Николай Патрушев: “Отрезвление” украинцев будет жестким и болезненным
только в “РГ”
Текст: Иван Егоров
Patrushev: “Sobering” Ukrainians will be hard and painful
Only in the “РГ”
Text: Ivan Egorov
Nikolay Patrushev: A quarter-century United States to pursue the full separation of the former Soviet republics of Russia.
Secretary of the Russian Security Council in an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta told about how Russian analysts a year ago predicted the development of the situation in Ukraine. And also assessed the role of the USA and NATO in the events in the east of Ukraine, explained why these events are a continuation of the plan by Zbigniew Brzezinski in the collapse of the USSR and Russia, assessed the prospects for a multipolar world and the future of the struggle for hydrocarbon resources.
Nikolay Platonovich, the realities of recent months – a coup in Ukraine, the military actions of the Ukrainian authorities against the residents of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, the rabid anti-Russian course of Kiev- Was it possible to predict such developments only a year ago?
Our experts have warned about the potential deterioration of the situation in Ukraine in terms of political and economic instability, especially under external influence.
However, it should be recognized that the events were close to instantaneous, and seizure of power in Kiev based on battle groups composed of outright Nazis at that time was not obvious.
Let me remind you that before the coup, Moscow fully complied with all its partnership obligations with Kiev.
We had continuously provided material and financial support, without which Ukraine was not able to cope with economic difficulties, from turning chronic. To support our neighbors we mobilized material and financial resources of tens of billions of dollars. Unfortunately, for many in Ukraine this support over time has become so familiar that its importance for the survival of the country was simply forgotten.
If we talk about more long-term forecasting, the Ukrainian crisis has become quite an expected result of systemic activity of the U.S. and its closest allies.
The last quarter of a century, this activity was aimed at a complete separation of the Ukraine and other former Soviet republics from Russia, total reformatting of the post-Soviet space under the American interests. These activities created the conditions and the pretexts for colour revolutions and were provided generous state funding.
So, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland has said repeatedly that Washington between 1991 and 2013 has spent 5 billion dollars on “support for the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to a stronger, democratic government”. According to the only open sources, such as documents of the U.S. Congress, the total public funding of various American programs of “help”for Ukraine for the period from 2001 to 2012 amounted to not less than 2.4 billion US dollars. This compares with an annual budget of some small countries. The United States Agency for International Development spent about half a billion dollars, the State Department – nearly half a billion, the Pentagon more than 370 million dollars.
The Ukrainian crisis has become quite an expected result of systemic activity of the U.S. and its closest allies
According to the reports of the Congress, in the programs of assistance to Ukraine, in addition to the well-known USAID, other agencies involved organizations such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Peace Corps and the Center “Open World”.
It is easy to guess, for whom and why “open world” American volunteers and staff of diplomatic missions all 23 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Maybe the money went to a good cause and helped to build in Ukraine for the Americans present “democratic” society?
Nikolay Patrushev: I don’t know what kind of good deed it is, if the result of this activity in Ukraine has bred a whole generation, completely poisoned by the hatred of Russia and the mythology of “European values”. It is not yet aware that these values, even in the positive sense of the term, for Ukrainians actually are not intended. No one intends to raise the standard of living in Ukraine or to integrate them into Europe, which is itself having great difficulty coping with extremely serious challenges and threats.
This is the objective of the interdependence of economic, logistic and other relations, which has evolved over centuries. A complete break of these ties would be a painful blow to Russia but for Ukraine, it would be disastrous.
Not accidentally, the current President Petro Poroshenko has followed his deposed predecessor on the question of the postponement of the implementation of the economic part of the already signed- Agreement of Association of Ukraine with the EU.
We should expect that the victory euphoria from other Kievan rulers will also be replaced by a more sober assessment of the real situation.
I think that the “sobering” for Ukrainians will be hard and painful. It is hoped that this will happen relatively quickly, which can contribute to a number of objective reasons. I want to mention another factor, which is of fundamental importance. Regardless of future developments, the significance for each other – Russia and Ukraine – will be saved. Ukraine simply will not be able to successfully develop without Russia, whether you like it or not.
If we talk about more long-term forecasting, Ukrainian crisis has become quite an expected result of systemic activity of the U.S. and its closest allies.
Some experts believe that the Ukrainian crisis was just a pretext for a new aggravation of the relations of the West with Russia. Is this true?
Nikolay Patrushev: Indeed, if catastrophe in Ukraine had not occurred, there would had to have been another reason to activate the policy of “containment” of our country. This course has been strictly followed for many years, changing only the forms and tactics of its implementation.
As you know, after WWll confrontation between the Soviet Union and the West, led by the United States took the form of a “Cold War”. The military-political component of this confrontation was assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), established on the initiative of the United States on- 4, April 1949.
Analysis of the practical activities of NATO shows that, creating the alliance, the US has pursued two main objectives.
First, under American leadership, it formed a military alliance directed against the Soviet Union.
Second, Washington preempted the emergence in western Europe of independent groupings of states, which could compete with the US. It should be recalled that the territory of the U.S.A. having established unilateral military control over its allies in NATO did not include the US within its operational zone.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the termination of the Warsaw Pact, which had joined the Socialist countries of Europe and by definition was presented by NATO as the “main danger”, NATO was not disbanded, but began to further expand numerically and militarily.
But NATO was not the only factor that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Nikolay Patrushev: during the “cold war” in the West there were a number of ideological doctrines that served as a rationale for anti-Soviet policy. One of the authors of such works was an American political scientist and statesman of Polish origin: Zbigniew Brzezinski.
He explained the so-called strategy of “vulnerabilities”, the essence of which was to identify potential weaknesses of the enemy and turn them into serious problems. The strategy was allowed to distract the main forces of the enemy from the real confrontation with the United States and to force him to concentrate all resources on the resolution of their own growing difficulties.
In the 70-ies of the last century Brzezinski had developed a strategy option “vulnerabilities” in relation to the USSR, which under President Reagan became the basis of American policy toward our country. Implementation of the strategy was led by the National Security Council-headed by the President of the United States. Identification and clarification of “vulnerabilities”, as well as ways of transforming them into “problems” for the USSR were assigned to CIA.
It is noteworthy that the then CIA Director William Casey decided to recruit outstanding scientists, especially economists, and experts from the business world who had real experience in the business of wars with competitors. In the large-scale analytical work were identified and systematically studied the “vulnerabilities” of the USSR in the political, economic, ideological, and other areas.
The main “bottleneck” of our country, as identified by the CIA, was its economy. After detailed modeling of American specialists showed her the “weak link”, namely, the high dependence of the budget of the USSR from energy exports. This became a strategy of provoking the financial and economic bankruptcy of the Soviet State, for two interrelated objectives: organization of the sharp decline of revenue in the budget of the USSR foreign trade, combined with a significant increase in costs of resolution are organized from outside problems.
As the main measures to reduce the revenue part of the budget was considered the decline in world oil prices. This was achieved by the mid 80-ies, when the collusion of the U.S. rulers of a number of oil-producing countries, the market has formed an artificial surplus of raw materials and oil prices fell by almost 4 times.
The rising costs of the Soviet Union was provoked in several ways: the transition from the American strategy of countering the USSR in Afghanistan, to the strategy of deep involvement in his Afghan war; incitement of anti-governmental demonstrations in Poland and other countries of the socialist camp in order to urge Moscow to additional costs to stabilize the situation in eastern Europe; the escalation of the arms race, including through the introduction of a bluff with SDI and so on.
It should be said that the Americans managed to achieve their goals. The result of their work was a significant excess of the cost of the USSR over income, which ultimately triggered a deep economic crisis that then spread to the political and ideological sphere. Short-sighted attempts by the Soviet leadership to alleviate the situation at the expense of external financial assistance given Washington more leverage with Moscow. Proposed by West and implemented through the IMF and the world Bank “health” measures to liberalize foreign trade without a smooth shift from the old monopoly system led to the final collapse of the economy.
According to American experts, “vulnerabilities”, which demonstrated the enormous economic efficiency variations of the “cold war” compared to war, “hot”, to a great extent contributed to the dissolution of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, was Russia still able to resist the new repartition of the world or was surrender of their positions and former allies, such as Yugoslavia already predetermined?
Nikolay Patrushev: By the end of the twentieth century in this region formed a socio-political “break”, most vividly manifested in the collapse of the multiethnic and multi-religious Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The heads of states of leading NATO countries took advantage of the military-political situation in order to realize their long-term goals in south-eastern Europe.
In the 1990-ies the Russian Federation due to known reasons, both internal and external lost ascendancy in the Balkans which the USSR had maintained, and followed a path of compromise with the West. It is the Balkans especially which clearly showed unilateral surrender of Russia’s positions in the international arena. Between 1991 through 1996 the structure that shaped the foreign policy of our country, officially did not even include such thing as a “national interest”. There were groundless expectations of gratitude for obedience from Western partners and expectations of some special benefit to our country from close and unconditional cooperation with the United States. In fact, the American partners almost immediately ceased to perceive us seriously and only from time to time as if condescending gave us a “pat on the shoulder”.
NATO, under the guise of peacekeeping and without serious objection from our side, confidently acted outside its responsibility, sought the right to lease strategic infrastructure for long periods, in different ways actually subdued the military authorities of a number of Balkan countries. Units of the alliance became firmly established in the region. Other states participating in peacekeeping missions, including Russia, were placed in subordinate roles, wary (unacustomed) to being junior partners and not wanting to see the obvious fact: the war in the Balkans could be considered as rehearsal and prologue for larger steps to redivide the world.
Is it likely that these steps led to the clash of interests of Western countries and Russia in the post-Soviet time?
Nikolay Patrushev: The US has acted especially aggressive and brazen in the last twenty years. Emboldened by the weakening and then the collapse of the USSR, American ruling circles did everything possible to ensure the domination of the largest sources of raw material resources of our country and Central Asia, as well as transit routes of their exports. Washington planned to extend the scope of its direct impact on the areas of the Black Sea, Caucasus and Caspian Sea.
All these areas were called “strategic national interests” by the United States. The only obstacle that remained to implementation of Americas plans to take full control of these respective fields and transport corridors was Russia,which had preserved its military capabilities and remained capable of causing unacceptable damage to the United States.
To resolve this difficulty American strategists envisioned a final collapse of the system of state power and the subsequent dismemberment of our country. Considered to become the first region, which was supposed to depart from Russia, was the North Caucasus.
Special emphasis was placed on Chechnya and its declared “independence” while in actuality being trapped under the control of the West. Extremists and their supporters in Russia were provided support from security services in the UK, the US and allies in Europe as well as factions within Middle East countries.
Under these conditions, the Russian Federation Government took a firm, principled stand to protect the unity of the State. Ultimately these results are demonstrated by the strong enduring political will of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who with great effort managed to stop the detachment of Chechnya from Russia, and then fastened the Republic within the Federation.
After 11 September 2001, the world community has recognized the terrorist threat as a major and global reaching threat with an understanding that countering this threat requires a common effort. As a result of Russia’s campaign against international terrorists in the Caucasus, the west was left with a few weak attacks on Russia, and we have not objected to the operation of the Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. This followed the announcement of the formation of a broad anti-terrorist coalition.
At that time, Washington had shown some willingness to engage, but actually was not going to abandon the policy of “containment” toward Russia. To our borders NATO deployed new objects. International law was substituted by the law of force (remember already mentioned the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and then Serbia, the occupation of Iraq, the invasion of the so-called coalition forces in Afghanistan).
After 7-8 August 2008, when the government of Georgia with the support of the U.S. tried to destroy South Ossetia, the world once again has changed significantly. For the first time in many decades, Washington had provided direct support to a foreign state, who attacked Russian citizens and peacekeepers.
The war in the Balkans could be considered as rehearsal and prologue for large-scale steps on the division of the world
The bid was made on the surprise. Georgian dictator believed that military intervention on the opening day of the World Olympic games would put Russia in a difficult position, and the Georgians, taking advantage of this, realize their “blitzkrieg”. However, the Russian government quickly responded to the sharp deterioration of the situation and had taken the necessary measures to stop the aggression.
At this time of formation, and recognition of new geopolitical realities – multipolarity of the modern world
What have been the reactions of the US?
Nikolay Patrushev: After the August (2008) events in the Caucasus, Washington was alarmed with the explicit intention of Russia to regain its place among the world powers. In the 21st century- to defend the principle of equal opportunities, with Russia’s full autonomy in global politics. And convert financial state revenues derived from natural resource exploitation into real economic and defense benefits for the betterment of the people living in the mineral rich zones.
American leadership is clearly not happy about Russia’s cooperation with China and India, the introduction of the practice of the summits in the BRICS format, the successful activities of other organizations, in which Russia holds a leading position (CSTO, SCO and EAEC), and the formation of the Customs Union.
In the context of the burgeoning global economic and financial crisis (2008) it became increasingly important for the U.S. to factor in such new major players on the international arena as China, India, Brazil, Iran, and the growing economies of Southeast Asia and South Korea. Here, by the way, the emergence of new conceptual installations of special U.S.-China partnership, strategic interactions USA to India, direct dialogue between Washington and Iran and so on.
The new administration of President Barack Obama began to receive signals about the need to restore a mutually beneficial dialogue with Russia on a range of issues. This positive attitude of US authorities, was impossible not to welcome.
However, it soon became clear that Washington was not concerned with true cooperation. Obama issued only statements about the “friendliness” coupled with the invention of some negotiating tracks, the use of which for Russia in the end proved to be almost zero. After some time, even such non-binding positive conversations stopped, and the attitude of the US towards our country began to recall the times of the Cold War.
Ukraine grown a whole generation, poisoned by the hatred of Russia and the mythology of “European values”
And was the logical conclusion of such a policy the Ukrainian crisis?
Nikolay Patrushev: a coup in Kiev, perfect with explicit support from the United States, conducted by the classical scheme, piloted in Latin America, Africa and the middle East. But never before such a scheme would not affect you so deeply Russian interests.
The analysis shows that, provoking Russia to reciprocate, the Americans are pursuing the same goals as in the 80-ies of the twentieth century in relation to the USSR. As then, they try to determine the “vulnerabilities” of our country. At the same time, by the way, solves the problem of neutralization of the European economic competitors, too, which according to Washington, have grown closer to Moscow.
I want to remind you that Washington has always sought to have leverage on Russia. So, in 1974, was adopted by the famous amendment of Jackson-Vanik, which restricted trade relations with our country. It would seem that she has completely lost its relevance right after the collapse of the USSR, but still operated until 2012, when instead it was immediately adopted the so-called “Magnitsky list”.
The current sanctions are from the same series. The activities of the administration of the United States in the Ukrainian direction is implemented in the framework of the renewed foreign policy of the White House, aimed at keeping American leadership in the world through strategic deterrence of the growing influence of the Russian Federation and other centers of power. While Washington actively uses on its own terms the potential of NATO, seeking through political and economic pressure to prevent any hesitation on the part of its allies and partners.
Why American elite so stubbornly clings to the right of control over foreign natural resources, when Western experts declared the importance of developing alternative energy sources, allegedly capable of quickly to replace oil and gas?
Nikolay Patrushev: actually, experts are confident that in the coming decades alternatives to replace hydrocarbons as a source for energy will not appear. Moreover, in the West there is a prevalent understanding that the total capacity of nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and other stations will satisfy not more than one-fifth of the world’s needs.
We should not forget about another important aspect. In the modern world there has been a steady increase in shortage of food and drinking water for the increasing population of the planet. The lack of the most basic means of subsistence pushes desperate people to extremist manifestations, involvement in terrorism, piracy and crime. This is one of the causes of acute conflict between countries and regions, as well as mass migration.
The lack of water and irrigated land is often a cause of strife, for example, between the republics of Central Asia. The problem of water resources is acute in some other Asian countries and especially in Africa.
Many American experts, including former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright argued that “under the rule of Moscow” was such a huge territory, which it is not able to master and thus, “does not serve the interests of all mankind.” Continue sounding claims about the “unfair” distribution of natural resources and the need to provide so-called “free access” to them in other states.
The Americans believe that others also share this similar view and can be found, especially in Russia’s neighboring states, which in the long term and as is now usual, the “coalition” will support the appropriate claims to our country.
As in the case of Ukraine, it is proposed to solve the problems at the expense of Russia, but without taking into account its interests.
Even in periods of relative warming in relations between Russia (USSR) and the United States American partners always remained riveted to such views.
Therefore, regardless of the nuances in the behavior of the Americans and their allies, the Russian leadership as a permanent task: to guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Motherland, to protect and increase its wealth, properly dispose of them in the interests of the multinational people of the Russian Federation.