Much has been written to document Russian military involvement in eastern Ukraine. But the actions of the Kremlin in and against Ukraine are multi-faceted. Alongside the war that has cost the lives of 10,000 Ukrainians and, more than likely, many thousands of Russians too, there is also an informational component, and, there is a political component.
On the military side, any journalist or correspondent or commentator who adds the misleading caveat of “alleged” or “supposed” in reference to this aspect of the war is misleading their audience, the same must be said of editors who think that they are writing in an objective or neutral manner when they thoughtlessly throw in such words.
As Peter Dickinson stated in an award-winning article for the Atlantic Council, “the western media has played a key role in creating the ambiguity that has allowed Russia’s hybrid war to succeed.”
To be charitable, no doubt in many cases those who are at fault have unwittingly played their role in misinforming people, most of the outlets that have nefariously distorted reality are those controlled by the Kremlin, directly or indirectly.
While the Kremlin has focused its attention and resources on deceiving the world about its military involvement, repeatedly pushing the lie that it is not involved, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not enough has been written about the political aspects of Russia’s involvement in eastern Ukraine, in the creation (or, attempted creation) of the “self-proclaimed People’s Republics” on parts of the territory of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts.
Some History
On March 21, 2014 then Kyiv Post Deputy Chief Editor Katya Gorchinskaya penned an article based on a document that she had been given by a person she described as “a trusted source” of hers. The article, entitled “Putin’s original plan for Ukraine” is a good starting point for examining Russia’s meddling in Ukraine.
The document that it is based on was almost certainly one of several proposed scenarios for Ukraine, but the essential idea was the partition of Ukraine, and Russia assuming control of and sovereignty over much of the country, including the capital, Kyiv. An excerpt:
“Firstly, only the full inclusion of the territory of the Russian regions of Ukraine, namely Crimea, Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, Dnepropetrovsk, Chernigov, Sumy, Kharkov, Kiev [sic], 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.”
It seems that the plans to divide and conquer Ukraine morphed, and rather than attempting to take Kyiv (something that would have been impossible, at every level) instead a new plan was hatched to create something called “Novorossiya” out of the rest of the aforementioned regions – basically everything east of the Dnipro river.
Much was invested in the “Novorossiya” project, including the establishment of a parliament in this name, something that was nominally led by one of the only Ukrainians of significant repute who ever participated in these events, a Dnipropetrovsk politician by the name of Oleg Tsarev.
The involvement of the Kremlin was, in those early stages, uncorroborated. However we now know from the Glazyev tapes that senior Kremlin figures were indeed agitating for the creation of “People’s Republics in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhya and Odesa.
In each of these regions a façade of local momentum was required to justify the insertion of the Russian armed forces into Ukraine, the locals coopted into the Kremlin plans were those who wanted to avoid the justice anticipated in post-revolution Ukraine – people who were local criminals, including members of the old and corrupt law enforcement system.
However the Novorossiya plan came unstuck when momentum could only be gained in isolated parts of the two oblasts that are, presently, temporarily occupied, those of Luhansk and Donetsk. Areas that had a larger-than-average criminal element, and, not coincidentally, were the power base of the Yanukovych clan.
It would be remiss to not report that the seizure of parts of the Donetsk basin came about with the use of Russian military force and supplies, but, this article is about the political structures.
Proclaiming the ‘DNR’
The declaration of independence of the Donetsk People’s Republic was read on April 7, 2014 by Vladimir Makovich, who passed away roughly two weeks ago. Unlike the deaths of many of the other early characters in this charade, it appears that Makovich died of natural causes.
The most significant thing about Makovic to this story is his insignificance. When I asked contacts of mine from Donetsk who Makovic was, what his background was, I got shrugged shoulders in response, Makovic was, to all intents and purposes, a nobody. In death he has been described as a founder of the DNR, but in life he was little more than a local tool.
Sitting behind Makovic as he read the “declaration of independence” was a man who was not totally unknown in political circles – Dennis Pushilin, who had in fact tried his hand at getting elected in 2012. As this gaggle of losers grabbed hold of power it was somehow decided that Pushilin would be the speaker of the “Parliament” and, with that role he would also therefore be the “head of state”, this same person managed to win 0.08% of the votes cast in the district where he stood in a 2012 vote.
Two prominent Russians
Alexander Borodai and Igor Strelkov. While this article isn’t about the violence and war, Strelkov warrants a mention here because his “official” title was the Minister of Defense for the “DNR,” but both he and Borodai, Russian citizens with absolutely no ties to the Donbas, were (by their own admissions) also present in Crimea in the run up to the annexation of the peninsula from Ukraine.
Both Borodai and Strelkov were previously in the employ of Russian businessman Konstantin Malofeev, something that Malofeev insists is just a “coincidence” and we are expected to believe that – as much as we are expected to believe that the fortune amassed by this oligarch, with his close ties to the Kremlin inner circle, are just a coincidence too.
Borodai was the first person appointed to the post of “Prime Minister” of the “DNR” and held that post until shortly after the shooting down (by a Russian BUK missile launcher, imported from Russia and later returned to Russia) of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. He announced on Aug. 8, 2014 that he didn’t think it was right that a “native Muscovite” like him should lead the “DNR,” and so in handing the post over to Alexander Zakharcheno (another total unknown at that time) Borodai instead took on the role of “Deputy Prime Minister” – a position that he occupied for about three months.
On returning to his native Moscow, Borodai was seen enjoying a night at the theatre with Vladislav Surkov, one of the most senior aides to Vladimir Putin.
To understand the origins of the conflict in eastern #Ukraine. #Strelkov and Borodai. #Borodai and Surkov. #Surkov and #Putin. pic.twitter.com/U2SECdiSzi
— Paul Niland (@PaulNiland) March 14, 2017
A less well-known name
The case of Vladimir Antyufeyev is intriguing and his background gives us one of the clearest signs of direct Moscow/Kremlin control over the events in eastern Ukraine.
Antyufeyev, from Novosibirsk in Siberia, was brought in shortly after the shooting down of MH17. Presumably Moscow decided that they needed an old hand with experience of managing their contrived “republics” and conflicts, so Antyufeyev was pressed into the service of the motherland once again and he became the “Deputy Prime Minister” of the “DNR” with particular responsibility for running the security forces (armed gangs) as well as internal affairs and the justice system.
Antyufeyev was well qualified for the job, having spent 20 years occupying the post of “Minister for State Security” in another of Russia’s “separatist” enclaves, that of Transdnistra on the Moldovan/Ukrainian border. A position in Transdnistra had been ideal for him as accepting citizenship of this unrecognized statelet shielded him from arrest warrants issued for him by Latvia.
At the time that the Soviet Union was breaking up and the former Republics were seeking independence or the restoration of independence, Vladimir Antyufeyev served as the head of the Soviet OMON special police in Latvia. The forces directed at that time by Antyufeyev took part in a series of attempts to halt the Latvian independence movement, during clashes between Latvian citizens (independence had been declared in Latvia in March of 1990) and the Soviet forces six people were killed in January of 1991.
In August of 1991 the Latvian authorities issued an arrest warrant for Antyufeyev, charging him with crimes against the state. Having been tipped off about his imminent arrest, Antyufeyev fled the country, first to Moscow, and then shortly after to Moscow-controlled Transdnistra.
A common misconception
There are many people who believe that the origins of the war in eastern Ukraine was an uprising of local people. It was not. It was, is and always has been a Russian-orchestrated plan to divide, dismember, and destroy Ukraine.
In the process any local objection to the attempt to take over Ukrainian land has been brutally stifled, this is evidenced by the murder of Vladimir Rybak, the imprisonment of noted historian and scholar Ihor Kozlovsky, and the fact that 1.6 million Ukrainians have been forced to flee from their homes and resettle in other parts of Ukraine.
If we want to look for further evidence that this conflict has been manufactured from day one, we only need to look at the example of the city of Slovyansk.
This city was once ground zero in the conflict, the base from which Russian citizens like Strelkov operated, since it was liberated from the clutches of these foreign invaders in July of 2014, this city of 117,000 residents has been at peace. Slovyansk, once a focal point of the war, is free, and the residents of that city aren’t using their freedom to demand inclusion into any fake “republic” created by Moscow.
