Catastrophe rehearsal. Vitaly Portnikov - About referenda

Conducting pseudo -referenda in the territory of the Ukrainian regions occupied by Russia once again demonstrated which political instrument Vladimir Putin considers the ideal master for Ukrainian doors. “National vote”, for which they did not even try, did not even try to build a more or less convincing picture, like eight years ago in Crimea. It was simply announced in the high -speed train mode and they carried them out in a few days to present the territory to the population and try to political successes of the Ukrainian army to the population of Russia, as soon as recently, with the help of another, the same master made the deadlines of Putin.

This is not to say that the holding of these referenda was a big surprise. They, as you know, existed in the original plan of the "special operation". Speaking with an appeal on the occasion of an attack on Ukraine, Vladimir Putin announced the creation of "conditions for self -determination of all peoples of Ukraine." If you translate from the Putin’s language to human, this means holding a referendum on joining Russia in each of the Ukrainian regions, which can be occupied by the Russian army. For such a plebiscite, certain "peoples of Ukraine" in the country were invented, the vast majority of whose population (yes, and in the Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhya regions) are Ukrainians. At the same time, consider the small political trick of our Kremlin eel - immediately after the "vote" "people of the Crimea" or "people of the Donbass" turns simply into Russians - what a paradox!

For underestimation of an obvious danger, everyone is now paying

But even after this Putin statement it might seem that the Russian president would remain within the framework - no, not decency, but reality. That referendums will be held after Russian troops can reach administrative borders of conquered regions. That the "plebiscite" will be propagated propaganda. That the regime will be able to at least logically explain why the special operation was up to the “help of the Republics of Donbass”, and as a result, not two, but parts of four Ukrainian regions are annexed. But after the defeat in the Kharkiv region, Vladimir Putin acts on the principle: if reality does not correspond to his plans, then all the worse for reality. In fact, the unusual “voting” in the occupied Ukrainian territory was decided to issue a full -fledged referendum, the results of which should be satisfied with the Russian Federal Assembly, the Constitutional Court, and the President. And they will satisfy!

Actually, exactly what was happening that I had to warn in 2014. If we agree with the procedure of the annexation of Crimea, with a referendum in this Ukrainian region, with the very opportunity, when one state joins the territory of another by force and at the same time manipulates with popular will, this will lead to a heady feeling of impunity and will certainly end with a new catastrophe. Unfortunately, Krymnash was not taken seriously in the world when a big war could still be stopped. Some do not take seriously out of fear, others-due to political incompetence, the third-due to economic interest. Be that as it may, everyone is now paying for this underestimation of an obvious danger. That is why I am not afraid of a new forecast. I have no doubt: if the world “swallows” this annexation, if it agrees that Ukraine “for the sake of peace” should sacrifice in favor of Putin’s ambitions some other lands and not to achieve the restoration of its own territorial integrity in international recognized boundaries, then the consequences of such a “solution to the problem” will be even more frightening than the consequences of the Crimea annexation. And against the backdrop of these consequences, the war, begun by Vladimir Putin on February 24, 2022, will seem to us all just a rehearsal of the tragic future of Europe.

Vitaly Portnikov - Kiev journalist and political publicist, author and presenter of the Radio Liberty program "Road to Freedom"

Opinions expressed in the heading "Law of the author" may not coincide with the point of view of the editorial