+ 우크라이나 버젼 2 - 준 전시상황의 비용은 누가 지불하나요?

 

 

 

장기적 전망 : 그것을 '우크라이나 버젼2' 라 하는데

이곳에 돈을 낼 나라는?

 

 

 

 http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/a-look-in-long-distance-who-will-have.html

 

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

 

A look in the long distance:  who will have to pay for "Ukraine v2"?

 

나는 서방 언론에서 다루지 않는 문제를 언급하려하는데, 이는 러시아 언론에서는 정기적으로 등장하는 주제이다. 우선 현재 사태는 제쳐두고 다음의 질문으로 들어가자 :

 

머지않아서 2014년까지는 우크라이나라고 불리던 곳에 모종의 국가가 들어설 것이다. 크리미아는 러시아로 영원히 들어갔고, 그건 확실하다. 도네츠크 인민공화국은 마치 리히텐슈타인처럼 러시아와 반데라스탄 사이에서 껴있을 성 싶지 않다. 심지어 돈바스 공화국이나 또는 "노보로씨아" 국은 도네츠크와 루간스크 지역을 구성하며 독립국가로 생존하려고 아주 힘든 시기를 가고 있다.

 

I just wanted to mention here a topic which is not often discussed in the western press but which does pop-up with some regularity in the Russian press.  Let's set aside the current events and ask ourselves the following question:

Sooner or later there will be some kind of state in what used to be the Ukraine until 2014.  The Crimea is gone forever to Russia, that is certain.  A "People's Republic of Donetsk" all alone like some kind of Lichtenstein but stuck between Russia and Banderastan is most unlikely.  Even a "People's Republic of the Donbass" or a "Novorossia" composed of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions would have a very hard time surviving as an independent state. 

 

나는 돈바스가 러시아에 합병하든지 아님 최소한 유라시아 연합 (러시아, 카자흐, 벨로루스, 아르메니아 등)에 합병할 것을 가정하고 싶다. 또는 그것이 느슨한 우크라이나 연합이 될수도 있다. 후자는 만일 미국이 네오 나치와 러시아 기피증의 반데라스탄을 유지하려는 망상을 접는다면 가능할 수도 있다. 그렇게 된다는 것은 미국이 현재의 우크라이나에 문면화된 주권국가를 인정한다는 의미가 될터이지만..

 

I think that we can assume that the Donbass will either have to join Russia or, at the very least, the Eurasian Union (Rus, Kaz, Bel, Arm, etc.) or some kind of loose Ukrainian confederation.  The latter is, of course, only possible if the USA gives up on its delusion of maintaining a neo-Nazi and russophobic Banderastan and accepts some kind of sovereign but civilized "Ukraine" in its place. 

 

워싱턴은 어느 누구도 그런 상황을 용인할 태세가 되어있다는 조짐이 없다. 미국이 원하거나 원치않거나 간에 한가지는 분명한데 : 원래 우크라이나를 계승하는 국가는 엄청난 외국 재정원조를 필요로 한다는 것이다. 그런데 우리는 그런 부패한 도당에게 막대한 수십억 달러의 대출을 보장하겠다고 말하고 있지 않다, 이는 다소간에 현대적 국가를 바닥에서부터 재건하는 일이 될 것이다. 결국 최소 10년이 걸리며 막대한 재원을 필요로 하는 것이다. 그것도 테러가 벌어지는 매우 위험한 상황이며 또 가난과 부패상황이 전개되는데 그런 일을 해야하는 것이다. 여기서 정치적인 불안정이 벌어짐은 명약관화한 일이다. 그래서 이런 것을 종합할때 - 당신이 만일 유럽연합이나 러시아라면 - 이런 나라의 다소간의 문제라도 책임을 지길 원할 것인가?

 

Right now there are no signs that anybody in Washington is ready to accept that.  But whatever the USA does or does not want, there is one thing which is sure: all the successor states of the original Ukraine will need HUGE amounts of foreign financial aid.  We are not talking just about providing a few billions in loan guarantees to a clique of corrupt oligarchs, but about fully re-building a more or less modern country almost from scratch.  This is a huge program which will take at least a decade and will require immense resources.  It will have to be implemented in an highly volatile environment, with massive poverty and corruption, with violence prevalent and possibly with a serious terrorism problem.  The political instability of such a environment is guaranteed.  So in the light of this - if you were the EU or Russia - would you want to be responsible for more or less of that territory?

 

생각해보라: 누구라도 법적이든 사실상이든 새로운 "우크라이나 버젼2" 상황을 소유하길 끝내고 싶어할 텐데, 그런 문제를 끌어안길 원치않기 때문이다. 이 문제에 있어서 유럽연합의 계획은 아주 명확하다: 그들은 소유는 원하면서, 돈은 러시아가 내주길 바란다.

 

물론 당연히 러시아는 그런데 합의하질 않는다. 미국인은 더 잘하는데 : 그자들은 아예 이런 질문을 들으려고 하질 않는다, 이 문제를 생각하지도 말고 어떤 계획도 세우지말라는 것이다, 왜냐하면 소유하는 것이 돈을 내는 것을 의미한다면 말이다.

 

자 이 문제는 아직 성숙되지 않았고 어리석은 질문이다. 그렇지만 그들처럼 문제를 외면한다고 해서 돈문제가 마법처럼 사라지는 것이 아니다.

Think about it: whoever will end up "owning" (if not de-jure then de-facto) most of this new "Ukraine v2" will also own most of its problems.  The EU plan in this regard is crystal clear: the EU wants to own it all and let Russia pay for it all.  Unsurprisingly Russia does not agree.  The Americans have it even better: they simply don't ask this question, don't think about this issue and have no plans to own anything if by "owning" we mean "paying for".  This is completely immature and plain silly.  Denying this problem will not make it magically disappear.

 

여기에 아주 적절한 답안이 있는데, 러시아의 관점이 나온다.

 

러시아는 이미 원하던 영토를 병합했다 : 크리미아가 그것이다. 아주 이기적이고 자기중심적 관점에서는 러시아는 우크라이나 국경에 거대한 방벽을 치면서 "그 안에서 지지고 볶고 맘대로하라" 고 선언할 수도 있다. 그리고 우크라이나인, 유럽연합, 미국의 모든 선수 들이 알아서 하라는 것이다. 그건 물론 나의 농담이다, 그저 생각해보자는 뜻에서 수를 놔보자. 만일 러시아가 정확히 그렇게 한다면 무슨 일이 벌어질 것인가? 러시아 국민의 여론은 그런 결정에 대항해서 나서지는 않는다고 가정하자. 또 도네츠크, 루간스크 인민공화국도 설립되었다고 가정하자. 또 칼코프, 오뎃사, 자포로지, 니콜라에프 등등이 저항하길 멈췄다고 가정하자. 그리고 모든 러시아가 천연가스 꼭지를 꺼버렸다고 하면 우크라이나로부터 팝콘이 나오고 맥주와 보고서가 나올 것인가? 당신은 그것이 가능하다고 보는가

 

Now here is the beauty of it all, at least seen from the Russian point of view:

Russia has already reunited the only part of the Ukraine it really "wanted": Crimea.  From a purely egoistic and self-centered point of view, Russia could built a huge wall all along its border with the Ukraine and declare "to hell with it all" and let all the other actors (Ukrainians, EU, US) deal with that.  I am kidding, of course, but as a thought-experiment, this is a useful one.  Ask yourself: what would happen if Russia did exactly that.  Let's assume that Russian public opinion would not be up in arms against such a decision (in reality it would!) and let's just also assume that the (imaginary) "United People's Republic of Donetsk and Luganks" would be fine with that (it's only a though experiment - so indulge me in some unrealistic speculations here, okay?).  Let's even assume that Kharkov, Odessa, Zaporozhie, Nikolaev and other cities and regions stop protesting or resisting.  All Russia would do is turn off the gas spigot (unless it is paid for in advance), get out the popcorn and beer and watch the reports from the Ukraine.  What do you think would happen?

 

정확하게 말하건대, 아니다. 그것은 절대적 혼돈이다. 미국 / 유럽연합은 반정도- 합법적이며 매우 효율적인 권력체제를 갖고 나올 것이며, 300억 에서 1천억 달러의 청구서에 지불을 하게 만든다. 이는 현재 처리해야할 문제가 얼마나 많으냐에 달려있다. 이것을 러시아의 관점에서도 똑같이 보자.

 

미국/ 유럽연합이 우크라이나 경제 손실의 막대한 비용에 대해 합의를 보던지 아님, 서로 누가 어떤 조건으로 지불할 것인지에 다툼을 하든지, 또 불법 이민과 범죄, 정치분쟁의 여파로 피해를 입든지 이는 비효율이며 불능이며 효과가 없고 영문을 모르며 무책임한 일이 될 것이다.

 

Exactly.

Absolute and total chaos.  It's either that or the US/EU would have to come up with a way to not only put a semi-legitimate AND very effective regime in power, but also to pay a bill ranging anywhere form 30 to 100 billion dollars (depending on how much of the problem you want to address immediately).  Now look at the same problem from the Russian point of view:

Either the US/EU agree incur huge costs which will severely damage their economies (and they cannot afford that) or

The EU and US begin an ugly fight over "who pays what and under what terms", and

The EU is hit by a series of shocks as a result of the Ukrainian chaos (illegal immigration, crime, political disputes), and

NATO will be seen as either ineffective/incompetent/useless at best, and as reckless and irresponsible at worst.

So no matter what, the AngloZionist Empire will suffer massive consequences for is crazy notion of letting a huge country like the Ukraine explode right in the middle of the European continent.

 

이런 사태는 유럽대륙한 가운데서 벌어지는 시오니즘 주의자들에게 심각한 결과가 되겠지만, 러시에게는 결코 원치않는 상황이다. 그 이유는 첫째, 러시아 국민의 여론이 작용해서 그땅의 러시아계주민이 신나치와 유태계 도당으로부터 공격당하는 것을 용납치않는다는 것이다. 둘째는 도네츠크와 루간스크가 고립되어서는 생존할수가 없는 곳이기 때문이다. 끝으로 나는 두 지역이 국민투표를 계속 밀고갈 것인지가 확신이 없다, 왜냐면 지금 심각한 경제위기가 들이닥치고 있기 때문이다.

 

이상적으로는 러시아는 느슨한 우크라이나 연합을 원한다. 연합체제는 완전히 나치주의가 배제되며 러시아와의 경제블록을 형성하며 동반자가 되는 길이다. 러시아는 미국과 유럽연합이 우크라이나 버젼 2가 되도록 경제와 기술적 협조를 하길 원한다. 그것은 반데라스탄이나 나토에 가입한 우크라이나가 아니다.

To be honest, I am quite certain that Russia does not want that outcome at all.  First, the Russian public opinion is extremely worked-up about having fellow Russians attacked by a mix of neo-Nazis and Jewish oligarchs and it would never accept putting up any kind of wall or abandon the Russian-speaking Ukrainians.  Second, as I mentioned before, Donetsk and Lugansk along cannot be viable in isolation.  Finally, I am not at all so sure that only these two regions will decide to hold a referendum, especially after the economic crisis really hits.

Ideally Russia wants a lose Ukrainian Confederation.  This confederation would have to be thoroughly de-Nazified and would probably have to join the economic union with Russia and its partners (if only to benefit from Russian financial aid).  Russia would also want the US and EU to pitch in its "fair share" of financial and technical support to gradually re-built "Ukraine v2", especially considering that these two entities are responsible for breaking up "Ukraine v1" in the first place.  Needless to say, "Ukraine v2" would not be Banderastan and it would not join NATO.

As a side note, it would be really smart for the new Ukrainian leadership of this "Ukraine v2" to declare itself not only neutral but also totally demilitarized.  Seriously, what is the point of having a military when stuck right in between NATO and Russia?  Provide more targets?

As a (former and "recovering") military analyst I can tell you that by far the best defense against foreign agression for Ukraine would be:

1) the size of its territory (geographical defense)
2) being completely demilitarized (political defense)
3) being officially neutral (legal defense)
4) being in between two rival blocks (military defense by means of "other side")

That does not require a single Hrivna of financing, looks extremely progressive, would get a standing ovation from all its neighbors and would provide the perfect "buffer" to reassure both NATO and Russia.  And just imagine the amount of money saved which the "Ukraine v2" could use for far more urgent and contructive needs!

Alas, that would also require a vision which is far beyond what the current freaks in power can even begin to contemplate.

As I have mentioned it in the past, the USA's entire Ukrainian policy is based on a fallacy cooked up by Zbigniew Brzezinski and parroted by Hillary Clinton:  Brzezinski believes that Russia cannot be a superpower without the Ukraine and Hillary believes that Putin wants to rebuild the USSR.  They are both completely wrong, of course: Russia is already a superpower (it has now defeated the US/EU/NATO alliance in both Syria and the Ukraine) and Putin does not want to rebuild the USSR at all.  I wonder if there is anybody in the US polity which understands who much these conceptual mistakes will end up costing the USA.  By listening to these two hateful maniacs (this is really what Zbig and Hillary are!) the USA has completely mismanaged every step of its crucial relationship with both the EU and Russia.

In the case of rump-Ukraine more is not better, more is worse; less is better.  The less Russia will have to manage and pay for the reconstruction of the Ukraine the better off Russia will be.  From the EU's point of view, however, the more Russia takes over of the Ukraine, the better for the EU.  This is even better from the US point of view because from the US point of view the more the US/EU "own" the Ukraine, the more they will have to pay for it and the more the transatlantic alliance will come under stress.  So, paradoxically, it would be in the best interests of the USA to have Russia take over all of the Ukraine.  Sounds crazy?  Maybe, but that is still a fact.

So here is the truth: the Ukraine is not a prize at all - it is a huge burden.

That is a truth which no politician can openly state, of course.

Checkmate on all boards

But we can, and should.  Because if we keep that truism clear in our minds, we can then see why Russia's victory in this massive confrontation with the united powers of the US/EU/NATO is so total.  Can you guess?

Because no matter what, Russia will have the option to chose how much of the Ukrainian burden it is willing to shoulder whereas the West will have to take whatever Russia does not want.  Yep, that's right.  Just remember the thought experiment we just did above.  Russia could, in theory, refuse to take up any further burden and declare "ain't my problem, sorry" and there is nothing the US/EU/NATO could do about it (not to mention that such a Russians stance would completely deflate the stupid canard about Russia being ready to invade the Baltics, Poland or any other EU country).

In a sane world ruled by non-delusional people the real priority of western politicians would be to cuddle, beg, plead, threaten and trick Russia into taking over as much of the Ukraine as possible - the whole thing if possible.  Let Russia deal with the neo-Nazis, let Russia pay Ukrainian pensions and salaries, let Russia rebuilt the entire economy, let Russia waste its energy and resources on this ungrateful and truly Herculean task.  If Russia agreed to take over the full Ukraine NATO could even re-heat its "Russian threat" canard and justify its existence.

Luckily, however, as long as Putin is in power Russia will never agree to anything like it.  Time is on Russia's side and the worst the situation of the Ukraine becomes, the weaker the US/EU/NATO block is, the stronger the Russian bargaining position becomes.

So while Russia cannot remain indifferent and while Russians cannot cynically get some popcorn and beer and watch it all go to hell, Russia will continue to play a very low-key game: Russia will stick to its principled position, it will refuse to be a party to any ludicrous solution, and it will condemn the crazy and neo-Nazi policies of the freaks currently in power in  Kiev.

Other than that, Russia will simply wait for western leaders to wake up from their current delusional hallucinations and get serious about solving a problem which is first and foremost their problem which they created and they will have to pay for solving.

The Saker

Posted by VINEYARDSAKER: at 17:08

 

Labels: Russian options in the Ukraine

 

http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/A-look-in-the-long-distance-who-will-have-to-pay-for-Ukraine-v2.shtml 

요약번역출처: 피터김의 체험나누기 http://blog.daum.net/petercskim/7867979