Russian policy on Donbas turning in opposite direction, Surkov alleges

Vladislav Surkov,
the Kremlin’s pointman on Donbas for six years, said a change in the Ukrainian
political context is the reason he summited his resignation in January, which
he insisted was voluntary. “A natural braking has begun, in this project as
well,” he said about Donbas in his first interview since his departure,
published on Feb. 26 on the actualcomment.ru news site. “Of course, in the
typical situation, I would not have removed myself from such a hot spot. Since
that would have been irresponsible. But the hot spot has more or less cooled
down. And the main thing, the context has changed. I could not have went in one
direction for five years, and then sharply turn the shafts in the opposite
direction. I would not have reconciled this with myself for anything. That’s
how the reason and pretext to finally resign emerged.”

Regarding the return
of wartorn Donbas to Ukraine, Surkov said, “I don’t have a strong enough
imagination to picture that. Donbas doesn’t deserve that kind of humiliation.
Ukraine doesn’t deserve that honor.” As for the future of Ukraine, Surkov left
open the option of using force to bring the nation back into Russia’s
geopolitical sphere. “The use of force for establishing brotherly relations is
the single method of historically proven effectiveness in the Ukrainian
tangent,” he said.

Surkov also left
open the possibility for Ukraine’s fragmentation in the interview. “I am an
’Ukro-optimist,’ as strange as it seems,” he said in the interview. “That is, I
believe Ukraine hasn’t happened yet. But with time, it will be. The ‘khokhly’
are stubborn kids. They’ll get it done. However, just how this Ukraine will be
like, in what borders it will exist and even is able to exist, and how many
Ukraines there will be – these are open questions. And in resolving these
questions, Russia will be involved, in one way or another.” (“Khokhly” is a
derogatory term Russians use to smear Ukrainians.)

Zenon Zawada: In our interpretation, Surkov’s
interview offers further evidence that Russian President Putin has decided to
shift gears in his
approach to the armed conflict in Donbas, as opposed to going in the “opposite
direction,” as Surkov alleged. This was confirmed with his January decision to make Dmitry
Kozak his new pointman on Donbas,
replacing Surkov. And it now seems the Kremlin is willing to entertain Ukrainian
proposals to fulfill the Minsk Accords (and return Donbas to Ukraine
accordingly), as long as the Zelensky administration concedes to enough Russian
demands. Surkov’s comments on the use of force in dealing with Ukraine is more
evidence that he had favored extending the warfare until gaining Ukraine’s full
capitulation, regardless of Western sanctions, which he insisted would be persistent. Meanwhile, it has been reported that Kozak favors an
approach of gradually removing Western sanctions in order to invigorate the Russian
economy.

In making his
emotionally charged comments opposing plans to return Donbas to Ukraine, Surkov
is merely trying to maintain his reputation in the region, and also lend moral
support to the people that the Kremlin, in essence, misled and manipulated for
its own geopolitical goals. Putin and Surkov have always viewed Donbas as a
means to an end in keeping Ukraine in Russia’s sphere, and it’s quite silly for
Surkov to claim otherwise. They never ruled out returning the territory to the
Ukrainian state, and it’s also dubious to say things are going in the opposite
direction, a comment that Surkov also made to curry favor with his proxies in
Donbas. 

We share the widely held view that the return of Donbas to Ukraine would
be aimed at using its highly resentful residents to stir civil conflict and
promote the gradual dissolution of Ukraine, which Surkov hinted at. He also
indicated indirectly, but rather clearly, that the federalization or outright
fragmentation remains a goal for the Kremlin in solving its so-called Ukrainian
problem.