Russia’s Master Plan for Ukraine Part 2 

By Wolodymyr Derzko

In my last commentary article, I posed the thought provoking question: Does the Kremlin have a master plan or a grand scenario for Ukraine? (See http://www.infoukes.com/newpathway/41-2010-Page-7-2.html)

 

 Volodymyr Horbulin and Oleksandr Lytvynenko warn readers in a commentary entitled “Our big neighbour has settled down. What should Ukraine do next?”,  which was published in the widely-read Ukrainian analytical newspaper Zerkalo Nedeli on September 19, 2009, stating: “the foreign policy blueprint of the Russian Federation contains clear-cut formulations relating to Russian interests in Ukraine i.e. keeping Ukraine in its sphere of influence and the ‘privileged interests’ of Russia. Probably such a strategic vision was formulated and approved at a closed joint session of the Security Council and Council of State of the Russian Federation, on 25 December 2008. In effect, it is a matter of an ultimatum: maintaining the territorial integrity of Ukraine is conditional on its moving to a ‘special relationship’ with Russia, and in effect to a Russian protectorate over a weak Ukraine. Zatulin is clearly formulating the tasks of RF policy: weakening the apparatus of state of Ukraine; consolidation of pro-Russian political forces while simultaneously marginalizing pro-Western ones; and winding down cooperation with NATO countries, first and foremost the USA, especially in the area of security. In exchange, adaptation of the socio-cultural and economic spheres of Ukraine towards Russian standards, free access of Russian capital, special status for Crimea and Sevastopol as territories under the de facto control of Russia, and so forth.”

But, this is the here and now. Does the Kremlin have a master plan or a grand scenario for Ukraine in the medium and long term?

I’ve heard of one scenario, which I have dubbed the “back to the cradle scenario”, which has likely been debated in closed policy and strategy circles, and in political science classrooms on university campuses, but has not received any public media coverage.

This so far fictional, composite “back to the cradle” scenario, as envisioned by Russian MP and director of the Russian think tank institute on CIS Countries (Institute for Diaspora and Integration) Konstantin Zatulin and other Russian and Ukrainian politicians (such as Nataliya Vitrenko from the Social Democrats, and United Rodina), goes something as follows. 

The year is 2025 (plus or minus five years). The world has stopped the process of globalization and has instead followed a course of unionization, forming eight regional power blocs around the globe, modelled after the European Union (EU).  Following the examples of a new economic North American union of Canada, the US and Mexico and the union of south- east Asian nations, Russia pushes for an economic-political and military union between the Russian Federation, Ukraine and any failed states that have dropped out of the European Union (EU) or failed to join in the first place. To fulfill its imperialistic ambitions, and having lost several Siberian oblasts in the East to the Chinese and through the independence movements of several “Stans” in the south, Moscow can only to expand north into the Arctic and west into Ukraine.

More dramatically, the Kremlin packs up it suitcases, abandoning Moscow and moves back to its ancestral cradle, dating back to 988, the year that Kyivan Rus accepted Christianity.  The new Kremlin is headquartered in a more centrally located region in Kyiv. Will this be a forced military invasion with tanks and weapons, like in the recent case of Georgia?  No, Moscow fully expects to be invited back “home” by an accommodating and compliant Kyiv. It’s spun as a geo-political win for Ukraine, but it’s a hollow victory - the new capital Kyiv is controlled predominantly by Russian speaking politicians, Russian passport holding oligarchs and Russian capital and influence. (n.b.: This scenario was developed with certain liberal creative license).

There appears to be one "pro" scenario (Party of Regions group in power) and two polar opposite "con" camps in Ukraine on this issue. One con group pushes isolationism, feeling that Zatulin’s ideas about Ukraine are marginal, inconsequential, unrealistic and don’t deserve any media attention or public debate at all. The other con camp is very concerned about Zatulin, his influence within the Party of Regions and the financial backing from major Russian power brokers and the political elite. Until recently, Zatulin was persona non grata in Ukraine. But this decision was reversed by President Viktor Yanukovych, who invited Zatulin with open arms to his inauguration in Kyiv. This event signals a like-mindedness and endorsement of Zatulin’s vision for Ukraine by the current regime in Kyiv.

I tend to support the second con camp. This Russian master plan for Ukraine needs broader media coverage and open public debate, not just across Ukraine but around the world. It’s plain to see that simply ignoring Zatulin, won’t make him go away

Wolodymyr (Walter) Derzko is a senior fellow at the Strategic Innovation Lab (sLab) and a lecturer in the master’s of arts program in Strategic Foresight and Innovation, Ontario College of Art & Design University in Toronto, Canada.