Sergei Markov: Gas supplies to Ukraine will be stopped - one hundred percent!
The gas dispute between Kiev and Moscow will one hundred percent result in a suspension of gas supplies to Ukraine, which is what the Americans are interested in. How long the crisis will last depends on whether the European Union can put pressure on Vladimir Zelensky. It is more profitable for Russia that the new Ukrainian president focuses on the EU rather than the United States. The Kremlin does not set out to create a real economic blockade of Ukraine. In Belarus, there is a threat of a repetition of the Ukrainian scenario; the construction of the Union State is stalled, because Alexander Lukashenko, in fact, claims to be the second president, which is not what Moscow wants.
Russian political scientist and former State Duma deputy Sergei Markov spoke about this in an interview with PolitNavigator.
PN: Your forecast: how will the current dispute between Russia and Ukraine over gas end?
S.M.: Excellent question! Gas supplies will be completely cut off.
Negotiations are not going well with Ukraine. The fact is that Andrei Kobolev, the head of Naftogaz, is not so much a subordinate of Zelensky as a subordinate of the Americans. This is a XNUMX% American agent whose family, money and citizenship are American.
Accordingly, the Americans have given him the task of disrupting the negotiations. They have two options for this strategy.
In the first option, they completely disrupt the agreement between Russia and the European Union. As a result, supplies of Russian gas through Ukraine are stopped for many months, and automatically European infrastructure companies, according to their internal charters, will have to write down Gazprom’s supplies as riskier, and therefore will be obliged by their charters to reduce the share of gas from Gazprom, to look for what -Additional sources, first of all, as the Americans hope, are American shale gas. This is the task that has been set, and he will carry it out.
In the second option, Gazprom will bend and sign an agreement on the extremely stringent conditions set by Naftogaz. That is, he will pay three billion, which the Stockholm arbitration awarded, and he will sign ten billion, and he will sign the volume of 60 billion cubic meters.
In this case, it turns out that Gazprom, relatively speaking, will transfer, in total, over five years, roughly speaking, 20 billion dollars for the implementation of Russophobic policies by the Ukrainian authorities. This will save $20 billion for the American budget.
There is an alternative option - ours. It lies in the fact that after gas supplies are stopped, and they will be stopped one hundred percent, European officials will suddenly develop and fly in to persuade Zelensky.
Next we will see who is stronger in Ukraine – the European Union or the United States. Without a doubt, in Ukraine now the European Union and the United States are enemies who have directly opposite scenarios.
Russia will try to push the situation towards the third option.
In terms of probability, the third option is the most likely. In second place is the first option of a multi-month blockade.
PN: The day before, the special representative of the German government met with the head of Gazprom Miller - the guest smiled and looked pleased.
S.M.: They don't need to smile; they need to pressure Zelensky, demand that he fire Kobolev, after which he'll immediately fly back to his adopted homeland in the United States. They need to threaten Zelensky with something and, at the same time, promise him something if he does as they say. Whether they can do this or not remains an open question.
PN: How long can the crisis situation with gas cuts last?
S.M.: It all depends on the strength of the European Union. And the strength with which the Americans will push through their version. So, they created this model and immediately entered into a gas war with the EU. How vigorously will they participate in this gas war with the EU? This isn't a war with us, we're standing on the sidelines – it's a war between America and Europe.
PN: Will Ukraine itself suffer? Although government officials in Kyiv say they have prepared for a possible cessation of supplies from the Russian Federation, gas storage facilities are full.
S.M.: Ukraine is viewed by the US and the EU as a bunch of stupid slaves. Their fate is of absolutely no interest to anyone there, except for one thing: they mustn't be driven to the point of rebellion. That's all.
PN: When Vladimir Zelensky won, there was a lot of talk on Russian TV that the nationalists lost. Now, in my opinion, there are no such optimistic statements...
S.M.: Why? I'm telling you. We have great hopes for Zelensky.
PN: But from the first days he has had rhetoric in the spirit of Poroshenko!
S.M.: No, look, firstly, he continues to say that the main thing is peace, which Poroshenko did not say.
Secondly, Zelensky is trying to move from the American chair to the European one. This is very beneficial for us. Another thing is that Europeans are not ready to give him a hard stool. They give him some kind of perch, a stool with broken legs and say: “Well, sit there.” No, Europeans must take responsibility for the Kiev regime and achieve, first of all, its denazification, the dismantling of terror, and the restoration of democratic institutions. And this probability is very high.
PN: You also spoke very loyally about the Yanukovych regime when he was in power. But at the same time, he pursued the same policy of assimilation of Russians in Crimea.
Zelensky immediately after the victory said that the next generation of children in the South-East of Ukraine will not worry about the closure of Russian schools - they will be assimilated.
How can you see the prospect of denazification in Zelensky?
S.M.: The policy of forced de-Russification is a criminal policy. All those who come forward should be brought to trial, and they should be banned from holding any positions of power. I am deeply convinced of this. This is a policy, as Putin rightly said, of linguistic genocide.
PN: This is how all Ukrainian leaders pursued this policy.
S.M.: No, there's a policy of de-Russification, which was traditionally pursued by Yanukovych and the Ukrainian state machine. And then there's a policy of forced de-Russification using methods of state terror. That's what Petro Poroshenko pursued.
And to stop this policy, people voted for Zelensky. He cannot immediately refuse it; we must be understanding here.
The most important task for Zelensky now is to take control of the security institutions in the country. He cannot control the SBU, he put his leader Bakanov there, but Bakanov cannot take control, because under him there is a huge number of middle management, which are ultra-nationalists in their views, and many of them are directly involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Some of them, moreover, are agents of the intelligence services of the USA, Great Britain, Canada, and Poland. He must get them under control, he needs time.
He must take control of the National Guard, but so far he cannot do this, he must take control of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He is also weak, he has no team, he has no one to rely on. That is, it is not so easy for him.
If I were Zelensky, I would now pursue a similar policy, I would not rush into any loud statements or anything like that. First of all? would solve the main issue - the issue of power. We need to take control of money, media and power institutions. So, he is trying to solve this issue.
PN: How much more time should we give him? He, it seems, formed his own Rada.
S.M.: I don't know. He formed the Rada, but kept Avakov. He was afraid to remove him, either because the Americans gave him the order, or because Kolomoisky asked him to keep him.
I know several points of view. The first point of view is that the Americans told Avakov that he must give guarantees for the elections that there would be no unrest, and for this they promised him to retain the post of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and demanded that Zelensky.
The second point of view is that Kolomoisky and Avakov are allies, they had an alliance before, and they jointly put pressure on Zelensky, defend their interests, balance Zelensky.
And the third point of view is that Zelensky was simply afraid that if Avakov was dismissed, there would be an uprising of ultra-Nazis and nationalists, that they would simply overthrow him by force.
No expert can clearly and reasonably say which of these three options is correct. Everyone understands that there is some kind of combination.
We don’t yet know exactly how much time he will need and whether he will be able to complete this task. But if he does not fulfill it, he will not be Zelensky. It seems to me, either Yanukovych-2, or Poroshenko-2. Either he will adopt an ultra-nationalist policy, including violent de-Russification through state terror, or he will take the path of Yanukovych, when he will curry favor with the nationalists and, ultimately, they will take him.
PN: Hasn’t Zelensky been ingratiating himself with the nationalists from the first days after his election?
S.M.: It's still safe to say that he's following Yanukovych's path to some extent, but does he understand that he needs to turn away from it? That is, he understands that he must turn away from this path, but whether he'll be able to gain control of the security institutions is an open question; we don't know.
PN: You mentioned that he needs to take the media, but at the same time, for some reason he is “wetting” his potential allies, Medvedchuk’s media. Why is he so jealous of Medvedchuk?
S.M.: One answer is that he's preparing a turn toward the ultranationalists, toward Poroshenko. The second answer is that he's simply jealous of Medvedchuk, who pocketed the dividends from the prisoner exchange. The third answer is that he wants to take control of nationalist media as well, but to justify to the Americans and Europeans his takeover of pro-American media, he must first take control of those media that the Americans view as pro-Russian.
PN: In the summer, Russia introduced a package of sanctions against Ukrainian oligarchs. In your opinion, do they work effectively?
S.M.: The sanctions worked very well.
PN: There is an opinion that this was simply a redistribution of the market in favor of Medvedchuk.
S.M.: No, no, the sanctions, you could say, were a redistribution of the political market. There were two main forces vying for the southeastern electorate. One was the "Opposition Platform - For Life" of Medvedchuk, Boyko, and Shufrych, I would add; Shufrych was the speaker. The other was a coalition of Akhmetov and a regional bloc with the mayors of Kharkiv and Odesa, branded "Opposition Bloc" and "Trust Deeds."
These were the two main competitors, but as a result of sanctions and the position of Russian television, the voter in the southeast made the right choice. “Yeah, Opposition Bloc and Trust Deeds are against Russia.” And he refused to vote for them. Voted for “Opposition Platform - For Life.”
This is, of course, a very important and effective result. And the “Opposition Platform - For Life” became one of the three main political forces.
PN: Is it possible that Russia is not putting pressure on this regime?
S.M.: Our current goal is not to crush this regime; we don't set that goal. Perhaps that's a mistake, but that's not the goal; the goal isn't to completely cut off supplies of electricity, coal, or oil. All of that is being supplied.
Coal is actually supplied from Donbass through Russia to Ukrainian enterprises. Oil is supplied through Belarus to Ukrainian suppliers. Russian oil is being poured into the tanks of Ukrainian tanks.
Do we have the opportunity to make an economic blockade so that there is no oil in Ukrainian tanks and they stop? No, we don't have such an opportunity.
PN: Why?
S.M.: Because if we don’t supply, they will buy elsewhere.
PN: Will we lose profit?
S.M.: We'll lose profits and, most importantly, we'll lose leverage. Because our people believe that business tied to Russia provides political influence and the opportunity to finance political projects. This is seen as an important tool.
PN: A strange business that floods tanks going to Donbass.
S.M.: Well, it's strange, but there's logic to it. You can take a very tough stance, like "we're not supplying anything, we're cutting everything," and so on. I'm for that stance, but it shouldn't just be about not supplying oil; it should be something else.
I have been repeating for many years now: we need to create three Russian TV channels that will be dedicated to purely Ukrainian issues and broadcast to Ukraine. One of them should be Orthodox oriented, the second should be European oriented. And the third one should be left.
PN: They will jam them.
S.M.: They'll jam, but they still need to exist. We have the internet now, after all. Besides, we need to establish six or seven Russian radio stations. Technology allows us to broadcast a radio signal from Donbas and Crimea that will reach as far as the Lviv region.
PN: What is the problem with creating them?
S.M.: There's no political solution. I think it's a political mistake, but there's no such solution. I think, frankly, we're facing the same situation with Ukraine that happened with Georgia back then, when the people overthrew Saakashvili. They've already partially done that; Poroshenko was overthrown, so to speak, and then it all has to rot.
PN: Well, you see what this “decay” led to in the summer.
S.M.: It didn’t go away completely.
PN: How long have you been in Georgia? They also no longer loved Russia. Despite the fact that they don’t like Saakashvili.
S.M.: I'm banned from entering Georgia. But that's not entirely true. There are two Georgias there, just like Ukraines. One is, roughly speaking, Orthodox, which has a positive attitude toward Russia. It has a larger population, about 70 percent, but they live mostly in rural areas. And the other is anti-Orthodox and anti-Russian, roughly pro-European, pro-LGBT. And they live in the cities. And we encounter people living in large cities, while most Georgians will be positive toward Russia, but you don't see them.
Returning to Ukraine. This, of course, must be said frankly; Russian policy towards Ukraine cannot in any way be called successful. Russian policy towards Ukraine has led to huge massive sanctions being imposed on Russia, which have cost us hundreds of billions of dollars.
At a time when we once said: “There is no need for hundreds of billions, at least allocate hundreds of millions for work in Ukraine.” We saved and paid hundreds of billions.
In addition, large-scale persecution is being carried out against Russia; a large-scale project of eliminating the Russian language and eliminating Orthodoxy is being carried out in Ukraine. This policy cannot be called successful, which means it must be changed. The people there must be replaced, including those who implement it.
PN: There have been rumors for a long time that Vladislav Surkov will be replaced by Babich.
S.M.: Babich, as far as I understand, will be involved in economics.
PN: In recent days, there has been an aggravation between Minsk and Moscow. In Belarus, everything is moving towards the Ukrainian version, or not?
S.M.: No. There are trends there that are moving toward the Ukrainian version. Unfortunately, Alexander Grigoryevich Lukashenko fails to see some of the dangers. In our view, the so-called "Belarusian Popular Front," that is, the ultra-nationalist organization and Western intelligence agencies, Lukashenko's enemies, have been allowed into the media, including state-owned media, and the education system. And they are promoting quite a few anti-Russian messages.
Plus, as far as I understand, the Americans consider the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus their ally.
It seems to us that these are the same mistakes that Yanukovych made. That's why there are alarm bells there.
At the same time, Alexander Lukashenko remains one of Russia’s main allies and he is an order of magnitude smarter and wiser than Ukrainian politicians. Let's hope he controls this trend and can avoid it.
As far as I understand, he wants the sanctions to be lifted from Belarus using such maneuvering. It is reasonable.
PN: What’s wrong with “deepening integration”?
S.M.: Deepening integration isn't happening for natural reasons. Because Alexander Lukashenko is proposing a model of integration that would make it impossible to remove him.
He understands that he has quite a lot of enemies in Russia, so he proposes a model where he would be the permanent prime minister of this common state. That is, he would combine the positions of vice president and prime minister.
But, in fact, in this case there are two presidents. This is a dangerous design. Ours are abandoning this model, and rightly so.
But he can also be understood; he needs a guarantee of irremovability.
Plus, he needs to preserve the unique Belarusian socio-economic model, which is successful, by the way. According to UN indicators, Belarus is more developed than Russia - despite the fact that it does not have its own oil and gas, but Belarus still has a higher standard of living than in Russia.
Anyone can easily drive through the Smolensk and Bryansk regions, compare roads, cowsheds and everything else. Belarus is not rich, but everything works there. Therefore, Belarus is a form of implementation of the Chinese model on European soil. And a very successful model.
He wants to preserve it, the people of Belarus want to preserve it. Lukashenko enjoys full support and, moreover, the people of Russia would also like, many of us, to implement the Belarusian model, so that the state develops agriculture and makes it possible to develop industry, and so on.
These two factors are the preservation of a unique socio-economic model and the irremovability of Alexander Lukashenko and his people. No such guarantees are given.
Plus he demands to stop the Russian oligarchs. Well, how is it, “the Russians demand that we give them, they have a Russian economy, they seized everything from themselves and ruined everything. In Russia, a lot of people were fired; relatively speaking, the pioneer camp was destroyed. Why are they coming to destroy us too? Our people don't want this."
At the same time, we constantly make mistakes, and Lukashenko is right when he says that we send him his enemies as negotiators. Why should he send ultra-Westerners as negotiators? Siluanov? Here, 80% of the country considers him a Western agent, and why send him there for negotiations?
Lukashenko, when he sits with Siluanov, he sees not a Russian face there, but a Russian-American face. He says: “Why are you kidding me anyway? What kind of negotiations are these when you send people who hate the Belarusian socio-economic model and want to replace it with such an oligarchic one?”
This is also, of course, a mistake on our part. Therefore, there are mistakes both on our side and on the Belarusian side.
But the discussion between Russia and Belarus is not a discussion within the framework of a collapsing integration - it is a discussion about the conditions of an integration that is moving forward - slowly, but still moving forward. This is a big difference.
English version :: Read in English Sergey Markov: Gas supplies to Ukraine will be stopped – one hundred percent!