Conversation with Maxim Shevchenka
I usually start all conversations with our Russian guests with a question about the current war in Ukraine. To what degree was it inevitable from the interests of Moscow, the ruling class of modern Russia? Could the targets and tasks set by the authorities in Moscow have been accomplished in another way, for example, with soft power, soft force?
– Moscow has proved many times that it cannot usage soft power, due to the fact that the condition for having it is the existence of a well-managed deep state, or bureaucracy having common, collective interests. The political class of Russia does not make specified a deep state. It consists of different clans and groups. To simplify: there are those who have come to power and wealth in the Yeltsinian era and are associated with the household of Yeltsin. It's an old organization nomenclature. Let me just remind you that Boris Yeltsin himself, contrary to his portrayal of a politician and a Liberal, was a candidate for a associate of the Central Committee Politburo. His daughter Tatiana Diachenko, later Jumashev, is inactive the heir to the throne of this liberal wing. Although they are not actually liberals or conservatives, they are those who participated in the looting of property in 1990. In Poland shock therapy has been passed in a more or little average way thanks, I believe, to the strong Catholic Church, who someway defended the Polish nation and has kept his hand on socio-political processes since Solidarity. I think the Church played an crucial function for Poland during these terrible liberal reforms, this transition from socialism. Although you've never actually had socialism like ours. You yet had private farms, what was termed a tiny bourgeois in Marxist language.
Polish road, national variant.
- Yeah. The peasant organization that existed and even had representation in the Sejm. You had the Sejm. There was no Sejm in the USSR, only the ultimate Council. We didn't have respective parties, but only one. The Church played a affirmative role, without uncertainty limiting the cruelty of liberal lawlessness. In Russia, no 1 restricted it. In the 1990s, it was played by the people of the organization and Komsomol, not any dissidents, not the Solzhenitsyn. We didn't have our Lech Walesa. We were robbed by the organization nomenclature, which took over the russian territory, the full region. The KGB took on all this in 1990. It was only a gloomy look due to the fact that the European Liberals, Clintons, were patronising this erstwhile the Democrats, globalists, came to power in the United States. Their time came only erstwhile governments in America changed. Gore lost to Bush. Bush junior came to power, who, as he spoke in an interview with Larry King, looked Putin deep into his eyes and saw a soul there. Then the time came for erstwhile safety personnel who were always in conflict with the party. I'll just remind you that back in the 1930s. the safety apparatus, of course, at Stalin's orders and at his orders, carried out the cleaning in the organization as well as in the military. Later, however, the organization was the top.
In the era of Khrushchev, the organization got free of this rival with the shooting of Beeri. It was a symbolic execution, something like a coup, in which the organization reduced the importance of the safety apparatus. As for the military, he's always been a problem. First in 1937, later after the war, during all these repressions, a shift to the side track of Zhukov. The army has always been a threat, a circumstantial 3rd force. However, the military never came to power, either in the russian Union or in the post-Soviet era. Even today, these 2 groups – organization and KGB – establish limits of influence in the Russian elite. But this is nothing like a deep state. If you look at different ministries in Russia, you can see that individual ones are assigned to 1 of these groups – part of the organization group, Jelcinowska and part of the KGB, a force resort. This is specifically about the KGB, not the Ministry of Interior or the Army. Only KGB. These are circumstantial resorts, and I don't just mean force ministries. This could be, for example, the Ministry of Economy, Finance, the banking sector, etc.
For example, the Ministry of Agriculture.
– In specified a strategy there is no area for any soft force, due to the fact that soft power means are awarded to a circumstantial group, and then group 2 disturbs the former. If these funds are given to erstwhile servants, they will be disturbed by the erstwhile party's people. You know, this confrontation between the organization and the safety apparatus determines everything. president Putin is simply a certain exception here due to his alternatively uncommon personality traits. It's not about me praising him here, but I must admit, he's a man of exceptional head and exceptional willpower who can act as a kind of arbitrator. He's the 1 who keeps the balance between the 2 haters. This does not mean that the parties are only on 1 side and the KGB on the other. There are people in the erstwhile KGB everywhere. Incidentally, especially from abroad intelligence service, due to the fact that they were associated with Western structures, with the elites there, with Britain, specified as Yuri Kobalaga and his like. Partitional is among them, I must admit, less. At least I didn't see them, I didn't see them. president Putin is simply a erstwhile KGB man, but he is at a level somewhat higher than all of them. He was Sobczak's advisor, and Sobczak is besides individual to be assigned to the KGB. This is simply a group of lawyers, lawyers who, like Sobczak in russian times, dealt with serious cases, including dense criminal trials. They couldn't do it without accepting the safety camera. Anatoly Sobczak was a very intelligent man. So why do they especially worship his memory? due to the fact that he was active with this group. All of this translates into collaboration with American groups. The organization group cooperates with Liberals and Democrats. A safety camera group with Republicans, which is beautiful apparent if we remember that older George Bush was in charge of the CIA, and George Bush was junior in the CIA. They are besides the American equivalent of KGB men, peculiar services. They realize each another without words. They look each another in the eye and see souls. Under these conditions, we cannot have a deep state, there is no 1 state will, there is no continuation. all group, coming to power, takes everything from a competitive group that loses power. That's why soft power is by definition impossible here. Not due to the fact that we have weak and unprofessional managers.
Maxim Shevchenko
We have excellent professionals, graduates of American and European universities. And believe me, KC KPZR advanced School was besides ahead of Harvard and another universities by 100 points. It taught mass management that was not known at Harvard. However, the deficiency of a unified centre, regardless of the formal state structure, does not let for soft power tasks. That's why Ukraine had quite a few business. There were Gazprom's interests, rather obvious. It was about old transmission networks going to Poland, Hungary, Slovakia via Ukraine. It was an apparent powerful force center, a system. There are atomic power plants on which Rosatom signed contracts before 2014. At that time, Kirjenko, a very efficient manager, was in charge of Rosatom. The problem was that Gazprom and Rosatom were rival elite groups. They are associated with various centres. It was so about transit interests, due to the fact that the most crucial transit routes from Russia ran until 2022 through Ukraine. This fact may not be known in Europe, but in late 2021 Russian exports to Ukrainian ports increased by 30%. This was about strategical exports. The war was formally fought on Donbasa, while Russia exported metals, scrap metal, from which Krivorozstal or Azowstal produced weapons for the Ukrainian army. What's to say about any soft power? In fact, it was about the undivided property of the russian Union. The Russian-Ukrainian War is simply a war over the division of the russian Union's inheritance. And that inheritance was huge. I do not know how many people in Poland realize this. Ukraine was the most economically developed, strongest russian republic.
First, there were 3 military districts: Odesski, Kiev and Zakarpackie. In each of these districts there were atomic weapons and their carriers of various kinds. There were military colleges at the highest level – artillery school in Sumach, schools in Kharkiv, Kiev and many others. Lviv military-political college was the best in the country. There were large plants of strategical importance, rocket factories in Dnepropetrovsk, the Motor-Sich aircraft engine mill in Zaporoż. Antonov plants in Kiev produced the world's best transport aircraft Ruslan, a immense An-124 that could carry Burana. All of this functioned within 1 complex. Ships were built in Nikolaev, and an aircraft carrier was to be built there in 1990. And besides Cherson and Odessa, which is simply a full of 3 non-freezing ports. There were presently destroyed plants of Azowstal in Mariupol, which at the time was called Żdanov – a huge, giant metallurgical combination which produced steel structures. erstwhile it was taken over by 1 of the oligarchs, Rinat Achmetov, it did not destruct the plant, but continued to make it. He had this large advantage over Russian metallurgical plants, that all production of Azowstali went consecutive on board ships that sailed to Europe – Italy, Slovenia. Especially to Slovenia and Italy, but besides to Poland. These 3 countries were the main recipients. It was a production with tremendous added value, not natural materials, but an end product. The final products were besides produced by Donbas. Donbas was the top treasure in Ukraine. There were coal, iron ore, manganese, nickel in the vicinity of Nikopol, etc. Donbas, the Donetsk-Krzyvoroskie and Nicopolskie Basin was the only specified place in the world. Iron and steel rods with very advanced added value were produced there. Even your steel factories in Silesia had to buy manganese from there and possibly from Portugal, though I don't know. However, you do not have regions in Poland where iron ore, coal and manganese would be next to each other.
What is more, I will tell you – I am sorry to interrupt – that it is Ukrainian capital, including Achmetov, that is the business in Poland.
– Of course, due to the fact that his starting positions were very strong. Although he didn't make them. People like him just took over what the russian economy created. What worked and released very quality products. That's why Ukraine was specified a delightful bite. And erstwhile a formal divorce took place in 1991 as a consequence of the Belarusian agreements... Although these were agreements contrary to the law and constitution of the USSR. However, times were revolutionary. The revolution does not respect the rights of the erstwhile regime. Later, there was a Budapest memorandum in which the United States and the United Kingdom guaranteed Ukraine safety in exchange for her resignation from atomic weapons. What's a atomic weapon? atomic weapons are part of the position of the russian Union. The russian Union was in this sense a partner of the United States in building a globalist system. Globalism, which appeared in 1945, resulted from a individual agreement between Roosevelt and Stalin, to which Churchill later joined. In return, the second had to accept the membership of the russian Union of Western Belarus and Western Ukraine as an invitation. Remember the negotiations in Potsdam and Yalta.
Yes, the UK refused to recognise the Polish western borders.
- Yes, Oder and Nysa. The United Kingdom patronized the German elite and ran its own game. Globalism is the consequence of the handshake of Stalin and Roosevelt and their creation of the United Nations. What was the basis of it? A seat on the safety Council. That is, the 5 countries that received this permanent place – the United States, the USSR, the United Kingdom, France and China. delight note that these countries have strategical atomic weapons. It guaranteed them global status. However, this is the position of a planet that has already passed away. It's over. But inactive in 1991, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus gave up atomic weapons to Russia. There were atomic weapons everywhere. What did they get in return? No deal has been signed in this case. And if then Yeltsyn and Krawczuk... I knew Leonid Krawczuk, I interviewed him for a long time. To be honest, he was a man of a advanced intellectual and political level. He understood what it was all about. You could have made an agreement. He told me during the interview that Ukraine had proposed specified an agreement. Krawczuk told me in person, believe me, that they offered Russia all the territories up to Dniepr in exchange for guarantees of designation and respect of Ukrainian statehood. They were even willing to surrender Odessa, subject to designation of its territorial integrity, the right to self-determination.
1991?
- Yeah, 1991. He understood, as many others understood, that under average conditions, within the framework of real state continuity and legal decline, Russia cannot just hand over Donbas or Dnepropetrovsk, which the full country invested in, even Central Asia. I mean, Russia didn't invest there to make it all go distant with any boys from Makiejeka or Donetsk, did it? Why would you do that? It seemed that way, but it turned out that anything was possible. Turns out Jelcin's people were all the same. The theft of property took place throughout the russian Union, especially in Russia and Ukraine. Everything that fell into their hands was stolen and seized. Nickel for Nornickel, gas, aluminum somewhere in Krasnojarsk. Take it all, guys, whatever you want. And they took the alleged Macedonian, Makaievian or Donutsk, Achmetov. Let Yuri of Jenakivka take it all in Ukraine, let Pinczuk, the head of Kuczma administration, a associate of his family. It was Krivorozstal. You remember they took over Kriwirozstal, but Timoshenko, representing another group, appeared against them. As a result, the Krivorożstal group went into the hands of the Mittal group. They later took revenge on Timoshenko, putting her in jail. I think they meant Krivorozstal. In fact, in a nutshell, no 1 was even reasoning of legally accepting this division of national panties. Apart from dubious agreements between the Belarusians and the vague Budapeszten Memorandum, there was no interstate agreement.
Let's halt there because...
– I would just like to add that the only man who has always talked about the request to make specified a deal was Alexander Lukashenko. Since coming to power, Lukashenko has always reiterated the request for specified an agreement. And Belarus actually made specified a deal in the form of a union state, going on a large concession, but not giving up the most crucial – its own sovereignty. I will remind you that Ukraine and Belarus have been members of the United Nations since 1945. These war-stricken russian republics were not average provinces or provinces. They were states with a position comparable to states in America. They entered the United Nations as the most deprived republics as a consequence of planet War II. This was the case for Belarus and Ukraine at Stalin's request. At the same time, the problem of borders with Poland was solved in this way. This was surely 1 of the reasons for this decision. However, the agreement after the dissolution of the USSR did not happen. Therefore, war was only a substance of time. The conflict was inevitable. Both sides – Russian and Ukrainian – did not deal with countries. Ukraine besides had no deep state. Various groups were active in Ukraine. There was a judaic group, a Donetsk group, different ones. Incidentally, there was never just a Western Ukrainian group. Ukrainians from the West are an agricultural population, there is no manufacture there. Groups were formed where there were industrial resources. Jews in their historical, Hasidic areas – in Human or Dnepropetrovsk. The judaic group was based on Dnepropetrovsk. Jews always played a smaller function in the Donetsk region. The base of the group was of course Donetsk and Makiejewka. In Kiev we faced primarily the organization elite and Komsomol bureaucracy, with the successors of Krawczuk. By the way, Krawczuk himself was most likely the only outsider. He came from equal, or actually from any equal village. Therefore, the single state did not be there, as we saw in 2014. We had Yanukovych. I was an observer at the election erstwhile he was elected. They were absolutely democratic elections in which Timoshenko lost a difference of 1.5%. Julia herself recognized Yanukovych's victory. The European Union recognised them, everyone recognized them. A fewer years have passed and Yanukovych simply removes, tries to overthrow, completely unlawfully. If then the European Union had said clearly and clearly – and yet even signed specified a memorandum with it on constitutional improvement – that Yanukovych, as a bad president he would not have been, should have survived until the end of his word of office, until the fresh elections, would not have been this war, and Crimea would have been Ukrainian.
May I remind you that there has already been specified an agreement.
– Yes, it was, but Russia refused to sign it due to the fact that Vladimir Lukin, representing it, understood that it would not be respected. The next day, this agreement was completely broken. Interestingly, Europeans have never returned to him again. And there was besides Poland, Sikorski as a minister. Sikorski signed them. A typical of France, a typical of Germany, signed the European Union. That's what everybody thought. That is why the conflict was increasing in Ukraine and as a consequence Ukraine became an area of this conflict between various groups, industrial and financial groups, including Russian ones. Although I myself think that there are no Russian or Ukrainian groups. They're transnational groups. You know that Rinata Achmetov's group has been an Ukrainian-Polish-Italian group for a long time, due to the fact that he besides had interests in Turin, northern Italy. In fact, I think at any level it was 1 of the shareholders, not its largest shareholder. More serious players from the UK appeared there. fewer people know that, but I'll remind you that Donbas was created by the British. Donetsk founded John Hughes. There was a joint stock company, Novorosja, where 20% of the shares were owned by Lord Balfour, brother of the well-known abroad minister. Then the English sold Donieck to the French very favorably. This is why during the civilian war in Russia the French tried to make a landing in Odessa and scope Donbas from there, but they failed. They realized that engaging in this civilian war, especially in Ukraine, makes no sense. Then they had adequate sense not to go in there. That's why England can someway consider all of this to be its property. Rinat Achmetov may have gone to London to confirm his position and said, “Boys, this is yours, the russian power is over, and I am ready to give you this, and I will manage it myself.” And he heard in his reply, "All right, let's do it."
As far as business groups are concerned, let's be precise...
– So there was no state, and business groups began to face each other. Global interest groups – the European Union, the Vatican – joined this. In general, I think that the planet can be divided into a liberal club and a traditionalist club. The centre of the Liberal Club is, of course, the United States, due to the fact that they formed as anti-Europe. Everything that was crucial in Europe was rejected there: monarchs, aristocracy, the Catholic Church and its superior role, the order of Westphalia with its rule of "whose land, this religion." We had freedom of conscience there, no religion took over, no freedom of speech, no ban on anyone, no aristocracy. Although, of course, there are American families of old money, which are equivalent to aristocracy, I think they have even more distant roots, dating back to the 16th century, the first settlers in Maine or fresh England. I had an chance in America to meet specified people. They are uniquely respected, dignified people, but not aristocrats – their power does not come from God, they gain it in another way, their power is not sanctioned by the Catholic Church, nor by Protestant churches. America is an anti-Europe, as specified it was created. People fled Europe to start a fresh planet in America. That's where the office of the global liberal club is located. European Liberals came to power after American Liberals made an alliance with French Liberals during planet War I. At the time, the Old Continent of America was allowed, leading to the liquidation of the German empires – Prussian – Deutsche Reich; Austrian and Russian. Then they disappeared. The Americans and the French have led to the creation of national states. Against the nations was the UK, due to the fact that the concept of British monarchy recognizes all nation as an enemy of monarchy and imperial rule. Remember, after planet War I, Britain was the world's largest empire in the planet that has not yet begun to fall apart. Now a very crucial issue: Europe is the territory of the traditionalist club and, above all, the Catholic Church, Papacy, regardless of whether the Pope is Leon XIII with his encyclical Rerum novarum, or Pius XII from planet War II, or Benedict XVI. I had the chance to meet the second while he was inactive Cardinal Ratzinger. To be honest, he was an amazing man, 1 of the smartest and most amazing I've always met.
Matthew Piskorski spoke
Maxim Shevchenko (born 1966 in Moscow) is simply a Russian journalist, writer and commentator. A longtime correspondent and associate of Russian public media.
The full interview available on YouTube Against the Censur.
Think Poland, No. 25-26 (22-29.06.2025)
