Ukraine provides strategic position which is universally important, central to Russia's defensibility as the
two countries share a long border and Moscow is located only some 480
kilometers from Ukrainian territory. Ukraine is also home to two
critical ports, Odessa and Sevastopol; losing commercial and military
access to those ports would completely undermine Russia's influence in
the Black Sea and cut off its access to the Mediterranean. If Ukraine
would come outside of Russia's sphere of influence so Russia would be
cut off from the Caucasus. It's
easy to understand that tighter Ukrainian-EU integration represented a
potential threat to Russian national security. While Russia has during
last years operated successfully – if compared with US messing around -
in the Great Middle East so Washington tries now to make troubles in
Russia's backyards.
There is nothing new in US strategy. Already in 1997 strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski concluded as follows ( A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Foreign Affairs, 1997): “Eurasia is the world’s axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa…What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and historical legacy.”
The western choice
With
agreement EU tried to create an illusion that Ukraine is entering to
modern western dreamland. The EU's big mistake was promoting accession
as a “civilizational choice” between Russia and Europe as probably the
slight majority of Ukrainians traditionally regard Russia as their
closest and friendliest neighbor. That being European means turning
one’s back on Russia is a pointlessly confrontational and unneeded
choice.
Brussels,
in its munificence, promised a loan of €610 million. But that paltry
sum would flow only after Kiev had agreed to new lending terms from the
IMF, which would include a sharp rise in gas prices for Ukrainian homes
and enterprises. No wonder Yanukovich government wants a more balanced
agreement.
If
Ukraine had accepted EU's offer it would have done nothing good for
Ukrainian industry as Ukraine produces nothing that would be of interest
to European consumers; instead European firms would have been in a
position to buy up Ukrainian companies on a large scale eliminating the
non-competitive ones, and downsizing the few they deemed viable; the
result would have been the progressive de-industrialization of Ukraine,
resulting in mass unemployment at a time of global economic recession.
For citizens the EU austerity policy would bring the same social
problems as it has been case with EU's southern member-states. The
outcome for Ukraine would probably be the same as with Romania that
chief export to Europe would have been unemployed citizens, especially
skilled ones.
For
Ukraine's Prime Minister Mykola Azarov, it was not pressure from Russia
that provoked Ukraine's flip-flop on the association deal with the
European Union. Azarov said in the interview that the last drop that
tilted the balance in favor of Moscow was the tough set of terms from
the International Monetary Fund in exchange for a much needed rescue
loan being sought by Ukraine."We could not go with these terms," he
said.
The Russian response
Ukraine has run up a debt of $129 billion, or 74 percent of its gross domestic product, as of the end of 2013.
At a time when it needs more cash to bridge gaping holes in its public
finances, Russia could prove a lender of choice. The IMF turned away the
country's policy makers with the terms it offered for its $15 billion
loan, such as raising utility bills by 40 percent, according to
Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov.
Russia
is Ukraine's second-biggest export market, taking $17.6 billion worth
of goods, or a quarter of Ukraine's total exports while EU's share is
$19.9 billion. Moscow has also argued that an association agreement with
the EU will mean the end of the free-trade arrangement it currently has
with Ukraine, raising the specter of a sudden tariff wall dropping on
trade routes, and tightening border checks.
The
Russian response was real and pragmatic. Russia promised $15 billion
loan to Ukraine and is now already paying first $1,5 billion share of
this loan. Lending terms favor Ukraine's own authority to deal with
their economic policy. Russia remains Ukraine's largest foreign investor
and Ukraine still remains highly dependent on the Russian market.
Ukraine's push to secure greater energy independence for itself by
developing indigenous oil and natural gas projects will not bear fruit
for a number of years, and the country remains dependent on Russia for
low-cost supplies of energy.
Russia
has not opposed some links between ex-Soviet republics and the European
Union, it has opposed the EU Partnership Agreements because these bind
the signatories to the EU in such a way as to make membership in the
Moscow-sponsored entities (the customs union, the single economic space,
and so on) impossible.
The
prepared Eurasian Union (EAU) is already adopting many standards based
on those of the European Union, but it seeks to introduce them
gradually, so as not to impoverish the local population, a point that is
especially relevant given Ukraine’s fragile social and political
balance. Second, they point out that European Union rules are very
narrowly tailored to the needs of member states, which may not be
optimal when competing for access to other markets. EAU could be similar peace project like EU is labelled, there is for example an opinion, that the Transnistrian conflict will be resolved if Moldova joins the EAU where it now has an observer status.
The US interference
Same
old, same old. Like we said earlier, there’s nothing new here, nothing
at all. All the blabber about “democracy” is just public relations
crappola. It means nothing. US elites want to trim Moscow’s wings, set
up shop in Eurasia, control China’s growth, be a bigger player in the
continent’s oil and natural gas markets, export its financial services
model, and make as much money as possible in the 21st century’s hottest
market, Asia. It’s all about profits. Profits and power. But then, you
probably knew that already. (Mike Whitney)
That the Ukraine regime-change operation is to some degree being directed from Washington can no longer be denied as
US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was caught on tape
micro-managing Ukraine opposition party strategies with US Ambassador to
Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. While
Secretary of State John Kerry decries any foreign meddling in Ukraine’s
internal affairs, his State Department is virtually managing the entire
process.” (Source: Fuck the EU’: Tape Reveals US Runs Ukraine Opposition< by Daniel McAdams)
During
her latest visit to Kiev, which coincided with the leaking of the phone
call, Nuland met and posed publicly with the three opposition leaders
mentioned in the taped conversation — ex-boxer Vitali Klitschko, the
chief of the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms, or UDAR
(an acronym that means “punch”), and Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the
neo-fascist Svoboda party which venerates the mass murderers of Hitler’s
SS and Arseniy Yatsenyuk of the Fatherland Party, who served as
minister of economy and minister of foreign affairs in the ill-fated
government brought to power by the so-called Orange Revolution
orchestrated by Washington in 2004. (Source: Leaked phone call on Ukraine lays bare Washington’s gangsterism by Bill Van Auken)
Since
2004 dozens of organizations are granted funds under the PAUCI program
alone, (Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative, which is
administered by the US-based Freedom House) and this is only one of many
programs that funneled dollars into Ukraine. Also
millions of US taxpayer dollars were sent via the National Endowment
for Democracy (NED) to Ukraine through NED’s National Democratic
Institute and International Republican Institute. At International Business Conference at Ukraine in Washington - National Press Club - December 13, 2013 Nuland admits following:
"Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government…We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals.”
The opposition
It is possible that Vitali
Klitschko becomes the next president of Ukraine. Lacking the knowledge
and experience needed to govern a country, Klitschko will inevitably
become a pawn in the hands of people who are about to raise him to the
top of the state hierarchy hiding in the shadow of his “throne”. Among
them will be the American consultants who work with the UDAR
Party. It is interesting to take a look at just what kind of companies
are mediating in contacts between Klitschko and the US Congress and
American government agencies, as well as advising his staff on
organizing the early presidential race.
Until
recently, according to UDAR’s political strategist Rostislav Pavlenko,
the party was working with the American company PBN, which specializes
in the field of so-called “strategic communications” on the markets of
Russia, Ukraine and other CIS countries. According to PBN’s site,
the key areas of the company’s activities are “corporate and crisis
communications, public and government relations, and financial
communications and investor relations.”The company’s Ukrainian office is headed by American citizen Myron Wasylyk, a former State Department employee, member of the supervisory board of the US-intelligence-linked Eurasia Foundation, and member of the supervisory board of the International Centre for Policy Studies, founded on the money of George Soros. This center, by the way, contributed to the writing of a draft of a free trade zone agreement between Ukraine and the EU that the president of Ukraine considered a threat to the national interests of the country. In helping Vitali Klitschko establish needed connections in the American establishment, the head of PBN’s Ukrainian office mainly depended on his long-time acquaintance from his time at the Eurasia Foundation, Fiona Hill. She is best known for supporting the actions of the Wahhabis in Chechnya, thinking up justifications for the terrorist attack in Beslan, and opposing the designation of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist group at hearings in the U.S. Congress. During the presidency of George W. Bush, Fiona Hill was the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council. (Source Vitali Klitschko's American Coaches by Alexander Savchenko)
Tyahnybok
was reportedly banned last year from entering the US because of rabidly
anti-Semitic speeches praising his followers for striking fear in “the
Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine,” and hailing World War II-era
Ukrainian fascists for fighting Russians, Germans “kikes and other
scum.”
Professor Mark Almondin 'Parade of losers': EU delegation to Kiev threatens democracyhas quite critical analysis about situation in Ukraine as follows:
Once you’d say that what should determine who rules is the crowd in the street, not the ballot box, then of course, in almost any society there are reasons why 50-70,000 people might be discontent with the government, might go into the streets if they get sympathetic coverage in the media, you could inflate the numbers to hundreds of thousands. But even hundreds of thousands are only a small number in a country of 46 million people. And I think whether it is Ukraine today, whether it could be Italy or Spain tomorrow, once you start saying that the ballot box can be trumped by the street that is a deep threat to democracy. Far from promoting EU values and democracy and the rule of law, we seem to be able to throw them out the window in order to get our man into power.So we are seeing a kind of propaganda war, psychological war taking place using these rumors of both the crackdown domestically and even foreign interference. Whilst at the same time, the very Western media and Western governments who report these rumors completely ignore the evidence of their own involvement in supporting the opposition, providing technical training camps, providing financial and other forms of assistance, providing a media platform for them.US, the European power centers, the organization in Brussels, NATO and so on, see Ukraine as a key strategic factor. They want Ukraine to be under their thumb, under NATO's thumb, because they are deeply hostile to Russia. They want to draw it into the Western sphere of influence.
Now US is being on the side of anti-Semites and fascists in Ukraine, which sadly is not any new case. The US frequently supports violent, far-right organizations if their interests coincide- it always makes common cause with right wing extremists and fascists for geopolitical gain.” (Source:Ukraine and the rebirth of Fascism, by Eric Draitser, CounterPunch):
“In an attempt to pry Ukraine out of the Russian sphere of influence, the US-EU-NATO alliance has, not for the first time, allied itself with fascists. Of course, for decades, millions in Latin America were disappeared or murdered by fascist paramilitary forces armed and supported by the United States. The mujahideen of Afghanistan, which later transmogrified into Al Qaeda, also extreme ideological reactionaries, were created and financed by the United States for the purposes of destabilizing Russia. And of course, there is the painful reality of Libya and, most recently Syria, where the United States and its allies finance and support extremist jihadis against a government that has refused to align with the US and Israel.”
Conclusions
From
Orange revolution the Western intelligence agencies, particularly the
CIA and MI6, which funneled money into pro-Western NGOs and political
parties. that
at its core the initiative is nothing more than an attempt to push
Russia out of Europe by drawing its boundaries further to the East. Washington
is employing methods of international gangsterism, including violence,
to effect a political coup aimed at installing a regime that is fully
subordinate to US geo-strategic interests. This time the bullseye is on
Ukraine, the home of the failed Orange Revolution, where US NGOs
fomented a populist coup that brought down the government and paved the
way for years of social instability, economic hardship and, eventually, a
stronger alliance with Moscow.
The
Ukraine president’s turn toward a deal with Russia rather than
integration into the European Union was the spark for the current
campaign for regime-change. The first demonstrations started when some protesters feel that their dream or great opportunity had slipped away. However any government in Ukraine has the same framework as the present one such as nonexistent real hope of EU inclusion, a dependence on Moscow for energy and an integrated economy with Russia. The country is also clear divided to toward Russia oriented eastern Ukraine whose residents speak Russian and are Russian Orthodox and to toward Europe oriented western Ukraine whose residents and speak their own dialect. The tension between the regions is real, and heavy pro-EU pressure could split the country which on the other hand might be not so bad outcome.
The US media puts demonstrations in Kiev in the headlines while for example the fact that during construction works in Qatar for soccer WC 2022 already there has been hundred times more deaths than during protests in Ukraine. And
related to death toll one should note that there is casualties not only
among demonstrators but among supporters and workers on government side
too. The US and EU approach with democracy demands and peaceful solutions is only covering the precise goal of US efforts is to shift political power into the hands of their nazi-puppets.
In doing so, it aims to turn Ukraine into a US imperialist beachhead on
the very border of Russia as part of its drive to assert American
hegemony throughout the strategic landmass of Eurasia.
Here a quality dialog about theme:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7PjcOTF5A4?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360]
My previous related articles:- Ukraine: End of Orange Revolution, start of Stabilisation
- Ukraine – choosing a new Way
- Stop to Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Nato dreams can start the policy of detente again