The leader of the DPR A. Zakharchenko suddenly, out of the blue, announced the creation of Little Russia. "We believe that the state of Ukraine in the form that it was cannot be restored. We, representatives of the regions of the former Ukraine, with the exception of Crimea, declare the establishment of a new state, which is the successor to Ukraine. We agree that the new state will be called Little Russia, since the very name Ukraine has discredited itself,” said A. Zakharchenko. And he confused the minds of literally everyone, because no one understood what the leader of the DPR actually meant. what kind of Little Russia is it, within what borders, and most importantly - what kind of people will live there (are they really Little Russians?). And away we go: the patriots of Russia are shouting that we have been betrayed, the patriots of Ukraine are shouting the same thing.

But what really? In fact, Little Russia is not Ukraine. What is Ukraine? Ukraine is a small empire created during the years of the USSR. An empire is a conglomerate of several peoples and states united by a single political and military center (like Ancient Rome or our Russian Federation). That is, initially Ukraine was not and could not exist as a unitary state, so it is now falling apart.

The problem for understanding affairs in Ukraine (including for us) is a lack of understanding of ethnic terms. The fact is that the word “rus” or “ros” is not a monopoly of the Russian people. All peoples who previously lived in the medieval state of Rus' (simply Rus', without any historiographical additions, such as “Ancient” or “Kievan”) have equal rights to this name. Let me remind you that the proud name “Romans” is still borne by the descendants of the population of the province of Dacia - the Romanians, but they have nothing to do with the real Romans. In the same way, a person who has the prefix “rus” or “ros” in his self-name does not need to be seen as Russian. They are not Russians, although they are close relatives. The trouble for Ukrainians is that they did not understand this. More precisely, Western Ukrainians understood this, starting the aggressive assimilation of all other peoples of Ukraine, which naturally led to a civil war and the collapse of Ukraine.

In fact, several peoples live in Ukraine. If everything is clear with the Russians, Hungarians and other peoples who are aware of their ethnic self-identification, then an incident arose with the Ukrainians. In fact, there are not one, but two peoples that we know as “Ukrainians”. These peoples are completely different, differing from each other in language, culture, mentality and historical destiny. One can be conditionally called “Eastern Ukrainians” or “Little Russians” (in this case the name does not matter much). This people was formed on the territory of the central principalities of Rus' and the Polovtsian field, that is, of Slavic-Turkic origin (the Little Russian language has up to 4,000 Turkic words and many surnames of eastern Ukrainians are of Turkic (Polovtsian) origin). Some researchers also add Circassians, that is, the peoples of the North Caucasus, to the ancestors of eastern Ukrainians, which we can also agree with - the suffix -en in Ukrainian surnames is truly Circassian. Eastern Ukrainians are Orthodox people and sympathizers with Russians. Western Ukrainians are already a people formed on the basis of the Slavicized Thracians, Illyrians, Volokhs (Moldavians), Hungarians, the Slavs of Rus' itself, as well as the Poles. This people, even as part of Rus', did not consider the Russians to be their own and always sought to secede. The language of Western Ukrainians contains many Polonisms and words borrowed from their neighbors. They gravitate toward Catholicism, that is, an ideology hostile to Russians. Already here there is a watershed between the two nations. It is worth noting that the Carpathian Rusyns are the descendants of the Slavicized Illyrians, that is, they are far from Russian, although they are distant relatives.

The division between the two Ukrainian peoples (let's call them that) took place at the very beginning of their state creation. Instead of creating one Ukrainian state, they created two - the UPR and the WUNR, and it could not have been otherwise, because these were two different peoples who were deceived by narrow-minded pan-Ukrainian ideologists, mixing two peoples under one name. Under Soviet rule, leaders and ideologists generally had a poor understanding of ethnic problems (they considered it only a superstructure, and not particularly important). But trouble crept up unnoticed: Western Ukrainians emerged as the ideological leaders of Ukraine, after which the assimilation of Eastern Ukrainians by Westerners began. To begin with, an artificial “read language” was concocted on the basis of Western Ukrainian dialects, which in every possible way emphasized its alienness to the Russian language. The language of the Eastern Ukrainians was very close to the Russian language (this is not difficult to verify by reading the notes of ethnographers). In response to the alien language, Eastern Ukrainians switched to Russian en masse, giving rise to such a phenomenon as the “Russian-speaking Ukrainian.” As a result, two Ukrainian languages ​​died: Western Ukrainians switched to a linguistic surrogate of “read language”, eastern Ukrainians began to speak the Russian language, which is closer to them and more cultural.

So, in Ukraine there live two peoples under the same name, and the least cultured and hostile to Russia people of Western Ukrainians have been trying to assimilate the neighboring people of Eastern Ukrainians for a century.

In this light, A. Zakharchenko’s statement (hardly without the consent of Moscow - the leaders of the LPR, it seems, do not enjoy much trust from the Russian leadership) says only one thing - the plan for the division of Ukraine is already ready. Western Ukrainians will get their own state, and eastern Ukrainians will get theirs. It will be fair. Alas, the Ukrainians were unable to support the Ukrainian empire they inherited from the USSR. Therefore, the best way out, first of all for the Ukrainians themselves, so as not to force themselves in one state, would be the division of Ukraine into two states for two different peoples. The Novorossiya plan failed - this should be admitted. First of all, apart from the population of the DPR and LPR, no one in Ukraine supported this plan. When this will happen is anyone's guess. However, it is worth remembering that the current Russian leadership consists of tough, pragmatic politicians who know how to wait, choose the place and time, and do not hesitate to use military force. So the checkmate of Bandera’s Ukraine will be quick and tough, like with Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014.

All patriots of “conciliar Ukraine” should remember that Russia in the 21st century. Ukraine as a state of the Ukrainian empire is not needed in any form. For a quarter of a century, Ukraine existed according to the principle “for Russia it is neither a friend nor an enemy, but so,” with a tendency to move to the enemy camp in order to engage in political and economic blackmail of Russia. Russia does not need such neighbors. Russia also has neither money nor time left to babysit a foreign state of a foreign people - the problems of the great-power Ukrainian natives do not concern the Russian sheriff. The Novorossiya plan is dead. The Little Russia plan has emerged - this is a historic chance for eastern Ukrainians. Neither history nor Russia will give you, Eastern Ukrainians, another chance. If you screw up Little Russia like Novorossiya, you will no longer have a state. Believe me, you either take fate into your own hands or remain a people of historical losers and “great power” whiners, confident that everyone around them owes and is obliged to them. The division of Ukraine will not be something hostile and violent - the division will occur according to the good will of the population, or it will not happen. No one will decide for the Ukrainians themselves (Eastern and Western). If you want your own state, you will have it, and if you remain great-power Ukrainians, that is your choice and your destiny, but without Russia. This is the last chance that the fraternal Russian people are giving you. There will be no other way - Mars is waiting for us.

The sensational news about the creation of a new state of Little Russia instead of Ukraine, announced by the leader of the DPR Alexander Zakharchenko, “put the whole world on ears.” And this world gradually realizes that they are not joking with it...

It is especially valuable that the enemies were agitated.

For some reason he suddenly decided to become the mouthpiece of the Russian “Judas” liberals in this matter! Misha 2% “light Kasyanov, who raised his voice very loudly: “Who needs this “Little Russia”?” So loudly and with such obvious horror that I even wanted to quote comrade completely.

“The Russian authorities are trying to portray the statement of the head of the “DPR” Zakharchenko about the creation of “Little Russia”, a ghost state instead of Ukraine, as an initiative. Despite the insane content of the idea itself, I am sure that behind it are the Kremlin curators, in whose heads delirium still wanders about the “Russian spring” as an instrument for the subordination of Ukraine to the Putin regime.

The idea of ​​Little Russia was formulated and thrown in by the curators in their usual buffoonish, mocking form. So that it would look frivolous, but it would make both Kyiv and the West think about Moscow’s readiness to raise the stakes: this, they say, is what Kyiv’s inability to negotiate leads to, the self-proclaimed republics have to think about independence.

This embittered cynicism looks like a threat: something needs to be done when the Kremlin-cherished Novorossiya project has failed. In the spring, Russia recognized the documents of the self-proclaimed republics, the ruble became the official currency, and enterprises were “squeezed” from their legal owners. With these steps, the Russian authorities immediately crossed out the Minsk agreements. Thanks to Minsk-2, the Kremlin hoped to gain leverage over Kyiv through the special status of the current rulers of the self-proclaimed republics. It was not possible to implement these plans. The destroyed Donbass has been a heavy burden on the shoulders of Russian taxpayers for three years now.

Putin has the last trump cards in his arsenal. Behind the absurd promises to create “Little Russia” there may be very real plans for Moscow to officially recognize the so-called. "Lao PDR", especially in the context of the need to create an "image of the future" on the eve of the presidential elections. Of course, the Kremlin is not seriously counting on seizing the territory of Ukraine up to the Dnieper, but the Kremlin’s blackmail could easily become a reality within the borders of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.”

For some reason, Russia’s “bosom enemy” McCain suddenly became seriously alarmed: “Donbass is not enough for Putin, he needs Little Russia, sanctions don’t work!!!”

Chairman of the US Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain placed responsibility for the proclamation of Little Russia in the DPR on Russian President Vladimir Putin, and once again called on the US and the EU to increase pressure on Russia and provide Ukraine with lethal weapons.

"Vladimir Putin's ambitions to restore the Russian Empire took another step when Russian separatists in the Donetsk region of Ukraine declared an independent state with the tsarist era name "Little Russia". The ultimate responsibility for this gross violation of Ukrainian sovereignty lies squarely with Russia's Vladimir Putin, under whose leadership , whose financing, as well as the supply of troops and weapons, the separatists are completely dependent on,”- emphasized the head of the Senate committee.

“With its aggressive behavior, Russia has demonstrated that it does not want peace and the achievement of the goals of Minsk-2,” emphasized McCain, who was not embarrassed and has not been embarrassed for two years now by the fact that the Russian Federation is not a party to the Minsk agreements.

“However, Putin calculates that the more his military and supporters kill Ukrainians, the more Ukrainian territory they can seize. And the more Putin forces Ukraine to devote its limited resources to war rather than improving the economy, the more he can undermine power in Kiev and prevent Ukraine from realizing its Euro-Atlantic future,"- writes McCain, who, like Poroshenko, can turn a conversation on any topic into “Russian aggression” and end with “this time a final farewell to the USSR and imperial Russia.”

But there were also signs of a healthy perception of the situation in McCain’s words: he wrote that the States and the EU “We must honestly face reality, admitting that we have not been able to radically change Russia’s plans in Ukraine over the past three years.”

In this regard, McCain emphasized that Washington's statements that sanctions will continue until Russia fulfills its obligations are not valid.

In conclusion, McCain habitually called on the United States to impose powerful sanctions against the Russian Federation and provide Ukraine with the lethal defensive weapons it needs for self-defense.

Incredible, but true: something began to reach Svidomo. On his page on the social network, adviser to the head of the DPR Zakhar Prilepin wrote a message referring to an article by the Ukrainian online publication daily.com.ua. In it, a man named Garmash saw the light and explained to his compatriots that they were idiots and Zakharchenko had deceived them, a quote from a message by a Russian writer.

The news in the Ukrainian media was published under the headline "The goal of the Little Russia project is to change the ideology of the conflict from interstate to intra-Ukrainian" . In it, a Ukrainian expert writes that if just yesterday the news about Little Russia sounded like hangover nonsense, then today, when the entire world community has reacted to it, it no longer looks funny.

Here is part of the article:

And here is Zakhar Prilepin’s message.

So, we have the realization: Little Russia as an alternative to Galicia

The proclamation of Little Russia in Donetsk by the head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko, had the effect of a bomb exploding in the Minsk political process. Political scientists from all sides are discussing the meaning of this statement by Zakharchenko, and, for the most part, with the exception of Rostislav Ishchenko, they do not really find it. Thus, ex-member of the Rada, who fled from Bandera’s supporters, Oleg Tsarev, speaks of the belatedness and irrelevance of this statement. In a purely practical sense, he is probably right. And in a political sense, Zakharchenko has already blown up the Minsk process, in this sense, the proclamation of Little Russia has already achieved its goal.

Another question: is the idea of ​​Little Russia an initiative of Donetsk, or a political action coordinated with Moscow? If you look at who benefits, then Moscow, of course, benefits from this. In the Minsk process, Donbass equalizes its position with Kiev, no longer claiming a special status for Donbass within Ukraine, but for the whole of Ukraine, like Kyiv. If the Novorossiya project covered only the South-East of Ukraine, then the Little Russia project covers Ukraine to the western borders. Some experts believe that the Little Russia project will become a reason for new Western sanctions, however, they will always find a reason there if they want.

With the Little Russia project, Moscow says what will happen if suddenly there are no Minsk agreements. “Minsk” is being buried, then revived again, Bandera’s Kyiv is not going to implement it, but the Western guarantors of “Minsk” are not imposing sanctions against it. The draft law on the “reintegration of Donbass” is openly directed against Minsk, but Western guarantors do not condemn it.

The proclamation of Little Russia is an obvious “response” to the declared “reintegration of Donbass,” and Zakharchenko said this directly: Little Russia is an attempt to reintegrate Ukraine, since “Ukraine” has exhausted itself and has been discredited by Banderaism, which is unacceptable for Donbass and the entire South-East of Ukraine

The Western guarantors of “Minsk” demanded that Moscow immediately condemn Little Russia, but this was not forthcoming. Presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov noted that this “topic is subject to comprehension and analysis,” and then added that it “is Zakharchenko’s personal initiative,” and “Russia remains committed to Minsk.” This begs the question: is it still saving? This is definitely not a condemnation.

The representative of Russia in Minsk, Boris Gryzlov, spoke as Captain Obvious: “Little Russia does not fit into the Minsk process,” and lawyer for Donetsk: “The initiative to create Little Russia is a response to the provocative actions of Kyiv.”

Moscow is obviously strengthening its position in front of Berlin and Paris, and demands that Europe condemn the draft law on the “reintegration of Donbass” and the ongoing revival of Bandera’s Nazism in Ukraine. In general, Little Russia is a serious political move, but it was made as if spontaneously and unexpectedly for everyone.

Representative of the Lugansk Republic Vladimir Deinego called it an untimely initiative that was not discussed with them. It may not have been officially discussed, but the idea of ​​Little Russia itself has been discussed at least since 2011, when historian A.V. Marchukov published his work “The Little Russian Project” (2011), and then “Little Russians and the All-Russian Idea” (2015).

Little Russia is, of course, a response to Bandera’s “Croatian scenario”; Donbass clearly says that it is not afraid of this scenario. And Russia, as it were, warns the Pentagon, where they announced the decision to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine: you will not have time to deliver them. In Syria, a relative truce is being established very opportunely, and the Russian Aerospace Forces can carry out other urgent tasks.

In this regard, it is worth paying attention to the statement of Sergei Lavrov, albeit based on Russian diplomatic property taken from the United States: he called Washington a highway bandit. This is some kind of serious sign, the imperturbable diplomat Lavrov was indignant to the point of swear words. Our best enemy McCain seems to confirm, on the other hand, the seriousness of the moment: “The statement of Alexander Zakharchenko is the direct responsibility of Putin.”

While Alexander Zakharchenko proclaimed Little Russia as a political idea, it is a powerful idea, it can capture the broad masses and become a real force. In ideological terms, this is a challenge and an alternative to Bandera’s Galicia, which has put on the guise of Ukraine. If there is Galicia, then there may be Little Russia. This ideological challenge to Bandera is worth a lot.

Victor Kamenev

According to Zakharchenko’s proposal, the state of Little Russia is located on the territory of modern Ukraine. It was proposed to abandon the name “Ukraine” because the current Kyiv authorities “discredited themselves” with the Euromaidan revolution.

However, the very name of the new state raises doubts. From a historical point of view, it is incorrect to call the whole of Ukraine Little Russia. Since the Middle Ages, this toponym has been used to refer to the Galician and Kiev metropolises, parts of Rus', as well as the state created by Bogdan Khmelnytsky. Nevertheless, all of these territories were smaller than modern Ukraine, in addition, they had one or another politicized connotation, and any of them is not able to unite the current Ukrainian population.

Among other things, the previously self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics called themselves another toponym - Novorossiya. As a result, for many observers the name “Little Russia” became a reason for jokes.

2. Position of the LPR

In order for “Little Russia” to gain at least some prospects, the support of both the DPR and LPR is necessary. However, the Second People's Republic is not going to participate in this project.

“We have no plans. This is an internal initiative of the DPR. We have an agenda that identifies pressing issues that require discussion and resolution,” said Rodion Miroshnik, a member of the delegation from the LPR in the political subgroup on Donbass, a few hours after the announcement of “Little Russia”.

Many politicians in the DPR, by the way, were also extremely surprised by the announcement of Little Russia. “Out of the blue! Nobody said anything! — this is how a source in the middle level of the DPR government described the situation to Gazeta.Ru. - Everyone is very worried. What is happening is reminiscent of 2014, when a lot also happened on command, without preparation and completely unexpectedly.”

3. Minsk agreements

The idea of ​​“Little Russia” obviously contradicts the Minsk agreements, which today dictate the optimal rules for resolving the Donbass conflict. These documents maintain a neutral tone; no one is accused of military aggression; in addition, they talk about the unification of Ukraine. All parties participating in the negotiation process in the Belarusian capital agree with this: Kyiv, DPR and LPR, Russia, as well as the OSCE, which represents the interests of the European Union.

The same rules satisfy the participants of the Normandy Four, a negotiating format that should help advance the Minsk process. In addition to the leaders of Russia and Ukraine, the “four” include the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany.

According to the Minsk agreements, the Kyiv authorities are obliged to conduct a broad amnesty for citizens of the DPR and LPR, as well as reform the constitution, giving Donbass broad autonomy. This has not been done so far. The self-proclaimed republics, in turn, must hold elections according to Ukrainian law.

As Vladimir Evseev, deputy director of the Institute of CIS Countries, told Gazeta.Ru, at present the project to create Little Russia cannot be in demand. The Minsk agreements were signed by both Kyiv and the self-proclaimed people's republics.

If the parties fulfill these conditions, the need for Little Russia will simply disappear.

In the fall, elections for a new chancellor will be held in Germany, and this, according to Evseev, will only increase uncertainty in the resolution of the Donbass conflict. In such conditions, the creation of Little Russia is simply impossible, the expert believes. He is confident that first of all it is necessary to stop the shooting: “Poroshenko is violating all agreements, which is why the fire is still going on.”

The expert also recalled that the idea of ​​Little Russia is not liked by the United States, for whose help Kyiv so hopes.

“America does not have any strategy for Ukraine. They don't even have a single decision-making center. Congress is not particularly inclined to cooperate with Trump,” the expert explained. Little Russia, in turn, will only complicate the decision-making process in Washington in the Ukrainian direction.

4. Discussion

After the leadership of the DPR was faced with a misunderstanding even of its closest allies from the LPR, Zakharchenko began to say that the main task of his initiative with “Little Russia” was to start a discussion.

“We invited a discussion and made our proposal,” he said. “No final decisions have been made.” Meanwhile, the prospects for this discussion are vague.

This was stated on July 19 by the plenipotentiary representative of Russia in the contact group to resolve the situation in Ukraine, Boris Gryzlov. “I take this only as an invitation to discussion,” he said, adding, however, that the proposal has “no legal implications.” “It relates rather to information warfare and is not a subject of real politics,” Gryzlov believes.

Associate Professor of the Department of Political History of MGIMO Kirill Koktysh, in a conversation with Gazeta.Ru, announced two options for interpreting Little Russia. “Either we are trying to revive that same Gogol’s Little Russia, and then it emerges as a serious competitor to Kyiv, or we are forming a new appendage of the capital,” the expert believes.

According to him, both of these ideas have flaws. Moreover, it seems premature to even begin a discussion about these options. “There are no specifics yet, there is only an invitation to conversation,” says Koktysh.

“In my opinion, the idea of ​​Little Russia is an unprepared improvisation, an impromptu of Zakharchenko,” says Oleg Bondarenko, director of the Progressive Policy Foundation. According to Gazeta.Ru’s interlocutor, this project reflects the general trend of many politicians since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine.

5. Russia's position

The Russian leadership also did not support Zakharchenko’s initiatives. This was stated by several key politicians associated with the Minsk process.

Press Secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov denied rumors that Moscow is involved in the idea of ​​“Little Russia”. “In Moscow today they learned about this from the media,” he said. Boris Gryzlov, in turn, emphasized that the Little Russia project contradicts the Minsk agreements.

According to Russian Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov, the “hype” around Little Russia is useful, but only from the point of view of an outside observer.

“Kyiv has a Euro-utopia. Donetsk responds with the idea of ​​Little Russia. A broad internal Ukrainian discussion is flaring up, in which the level of organization, arguments and IQ of the disputing parties are visible. But here, to put it in Little Russian: like the power, so is the IQ,” he said.

As Alexei Chesnakov, director of the Center for Political Current Affairs, which is close to the Kremlin, told TASS, Zakharchenko’s statements about “ambiguous responses” to his idea of ​​​​a new state confirm that “there will be no Little Russia.” “However, just like the previous Ukraine. There is a need for a discussion about what a re-established country and the power structure within it could be like, as well as how relations between Kyiv and Donbass, Kyiv and other regions of the country will be built,” the expert added.

16:37 — REGNUM Today, July 18, in Donetsk the head of the DPR Alexander Zakharchenko announced the creation of a new state entity on the basis of 19 regions of Ukraine - Little Russia. On this occasion IA REGNUM provides a selection of the latest statements by the Ukrainian side and experts.

Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDC) Alexander Turchinov believes that the creation of Little Russia is an argument in favor of the adoption in Ukraine of a law on the de-occupation of Donbass. The press service of the National Security and Defense Council reported this on July 18.

He declared, " that the idea of ​​​​creating Little Russia is another proof of the aggressive plans of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and his reluctance to resolve the conflict in Donbass peacefully».

The secretary called on the parliament to adopt the law of Ukraine “On the specifics of the state policy of restoring the state sovereignty of Ukraine over the temporarily occupied territory of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions” and the liberation of the “occupied territories.”

At the same time, the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko reminded that the head of the DPR Zakharchenko is not a political figure.

“Zakharchenko is not a political figure, but a puppet who broadcasts Kremlin statements,” — Poroshenko noted, quoted by an employee of the AP press service Yarema Spirit.

In addition, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavel Klimkin believes that the statements of the DPR leaders about the creation of Little Russia are an attempt to play out the Abkhaz scenario in the Donbass. Klimkin wrote about this in his.

“Even when the Ukrainian delegation is in Georgia, the Kremlin is trying to play out the Abkhaz scenario in Donbass. My partners and I will not allow this to happen,” — Klimkin wrote.

It is noteworthy that the initiative of the head of the DPR was commented on by the press service of the German government. In particular, the German government called the idea of ​​​​creating Little Russia completely unacceptable.

“The German government condemns this step as completely unacceptable. Mr. Zakharchenko does not have the legitimacy to speak for this part of Ukraine,” - the statement says.

In turn, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine VictorMuzhenko expressed confidence that “Ukraine will restore territorial integrity.”

“The Ukrainian people buried “Novorossiya” and will also bury “Little Russia”. The sick fantasies of Russian puppets always disappear like a ghost. The territorial sovereignty of Ukraine will be restored. Undoubtedly!" — Muzhenko wrote on his Facebook page.

At the same time, the representative of Ukraine in the security subgroup of the Trilateral Contact Group for the peaceful resolution of the conflict in Donbass (TCG) Evgeniy Marchuk promised to submit for discussion in Minsk the project of creating Little Russia.

“Zakharchenko’s statement, in principle, blocks the entire negotiation process for tomorrow. Because tomorrow, whatever the agenda is, the one that the OSCE proposes, or if we can edit it, then we will start the discussion with this statement by Zakharchenko. Because if such a statement occurs, it means that there is nothing further to talk about. We will see if Russia reacts to this statement. I think no", - Marchuk said on air "".

According to him, " The Kremlin was forced to resurrect the Little Russia project after the high-profile political and diplomatic failures of the Russian leadership in Paris and Brussels».

“This is coordinated, after all the failures of Russia both with Europe and with the United States, what they planned, and with France, in Brussels. Apparently, this is my personal opinion, I now expect some moves in connection with such circumstances "The Russian side is precisely about blocking the Minsk negotiation process in general, but they will do it as if they are not to blame. It was not Russia that said, but Zakharchenko," - added Marchuk.

People's Deputy, member of the Popular Front faction, adviser to the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Anton Gerashchenko connects the creation of the Little Russia project with the presidential elections in the Russian Federation, which will be held on March 18, 2018.

“Girkin (former Minister of Defense of the DPR) and other far-right Russian marginal figures publicly and aggressively criticize Putin for not completing the complete defeat of the Ukrainian junta and not annexing part of the occupied Donbass to Russia as another subject of the Federation, like Crimea. Anticipating this, Kremlin political strategists developed a plan to rebrand the “Novo-Malorossiya” project. There is no other reason for this meaningless statement, other than the start of another PR campaign to stupefy the minds of unfortunate Russians before the presidential elections,” — Gerashchenko wrote on his page.

As reported IA REGNUM, On July 18, the press service of the Council of Ministers of the DPR noted that in Donetsk, representatives of the LPR, DPR and 19 regions of Ukraine signed a political declaration and a constitutional act on the creation of a non-aligned, federal state of Little Russia. According to the head of the DPR, the new formation will join the Union State of the Russian Federation and Belarus. It is noteworthy that the DPR refused to include the Zhitomir, Vinnitsa, Transcarpathian, Khmelnytsky and Chernivtsi regions of Ukraine into Little Russia.

Ukraine is doomed to become Little Russia again

A new stage begins in the Ukrainian crisis: supporters of the unity of the Russian world are proclaiming a course towards the creation of the state of Little Russia. How to understand the corresponding statement made by the head of the DPR, as well as the official reaction from Russia that followed it?

After the head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko, announced the creation of Little Russia at a press conference in Donetsk, the buzz of “political scientists” immediately began. What kind of cunning game is this, with or without the Kremlin, a propaganda move or a change in strategy?

“The slogan about replacing Ukraine with Little Russia is a form of struggle for independence in 2017–2020.”

They wondered, called names, cursed - but then, after statements by a person close to those responsible in the Kremlin for the negotiation process on Ukraine, they calmed down. No, the Kremlin had nothing to do with it, and the idea itself was simply an invention of “bloggers and writers.” Then the “nightingales” began to wonder whether the bloggers would receive a hat for their creativity.

Well, when, towards the evening, the press secretary of the Russian President said that “Zakharchenko’s statement on the topic of Little Russia is his personal initiative,” and “the Russian side remains committed to the Minsk agreements,” the joy of commentators took on indecent forms.

Moreover, both opponents of Putin and the unity of Russia and Ukraine, as well as supporters of the annexation of Donbass, rejoice. The latter see in any Kremlin initiative a move towards the surrender of Donbass and therefore have already managed to shout the eternal “Putin has leaked it.” Now, the majority of “analysts” have calmed down on the fact that Zakharchenko simply staged a PR campaign for himself, or, at least, in this way he decided to cheer up Kyiv a little. Nothing serious - we’re leaving, the “smart heads” concluded.

Meanwhile, we are dealing with the most important, milestone moment in the history of the struggle for Ukraine.

All the debates in Russia on the Ukrainian topic for the past three years have been centered around what strategy should be chosen regarding Ukraine - and whether we behaved correctly in 2014. If we don’t take the marginal liberal opposition that criticizes the Kremlin for everything, starting with Crimea, then the main complaint about the government’s policies among some of those who call themselves “Russian nationalists” is that Russia did not annex Donbass and Novorossiya.

That is, Putin did not fulfill what they expected from him in 2014 - he said the word “Novorossiya”, but did not forcefully destroy Ukraine, cut off the eastern regions populated mainly by Russians from it. For this, Putin has been called all sorts of names - both a traitor to the interests of the Russian people and a trans-Ukrainian. But since the vast majority of the Russian population understands the role that Putin played in the history of Crimea and Donbass, attempts to portray the president as an unpatriotic were unsuccessful. Even millions of residents of the DPR and LPR, who find themselves in the most difficult, suspended situation, understand the Kremlin’s motives. Putin is not afraid to annex Donbass; Putin, like any Russian ruler, thinks about Ukraine as a whole.

And this is not an imperialist’s whim - this is the concern of the leader of the Russian world about how this world will live in the future. Yes, Putin is called the President of the Russian Federation. But just as the Russian Federation itself is only a temporary form of existence of eternal Russia, so Putin is the guarantor of the interests and rights of all Russian people, the entire Russian world. The so-called solution The Ukrainian issue is of enormous, fateful significance. If we decide incorrectly, it will take centuries to correct our mistakes, omissions, and weaknesses, or even everything will be irreparably destroyed.

We are talking about the future of the Russian world, Russian civilization. About whether it will be united - because without Ukraine Russia will not be an empire (as the Pole Brzezinski sang), it will not be Russia. This is why Putin’s position regarding the unity of the Russian people is so important: the president constantly emphasizes that Russians and Ukrainians are not just fraternal peoples, they are practically one people. So it is, Putin is not inventing anything - but you need to have political and human courage to stubbornly stick to this line.

After all, it is much simpler - and a considerable part of the Russian political elite would agree to this - to say that yes, we stand for the Russian world, but to do everything in such a way as to let Ukraine go to the West. To take back the DPR and LPR – Kyiv would gladly (albeit unspoken) give up the already lost territories. The West would grumble for show, but would be glad that the crisis was over; it would even guarantee Ukraine’s non-aligned status.

But we would have lost the cradle of Russian civilization, we would have given up tens of millions of our compatriots (even if most of them are now fooled by our common enemies) to de-Russification, to degeneration. If Ukraine would then fall apart, whether it would be mired in civil strife or not, it would no longer be our business, it would be someone else’s business. Is this what Putin should have done? Of course not.

That is why Russia is fighting for all of Ukraine - waiting, saying all sorts of appropriate words about the “Minsk process” and non-intervention. This unspoken publicly position of Russia is well understood both in the West - after all, they initially understood that they were trying to seize someone else’s, Russian, to tear off a piece of the Russian world - and in the so-called Kyiv government.

The “elite” currently leading Ukraine is a generally terrible sight: a combination of traitors and adventurers, stupid and narrow-minded people with hardened cynics and Russophobes. These are all the consequences of the collapse of the country in 1991. But if in Russia, with difficulty, but people of action have prevailed, then in Ukraine the feast of crooks and thieves continues. For this “elite,” escaping from Russia also becomes a way to avoid retaliation from their own people – after all, after the rapprochement of the two countries begins, they will have to answer for everything.

The existing Ukraine has no future. The transitional, post-Soviet country died in February 2014, and the current education will be reformatted and returned to the Russian world. The only question is the time and effort spent on it. Three years have already passed - and we in Russia, of course, dreamed that the sobering up and self-medication of Ukrainian society would proceed faster.

But now the seemingly slowed processes of disintegration and the struggle for power in Square will gain momentum. The Kyiv regime is running out of distractions. The country has received a visa-free regime, but there are no prospects for European integration; the new American administration is not ready, even in propaganda terms, to play along with Kyiv and say that everything is going in the right direction. The economy is deteriorating, and social discontent is inevitably accumulating - the next round of the struggle for power has been programmed. And not only those who consider themselves “masters of Ukraine” are preparing for it, but also those who are fighting for its future.

The slogan about the creation of Little Russia, about its replacement of Ukraine as such, is a form of struggle for Ukraine for 2017–2020. Now in Ukraine there are two states - one, not recognized by anyone, but with the capital in Donetsk and the desire to be with Russia, and the second, recognized by everyone, but with the desire to be without Russia.

Russia is not fighting for Ukraine with the West - in fact, there is no way they can stop our reunification; neither the EU nor the USA will ever fight for Ukraine with Russia. Russia is fighting for Ukraine with Kiev, with the “elite” that seized power in the country - a fight for the souls and minds of the population of Ukraine. And in this struggle, the words about the creation of Little Russia became a very correct, strong move - they reminded all residents of Square that they are in fact Russians, that is, Little Russians. And that when they drive out the Kyiv “elite”, the country will become united again, that Donbass is not going anywhere, even if Poroshenko does not hope for it.

Nobody knows how long it will take to transform Ukraine into Little Russia - three, five, ten years. But it will inevitably become Little Russia again, and then part of a single, great Russia.

The end of Ukraine in... Little Russia or Novo-Ukraine

Of course, the announcement by the leader of the self-proclaimed DPR of the creation of a new state called “Little Russia” on the territory of the rebel Donbass shocked everyone. But, on the other hand, it updated the essence of the possible “grand deal” that the presidents of the United States and Russia, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, concluded between themselves.

They started talking about it (the deal) as soon as it became clear that the winner in the United States was not the fierce Russophobe and “Kiev’s dream” - “Our Hillary” Clinton, but the moderate Russophile and “Moscow’s dream” - Trump, who always defends not politics, and America benefits from establishing cooperation rather than deepening rivalry with Russia. For official Kyiv, such a deal is a bad dream, a horror flying on the wings of the unknown. Because: a) it is happening behind the backs of the Kyiv rulers; b) emphasizes that they, the Kyiv authorities, are useless both for Moscow (which is obvious after the 2014 coup d’etat) and for Washington, which, as it turns out, invested in the “revolution of hypocrisy”, but put it on suckers and incompetent slackers, greedy and corrupt.

And, of course, when today, July 18, 2018, Berlin and Paris asked Moscow to speak out about “Little Russia” and Moscow spoke in the spirit that this does not fit into the logic of the “Minsk Agreements-2” on peace in Donbass, in Kyiv calmed down somewhat. They are already so brazenly and so openly dynamizing Minsk-2 that they perceive any talk about the need to implement the document as soothing, lulling and distracting rhetoric, behind which there is no action. And you can calmly prepare for a new war. receiving and stealing into their own pockets everything that the collective West gave out to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian battering ram.

“Little Russia” was perceived in the same way in Kyiv: they say, “Novorossiya” was buried, let’s bury this too, restoring the Ukrainian status of “occupied Donbass.” On this occasion, one of the mouthpieces of the Maidan in Kyiv, “Ukrainskaya Pravda,” immediately enlisted the opinion of the director of the Center for Political Conjuncture, Alexey Chesnakov, whom he immediately called “consulting the Putin administration on Ukraine.” So this Chesnakov considers “Little Russia” a frivolous project of “writers and bloggers close to the leadership of the DPR”, which “in a month... everyone will forget, including the authors of this idea.”

And this is the honest truth, guys. But only in one case – if there are no agreements on the fate of Ukraine, formalized in the above-mentioned “big deal”. And if Russia is no longer indifferent to the fate of Ukraine. What if there are agreements and a deal? And what if the fate of Ukraine can never be indifferent to Russia for various reasons? Then the current rulers in neo-Nazi Kyiv have reason to seriously think that their end is already near. And about the order in which they will be scrapped as unnecessary.

Firstly, because the fate of Ukraine alone is only part of this deal, a “bargaining chip.” More precisely, it is part of the great geopolitical exchange between the United States and Russia, concluded in the “big deal.” And if Chesnakov is such an important “Kremlin consultant on Ukraine,” then he has the floor. And back in January of this year, when Trump was just sniffing at the inauguration, and Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine Elena Zerkal for the first time publicly expressed fears that Ukraine could become a victim of a backroom deal between the United States and Russia, he wrote on the website “Current Comments”: an exchange if and will be, then there will be a broader, geopolitical one. According to Chesnakov, “In Berlin and Paris, no less than Kyiv, they are afraid of a “drain” from the Americans. But Ukrainian alarmists shouting about a “bargaining card”, without wanting it themselves, create among Europeans some hope for a real exchange. And they are already starting to rejoice: maybe everything will work out with Ukraine alone? The “Big Deal” that is so feared in Kyiv cannot be based on a solution to the Ukrainian issue. Both in meaning and in name, such an agreement assumes a global character. The private Ukrainian issue should not be considered one of those that will determine the future world order. No matter how much Kyiv would like this. Although Ukraine could indeed become one of the important elements of the deal. An element of the second or third level."

In other words, what and where will Russia and the United States freeze the conflict and internecine confrontation - with Europe (Ukraine), in the Middle East (Syria, the Iranian nuclear program and the alliance with Turkey) or in the Far East in general (North Korea and China). Based on this, Chesnakov concluded: “Ukraine needs not to go where it was not invited, but learn to solve its problems itself, ... finally fulfill the obligations that Poroshenko gave in Minsk, agreeing to the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk . ...Then there will be nothing to negotiate behind your back. In the meantime, Ukraine remains a country that destroys its own citizens, organizes an economic blockade of millions of people, and whips up hatred towards its closest neighbors.”

And what, according to the logic of history, is more important for the United States - “freezing” the status quo in Syria or Ukraine. Alas, in Syria. And the point is not even that Washington will give Kyiv to Moscow only because the Middle East is the traditional sphere of application of American foreign policy, and European NATO allies can also deal with Ukraine. Everything is much deeper, but more prosaic. The United States can give up Ukraine, because it is already a dilapidated country, the contents of which the collective West is already ready to “cede” to Russia. And thereby placing another burden of problems on it - the restoration and maintenance of Ukraine. At first, the West used Ukraine as a battering ram against Russia and subjected it to international sanctions on this occasion, which hindered the development of the country. And now he wants to “return” Ukraine as a brake, an additional burden. Mean, cynical (especially in relation to Ukraine and its unfortunate population) policy. But it can play in favor of the West and become a real problem for Russia. If, of course, she wants to take Ukraine in her zone of interests for full maintenance and tries to correct what the maydowns have already done there, ordered by the West. And they have already practically ruined the country, deindustrialized it, killed all more or less attractive sectors of the economy, ruined the people, killed the infrastructure and even reformatted the consciousness of a significant part of the population with animal Russophobia. Young population. And it takes time and a lot of money to clean up the construction of “Ukrainian Ukraine”...

The second point: the post-Maidan Kyiv rulers need to remember what else DPR leader Alexander Zakharchenko said about “Little Russia”. And he clearly said that “Little Russia” is not only a political project, which was joined by representatives of 19 other regions of Ukraine, except for the DPR and LPR. This is also the idea of ​​​​reformatting Ukraine, if it is not possible to force Kyiv to carry out Minsk-2 peacefully, and no one will need the war. This is, if you like, the creation of a new Ukraine in place of the “old”, that is, the current neo-Nazi Ukraine. Within its former borders, but most likely without Crimea. If you want, the recreation of “Novo-Ukraine” within the former Ukrainian borders.

It’s not for nothing that Zakharchenko said that the state “Little Russia” should be CREATED WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE TERRITORY OF MODERN UKRAINE (emphasis added by me. - Author). And it will be a federal successor to Ukraine, a state with broad regional autonomy. And with the flag of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnitsky, who was the first to collect Ukrainian lands in order to bring them under the scepter of Muscovy. And all the authors of the idea of ​​“Little Russia” agreed that its idea should be submitted for discussion in parliament and a national referendum. DPR and LPR, of course. And then you look at the discussion of self-government bodies of other Ukrainian regions and local referendums of their population. The center of gravity of the new Ukraine should be the DPR and LPR, which, with arms in hand, have practically defended the new principles of cohabitation in a single state. And when all this passes and comes true, it will be possible to think about the name...

In short, it is already obvious today that the idea of ​​​​creating “Little Russia” is the second part of a potential “big deal”. Possible, potential, I repeat once again. The first is, I also remind you, the definition of what the United States and Russia will exchange and for what. The second is an ultimatum to the current official Kyiv about the unconditional implementation of the Minsk Agreements-2. And if Kiev does not agree or is unable to fulfill them for various reasons (including due to the resistance of neo-fascists, neo-Nazis and other “war hawks” who have nothing to lose), then they will try to implement “Minsk-2” in person. By creating “Little Russia” and thus putting an end to the Kyiv regime of Petro Poroshenko and his voluntary or involuntary allies and associates. Perhaps by first allowing the country to disintegrate and then unite on new principles of government. And he cannot help but understand this. That's why he's afraid. And out of fear he belittles the role of “Little Russia”...

Today there are prerequisites, or at least outlines of prerequisites, for reformatting Ukraine into “Little Russia” or “Novo-Ukraine”. Undoubtedly. Firstly, this is Russia, which in any case needs a loyal or at least neutral, and not a hostile country in its southwest. Ukraine is, whatever you say, the cross of Russia. She owes it first of all to herself, because a fire in Ukraine is a fire on the threshold of Russia itself. Not seeing this is being a fool and not being treated...

Secondly, the West, it seems, has already found a way to cleanse the Kyiv regime and pacify the exorbitant appetites of its main figures. This is: a) a weapon in the fight against corruption, with the help of which one can be put on trial and officially and formally removed from power in Ukraine, even under current Ukrainian laws; b) this is a threat to deprive people of their means of subsistence and maintain the necessary degree of Ukrainian patriotic Russophobia, militaristic psychosis and military hysteria in the Donbass. The IMF has no longer given money, and other lenders, borrowers and donors are cutting back their donations.

And finally, thirdly, in Ukraine, wittingly or unwittingly, a dispute has already emerged within the ruling class, who is more valuable - the president or the parliament and the government? Some talk about the dissolution of the Rada and a change of government. And others, on the contrary, propose and even test out the idea of ​​impeaching Poroshenko. Moreover, quite symbolically, although fortuitously and unexpectedly, even a possible successor to power appeared after the change of the Poroshenko regime. This is the current Prime Minister Vladimir Groysman, who, in the absence of Poroshenko in the country, held a “celebration” of the 100th anniversary of the first Ukrainian government, at which it was said that it was time to end the two- and three-power system (Rada - government - president) and take responsibility.

Funny, sketchy and raw? I guess, yes. But something needs to be done. Everyone is tired of the current Ukraine, except, of course, its current rulers, who have become attached to it. And Groysman - as the organizer of "Little Russia" - is also not so hot. But didn’t a variety of rulers come to power in the states being restored after chaos and unrest? After the murder of Caligula, wasn’t his uncle Claudius (by the way, outwardly similar to Groysman), whom everyone considered weak-willed and even sick in the head, ruling? And wasn’t it in Russia, after the assassination of Emperor Paul the First, that the military governor of St. Petersburg, Count Peter von der Palen, fished out his son Alexander (the future First) from his wife’s chambers, crying on her shoulder, with the words: “Enough, go reign, sir. Go and reign..." That's it too. But Groysman boasts that he is Ukrainian. And as an intermediate figure, he can suit everyone. There is no blood on him like on everyone else...

And indeed, it seems that the most important thing is whether Putin and Trump agreed or did not agree on the “big deal,” which they “pray” in Kyiv in different ways, but equally out of fear...

Vladimir Skachko

Why Little Russia?

Little Russia. Warning about leaving Minsk

Like a bolt from the blue, the establishment of the state of Little Russia was announced in Donetsk. The constitutional act of the new state was presented at a meeting of delegates of Ukrainian regions in the capital of the DPR. The event was prepared in secret, without any announcements, which is quite justified, given the inevitable attempts by Ukraine in this case to prevent its citizens from coming to the DPR and thus undermine its representativeness.

The head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko, said that the state of Ukraine cannot be restored to its previous form, the very name “Ukraine” has discredited itself, and Little Russia will become its successor. It can also be considered a revolutionary decision that Donetsk will become the capital of Little Russia, since during several Maidans and creeping, and then open Banderization, Kyiv lost its legal right to this. The Mother of Russian cities will remain only a historical and cultural center. If this comes true, then over time it may become as important a historical place for Russia as Suzdal, Vladimir, Veliky Novgorod and other cities, but it will not be a political capital.

This decision echoes the decision a century ago, when in 1917 several state entities also existed on the territory of the future Ukrainian SSR, with Kiev being the capital of the UPR, but Kharkov became the capital of Soviet Ukraine, which was deprived of this status in favor of Kyiv in 1934. As history has shown, this is apparently wrong. Now the historical baton from Kharkov, where the Russian Spring was drowned in blood, can be picked up by Donetsk.

Of course, it would be wrong to consider the decision to create Little Russia only as an initiative of the DPR and LPR. Probably, before this, some kind of consultations took place with Moscow about supporting an important initiative, since Donbass alone does not have enough strength for this. At the same time, Donbass should become the ideological inspirer and center for the assembly of a new state. The region has not undergone Banderization over the past three years; it has built its own management system, autonomous from Ukraine, and in a number of parameters Donbass compares favorably with Ukraine: the work of public utilities, tariffs for their services, prices for travel, bread, state participation in medicine and education and etc. It is fundamentally important that Little Russia is conceived as a federal state. Considering the diversity of Ukrainian regions, this decision seems completely correct.

There is, however, an important issue with the Minsk agreements. After all, they were concluded between Kiev and “certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.” It turns out that the announcement of the creation of Little Russia is in fact a way out of the agreements. This is true, but it is unlikely to be announced. It seems that Donbass is following the same line as Kyiv: without formally withdrawing from the agreements, it is playing ahead of the curve, taking a more advantageous position for itself. It has long been obvious to everyone that Kyiv will not fulfill the agreements. Why should Donbass adhere to provisions that drive it into a passive position and which Kyiv itself ignores? Moscow's support probably played a role here again.

It is noteworthy that the LPR stated that they have nothing to do with today’s event and Zakharchenko’s statement. “The Lugansk People's Republic did not send its official delegates to Donetsk to participate in the meeting of representatives of the regions of Ukraine. Moreover, we were not even aware of the intention to hold this event; this issue was not agreed upon with us,” said Vladimir Degtyarenko, Chairman of the People’s Council of the LPR. He emphasized that “the expediency of creating a new state is questionable, because such decisions must be made only taking into account the opinion of the people.” The press service of the head of the LPR noted that the project was not even discussed with Lugansk.

It is now unclear whether the Little Russia project will be implemented. But it would be wrong to consider it as a final project. Russia is looking for different options, on the one hand, to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and on the other, to return the territory of Little Rus' to its historical roots. The current project may be a kind of maximalist application, which may only be partially realized, but will also become a significant result. Perhaps it can be seen as Russia’s response to Ukraine’s course in NATO, openly proclaimed in the last two months. The Kremlin noted that they would not leave NATO’s approach to its borders unanswered. The Little Russia project completely excludes this.

As often happens in politics, this project could become a subject of bargaining between Russia and the West. For example, there will be no Little Russia, but Ukraine will be federalized and therefore will never join NATO. This is about the practical side. However, the ideological platform - Little Russia as part of greater Russia - remains and opposes the project of “European Ukraine”.

The flag of Bogdan Khmelnitsky became the model for the flag of Little Russia

Today's statement by Zakharchenko is historic. For the first time in a hundred years, Little Russia has been declared at the official level. It doesn’t matter that the DPR authorities are recognized only in Russia. Russia stands behind the DPR, which means that Russia has essentially declared an imperial idea. It is noteworthy that in the USSR, for ideological reasons, both Little Russia and Novorossiya were semi-abusive names, and the projects themselves could not even arise. Now this has been announced, and Russia, of course, will not pull back Zakharchenko, as if remaining aloof from the “internal Ukrainian conflict.” The application for the Little Russia project became a full-fledged response of the DPR and LPR to Kyiv’s reluctance to resolve the conflict peacefully by granting Donbass autonomy within Ukraine.

There is another important point in this decision. If the creation of Little Russia was nevertheless discussed with Moscow, then this foreign policy step cannot but be connected with the upcoming elections of Vladimir Putin to the post of President of Russia. This means that some concrete steps in this direction must be followed. In any case, it is already obvious that the announcement of the creation of Little Russia will change the entire course of further events, and the Ukrainian crisis will take a different path.

About the proclamation of Little Russia for those who heard but did not delve into it

When analyzing the reaction to the statement of the head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko, about the establishment in place of Ukraine of a state entity called “Little Russia,” the polarization of opinions even of those who are supporters of the unrecognized republics is striking. Moreover, often the fervor occurs due to the fact that people have not read the documents themselves, but only listen to what “Moishe sang to them over the phone.” Therefore, they do not understand at all what actually happened, what the legal consequences of this step are. I’ll try to explain this, especially since the documents released by Zakharchenko included thoughts that were already voiced in my published materials.

Firstly, no establishment of Little Russia took place on July 18, 2017! Representatives of the regions that were or were part of Ukraine simply announced their desire to establish such a state - instead of and on the territory of present-day Ukraine. Secondly, if it is ever created, it will be only for the transition period necessary to seize power over a country that has embarked on the path of “permanent suicide.” Thirdly, the constitution, federal treaty and other constituent documents of the new state have yet to be developed, discussed and adopted in a referendum. Which, as you understand, cannot be carried out until Ukraine is liberated from the power of the current illegitimate rulers.

But since the creation of a full-fledged state is impossible at the moment, then why bother?

It's quite simple. At the moment, the DPR and LPR, in legal terms, are classic separatist enclaves, which the central government of Ukraine is fighting. Even despite the fact that this central power is illegitimate, since it is the product of an anti-constitutional neo-Nazi coup d'etat.

But by declaring their claims to the entire territory of Ukraine, the LDPR is turning from separatists into an alternative state project. They no longer separate from the state, but declare the re-creation of the same state, but built on completely different principles. And according to international law, they are turning into players equal to Kyiv. And the notorious “ATO” or in the Turchinov-Poroshenko formulation “reflection of Russia’s hybrid aggression” can already be interpreted as a typical civil war. With all the ensuing legal consequences.

How does this relate to the Minsk agreements, which have already become a monument to themselves, since all parties to the conflict are appealing to them - both the obvious ones and those leading the conflict from Europe and the United States? Matches perfectly!

Alternative Ukraine, declaring itself the legal successor of Ukraine before the coup, takes upon itself and fulfills (!!!) those obligations that Kyiv does not want to fulfill: it establishes its own control, alternative Ukrainian, over the borders, and changes the corresponding legislation, and restores the social infrastructure. And in addition to this, he also reserves the place of the founder of the UN for himself, since the Kiev authorities keep saying that they are the legal successor not of the Ukrainian SSR, but of the UPR, which the UN did not establish.

But this incident, of course, is very minor. Just pay attention to how they fussed in Kyiv and outside Ukraine. Petro Poroshenko, in response to the declaration of supporters of the creation of Little Russia, has already announced that he will restore control over Crimea and Donbass. Not Ukraine someday, when favorable conditions arise for this, but precisely he, who has only two years left in his post. In Warsaw, they don’t even hide the fact that they were horrified by the news of an alternative Ukraine. Still would! They practically agreed with the Kyiv usurpers on the surrender of all the national interests of the inhabitants of Ukraine in exchange for Poland’s empty promises to help the Kyiv impostors “break into Europe and NATO,” and here is such a threat!

Of course, both Europe and the United States will never want to recognize Donbass’ claims to all of Ukraine. But legally, Zakharchenko and the delegates who proclaimed the Constitutional Act of Little Russia did everything right. And Abroad is not going anywhere. Given the equal degree of legitimacy of Kyiv and Donetsk, he recognizes the one who will be stronger, firmer and more massively supported by the population of the country. Moreover, the reason for negotiations with the West about this is ironclad!

Why does Moscow need the Little Russia project?

So, the first emotions have subsided, opinions have been expressed, it’s time to sort things out. Why does Russia actually need the Little Russia project?

My first thoughts on the matter were outlined in the article: Zakharchenko-Little Russia

Actually, there is nothing fundamentally new in the idea of ​​Little Russia. It can be considered as the next stage in the development of the Novorossiya project, shelved back in 2014. But why today? And for what purpose did Moscow remember him?

Actually, there is nothing fundamentally new in logic. Is that the geography has become somewhat larger. Now we are talking about the whole of Ukraine, which must be liberated, relying on the resources of Donbass and Russia. But from whom and when? Is it really from the Poroshenko regime, whose legitimacy Russia recognized back in the spring of 2014?

No. Everything is much more complicated and simpler at the same time. The Little Russia project is not being created to fight the Poroshenko regime, which today is completely building Moscow. But for the same reason it does not suit Washington in its current form, and since it still has every opportunity to destroy it, the likelihood of such a development of the situation is clearly too high to be neglected.

What should Russia do if the United States, having fully understood the situation and realizing that the Poroshenko regime in the foreseeable future is leading to the destruction of the “Ukraine is not Russia” project and will break their plans globally, tries to destroy it and bring outright Nazis to power?

This is exactly why the Little Russia project is being created. With this development of events, Moscow will immediately recognize this government, which by then should (if it can, which is not yet obvious) develop a program based on a new idea (reassembling Ukraine on new principles, which has already been announced). In this case, the war in Ukraine will flare up again, and even then no one will stop the corps until Lvov, which either they or the Poles will take. In any case, no one will leave an anti-Russian gasket.

By the way, by this time PMCs will be freed in Syria, about which everyone prefers to remain silent in the media (but they exist, although they are called differently) and they can form the backbone for the formation of two more corps. Moreover, they were fired upon and inspired by victory. Meanwhile, internal strife within Ukraine will cause ferment within the army of the split junta, and it remains to be seen how this will all end in the presence of two illegitimate governments on its territory.

Also, the “Little Russia” project will be in demand if, during the legitimate transfer of power after Poroshenko, the new president somehow does not suit Washington and he follows the scenario of the third Maidan. Probably, in this case too, Moscow will not recognize the legitimacy of the new coup and will prefer to officially work with Donetsk, especially since by this moment it will be completely ready to return to Ukraine.

In general, the Little Russia project, like the previous Novorossiya project, is an alternative to Minsk. If the United States does not agree to its implementation and tries to start an escalation within Ukraine, then the new project will allow Moscow to destroy these plans and deprive Washington of the opportunity to disrupt its game.