Moniko muistaa, miten Novaya Gazeta julkaisi melko tarkkaan tasan vuosi Krimin valtaamisen jälkeen heidän käsiin joutuneen raportin, joka oli kirjoitettu ennen Krimin valtausta? Varmasti moni sotaa aktiivisesti seurannut muistaa sen, mutta laitan silti linkin tekstin englannin kieliseen käännökseen - jos ei muuten niin nuorempia varten. Varmasti nyt kun sodan uutta aktiivista vaihetta on jatkunut tasan viiden kuukauden verran niin on hyvä palauttaa mieleen, mitä Venäjällä kirjoitettiin ennen 2014 tapahtunutta hyökkäystä (tämä on yksi niitä linkkejä mikä pitää tallentaa selaimen kirjanmerkkeihin ikuisiksi ajoiksi, jottei vain unohdu):
https://www.unian.info/politics/104...mlin-papers-article-full-text-in-english.html
Raportin tekstin julkaisua edeltävinä päivinä lehteä edustava Dmitri Muratov kertoi sen yksityiskohdista mm. Echo of Moscow -radiokanavan haastattelussa.
https://www.pressherald.com/2015/02/22/russian-newspaper-cites-ukraine-invasion-plans/
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-considered-to-split-ukraine-pre-revolution-2015-2?r=US&IR=T
https://www.voanews.com/a/russia-ukraine-novaya-gazeta-strategic-document/2657107.html
Novaya Gazeta alkuperäinen artikkeli, linkki vie Web Archiveen tallennettuun versioon:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150227050500/http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/67389.html
Lainaan alle ensimmäisestä linkistä tekstiosuuden, jossa Novaya Gazeta kirjoittaa varsinaisen tekstin sisällöstä omin sanoin (suosittelen lukemaan artikkelista varsinaisen tekstin sellaisenaan, en lainaa sitä suoraan koska on niin pitkä):
From the Euroregions to annexation. Editor’s comment of Novaya Gazeta
This policy paper has some specific features.
1. As we have already mentioned, it was created before Yanukovych fled [Kyiv] and a provisional government consisting of the “systemic opposition” came to power. That is, even before the moment described by Moscow as a "coup d'etat" – which was the main justification for its subsequent actions.
2. The report has a pejorative assessment of Yanukovych, who later and for a long time was portrayed by Russia as a victim of the coup and Ukraine’s only legitimate leader.
3. The report is drafted in a pragmatic, almost cynical style. It has no “spiritual-historical” justification for Russian interference in Ukraine. No arguments about Novorossiya, the protection of the Russian-speaking population, the ‘Russian World’ and the upcoming ‘Russian Spring. There is only geopolitics and cold expediency.
4. The authors of the document are concerned with “legitimizing” the inclusion of Ukrainian territories into a Russian “state-legal framework”. In particular, they believe that there is a legal basis for the first step –mixed Russian-Ukrainian Euroregions (e.g., the “Donbas” Euroregion including Donetsk, Luhansk, Rostov and Voronezh regions), which are part of the Association of European Border Regions. The authors believe that using this legal instrument, it is possible to draw Ukrainian regions with “stable pro-Russian sympathies” into direct public-contractual relationships. And then there would be “legitimate” referendums on self-determination.
5. The report provides for some gross distortion of reality aimed to show the “reactive,” forced nature of Russia’s actions (the Maidan leaders are recruited football fans and criminals, they are controlled by Polish and British intelligence, the United States and the European Union allow for the disintegration of Ukraine, the EU started a geopolitical intrigue to split Ukraine, and the like). All these arguments were later actively used by Russian propaganda.
6. The report also has many arguments of a geopolitical and economic nature that were aimed to convince the leadership of the need for immediate intervention in Ukraine and thus a strengthening of Russia’s position not only in Ukraine, but also in Central and Eastern Europe, retaining control over the gas transportation network, passing through Ukraine, getting control of Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, located in the east of the country (for faster rearmament), and even replacing the “Central Asian” migrant flow with a “Slavic” or “Western” one
In general, it can be seen that the authors’ recommendations for Russia’s phased interference in Ukrainian affairs, with the ultimate aim of capturing a number of Ukrainian territories were mostly realized in Moscow’s actual actions:
- The organization of protests against the Kyiv regime in the regions with a pro-Russian bent;
- “Politically legitimizing” and “morally justifying” this process;
- The protesters’ demands for the simplification of carrying out Ukrainian referendums;
- Following demands for “federalization” or even a “confederation”;
- The demands for Crimea and the south-eastern regions to join the Customs Union independently from Kyiv;
- Carrying out “legitimate” and “honest” referendums on self-determination and unification with Russia;
- Active PR-support of these processes in the Russian and Ukrainian media.
The document’s authors made a significant error in determining the territories most ready to unite with the Russian regions: they name Crimea and Kharkiv region, considering Donetsk region, “Akhmetov’s empire”, less promising. Reality has altered these calculations. But in general, the scheme was implemented.
Andrei Lipsky,
Political Editor
Novaya Gazeta
-
Brief memo by Novaya Gazeta
Billionaire Konstantin Malofeev is a founder and “managing partner” of the Marshall Capital Partners investment fund, the largest minority shareholder of Rostelecom (about 10% of the shares), a member of the board of trustees of the Safe Internet League (he is believed to be the initiator of blacklisting Web sites), and chairman of the St. Basil the Great Charitable Foundation. Also, this man is known for his active support of the separatists in Crimea and eastern Ukraine – with the ideas, money and human resources (in particular, both Girkin (aka Strelkov) and Boroday used to work for his companies). In fact, Malofeev has served the Kremlin greatly: his PR-managers and “historic re-enactors” have hyped the conflict in Crimea and the Donbas, passing the baton to the volunteers-mercenaries and so-called “troops on leave,” allowing Russia to avoid been branded a “conflict party,” at least formally.
But Malofeev is known not only for that. He was involved in a series of high profile scandals that have become the subject of the judiciary investigations. Here are the most prominent ones. In late 2012 - early 2013, Russian police raided the house of Konstantin Malofeev and the offices of Marshall Capital in connection with a criminal case opened by the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs under Art. 159 p. 4 (Fraud) into the theft of more than $200 million from VTB bank. VTB accused Malofeev of not returning a credit provided to Russagroprom for the purchase of Nutritec in 2007 (Marshall was its largest shareholder at the time). Prior to that, in 2009, VTB Capital plc filed a lawsuit in London against Malofeev as a former co-owner of Nutritec, believing that it was the victim of fraud. In August 2011, the High Court in London decided to freeze Malofeev’s assets. Later, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. As a result, the VTB’s request to the Ministry of Internal Affairs [to open a criminal case] was withdrawn.
Right before the raids, Malofeev was ejected from the elections of deputies of the village council in Znamenka, in Smolensk region, by the Vyazemsk district court. Through these elections, he was planning to become a senator, but the court ruled that he had bribed voters.