EXCLUSIVE Interview with first head of LPR South-East Army counter-intelligence unit Vladimir Gromov about paths the future of Ukraine and South-East could take. (Interview by PolitWera. Translation by V.P.E.)
- Can we say that partitioning of Ukraine benefits the West? If yes, why?
V.G.: I would put it this way. Nobody needs Ukraine in its current configuration. The “color revolution” tactic based predominantly on destruction and division, is a US tactic. It’s a technology that took Washington decades to develop. Ukraine is a multinational state. And starting from 00s US has provoked a number of ethnic conflicts between Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians, between Crimean Tatars and Russians in Crimea. The most successful was, however, escalation of tensions between Russian speaking population of Ukraine and «svidomiti» (from Polish świadomi – term used for radical Ukrainian nationalists). Three years of military conflict in Donbass give us all the reasons to ask ourselves – do we need the whole of Ukraine?
I understand that the guilt for this situation lies on shoulders of criminal regime led by Poroshenko. But, the people in the rest of Ukraine have also shown lack of common sense and haven’t stood up for end of hostilities in Donbass. That means that Ukraine is not «friendly» anymore (as it used to be) and not a brotherly nation! Right now we can build our relations only as pragmatists, based on expediency and practical necessity.
That’s why so called « federalization and decentralization» accompanied by partitioning of Ukrainian territory is long overdue and, I’m sure, is irreversible. Who benefits from this? As always, a powerful few, including political players. Can we say that this benefits European Union? I don’t know. Europe itself is on the brink of collapse. EU needs to take care of its own wellbeing and think about its own future. And Russia does not need a land poisoned by «swidomiti» and Russophobia.
- What scenarios do you envision for the current situation in Ukraine?
V.G.: Very dire. It’s both economic collapse and downfall of the political regime. The fighting of oligarchical clans between themselves and everybody against everybody, including rise of radically minded members of political elite and military. In time, this will inevitably lead to «Makhnovia» and will bring out different types of «fighters for independence»!
A country that does not have healthy national idea is doomed to failure and ruin.
- Who is obstructing Minsk agreements and who is benefiting from this?
V.G: Implementation of Minsk II is the most optimal path for Ukraine and Ukrainians themselves. However, this does not factor into plans of globalists and current Ukrainian regime. The conflict in Donbass is beneficial to US and EU as it provokes instability of political situation inside Russia and weakens its economic potential.
It’s no secret that the real purpose of ATO is to make Russia a part of this conflict and give it a format «Ukraine-Russia». That’s why Ukrainian puppets are forced to maintain this bloody fireplace to please their western masters. Also, Poroshenko and Groysman are not the only ones who are directly interested in this. Ukrainian business elite as well. There are many names, but I won’t call them out. Who knows, maybe they will get offended ;)
Unfortunately, today even common folk in Ukraine have not realized that Ukrainian army is killing civilians in Donbass. The process of enlightenment of Ukrainians as a nation unfortunately keeps getting postponed. This is due to the political course the Ukraine has chosen right after collapse of the USSR and vector that pushed for promotion of «samostijnost‘» (slang for independence) which contributed to disposal of correct social consciousness and distortion of perception of reality. Ukrainian mass media has certainly helped to achieve this. Right now Kiev regime controls all of the security agencies and the army, and having this kind of repression apparatus, it is easy to get rid of dissent.
However, in spite of severe repression of any opinion that differs from that of state political propaganda, several «examples» (of dissent) have popped up. Such as Nadezhda Savchenko and Nikolai Dulski, leader of radical right party „Nazhdak“ who spill bits and pieces of truth about Kiev regime and in fact became a nuisance not only to the regime but also to the members of «quiet» political elite who are waiting for their time.
Such «dissenters» contribute the necessary discord to those processes at the time when the «dying» elite is trying to reach at least some kind of compromise. And this is good. At least because right now, there is no politician in Ukraine capable of bringing country to constitutional order. That means that a transition period is required, until sensible political leaders will appear. And exactly to that end Minsk is required.
- Does a (political) force exist in Ukraine, capable of standing up to terror?
V.G.: As the events of last three years have shown, no political force has arisen, that is capable of mobilizing the people against «maidowns». There is no national idea. There are no positive processes that can sober up the Ukrainian society. The country exists only within one paradigm: hatred towards Russia. Anti-Russia.
- Where did Constitutional Opposition of Ukraine go? Why did it disappear from public view?
V.G.: The idea to return Ukraine to the constitution of «pre-maidan» period could’ve been very promising. However, the organization and their program went unimplemented.
Maybe one of the reasons for this failure is the internal contradiction that is already present in its name. How can one be in opposition to the Constitution? Or «in Opposition to Ukraine»? It’s the Kiev regime that is trampling all over the Constitution and in fact stands it opposition to it. This is clearly the case of “how you name your boat, it will sail accordingly”.
Furthermore, I don’t dismiss the idea that this organization was created as the means for a possible provocation. In that case it doesn’t surprise me why it didn’t work out.
In any case, tests of possible influence of this «political force» have shown to the Ukrainians that neither people of Ukraine, nor the politicians, present and future, are capable of abiding by the laws, including Constitution. At least current Constitution. Ukrainians are not ready to live in a country where laws are being followed.
- Who can become a leader of the protest movement in Ukraine? Are there any leaders in Kiev at the moment?
V.G.: There were five presidents during the period of independent Ukraine, and the (political) course have always remained the same – Ukraine is Anti-Russia. It’s not very clear how the leaders of former government of Ukraine are trying to save the country while residing in Moscow. Besides that, they present their ideas of restoration of the country in a way that will restore their positions there in full. Of course, the mission of the former leaders could be counted as successful in case if European Court of Human Rights will recognize the events transpired in February 2014 an anti-constitutional coup.
Therefore, unfortunately, today we can look at the following scenarios: government of the country could only be headed by radical right leaders that have the support of ultranationalist battalions.
- Could the conflict in South-East Ukraine be solved by political means? How could it end? Shall Russia partake? If yes, then in what capacity and how?
V.G.: There are countless discussions about the ways to deal with the conflict in South East. However, to this date commitment to implement the Minsk agreements have only been shown by DPR, LPR and Russia, which is by the way not a side of the conflict. Kiev have only been engaging in political speculations and declarations of intentions while escalating tensions in the conflict zone. That is why I see the situation in Donbass and in Ukraine as a whole in light of a statement made by Sergei Lavrov, that it is necessary to “close the project Ukraine” and return the country to its historical place, – in the sphere of influence of Russia.
That means, that Kremlin today has enough power and influence not only to deal with this situation, but also to set its priorities in future of geopolitics. Statements made by Moscow all this time were quite pragmatic and well thought out. And if Russia is creating its own footholds around the world, it means only one thing: Kremlin has the potential to solve any geopolitical issue.