Published: 11 December 2015
Vice President of the United States of America and the patron of the Kiev regime known as “the overseer of the Ukrainian colony”, Joseph Biden, called for the federalization of the country directly from the parliamentary stand while on a visit to Kiev. What does this mean? Is this a recognition of the partial defeat of the US in Ukraine, a cunning diplomatic move, or did a high-ranking US official simply lose his memory?
Let’s begin with the less sensational. This deputy of Barack Obama stated verbatim that there is no such corruption anywhere else in the world as there is in Ukraine. How badly it has turned out! For two years since the Maidan Kiev has been run by the US’ protoges. “Activists from the barricades,” “volunteers,” and “heroes of the ATO” were put in high state offices, but corruption in Ukraine is still the worst in the world? Has the government been practically fully refreshed only to leave clerks in their places?
Has it turned out that these [authorities] are no less corrupt than those that were there before? In fact, observant Ukrainian journalists noticed interesting signs. Speaking of corruption, Biden pointed his finger to the right, where the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, was located.
In addition, the Vice President of the US supposedly still looks at the head of the Ukrainian state eloquently. And he did not lift his hands at him. It is no different from how the “brain of the Maidan” fell into the highest favor. Everything points to the fact that they prepared Arseniy for the unflattering fate of being the “sacrificial rabbit.” However, if only Yatsenyuk will be subject to political slaughter, this would be, as a minimum, unfair. He is not the head of the state, who is essentially an oligarch who has been developing his fortune over the past year and in contradiction to all conceivable laws is continuing to openly run his business empire. And it was not Yatsenyuk who shoved his godparents and young managers from a confectionary factory into positions equivalent to that of ministers.
But these are just details. The most important thing is that Biden openly recognized the fact that their [the US’] protoges are at least no less corrupt than their predecessors.
But the second revelation is much more sensational than the first, which is nonetheless obvious.
Joseph Biden, over the course of his speech in front of all the senior leadership of Ukraine within the walls of the Rada, urged the country to be transformed into a wide federation:
“Constitutional reforms which include reforming the judicial system and decentralization, the aim of which is the utilization of the best European practice – these are not a rejection of democratic principles and are not an erosion of sovereignty…It is important that there be autonomous, independent states which solve their own problems, which will determine their own education system and government in the framework of a united constitution.”
As experts correctly noted, in the English language the word “state” means both “state” [as in a state of the United States – J. Arnoldski] and “state” [as in a country or government – J. Arnoldski]. That is, Biden straightforwardly pointed to the futility of Ukrainian unity and the need to transform Ukraine into a federation. And this means turning into a very loose and decentralized federation, even with differing educational systems!
Overall, Biden literally proposed what Russia proposed. Here is an insidious “vatnik” and “agent of the Kremlin!”
Leading Ukrainian “media” (sorry for the quotes, but I wouldn’t dare calling most of Ukrainian TV channels and newspapers “media” without quotation marks) tried not to bring this to the attention of the public. Either nothing was said, or they merely referred to a statement of a casual American guest. This was clearly on purpose since such news is sensational. The only one of the “top” Ukrainian publications which dared to draw the attention of the public to “Biden’s federalization” was “Korrespondent.”
Only Lyashko’s “radicals” were in a state of fury over the instructions of the Vice President of the United States. The rest of Ukrainian politicians were stunned into silence on the matter.
What are some possible explanations for Biden’s behavior?
Of course, it is possible that Biden has “grown tired” and “given up,” but this is unlikely. The rest of his speech was quite conscious and clear. He said many of his usual things. He spoke of “Ukrainian-American friendship,” said that “the US will never recognize Crimea as Russian” and all that kind of stuff.
Therefore, only two main possible reasons remain:
The first possibility is that it was a distraction. Ukraine is carrying out a fake decentralization that has nothing to do with what Biden said and which is today enshrined in all Ukrainian draft laws. The authority of Kiev on all strategic issues is only increasing. But whenever Western media will quote Biden’s words to their audience, Western people will be under the false, created impression that there is a “full democracy” in Ukraine and that the South-East is simply no longer desired.
The second possible explanation is that the US is feeling that it is beginning to lose in Ukraine. This, of course, has been the case many times. The Americans always effectively seize power in different countries and bring enormous destruction through Orange Revolutions and wars. This is how it was in Ukraine after Kuchma, in Georgia, in Libya, in Egypt, Iraq, and many other places. But when it comes to organizing peaceful life and real investments, then the Americans quickly lose interest in these countries. Short-term profit is banal and does not cover short-term interests. In the end, the state either ceases to exist, as in Libya, or a government not too loyal to the US which doesn’t pose any threat to the policies of the States emerges again.
Apparently, American experts have come to believe that a unified Ukraine is not viable in principle, and if nothing is done, then it will soon collapse into at least two parts with the possible departure of its border regions to neighbors. Such a variant is categorically not in the interest of the Americans. Formed on the basis of the South-East of Ukraine, such a state would be radically anti-American and would seek to join, as a maximum, Russia or at least the Eurasian Economic Union. Plus there is the chance that a wave of expansion of borders would increase the popularity of the Hungarian authorities who are not too thrilled with America.
Plus there is the “land bridge” to Russia which Transnistria would get. Plus, in one fell swoop, all the infrastructural problems of Crimea would be resolved. The central, northern, and partially the western territories of Ukraine would, by definition as a political formation, be poor and underdeveloped. In the end, it would be doomed to the status of a “buffer.” This would be a disaster for US policy in Eastern Europe.
Federalization, to a certain extent, will allow the South-East to “let off some steam” and feel some freedom. The hated Banderites would disappear from Kharkiv and Odessa textbooks, the official status of the Russian language would begin to recover, and a bit more of taxes would remain in the industrial regions. But the key issues of national security and foreign policy would remain in the hands of Kiev, fully controlled by Washington.
Moreover, tremendous changes would distract people for a while from economic problems. Russia would begin to restore economic ties with at least some of separate “states” of Ukraine where a pro-Russian elite would be in power. And the resulting taxes would go to bolstering the “European” course of Kiev at the central level.
It is clear that this will not be a solution for the US, but it would at least buy significant time for the issue. And this would also be a tactical victory.
Every decision has its time. If a year and a half ago federalization definitely played into the hands of Moscow, then now this is quite doubtful. A number of additional conditions are arising even without which federalization could still be used against the Russian Federation. This will only have some kind of positive meaning for Russia and, consequently, the population of the South-East, if a neutral status for Ukraine will be guaranteed and there will be a complete renunciation of the suicidal European Association that Kiev is clearly not getting…
Overall, the “game of chess” in Ukraine is continuing. The situation is complicated by the fact that for the Americans there are only soulless chess pieces in Ukraine, but for us they are real people…