Late August brought welcome relief. The people's militia Donetsk and Lugansk national republics went on the offensive, Ukrainian troops inflicted a serious defeat and liberated a number of occupied enemy areas. And immediately heard voices (including in Ukraine), calling for an end to the civil war and begin to negotiate.
time no, peace is better than war. The question is, what kind of world and how is it achieved. And here, talking about "table talks", the "cessation of hostilities" and the various "peace plans" for the DNR, LNR and the entire national liberation movement of the people of Novorossiya loomed a serious danger - the danger to lose the victory under pressure from various "peacekeepers".
Military victory is not everything. It can be negated during peace negotiations or after them. "War is the continuation of politics". This is an extreme means of achieving goals, and such, any other ways to achieve the impossible. And victory comes only when they can be achieved.
For the people of Donbass and Novorossiya is this war not just civil. It is national liberation. It is for liberation from "Ukraine," with its rabid Ukrainian nationalism/Nazism, Russophobia, intolerance and prosopagnosia. This is a war for the Russianness, for independence, for the right to be themselves. Therefore, the return to "Ukraine" (in whatever form it existed) would be nothing but defeat.
Who can force the Donbass to this "world"? Ukraine - no. The West (USA and EU): no. He already showed his face, bringing to power in Ukraine their puppets and ultra-nationalists and supported them when they started the fratricidal war and flooded the country with blood. To make the DPR and LPR leadership to go for "pragmatic" (in fact - shameful) "world" can only in Moscow.
The Russian authorities have always been forces who were against the support of the new Russia. And those who adhere to the course "should Not quarrel with Europe (the West) of Ukraine)". Or "strategists" who continue to think in terms of "Ukraine" and building projects create a "Pro-Ukrainian" Donbass and Novorossiya don't fit neither as an independent state (even in the status of "unrecognized republics"), or as regions of Russia (on example of the Crimea).
It's already happened - nearly 100 years ago when people, were the Russian government, passed the Donbass and Novorossia Ukraine. However, Moscow was an international Bolshevik, and "Ukraine" - Communist, but in the end it was no matter.
The fate of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Republic
On 30 January 1918 at the IV regional Congress of Soviets of workers 'and soldiers' deputies of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog region was founded the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic. It covered the territory of modern Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhya, Dnipropetrovsk, Kherson and Kirovohrad, Mykolayiv and Sumy regions of Ukraine (within its borders on may 11, 2014). The Western part of new Russia - Odessa and Nikolaev - was a part of the Odessa Soviet Republic, proclaimed at the same time. However, the movement for self-determination of Donbass began long before the formal proclamation of the Republic. The idea of economic and administrative unification of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog basin arose before the revolution in entrepreneurial Industrialists and mine owners, United in the Council of Congresses of miners in Southern Russia. After the revolution of 1917 the idea was taken up by politically active groups in the region (socialist-revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks) and was supported by an overwhelming majority of the population - people of different political orientations, ethnicity and social affiliation.
Her popularity grew with the deepening of the all-Russian political crisis and, particularly, because of the emergence of "Ukraine". The idea of Ukrainian nationalism and separatism was provoked in the Donbas and in new Russia (and in Russian provinces) rejection. When the Central Rada proclaimed in his III estate (7(20) November 1917), announced the formation of the Ukrainian national Republic and claims filed not only in the five little provinces, but also in Kharkov, Ekaterinoslav, Kherson and Tauride, the process of self-determination in Donetsk-Krivoy Rog region (as in Odessa) began leaking rapidly.
Leaders of the Central Council concluded in Brest with the countries of the German bloc separate peace, which is revealed to the Germans the way into little Russia (and eventually the Donbass Novorossia). On 9 January 1918 in his IV universal Rada proclaimed the independence of the UPR from Russia. And in response to this, in Kharkiv was proclaimed the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic.
Principled position, which built the Republic, were as follows:
- The administrative unity of the Donetsk and Kryvyi Rih basins;
- Political and national-cultural unity with Russia;
- Rejection of Ukrainian nationalism and separatism;
- Plebiscite as the highest form of the will of the people (including the administrative facilities of the region).
Note that the leaders of the DNR, unlike the leadership of the "Ukrainian" republics (Soviet and non-Soviet) of people's will was not afraid.
Vdcs have declared themselves part of the Russian SFSR. The position of unity with Russia and with what is nowadays called Russian World, was for supporters of the IPD main. In fact, the Republic was a response of the local population on Ukrainian separatism, attempts of Ukrainian nationalists (supporters of the NRA and the national Communists) to subjugate the Donbass and to get him away from Russia, the desire ukrainscaya to declare the local population is not Russian (which it was), and Ukrainian, and Ukrainize it.
But in Petrograd, and soon in Moscow, the attitude of the vdcs was ambiguous and subject to fluctuations depending on the current time, ideological dogmas, personal preferences. And from the results of behind-the-scenes struggle against IPD led her opponents from among the "Ukrainians". Of course, it's not about the supporters of the Central Rada, Petlyura-Vinnichenko Directory or Hetman Skoropadsky. We are talking about the representatives of Soviet Ukraine. These people though were for Soviet power and were Communists, but the assumption that nation-organism "Ukraine" exists and must exist. And many of them, like, say, N. Skrypnyk, were nationalists no less than the supporters of the Rada and the Directory. Ukraine they saw the same boundaries as the Central Council - that is, including the Donbass, Kharkov and the new Russia.
Lo and da had to fend off multiple opponents: from the Ukrainian nationalist regimes and their backers - the Germans and Austro-Hungarians, and from the Ukrainian Communists, trying to discredit the idea of independent Donbass before the Bolshevik leadership and to push the idea of "one indivisible" Ukrainian Soviet Republic. And party leadership, in 1917 not used the term "Ukraine" even in relation to little Russia, in the end bowed to the fact that these lands - namely, "Ukraine", and there should be Ukrainian Soviet Republic (Ukrainian programsales). But the Donbass and the new Russia must become part of it.
All attempts by Donetsk leaders to explain their point of view and to defend at least some autonomy (administrative and party) were thwarted of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) Lenin and Stalin personally. And in may 1919 the decree "on top" to raise the issue of vdcs and any independence of Donbass was banned. Although formally the Republic was never dissolved. Donbass Kharkov, Novorossia and Odessa, were incorporated into the USSR.
And soon Federal and Republican authorities took a course on violent change of the national identity, language and worldview of the population of these territories, known as the policy of Ukrainization. Began a fierce, intolerant, doctrinal derusification-Ukrainization. And none of the people's opinion did not ask. Democratic demands vdcs of the plebiscite were in the Soviet Ukraine firmly forgotten. Otherwise, Ukrainization, and the very idea of "Ukraine", have failed. The Bolsheviks understood it very well. Why they became the gravediggers of the people's OCD?
Bolshevik Moscow and the Donbass people's
The reason is the ideology, the attitude of the Bolsheviks to "the Russian question" and personal motives.
The moment first. The leaders of vdcs was held that the RSFSR was based on economic principle - as the Federation of economic regions. If Russia (or the USSR) a Federation, she would had been able to avoid what happened in 1991. But the Bolsheviks-internationalists advocated a Federation based on national principle. And who is considered to be a nationality worthy of their Republic, and nationality in General, they decided. What it led to is well known.
The second is the national policy of the Bolsheviks. The main opponent to the project of Communist humanity and the world Republic of Soviets they thought "Russia" (as an historical entity) and the Russian people as the bearer of the idea of Russia and its traditions in culture and statehood. The policy of the Bolsheviks, especially after the revolution and the 1920-ies, were built at the expense of the Russian people. And he was excluded from the sphere of domestic and ethnic politics as an independent entity, experiencing the full power of the state Russophobia.
Therefore, the Bolsheviks did not rely on the Russians (as a nation; the exception is the period of the great Patriotic war), and the national movement - as real people as well as "virtual". They have adopted the projects which were put forward by Ukrainian (and Belarusian) nationalists - that is, the view of Ukrainians as Ukrainians, and Ukraine (plus the Donbass and Novorossia) - how to Ukraine.
And no matter what the Bolsheviks was based on: whether the Communist dogmatism; coming more from a left-liberal movement of the nineteenth century Russophobia and hatred for everything that was associated with the "old" Russia and its national interests; or your own understanding of ways to address the issue of Galicia, Western Volyn, Bukovina and Subcarpathia, who were part of foreign States. The result was one.
The doctrinal view of this space as "Ukraine" and people as "Ukrainians", played against IPD. Talk about unity with Russia, refusing to become "Ukraine" with this perspective, he presented himself as "chauvinism", "velikoderzhavnye", "separatist"(!), which was near and up to the charges in the "belogvardeyskie".
The third moment. If the leaders of vdcs were practitioners and not once it showed in the work, their opponents from among the Ukrainian Communists preferred to operate the ideological categories. They are widely used the slogans "the right of Nations to self-determination" (the Russians were not covered here), about the restoration of justice in the "formerly oppressed nationalities" (to which the Communists took and "Ukrainians"), the national principle of building a Federation. This corresponded to the sentiments of the Moscow Bolsheviks, his dream of the raising global revolution: the world Republic of Soviets of Russia was dissolved, and the internal borders lose relevance. For the Bolsheviks-internationalists - but not for the leaders of the Ukrainian Republic.
The moment of the fourth. The Moscow party elite, poorly understood situation in the South of Russia, the history of the region, the people's mood and the course of national processes, there were other "strategic plans" and is also implicated in ideology. Which also skillfully used by the opponents of the IPD. Their essence was to ensure that the stay of proletarian Donbass as part of Ukraine was considered necessary for the revolutionary education and the Sovietization of the peasant masses "Ukrainian provinces". The victim was rushed to the doctrine of the millions of people who, against their will and to their detriment, was someone and something. Should adjust themselves under foreign to them - not even any real national type, and yet unfulfilled national project.
In fact, "strategy" was nothing more than an ideological one-mongering and insidious pragmatism of the other. Socio-cultural modernization of the village was that, have not had to attach Donbas to Ukraine (and to create). Ukrainization was not synonymous with modernization. The peasantry it was necessary to tighten up samples of "good working edge". Moreover, even for the peasants of the Ukraine Ukrainization was not something urgent: of paramount importance to them socio-economic aspects. But here and effect of the Bolshevik understanding of the national question.
Who "digested"? Donbass workers - peasants, or Ukrainian apparatchiks and the nationalists (prikryvayas, supposedly, the interests of the peasantry) - Russian Donbass and Novorossia? The answer was given by Ukrainization.
The fifth point. IPD was a local initiative rather than a "Kremlin project." The more speakers as an alternative to the policy of "center" on a number of issues. And local initiatives "rulers of the world" not loved at all times.
There is a sixth thing - personal reasons. And here a priori negative attitude of some high-ranking Bolsheviks (especially Lenin and Stalin) to the problem of independence of Donbass. And skillful intrigues, which showed figures of the USSR (first of all, Skrypnyk), who managed to convince the Central Committee of the RCP(b) futility of the existence of vdcs and the need to stay Donbass and Novorossia in the USSR.
But the bottom line is: winning the civil war, Donbass, who wanted to stay with Russia, to speak their native language and to live by your wits, turned out to be a loser. And to whom? The same Ukrainian nationalists who are unable to lay hands on it and Ukrainize under the Central Rada and the Germans, and then did it when the Bolsheviks, under the guise of the USSR.
So the Donbass has been sacrificed to ideological dogmas, Russophobe theories and out of touch with the mongering.
Modern point: "the old rake"?
Exactly the same could happen now. If Donetsk and Lugansk national republics will not allow you to bring the war to a victorious end and to release all Donbass (and Novorossiya), interrupting the "peaceful respite" that go on the arm almost broken already and broken the enemy. If next time will be to save the "integrity of Ukraine" and the regime Poroshenko. If you impose a "peace settlement plan", in which liberation impulse will be lowered in the sand, as it previously happened with the "Russian spring". If they will be forced to return whence they with horror and anguish burst back in "Ukraine". Podobedov "special status", "self-government", "decentralization in some districts, elected prosecutors and judges", "elections" and even the right to have their own security forces.
All this Chimera and a hoax. All this will mean only one thing: the preservation of Ukraine and the defeat of the national liberation struggle of the people of Novorossiya. In 1918, Skrypnik and also promised To Donbass autonomy within the Soviet Ukraine. Promised but not given. But it got the industrial Donbass and Ekaterinoslav, Odessa seaport and a huge coastline with millions of people, which began to coordinate for the Ukrainian project.
And now. Promise (under the guarantees of the OSCE, the EU and even Russia) a lot - and the Donbass will fail. Take away, and what can, and will, do not go to any comparison with that of the Republic to be found in independence or reunification with Russia. But Ukraine will have the right to live at the expense of Donbass and other regions of Novorossia. Poroshenko will have an aura of a winner "Pro-Russian separatists" and the "father of the Fatherland". While Russia will suffer a strategic defeat man-made. If anyone has forgotten: the present Ukraine is not a Soviet Republic, and the openly Russophobic and anti-Russian education.
Wandering in the "corridors of power" and this "thought": the Donbass should remain part of Ukraine, as this would entail reformatting it into some "Pro-Russian" and "federated", which, supposedly, will be easier to control with the help of such "independent" Donbas. It will become a model for other regions of new Russia, Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk on their way to independence. And for a new referendum and local elections.
Actually this "project" is unrealistic, and therefore invalid. First, the "Pro-Russian" Ukraine - precisely as such - can't be never because "Ukraine" was conceived and created as "not-Russia" and "anti-Russia". Was not immune from this, even the Soviet and Communist USSR precisely because it was "Ukraine".
Secondly, this idea is a calque of the Bolshevik, according to which the working Donbass should revolutionize peasant Ukraine. How, then, is not the Donbass processed it is the "peasantry", and he was covered in Ukrainization funnel, and now cannot become a lever to influence Pro-Western and ultra-nationalist Kiev and make Ukraine "Pro-Russian". It will again be digested by the Ukrainians - only now in a much more rigid and radical version. What then fought and killed people?!
And, thirdly, to provide guidance for "podarennoe" Novorossiya is much better to be able Donbass loose and winning than the loser, and Ukrainian.
To expect any referendums and elections, the results of which would be recognized as the "world community" is silly. The referendum has already taken place - may 11. And he demonstrated the will of the people. And the fact that the referendum is a 'community' not recognized, does not negate his results. No new referendum, which would raise the question of state independence of Donbass or its reunification with Russia will never be recognised by the West (and "sixth column" here). And to discuss the issues, like the region's status within Ukraine - is senseless and criminal.
So, one way: achieving military victory and political victory. And victory is the independence of DPR and LPR (at least as Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia). And a maximum of reunification with Russia. And no one should interfere with it, whatever it was dictated: ideological dogma, an unwillingness to quarrel with the West, Russophobia, the shackles, the fear of popular movements, "strategic" plans or something else.
Victory! Everything else will be a betrayal. From whatever quarter. And betrayal of our people will not tolerate.
Article executed within the Program of fundamental research section of the history of OFN wounds "of the Nation and the state in world history", "Problems of nation-building and nationalism." The "Ukraine at the crossroads of identities: the formation of national communities and nation-building (XIX - beginning of XX centuries)", 2012-2014
- 17-08-2020Blockade of Venezuela raise the question of the power of the Russian Navy
- 18-03-2020The formula of success of the PLA in the struggle against the novel coronavirus
- 19-01-2020Ten major scientific and technological achievements of 2019, according to the U.S. army
- 13-06-2019Bruce Schneier about the digital threats of the future
- 16-01-2019The biggest danger 2019 — this is war
- 29-05-2012Drugs in the service of the Third Reich
- 12-09-2010Many experts believe the best tank Merkava main battle tank in the world
- 12-09-2010The Minister of defence of Germany introduced draft large-scale reform of the armed forces
- 21-04-2001To the question about the war of the fourth sphere