The planned carve-up of Russia

Decolonization and reconstruction of Russia – there are plans for that – Made in USA!

René Zittlau

Introduction

We live in a world that has changed in recent years in a way and at a pace that has left many gasping for breath. Raw materials no longer come in the ways they used to, and often no longer from suppliers built up over years. Energy prices have become a difficult variable to calculate. Large corporations are leaving their home countries. The perceived inflation and the officially announced inflation somehow do not match. 

The predetermined breaking point

That raises questions. Anyone looking for answers, whether in the media or in conversation with friends, colleagues or business partners, will sooner rather than later come to talk about big politics. As a consequence, China, oil, gas, the EU, sanctions, Russia, the world, Ukraine…

And at this last point at the latest, the spectrum of official justifications becomes narrow. Many can be simply subsumed by the following sentence:

“Russia is the culprit.”

This is the intended breaking point. 

Consequently, the conclusion is that the perpetrator must be punished. And if sanctions do not have the desired effect, then one must resort to more drastic means.

“Forum of the Free States of Postrussia”.

The range of mental and actual measures that have been and continue to be put in place against Russia is now almost impossible to keep track of. One, of which most will probably hardly have heard, is listed under the term “decolonization of Russia”. 

The following map should be understood as a kind of action plan as to what is actually meant by “decolonization.” 

The heading reads:

“Map of the free states of Postrussia

Decolonization and Reconstruction of Russia

It’s time to return independence and sovereignty to indigenous peoples and regions”

This map can be found on the website of the “Forum of Free Nations of Postrussia – a platform for analysis, communication and discussion to find optimal solutions.”

“What is almost innocently presented here as a platform for discussion, upon closer inspection, has it all.”

It should not go unmentioned that there are several cards of this type, which differ only marginally from each other. Here it becomes visible what is meant: 

The filleting of Russia turns out a little differently according to this map reading, but the principle remains the same.

What is presented here almost innocently as a platform for discussion is, on closer inspection, quite a serious matter. This forum has since held several congresses in Europe and the U.S. in quick succession, discussing how to make real what the map suggests – the carving up of Russia into easily manageable individual states: 

In the period from May 2022 to April 2023, this forum already held 6 congresses in various countries in Europe and in the USA, including on January 31, 2023 in the European Parliament in Brussels.  

However, the above map does not have its intellectual origin in the mentioned forum. The intellectual authorship of all this can be found in the USA, in the official “Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)”, i.e. in the “Committee on Security and Cooperation in Europe” of the US government. 

This committee is headed by the following people: 

Fatima Tlisova – Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy; originating from Russia. 

Botakoz Kassymbekova – Oxus Society, postdoctoral fellow at the Department of History and Social Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, more recently at the University of Basel also as a postdoctoral fellow; originating from Kazakhstan.  (https://dg.philhist.unibas.ch/de/personen/botakoz-kassymbekova/ )

Erica Marat – National Defense University (USA); originating from one of the former Soviet Central Asian republics, exact details of which are not published in her biographical information

Hanna Hopko – Chair of the Democracy in Action Conference, former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Verkhovna Rada, i.e. the Parliament of Ukraine; Ukrainian

Casey Michel – Hudson Institute

“decolonization of Russia as a “moral and strategic imperative””

In addition to four women from the post-Soviet region, it is probably above all Casey Michel who pulls the strings in this committee as an employee of the Hudson Institute in Washington. This institute is closely linked to the U.S. government. On its website, it advertises its expertise as follows: 

„The Center on Europe and Eurasia is dedicated to advancing American interests and revitalizing our alliances for today’s era of great power competition.”

One of his many experts is Michael R. Pompeo, ex-U.S. Secretary of State and ex-Director of the CIA, who met with Ukrainian President Zelensky on May 17, 2023. 

It is certainly no coincidence that this institute appeared as the organizer of the last congress in Washington from April 25-28, 2023, especially since it describes the decolonization of Russia as a “moral and strategic imperative” on its website. 

How serious the USA is about destroying the Russian Federation is also shown by the media presence of this forum. In addition to the above-mentioned website, a wide range of digital contact options is exploited, Facebook, Twitter, Telegram. But that is by no means all. There is a “Declaration on the Decolonization of Russia”, a “Constitution of the Federative States of Siberia” and others. 

The “Declaration on the Decolonization of Russia” in particular leaves no questions unanswered as to who is in charge here, who is instrumentalizing whom, and what goals are being pursued. It is a highly professional call for sabotage, strikes, resistance to state power, the overthrow of the legitimate Russian government, the destruction of the Russian Federation as a state and, last but not least, the desertion of Russian soldiers, including by having them surrender to the Ukrainian army. 

Accordingly, the “process of complete and general decolonization of Russia … is justified by:

1. the violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of indigenous peoples and colonized regions, as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
2. A systematic policy of internal terror and repression in the Russian Federation.
3. The systematic implementation of imperial policies and discriminatory practices in the Russian Federation that establish a subordinate colonial position of our indigenous peoples and regions and discriminate against citizens based on their indigenous and/or regional origins.
4. through the use of imperial practices of ecocide and the dispossession of our regions and indigenous peoples from their traditional lands, territories and resources, we are prevented from exercising our right to development.
5. By the systematic forced assimilation and influence for the purpose of colonization and destruction of our cultures, languages, educational systems and other essential aspects of our lives.
6. By the impossibility of exercising self-government through their duly elected representatives, the systematic denial of the right of our colonized regions and indigenous peoples to participate in decision-making on issues affecting our rights.
7. by violating the rights of indigenous peoples and colonized regions of the Russian Federation, dangerous materials – nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction – are stored on our territory.”

So that not even the slightest doubt arises that the Russians and Russia are, so to speak, God-given evil and vile – and this not only recently, but across the most diverse social models for a long time, the authors of this “declaration” let the world know in the following: 

“The above colonial policies and practices have existed for centuries and have resulted in our indigenous peoples and colonized regions being victims of historical injustice and, in some cases, forced displacement and genocide. Today, colonial policies manifest themselves in ever-increasing levels of state terrorism and oppression.

The Russian Federation today is a terrorist country run by war criminals. The series of insane wars unleashed by the Russian imperial leadership over the last 30 years deprives our indigenous peoples and colonized regions of what is most important – the right to life, as the mobilization affects first and foremost the indigenous peoples and colonized regions who are mobilized and used as “cannon fodder.””

Of course, further references to the events in and around Ukraine are not omitted. There is also no lack of reference to the fact that “all constructive forces” should organize themselves worldwide with the aim of “peaceful decolonization, development and restoration of the sovereignty and independence of their countries”.

Everyone concerned with this issue should realize: This document is “made by USA”, a country which – confronted with the key points of the above declaration – would have every reason to think deeply about itself and its history.

A bit of geography and statistics

Anyone who has studied Russia’s history, which now spans a thousand years, can only shake his head at what has been said above. It is not that there were no injustices, no cruelties. There were such things. There were expulsions, resettlements, pogroms. Nobody denies that. But to understand history, it is indispensable to go back in time and its conditions.  

According to Wikipedia, about 146 million people live in Russia, well over 100 nationalities. The Russian-language edition speaks of more than 190 nationalities, the German-language edition of more than 100. 80% of the population are Russians, which means about 117 million. I do not want to argue about the different number of nationalities at this point. If we assume an average value, it means that statistically about 150 nationalities are distributed among 29 million people of non-Russian origin. So, per nationality, that is an average of about 193,000 people. 

Wikipedia provides an overview of Russia’s numerically most significant indigenous minorities.

Large and small states

The size of a country, a people, a group of states has great significance for development. The larger the communities are, the more influence they tend to have. There are plenty of examples from history. 

Germany as a state was more or less insignificant and without influence as long as it enjoyed existing in over 200 individual states. After the foundation of the German Reich, this changed within a very short time. 

The U.S. realized very early that size is sexy and not only created the Union State, but quickly expanded it through conquests. 

Some European states, some of them not so small, recognized that a certain size of a state or a group of states is important in order to exert influence on the world and created first the EEC and later the European Union. This union was then joined successively, more or less voluntarily, by many small European states. Simply out of the knowledge that size offers a certain protection against adversity of all kinds.  

With the knowledge of the size of the indigenous peoples of Russia and the importance of size in inter-national relations, the following questions automatically arise:

1. Who can have an interest in splitting a large country like Russia into 40 or even 50 more or less ethnically pure individual states? It should be borne in mind that in many of these individual states, Russians would probably be assigned a role similar to that in the Baltic States, Moldova, Ukraine and the other post-Soviet states.
2. Who can be interested in the fact that these 40-50 partly huge and partly miniature individual states are inhabited by miniature peoples in each case?
3. Who can have an interest in the existence of these 40-50 individual states, which lack any tradition as a nation state, which practically lack any administrative structures for a state system, and which cannot possibly exist economically on their own?
4. What makes the existence of these 40-50 individual states so valuable for those who create and push with all their might an organization like the “Forum of Free States of Postrussia”?

The answers are obvious and lead … directly to BRICS, SOC, EAEU, Arab League.  

A short excursion into history

Plans to partition the largest country on earth are not new. The sensitive reactions of the Russian leadership are therefore not surprising. There is no historical comparison for the level of material and, above all, human devastation that Russia has had to endure as a result of such plans.

Each time, these ventures began with a plan, or several. Here we present several from the last great attempt to split Russia:

It did not remain with this one plan. The desires grew:

The original map is in Russian. The translation was done by a translation program, which explains the somewhat bumpy, but still understandable German.

But even this was not the last straw. The following is a map of all German realized and planned Reich commissariats:

The last two maps we take a closer look at a detail. Because this detail is important for understanding the present.

On both of them we find the designation “Moskovia”. It is the term used in Europe in the Middle Ages from the 14th century until about 1800 for the Moscow principalities. In Russia itself this term was never in use. After 1800, people in Europe also spoke of Russia.

The term was not used again until the Third Reich for the planned Reich Commissariat of the same name. After the war it was used only in the National Socialist sense, not only in Germany, but also in Belarus and Ukraine.

So when in today’s Ukraine people speak of Muscovites, Moskalians and the like, this term is clearly connoted in that German sense, as clearly as certain greeting formulas that recently even German chancellors cannot deny themselves to use.

The statements of the Russian leadership – conclusion

In his speeches, the Russian president repeatedly spoke about what the conflict in Ukraine, i.e. the conflict with the West, is about for Russia – about its statehood in its previous form. About Russia’s existence as a whole. The leaders in the West made fun of it, ridiculed the Russian argumentation.

At the same time, the U.S., NATO and the EU have done and are doing everything they can not only to drag out the conflict, but to constantly raise the stakes. All in the hope of finally breaking Russia after all, or as the RAND corpration puts it, overstretching it. 

The facts surrounding the “Forum of Free States of Postrussia” presented here show one side of the argument in this now global conflict that has not been in the public eye until now. It represents further evidence, with renewed direct authorship in the U.S. and the EU, that the Russian leadership is realistic about the situation.