Will the Ukraine be partitioned next and, if so, how?
Interesting info today. (ER: August 16)
Translation: MOSCOW, August 16 – RIA Novosti. Western curators have practically written off the Kyiv regime and are already planning the partition of Ukraine, Foreign Intelligence Service spokesman Colonel-General Volodymyr Matveev said at the Moscow Conference on International Security. “Obviously, the West is not concerned about the fate of the Kyiv regime. As can be seen from the information received by the SVR, Western curators have almost written it off and are in full swing developing plans for the division and occupation of at least part of the Ukrainian lands,” he said. However, according to the general, much more is at stake than Ukraine: for Washington and its allies, it is about the fate of the colonial system of world domination.
Just to clarify, the SVR (ER: Russian foreign intelligence service) rarely makes public statements and when they do, you can take them to the bank as the SVR is not in the business of “leaks” from “informed sources” and all the rest of the PR nonsense produced by the so-called western “intelligence” agencies (which have now been fully converted to highly politicized propaganda outlets).
The same day I see this article on the RT website: “Western countries waiting for ‘fall of Ukraine’ – Kiev” in which an interesting statement the Ukronazi Foreign Minister is mentioned:
Several countries in the West are waiting for Kiev to surrender and think their problems will immediately solve themselves, said Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba in an interview published on Tuesday. “I often get asked in interviews and while speaking to other foreign ministers: how long will you last? That’s instead of asking what else could be done to help us defeat Putin in the shortest time possible,” Kuleba said, noting that such questions suggest that everyone “is waiting for us to fall and for their problems to disappear on their own.”
Finally, a while ago, Dmitri Medvedev posted this “future map of the Ukraine after the war” on his Telegram account. This maps shows a Ukraine partitioned between her neighbors and a tiny rump Ukraine left in the center.
Now, full disclosure, I have been a proponent of the breakup of the Ukraine into several successor states for a long while now: I gave my reasons for this in my article “The case for the breakup of the Ukraine” written in faraway 2016.
Now, six years later, what are the chances of this happening?
Without making predictions, which is close to impossible right now as there are way too many variables which can dramatically influence the outcome, I want to list a few arguments for and against the likelihood (as opposed to desirability) of such an outcome.
Arguments for the likelihood of this outcome:
- First, most of the neighbors of the Ukraine would benefit from such an outcome. Poland would not get the “intermarium” it always dreams about, but it would get back lands which historically belong to Poland and are populated by many Poles. In this map, Romania would also get a good deal, albeit Moldavia would lose Transnistria, which it had no real chance to ever truly control anyway. Romania might, therefore, even absorb all of Moldavia. True, on this map, Hungary gets (almost) nothing, but that is an issue which Hungary must tackle with Poland and Romania, not Russia.
- Russia might not even oppose such a development, simply because it makes the Ukronazi problem somebody else’s issue. As long as what is the current Ukraine is fully demilitarized and denazified, Russia will be fine with such an outcome.
- The rump ex-Banderastan would be so much reduced in size, population and ressources that it would present little to no threat to anybody. Crucially, the Russians will never allow it to have anything more than a minimal police and internal security force (for at least as long as there remains even *traces* of the Ukronazi Banderista ideology anywhere near Russia). The actual chances of this rump Banderastan to become a threat to anybody would be close to zero. Not to mention that even if that rump Banderastan could become some kind of threat, it would be much easier to deal with it than the threat Russia faced in early 2022.
- Objectively, the European countries would get the best possible “out” for them, as being in a constant state of total war by proxy is absolutely unsustainable for countries of Europe.
- As for “Biden”, assuming he is still alive and in power (?), it would make it possible for “him” to remove the topic of this latest war lost (again!) by the USA from the headlines and deal with other issues.
- The Ukraine has been such a waste of money, billions and billions, that it is essentially a black hole with an event horizon which lets nothing come back out and beyond which anything, money, equipment or men, simply disappear. That is clearly an unsustainable drain on the economies of the West.
- Yet, in theory, if a deal is made and all parties agree, then the EU could remove maybe not all, but at least the worst, self-damaging, sanctions it so stupidly implemented and which are now destroying the EU’s economy.
- For the USA the biggest benefit from such an outcome could be, in theory, that it would “close” the “Russian front” and allow the US to focus its hatred and aggression against China.
There are, however, also many arguments against such an outcome.
- First, the western ruling classes, drunk on total russophobia, would have to accept that Russia won this war (again) and defeated the combined powers of the West (again). This would mean an immense loss of face and political credibility for all those involved in the political war against Russia.
- Second, for NATO this would be a disaster. Remember that NATO’s real goal is to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down“. In this case, how would an even expanded NATO accept that it could do absolutely nothing to stop the Russians from achieving all their goals?
- Next, while the people of the EU are suffering from the devastating economic policies of their rulers, the ruling elites (the EU 1%) are doing just fine, thank you, and don’t give a damn about the people they rule over.
- Such an outcome would also directly challenge the US desire for a unipolar world, run by Uncle Shmuel as the World Hegemon. The risk here is a political domino effect in which more and more countries would struggle to achieve true sovereignty, which would be a direct threat to the US economic model.
- Such an outcome is almost certain to be unachievable while the Neocons run the USA. And since there are NO signs of the weakening of the Neocons’ iron grip on all the levers of political powers in the USA, such an outcome could only happen if the Neocon crazies are sent back to the basement they crawled out from and where they belong. Not likely in the foreseeable future.
- This focus on the partition of the Ukraine overlooks the fact that the Ukraine is not the real enemy of Russia. In fact, the Ukraine lost the war to Russia in the first 7-10 days after the beginning of the SMO. Ever since, it is not the Ukraine per se which Russia has been fighting, but the consolidated West. If the real enemy is the consolidated West, the it could be argued that *any* outcome limited to the Ukraine would not fix or solve anything. At best, it might be an intermediate stage of a much larger and longer war in which Russia will have to demilitarize and denazify not just Banderastan but, at the very least, all of the EU/NATO countries.
- While for some the Ukrainian war has been an economic disaster, it has been a fantastic windfall for the (terminally corrupt) US MIC. And I won’t even go into the obvious corruption ties the Biden family has in Kiev. If this “Medvedev solution” is ever realized, then all that easy money would disappear.
- Furthermore, while amongst the argument for such an outcome I listed the ability of the USA to “close the Russian front” and focus on China, in reality such an arguments makes a very far-fetched assumption: that it is still possible to separate Russia and China and that Russia would allow the US to strike at China. Simply put, Russia cannot allow China to be defeated any more than China can allow for a Russian defeat. Thus the entire notion of “closing the Russian front” is illusory, in reality things have gone way too far for that and neither Russia nor China will allow the US to take them down one by one.
- The EU is run by a comprador ruling class which is totally subservient to the interests of the US Neocons. There are, already, many internal tensions inside the EU and such an outcome would be a disaster for those all those EU politicians who painted themselves into the corner of a total war against Russia, and even if, say, the Poles, Romanians or even Hungarians get some benefit from such an outcome, it would be unacceptable to the thugs currently running Germany, the UK or even France.
The arguments for and against such an outcome I listed above are just some examples, in reality there are many more arguments on both sides of this issue. Besides, what made sense 6 years ago might not make sense today.
For example, this discussion focuses on the “what” but not on the “how”. Let me explain.
I think that I was the first person in the West who noticed and translated a key Russian expression: “non agreement capable” (недоговороспособны). This expression has been increasingly used by many Russian decision-makers, politicians, political commentators and others. Eventually, even the folks in the West picked up on this. So let’s revisit this issue again, keeping in mind that the Russians are now fully convinced that the West is simply “non agreement capable”. I would argue that up until the Russian ultimatum to the USA and NATO, the Russians still left open the door to some kind of negotiations. However, and as I predicted BEFORE the Russian ultimatum, Russia made the only possibly conclusion from the West’s stance: if our “partners” (sarcasm) are not agreement capable, then the time has come for Russian unilateralism.
True, ever since 2013, or even 2008, there were already signs that Russian decision making is gradually moving towards unilateralism. But the Russian ultimatum and SMO are now the “pure” signs of the adoption by Russia of unilateralism, at least towards the consolidated West.
If that is correct, then I would suggest that most arguments above, on both sides of the issue, are have basically become obsolete and irrelevant.
Furthermore, I would like to add a small reminder here: most of the combat operations in the Ukraine are not even conducted by Russian forces, but by LDNR forces supported by Russian C4ISR and firepower. But in terms of her real military potential, Russia has used less than 10% of her military and Putin was quite candid about this when he said “we have not even begun to act seriously“.
What do you think this war will look like if Russia decides to really unleash her full military power, that is the 90% of forces which are currently not participating in the SMO?
Here is a simple truth which most folks in the West cannot even imagine: Russia does not fear NATO at all.
If anything, the Russians have already understood that they have the means to impose whatever outcome they chose to unilaterally impose on their enemies. The notion of a US/NATO attack on Russia is simply laughable. Yes, the USA has a very powerful submarine force which can fire lots of Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles at Russian targets. And yes, the US has a still robust nuclear triad. But neither of these will help the USA win a land war against the Russian armed forces.
And no, sending a few thousands US soldiers to this or that NATO country to “reinforce NATO’s eastern flank” is pure PR, militarily, it is not even irrelevant, it’s laughable. I won’t even comment on the sending of F-35s which is so utterly ridiculous and useless against the Russian Aerospace Forces and air defenses that I won’t even bother arguing with those who don’t understand how bad both the F-35s (and even the F-22s!) really are.
I won’t dignify the EU’s military capabilities with any comment other than this: countries who now seriously advocate taking less frequent showers to “show Putin!” have sunk to such a level of irrelevance and degeneracy that they cannot be taken seriously, most definitely not in Russia.
So where do we go from here?
As I said, I don’t know, there are too many variables. But a few things seem clear to me:
- Russia has decided to full unilateralism in her policies towards the Ukraine and the West. Oh sure, if and when needed, Russians will still agree to talk to their western “partners”, but that is due to the long standing Russian policy of always talking to everybody and anybody, even Russia’s worst enemies. Why? Because neither warfare not political unilateralism are an end by themselves, they are only means to achieve a specific political goal. Thus, it is always good to sit down with your enemy, especially if you have been gently but steadily increasing the pain dial on them for a few months! The Europeans being the “great supine protoplasmic invertebrate jellies” (to quote BoJo) they are might cave in quickly and suddenly or, at the very least, they will try to improve their lot by trying to bypass their own sanctions (Uncle Shmuel permitting, however reluctantly).
- The only party with any real agency left with which Russia could seriously negotiate is the USA, of course. However, as long as the USA under the total control of the Neocons, this is a futile exercise.
- Should there ever be any kind of deal made, it would only be one which would be fully and totally verifiable. Contrary to popular beliefs, a great many treaties and agreements can be crafted to be fully verifiable, that is not a technical problem by itself. However, with the current ruling classes of the West, no such deal is likely to be hammered out and agreed by all parties involved.
So what is left?
There is a Russian saying which my grandmother taught me as a kid: “the borders of Russia are found at the end of a Cossack’s spear“. This saying, born from 1,000 years of existential warfare with no natural borders simply expresses a basic reality: the Russian armed forces are the ones who decide where Russia ends. Or you can flip it this way: “the only natural border of Russia are the capabilities of the Russian armed forces”. You can think of it has pre-1917 Russian unilateralism 🙂
Still, this begs the question of the moral and ethical foundation for such a stance. After all, does it not suggest that Russia gives herself the right to invade any country it can just because she can?
Not at all!
While there were imperialist and expansionist wars in Russian history, compared to the West’s 1,000 years of wall to wall imperialism, Russia is but a meek and gentle lamb! Not that this excuses anything, it is simply a fact. The rest of the Russian wars were, almost all, existential wars, for the survival and freedom of the Russian nation. I cannot think of a more “just war” than one which 1) was imposed upon you and 2) one in which your sole goal is to survive as a free and sovereign nation, especially a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation as the Russian one has always been, in sharp contrast to the enemies of Russia which were always driven by religious, nationalist and even overtly racist fervor (which is what we can all observe again today, long after the end of WWII).
Is this just propaganda? If you think so, then you can study Russian history or, better, study the current military doctrine of Russia and you will see that Russia’s force planning is entirely defensive, especially at the strategic level. The best proof of that is that Russia put up with all the ugly racist and russophobic policies of the Ukraine or the three Baltic statelets for decades without taking any action. But when the Ukraine became a de facto NATO proxy and directly threatened not only the Donbass, but Russia herself (does anybody still remember that days before the SMO, “Ze” declared that the Ukraine should get nuclear weapons?!), then Russia took action. You have to be either blind or fantastically dishonest not to admit that self-evident fact.
[Sidebar: by the way, the three Baltic statelets, for which Russia has no use at all, are constantly trying to become a military threat to Russia, not only by hosting NATO forces, but also by truly idiotic plans to “lock” the Baltic with Finland. Combine this with the Nazi anti-Russian Apartheid policies towards the Russian minorities and you would be forgiven for thinking that the Balts really want to be the next ones to be denazified and demilitarized. But… but… – you will say – “since they are members of NATO, they cannot be attacked!”. Well, if you believe that 1) anybody in NATO will fight Russia over these statelets or 2) that NATO has the military means to protect them, then I have got plenty of great bridges to sell you. Still, the most effective way to deal with the Balts is to let them commit economic suicide, which they basically have already done, and then promise them a few “economic carrots” for a change to a more civilized attitude. A Russian saying says that “the refrigerator wins against the TV” (победа холодильника над телевизором) which means that when your refrigerator is empty, the propaganda on TV loses its power. I think that the future of the 3 Baltic statelets will be defined by that aphorism]
So will the Ukraine be partitioned?
Yes, absolutely, it has already lost huge parts of its territory and it will only lose more.
Might the western neighbors decide to take a bite out of the western Ukraine? Sure! That is a real possibility.
But these will all be either unilateral actions or very unofficially coordinated understandings wrapped in plausible deniability (like the deployment of Polish “peacekeepers” to “protect” the western Ukraine). But mostly I predict two things will happen: 1) Russia will achieve all of her goals unilaterally without making any deals with anybody and 2) Russia will only allow the Ukraine’s western neighbors to bite off some chucks of the Ukraine if, and only if, those chunks to not represent any military threat to Russia.
Remember what Putin said about Finland and Sweden and Finland joining NATO? He said that by itself, this is not a problem for Russia. But he warned that should these countries host US/NATO forces and weapons systems threatening Russia, than Russia will have to take counter-measures. I think that this is also the Kremlin’s position about the future of any rump-Banderastan and any moves by NATO countries (including Poland, Romania and Hungary) to reacquire territories which historically belonged to them or which have substantial Polish, Romanian and Hungarian minorities.
Right now, we are only in the second phase of the SMO (which centers on the Donbass) and Russia has not even initiated any operations to move deeper into the Ukraine. As for the real war, the war between Russia and the combined West, it has been going on for no less than decade, or even more, and this war will last much longer than the SMO in the Ukraine. Finally, the outcome of this war will see tectonic and profound changes at least as dramatic as the changes resulting from the outcomes of WWI and WWII.
The Russians understand that what they now really must do is to truly finish WWII and that the formal end of WWII in 1945 only marked the transition to a different type of warfare still imposed by a united, consolidated West, but now not by German Nazis but by (mostly) US Neocons (which, of course, are typical racist Nazis, except their racism is Anglo and Judaic/Zionist).
I will conclude with a short quote by Bertold Brecht which, I think, is deeply understood by Russia today:
“Therefore learn how to see and not to gape.
To act instead of talking all day long.
The world was almost won by such an ape!
The nations put him where his kind belong.
But don’t rejoice too soon at your escape –
The womb he crawled from is still going strong.”
― Bertolt Brecht, The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui
Russia slaughtered a lot of western apes in her history, now is the time to finally deal with the womb from which they crawled out from.
PS: FYI – the Russian investigation has declared that the explosions on the airfield in Crimea was an act of sabotage/diversion. Which was the most likely explanation to begin with.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.