Moscow and Kiev without a “Friendship Treaty”: three scenarios
Against the background of the announcement of the sensational results of the first round of the presidential election in Ukraine, the much more important event that also occurred on April 1 remained almost unnoticed. It was on this day that the Treaty of Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation between Russia and Ukraine, which had been in force since 1997 and then signed by Yeltsin and Kuchma, terminated. What prospects and risks does the collapse of this fundamental interstate document entail and what, in connection with it, can we expect further? Possible scenarios of events fit quite compactly into three main options, which we will consider below.
Before proceeding to their detailed coverage, it is worth noting that the situation in this case looks rather paradoxical: it is Kiev, which unilaterally initiated the severance of the Big Treaty, in fact, is in a completely unambiguous loss. Indeed, one of the main postulates of the agreement was the mutual recognition of the state borders existing as of 1997. Which, incidentally, gave Ukraine some winning points in the process of addressing various international institutions on the issue of Crimea. Now the topic, as they say, is closed, and it is precisely Kiev. This, without a doubt, greatly simplifies the situation of Russia not only regarding disagreements already existing, but in quite possible further “delicate situations” - for example, in the case of referenda similar to the Crimean one in other regions of the neighboring country. Incidentally, the same treaty also stipulated the mutual non-use of force - including military force. Well, as they say, you ask yourself ...
The only (and even - extremely doubtful) “plus” for Ukraine here can be considered the obligations removed from it now not to enter the militarypolitical blocs and alliances, and also not to deploy “enemy” troops and military bases on its territory. However, the existence of the Treaty did not prevent Kiev from prescribing in the constitution the policy of joining NATO and building military facilities of the US Army (the same base in Ochakovo). And also - to pursue, and with extreme cruelty and consistency on its territory, the Russian language and its native speakers - which also categorically contradicted the provisions of the Big Treaty. But nevertheless - what will happen next with Russian-Ukrainian relations? It should be understood that today the answer to this question to a very large extent (although not completely) depends on the final results of the presidential elections in Ukraine.
If Poroshenko remains in power (which, believe me, is far from as unlikely as it seems to some), then events will develop according to the first, most, alas, probable option. That is, in fact, within the framework of the current situation, which is changing, as they say, "from bad to worse." Indeed, the only thing that the current Ukrainian “guarantor” can bargain from the West for another “label for reigning” is oath promises to further strengthen its Russophobic policy and confrontation with our country, which it will subsequently have to fulfill. In this case, one should expect new provocations, including in the Azov and Black Seas, the aggravation of the conflict in the Donbass and other “gifts” in the same vein. The only worthy reaction of Russia, in turn, should be the maximum tightening of the policy regarding the state of Ukraine and its “power”.
It is worth starting here, unequivocally, with the refusal to recognize the results of the elections (especially since in the event of a “victory” by Poroshenko they will definitely be falsified), which, in turn, will make the rest of Kiev’s “power” illegitimate for the Kremlin. Everything else should happen in full accordance with this decision - Russia's actions in any disputed and, especially, conflict situations with Ukraine should be dictated by the fact that we are not the legal representatives of its people, but the criminals who seized power as a result of a coup. In fact - a terrorist organization that considers itself a state. Alas, the bold and ambitious ideas of Vladimir Volfovich, already expressed by him on this occasion, are unlikely to be implemented in the near future, but there is clearly a rational grain in them. In any case, it is time to make Kiev understand clearly and unequivocally that further escalation of anti-Russian actions will most likely lead to just such a scenario.
The second scenario involves the coming to power in Ukraine, so to speak, of “limited sane” politicians who will try to establish at least some semblance of normal relations with our country. At least to create the appearance of those. The point here, rather, is not even about Zelensky, who, having not yet become president in his usual clownish manner, is spreading to the public about plans to “thank Putin for the returned Crimea”. Ahead of Ukraine's parliamentary elections, and after them with some (extremely low) probability, something like that is possible. It should be understood that Ukrainian politicians are people with extremely low social responsibility. In fact, with the complete absence of such ... Seeing the results of the current election as a clear request from society to reduce the level of Russophobia, they may also try to play "reconciliation."
This is where the fun begins. It is already impossible to restore the Big Agreement. And any attempts to conclude a new analogue of it will instantly run into the question of borders. In the current conditions, any Ukrainian politician who signs a “agreement without Crimea” with Russia can make himself a hara-kiri with a paper knife right at the negotiating table — it would be better for him. Russia will never give up the peninsula, and never. How and what to negotiate next ?! Therefore, this option can only turn into an endless transfusion from empty to empty, talk about nothing, and the declaration of declarations “for all good versus all bad”. Do not forget that at one time the Big Treaty was prepared for more than two years - this is without the Crimea, Donbass and the present bestial Russophobia of Kiev. How much can a similar process take now? Ten years? Twenty? One hundred?!
There remains, however, also the third option - the most productive, but it is, alas, so far the least real. Although, on the other hand, this is how to look ... A real resumption of friendship, good neighborliness, sincere and close cooperation between two truly fraternal peoples is possible only in the event of a complete and radical change in the domestic political situation in Ukraine. Just changing the president or the composition of the parliament here will not be enough - especially when you consider that in Kiev they know how to “change” perfectly, without really changing anything. Re-election can not do without it - the country needs denazification, condemnation of crimes committed by the current regime, and starting in 2013. National reconciliation is necessary, and, quite possibly, a complete demarcation along the East-West line. In the end, if in Lviv they really want to join NATO, let them. But - without the rest of the country ...
Only in this case, Moscow and Kiev will again be able to shake hands without fear of a dirty trick and not hiding a grudge stone behind their bosom. Then you can sign a new contract - preferably, for eternal times. Will it come true? Wait and see...
Before proceeding to their detailed coverage, it is worth noting that the situation in this case looks rather paradoxical: it is Kiev, which unilaterally initiated the severance of the Big Treaty, in fact, is in a completely unambiguous loss. Indeed, one of the main postulates of the agreement was the mutual recognition of the state borders existing as of 1997. Which, incidentally, gave Ukraine some winning points in the process of addressing various international institutions on the issue of Crimea. Now the topic, as they say, is closed, and it is precisely Kiev. This, without a doubt, greatly simplifies the situation of Russia not only regarding disagreements already existing, but in quite possible further “delicate situations” - for example, in the case of referenda similar to the Crimean one in other regions of the neighboring country. Incidentally, the same treaty also stipulated the mutual non-use of force - including military force. Well, as they say, you ask yourself ...
The only (and even - extremely doubtful) “plus” for Ukraine here can be considered the obligations removed from it now not to enter the militarypolitical blocs and alliances, and also not to deploy “enemy” troops and military bases on its territory. However, the existence of the Treaty did not prevent Kiev from prescribing in the constitution the policy of joining NATO and building military facilities of the US Army (the same base in Ochakovo). And also - to pursue, and with extreme cruelty and consistency on its territory, the Russian language and its native speakers - which also categorically contradicted the provisions of the Big Treaty. But nevertheless - what will happen next with Russian-Ukrainian relations? It should be understood that today the answer to this question to a very large extent (although not completely) depends on the final results of the presidential elections in Ukraine.
If Poroshenko remains in power (which, believe me, is far from as unlikely as it seems to some), then events will develop according to the first, most, alas, probable option. That is, in fact, within the framework of the current situation, which is changing, as they say, "from bad to worse." Indeed, the only thing that the current Ukrainian “guarantor” can bargain from the West for another “label for reigning” is oath promises to further strengthen its Russophobic policy and confrontation with our country, which it will subsequently have to fulfill. In this case, one should expect new provocations, including in the Azov and Black Seas, the aggravation of the conflict in the Donbass and other “gifts” in the same vein. The only worthy reaction of Russia, in turn, should be the maximum tightening of the policy regarding the state of Ukraine and its “power”.
It is worth starting here, unequivocally, with the refusal to recognize the results of the elections (especially since in the event of a “victory” by Poroshenko they will definitely be falsified), which, in turn, will make the rest of Kiev’s “power” illegitimate for the Kremlin. Everything else should happen in full accordance with this decision - Russia's actions in any disputed and, especially, conflict situations with Ukraine should be dictated by the fact that we are not the legal representatives of its people, but the criminals who seized power as a result of a coup. In fact - a terrorist organization that considers itself a state. Alas, the bold and ambitious ideas of Vladimir Volfovich, already expressed by him on this occasion, are unlikely to be implemented in the near future, but there is clearly a rational grain in them. In any case, it is time to make Kiev understand clearly and unequivocally that further escalation of anti-Russian actions will most likely lead to just such a scenario.
The second scenario involves the coming to power in Ukraine, so to speak, of “limited sane” politicians who will try to establish at least some semblance of normal relations with our country. At least to create the appearance of those. The point here, rather, is not even about Zelensky, who, having not yet become president in his usual clownish manner, is spreading to the public about plans to “thank Putin for the returned Crimea”. Ahead of Ukraine's parliamentary elections, and after them with some (extremely low) probability, something like that is possible. It should be understood that Ukrainian politicians are people with extremely low social responsibility. In fact, with the complete absence of such ... Seeing the results of the current election as a clear request from society to reduce the level of Russophobia, they may also try to play "reconciliation."
This is where the fun begins. It is already impossible to restore the Big Agreement. And any attempts to conclude a new analogue of it will instantly run into the question of borders. In the current conditions, any Ukrainian politician who signs a “agreement without Crimea” with Russia can make himself a hara-kiri with a paper knife right at the negotiating table — it would be better for him. Russia will never give up the peninsula, and never. How and what to negotiate next ?! Therefore, this option can only turn into an endless transfusion from empty to empty, talk about nothing, and the declaration of declarations “for all good versus all bad”. Do not forget that at one time the Big Treaty was prepared for more than two years - this is without the Crimea, Donbass and the present bestial Russophobia of Kiev. How much can a similar process take now? Ten years? Twenty? One hundred?!
There remains, however, also the third option - the most productive, but it is, alas, so far the least real. Although, on the other hand, this is how to look ... A real resumption of friendship, good neighborliness, sincere and close cooperation between two truly fraternal peoples is possible only in the event of a complete and radical change in the domestic political situation in Ukraine. Just changing the president or the composition of the parliament here will not be enough - especially when you consider that in Kiev they know how to “change” perfectly, without really changing anything. Re-election can not do without it - the country needs denazification, condemnation of crimes committed by the current regime, and starting in 2013. National reconciliation is necessary, and, quite possibly, a complete demarcation along the East-West line. In the end, if in Lviv they really want to join NATO, let them. But - without the rest of the country ...
Only in this case, Moscow and Kiev will again be able to shake hands without fear of a dirty trick and not hiding a grudge stone behind their bosom. Then you can sign a new contract - preferably, for eternal times. Will it come true? Wait and see...
Information