Link here.

Here are a few articles/interviews with interesting information or analyses. I’m not advocating for any particular theory at this point. All I will say is that my first thoughts on hearing of Prigozhin’s death and the knee-jerk accusations of Putin’s responsibility was that he would not likely do this in the middle of the BRICS summit and would not likely do it in such a way as to have guaranteed collateral damage – yes, I think Putin would care about killing innocent bystanders for pragmatic reasons.- Natylie

BBC Monitoring

Russian investigators name suspect in Prigozhin plane bomb probe – ‘source’

Source: Telegram messaging service in Russian 1024 gmt 24 Aug 23   

Russian investigators have named a suspect who they say may have placed a bomb on board Yevgeny Prigozhin’s jet before it crashed on 23 August, the Shot Telegram channel reported on 24 August.

Citing an unnamed source, Shot, which is thought to be close to Russia’s security services, said investigators were looking into the theory that a bomb was placed in the plane’s undercarriage well and had blown off a wing and tail fin, sending the jet into a terminal spin.

According to the VChK OGPU, a popular Telegram channel that monitors corruption and organised crime, a suspect has emerged in the case – Artyom Stepanov, one of Prigozhin’s pilots and former manager of the MNT Aero company which owned the Embraer Legacy jet that crashed. According to the channel, Stepanov had access to the plane.

Law enforcement agencies cannot find Stepanov, who went to Kamchatka in Russia’s far east prior to the incident, where he “disappeared”, the report said.

According to his brother, there has been no contact with him for three days. It is possible he has left Russia, VChK OGPU suggested.

****

August 26, 2023

Who killed Yevgeny Prigozhin?

By Gilbert Doctorow

Who killed Yevgeny Prigozhin?

Yesterday I was one of a half dozen Russia and international affairs experts who were interviewed in live broadcasts of WION Indian television as part of the station’s extensive coverage of the death in a plane crash of Wagner Group owner Yevgeny Prigozhin. Many of those interviews have been posted on the internet. Perhaps mine will appear shortly and then I will attach the link below.

My point in writing now is to call attention to the line of reasoning that guided the WION reportage on Prigozhin, namely the assumption that Russian President Vladimir Putin was behind the assassination of Prigozhin. This follows from the logic (?) expressed briefly by U.S. President Joe Biden when he was asked by reporters for his response to the demise of Prigozhin. Said Joe, “There is not much that goes on in Russia without the involvement of Vladimir Putin.” It also follows from the logic of the WION news presenter that all those who have crossed Putin have come to miserable ends.

In this assumption of Putin’s responsibility for the assassination, WION was entirely in line with the overwhelming majority of mainstream media outlets in the West. Tabloids in the U.K., in Germany and elsewhere have carried lurid front page headlines pinning the murder on Putin.

Meanwhile, Russian media have a very different story to tell. The investigation which Russian criminal justice authorities have opened in the case is being taken seriously. The expressions of condolences offered by Putin to the families of those who died on the plane are taken as sincere. And as I saw on the Vladimir Solovyov talk show two days ago, the accusatory finger is being directed at the West, meaning in fact the United States, which is assumed to have plotted the assassination and carried it out either directly or via proxies.

So who is right about the authors of the assassination?

The Roman principle of cui bono to guide investigators is not particularly helpful in the Prigozhin case. The man was a swashbuckling self-promoter who made enemies wherever he operated. He publicly denounced Russia’s army leadership and held it up to ridicule. His mutiny two months ago and march on Moscow was not a parade: it cost the lives of 13 Russian servicemen whose planes and helicopters Prigozhin’s troops shot down. Whatever the disposition of the Russian President, these facts would ensure the emergence of Russian patriots set on eliminating the Wagner chief on their own initiative and to settle their personal scores with him.

And what about the enemies Prigozhin made abroad? He amassed a vast fortune in the Wagner Group operations in Africa, where he displaced the French presence in Mali, to the chagrin of the old colonial masters in Paris, and now he was expected to profit from the eviction of the French from Niger, and the expulsion possibly of the Americans as well. Remember that the United States has invested half a billion dollars in military installations and training in Niger, which may now be overturned at any moment by the anti-colonial new masters of the country.

To these considerations, I add here what I said on air to the WION interview host in answer to his listing the many Opposition figures in Russia who have come to nasty ends, including of course the journalist Anna Politkovskaya, the politician Boris Nemtsov, the former FSB operative Alexander Litvinenko and more. Firstly, it is simplistic to think that one man, Vladimir Putin, is in full control of everything happening in a country of 145 million inhabitants who have their own interests, grudges, ambitions, etc. Secondly, the list of “victims” of Putin’s imagined revenge for crossing him does not take into account the fate of the many highly visible and active Putin-haters whom he has not touched in any way, because of the word of honor he gave to Boris Yeltsin when he was named as successor not to do any harm to the Yeltsin entourage. By way of example, I can name Yeltsin’s widow Naina and the viciously anti-Putin Yeltsin Center in Yekaterinburg, which she heads. Then there are the viciously anti-Putin daughter of former Petersburg mayor Sobchak and Sobchak’s widow, Lyudmila Narusova; both have been accused of criminal activities for which they should properly be serving prison terms, but neither has suffered in any way thanks to Putin’s protection. There are many other conspicuous wreckers, like the now self-exiled Anatoly Chubais, who were spared only thanks to Putin’s honoring his promises to his former boss. Why would Vladimir Putin now violate the pledge he gave to Belarus President Lukashenko not to touch Prigozhin when they concluded a peace deal to end the mutiny?

Then again, the list of “victims” of Putin’s alleged vengeful ways given by the WION host also demands to be challenged. I think in particular of the “victim,” oligarch Boris Berezovsky who was found hanged in his London mansion some years ago. The Western press pointed and points to Putin as ordering the “suicide.” However, it is far more likely that the crime was committed by MI6 since Berezovsky was known to be negotiating a safe return to Russia with the FSB when he was “suicided.”

I conclude with mention of one detail that has been carried by Western media without exploring what it means beyond the face value they give it: namely the fact that the only source so far for the explanation of how Prigozhin’s plane went down is…U.S. intelligence agencies in anonymous disclosures to the press. They tell us that the plane was not shot down by ground to air missiles and that very likely it was destroyed by a bomb on board or other sabotage. Curiously, no one has bothered to ask how U.S. intelligence would know this if it were not directly involved in plotting the assassination.

[Viewing footage of the plane crash makes it appear that a bomb or other sabotage being responsible is a very reasonable initial assessment given the breakup of the plane and the lack of any of the telltale signs that would accompany a missile attack. This is just a common sense observation and does not require one to have been involved in the attack. – Natylie]

Link here.

By Gordon Hahn, Russian and Eurasian Politics, 8/15/23

It is being reported that Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskii met with Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces Gneral Staff Viktor Zalyuzhnii and Chief of the Ukrainian Ground Forces Oleksandr Syrskii and that they discussed continuing the counteroffensive in the south towards Melitopol and the Azov Sea, demanding it be intensified. Zalyuzhnyi reportedly repeated his opposition to this operation because of the heavy losses. Zelenskiy responded that at the Vilnius summit NATO gave Ukraine until November to make progress in the counter-offenisive, after which time the West will begin reducing its material support for the war and expect Kiev to begin negotiations with Moscow (https://t.me/rezident_ua/18743; see also the first minutes of the Military Summary report of 14 July 2023, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlTcEvkXcmg&ab_channel=MilitarySummary).

Faced now with a likely military disaster as they press ahead with a failing venture now in haste, Kiev is certain to face collapsing support from the West. As a consequence, Zelenskiy finds himself caught between several hot burning flames. On the one hand, he cannot override the opposition to negotiations with Moscow among Ukraine’s ubiquitous nationalists, ultra-nationalists, and neo-fascists, even if he has the united support for such a step from the West, which is highly unlikely at least this year. The above-mentioned nationalist and fascist elements are often as anti-Western as they anti-Russian. Thus, not just because of demands for the West but for domestic political survival, Zelenskiy must continue the counteroffensive, indeed somehow intensify it given the lack of results thus far at the present level of intensity.

Not surprisingly, the attitude prevailing in the President’s Office or ‘Bankovaya’ (as it is called locally in allusion to its location on Bankovaya Street in Kiev) is dismal, according to one source: “(O)n Bankovaya everyone realized at the NATO summit that they began to throw us under the bus, but they do it in a Jesuitical style, they smile in our face, and they negotiate with the Kremlin behind our backs. The most insulting thing for Zelensky is that we were thrown under the bus by the British, who last year did not allow us to sign the Istanbul peace treaty, and now they are talking about military assistance” (https://t.me/rezident_ua/18742). The reference to the ‘Istanbul peace treaty’ is to Boris Johnson’s March 2022 ‘mission to Kiev’, likely made at Washington’s behest, in which the West sent the message to Zelenskiy that Kiev must not sign any agreement with Moscow that had stipulations that would put an end to NATO expansion to Ukraine.

As Kiev and Washington alienate each other, blaming each other for the faulire of NATO’s Ukrainian project there are at least two potential reactions inside the Ukrainian elite. One is that the ultranationalist and neofascist wings will strengthen, with moderates and moderate nationalists becoming ultra-nationalists and ultra-nationalists becoming neo-fascists. These will lead to the fascization of the regime which Moscow has claimed is already fascist. Instead of having coopted the ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists, the Maidan regime will move fully into ultranationalist-neofascist mode. The other path is full-bore inter-factional conflict and even internecine warfare, as the regime already is beginning to eat itself in ever more accusatory mutual recriminations. Thus, on the one hand, Zelenskiy takes a grave risk in moving to talks with Moscow, which will be regarded as treason by hardliners. But on the other hand, he will be blamed by some for being duped by the West for not taking a chance on the Istanbul peace or at least ceasefire when there was a chance in April 2022 only two months into the war.

Infighting is already mounting. Kiev’s mayor and a founding force of the Maidan regime Vitalii Klichko publicly stated that Zelensky is initiating police searches of his political rivals and possible presidential candidates. Klichko is currently under investigation for alleged corruption, while Zelenskiy’s money laundering from criminal oligarch Ihor Kolomoiskii has been left unexamined. In reacting to an interviewer’s question regarding rumors that he himself could become a nominee in presidential elections, which Zelenskiy recently said cannot be held as scheduled but only after the war, Klichko responded: “Such questions are often asked to me. And then Vladimir Aleksandrovich Zelensky starts to get nervous, and then secret police searches (obyski) begin against me or other people after such questions about the presidency” (https://t.me/rezident_ua/18745). This is further confirmation of our assertions that Ukraine’s democracy was a very weak one at best and would fully self-destruct during the war (https://gordonhahn.com/2022/03/29/were-all-authoritarian-now/ and https://gordonhahn.com/2022/04/18/the-iraq-scenario-the-specter-of-ukrainian-instability-and-chaos/). But the point here is that in such desperate conditions, power struggles and coup plots find fertile soil. I have already noted the civil-military tensions in Kiev (https://gordonhahn.com/2023/07/13/cracks-in-natos-ukraine-project/). Adding intra-civilian political warfare adds another layer of instability to the dynamic.

If the situation at the front deteriorates significantly, we can expect political disturbances in Kiev that could lead to a complete collapse of the Maidan regime and Ukraine’s defenses and even spark a civil war embedded within the present interstate war. In that event, the Russians will be able to mount a decisive counteroffensive, but this will not necessarily mean an end to the chaos. Moscow may be left with a series of nationalist warlords and insurgencies to quell for several years to come. Ukraine will be awash in weapons and no small numbers of outraged ultra-natinalists and neo-fascists even after a Russian victory no matter how one might define one. This will be especially true in very anti-Russian and russophobic western Ukraine. NATO will be more than happy to finance, arm and equip the Ukrainian neofascist underground and any other insurgent elements in order to complicate Moscow’s task and keep it bogged down and unable to drive to the Polish border.

In sum, for the last 18 months the Ukrainian time bomb has only just begun to explode. Things can get far nastier for all the parties involved, but they will nastiest of all for the Ukrainian people in the broader, now quaint civic sense of the phrase that includes both Ukrainians, Russians, and the few remaining Crimean Tatars.

Link here.

Prigozhin’s Plane Crash: Conspiracies & Consequences

By Andrew Korybko, Substack, 8/24/23

Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin and elite members of his group’s leadership were killed in a plane crash Wednesday evening outside Moscow in circumstances that have yet to be fully determined. Before debunking the popular conspiracy theory that President Putin was responsible and discussing the possible consequences of this incident, it’s important to clarify the deceased’s relationship to the Russian state. Here are a few relevant analyses that will then be summarized for the reader’s convenience:

* “Prigozhin Blinked After Putin Mercifully Gave Him A Final Chance To Save His Life”

* “Prigozhin Was The West’s ‘Useful Idiot’”

* “How Putin Averted A Civil War In Russia After Wagner’s Coup Attempt”

* “Lukashenko’s Suggestion To Learn From Wagner Doesn’t Mean That The Coup Was ‘Maskirovka’”

* “There’s Nothing Conspiratorial About Putin Meeting With Wagner Leaders After The Failed Coup”

In brief, Wagner’s long-running rivalry with the Defense Ministry finally spiraled out of control in late June, but President Putin peacefully resolved the crisis by de facto pardoning those involved. Some then went to Belarus while others traveled to Africa. This outcome aligned with Russia’s national interests but was spun by some members of the Alt-Media Community (AMC) as proof of a “false flag coup”. What’s indisputable, however, is that Wagner continued functioning as an instrument of the Russian state.

Prigozhin had just published a video from the Sahel in the days before he died where he declared that he was “making Russia even greater on all continents! And Africa even more free.” The regional context concerned the spate of anti-French revolts there in recent years that took the form of patriotic military coups, with the most recent one being in Niger, which is now threatened by a French-backed Nigerian-led ECOWAS invasion. Here are some analyses about Russia’s growing role in that part of the world:

* “Africa’s Role In The New Cold War”

* “Axios Exposed France’s Infowar Against Russia In Africa”

* “Analyzing President Putin’s Vision Of Russian-African Relations”

* “Russia’s Newfound Appeal To African Countries Is Actually Quite Easy To Explain”

* “American Officials Told Politico Their Plan For Waging Hybrid War Against Wagner In Africa”

And here are a couple pieces about the new West African Crisis:

* “The Nigerien Coup Could Be A Game-Changer In The New Cold War”

* “West Africa Is Gearing Up For A Regional War”

* “The Mainstream Media’s New Narrative Is That Niger Is Now A Global Epicenter Of Terrorism”

* “France Reportedly Thinks That The US Backstabbed It During Nuland’s Trip To Niger”

* “Why’s US Media Talking About Nigerien General Moussa Barmou All Of A Sudden?”

These last ten analyses are relevant to Wednesday’s incident since Wagner’s growing role in helping Sahelian states safeguard their sovereignty was speculated by some to be the reason why the West allegedly assassinated that group’s leader. While no evidence has yet to emerge in support of that theory, the previously shared analysis from early July regarding President Putin’s meeting with Wagner leaders explains why their African operations would still continue even without Prigozhin at the helm.

Having detailed the most relevant developments leading up to Prigozhin’s plane crash, it’s now time to draw attention to the AMC’s and their putative Mainstream Media (MSM) rivals’ conspiracy theory implying that President Putin had a hand in his death. The first has been pushing an old video on social media where the Russian leader says that he can’t forgive betrayal while the second has reminded everyone of US officials’ prior warnings that Prigozhin’s life was in danger.

Each camp strongly suggests that the Russian leader was responsible for Wednesday’s incident, with the AMC hinting that this was due to personal reasons while the MSM wants their targeted audience to believe that it was yet another “political killing” in a long line of many. Each requires accepting that President Putin supposedly lied when he said on national television that “I will keep my promise” to let those involved in late June’s events decide their own futures without fear of state retribution.

Not only that, but this conspiracy theory’s adherents also think that he then ordered Prigozhin’s death in one of the most dramatic ways possible, which irresponsibly risked harming innocent civilians on the ground. There are compelling reasons to doubt this version of events. For starters, the outcome of what happened and the optics connected with it are both disadvantageous to Russia’s national interests, and it’s absurd to imagine that President Putin plotted to undermine his own country like this.

Eliminating Prigozhin and elite members of this group’s leadership would be a blatant violation of the promise that he gave them on national television, and this could incite Wagner’s rank-and-file along with their supporters in the armed forces and civil society to consider anti-state actions in response. Those who are influenced by this conspiracy theory might convince themselves that they could be next, hence why they have to “act first out of self-defense”, thus setting into motion a self-fulfilling prophecy.  

It’s therefore in the West’s interests to weaponize this false perception for the purpose of manipulating highly trained forces and their sympathizers into functioning as “useful idiots” for destabilizing Russia through either another coup/mutiny attempt, terrorism, and/or a Color Revolution. Even if these scenarios don’t come to pass, the optics are still very damaging to Russia’s reputation at the leadership and state levels.

The MSM can maximally amplify speculation that President Putin signed Prigozhin’s death warrant to sow suspicions about his sincerity in signaling earlier this summer that he’s still interested in politically resolving the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine. Likewise, this can also be done to mislead the international community about Russia’s political stability by making them falsely think that there’s a bloody power struggle taking place behind the scenes among competing military-intelligence factions.

On that note, it’s time to segue into the consequences of Prigozhin’s plane crash, beginning with what’s unlikely to happen before sharing a few words about what could soon follow. As was earlier written, Wagner’s African operations probably won’t be affected since it was always unrealistic to imagine that he and a few elite members were micromanaging dozens of tactical teams on the ground across various countries in real time. Morale might take a temporary hit, but the rank-and-file will eventually recover.

The West’s Hybrid War plot that was described in the preceding paragraphs isn’t expected to transpire, but even if some movement is made in that direction, then the threat to Russia’s security and stability would be manageable so nobody should prepare for “Balkanization”, civil war, or regime change. That said, the ongoing investigation will surely explore whether Wednesday’s incident was due to foul play, including scenarios of Kiev’s involvement but also possibly a rogue military-intelligence faction.

It’s premature to jump to conclusions in order to avoid functioning as the West’s “useful idiots” by either giving Kiev credit for kills that it wasn’t responsible for or sowing seeds of suspicion about Russian stability respectively, but both also can’t confidently be ruled out at this time either. After all, if there was a bomb on board like some speculate, then that would represent a major security lapse. Even if a rogue military-intelligence faction was involved, however, there’s no chance that they’ll destabilize Russia.

All told, while it remains unclear exactly what caused Prigozhin’s plane crash, President Putin certainly didn’t have a hand in it, but some in the AMC and especially the MSM will still imply otherwise. In the event that foul play was responsible, then Russia’s security services will definitely get to the bottom of it, though the state might decide that its interests are best served by not acknowledging this if it happened. In any case, this incident won’t destabilize Russia nor hinder its African activities or special operation.

By Petr Levrenin, RT, 8/14/23

If you Google “the end of the Cold War,” the search engine will instantly tell you that this event occurred on December 26, 1991, the day when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. However, this isn’t really true. Two years prior to that, the leaders of the US and the USSR officially declared the end of the confrontation that had lasted for over 40 years.

The tension that grew between the two superpowers in the 1980s was eventually eased through joint diplomatic efforts. The trust established between the Kremlin and the White House in those years not only inspired the United States to consider integrating the USSR into the new system of international relations in the early ‘90s, but also moved it to prevent the collapse of the ‘Red Empire’. 

But why did Washington suddenly become a friend of its sworn enemy? And at what point did this friendliness give way to uncompromising statements about winning the Cold War and the United States’ triumphant ‘dance’ on the ashes of its deceased enemy?

A thorny path

In the last decade of the Cold War, the situation on the global chessboard did not play out in favor of the USSR. The Soviet economy was considerably weakened by a protracted arms race, which the US only accelerated. At the end of 1983, Washington placed the first battery of Pershing II missiles in Europe. These could reach targets in the western part of the USSR in only six to eight minutes. 

At the same time, the US started talking about a new type of nuclear strike against the USSR – a ‘decapitation’ (or ‘blinding’) attack that would remove the country’s leadership before the decision to conduct a retaliatory strike could be made. In 1984, then-president Ronald Reagan launched the ‘Star Wars program’, which threatened to expand the Soviet-American conflict into outer space.

But even before these events, the Soviet leadership feverishly sought a compromise with the United States. Yury Andropov, the then general secretary, tried to reach an agreement with Washington, but his initiative was scuppered by the tragic downing of a Korean Air Lines Boeing 747, after which Reagan made his famous speech, calling the USSR an “evil empire.”

Hopes of ending the conflict instantly disappeared. Tension only increased and reached a record, 30-year high. At that point, the USSR decided continuing negotiations would be a sign of weakness on its part. The dialogue came to naught, and left both parties fearing a nuclear strike.

Everything changed when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power. Contrary to the military’s advice and without any pressure from the United States, he decided to take the first step and make concessions. First, in 1985, the leadership of the Soviet Union unilaterally imposed a moratorium on the deployment of ‘Oka’ operational-tactical missile complexes in Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic (GDR). This was followed in January 1986 with the announcement by the USSR of a step-by-step worldwide nuclear disarmament campaign.

Gorbachev said at the time.

This put the ball in Washington’s court. Whether the gesture by the Soviet leader would initiate the end of the lengthy conflict depended only on the US. Ronald Reagan took the ball and ran with it. 

Long-awaited detente

A special relationship soon developed between the two leaders, and the USSR and US quickly moved from strategic arms restrictions to a more radical disarmament policy. The first joint document was the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), signed in December 1987, which banned short and medium-range and intermediate-range missiles. The parties pledged to destroy all complexes of ballistic and ground-launched cruise missiles of intermediate (1000-5500 kilometers) and short-medium (500-1000 kilometers) range, and not to produce, test, or deploy such missiles in the future.

At the Malta Summit in late November/early December 1989, Gorbachev and Reagan’s successor George H.W. Bush announced the end of the Cold War. The representative of the USSR’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gennady Gerasimov, stated that the Yalta Agreements of 1945 (i.e., the post-war division of Europe into areas of influence) had been replaced by what he called the ‘Sinatra Doctrine’, giving the former Eastern European satellite nations the freedom to do things “their way.” The Yalta Agreements were officially buried. 

In 1990, the USSR agreed on the reunification of Germany within the framework of NATO – which essentially meant that the socialist East was swallowed up by the capitalist West. The USSR promised to withdraw its troops from the East German territories within four years, and from other countries of the Warsaw Pact even sooner. 

In the same year, Gorbachev also signed the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), which drastically reduced the number of Soviet troops in other parts of Europe and eliminated the possibility of a large-scale surprise attack. Within the framework of the CFE Treaty, the Soviet side had to drastically reduce its military presence and obey strict restrictions on the movement of troops. The USSR also had to carry out a large-scale redeployment of its military contingents. The new non-hostile relations between the countries of the Euro-Atlantic region were enshrined in the declaration signed in November 1990 – ‘The Charter of Paris for a New Europe’.

Gorbachev’s policy was inspired not only by altruism and a desire for peace. The main reason he revised the USSR’s foreign policy course was because he wanted to slow down the arms race, which had placed an unbearable burden on the Soviet economy.

The latter, however, does not diminish the Soviet leader’s courage. Behaving in a restrained manner and not allowing the United States – which was economically and technically superior to the USSR – to drag the country into another round of an intensifying arms race was a policy that past generations of Soviet leaders could not even imagine.

Hungry hawks

Gorbachev’s calculations seemed to be right. In May 1991, George H.W. Bush declared that the United States wanted to move away from the policy of containment and “integrate the Soviet Union into the commonwealth of the peoples.” At the time, he had a series of meetings with Gorbachev that largely determined the further actions of both sides.

The process of stabilizing international relations continued, and in the summer of the same year, the START-I treaty was signed, which significantly limited the nuclear arsenals of both powers.

Not everyone, however, was happy with how things were going. Despite the fact that many positive changes occurred and the threat of a global nuclear war was resolved, Bush was criticized in the United States for treating the USSR too favorably. For example, before the August Coup [an attempt by Soviet reactionaries to carry out a coup d’état and remove Gorbachev from power – RT], the White House had been reluctant to contact president of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) Boris Yeltsin and his entourage, and, in July 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev was even invited to London for the G7 summit. 

All this greatly displeased the ‘hawks’ in the US (for example, then-secretary of defense Dick Cheney and former president Richard Nixon), who believed that with the technology and loans provided to it, the USSR could pose an even greater threat than before. These circles of the American establishment wanted to take advantage of the internal problems that came up during democratic reforms in the Soviet Union and thereby secure its collapse.

However, Bush preferred negotiations with the socialist regime over its imminent collapse. The White House feared that, if civil war were to break out in the USSR, its nuclear arsenal could be dispersed all over the world.

The US president’s position was clearly stated in his August 1, 1991 speech in Ukraine, which journalists dubbed the ‘Chicken Kiev speech’.

Supporters of an independent state eagerly anticipated the US leader’s arrival in the capital and hoped that he would support democratic trends in the republic. But the White House decided otherwise. Bush declared that the separation of the Ukrainian SSR or other Union republics from the USSR was inadmissible. “Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred,” Bush said during a solemn meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR.

Nevertheless, the USSR collapsed a few months after Bush’s Kiev visit. Some 23 days after his speech, Kiev adopted the ‘The Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine’ and, four months later, it was confirmed by referendum. Soon enough, the other republics also left the Soviet Union.

A world without peacemakers

The events of 1991 took not only the USSR, but also the US by surprise. For over 40 years, American elites wanted to win the Cold War, but it turned out that they were completely unprepared for victory. The Bush administration was even forced to support Gorbachev in his struggle against Yeltsin and other Republican leaders who wanted to dissolve the Soviet Union. 

Except for some fierce ‘hawks’, no one in the USA really wanted the USSR to collapse. The US goal was to dismantle the socialist system outside of the Soviet Union. Americans were interested in dissolving the Warsaw Pact and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON). They wanted Soviet troops to withdraw from the socialist countries in Eastern Europe and for the USSR to stop providing military and economic assistance to regimes in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

In fact, all the key issues of the Soviet-US confrontation were resolved in favor of the United States even before 1991, and prior to the collapse of the USSR. In the last years of the ‘80s, arms limitation treaties were signed, the Warsaw Pact and COMECON were dissolved, and the USSR began gradually withdrawing its troops from Europe. In 1990, the article of the USSR Constitution on the leadership role of the CPSU was abolished – the ‘Red Empire’ was no longer the ‘moral authority’ for socialist regimes worldwide. 

The collapse of the USSR, however, brought a risk of political instability to Europe (considering not only the nuclear, but also the conventional weapons remaining in Soviet arsenals) and would deprive the United States of a 300 million-strong sales market united by common economic chains and a joint customs space. If the Soviet Union had not collapsed, American corporations would have had access to its huge reserves of oil, gas, and other minerals. Moreover, preserving the USSR in a weakened state was also beneficial for the US foreign policy model. The Soviet Union was no longer strong enough to challenge the United States, but it could have become a convenient partner for solving global security problems.

In the first years after the Cold War, the United States was in no hurry to attribute victory to itself and adopted the stance of an equal partner towards the Russian state.

According to the director General and member of the Presidium of the Russian Council for International Affairs, Andrey Kortunov, the victory of the US wasn’t as important as the defeat of the USSR for the Bush administration. However, under the administration of his successor, Bill Clinton, Americans adopted the concept of a ‘unipolar world’. Declaring that they had defeated the Soviet Union, they attempted to instill ‘democratic’ doctrines in the Middle East and Central Asia.

In 1992, the Clinton administration embarked on a much more aggressive course in the post-Soviet space, consolidating its position as the winner of the Cold War and establishing US dominance. Under Clinton, the policy of containing Russia became more systematic and intense. The United States tried not only to make the most of the collapse of the USSR, but also attempted to prevent the emergence of a Russian-centric economic and political space in of the former Soviet empire.

By Petr Lavrenin, Odessa-born political journalist and expert on Ukraine and the former Soviet Union