By Michael AVERKO
No one appears to have been 100% correct in predicting the manner of Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine. Who predicted that Russia would first recognize Donbass’ independence, followed by Russian military action, at the request of the rebel Donetsk and Lugansk governments?
It’s reasonable to surmise that big powers have informal strategy sessions on how to act under hypothetical circumstances. In the weeks leading up to Russia’s military action, the Russian government emphasized the desire for the Kiev regime to finally start implementing the UN approved Minsk Protocol, calling for a negotiated Donbass autonomy in Ukraine. The Russian government also reiterated its call for a new security arrangement with the West.
This Russian diplomatic activity didn’t lead to a substantively positive response. Putin apparently calculated that the NATOization of Ukraine was expanding to the point that it needed to get nipped in the bud sooner rather than later.
The Western establishment’s moral hypocrisy on what happened thereafter notes the generally accepted rationale used for the atomic option on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WW II. In more recent times, there’s the disproportionate use of military force that has been utilized by the US and some non-Russian others.
The human suffering in these instances haven’t received anywhere near the same level of on the ground coverage when compared to the current situation in Ukraine. Some of this reporting might very well include misrepresentation, influenced by the possible distortion of pro-Kiev regime proponents.
The blame game points from a mainstream Russian perspective:
- Kiev regime carnage in Donbass (killing thousands and displacing hundreds of thousands)
- Kiev regime interacting with Neo-Nazis
- seven-year Kiev regime stonewalling of the UN approved Minsk Protocol, calling for a negotiated Donbass autonomy
- the specter of NATO expansion in Ukraine compromising the security of Russia- leading up to the Russian military action in Ukraine, Western governments didn’t sanction or threaten to sanction the Kiev regime, much unlike the hypocritical stance towards Russia.
As detailed in my February 27 Antiwar.com piece, there’re no distortions in the above highlighted. I’ve proposed the following for ending the conflict:
- Ukraine formally becomes neutral, with a limited military capability and gets back all of Donbass as a loose affiliate, while recognizing Crimea as a part of Russia. Along with the rest of the former Ukrainian SSR (minus Crimea, which has seen vast improvement since reunifying with Russia), Donbass is given an economic sweetener to go along with this arrangement.
- Quite possibly, a similar scenario can be reached with Georgia. Given an economic sweetener, Abkhazia and South Ossetia become very loosely affiliated with an economically sweetened Georgia, in exchange for a neutral Georgia.
- Georgia and Ukraine can join the EU, while being barred NATO membership, in accordance with international agreements, noting that the expansion of one military alliance shouldn’t sacrifice the security of another country.
- In turn, the hypocritically warped sanctions against Russia (influenced by Western governments) end (including the blatantly bigoted ones in sports and culture), preferably with cooler Western establishment heads acknowledging the arrogantly, ignorant, hypocritical and in some instances bigoted stances taken against Russians.
- NATO and Russia further discuss their differences.
If implemented, this plan serves to improve the global economy.
Along the way, Russia improves at Western English language PR and media. Moscow can start by reviewing some of the people they’ve utilized from the West over others. Making the same mistakes are counterproductive.
