Moscow “has worked with Ukraine” according to new rules for the last six months. The warm Putin-Kuchma meetings felt into oblivion, no more invitations for Victor Yanukovich to celebrate Russian President’s birthday, no more “Kremlin’s lectures” for Natalya Vitrenko. Of course, they may be invited but not due to respect, just for ordinary “special mission.” The matter is that having been taught by bitter experience, Moscow prefers staking on crisis modelling rather than on people.

It is methodologically justified: a person for the sake of idea instead of idea for the sake of person. Let’s take Kuchma as an example: would Russia really rely on him? When the President of Ukraine, former red director Leonid Danylovych Kuchma was very canny. Victor Yanukovich is the next Kremlin’s protégé, but does Russia really figure that he would tolerate Russian business to Ukrainian economic titbits?

Staking on crisis’s primacy over a personality, Kremlin gets rid of “fellow travellers” and tracks down political forces which treat Russian will as their primary value. Let’s focus on the Crimean conflict: Vitrenko’s progressive socialists and communists have escalated the conflict. Moreover, our Natasha kept silent when RF Duma had made a scandalous request concerning the Crimea. The Communist Party astonished everybody demonstrating its discontent towards the position of their Russian friends. Concerning PR, there was not any understandable response to Duma’s revanchist insinuations.

Observing the reaction of its Ukrainian allies, Kremlin draws its own conclusion on possible support of their aspirations in the nearest future. The devotion of “Ukrainian partners” cannot be doubted under such conditions of selection, because they act by heart without any “top orders.” Russian colleagues should only coordinate their efforts and actions. It should be admitted that the effectiveness of their “command process” has significantly improved since Tuzla times. One must admit that “gas running knot” - very effective economic blackmail has severe side effect – anti-Russian state public opinions escalation, and language fight of the wide range of regional councils seems to be very appropriate and natural. It is very amiss for “orange power.”

Accentuating its attention not on individuals but on trigger points of the opponent, on crisis, population will easy get Kremlin’s clue, its “party policy.” The way it is done looks like ordinary talks between neighbours. If people refuse swallow something, Zhyrinovsky and Zatulin (it depends on audience) will explain them why they should eat it.

The new Russian approach to make pressure on Ukraine needs to be counteracted by proper reaction from Bankova and the Cabinet of Ukraine. To make fun of Yanukovich’ youth or to call its northern neighbour “an empire on the edge of collapse” are not enough now. If crisis is specially modelled for us, we need anti-crisis managers. It would be better if they will not be of Tarasyuk’s or Buteiko’s level, because to brandish a sabre is always no good.

It would be even better if NSDCU functioned as anti-crisis agency. Common Ukrainians still do not feel for what it exists. Horbulin seems to be able to change the situation. The last NSDCU session demonstrated that the government is not going to crawfish facing opposition and Kremlin.


Спасибо за Вашу активность, Ваш вопрос будет рассмотрен модераторами в ближайшее время