Russian views on the Ukrainian crisis

Center for Arab Eurasian Studies of the current explosive crisis between Russia and the West, one of its chapters is now taking place in Ukraine; Where each party reviews its strength and capabilities, the Center's Russian Studies Unit presents, in this press investigation, a summary of the most prominent and most important Russian views on the latest developments surrounding that crisis after Moscow obtained a written response from the United States and its allies regarding the security guarantees it requested. The report is the opinions of several prominent Russian experts who singled out the Center exclusively. In this context, the Center's management extends its thanks and appreciation for the time and effort of these experts, who are:

• Professor Alexander Dugin is a Russian philosopher, political scientist, sociologist, translator and public figure. He holds a PhD in political and social sciences, Professor and Head of the Department of Sociology of International Relations, Faculty of Sociology, Moscow State University, and leader of the Eurasian World Movement.
• Professor Andrey Okara is a Russian philosopher and political scientist, specializing in social philosophy and geopolitics, and a lecturer at Saint Petersburg State University. He has more than 100 books on social philosophy, geopolitics, the theory of civilizations, and Russian-Ukrainian-Belarus relations.
• Professor Leonid Savin is a Russian political writer, geopolitical analyst, editor-in-chief of Geopolitics, director of the Foundation for Monitoring and Forecasting, and lecturer at the Russian Peoples’ Friendship University.
• Professor Valery Korovin , a Russian political scientist and journalist. Director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise, Vice-President of the Center for Conservative Studies at the Faculty of Sociology of Moscow State University, Vice-President of the Global Eurasian Movement, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Information and Analysis Portal in Eurasia, President of the Eurasian Youth Union (ECM).
• Professor Artyom Kirpichenko is a Russian-Israeli political writer, historian and philosopher. He holds a PhD in Philosophy from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Russia and the West in a Civilized Clash – Alexander Dugin
The current crisis in Russia’s relations with the West is not related to gas, nor to the economy as a whole. Attempts to explain this political conflict through the “prize” or “spoils” principle of “arginus” are merely a parody of a much larger conflict; We are dealing with several profound processes that have resulted in civilizational and geopolitical transformations, while economics and energy are secondary accessories.

From a civilized point of view, it is all about the Democrats’ ideology of the Biden administration, the alliance of radical globalists with neoconservatives and liberal hawks. They see before their eyes the signs of the collapse of the unipolar world, and with it Western hegemony, and they are ready to do anything, even a third world war, to prevent this collapse.

Radical globalists have many enemies – Islam, populism (including Trump and his ilk), conservatism, etc., but only two forces have the power to truly challenge this Western hegemony. It is Russia and China – the first a military giant, the second an economic giant, and both are now complementary, and they have the same common goals in this confrontation.

The Russian-Western conflict over the Ukrainian crisis
In the current conflict, this is where geopolitics comes in. It is important for Biden to push Russia away from Europe, which is striving to build its own independent policy. Hence the Ukrainian problem, the recent escalation in the Donbass, and the ongoing process that witnessed an escalation in the recent period of demonizing Russia and Putin and accusing them of preparing to invade Ukraine.

Although there is no reliable basis for this alleged invasion, Washington behaves as if the invasion had already taken place; Hence the threat of sanctions, and even possible preventive military actions in the Donbass. The disputes over gas and Nord Stream 2 are just tools that serve only the technical means of the current geopolitical warfare. The same applies to China, for which Biden established the anti-AUKUS alliance with the Anglo-Saxon countries (Australia and Britain), and another Asian alliance, the Quad Security Dialogue (Quad) with (Japan and India). The stumbling block now is Taiwan (which in the case of Russia represents Ukraine). The goal is to disrupt the economic expansion of the One Belt One Road project.

Against the war of Western geopolitics, Russia responds similarly from the point of view of Eurasian geopolitics – opposing coercive globalization, unipolarity, and liberalism with its new Western values ​​- as well as proposing the theory of an alternative civilizational value system, and in all of this it receives Chinese support in general.

Among the questions asked to me by the Russian Studies Unit at the Center for Arab Eurasian Studies is “How can the Arab world deal with this crisis and benefit from it?” In this regard, I ask a question whose answer is only in the Arab world, and its new young forces are able to answer about him; The Arab world has to make up its mind: Who is he with? And what does he want? Is it with the collapse of the aggressive American hegemony that has reached the point of madness, or with that mass of countries opposing it in pursuit of state sovereignty, civilizational identity, and cultural specificity?

The tragedy and farce of the Second Cold War.. Russia, Ukraine and the West turned from the language of interests to the language of values ​​- Andrey Okara

While the entire civilized world is trying to guess what Russia’s goal is to invade Ukraine, as well as the exact date of the invasion, from what side, to what extent, and in what form such an invasion can be expected, whoever is at the fore in the Russian state has paused and left the world alone. In his quest to solve this mystery. On this basis, President Putin – again – in the press conference that followed his meeting with French President Macron, avoided giving a definitive answer: “Yes” or “No”?

The causes of the Ukrainian crisis between Russia and the West
The main causes of the current international crisis, which is developing before our eyes to form a second cold war, with the possibility of its escalation under certain circumstances, to ignite a completely “hot” regional war, and may reach a world war, is not economic or political; But it is also existential: these tense-generators’ subjective perceptions of good and evil, of life and death, of existence and nothingness, of justice and deceit, of Russia’s “humiliation” and “glorification”. In so far as one can assess the situation from the statements, words and actions of the Russian President, he intends to “correct” these historical “errors” and “grievances” as soon as possible; By restoring the bipolar (or tripolar) international security system.

Changes, such as the attempt to force the West to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, nor even about the geographical transformation of the Russian Federation into the Russian Empire/Soviet Union; We are talking about a complete restructuring of the world, the entire global security system based on new (more accurate and modernized) models, principles and values.

Putin and his inner circle are unconsciously trying to reconstruct the world that existed in the 1970s, when they were young and energetic, when the “high style” of the First Cold War prevailed. In the current confrontation between the West and Russia lies the conflict of language and policy tendencies, the clash of modes of political thinking: the politics of postmodernism in the twenty-first century—with ambiguous, inexpressive, and faceless stereotypes of marginalized politicians hiding behind Kant’s theory of “permanent peace”—against the politicians of the West and Russia. The second half of the twentieth century, political figures of caliber such as Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, Gandhi, Thatcher, Reagan, even Brezhnev, with the rigidity of ideological polarization, the Hegelian idea of ​​war as a necessary element in the development, release and renewal of the “soul of the nation” and its renewal.

However, in postmodern conditions, any attempt to recreate the pathos of great tragedy always turns into a not-so-funny farce, but the tactic of “street thugs” turns out to be very effective—against European and American “neo-Kantians” as well. When responding to Russian ultimatums, leaders of Western countries from time to time begin to waver, but so far (mostly due to Ukrainian moral pressure) refuse to dialogue with Russia on the fundamental issues – on the new “partition of the world”, on the non-expansion of NATO, on “ areas of influence” and “red lines”. Paris, Berlin, and even Washington periodically try to pressure Kiev to force Ukraine to comply with the political part of the Minsk Accords in interpreting the Kremlin and transforming it into the second Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of Moscow. But so far, Ukraine has – effectively – escaped diplomatic and geopolitical traps.

Reasons for the low probability of war between Ukraine and Russia:
(1) The threat of severe “catastrophic sanctions” from the West, including the refusal to certify the operation of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.

(2) Increased combat readiness of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, thanks to the supply of weapons from NATO countries.

(3) Moral and political support from the West, which was not available until 2014.

(4) the moral impulse of the Ukrainian army, which is ready to fight for its homeland, in exchange for the loss of these same sentiments of the Russians, most of whom do not see a possible military operation against Ukraine as a “just war”; The war is opposed not only by unloyal Russian liberal intellectuals, but by many pro-government military experts and retired generals: there is no longer any blitzkrieg, or the possibility of a “clone” of the Crimean model as happened in 2014, they believe.

However, in addition to a full-scale invasion that is dangerous for Russia, there are other scenarios as well: “special operations on the territory of Ukraine, guided missile attacks on Ukrainian military facilities, critical infrastructure, and a large-scale trade war.” However, the fact of uncertainty about the Kremlin’s position on the war – against the background of the build-up of military forces on the border – can also be considered a form of hybrid aggression: “reaching the psychological exhaustion of Ukrainian society, the flight of foreign capital from the country, creating an economic crisis”. However, instead of panic appearing in Ukraine, they are still determined.

The decision on whether to start a military operation is not taken collectively – as was the case when the decision was made on the Afghan campaign in 1979, but only the President of the Russian Federation, based on his personal ideas of justice, good and evil, and Russia’s place in world history. The same situation, when peace in a separate area, but life on earth, depends on one person only, is the highest peak in the development of political life that can only be achieved in modern conditions (the French philosopher René Guénon called it “Caesar of the world”, and he calls it Russian poet and philosopher, Velimir Khlebnikov (“President of Planet Earth”).

However, the impression is formed that in the event of the failure of the maximum program (a radical restructuring of the entire global security system on Russian terms), the Kremlin will move to the minimum program (de-escalation in exchange for recognition by

the international community of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation), and if This was admitted (even if informally, until very recently it was only a probable assumption) that the present conflict, when the parties gradually move from the language of interests to the language of values ​​and categorical necessities, will be highly unlikely.

A large-scale military conflict with Ukraine poses a direct threat to Russia itself above all; He is able to abolish the current Russian political system, and reshape the entire country in a radical and unexpected way (a separate issue – the new paradigm).

As for Ukraine, in the context of all the current vicissitudes, an interesting transformation is taking place with it: a country in a social and economic crisis, with an unstable political system, ambiguous prospects for membership in the European Union and NATO, and in the presence of great corruption with a parasitic and irresponsible political elite, is transforming before our eyes To one of the leaders of the Western world who is ready for a relentless struggle for values, principles and ideals. So far, this readiness seems not only a postmodern farce; It is a great tragedy.

The Gas Economics War – Leonid Savin
The current crisis in relations between Russia and the United States and the countries of the European Union does not only have a political dimension; It also has an economic dimension. The most sensitive issue for both sides is the issue of energy supplies in which Ukraine plays a catalytic role in this regard, as evidenced by the statements of a number of Western politicians who openly talk about the relationship between the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and Russian-Ukrainian relations. At the end of last year, uncertainty about Russian gas supplies to Europe led to a jump in its global prices, which indicates the severe politicization of the issue in the European Union and the United States. At the same time, Washington took advantage of the situation by offering its liquefied natural gas to European buyers. However, the potential of the United States in this regard is limited.

Washington has extensive experience managing and interfering with political and geoeconomic processes in the Eurasian space; It tried to win partners from the Middle East to its side. However, it is known that Qatar refused to renew the quantities needed for European consumers, due to the needs of the market, its commitments to permanent consumers, and the technical capabilities of the state. All production lines and ships serving the delivery of LNG in Qatar are sufficiently loaded. If Asian buyers feel uncomfortable with supplies from Doha due to changing priorities in selling gas, this threatens not only with a domino effect in the regional economy, but also with serious geopolitical consequences; Because it is clear to everyone that in this case the United States is the main instigator.

It is also doubtful that other natural gas producers, such as Norway, Azerbaijan and Algeria, will increase production and redirect sales to European markets. If Norway can still, to some extent, help its neighbours, such as the Netherlands, where the Groningen gas field is about to shut down, Algeria and Baku are likely to take a pro-Russian stance; Given their long-term cooperation with Moscow. Of course, Iran and Turkmenistan, two major natural gas producers, will not align with US interests. Turkmenistan has contracts with Russia to resell natural gas, and sells the other part to Asian consumers, primarily to China. Iran is subject to sanctions, but even if they are lifted, it does not have the technical ability to sell large quantities of gas to Europe.

In other words, if the European Union and the United States were interested in a ban on Russian gas supplies, this would require a strategic plan and billions of dollars in investments that, if started in earnest from now on, would need at least five years to implement (in the ideal set of circumstances, which It is impossible in real life, especially in light of the current geopolitical turmoil, especially that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, has already been completed. In addition, if more pressure is exerted on Moscow, Russia may withdraw from the (OPEC +) agreement within the framework of counter-sanctions, which will affect the global oil price. In any case, in the near future, all the US and the EU can do is reduce sales of Russian gas (and Gazprom will still make a profit), and the Europeans will not be able to completely abandon it. As part of the eastward shift and the growing needs of Asian countries (China, India, Pakistan, and South Korea), Moscow will gradually redirect part of its exports to this direction. In short, Moscow has studied the situation well, and has many options in this regard.

Ukraine has come to its logical conclusion – Valery Korovin
In the past thirty years, since the secession of Ukraine from the Soviet Union, Russians as a people, and Russia itself as a state, have built a set of pillars on which the artificial Ukrainian state was built at the beginning of the twentieth century, which in the Soviet era began, and since its separation, systematically destroyed.

The first basic pillar of the Ukrainian state is belonging to a common cultural and civilizational space with Russia, which has been rapidly reduced since its separation, and to replace Western cultural laws with it, and to reorient its policies towards the West, and this completely changes the objective basis on which this state was built, and completely eliminates the its cultural foundations.

The second pillar is the majority of Russian speakers, who were uplifters of the state, preserving its identity and belonging, which other ethnic groups in Ukraine could not do; Because, for natural reasons, they are not campaigners of state awareness.

The third pillar is the social model of the state, which has been almost completely dismantled over the past three decades.

Ukraine is multi-ethnic, multicultural and nationalistic. Russian has formed the factor of its internal unity, the language of communication and communication between different peoples and other ethnic groups.

An attempt has been made and still is to liquidate this factor, which means that the Ukrainian state is unable to form only culture; But the science, the education, the legal model, too.

In the end, after the events of “Maidan” in 2014, the public administration system was affected – to a large extent – due to the exclusion of Russian and pro-Russian officials from the state structure; This led to a lower general intellectual level of the Ukrainian government, the absence of experienced competencies, and made corruption the only motive for taking up public office. The domination of state structures by the elites from the western regions, peasant farmers with limited culture, ended what was once the system of state administration in this former Soviet republic. As for the remnants of state institutions, they have come under external control; This means that Ukraine has become a mere tool for the US anti-Russian policy in Eastern Europe. All these factors have turned Ukraine into a non-negotiable entity like the United States itself.

America, which has come to dominate the political decision of Kiev, pushed Ukraine towards militarization with the aim of turning it into an instrument of military aggression against Russia in favor of Washington. The ultimate goal is to try to weaken Russia militarily, creating a zone of instability between Russia and Europe, which in this case will not be able to develop full relations with Russia, and will remain under the control of the United States.

All this together makes any kind of interaction with the ruling power in Ukraine impossible. The features of this state are shaped in such a way that the only way to interact with it is through war. A scenario that Russia has sought to avoid for eight years in search of other avenues of dialogue, but each time the American intervention has killed these initiatives, leaving one option for Russia to interact with Ukraine; It is war. Indeed, they made war inevitable, and, if so, war became the last, and perhaps only, means of Russia; This is because the whole of Ukraine has become a constant contradiction to all that is Russian, and to Russia; Therefore, the only way to remove these contradictions is for the founders of this Ukrainian state, I mean here Russia, to abolish it.

The current Russian build-up is a last-ditch attempt to influence the purpose of forcing Ukraine to peace and protecting the Russian majority from the Ukrainian extremist minorities, but if it fails as Washington wants to start the war, it will get it, even if the result is the liquidation of the Ukrainian state entity from existence, and the loss of all efforts The American effort to make this country a cat claw against Russia.

How the conflict between Russia and the West creates difficulties for Israel – Artyom Kirpichenko
The most important problem for Israel is the current conflict between Russia and the West, which will result in another decline of the American presence in the Middle East. Now, all of Washington’s attention is focused on Eastern Europe; It is in this region that American units are transported from all over the world, and of course this situation allows more scope for both Iran and China – from the Gulf region to Lebanon and Yemen to the Horn of Africa. Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid expressed his concern that “because of the crisis in Ukraine, the talks in Vienna on the Iranian nuclear program have been forgotten by everyone.”

Another difficulty awaits Israel, but this time in its relations with Russia; An article published by the Israeli Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS) noted that in recent decades, contacts between Moscow and Tel Aviv have reached an unprecedentedly high level. The volume of trade exchange between the two countries amounts to three billion dollars, and Russia closes its eyes to the Israeli attacks on Iranian militias and installations in Syria, and there are close cultural ties between the two countries. Until recently, Washington was tolerant of the special relationship between Israel and Russia, but if the escalation between the Kremlin and the White House continues, the US administration may demand that Israel join the anti-Russian sanctions. According to Israeli experts, in this case Tel Aviv can present itself as a mediator between Ukraine and Russia, as well as between Russia and the United States, and gain additional political preferences from both sides.

There is also a problem associated with the Jewish diaspora. As columnist Elyakim Haetzni wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth: “It is time to appeal to decision-makers to resist the temptation, and remain completely impartial at all costs; Since there are hundreds of thousands of Jews in both Russia and Ukraine, every community stands by its country.” At the same time, hundreds of thousands of former citizens of these countries live in Israel itself.

During the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Israeli immigrants from Baku and Armenians staged street fighting in Jerusalem. A war between the two countries may increase tension between Israelis who remain loyal to their ancient homeland. The Israeli press usually takes anti-Russian positions, but – as a rule – it is limited to reprints of Western media publications.

Israel will remain as far from the conflict as possible. Information appeared in the media that Tel Aviv prevented the Baltic states from transferring their Israeli weapons to Ukraine. This position caused indignation in Kiev, and the Ukrainian ambassador to Israel, Yevgeny Kornchuk, criticized the statements of the Israeli Foreign Ministry that “there may not be a war in eastern Ukraine.” . According to the Ukrainian diplomat, Israel is following “Russian propaganda”; Hence, Israeli neutrality is more beneficial to Moscow than Kiev. This Israeli position surely irritates Ukrainian nationalists, who – according to sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko – want to see their country as a kind of “Eastern European Israel” that “protects Western civilization from the barbarians sitting in Lugansk and Donetsk.

Edited by: Amr Abdel Hamid – Director of the Center for Arab-Eurasian Studies.

Review : Russian Studies Unit.

https://theradicaloutlook.com/russian-perspective-on-ukraine/