Alex Kobyshcha

This is Alexei Navalny’s text detailing his position on the impending Crimea referendum, potential annexation, and Russian imperialism. He posted it on March 12, 2014, in his LiveJournal. This is provided for reference in discussions. It is an unabridged translation by Claude. My edits are minimal and intended only for clarity. Detailed Position on Ukraine and Crimea I've been told that people are leaving comments on all my posts saying "Why won't Navalny speak up about Crimea? He must be scared? Trying to sit on the fence!" I do want to sit on the fence, of course (who doesn't), but I'm also ready to lay out my full position. This is a politician's primary responsibility — to have a position on important issues. If you remember, my election campaign was built on meeting voters and answering any question they had. Right now, at any voter meeting, the question of Ukraine and Crimea would be one of the first raised. Since I'm under house arrest and the Kremlin crooks, through their pocket judges, have banned me from using the internet, I'm responding in a new format: I come up with the questions myself and answer them on paper. The "collective Navalny" will then post this to LiveJournal. Your comments will be printed out on paper for me later. — How do you feel about what happened in Ukraine? What actually happened there? In Ukraine, there was a popular uprising against a corrupt and thieving government. The core of this uprising was Kyiv and the western regions of the country, but the majority of the south-east also (silently) supported it — otherwise Yanukovych would not currently be holding strange press conferences in Rostov-on-Don. The political party I lead has issued a statement on this subject. The people have the right to revolt when all other political means of struggle have been exhausted. I won't go on at length. Two examples of what "Yanukovych's rule" looked like: a) Yanukovych's son, who used to be a dentist, rapidly became a dollar billionaire. What could better illustrate the monstrous corruption? b) Prime Minister Azarov, who was largely responsible for starting the Maidan, spent a long time lecturing everyone about the terrible West, foreign influence, and "Gayrope," yet after his resignation he quickly fled to live in Austria, where his family has an estate and bank accounts. What could better illustrate monstrous hypocrisy? Whether you're from Donetsk or from Lviv — any decent person understands that such a government needs to be changed. Thief Yanukovych decided that those who were unhappy with him should be beaten over the head. Then he decided they should be shot. And so he ended up in Rostov. I would be terribly curious to know what he's thinking right now. Because if, after the first violent crackdown and the beating of students, instead of digging his heels in, he had addressed the nation and fired a couple of cops — he would still be president today. He would have been voted out eventually, yes. But he could have lived quietly, remaining one of the most influential politicians and the leader of the most influential party. This is a lesson for everyone who builds their power on the principle of "I want everything." — Why does Putin rage so much about what's happening in Ukraine? Two words: golden bread loaf. Photos of people walking through Yanukovych's residence on public tours, photographing the zoo, golden bread loaves, and golden toilets, pierce our chief crook right to the heart. Yanukovych would cry like a little girl if he saw how much more Putin and his friends have stolen. Their loaves are diamond-encrusted. The thought that ordinary people might walk through Novo-Ogaryovo, or Zavidovo, or Shuiskaya Chupa, or the palace in Gelendzhik — photographing his, Putin's, horses and golden bread loaves — while documents about his finances are dredged out of the rivers, sends him into a fury. Let's be honest with ourselves: we all understand that Putin intends to be Russia's president for life, with the rights and lifestyle of a tsar-emperor. An uprising against a fellow thief-emperor in a neighboring country is a threat, a challenge, and a terrible example. That is why Putin is simply taking personal revenge on the entire Ukrainian people and the entire country of Ukraine. It is not mindless revenge — he considers it quite rational to go to any lengths to show that such revolutions end badly. The message being: "there will be a collapse of the country." So he is arranging a collapse of the country. In doing so he is causing colossal long-term damage to Russia, but that doesn't concern him — we're not living for a hundred years, after all. — Is war with Ukraine possible, and what is your view on sending troops into Ukrainian territory? You can call me a Slavic chauvinist, but I believe that Russia's greatest strategic advantage in this turbulent world is not oil, not gas, and not nuclear bombs — but the friendly (and even fraternal, let's be honest) relations between Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians. I spent seven days in a detention center, sharing a cell with, among others, a Belarusian who had come to work, an Azerbaijani, and an Uzbek. All good guys, and we all amicably ate potatoes and sprats together — but with the Belarusian or the Ukrainian, each of us instantly feels a sense of unity and shared cultural codes. I'm not sure how to put it more precisely. Nobody forms any cliques or takes a stand against other nationalities — it's just immediately clear: they are the same as me. I understand this is a rather politically incorrect thought, but I wanted to articulate it. We are constantly being sold some nonsense about Eurasianism and why we should be bringing everyone in from Central Asia. But go and talk to any Uzbek under 40. For him, Russians, Americans, and New Zealanders are all the same. They don't know the Russian language. We read different books, watched different films, have different proverbs, different values and reference points. I'm not saying there's a conflict, or that Central Asian peoples are our enemies — but still, with Ukraine and Belarus we are like brothers in different apartments, not just neighbors. It's clear there are nuances, different regions, and so on. But the alliance Putin is currently forging — roughly called "Russia and Central Asia against Ukraine" — strikes me as absurd. It's some kind of perversion. When you arrive in Kyiv, do you feel like you're in a foreign city? No. Neither do I. That's the whole point. Let me remind you again: look at the map. Ukraine is enormous and its population is enormous. 48 million people. One of the largest peoples in Europe, and one-third of Russia's population. The largest country in Europe after Russia. Friendly and fraternal relations with this country and its people are Russia's most important geopolitical asset. That asset is being destroyed before our eyes, right now, by Putin — in fear for his golden bread loaf (see above). This is a crime. To close my answer to this question, I can only quote once more the image circulating all over the internet: if Russians and Ukrainians are told to shoot each other, they should stand back-to-back on the border and shoot those who give such orders. — What do you say about the violation of the rights of Russians in Ukraine and Crimea? Ah, here is the important part. And I largely sat down to write this post in order to answer this question. Because it was precisely for my position on the need to protect the rights of Russians where they are a minority that Kremlin propagandists like Solovyov — who are now shrieking about the need to send in troops — were, not so long ago, calling me exclusively a "Nazi." Well, this entire "United Russia" gang — with its Putins, Federation Councils, and assorted "cultural figures" singing along — are hypocritical animals and enemies of the Russian people. Where were they when Russians were being driven out of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan by the hundreds of thousands? Where were they when Russians were being slaughtered in Chechnya? Why do they stay silent now, when unpunished Chechen thugs calling themselves "community representatives" rape people and get suspended sentences? The history of recent years contains hundreds of cases of actual violations of the rights of Russians, many involving violence. The thieving gang stayed silent about all of this, and only began singing their song now — when Putin's golden bread loaf faces hypothetical danger. Let's speak in numbers. [The table showing the number of Russians by region from the 1989 census versus the most recent credible data. The numbers show decrease in the share of Russians in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and Central Asia] Look at that table and tell me: in which region were the rights of Russians violated more? In Crimea? Or perhaps in Chechnya — where half of everything in existence is named after a man who called for "killing as many Russians as possible," and where all the killers who fought against our soldiers were given the title "Hero of Russia"? Sitting under house arrest, I've naturally been watching more television. And it is absolutely monstrous lies. Genuine Goebbels-level propaganda. I believe that all these scoundrels lying about "160,000 refugees from Ukraine" (where are they? A whole city's worth of people should be visible from a satellite), "militants who attacked the Voronezh region" (where are they? Surely the police would have caught them by now — show us) and so on, should be put on trial. Forgive the pathos, but these are genuine "warmongers." We even have a criminal statute for that. It would be foolish to deny that there is a large number of people in Crimea who want to join Russia and/or expand their autonomy. But the claims that troops need to be sent to Crimea "to protect Russians" are nonsense and hypocrisy from people who for years have consistently betrayed and sold out Russians wholesale and retail everywhere — from Turkmenistan (betraying their interests in exchange for gas contracts) to Chechnya. — Do you think it's fair that Crimea belongs to Ukraine? Well, of course not. The fact that Crimea was randomly "handed over" to Ukraine is wrong, unfair, and offensive to any normal citizen of Russia. Crimea was transferred by the illegal, arbitrary decision of the crank Khrushchev. The responsibility for this lies with the Communist Party and all those idiotic Politburos — something the communists who have suddenly become so bellicose would do well to remember. On top of that, having to pay "rent" for the Black Sea Fleet base is simply infuriating. Crimea is beautiful, wonderful. My wife and I spent our first holiday together there. — Does that mean you support the actions to incorporate Crimea into Russia? No, I do not support such actions. Let me explain why: 1. I believe that Russia's international commitments and Russia's word should be worth something. As I see it, the main reason why Russia guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity (with Crimea, unfortunately) was the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal (at the time the third largest in the world, after Russia and the United States). Is the deal a fair exchange — recognition of Crimea as Ukrainian in return for the third-largest nuclear arsenal and renunciation of nuclear-power status? I don't know. But it is worth something. This agreement was signed by the man Putin had been working for since 1996 — Yeltsin. And somehow Putin never expressed any objections to this agreement before. The golden bread loaves changed everything. 2. Let me have someone else state the second reason — a guy who said this in 2005, when he was still just a corrupt politician and had not yet decided to become an emperor: [Link to Vladimir Putin's 2005 press conference video, in which he says to a journalist: "Are you suggesting we need take it all back? Crimea? Territories of other former Soviet Republics? Klaipeda? Do you want this? Probably not."] Changing the borders of states in Europe by force and military means is unacceptable. It will lead to nothing good. We rightly condemn the US and its allies for all that nonsense they pulled with Kosovo. We were right to condemn it. Let's be consistent. For us, the question of territorial integrity is a painful one. It is in Russia's interest to always bury this topic and always come out against it, as China does. 3. The referendum. Referendums are not held like this. Not in such a short timeframe, with that kind of campaigning (see image of propaganda poster), and with international observers barred. The campaign line — "CRIMEA'S BUDGET WILL DOUBLE AND WAGES WILL QUADRUPLE IF THE REGION JOINS RUSSIA" — also looks magnificent. With that approach we can annex any country. Let's promise to quadruple wages and the USA will vote to join us as a federal subject. I have little doubt that in a fair referendum "we want to join Russia" would win anyway. So hold a fair referendum, not this farce. But that is less important. What is important is that Russia SHOULD UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPORT SUCH REFERENDUMS. The economy will weaken, we won't be able to keep shipping wagons full of money to Kadyrov. This will happen sooner or later. There is no doubt that he will immediately launch a referendum on independence. Russians are no longer there (see the table above), so the outcome is obvious. Will we accept it? Will we allow it? A referendum on the independence of the Kaliningrad region. Will we allow it? Accept it? A referendum in Dagestan? In Tuva? We — not even our children, but we ourselves — will live to see the day when some regions of the Far East have more Chinese residents than Russians. Shall we let them hold a referendum too? I would point out that attempting to hold such a referendum in Russia carries a prison sentence. A law was recently passed under which if you write on VKontakte "I want to organize such a referendum," criminal proceedings will be opened against you. So why are we ourselves encouraging such referendums? So that in ten years, other countries — citing our own precedent — will recognize Chechen independence? In Russia itself, Putin and United Russia have organized the legislation so that it is impossible to hold a referendum. In other words, referendums are banned for Russians in Russia — and for everyone else too. In 15 years there has not been a single federal, regional, or local referendum (except for a couple that the authorities themselves organized on merging federal subjects). And yet here the Kremlin crowd has suddenly become so receptive to citizens expressing their will. This is a major strategic blunder that will come back to haunt our country badly. The consequences of the "annexation" of Crimea will be extremely disadvantageous for Russia in the medium and long term: Accelerated NATO expansion Accelerated deployment of missile defense systems directly at our borders A reduced role for international organizations, in particular the UN Security Council — and Russia, as a country with a weak economy, clearly has an interest in strengthening the UN's role Greater economic slowdown and reduced GDP. Obviously there will be no outright economic catastrophe, but within a year the effects will be felt by everyone. — Fine, you don't want annexation. What should be done then? What is the way out? Nothing original: Expand Crimea's autonomy Guarantee the use of the Russian language for everyone who wishes to speak it Guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO Guarantee the permanent and rent-free presence of Russia's Black Sea Fleet in Crimea Amnesty for participants in the current strange administration in Crimea, and guarantees against criminal prosecution Everyone is satisfied. Everyone saves face. Ukraine preserves its territorial integrity. Nobody gets the massive headache that comes with changing the borders of a European state. — What will actually happen? I believe that there will be no actual incorporation of Crimea into Russia. We will see a classic Putin move: "two steps forward, one step back." Right now they'll puff out their chests and then back off — simply recognizing the referendum and independence. That's always how he does it. They introduce a law fining you a million rubles for attending a protest, then "concede" — the fine is 200,000. They want to sentence someone to seven years, then "concede" and give an innocent person 3 years. That's always how it works, in everything — if you watch carefully. I am by no means suggesting that Putin is a coward who is easily frightened. Most of the intelligent people whose judgment I trust believe that Putin's flexibility is precisely his strength. He always sidesteps direct confrontations and conflicts. Clever, in his way. My prediction: Crimea will unfortunately become yet another "strange territory," like South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, and Karabakh. Everyone will be handed passports. At elections there will be one more million voters casting 99% of their votes for United Russia with 97% turnout. No observers. We will pour enormous amounts of money into Crimea, to no effect — just as the investments in South Ossetia have produced nothing. Only the "leadership of the unrecognized republic" will get rich. The state of Crimea will be recognized only by Russia and Tuvalu. Everyone will have a mountain of problems, but certain individuals will profit handsomely from those problems. That's it. I hope I have clarified my position on Ukraine and Crimea. In closing — apologies again for the pathos — two appeals. 1. To Ukrainians. My dear friends, you can see that this is a provocation. Putin wants you to spend your energy not building a new state, but having hysterics over Crimea. Why do you even need Crimea? Let it determine its own fate. You have the chance to build a genuinely European state and not repeat the mistakes of 2004, when the same kind of corrupt politicians came to power after the Orange Revolution. An honest judicial system. An independent anti-corruption commission modeled on Singapore's. A real parliamentary republic where the source of power is a government with support across the whole country. Crush the vile oligarchs who buy up the media and politicians. Genuine public oversight of government. Those are your priorities — not Crimea, and not fighting Russia. All of that is a manipulation designed to preserve and multiply the golden bread loaves on Russian territory. 2. To Russians (and citizens of Russia in general). Imperialism is evil and stupidity. It harms the interests of the Russian people. We need to develop and grow our human capital — so that people are healthy, educated, and live long lives, instead of dying before retirement age as they do now. We are dismantling the Academy of Sciences, yet investing money in the Olympics and strange military operations. But the future lies with the Academy of Sciences, doesn't it? The main interest of Russians is not in seizing land, but in governing the land we already have — properly. Take a look at the map: there's quite a lot of it. Russia should become a European state with one law for all, where the nation's wealth serves the people and is distributed fairly. If we build such a state, everyone will join us voluntarily, without any war. P.S. If you share any of these thoughts, please share this post. It's not very convenient to promote posts from under house arrest, and the propaganda machine is getting tiresome.

emubrigadier's tweet photo. This is Alexei Navalny’s text detailing his position on the impending Crimea referendum, potential annexation, and Russian imperialism.

He posted it on March 12, 2014, in his LiveJournal.

This is provided for reference in discussions. It is an unabridged translation by Claude. My edits are minimal and intended only for clarity.

Detailed Position on Ukraine and Crimea

I've been told that people are leaving comments on all my posts saying "Why won't Navalny speak up about Crimea? He must be scared? Trying to sit on the fence!"

I do want to sit on the fence, of course (who doesn't), but I'm also ready to lay out my full position.

This is a politician's primary responsibility — to have a position on important issues. If you remember, my election campaign was built on meeting voters and answering any question they had.

Right now, at any voter meeting, the question of Ukraine and Crimea would be one of the first raised.

Since I'm under house arrest and the Kremlin crooks, through their pocket judges, have banned me from using the internet, I'm responding in a new format: I come up with the questions myself and answer them on paper.

The "collective Navalny" will then post this to LiveJournal. Your comments will be printed out on paper for me later.

— How do you feel about what happened in Ukraine? What actually happened there?

In Ukraine, there was a popular uprising against a corrupt and thieving government. The core of this uprising was Kyiv and the western regions of the country, but the majority of the south-east also (silently) supported it — otherwise Yanukovych would not currently be holding strange press conferences in Rostov-on-Don.

The political party I lead has issued a statement on this subject.

The people have the right to revolt when all other political means of struggle have been exhausted.
I won't go on at length. Two examples of what "Yanukovych's rule" looked like:

a) Yanukovych's son, who used to be a dentist, rapidly became a dollar billionaire. What could better illustrate the monstrous corruption?

b) Prime Minister Azarov, who was largely responsible for starting the Maidan, spent a long time lecturing everyone about the terrible West, foreign influence, and "Gayrope," yet after his resignation he quickly fled to live in Austria, where his family has an estate and bank accounts. What could better illustrate monstrous hypocrisy?

Whether you're from Donetsk or from Lviv — any decent person understands that such a government needs to be changed. Thief Yanukovych decided that those who were unhappy with him should be beaten over the head. Then he decided they should be shot. And so he ended up in Rostov.

I would be terribly curious to know what he's thinking right now. Because if, after the first violent crackdown and the beating of students, instead of digging his heels in, he had addressed the nation and fired a couple of cops — he would still be president today. He would have been voted out eventually, yes. But he could have lived quietly, remaining one of the most influential politicians and the leader of the most influential party.

This is a lesson for everyone who builds their power on the principle of "I want everything."

— Why does Putin rage so much about what's happening in Ukraine?

Two words: golden bread loaf.

Photos of people walking through Yanukovych's residence on public tours, photographing the zoo, golden bread loaves, and golden toilets, pierce our chief crook right to the heart. Yanukovych would cry like a little girl if he saw how much more Putin and his friends have stolen. Their loaves are diamond-encrusted.

The thought that ordinary people might walk through Novo-Ogaryovo, or Zavidovo, or Shuiskaya Chupa, or the palace in Gelendzhik — photographing his, Putin's, horses and golden bread loaves — while documents about his finances are dredged out of the rivers, sends him into a fury.

Let's be honest with ourselves: we all understand that Putin intends to be Russia's president for life, with the rights and lifestyle of a tsar-emperor.

An uprising against a fellow thief-emperor in a neighboring country is a threat, a challenge, and a terrible example.

That is why Putin is simply taking personal revenge on the entire Ukrainian people and the entire country of Ukraine. It is not mindless revenge — he considers it quite rational to go to any lengths to show that such revolutions end badly. The message being: "there will be a collapse of the country." So he is arranging a collapse of the country. In doing so he is causing colossal long-term damage to Russia, but that doesn't concern him — we're not living for a hundred years, after all.

— Is war with Ukraine possible, and what is your view on sending troops into Ukrainian territory?

You can call me a Slavic chauvinist, but I believe that Russia's greatest strategic advantage in this turbulent world is not oil, not gas, and not nuclear bombs — but the friendly (and even fraternal, let's be honest) relations between Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.

I spent seven days in a detention center, sharing a cell with, among others, a Belarusian who had come to work, an Azerbaijani, and an Uzbek. All good guys, and we all amicably ate potatoes and sprats together — but with the Belarusian or the Ukrainian, each of us instantly feels a sense of unity and shared cultural codes. I'm not sure how to put it more precisely.

Nobody forms any cliques or takes a stand against other nationalities — it's just immediately clear: they are the same as me.

I understand this is a rather politically incorrect thought, but I wanted to articulate it.

We are constantly being sold some nonsense about Eurasianism and why we should be bringing everyone in from Central Asia. But go and talk to any Uzbek under 40. For him, Russians, Americans, and New Zealanders are all the same. They don't know the Russian language. We read different books, watched different films, have different proverbs, different values and reference points.

I'm not saying there's a conflict, or that Central Asian peoples are our enemies — but still, with Ukraine and Belarus we are like brothers in different apartments, not just neighbors. It's clear there are nuances, different regions, and so on.

But the alliance Putin is currently forging — roughly called "Russia and Central Asia against Ukraine" — strikes me as absurd. It's some kind of perversion.

When you arrive in Kyiv, do you feel like you're in a foreign city? No. Neither do I. That's the whole point.

Let me remind you again: look at the map. Ukraine is enormous and its population is enormous. 48 million people. One of the largest peoples in Europe, and one-third of Russia's population. The largest country in Europe after Russia.

Friendly and fraternal relations with this country and its people are Russia's most important geopolitical asset. That asset is being destroyed before our eyes, right now, by Putin — in fear for his golden bread loaf (see above).

This is a crime. To close my answer to this question, I can only quote once more the image circulating all over the internet: if Russians and Ukrainians are told to shoot each other, they should stand back-to-back on the border and shoot those who give such orders.

— What do you say about the violation of the rights of Russians in Ukraine and Crimea?

Ah, here is the important part. And I largely sat down to write this post in order to answer this question.

Because it was precisely for my position on the need to protect the rights of Russians where they are a minority that Kremlin propagandists like Solovyov — who are now shrieking about the need to send in troops — were, not so long ago, calling me exclusively a "Nazi."

Well, this entire "United Russia" gang — with its Putins, Federation Councils, and assorted "cultural figures" singing along — are hypocritical animals and enemies of the Russian people. Where were they when Russians were being driven out of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan by the hundreds of thousands? Where were they when Russians were being slaughtered in Chechnya? Why do they stay silent now, when unpunished Chechen thugs calling themselves "community representatives" rape people and get suspended sentences?

The history of recent years contains hundreds of cases of actual violations of the rights of Russians, many involving violence. The thieving gang stayed silent about all of this, and only began singing their song now — when Putin's golden bread loaf faces hypothetical danger.

Let's speak in numbers.

[The table showing the number of Russians by region from the 1989 census versus the most recent credible data. The numbers show decrease in the share of Russians in Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and Central Asia]

Look at that table and tell me: in which region were the rights of Russians violated more? In Crimea? Or perhaps in Chechnya — where half of everything in existence is named after a man who called for "killing as many Russians as possible," and where all the killers who fought against our soldiers were given the title "Hero of Russia"?

Sitting under house arrest, I've naturally been watching more television. And it is absolutely monstrous lies. Genuine Goebbels-level propaganda.

I believe that all these scoundrels lying about "160,000 refugees from Ukraine" (where are they? A whole city's worth of people should be visible from a satellite), "militants who attacked the Voronezh region" (where are they? Surely the police would have caught them by now — show us) and so on, should be put on trial. Forgive the pathos, but these are genuine "warmongers." We even have a criminal statute for that.

It would be foolish to deny that there is a large number of people in Crimea who want to join Russia and/or expand their autonomy. But the claims that troops need to be sent to Crimea "to protect Russians" are nonsense and hypocrisy from people who for years have consistently betrayed and sold out Russians wholesale and retail everywhere — from Turkmenistan (betraying their interests in exchange for gas contracts) to Chechnya.

— Do you think it's fair that Crimea belongs to Ukraine?

Well, of course not. The fact that Crimea was randomly "handed over" to Ukraine is wrong, unfair, and offensive to any normal citizen of Russia. Crimea was transferred by the illegal, arbitrary decision of the crank Khrushchev. The responsibility for this lies with the Communist Party and all those idiotic Politburos — something the communists who have suddenly become so bellicose would do well to remember.

On top of that, having to pay "rent" for the Black Sea Fleet base is simply infuriating.

Crimea is beautiful, wonderful. My wife and I spent our first holiday together there.

— Does that mean you support the actions to incorporate Crimea into Russia?

No, I do not support such actions. Let me explain why:

1. I believe that Russia's international commitments and Russia's word should be worth something. As I see it, the main reason why Russia guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity (with Crimea, unfortunately) was the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, under which Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal (at the time the third largest in the world, after Russia and the United States).

Is the deal a fair exchange — recognition of Crimea as Ukrainian in return for the third-largest nuclear arsenal and renunciation of nuclear-power status? I don't know. But it is worth something. This agreement was signed by the man Putin had been working for since 1996 — Yeltsin. And somehow Putin never expressed any objections to this agreement before. The golden bread loaves changed everything.

2. Let me have someone else state the second reason — a guy who said this in 2005, when he was still just a corrupt politician and had not yet decided to become an emperor:

[Link to Vladimir Putin's 2005 press conference video, in which he says to a journalist: "Are you suggesting we need take it all back? Crimea? Territories of other former Soviet Republics? Klaipeda? Do you want this? Probably not."]

Changing the borders of states in Europe by force and military means is unacceptable. It will lead to nothing good. We rightly condemn the US and its allies for all that nonsense they pulled with Kosovo. We were right to condemn it. Let's be consistent. For us, the question of territorial integrity is a painful one. It is in Russia's interest to always bury this topic and always come out against it, as China does.

3. The referendum.

Referendums are not held like this. Not in such a short timeframe, with that kind of campaigning (see image of propaganda poster), and with international observers barred.

The campaign line — "CRIMEA'S BUDGET WILL DOUBLE AND WAGES WILL QUADRUPLE IF THE REGION JOINS RUSSIA" — also looks magnificent. With that approach we can annex any country. Let's promise to quadruple wages and the USA will vote to join us as a federal subject.

I have little doubt that in a fair referendum "we want to join Russia" would win anyway. So hold a fair referendum, not this farce.

But that is less important. What is important is that Russia SHOULD UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPORT SUCH REFERENDUMS.

The economy will weaken, we won't be able to keep shipping wagons full of money to Kadyrov. This will happen sooner or later. There is no doubt that he will immediately launch a referendum on independence. Russians are no longer there (see the table above), so the outcome is obvious. Will we accept it? Will we allow it?

A referendum on the independence of the Kaliningrad region. Will we allow it? Accept it?

A referendum in Dagestan? In Tuva?

We — not even our children, but we ourselves — will live to see the day when some regions of the Far East have more Chinese residents than Russians. Shall we let them hold a referendum too?

I would point out that attempting to hold such a referendum in Russia carries a prison sentence. A law was recently passed under which if you write on VKontakte "I want to organize such a referendum," criminal proceedings will be opened against you.

So why are we ourselves encouraging such referendums? So that in ten years, other countries — citing our own precedent — will recognize Chechen independence?

In Russia itself, Putin and United Russia have organized the legislation so that it is impossible to hold a referendum. In other words, referendums are banned for Russians in Russia — and for everyone else too. In 15 years there has not been a single federal, regional, or local referendum (except for a couple that the authorities themselves organized on merging federal subjects).

And yet here the Kremlin crowd has suddenly become so receptive to citizens expressing their will.

This is a major strategic blunder that will come back to haunt our country badly.

The consequences of the "annexation" of Crimea will be extremely disadvantageous for Russia in the medium and long term:

Accelerated NATO expansion

Accelerated deployment of missile defense systems directly at our borders

A reduced role for international organizations, in particular the UN Security Council — and Russia, as a country with a weak economy, clearly has an interest in strengthening the UN's role

Greater economic slowdown and reduced GDP. Obviously there will be no outright economic catastrophe, but within a year the effects will be felt by everyone.

— Fine, you don't want annexation. What should be done then? What is the way out?

Nothing original:

Expand Crimea's autonomy

Guarantee the use of the Russian language for everyone who wishes to speak it

Guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO

Guarantee the permanent and rent-free presence of Russia's Black Sea Fleet in Crimea

Amnesty for participants in the current strange administration in Crimea, and guarantees against criminal prosecution

Everyone is satisfied. Everyone saves face. Ukraine preserves its territorial integrity. Nobody gets the massive headache that comes with changing the borders of a European state.

— What will actually happen?

I believe that there will be no actual incorporation of Crimea into Russia. We will see a classic Putin move: "two steps forward, one step back."

Right now they'll puff out their chests and then back off — simply recognizing the referendum and independence.

That's always how he does it.

They introduce a law fining you a million rubles for attending a protest, then "concede" — the fine is 200,000.

They want to sentence someone to seven years, then "concede" and give an innocent person 3 years.

That's always how it works, in everything — if you watch carefully.

I am by no means suggesting that Putin is a coward who is easily frightened. Most of the intelligent people whose judgment I trust believe that Putin's flexibility is precisely his strength. He always sidesteps direct confrontations and conflicts. Clever, in his way.

My prediction: Crimea will unfortunately become yet another "strange territory," like South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, and Karabakh. Everyone will be handed passports. At elections there will be one more million voters casting 99% of their votes for United Russia with 97% turnout. No observers.

We will pour enormous amounts of money into Crimea, to no effect — just as the investments in South Ossetia have produced nothing. Only the "leadership of the unrecognized republic" will get rich.

The state of Crimea will be recognized only by Russia and Tuvalu.

Everyone will have a mountain of problems, but certain individuals will profit handsomely from those problems.

That's it. I hope I have clarified my position on Ukraine and Crimea.

In closing — apologies again for the pathos — two appeals.

1. To Ukrainians.

My dear friends, you can see that this is a provocation. Putin wants you to spend your energy not building a new state, but having hysterics over Crimea. Why do you even need Crimea? Let it determine its own fate. You have the chance to build a genuinely European state and not repeat the mistakes of 2004, when the same kind of corrupt politicians came to power after the Orange Revolution. An honest judicial system. An independent anti-corruption commission modeled on Singapore's. A real parliamentary republic where the source of power is a government with support across the whole country. Crush the vile oligarchs who buy up the media and politicians. Genuine public oversight of government. Those are your priorities — not Crimea, and not fighting Russia. All of that is a manipulation designed to preserve and multiply the golden bread loaves on Russian territory.

2. To Russians (and citizens of Russia in general).

Imperialism is evil and stupidity. It harms the interests of the Russian people. We need to develop and grow our human capital — so that people are healthy, educated, and live long lives, instead of dying before retirement age as they do now. We are dismantling the Academy of Sciences, yet investing money in the Olympics and strange military operations. But the future lies with the Academy of Sciences, doesn't it?

The main interest of Russians is not in seizing land, but in governing the land we already have — properly. Take a look at the map: there's quite a lot of it.

Russia should become a European state with one law for all, where the nation's wealth serves the people and is distributed fairly. If we build such a state, everyone will join us voluntarily, without any war.

P.S. If you share any of these thoughts, please share this post. It's not very convenient to promote posts from under house arrest, and the propaganda machine is getting tiresome.

152

13K

Alex Kobyshcha @kobasad

4 months ago

@TheMaineWonk There were cameras in Epstein's prison as well, didn't help much.

Alex Kobyshcha @kobasad

4 months ago

the whole gang

Jim Stewartson, Decelerationist 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸

@jimstewartson

4 months ago

Eight months before Epstein died under mysterious circumstances in Bill Barr’s custody, he wrote: “Donald should pardon everyone involved. cohen manafort gates. flynn, etc.”