Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

5 reasons the Malorossiya declaration is a modest proposal that the EU, Russia and US should support

Today’s Malorossiya declaration gives most international parties who are observing the conflict in Donbass, most of what they have wanted for years. On inspection, the proposals are the opposite of radical, they are entirely reasonable. They do not require the Russian Federation to absorb new territory and it would restore human rights in Ukraine/Malorossiya to pre-2014 levels or better.

Published

on

5,002 Views

Predictable condemnation of the declaration of the state of Malorossiya has come from EU states, the Kiev regime and even Russian officials. But on closer inspection, Malorossiya could be a win-win situation for Europe, Russia, the United States and for the people of Malorossiya.

Here’s why.

1. Malorossiya to remain sovereign from the Russian Federation 

For those who have been following measures that many politicians in Donbass and The Russian Federation have taken to integrate the bureaucratic, financial and logistical ties between Donbass and Russia, today’s announcement does not call for Malorossiya to become part of the Russian Federation.

According to the statement released from Donetsk, Malorossiya is defined in the following way,

“Malorossiya is an INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN state with a new name, a new flag, a new constitution, a new state structure, new principles of social and economic development, and new historical prospects. But this is NOT A REVOLUTION! This is a return to history. This is a novelty that restores, not destroys”.

Thus, for those in Russia worried (however inappropriately) about international repercussions from the west about absorbing new territories, the Malorossiya plan, if fully implemented and accepted honestly, would put these questions to rest for the foreseeable future.

While the western powers are resolutely opposed to Russia re-uniting in a formal sense with Donbass or the broader historic territories of Malorossiya and Novorossiya and with the Russian government making no moves to advocate for a larger Russian Federation, such vexed are rendered irrelevant under the new plans from Donetsk.

2. MINSK II Without The Impossible Provisions 

Many of the key elements of the MINSK II agreement that Russia, the EU and US still favour as a settlement to the war in Donbass are actually retained in the Malorossiya declaration.

a. MINSK II calls for a cessation of violence and so does the Malorossiya declaration.

b. MINSK II calls for local control and accountability throughout the present territory of Ukraine and so too would such a thing happen according to the Malorossiya declaration.

c. MINSK II calls for all languages spoken in the territories in question to be respected and so too does the Malorossiya declaration call for full legal status to both Russian and Malorossiyan (aka Ukrainian).

d. MINSK II calls for respect for self-determination in accordance with international law and of course so does the Malorossiya declaration.

The biggest stumbling bloc to the MINSK II agreements is that the current Kiev regime simply does not want to attempt to implement the protocols. There has been no ceasefire, no withdrawal of weapons, no full prison exchange and no movement on laws for local-autonomy, human rights, so-called inter-ethnic rights or language rights. Quite the opposite has happened, regime officials have called for total war and the killing of civilians continues to escalate.

The problem with MINSK II is not that it asks the impossible, the problem is that it asks the rational from a totally irrational regime. It is a problem of personalities and their ideology, not a problem of the content itself. Much of the content of MINSK II which stresses peace and local rule is not only preserved in the Malorossiya declaration but it is actually enhanced. 

3. It accounts for the so-called ‘territorial integrity of Ukraine’

The Malorossiya declaration would see most areas which currently comprise Ukraine remain united or in some cases (Donetsk and Lugansk) become re-united into a single indivisible state. All that would change would be the style of government, the constitution and name of the state. It would literally be a successor state with virtually the same borders.

Even the most ardent Russophobes in the EU often hold their collective noses or look the other way when faced with the fact that the current regime in Kiev is one which promulgates fascist ideology, that which is illegal in many EU states. This the current regime is popular in many EU quarters less because of what it stands for than for what it stands against: good relations with Russia. This is a position which was always financially untenable for both Brussels and Kiev and is increasingly becoming a political headache for the EU which now has its own major crisis of integrity, namely, Brexit.

Likewise, countries have the right to change their name both in war time and in peace time. This for example is why the country still commonly referred to as The Czech Republic prefers to be called Czechia. Sticking with Czechia, this is why when Czechoslovakia spit in 1993, it was called a Velvet Divorce, both countries retain an open border, have good relations and are both part of the European Union.

Without advocating for a position of joining Russia, the Malorossiya declaration allows for the current borders of the state now called Ukraine to be essentially preserved while allowing for the possibility of regions, ostensibly those who reject the Russian heritage of the most of Ukraine, to remain as part of a separate sovereign entity.

This would most likely manifest itself with regions formerly belonging to Poland/Austria and Hungary/Czechoslovakia to remain sovereign states who pursue a different geo-political path from Malorossiya.

If this is what people want and if this is what people vote for, it is called self-determination and this is also part of the MINSK II agreements as well as more importantly, a recognised protocol of international law.

4. A Belorussian Solution (with a bit of pre-coup Ukraine thrown in)

Statements made in support of the Malorossiya declaration specifically mention the Union-State which since 1996 has existed between Russia and Belarus. Under these provisions the states have open borders, a common customs area and cooperate intensively in crucial matters of trade, economics and security.

Both states remain sovereign according to this agreement and both states are entitled to disagreements, a privilege that Belorussian President Alexander Lukashenko has frequently invoked throughout the years.

Had Ukraine’s last legitimate President Viktor Yanukovych not been overthrown, a similar agreement could have well been on the table between Ukraine and Russia. In many ways, as mutual members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, many of the aforementioned realities already existed in respect of Kiev’s pre-2014 relationship with Moscow.

For those concerned about normalcy returning to the region, this is far from a radical proposal in this respect, it is actually simply going back to the last time Ukraine was a semi-stable state prior to 2014.

5. Everything Tolerated Except Fascism 

The Malorossiya declaration tolerates everything that all observers to the conflict could genuinely and reasonably expect from a post-conflict settlement including a commitment to human rights, language rights, the right to an education, the right to democratic self-determination and the right to live in a country with much needed constitutional reforms.

Surely changing a country’s name is less severe than disenfranchising a large portion of the country’s citizens? But in harassing Russian language schools and teachers, in shutting down Orthodox Churches which are part of the Moscow Patriarchate and seizing their property, by prohibiting the use of the Russian language and by shutting down Russian language television, radio and websites (including social media), the current regime is acting in a manner incompatible with normal, modern human rights requirements.

Frankly, if the proposals didn’t come from Donetsk and one read them to a middle-level EU politician, many might find such a politician saying, “It sounds like a revised Ukraine with an acknowledgement of the region’s history without the fascist elements”.

Indeed that is all it is. 

As the declaration says itself,

“…this is NOT A REVOLUTION! This is a return to history. This is a novelty that restores, not destroys”.

One would be hard pressed for a more accurate description of what is being proposed. There will certainly be growing pains along the way, but better to grow in a spirit of refreshed and revitalised peace than to descend into the childish anarchy that is the current Kiev regime.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Larchmonter445
Guest
Larchmonter445

The proposal is a solution. There are no other solutions.
All it takes is for the US to cease paying for the war.
Will Trump go for this?
It removes the lunatics from the new entity. It will be less corrupt.
However, the American project has been 26 years in process, and it has many authors and many nurturers along the way.

Putin will have to sell it. It didn’t come out of nowhere. It’s the perceptual Gestalt of the present Ukraine. Now a small Donbass embraces most of Ukraine, leaving a small Banderstan for the nazis and NATO.
comment image

Punisher 1
Guest
Punisher 1

There are a couple of problems with this solution. I like it myself,and think it should be implemented. But see problems with that implementation. First,The Kiev regime and their Western supporters proclivity for murder. They are sure to try and kill the leaders of this movement. And the fact they have succeeded several times recently to murder officials in Donbass makes me worry they will keep to that path. Had they failed,or suffered harsh reprisals for those killings they would have been deterred from continuing with that policy. But they succeeded,and didn’t face any reprisals because of their crimes. So… Read more »

K Pomeroy
Guest
K Pomeroy

“The problem with MINSK II is not that it asks the impossible, the
problem is that it asks the rational from a totally irrational regime.” Great quote, Adam Garrie!

Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

Can someone clear up for me, please, where the Donbass and Lughansk thing fits in here. I see “Donbass” being used to cover both, and then sometimes only part of the region with Lughansk being referred to separately. I’ve been unable to see where they fit with each other for a while now – and am currently no wiser. The map gives me no help as – at least on my pc – it is too blurred to be read.
Assistance anyone??

Peter Hallam
Guest
Peter Hallam

I too would like comment on this. I appreciate that there are two separate regions who are both fighting against what is effectively a NAZI aggressor, but: a) Why are they not cooperating more? b) Why does the Donbass seem to be speaking for Lughansk without them commenting? I’ve read that this declaration was not coordinated with Lughansk? Is this true? Is there any reason that either region would not want to be affiliated with the other even though they are ‘supporting’ each other in the fight against Fascism? FWIW: I really hope this plan works and that the majority… Read more »

Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

AGree with you Peter. The Galicians should re-instate the country of Galicia, a sort of enclave of Polish Banderites with some vaguely Ukrainian leanings. They seem to be a bunch of people who feed off hate – they should all get together in a walled off community and left to get on with it.
I remember Dmitry Orlov saying an old Russian curse was ” Go to hell – and take Galicia with you”.

Ivan Grozny
Guest
Ivan Grozny

While I understand there is some confusion – it’s a BIG surprise for most of us – there was some 19 representatives from all over the ‘former’ Ukraine present, when the declaration was made – curious, LPR members was absent (why?? The issue of corruption is larger in Lugansk??). God forbid, this is the start of a ‘two-state solution’ like we see in ‘former’ Palestina. [I mean constant negotiations and no results]

Is this the answer??
comment image

Latest

Defeat in Bavaria delivers knockout punch to Merkel’s tenure as Chancellor (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 136.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The stunning CSU defeat in Bavaria means that the coalition partner in Angela Merkel’s government has lost an absolute majority in their worst election results in Bavaria since 1950.

In a preview analysis before the election, Deutsche Welle noted that a CSU collapse could lead to Seehofer’s resignation from Merkel’s government, and conceivably Söder’s exit from the Bavarian state premiership, which would remove two of the chancellor’s most outspoken critics from power, and give her room to govern in the calmer, crisis-free manner she is accustomed to.

On the other hand, a heavy loss and big resignations in the CSU might well push a desperate party in a more volatile, abrasive direction at the national level. That would further antagonize the SPD, the center-left junior partners in Merkel’s coalition, themselves desperate for a new direction and already impatient with Seehofer’s destabilizing antics, and precipitate a break-up of the age-old CDU/CSU alliance, and therefore a break-up of Merkel’s grand coalition. In short: Anything could happen after Sunday, up to and including Merkel’s fall.

The Financial Times reports that the campaign was dominated by the divisive issue of immigration, in a sign of how the shockwaves from Merkel’s disastrous decision to let in more than a million refugees in 2015-16 are continuing to reverberate through German politics and to reshape the party landscape.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the stunning Bavarian election defeat of the CSU party, and the message voters sent to Angela Merkel, the last of the Obama ‘rat pack’ neo-liberal, globalist leaders whose tenure as German Chancellor appears to be coming to an end.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Zerohedge

Voters in Germany’s economically dominant southern state of Bavaria delivered a stunning rebuke to the ruling Christian Social Union, in an election that delivered another crushing blow for the parties in Angela Merkel’s grand coalition in Berlin.

With all eyes on Sunday’s Bavaria election, moments ago the first exit polls showed a historic collapse for the ruling CSU party, which has ruled Bavaria continuously since 1957, and which saw its share of the vote collapse from 47.7% in the 2013 election to just 35.5%, losing its absolute majority and suffering its worst result since 1950, as voters defected in their droves to the Greens and the far-right Alternative for Germany.

German newspaper Welt called the election “the most painful election defeat of the past 50 years for the CSU”. As predicted in the polls, the CSU experienced a “historic debacle” in the Bavarian state elections, according to Welt. The CSU was followed by the Greens which soared in the election, more than doubling to 18.5% from 8.6% in 2013, the Free Voters also rose to 11% from 9.0%, in 2013.

Meanwhile, the nationalist AfD are expecting to enter Bavaria’s parliament for the first time ever with 11% of the vote, and as such are setting up for their post-election party. Party leader Alice Weidel already is having the first beer in the small community of Mamming in Lower Bavaria.

Establishment party, left-of-center SPD also saw its support collapse from 20.6% in 2013 to just 10% today.

The full initial results from an ARD exit poll are as follows (via Zerohedge):

  • CSU: 35.5 %
  • Grüne: 18.5 %
  • FW: 11.5 %
  • AfD: 11.0 %
  • SPD: 10.0 %
  • FDP: 5.0 %
  • Linke: 3.5 %
  • Sonstige: 5.0 %

The breakdown by gender did not show any marked variations when it comes to CSU support, although more women voted for the Greens, while far more men supported the AfD:

There was a greater variation by educational level, with highly educated voters tending more towards the green GRÜNE (G/EFA) and liberal FDP (ALDE) then the average, while low/middle educated voters tended more towards CSU (EPP) and AfD (EFDD).

This was the worst result for the CSU since 1950.

Zerohedge further reports that alarmed by the rise of the anti-immigration, populist AfD, the CSU tried to outflank them by talking tough on immigration and picking fights with Ms Merkel over asylum policy.

But the strategy appeared to have backfired spectacularly by alienating tens of thousands of moderate CSU voters and driving them into the arms of the Greens.

Meanwhile, as support the CSU and SPD collapsed, the result confirmed the Greens’ status as the rising force in German politics. Running on a platform of open borders, liberal social values and the fight against climate change the party saw its support surge to 18.5%, from 8.4% in 2013. Meanwhile the AfD won 11%, and for the first time entered the Bavarian regional assembly.

“This is an earthquake for Bavaria,” said Jürgen Falter, a political scientist at the University of Mainz.

The CSU had governed the state with an absolute majority for most of the last 60 years. “It was Bavaria and Bavaria was the CSU. That is now no longer the case.”

The latest collapse of Germany’s establishment parties highlights the shaky ground the grand coalition in Berlin is now resting on as all three parties in the alliance, Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, the CSU and the SPD, are haemorrhaging support. Some are now questioning whether the coalition, already frayed by personal rivalries and near constant bickering over policy, can survive a full term in office.

“This outcome throws ever more doubt on the future of the grand coalition,” said Heinrich Oberreuter, head of the Passau Journalism Institute and an expert on the CSU. “Based on current polls, if an election were held now, the CDU, CSU and SPD would not even command a majority in the Bundestag.”

The CSU will now be be forced to form a coalition government — a humiliating outcome for a party that has run Bavaria single-handedly for 49 of the last 54 years. Its preference is probably for a three-party coalition with the Free Voters, a small party that is mainly focused on local politics. It could also team up with the Greens, though it would be highly reluctant to do so: the two parties are deeply divided over immigration, transport and environmental policy.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Elizabeth Warren’s DNA ploy backfires big time (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 1.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at Senator Elizabeth Warren’s ‘genius’ idea to accept POTUS Trump’s ‘Native American DNA’ challenge. Let’s just say that Warren will never recover from this self-inflicted wound.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

The Cherokee Nation issued a statement crushing Elizabeth Warren for her “continued claims of tribal heritage.”

“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America. Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, who ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is prove. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.

– Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin, Jr

Zerohedge reports that Elizabeth Warren just owned herself after releasing a DNA test confirming that she’s as little as 1/1024th Native American – about half the percentage of the average white person.

What’s more, the DNA expert she used, Stanford University professor Carlos Bustamente, “used samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for Native American” as opposed to, say, DNA from a Cherokee Indian which Warren has claimed to be throughout her career.

Adding to the absurdity are two major corrections by the Boston Globe (which has become the media mouthpiece of Warren’s 2020 damage control efforts of late), letting readers know that “Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024,” and later updating it to “between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.”

Adding to the absurdity are two major corrections by the Boston Globe (which has become the media mouthpiece of Warren’s 2020 damage control efforts of late), letting readers know that “Due to a math error, a story about Elizabeth Warren misstated the ancestry percentage of a potential 10th generation relative. It should be 1/1,024,” and later updating it to “between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American.”

Elizabeth Warren’s got trolled by Trump in the most epic fashion, pushing the Senator to make a blunder that will follow her for the rest of her career.

The Daily Caller’s Benny Johnson exposed Elizabeth Warren’s history of lies in 10 simple tweets…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Hillary Clinton: Democrats have been TOO CIVIL with GOP (VIDEO)

Civil war becomes more likely as Clinton calls for greater civil unrest after weeks of absolutely insane behavior from leftist activists.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Former presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton just called for an end to civil behavior towards Republicans and conservatives. In an interview with Christiane Amanpour of CNN expanded on in a piece by USA Today, the failed candidate had this to say:

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about… That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and / or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.”

Clinton said that Senate Republicans under Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., “demeaned the confirmation process” and “insulted and attacked” Christine Blasey Ford – who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about a sexual assault she alleges Kavanaugh committed in 1982 – along with other “women who were speaking out.”

It should be pointed out here that Clinton told a lie. The Senate Republicans did everything possible to hear out Dr Ford’s testimony, and no one has gone on record with any sort of insults or demeaning comments about her. Every Republican Senator who stated anything agreed that something happened to her, but they also agreed that there was no corroboration showing that Judge Kavanaugh was actually involved in any misdoings. USA Today’s piece continues:

Clinton compared the handling of Kavanaugh’s confirmation to “Republican operatives shutting down the voting in 2000,” the “swift-boating of John Kerry,” attacks on former Arizona Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primary and “what they did to me for 25 years.

“When you’re dealing with an ideological party that is driven by the lust for power, that is funded by corporate interests who want a government that does its bidding, you can be civil but you can’t overcome what they intend to do unless you win elections,” she told Amanpour.

Clinton compared Kavanaugh’s swearing-in ceremony at the White House on Monday to a “political rally” that “further undermined the image and integrity of the court.”

She told Amanpour the effect on the court “troubles” and “saddens” her “because our judicial system has been viewed as one of the main pillars of our constitutional government.”

“But the President’s been true to form,” Clinton added. “He has insulted, attacked, demeaned women throughout the campaign – really for many years leading up to the campaign. And he’s continued to do that inside the White House.”

Here, Clinton told at least two more incendiary whoppers.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

First, no one has been specifically after her, and second, President Donald Trump’s record with women including in the White House has been nothing short of stellar and gentlemanly. Nikki Haley, who supported Marco Rubio in the 2016 campaign and has at times been openly critical of Donald Trump, yesterday announced her full support of his 2020 campaign and her intent to campaign with and for him.

By all accounts, Mrs. Haley is a woman.

The first American Civil War had economic policy and states’ rights as its central focus. Slavery was a part of that issue, though slavery was practiced in the North as well in the South before this war began.

Now a new civil war is coming, but perhaps it should be called the American Social War. It is not about any real policy matter at all. It is hysteria, but it appears to be hysteria with a purpose.

The first American Social War has two apparent sides and allying forces and groups:

The Left:

  • pro-gay marriage
  • pro-death (in other words, pro-abortion)
  • anti-Christian, especially Christianity that says these first two issues are wrong
  • anti-GOP / Republican / Conservative
  • “victim class” – feminists, some millenials
  • supporters of legalized use of mind-altering / mood-altering drugs
  • appears to support overreaching socialist style government, featuring “fair” wages, such as a $15.oo minimum wage
  • anti-traditionalist
  • Mainstream media is strongly allied here
  • George Soros is a supporter
  • social media outlets, like Facebook and Twitter are supporters through “scrubbing” of media content
  • anti-white, anti-male, and if you are white, male and Christian, look out. You are Enemy Number One
  • supports and executes violence against all these people they are against, including family members.
  • very zealous, and very monolithic in terms of alignment and energy

The Right:

  • Conservatives
  • people who generally want the government to leave them alone
  • generally favors life, considering abortion tragic and to be avoided, though some consider that it should be made illegal
  • marriage has always been between one man and one woman and it should not be redefined to fit the whims of a few
  • God is sovereign (though many conservatives would never make this connection)
  • No real animus against the left, but at the same time, fed up with being hectored by the left all the time, as we saw in Senator Lindsey Graham’s explosive confrontation against Senate Democrats
  • Generally Republican by party affiliation, though many libertarian and conservatives are also present as well as a number of conservative democrats.
  • seeks to avoid violence. While there do exist a very few neo-Nazi types, their numbers are infinitesimal, and their behavior is rejected by the Right
  •  generally against drug use, though many have unfortunately moderated on the matter of actual illegality

The main characteristic of this approaching war, as stated before, is little more than some sort of outrage over identity politics and perceived victimization. This is something both new and old, as there is always a party in any war that claims that they are fighting because they are in fact the aggrieved party, under the other side’s aggression and suppression.

That factor exists with this war too. However, the reality of that aggression or suppression is that it does not exist, and this makes it very difficult for the “perceived aggressors” to ramp up the zeal needed to carry out the fight.

This factor is often very maddening for conservative people. As a whole they do not wish to fight. They wish to be left alone. The left on the other hand insists that everything must be fought for because the right has somehow managed to take it away from them, or is keeping it away from them.

This is purely fiction but it is almost impossible to convince a leftist that this is so. Tucker Carlson expands on this matter in this report. He makes reference at 6:37 about how Hillary Rodham Clinton is now openly calling for civility to the GOP to end (as if it hasn’t already!), but the entirety of this report begs to be seen to give perspective to the look and feel of this crisis:

This is unfamiliar territory in many ways, and it is unclear how far this will go. But one this is clear: it is testing all available limits, and it may come to real fighting, and real killing, for no reason better than perceived victimization.

It should be understood that the advocates for violence are all people that reject God and traditional values openly. There is certainly a connection.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending