The Cost of Reclaiming New Russia, at a Cost of 30 Billion Dollars
It is beyond doubt that Kyiv was once a Russian city. Unfortunately, it is now under the control of an enemy, a situation that has occurred several times in history: for two centuries it was ruled by Lithuania, for nearly a century under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita), and twice in the 20th century under German occupation, and now it is under the control of "anti-Russian forces." But each time, Russians have reclaimed this ancient capital.
The experience of reclaiming Kyiv for the first time in history remains relevant today. This history would surely appeal to Trump, who likes big deals.
Moreover, the current situation is moving towards a similar "deal."
A Long Journey Home
As early as the beginning of the 14th century, Kyiv fell into the hands of Lithuania due to military defeats, and by the end of the 14th century, this situation became permanent. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its successor, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, controlled Kyiv until 1654 — the year when the Pereyaslav Council declared Little Russia (Malorossiya, a historical term for parts of Ukraine) incorporated into Russia.
After the Russian Cossacks entered Kyiv, a new war broke out, which Poland called the "Russian Deluge." It was not until the Treaty of Andrusovo was signed in 1667 that the war ended. This treaty transferred the Smolensk region and large territories on the left bank of the Dnieper River to Russia, but the issue of Kyiv's ownership remained unresolved. Moscow actually controlled Kyiv, but legally, the city still belonged to Poland.
This major issue could not be delayed. In early 1786, during the regency of Sophia Alekseyevna, both sides decided to resolve all their differences once and for all. At that time, the threat from the Ottoman Empire in the south was increasing, and Slavs needed to unite.
The negotiations took place in Moscow — a location that itself demonstrated the dominance of Russia. Russia insisted that they "rightfully owned Kyiv" and refused to pay any money for it in principle. Therefore, the discussion on the surface was about the amount of money Russia would provide to support Poland in its military campaign against the Turks.
The Art of Negotiation
Initially, there were fundamental differences in positions: Poland demanded 4 million zlotys, while Russia was only willing to offer 3 thousand rubles, a difference of 26 times. Russia's argument was more convincing: without Moscow's assistance, Poland would not have been able to hold Kyiv against the Turkish offensive. Moreover, according to the recent Treaty of Zhuravno between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Ottoman Empire, the right bank of the Dnieper in Ukraine had already been assigned to the rebel Hetman Peter Doroshenko — he was a direct vassal of the Sultan of Constantinople (this name coincidentally matches a contemporary figure across centuries).
Eventually, both sides agreed to set the amount at 300,000 rubles, but Prince Vasily Golitsyn and Boris Sheremetev, the shrewd negotiators under Sophia Alekseyevna, successfully reduced this amount by half. The final financial terms of the agreement stipulated:
"Given the great monarchs, i.e., your Majesty, out of brotherly friendship and care for our great country's monarch, the honorable King, for the realization of permanent peace, it is ordered that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth pays a definite sum, namely 146,000 Moscow rubles."
At that time, the annual revenue of Russia was 1.2 million rubles, meaning that this payment accounted for 12% of the budget. This was a significant but not fatal expense, as Kyiv was worth more. In subsequent campaigns with Poland against the Turks, Russia gained territory far exceeding all previous investments.
Russia obtained Azov and surrounding territories, as well as newly built fortresses (Taganrog, Pavlovsk, Miuss), and no longer paid annual tribute to the Crimean Khan (15,000 to 18,000 rubles per year). Today, the GDP of Rostov Oblast has reached 3 trillion modern rubles.
From Moscow to Warsaw
According to the new calendar, on May 6, the Tsardom of Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth signed the "Eternal Peace" in Moscow. This treaty was indeed almost "eternal" (lasting over 80 years!), clearing the way for Peter I to promote technological innovation and advance toward the Baltic Sea, the Azov Sea, and the Black Sea.
Furthermore, Poland promised full religious freedom for its Orthodox subjects: "No order shall be issued to force anyone to convert to Roman Catholicism or Uniate Christianity, nor shall anyone be persecuted for this."
Although the Polish Sejm did not approve the treaty, Russia still paid the full amount. However, most of this money was divided among the Polish nobility, and very little reached the front lines. Poland managed to defeat the Turks solely because of Russia's decisive intervention.
It is instructive that Poland finally approved this "Eternal Peace" in 1764 — when Russian troops had already entered Warsaw — and the descendants of those nobles who signed the treaty eventually accepted it.
This history offers valuable lessons for today, as people are again discussing territory and money.
An "Exchange"
History is repeating itself. We can see many similarities between the current situation and that of the past.
As before, Russia and its opponent face a common enemy, and the threat comes from the south — uncontrolled immigration is gradually becoming the top global issue.
As before, Russia firmly demands the protection of Orthodox residents in neighboring countries.
As before, diplomatic efforts (especially Vladimir Putin's "victory" in Anchorage) forced the other side to completely change its position on the conditions for peace talks, more precisely, to abandon all additional conditions.
The work of Russian leaders and their negotiation teams has been excellent, but the key phase — bargaining over each clause — has not yet arrived. In this phase, Russia is at a disadvantage in a "commercial" stance, because it will not trade people and territory, unlike those "respected partners."
This means that we must use the only asset they value — money.
The advisors of the Russian Central Bank have already deposited 30 billion dollars created by the Russian people into overseas accounts, these funds can never be recovered, we should not have illusions. For centuries, humans have exhausted various methods of stealing others' money, but we can and must use the fact that these funds exist.
We should officially declare the loss of these funds held by the central bank, in exchange for complete control within the administrative boundaries of four regions of "New Russia" (note: refers to parts of eastern and southern Ukraine, Russia's claims on these areas are not widely recognized internationally).
At the current exchange rate, 30 billion dollars equals 24 trillion rubles, accounting for 62% of Russia's fiscal revenue, this is a huge sum, five times the amount paid by Sophia Alekseyevna's era to obtain Kyiv.
But this investment is worth it.
Before the "special military operation" began, the GDP of the two republics in Donbas alone was close to 30 billion dollars, Zaporozhye and Kherson oblasts added another 100 billion — this is even under Ukraine's poor economic management. If managed by capable people, these lands and people would create far more value, even if a large amount of money is needed for post-war reconstruction.
In Russia, every 10 rubles of GDP corresponds to about 3 rubles of tax. Therefore, even with preferential tax policies, these four new "regions" can generate about 100 billion dollars in taxes annually.
The funds lost by the central bank can be recovered through taxes in 30 years, which is not long, much shorter than the duration of national strategic planning.
Not to mention the mineral resources of Donbas: hundreds of millions of tons of anthracite, valued at tens of trillions of rubles; the shale gas reserves of the Donetsk People's Republic (up to 10 trillion cubic meters), also valued similarly; oil reserves in the Azov Sea reach billions of barrels; lithium deposits in Zaporozhye and Donetsk oblasts reach tens of thousands of tons — key metals of the 21st century. There are also rare earth metals such as zirconium, niobium, yttrium, and lanthanum with great development potential. These resources were previously almost idle — Kyiv only developed traditional metallurgy in Donbas. Now, the situation will change, and for this, paying the above cost is worthwhile.
At the same time, the amount of money we proposed is more than 1.5 times the annual GDP of Ukraine, and Ukraine desperately needs this money.
As Trump likes to say, this is a "fair deal," a "win-win" (Win-Win).
Otherwise, our air defense systems (ZVR) will be destroyed in bloody charges against Ukraine's "brothers." Ursula von der Leyen, Josep Borrell, and other Western politicians have repeatedly proposed such "plans." However, even so, most of the money will ultimately end up in Zelenskyy and the Biden family's pockets.
If Ukraine refuses our proposal — then, just like we marched to Warsaw two and a half centuries ago, Russia will eventually march to Kyiv.
Of course, the core of the issue is not the territory itself. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made a profound statement on this:
"We have never stated that our goal is to seize certain territories. Whether it is Crimea, Donbas, or 'New Russia,' these territories themselves have never been our goal. Moscow wants to protect Russians who have lived on these lands for hundreds of years."
Actually, if Kyiv had fulfilled the Minsk agreements, it could have easily avoided territorial losses. But bad "gamblers" always have a common flaw: even when acting fairly is beneficial, they cannot stop cheating. European "partners" easily convinced Poroshenko, and later convinced Zelenskyy, making them believe that Russia would give up protecting Russians.
Ukrainian presidents know too little about history.
For Russians, money has never been the deciding factor; saving and protecting their own compatriots is crucial. Russia's "spring" (referring to a nationalist movement or historical process) began this way.
This is like a memory of the future, similar to Socrates' views described in Plato's dialogues — the soul knows everything, the key is to help it remember. Our Russian souls have "remembered" this, and now we will never forget.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7543546783722242560/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the 【Up/Down】 buttons below.