The future of Donbass: part of Russia or a new "protectorate"?
Recently, the media have been discussing from all sides the so-called “distribution of Russian passports in the Donbass,” which in fact has not yet begun. Moreover, the distribution proposed by the Russian president is difficult to name in principle, if this, in fact, is not distribution, but "providing the opportunity to obtain citizenship in a simplified mode." Which is not the same thing. That is, those who want are just given this opportunity. No more, no less. The problem is that everyone, of course, is aware that there will be a lot of those who want it. And this is in contrast to the proposal “in return to Putin” by the elected Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky “to distribute the passports of Nezalezhnaya to the Russians”, the queues for which in the Russian Federation are really hard to imagine.
However, at the end of the Ukrainian presidential election, this is the most discussed news in our relations with Ukraine today. A variety of details are being discussed - from almost destructive burdens on the Russian pension system, as a result of the expected appearance of several million new citizens, to the reaction of the Russian armed forces in the event of a possible attack by the Ukrainian army already on Russian citizens, who, apparently, on the so-called "Uncontrolled territories" The overwhelming majority of the population will soon be independent. But at the same time, it seems strange to me personally that somehow the legal and externallypolitical aspects of the existence of the DPR and LPR and their population in the light of recent events. But this is a much more fundamental issue, unlike the purely technical ones, which are now submitted to most discussions in the media and at various forums. If, before the expected mass adoption of Russian citizenship of the population “uncontrolled” by the Kiev authorities in the southeast of the country, these territories were still problematic, to put it mildly, but still internal territories of Ukraine, and the armed conflict taking place on them, thus could be regarded as an exclusively intra-Ukrainian civil confrontation, then with the appearance in these territories of a large number of local people with Russian citizenship, the status of the conflict will inevitably develop t already in international, with the participation of a neighboring state. Moreover, this will create another precedent that already exists in the world today, with which international law, in its current form, in fact, cannot figure it out.
The system of generally accepted rules and relations established after and on the basis of the results of the Second World War by the victorious states is no longer able to solve many new problems of the modern world order. Apparently because in the late forties of the last century, such situations simply did not arise. The borders and nationalities of the territories and the population located on them were established, as a rule, as a result of armed conflicts and subsequent negotiations. Conflicts and subsequent negotiations include a rather lengthy process of de-colonization, which took place almost throughout the world throughout the entire twentieth century. It is possible to discuss a certain legitimacy or justice and injustice of each such separate decision, but for all this, the jurisdiction of various territories and the boundaries of state entities were in all cases established, in principle, clearly and unequivocally. In some cases, certain territories were even forcibly “cleared” by the new owner state of the “disadvantageous” indigenous population. The methods are creepy, but there is as it is - then this was common. As well-known and close examples to us, one can cite the Czech “Sudetenland”, western Poland, or the former German East Prussia, divided after the war between the same Poland and the Soviet Union — from all these territories that changed their state jurisdiction, almost all were forcibly expelled at the end of hostilities the entire original German population. And further over the past century, the territorial conflicts that exist even among developed UN member states were nevertheless resolved in the course of military conflicts and always unambiguously. That is, according to the fact that the territory is really under the control of a certain state, then it belongs to this state. The United Nations instruments actually only recorded and confirmed, so to speak, "post-factum." An example is the British-Argentine conflict around the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) in the South Atlantic. The key in the last passage, as you can see, is the word "fact", that is, the recognition of the ownership of the territories was determined in accordance with the current reality.
But by the beginning of the XXI century, with the development of globalism, transport and information of technologies, the effect of "mutual growth" of economies of various countries around the world appeared, often even regardless of their state structure and socio-political system. This very “mutual growth” gradually led to the erosion of the very concept of independence and independence, since most economies of countries included in the global economic activities, they simply could not be completely independent, being in one way or another dependent on the movement of capital from the outside, or the supply of certain materials from the outside, or, conversely, the need to export their own products outside the state, exchange speculation, exchange rates, and so on. And as the economies of individual countries became non-self-sufficient, so, accordingly, they were not independent, that is, dependent on a number of purely external factors, the state education itself and their government became. Based on this, the methods of pressure from one state to another have also changed, and, unlike direct military conflicts of the past, conflicts called “hybrid” have appeared in the modern world. That is, it seems to be a kind of confrontation, but the matter still does not reach an open clash of the armed forces, but it consists in information and economic warfare, subversive actions of special services, harmful influence on political activity within states, etc. A kind of "virtual war."
Also in the modern world people began to move and mix en masse. In contrast to the time of the establishment of the existing world order, that is, the creation of the UN and the installation of all its basic principles after the end of World War II, when the so-called displaced persons, that is, stateless people or citizenship of another state located in foreign territory, most often did not voluntarily and as a result of the above-mentioned military operations, at the beginning of our century, the situation has fundamentally changed. Millions of people nowadays live on the territory of some states, being citizens of others completely voluntarily. Some receive new citizenship solely from a practical point of view (freedom of movement, tax evasion), someone has several citizenships, in fact without leaving their country of original residence. In this sense, the borders and the very concept of the territorial integrity of the state are already being eroded, and all this is literally eroding from within the states themselves. Virtual for many today are not only money and values, but also the concepts of homeland, citizenship, statehood, location. Moreover, the "instigators" of all this were the "advanced and liberal" Western civilizations, which were the founders of the theory of globalism itself. And what can we say about citizenship and a certain nationality of a particular person in general, even if some individuals cannot decide today, and now in “especially advanced” communities and genders themselves there are already not two - male and female - but much more ... these are such "innovations." But about this all, as it turns out, in the late forties and early fifties of the last century, no one somehow thought.
And now, what is called the “established world order” and its institutions is simply not able to solve the emerging new problems with old tools. But various and constant attempts to “improve” the existing established rules, creating some new international institutions within the framework of the same rules, often lead to situations when one rule (or law) in its essence begins to contradict another, or simply its wording, in the light of various corrections and additions, it becomes so vague that it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. In political life, this fact, among other things, is also expressed in the formation of certain territories with legally indefinite state and civil affiliation, that is, some virtual states. Moreover, the primacy in creating this mess also belongs to the West. The first wave of recognition of new independent states after the end of World War II occurred in Europe and Central Asia at the time of the collapse of the USSR. Apparently inspired by the joy of their own “victory in the Cold War,” the leaders of the Western countries and, in fact, led by them then international structures, not excluding the UN, so quickly began to recognize the sovereignty of everything that appeared on the site of the Soviet Union, as well as the loss of this German sovereignty By the Democratic Republic, that somehow they did not notice the fact of a conflict in this process of two fundamental international rules, the UN itself and the proclaimed: the right to self-determination of peoples and unwavering territorial oh integrity of states. At that moment, it was simply done as the West needed. About the same thing soon happened with another major socialist state in Europe - Yugoslavia. Almost simultaneously, and, fortunately, peacefully, fell into two parts Czechoslovakia. And this, too, was immediately recognized by the "international community", under the sign of the triumph of self-determination of peoples. But this situation, so to speak, opened the "Pandora's Box", creating a definite precedent.
Various peoples who lived on the territory of the once common large state educational institutions, not of their own free will, found themselves in some new state educational institutions, whose citizens and residents they did not want to be. Moreover, most often this concerned state-forming and close peoples and nations — in the former USSR, Russians, and in the former Yugoslavia, respectively, of Serbs. But when they suddenly began to claim their national rights, the “international community” suddenly for some reason suddenly refused this further self-determination, suddenly recalling the principle of the integrity of states. This resulted in armed clashes, for example, in Transnistria, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc. But all these ethnic conflicts did not ultimately lead to any solution, but only entered the so-called “frozen” status. On the other hand, for "incomprehensible" reasons, when some small peoples within the framework of already newly formed states, for example, Kosovo Albanians in Serbia or Chechens in the Russian Federation, that is, not strong state-forming nations, the "consolidated West" for some reason suddenly in this I decided to support in every way. In Russia, they nevertheless dealt with this, thanks to the military strength and political wisdom of the leadership, but in Serbia, which was even weaker then, they could no longer. And there was no one to help from outside.
The result was the formation in February 2008 of the "independent Republic of Kosovo", which was actually recognized by most Western countries, but not recognized by Serbia itself, the territory of which formally is the province of Kosovo, like most of the other UN member countries. Despite this, at the initial stage of existence, the protection of the newly formed state of Kosovo Albanians was actually undertaken by the armies of NATO countries, and the European Union provided its own currency for the internal circulation, the Euro, to even tear off the rebellious enclave from Serbia economically as quickly as possible. Thus, in Europe, again “from the filing” of the West, and again, contrary to established international rules, in essence, a kind of new state education arose. And in this state education, an American military base immediately appeared. The fact that this is the very "state education of Kosovo" really represents itself is another matter for a separate publication. But nothing good or at least respectful, after more than 10 years of "independent" existence, it is definitely impossible to say about him.
Following this, Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia, reflected with the help of the RF Armed Forces, and then the recognition of the previously unrecognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia by the Russian Federation happened. Moreover, in these small Caucasian republics, as well as in another disputed territory - in the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic, those who wish from the Russian Federation were given the opportunity to obtain Russian citizenship. Thus, in a seemingly already eternally peaceful and calm Europe, these very territories with an indefinite status suddenly began to appear again. The first of which, let me remind you, was the “republic of Kosovo" directly sponsored and organized by the West. And in 2014, after a coup d'etat in Ukraine and the outbreak of a civil war by the new ultranationalist authorities in the country, it first proclaimed independence, and then, on the basis of a nationwide referendum, transferred to the Russian peninsula of the Crimea, with its almost completely Russian-speaking population. At the same time, as a result of the outbreak of conflict in southeastern Ukraine, two oblasts, Lugansk and Donetsk, which are today the "self-proclaimed republics of the LPR and the DPR", which are overwhelmingly ethnic Russians, partially left Kiev. The situation seems to be very similar to Kosovo, but here again, in no way is anyone in a hurry to somehow recognize sovereignty in the West. On the contrary, severe economic sanctions were also imposed on the Russian Federation outside the Crimea, and citizens living on the peninsula were actually prohibited from even entering many states, which supported these same sanctions.
People living in LDNR have been deprived of most of their civil rights for the last more than five years, nominally being citizens of Ukraine, but without receiving from this state either the required social benefits, or even identification documents, an education or the right to drive car, for example. And in this situation, the President of the Russian Federation signed a decree on granting these people, as well as other Ukrainian citizens who find themselves in a difficult life situation, Russian citizenship in a simplified manner, and again I emphasize, at their own request, these people themselves. It should be added that in the unrecognized republics the Russian ruble has long been used as a monetary unit, due to the catastrophic shortage of other cash - Ukrainian banks have stopped importing hryvnias to these territories. Also, the Russian ruble is used as a means of payment in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and in these partially recognized republics, the majority of the population has Russian citizenship, and their safety is protected, in fact, by the Russian army there. The republics also have their own armed forces, but of course they are not capable of repelling serious external aggression on their own.
A similar situation is now in the Transnistrian republic, the difference is that nominally it is still considered to be part of Moldova, and uses its Transnistrian ruble as money. Apparently the same scenario in the very near future expects Donetsk and Lugansk. I don’t know if Russian troops will appear there, either as peacekeepers or under some other hitch, but, nevertheless, with a look at the direct proximity of the borders of the Russian Federation and with a powerful military contingent directly behind them, it is possible for the troops to be directly present inside and not required. In the end, if anything, to ensure the safety of Russian citizens living there, whom the majority of the population will definitely be there by the end of this year, it is possible quite effectively from the official Russian territory.
But what do we get on the political map of Europe, since the formation of Kosovo - the first “partially recognized independent state” in the new century, whose independence is based solely on NATO bayonets and the European currency? And we get, apart from Kosovo itself, created on its own precedent, that is, on purely western patterns, new “partially recognized” territories: the completely Russian peninsula of Crimea, which even our closest “allies”, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, do not recognize as Russian , which are practically Russian territory with the rights of a certain autonomy, as well as clearly preparing to join them, the LPR, DPR and PMR (Transnistrian Moldavian Republic). Moreover, there is practically no hope for official international recognition of all this in the foreseeable future and in the existing system. Moreover, the “Westerners” themselves redrawing and recognizing in this redrawn form almost all of southeastern Europe and former Soviet Asia, after the Crimean events of 2014, suddenly began to accuse Russia of “the first since the Second World War open violation of the territorial integrity of states in Europe. ” But, on the other hand, without recognizing these territories as either Russian or independent, no one can openly "climb" them into them, realizing the real threat of a conflict with the Russian armed forces. That is, the actual sovereignty of Russia where it exists, in fact everyone recognizes. Nonsense? “That's right, nonsense.” It would seem a dead end to the modern international legal system. At the same time, it is clear to all parties that it is necessary to somehow get out of this impasse, and it is simply impossible to “close our eyes” to the fait accompli forever. With all this, the main injustice of the whole situation is that most of all from such a "suspended" state, those who do not recognize or do not recognize, but innocent people living in these unrecognized territories, suffer most. In addition to all the inconveniences of incomprehensible civil and state status, as a result of all this, the state of compliance with the law inside these enclaves themselves often leaves much to be desired.
On the part of the Russian Federation, there are two options for resolving the current situation: the first is to go further by creating some “protectorates”, and the second is simply to include the described territories in your state. If we compare both available options, then the second, based on existing experience, is clearly more effective and successful from all points of view.
From the very beginning of the "independent" existence of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria, that is, from the time of the collapse of the USSR in the early 90s, the process of international recognition of the independence of these republics practically did not advance. On the contrary, neighboring states, not resigned to the loss of these territories, repeatedly tried to return them by force, which led to additional bloodshed on both sides and the involvement of the RF Armed Forces. The “Westerners,” in this case, participated in the process only with the “moral support” of the anti-Russian forces, never daring to intervene directly. And in Kosovo itself, which is under the direct patronage of the United States and NATO, the situation with real independence has not yet made much progress. Although there is a big question there, whether this mafia quasi-state can truly exist independently.
On the other hand, over the five years of the existence of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation, the situation there is radically different. Although sanctions have been imposed, although there is still no international recognition, the situation of the population of the peninsula is much more defined. Throughout its territory, Russian law and all law enforcement tools of the government are fully applicable. Also, with the initial presence of the Russian armed forces, no serious incitement to force from Ukraine was detected. Massive open investments are underway in Crimea, and large infrastructure projects are in operation. And foreign delegations, both business and political representatives of the most diverse "influential" states of the world and especially Europe, visit the peninsula the farther and more often and in a wider composition. Thus, I would say that Crimea is now much closer to international recognition than the aforementioned "independent" unrecognized republics. Moreover, with the Crimea, the process itself is technically much simpler - no one needs to recognize the new state, with all the ensuing consequences, including diplomatic procedures, etc. Thanks to God, no one doubts anyone’s sovereignty of Russia, so we are only talking about the nominal designation on the map of certain territories belonging to an already existing sovereign state. In the case of Crimea, in fact, even recognition of “de jure” is not so important as recognition of “de facto”, leading rather than denoting it on some maps and official documents, but to physically lifting sanctions and various embargoes and prohibitions related to indefinite status. But this process is already ongoing in reality, and in some areas we are already seeing its first fruits, geographical maps not excluding. So, in various international guides, including Google maps, the Crimean Peninsula, despite the lack of international recognition, is already designated as part of the Russian Federation, for purely practical reasons - after all, when traveling across the earth, any traveler will have to cross the Russian border there, and if this is not indicated in advance in the route, then claims can be presented to the originator or the database on the basis of which the route was planned. Although regular international flights to the peninsula have not yet flown, Simferopol is already designated as the Russian air harbor in the world airport lists. Despite various prohibitions, foreign vessels call at Crimean ports where Russian customs procedures take place, and vehicles with foreign registration also cross the Crimean bridge, and people cross the Russian-Ukrainian border from the mainland to Crimea in compliance with all border procedures whether someone likes it or not. After the opening of direct railway communication, international container shipping will definitely go along the bridge, and ignoring all this will be the more the more difficult.
And here the main concept is common sense and a sense of reality. If for some reason the established international mechanisms do not work, then you just need to turn to common sense. Russia in the modern world, from the point of view of many, today is precisely the bearer of such common sense, both in international relations and in other areas of human life. If the UN and other organizations intended for this in their present form are not able to solve the problems that have arisen in the world, then we must return to that initial position when the UN and everything else did not exist. That is, to solve the situation with the help of common sense, based on real power, just like during the Second World War. At the moment, thank God, Russia has regained such opportunities. And speaking of resolving urgent situations, I do not mean exclusively the state of LDNR, Ossetia or Transnistria, but generally a radical correction of the situation that arose in the post-Soviet space as a result of the collapse of the USSR. I am not talking about the complete reanimation of the Soviet Union within its original borders, but at least the restoration of a certain historical justice, which at the time of this collapse and after it was repeatedly and in many places violated, not without the participation of our Western "partners."
And after solving the overdue problems in this way, it is possible on this basis to create a new world order and new international organizations that meet modern requirements. If we go the opposite way, that is, start with the reform of UN institutions, etc., then in the foreseeable future, conflicts cannot be expected, rather, on the contrary, tensions in the world will only worsen.
However, at the end of the Ukrainian presidential election, this is the most discussed news in our relations with Ukraine today. A variety of details are being discussed - from almost destructive burdens on the Russian pension system, as a result of the expected appearance of several million new citizens, to the reaction of the Russian armed forces in the event of a possible attack by the Ukrainian army already on Russian citizens, who, apparently, on the so-called "Uncontrolled territories" The overwhelming majority of the population will soon be independent. But at the same time, it seems strange to me personally that somehow the legal and externallypolitical aspects of the existence of the DPR and LPR and their population in the light of recent events. But this is a much more fundamental issue, unlike the purely technical ones, which are now submitted to most discussions in the media and at various forums. If, before the expected mass adoption of Russian citizenship of the population “uncontrolled” by the Kiev authorities in the southeast of the country, these territories were still problematic, to put it mildly, but still internal territories of Ukraine, and the armed conflict taking place on them, thus could be regarded as an exclusively intra-Ukrainian civil confrontation, then with the appearance in these territories of a large number of local people with Russian citizenship, the status of the conflict will inevitably develop t already in international, with the participation of a neighboring state. Moreover, this will create another precedent that already exists in the world today, with which international law, in its current form, in fact, cannot figure it out.
Who sets the rules and how
The system of generally accepted rules and relations established after and on the basis of the results of the Second World War by the victorious states is no longer able to solve many new problems of the modern world order. Apparently because in the late forties of the last century, such situations simply did not arise. The borders and nationalities of the territories and the population located on them were established, as a rule, as a result of armed conflicts and subsequent negotiations. Conflicts and subsequent negotiations include a rather lengthy process of de-colonization, which took place almost throughout the world throughout the entire twentieth century. It is possible to discuss a certain legitimacy or justice and injustice of each such separate decision, but for all this, the jurisdiction of various territories and the boundaries of state entities were in all cases established, in principle, clearly and unequivocally. In some cases, certain territories were even forcibly “cleared” by the new owner state of the “disadvantageous” indigenous population. The methods are creepy, but there is as it is - then this was common. As well-known and close examples to us, one can cite the Czech “Sudetenland”, western Poland, or the former German East Prussia, divided after the war between the same Poland and the Soviet Union — from all these territories that changed their state jurisdiction, almost all were forcibly expelled at the end of hostilities the entire original German population. And further over the past century, the territorial conflicts that exist even among developed UN member states were nevertheless resolved in the course of military conflicts and always unambiguously. That is, according to the fact that the territory is really under the control of a certain state, then it belongs to this state. The United Nations instruments actually only recorded and confirmed, so to speak, "post-factum." An example is the British-Argentine conflict around the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) in the South Atlantic. The key in the last passage, as you can see, is the word "fact", that is, the recognition of the ownership of the territories was determined in accordance with the current reality.
But by the beginning of the XXI century, with the development of globalism, transport and information of technologies, the effect of "mutual growth" of economies of various countries around the world appeared, often even regardless of their state structure and socio-political system. This very “mutual growth” gradually led to the erosion of the very concept of independence and independence, since most economies of countries included in the global economic activities, they simply could not be completely independent, being in one way or another dependent on the movement of capital from the outside, or the supply of certain materials from the outside, or, conversely, the need to export their own products outside the state, exchange speculation, exchange rates, and so on. And as the economies of individual countries became non-self-sufficient, so, accordingly, they were not independent, that is, dependent on a number of purely external factors, the state education itself and their government became. Based on this, the methods of pressure from one state to another have also changed, and, unlike direct military conflicts of the past, conflicts called “hybrid” have appeared in the modern world. That is, it seems to be a kind of confrontation, but the matter still does not reach an open clash of the armed forces, but it consists in information and economic warfare, subversive actions of special services, harmful influence on political activity within states, etc. A kind of "virtual war."
Also in the modern world people began to move and mix en masse. In contrast to the time of the establishment of the existing world order, that is, the creation of the UN and the installation of all its basic principles after the end of World War II, when the so-called displaced persons, that is, stateless people or citizenship of another state located in foreign territory, most often did not voluntarily and as a result of the above-mentioned military operations, at the beginning of our century, the situation has fundamentally changed. Millions of people nowadays live on the territory of some states, being citizens of others completely voluntarily. Some receive new citizenship solely from a practical point of view (freedom of movement, tax evasion), someone has several citizenships, in fact without leaving their country of original residence. In this sense, the borders and the very concept of the territorial integrity of the state are already being eroded, and all this is literally eroding from within the states themselves. Virtual for many today are not only money and values, but also the concepts of homeland, citizenship, statehood, location. Moreover, the "instigators" of all this were the "advanced and liberal" Western civilizations, which were the founders of the theory of globalism itself. And what can we say about citizenship and a certain nationality of a particular person in general, even if some individuals cannot decide today, and now in “especially advanced” communities and genders themselves there are already not two - male and female - but much more ... these are such "innovations." But about this all, as it turns out, in the late forties and early fifties of the last century, no one somehow thought.
And what about this "world community" ...
And now, what is called the “established world order” and its institutions is simply not able to solve the emerging new problems with old tools. But various and constant attempts to “improve” the existing established rules, creating some new international institutions within the framework of the same rules, often lead to situations when one rule (or law) in its essence begins to contradict another, or simply its wording, in the light of various corrections and additions, it becomes so vague that it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. In political life, this fact, among other things, is also expressed in the formation of certain territories with legally indefinite state and civil affiliation, that is, some virtual states. Moreover, the primacy in creating this mess also belongs to the West. The first wave of recognition of new independent states after the end of World War II occurred in Europe and Central Asia at the time of the collapse of the USSR. Apparently inspired by the joy of their own “victory in the Cold War,” the leaders of the Western countries and, in fact, led by them then international structures, not excluding the UN, so quickly began to recognize the sovereignty of everything that appeared on the site of the Soviet Union, as well as the loss of this German sovereignty By the Democratic Republic, that somehow they did not notice the fact of a conflict in this process of two fundamental international rules, the UN itself and the proclaimed: the right to self-determination of peoples and unwavering territorial oh integrity of states. At that moment, it was simply done as the West needed. About the same thing soon happened with another major socialist state in Europe - Yugoslavia. Almost simultaneously, and, fortunately, peacefully, fell into two parts Czechoslovakia. And this, too, was immediately recognized by the "international community", under the sign of the triumph of self-determination of peoples. But this situation, so to speak, opened the "Pandora's Box", creating a definite precedent.
Various peoples who lived on the territory of the once common large state educational institutions, not of their own free will, found themselves in some new state educational institutions, whose citizens and residents they did not want to be. Moreover, most often this concerned state-forming and close peoples and nations — in the former USSR, Russians, and in the former Yugoslavia, respectively, of Serbs. But when they suddenly began to claim their national rights, the “international community” suddenly for some reason suddenly refused this further self-determination, suddenly recalling the principle of the integrity of states. This resulted in armed clashes, for example, in Transnistria, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc. But all these ethnic conflicts did not ultimately lead to any solution, but only entered the so-called “frozen” status. On the other hand, for "incomprehensible" reasons, when some small peoples within the framework of already newly formed states, for example, Kosovo Albanians in Serbia or Chechens in the Russian Federation, that is, not strong state-forming nations, the "consolidated West" for some reason suddenly in this I decided to support in every way. In Russia, they nevertheless dealt with this, thanks to the military strength and political wisdom of the leadership, but in Serbia, which was even weaker then, they could no longer. And there was no one to help from outside.
A precedent that has changed modern history
The result was the formation in February 2008 of the "independent Republic of Kosovo", which was actually recognized by most Western countries, but not recognized by Serbia itself, the territory of which formally is the province of Kosovo, like most of the other UN member countries. Despite this, at the initial stage of existence, the protection of the newly formed state of Kosovo Albanians was actually undertaken by the armies of NATO countries, and the European Union provided its own currency for the internal circulation, the Euro, to even tear off the rebellious enclave from Serbia economically as quickly as possible. Thus, in Europe, again “from the filing” of the West, and again, contrary to established international rules, in essence, a kind of new state education arose. And in this state education, an American military base immediately appeared. The fact that this is the very "state education of Kosovo" really represents itself is another matter for a separate publication. But nothing good or at least respectful, after more than 10 years of "independent" existence, it is definitely impossible to say about him.
Following this, Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia, reflected with the help of the RF Armed Forces, and then the recognition of the previously unrecognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia by the Russian Federation happened. Moreover, in these small Caucasian republics, as well as in another disputed territory - in the Transnistrian Moldavian Republic, those who wish from the Russian Federation were given the opportunity to obtain Russian citizenship. Thus, in a seemingly already eternally peaceful and calm Europe, these very territories with an indefinite status suddenly began to appear again. The first of which, let me remind you, was the “republic of Kosovo" directly sponsored and organized by the West. And in 2014, after a coup d'etat in Ukraine and the outbreak of a civil war by the new ultranationalist authorities in the country, it first proclaimed independence, and then, on the basis of a nationwide referendum, transferred to the Russian peninsula of the Crimea, with its almost completely Russian-speaking population. At the same time, as a result of the outbreak of conflict in southeastern Ukraine, two oblasts, Lugansk and Donetsk, which are today the "self-proclaimed republics of the LPR and the DPR", which are overwhelmingly ethnic Russians, partially left Kiev. The situation seems to be very similar to Kosovo, but here again, in no way is anyone in a hurry to somehow recognize sovereignty in the West. On the contrary, severe economic sanctions were also imposed on the Russian Federation outside the Crimea, and citizens living on the peninsula were actually prohibited from even entering many states, which supported these same sanctions.
People living in LDNR have been deprived of most of their civil rights for the last more than five years, nominally being citizens of Ukraine, but without receiving from this state either the required social benefits, or even identification documents, an education or the right to drive car, for example. And in this situation, the President of the Russian Federation signed a decree on granting these people, as well as other Ukrainian citizens who find themselves in a difficult life situation, Russian citizenship in a simplified manner, and again I emphasize, at their own request, these people themselves. It should be added that in the unrecognized republics the Russian ruble has long been used as a monetary unit, due to the catastrophic shortage of other cash - Ukrainian banks have stopped importing hryvnias to these territories. Also, the Russian ruble is used as a means of payment in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and in these partially recognized republics, the majority of the population has Russian citizenship, and their safety is protected, in fact, by the Russian army there. The republics also have their own armed forces, but of course they are not capable of repelling serious external aggression on their own.
A similar situation is now in the Transnistrian republic, the difference is that nominally it is still considered to be part of Moldova, and uses its Transnistrian ruble as money. Apparently the same scenario in the very near future expects Donetsk and Lugansk. I don’t know if Russian troops will appear there, either as peacekeepers or under some other hitch, but, nevertheless, with a look at the direct proximity of the borders of the Russian Federation and with a powerful military contingent directly behind them, it is possible for the troops to be directly present inside and not required. In the end, if anything, to ensure the safety of Russian citizens living there, whom the majority of the population will definitely be there by the end of this year, it is possible quite effectively from the official Russian territory.
There is a solution, it is simple, but not for the faint of heart
But what do we get on the political map of Europe, since the formation of Kosovo - the first “partially recognized independent state” in the new century, whose independence is based solely on NATO bayonets and the European currency? And we get, apart from Kosovo itself, created on its own precedent, that is, on purely western patterns, new “partially recognized” territories: the completely Russian peninsula of Crimea, which even our closest “allies”, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, do not recognize as Russian , which are practically Russian territory with the rights of a certain autonomy, as well as clearly preparing to join them, the LPR, DPR and PMR (Transnistrian Moldavian Republic). Moreover, there is practically no hope for official international recognition of all this in the foreseeable future and in the existing system. Moreover, the “Westerners” themselves redrawing and recognizing in this redrawn form almost all of southeastern Europe and former Soviet Asia, after the Crimean events of 2014, suddenly began to accuse Russia of “the first since the Second World War open violation of the territorial integrity of states in Europe. ” But, on the other hand, without recognizing these territories as either Russian or independent, no one can openly "climb" them into them, realizing the real threat of a conflict with the Russian armed forces. That is, the actual sovereignty of Russia where it exists, in fact everyone recognizes. Nonsense? “That's right, nonsense.” It would seem a dead end to the modern international legal system. At the same time, it is clear to all parties that it is necessary to somehow get out of this impasse, and it is simply impossible to “close our eyes” to the fait accompli forever. With all this, the main injustice of the whole situation is that most of all from such a "suspended" state, those who do not recognize or do not recognize, but innocent people living in these unrecognized territories, suffer most. In addition to all the inconveniences of incomprehensible civil and state status, as a result of all this, the state of compliance with the law inside these enclaves themselves often leaves much to be desired.
On the part of the Russian Federation, there are two options for resolving the current situation: the first is to go further by creating some “protectorates”, and the second is simply to include the described territories in your state. If we compare both available options, then the second, based on existing experience, is clearly more effective and successful from all points of view.
From the very beginning of the "independent" existence of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria, that is, from the time of the collapse of the USSR in the early 90s, the process of international recognition of the independence of these republics practically did not advance. On the contrary, neighboring states, not resigned to the loss of these territories, repeatedly tried to return them by force, which led to additional bloodshed on both sides and the involvement of the RF Armed Forces. The “Westerners,” in this case, participated in the process only with the “moral support” of the anti-Russian forces, never daring to intervene directly. And in Kosovo itself, which is under the direct patronage of the United States and NATO, the situation with real independence has not yet made much progress. Although there is a big question there, whether this mafia quasi-state can truly exist independently.
On the other hand, over the five years of the existence of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation, the situation there is radically different. Although sanctions have been imposed, although there is still no international recognition, the situation of the population of the peninsula is much more defined. Throughout its territory, Russian law and all law enforcement tools of the government are fully applicable. Also, with the initial presence of the Russian armed forces, no serious incitement to force from Ukraine was detected. Massive open investments are underway in Crimea, and large infrastructure projects are in operation. And foreign delegations, both business and political representatives of the most diverse "influential" states of the world and especially Europe, visit the peninsula the farther and more often and in a wider composition. Thus, I would say that Crimea is now much closer to international recognition than the aforementioned "independent" unrecognized republics. Moreover, with the Crimea, the process itself is technically much simpler - no one needs to recognize the new state, with all the ensuing consequences, including diplomatic procedures, etc. Thanks to God, no one doubts anyone’s sovereignty of Russia, so we are only talking about the nominal designation on the map of certain territories belonging to an already existing sovereign state. In the case of Crimea, in fact, even recognition of “de jure” is not so important as recognition of “de facto”, leading rather than denoting it on some maps and official documents, but to physically lifting sanctions and various embargoes and prohibitions related to indefinite status. But this process is already ongoing in reality, and in some areas we are already seeing its first fruits, geographical maps not excluding. So, in various international guides, including Google maps, the Crimean Peninsula, despite the lack of international recognition, is already designated as part of the Russian Federation, for purely practical reasons - after all, when traveling across the earth, any traveler will have to cross the Russian border there, and if this is not indicated in advance in the route, then claims can be presented to the originator or the database on the basis of which the route was planned. Although regular international flights to the peninsula have not yet flown, Simferopol is already designated as the Russian air harbor in the world airport lists. Despite various prohibitions, foreign vessels call at Crimean ports where Russian customs procedures take place, and vehicles with foreign registration also cross the Crimean bridge, and people cross the Russian-Ukrainian border from the mainland to Crimea in compliance with all border procedures whether someone likes it or not. After the opening of direct railway communication, international container shipping will definitely go along the bridge, and ignoring all this will be the more the more difficult.
And here the main concept is common sense and a sense of reality. If for some reason the established international mechanisms do not work, then you just need to turn to common sense. Russia in the modern world, from the point of view of many, today is precisely the bearer of such common sense, both in international relations and in other areas of human life. If the UN and other organizations intended for this in their present form are not able to solve the problems that have arisen in the world, then we must return to that initial position when the UN and everything else did not exist. That is, to solve the situation with the help of common sense, based on real power, just like during the Second World War. At the moment, thank God, Russia has regained such opportunities. And speaking of resolving urgent situations, I do not mean exclusively the state of LDNR, Ossetia or Transnistria, but generally a radical correction of the situation that arose in the post-Soviet space as a result of the collapse of the USSR. I am not talking about the complete reanimation of the Soviet Union within its original borders, but at least the restoration of a certain historical justice, which at the time of this collapse and after it was repeatedly and in many places violated, not without the participation of our Western "partners."
And after solving the overdue problems in this way, it is possible on this basis to create a new world order and new international organizations that meet modern requirements. If we go the opposite way, that is, start with the reform of UN institutions, etc., then in the foreseeable future, conflicts cannot be expected, rather, on the contrary, tensions in the world will only worsen.
Information