Meant to look like a photocopy of a document with a covered-up secrecy stamp on it, it falls short of some features that would identify it as such a secret paper, but carries others that make much of the information and analysis look authentic.
But even if it’s only partially true, Ukraine should brace itself for a long war with Russia, after which our once good neighbor would like to permanently increase its borders – the scenario some observers already call the “state of Israel solution.”
The reference is meant to describe how a state, using instability and infighting in neighboring countries, takes advantage of the weakness to expand its own territory. Except, in the case of Russia, the plan was designed to provoke and nurture the instability first.
The document, entitled “On The Crisis in Ukraine,” is written in solid Russian and reads like a prequel to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech on March 18 welcoming Crimea as a part of Russia that laid out a set of very skewed, but passionate arguments for the annexation of Ukraine’s peninsula.
The document gives a snapshot of Russia’s view of Ukraine before the end of the revolution, change of government and ex-president’s cowardly escape at the end of last month. In fact, Viktor Yanukovych was designated a major role to play in the Russian plan, despite a highly unflattering assessment by its security forces of him as “extremely weak, indecisive and a generally inadequate partner.”
The final goal for Russia is stated in two key paragraphs of the document, and they in fact be the reason for the leak, which seems to be designed to gauge people’s reaction to this goal.
“Firstly, only the full inclusion of the territory of Russian regions of Ukraine, namely Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, Dnepropetrovsk, Chernigov, Sumy, Kharkov, Kiev, Kherson, Nikolaev and Odessa regions to the Russian Federation can guarantee peace, security and prosperity to its population, as well as reliable defense of Russia’s interests.”
“Secondly, implementation of this task is possible only by establishing control over the mother of Russian cities, the capital of Ukraine, the hero city Kyiv.”
Citing a “full bankruptcy of the so-called Ukrainian statehood” and the danger of “fascists-Banderites” (Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist leader accused by the Kremlin of collaborating with Nazi Germany) and other extremist elements to implement their misanthropic ideas, terror and broad masses of the population,” Russia planned to ride in on a white horse sometime last month and save “millions of compatriots” from what it describes as “suffering.”
Over the past three weeks, identical rhetoric has been used to exonerate first Russia’s presence, and then full annexation of Crimea. Now, it seems, other parts of Ukraine may be at stake – if we assume that Russia’s main goal still stands.
According to the original plan, at the opening of the Olympics in Sochi on Feb. 7, Yanukovych was to be forced to sign a paper asking Moscow to move in the army to “support constitutional order” in the capital and other cities.
The paper would serve as a guarantee that Yanukovych would go back to Kyiv to quash the demonstrations “by all available forces and means.” He would have Russia’s guarantees of personal security. In case of failure of Ukrainians to do so, Russians would step in as “direct executives” of this part of the plan.
Yanukovych did indeed travel to Sochi for the opening of the Winter Olympics, but the outcome of his trip was covered in secrecy and under-reported as revolution on Maidan entered its most dramatic, deadly and hypersonic-fast stage.
After the Sochi preparation stage and crunch, the Russian document predicted a “full destabilization of the situation in Ukraine” as a result of Yanukovych’s operation, which would then push him to dismiss the parliament and remain the only legal power in Ukraine.
“In this situation the appeal of Yanukovych to the Russian Federation’s leadership would secure complete legal purity of our participation in stabilization of the situation in Ukraine and will limit a possible negative reaction by the USA and other Western countries,” the document says.
At the same time, its prediction of Europe’s leading nations’ reaction to Russian aggression as “lukewarm” stands true even today, when German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier says West must try to avoid “spiral” of sanctions with Russia even after its invasion of parts of Ukraine’s territory.
“The possible period of chaos in Kyiv, which will last after the failure of operation to bring order and the stabilization operation with Russia’s participation, must be used to full degree for fulfillment of Russia’s interests,” the paper concludes.
That involves neutralization of opposition, the revelation of the “true face of Ukrainian fascism,” gaining access to offices of secret foreign organizations through opportunities that Russian secret services claim would open up when “fascist youths” attacked embassies of western countries and residences of their ambassadors.
As a result, Russia wanted to create “favorable conditions for Ukraine’s participation in integration processes on the territory of CIS,” the Commonwealth of Independent States, a collection of ex-Soviet republics, and cleanse the government and law enforcement of all nationalist elements.
It sounds like Ukraine’s decision to quit even its symbolic presence in the CIS will not go down well.
Kyiv Post deputy chief editor Katya Gorchinskaya can be reached at [email protected].
