion Alfeyev, the chairman of the MP Department for External Church Relations (OVTsS), at customs control at Dnepropetrovsk airport. The MP stated that junta border guards refused him entry to celebrate the 75th birthday of Metropolitan Irinei Seredny, without explaining their actions.
Editor:
The junta REFUSES to protect canonical clergy. That’s the long and the short of it all. Don’t forget, Darlin’ Yuliya’s cabal refused the canonical hierarchy media access until Yanukovich’s accession in 2010. The junta isn’t religiously neutral… there are REASONS for the demonisation of V F Yanukovich. One reason is that he was loyal to the REAL Church. That’s why no Orthodox Christian can support the junta or any American action in support of the junta.
BMD
13 May 2014
Arseny Pogosyan
Izvestiya
http://interfax-religion.ru/?act=print&div=17467