Ray McGovern's Incorrect Interpretation of Dmitri Trenin's Post-SMO Outlook

Painting by Sergei Repin and Mikhail Deregus, "Pereyaslav Council", painted for the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's accession to Russia

On 18 December 2024, Dmitri Trenin, who Ray McGovern described as a Russian “Think-tank expert,” while RT provided this description—“Dmitry Trenin, a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC)”—had an essay published by Russian media outlet Profile entitled, “What should Ukraine become after the completion of the Russian special operation,” which as you’ll note isn’t posed as a question but as a suggestion. RT’s abridged version of the paper published on 20 December 2024 I read several days ago and was non-plussed by it primarily because RT cut a large portion of the most critical part of his discussion. I watched Ray’s 27 December 2024 chat with Nima where the first 15-minutes were devoted to the SMO and its potential outcome where this paper featured prominently. Ray’s misinterpretation comes what’s the third paragraph in the RT version versus the second paragraph in the original paper. It’s how Ray interprets what’s being said here that leads him to think that some of the mentioned places will be negotiable, when that’s not the case whatsoever. There’s no transcript of the chat, so readers will need to click the link and listen to what’s said; perhaps some have already done so—27,000+ people have viewed it so far. The RT article is published in English, so I won’t bother reproducing it here; however, the Profile essay is in Russian, and its translation will follow. Nevertheless, I will reproduce RT’s second paragraph and Profile’s third paragraph so readers can see the fundamental differences, then the full translation will follow. I should also note RT began with the following header while the original had none:

The Future Map of Ukraine

Ukraine, as it existed on December 31, 1991, is gone. Crimea, Donbass, and two other regions have already returned to Russia through referendums. More will likely follow–-perhaps Odessa, Nikolayev, Kharkov, or Dnepropetrovsk. But not all of them. We will take only what can be integrated and defended. Expansion must be strategic, not emotional.

Profile:

Ukraine within the borders of December 31, 1991 has not existed for a long time. Part of the territories of the former Ukrainian SSR - Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya - became part of the Russian Federation through referendums. It is possible that over time, some other regions will follow this path. Perhaps Odessa with Nikolaev, perhaps Kharkov with Dnepropetrovsk. Perhaps something else. But definitely not all. It is worth attaching only what can be really integrated and, if necessary, retained.

Do note the great difference in verbiage, while in neither version is there any mention of those areas being up for negotiation with the Outlaw US Empire, NATO or anyone else. Rather, its suggested that the people of those regions will follow the “path” of their former fellows. One last very important point as I wrote it at Larry Johnson’s blog on 26 December 2024:

Other important news was made by both Putin and Lavrov today in their press conferences. Lavrov gave his hourlong, annual year-ending performance, while Putin gave his after the annual EAEU Supreme Economic Council’s meeting. When you read both, it’s beyond crystal clear that the Russia-NATO conflict within Ukraine will only end when Russia’s December 2021 security proposals are addressed and a way to make them work is arranged–the conflict will continue until such an arrangement is made. The above links are there for readers to satisfy themselves by reading what the principles themselves have explained to media.

The above conclusion also differs from what Ray McGovern thinks possible as you’ll see when you watch his chat with Nima, which I very highly suggest. Now the essay’s translation:

There is a rule: in peacetime, prepare for war, and in wartime, think about organizing peace. Now, while the conflict in Ukraine is not over, our thoughts are about victory. We are sure it will come. But it is time now to start thinking about the world that will follow. Paraphrasing Stalin's famous statement, we can say: Bandera come and go, but the Ukrainian people remain.

Ukraine within the borders of December 31, 1991 has not existed for a long time. Part of the territories of the former Ukrainian SSR—Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya—became part of the Russian Federation through referendums. It is possible that over time, some other regions will follow this path. Perhaps Odessa with Nikolaev, perhaps Kharkov with Dnepropetrovsk. Perhaps something else. But definitely not all. It is worth attaching only what can be really integrated and, if necessary, retained.

Some part of today's Ukrainian territories will remain outside the Russian Federation. What will this Ukraine be like? The future of Russia depends on the answer to this question–-and in fact it is a very serious challenge. In the recent example of Syria, we received a clear confirmation of the military maxim of the great Alexander Suvorov: an undercut forest grows.

In civilizational, cultural, historical, and ethnic relations, Ukraine–-or at least most of it–-is an integral part of the Russian world. However, today this territory is at the mercy of forces desperately fighting the Russian world. It is impossible not to notice that even these forces themselves and the West standing behind them are fighting us with the hands, in fact, of Russian people fighting in the Russian way— stubbornly, inventively and evilly, despite huge losses.

The liberation mission of Russia–-its historical task–-does not end with the liberation of the cities and villages of Donbass and Novorossiya. It is aimed at liberating the whole of Ukraine from the anti-Russian Bandera regime, its neo-Nazi ideology, as well as from the influence of external forces hostile to the Russian world.

Like any other country, Ukraine belongs first and foremost to the people living on its territory. Russia, however, is closely and inextricably linked with this people and the land on which they live. After the end of the war, we owe it to ourselves, first of all, to help our neighbors build a new Ukraine–-initially a reconciled and then a peaceful neighbor, in the medium term–-a partner, and in the long term–-an ally.

Russia has historical experience in turning military opponents into friends or reliable fellow citizens. Suffice it to recall the revival of the Chechen Republic, which became a stronghold of stability in the North Caucasus; the alliance of former mujahideen with the Afghan "northern alliance" or the example of the GDR and a number of other satellite countries of Nazi Germany after World War II.

In the Russian expert community, there are different visions of post-war Ukraine.

The most radical option is for Russia to take control of the entire territory of Ukraine, up to Lviv, and access to the borders with NATO countries. Logically, this military success is followed by a political continuation–-the second "reunification of Ukraine with Russia", which actually means the abolition of Ukrainian statehood. We will not discuss the realism of such an outcome of the NWO [SMO] from a military point of view. But we can say for sure: there are reasonable doubts about the ability to keep all of Ukraine under Moscow's control and then integrate it entirely into the Russian Federation, as well as about the material cost for Russia of such a solution to the issue.

The opposite, least acceptable and most dangerous option for us is an embittered Bandera pro-Western Ukraine with slightly reduced borders compared to 2022. It is a fiercely anti-Russian state, an instrument of the West to constantly put pressure on Russia and provoke it, and then, at an opportune moment, a springboard for a new war for the "liberation of the occupied territories." The main idea of this "undefeated" Ukraine will be revenge. Such an option should be completely excluded.

There is one option—a weakened Ukraine, a kind of large "gulyai-pole", an entity abandoned by the West as unnecessary and dependent on Russia. In this incarnation of the Makhnovshchina, the various interest groups and criminal gangs will fight each other incessantly and tirelessly. It is assumed that Moscow will be able, by manipulating local elements, to turn such a Ukraine into a safe buffer for Russia in the southwestern direction. In this option, two things are doubtful. First, the fact that the West will "retreat" from the Ukrainian "gulyai-pole" and will not use its "heroes" to fight Russia, which will not stop after the end of hostilities in Ukraine. Secondly, that Moscow will be able to control this Makhnovshchina.

The best and not entirely fantastic option for us would be to oust anti-Russian, revanchist elements to the western regions of Ukraine. There they could create their own "free Ukraine" under the protectorate of the West or become a zone of influence of neighboring states—Poland, Hungary and Romania. The West could console itself with the fact that part of the country has avoided falling under Moscow's control, and speculate that Western Ukraine, consisting of five or seven regions, will become an analogue of the Federal Republic of Germany during the Cold War. Let [Пусть]. It is not scary to give up what is not only expensive for us, but also dangerous to have. The mistake of Stalin, who annexed Galicia and Volhynia and thereby infected Soviet Ukraine with the virus of nationalism, cannot be repeated.

The main thing is that "Galicia", taking into account all possible assistance to it from the West, does not pose a danger to Russia, that is, it would have a subcritical mass. The rest of Ukraine–-isolated from the hotbed of ultranationalism, and without regions that have already joined or may yet join the Russian Federation–-would become a new sovereign Ukrainian state. At the same time, by a state that is not under our occupation. It makes sense to offer such a prospect to the Ukrainians, explaining how beneficial it is to them.

The new Ukraine would be much more Ukrainian than the Ukrainian SSR or even Ukraine without Crimea and the four regions that voted to join Russia in 2022. The Ukrainian economy would gain access to the market of Russia and the EAEU countries. At the same time, the New Ukraine would be rigidly separated from the alien Bandera element, which was historically formed in isolation from Russia and on an anti-Russian basis. Kiev would have freed itself from those who flooded and desecrated it after the Maidan coup of 2014.

A new Ukraine as a state and society would be created on a broad all-Russian–-or, if you like, East Slavic–-basis. Such a Ukraine would inherit Kievan Rus and the Zaporozhian Cossacks; it would be proud of the contribution of its people to the strengthening and prosperity of the Russian Tsardom and the Russian Empire, as well as the Soviet Union, of which the Little Russian lands were an important component. Finally, it would embody the historical dream of several generations of Ukrainians about independence.

In the realities of the modern world, the true sovereignty of Ukraine–-as well as other neighboring states of the former USSR–-is possible only in conditions of close cooperation with Russia. At the same time, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church would remain the spiritual basis of society.

The "New Ukraine" project does not have to wait for Victory Day. You can start planning now. There are many Ukrainians in Russia who are not indifferent to the fate of their homeland. Many of them have the necessary competencies to join the work on state, economic and cultural building of the future Ukrainian statehood. At the same time, it should be emphasized that this work is aimed precisely at creating a new statehood, and not at restoring the Ukraine that was swept away by the Maidan almost 11 years ago.

We are not talking only about those who have moved. After our victory, there is work to be done to separate war criminals, criminal figures, ideological opponents and incorrigible Russophobes from the bulk of the population of Ukraine. From its ranks, the New Ukraine could attract patriots–-officers, public and cultural figures, businessmen—who are ready to rebuild their country in cooperation with Russia. We, in turn, will have to give these people an initial credit of trust and treat their "Ukrainianness" with respect. They are not "khokhly", "ukrops" who speak "language", and not just neighbors, but a part of the Russian world that we have to return. Not for their sake, but first of all for the sake of ourselves, our safe (in this direction) future.

In our work with the Ukrainians, it is already necessary to emphasize that for the West, Ukraine and its population are only a tool, an expendable material in weakening Russia. That for the West, Ukrainians (who were massively "discovered" there only three years ago) are strangers, second- or third-class people. That the wonderful Ukrainian folk values are destined to be buried under the avalanche of Western mass culture and all the latest innovations in the field of gender policy. That the Ukrainian language is experiencing increasing pressure from English. That Ukrainian wealth – black soil, subsoil – was bought up by American and Western companies and in fact for the most part no longer belongs to Ukraine. That a hypothetical attempt by Ukraine to protect its identity will be met with the same wave of arrogant pressure from the West as the actions of the current Georgian authorities.

So, to sum up: we need to be ready for war, but we also need to be ready for peace. We will expect that all the goals of the NWO will be achieved, and hope at least for the optimal option for ending the war described above. In other words, for our victory. But this will be a victory, first of all, over the attempt of the collective West to restrain our development and weaken us. This will be a victory over the Ukrainian Bandera followers—enemies of both Russians and Ukrainians. For ordinary citizens of the New Ukraine, the day of our victory will be the day of their liberation. This was the name of Victory Day in the GDR. [My Emphasis]

Longtime Gym readers will note some of my ideas about the future of Ukraine are shared by Trenin. The historical context of likening Russia’s victory to that over the West’s WW2 Nazi creation and its reincarnation within Ukraine after having kept Nazism and its OUN Ukrainian elements alive since 1945 is quite proper, IMO. McGovern was asked about CIA presence in Ukraine relative to DCI Bill Burns recent visit but either doesn’t know or decided not to take the opportunity to disclose the CIA’s long, 79-year presence in Ukraine. My citation of what Russia now views as the minimal grounds for negotiations and that the SMO will continue until such an arrangement is solidified means that as time moves forward, ever more regions will be severed from Bandera-controlled Kiev and given an opportunity to choose their future path—a choice we can be certain the Outlaw US Empire will object to but have no means to alter. If the name Ukraine is to continue to be used, then it must become legally absolved of all obligations undertaken by the Outlaw US Empire’s Banderite government since the 2014 coup.

One of many points in Ray’s chat I agree with is NATO’s dissolution over the next 10-20 years, but he omitted mentioning what must also happen to the EU for that to occur—it too must dissolve. Indeed, for the new Eurasian Security System Russia and other Eurasian states want to be made viable, NATO must die, for the Eurasia envisioned includes the Europeans, not just those in the Eastern portion of Europe. Yes, the Balts will cry and perhaps the Swedes too. IMO, when the rest of Europe finally understands that they don’t need to spend 2-3+% of their GDP on useless weapons produced by the Outlaw US Empire and they can once again get inexpensive energy resources that will help them dig out of the economic depression they’ve allowed themselves to be drubbed by, their relationship with the declining Outlaw US Empire will change comprehensively. The length and depth of the economic drubbing will determine when that change commences. The one evil seed Ray mentioned was the possibility that somehow Sullivan and/or Blinken along with others would be able to loose a tactical nuke in Ukraine. How that might be done wasn’t discussed, but the why and associated mindset were. Unfortunately, there’s zero guarantee Trump and those on his team will be an improvement.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!