US, Ukraine said behind efforts to split Russia by reviving Urals Republic

Text of the Constitution of the short-lived Urals Republic published in the Oblastnaya Gazeta, the self-proclaimed republic's official newspaper. The republic existed from July 1 until November 9, 1993 when Boris Yeltsin illegitimated it and appointed a governor to control the region. (Image: dic.academic.ru)

Text of the Constitution of the short-lived Urals Republic published in the Oblastnaya Gazeta, the self-proclaimed republic's official newspaper. The republic existed from July 1 until November 9, 1993 when Boris Yeltsin illegitimated it and appointed a governor to control the region. (Image: dic.academic.ru) 

2016/09/26 • Analysis & Opinion, Russia

Given that the USSR fell apart along ethnic lines, most analysts have focused on the ethnic divisions of the Russian Federation as a possible source of division within that country. But regional divisions within predominantly Russian areas may be an even graver threat to Russia, according to some Russian writers.

Valery Korovin, the director of the Moscow Center for Geopolitical Expertise and a member of the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation, said on Zvezda television that the United States is trying to revive a Urals Republic in order to divide Russia in two and take control of the resource rich areas east of the Urals.

“The Urals region divides Russia into a western part which for the time being would remain in Russia and an eastern part, an underpopulated area but rich in natural resources which it will be difficult to hold onto if in the center of the country were to exist some kind of ‘Urals Republic,’ which does not recognize the authority of Moscow,” the Eurasianist says.

This portion of Russia is precisely the place “from which it would be possible to control both the western part of what would remain of Russia and the Far East, Central Asia and China. It is a strategic knot, by means of which it would be possible to control the entire Eurasian continent and control over it would give the US unlimited power.”

In reporting Korovin’s statement made this weekend, the Eurasia portal noted that it had “frequently written about the openly anti-Russian activity of Yekaterinburg Mayor Yevgeny Royzman and his close friendship with Ukrainian Nazis,” thus combining anti-Americanism, anti-Ukrainianism and anti-Semitism in one package.

It is likely that the Moscow analyst made this declaration because he supports sending more people to Siberia and the Russian Far East in order to hold those regions against challenges from China and elsewhere. But his words are a reminder that Russians recognize that regions may matter even more in the future than do some of the Federation’s non-Russian republics.


Related:

 

Edited by: A. N.

Tags: , , ,

  • Dagwood Bumstead

    It’s far more likely that China will try to split the country. Peking already de facto controls significant parts of Siberia and will increase the area under its control in the next 5-10 years as Dwarfstan’s economy slowly but surely implodes thanks to the dwarf’s mismanagement. We will be seeing Peking officially annexing parts of Dwarfstan before the decade is out, either by sending in its own “little gleen men” or buying territory for a pittance.

    • Oknemfrod

      More exactly, “little yellow men”, whose small size will be surely more than compensated by their quantity.

    • Matt Franklin

      Bye, Bye Siberia…..

      • Dagwood Bumstead

        The mere possibility of losing Siberia is a nightmare for Moscow. Without Siberia’s mineral wealth European Dwarfstan is nothing, its economy would collapse in short order. It’s not far-fetched to say that Siberia is keeping the country afloat- barely. Most of the revenue goes to European Dwarfstan, little reaches the Asian part which undoubtedly is not to the liking of the locals.
        Worse from the dwarf’s point of view is that without Siberia he can forget about expanding his armed forces and security services, never mind waging war in the Donbas or Syria, or trying to force Kyiv to do what Moscow wants (which he can’t anyway).

    • Alex George

      Yes, that sums it up. The US has no interest in Siberia or the Far East. If anything it would probably prefer that those regions stay with Russia. But it won’t get the choice, and nor will Putin – the Chinese are adept at playing the long game, and they can see that the Far East and possibly Siberia as well are ripe for the plucking.

      And unlike the Kremlin, the Chinese have the expertise and the spare capital to properly exploit the resources of those regions. Plus plenty of spare population who are already moving into them.

      • Dagwood Bumstead

        It’s no secret that Peking wants the territories back that Aleksandr II stole in 1856 and 1860. But why would Peking stop when (NOT if) it has them? The dwarf made a great noise about “historical rights” when it seized the Crimea…… but Peking can use exactly the same argument for its repossession of what Aleksandr stole. It’s a double-edged sword.

  • zorbatheturk

    Siberia for the Siberians!

    Good idea, huh?