Skip to content

US insider explains serious plans for breakup of “unwieldy” Russia and assignment of its parts to other countries via “peaceful rupture,” per The Hill article, 1/9/19, “Managing Russia’s Dissolution”…(It’s the US that must be broken up. US must end for “regime change” machine to end)

January 19, 2019

Russia is too “unwieldy” and must be broken up via “peaceful rupture” says longtime, award-winning US insider, in article, “Managing Russia’s dissolution.”

1/19/19, “Is the Violent Dismemberment of Russia Official US Policy? Strategic Culture, Erik D’Amato

“If there’s one thing everyone in today’s Washington can agree on, it’s that whenever an official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous, there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury. With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth. 

Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn’t. Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title “Managing Russia’s dissolution,” [1/9/19] author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

“Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution.”

Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia’s might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional fragmentation. But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an “imperial construct.”

“The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly ungovernable… To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.”

Even more alarming is Bugajski’s argument that the goal should not be self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries. “Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past.”

It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear warheads.

So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?

The author bio on the Hill’s piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop: Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US government, including

the [US taxpayer funded] Department of State,

the [US taxpayer funded] Department of Defense,

the [US taxpayer funded] US Mission to NATO,

the US-government-sponsored [neocon group] National Endowment for Democracy,

as well as as veritable who’s who of defense contractors, including

Raytheon,

Bell Helicopter,

BAE Systems,

Lockheed Martin and

Textron.

Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.

To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly talk of a “Calexit,” and many more in Mexico of a reconquista.)

Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski’s coming out in favor of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn’t appear to have noticed or been ruffled by Bugajski’s immodest proposal….

The real outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski’s virtual declaration of war notable.

But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of the month.”

………………………………..

Added: Russia is too “unwieldy” and must be broken up via “peaceful rupture” says longtime, award-winning US insider, in article, “Managing Russia’s dissolution.”

1/9/19, Managing Russia’s dissolution,”  The Hill, b

“Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution….

Although Moscow has failed to modernize its economy to be globally competitive, the Kremlin excels in one domain-disinformation-through which it portrays the country as a rising power on a level with the U.S. [So what? If Russia is on the verge of extinction, why do you waste time immersed in how it might advertise itself? Why don’t you examine the US propaganda machine. For example, the Pentagon employs 27,000 public relations specialists or “influence operators” at cost of $4.7 billion annually….If US were right about anything, it wouldn’t need 27,000 PR agents.]

In reality, Russia is a declining state that disguises its internal infirmities with external offensives. Russia’s economy is stagnating. According to World Bank statistics for 2017, Russia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita ranks 62nd in the world.

Even the defense budget is shrinking and barely reaches a tenth of the U.S. [Why is this a reason for you or anyone to break up a country and destroy the lives of millions of citizens?] Through a combination of low fossil fuel prices, infrastructural decay, pervasive corruption and Western financial sanctions [economic genocide], state revenues are declining, living standards are falling, social conflicts are intensifying and regional disquiet is mounting.

Although economic performance alone is insufficient to measure susceptibility to collapse, rising social, ethnic and regional pressures indicate that Russia is heading toward fragmentation.

Russia has failed to develop into a nation state with a strong ethnic or civic identity. [But isn’t “multi-culturalism” good and pride in historic culture xenophobic?] It remains an imperial construct due to its Tsarist and Soviet heritage. [So you think it’s genetic. Meaning you’re a racist].

The unwieldy Russian Federation consists of 85 “federal subjects,” of which 22 are republics representing non-Russian ethnicities, including the North Caucasus and Middle Volga, and numerous regions with distinct identities that feel increasingly estranged from Moscow.

Instead of pursuing decentralization to accommodate regional aspirations, the Kremlin is downgrading their autonomy. This is evident in the new language law designed to promote “Russification” and plans to merge and eliminate several regions.

Pressure is mounting across the country, with growing anger at local governors appointed by the Kremlin and resentment that Moscow appropriates their resources. [US elites already stole newly independent Russia’s resources in the 1990s, conducted “economic genocide” of a fragile new entity with especially catastrophic results for children and the elderly, laughed about “stuffing shit down Yeltsin’s throat.”…Millions of Russians, eager to find out what freedom was like were driven into poverty and early death by US elites who thought Russia was theirs for the taking, “ours to lose.”] Indeed, regions such as Sakha and Magadan in the far east, with their substantial mineral wealth, could be successful states without Moscow’s exploitation.

Emerging states will benefit from forging closer economic and political contacts with neighboring countries rather than depending on Moscow, whose federal budget is drastically shrinking. Collapsing infrastructure means that residents of Siberia and Russia’s far east will become even more separated from the center, thus encouraging demands for secession and sovereignty.

Given Russia’s ailments, an assertive Western approach would be more effective than reactive defense. Washington needs to return to core principles that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union by supporting democratization, pluralism, minority rights, genuine federalism, decentralization and regional self-determination among Russia’s disparate regions and ethnic groups. [When will “Washington” support any of these things in the Failed US State with undefended borders?]

While Moscow seeks to divide the West and fracture the EU and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) by backing nationalist and separatist parties in Europe [what is proof that “Moscow” is doing any of this “in Europe”?], Washington should promote regional and ethnic self-determination inside the Russian Federation. This would send a strong signal that the West is fully capable of reacting to Moscow’s [so-called] subversion. [“The West” should hasten a country’s downfall by meddling in its internal affairs? Does “the West” think the world is a one-way street? Constant US bullying rightfully puts a target of the back of innocent Americans trying to survive in an “ungovernable,” open borders US.]

The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly ungovernable.

To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote their peaceful transition toward statehood. [So why shouldn’t other countries promote “peaceful transition” of parts of the US to independent “statehood?”]

NATO should prepare contingencies for both the dangers and the opportunities that Russia’s fragmentation will present. In particular, Moscow’s European neighbors must be provided with sufficient security to shield themselves from the most destabilizing scenarios while preparations [“preparations?”] are made for engaging with emerging post-Russia entities. [“Security?” Who will provide security against US global “regime change” bombing, mass murder, and starvation racket?]

Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past. [“Moscow?” It’s US that “forcefully appropriates” countries around the world, bombs them to show them who’s boss, for years has paid Islamic terrorists billions to overthrow Syria]. Other republics in the North Caucasus, Middle Volga, Siberia and the far east could become fully independent states and forge relations with China, Japan, the U.S. and Europe.

Neglecting Russia’s dissolution may prove more damaging to Western interests than making preparations to manage its international repercussions. To avoid sudden geopolitical jolts and possible military confrontations, Washington [Who is “Washington?”]  needs to monitor and encourage a peaceful rupture [“peaceful rupture?”] and establish links with emerging entities.”…

The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union should serve as a lesson that far-reaching transformations occur regardless of the Kremlin’s disinformation campaigns or the West’s shortsighted adherence to a transient status quo.”

“Janusz Bugajski is a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) in Washington, D.C. His recent book, co-authored with Margarita Assenova, is “Eurasian Disunion: Russia’s Vulnerable Flanks,” (Jamestown, 2016).”

…………………………………..

Added: More on award-winning US imperialist, Janusz Bugajski”

“He has worked as a consultant on East European affairs for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of Defense, the International Republican Institute [“Republican” branch of neocon group NED], the Free Trade Union Institute (AFL-CIO), the International Research and Exchange Board (IREX), and BBC television in London….In 1998, he received a Distinguished Public Service Award from the U.S. Department of State, USAID, USIA, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in recognition of his contribution to international affairs. Bugajski holds an M. Phil. in social anthropology from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

From → Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: