GOODBYE UKRAINE


I told you: do not trust them, never! You did and they cheated you.

I told you: they would just keep on slandering and lying. They do!

I told you: precious little time is left before you lose control. Now time is over!

You were warned, repeatedly.

In an article (February 12) in the Russian weekly Zavtra, strategic and military experts warned that the Western use of protests to overturn the decision of the Ukraine government not to join the European Union had produced a situation in which a coup by fascist elements was a possibility.

Goodbye  Ukraine! You now know the freedom that western demonocracies offer, that is the freedom to do what they (and their master) want you to.

The EU’s so-called “crisis plan” for Ukraine is itself a recipe for catastrophe. It is a brokered plan by the wrong people, under extreme (Western) outside pressure, and on behalf of a small group of backward looking and dangerous ideologues.

The plan essentially leaves Ukraine ungovernable and inadvertently promotes a secessionist agenda.

The EU’s really bad plan

The idea to return to the constitutional order of 2004 is pointless and truly bizarre. One of the key issues during the Orange Revolution was which institution should predominate – the presidency or parliament. Well, the Ukrainians have now tried both with the same result – failure. Why a parliamentary-centered system will work now is not explained. What is worrisome is the fact that Viktor Yanukovich has agreed to give away to parliament control over the police and security forces. Don’t expect any investigation into extreme violence committed by the rioters. But do expect a witch-hunt against the police and security forces!

The brokered deal calls for a “national unity government” within days. Will this include the Right Sector? How about those who used violence against the legally established constitutional regime? If this is the case, then it is akin to allowing arsonists to become firefighters. While Dmitro Yarosh’s Right Sector controls the streets of Kiev, national unity is an illusion.

Another point is constitutional reform. This is laughable on its face. The opposition (and their riotous thug friends), as well as the EU, have trampled upon the constitution for months. Ukraine has conducted two elections recently (presidential and parliamentary) and been given a clean bill of health from Brussels and Washington. With such blatant abuse of the rule of law in Ukraine, it is hard to believe that ultranationalist bigoted rioters have any use for any constitution.

The deal also includes a presidential election no later than December 2014 (only a few months before the current president’s term expires). However, there must be a new constitution in place before this happens. Again, this does not pass the laugh test. We should expect Ukraine’s eastern and southern region to demand considerable autonomy from Kiev under a new constitution. Western Ukraine will surely object to this. Thus, don’t expect a new constitution soon or a presidential election this year.

Then there is the issue of investigating recent acts of violence. This is to be conducted by authorities, the opposition, and the Council of Europe. Who is the opposition in this case? Dmitro Yarosh’s Right Sector? Are we to believe just because a racist thug will wear an expensive (EU paid for) suit, he will be respectable and legitimate?

There is even more naivety: The authorities will not impose a state of emergency and both the authorities and the opposition will refrain from the use of violence. This element of the deal is hardly worth commenting on. The government should have declared a state of emergency weeks ago and cleared Maidan. Indeed, violence has been used on all sides. However, when any so-called political opposition resorts to arms, it is called insurrection (and is illegal and illegitimate).

Beyond the bad plan and Yanukovich’s incompetence

While the EU and the US (i.e. the leaked Victoria Nuland tape) have been shown to be relentlessly attempting to destabilize Ukraine, Yanukovich is no less to blame for Ukraine’s dire state. He has been indecisive and irresponsible. All of this could have been avoided had he been more presidential. Instead, it appears he only was concerned with his re-election ambitions. Needless to say, today he is practically irrelevant. This is quite extraordinary considering virtually all state institutions across the country remained loyal to Yanukovich during this artificially created crisis (coming from the West). Yanukovich betrayed them. And he betrayed Ukraine and its partners.

Bleak future: The break-up of Ukraine?

It is hard to think of a scenario in which Ukraine can remain the sovereign state it is today. During the failed Orange Revolution, there was a united opposition. Viktor Yushchenko was recognized and seen as a legitimate leader by a wide range of opposition groups. Sadly for all Ukrainians, Yushchenko’s time in office was an unbelievable failure. Today the situation is acutely worse. Ukraine has a shockingly weak and indecisive president and oppositions that are hardly reading from the same page. Who is running whom: Dmitro Yarosh or Vitaly Klitschko? Klitschko is certainly “politics-lite” and happy to be run by the likes of Victoria Nuland, but Yarosh is a different and very extreme figure – only a small minority in the country will ever follow him.

In a country like Ukraine, where the central leadership is weak and the opposition is also weak and fragmented, the logic of secession starts to enter the imagination. Before the events of the Orange Revolution, Ukraine was divided; the current crisis begins to force the question of why the status quo should be maintained. There are ample reasons why Ukraine’s east and south will now consider ending any meaningful relationship with those who now control Maidan and all of Kiev.

Beyond what was called the “civilizational choice” is who actually contributes to the country’s budget. The east and the south pay Ukraine’s bills today. Is the EU interested in adopting a poor and backward western Ukraine? If so, where will the money come from? Will western Ukrainians be allowed to freely work within the EU? Many other questions come to mind.

It is the economy, stupid!

While the EU and the US State Department have been ceaselessly recruiting proxies on the ground and media spinning Ukraine, this former Soviet republic faces economic collapse and financial default. The economic situation in Ukraine is grave. Russia has decided to step away from its gesture of economic aid in the amount of $15 billion. When it was promised, there was a legitimately elected government in Kiev. Now the EU plan up-ends the political playing field. Will Victoria Nuland and Brussels bail out the rioters on the streets of Kiev? The good folks of eastern and southern Ukraine would like to know.

Some final thoughts…

Washington and Brussels have long wanted and planned regime change in Ukraine. This just might happen. But both should be wary of wishes coming true. The end result may be a failed western Ukraine state on its border – populated with people with less than “euro values” to say the least. Then there is Russia and its interests. Western mainstream media again are at their best when it comes to mediocre, lazy, and biased reporting. The fact is, Russia doesn’t trust the political class in Ukraine – irrespective of its political tastes and preference. Whether it is Viktor Yanukovich, Viktor Yushchenko, or Yulia Tymoshenko, from the Kremlin’s perspective they are all political losers and unreliable partners.

Ukraine is being torn apart. It is my guess that Washington and the EU will get the least desirable piece of the action. Regime change is a bad habit that historically leads to even worse outcomes. Sadly for Ukrainians, Western bad habits do nothing to make their lives better.

Peter Lavelle

Now the Pandora box is open. A Country devastated and divided, with nominal power usurped by rioters (a melting pot of dupes, puppets and thugs). Washington and London have warned Russia to stay out of Ukraine’s affaires; of course, they consider themselves the only ones allowed to meddle in foreign States’ sovereignty. They seems a bit worried; they better be!

But are the Ukrainians who should worry the most. Apart from the chaos which will enfold their Country, they can be sure that the only financial help they will get from the West will serve to bail out the (western) owners of their debt, and then local (western) vassals will provide for exacting  pounds of flesh from the people. Business as usual!

There’s no more sovereignty in Ukraine, thanks to western relentless efforts. When there is no sovereignty, devil is in charge.

Someone could think that new and fair elections would bring in a new government, legitimate and able to decide the fate of the Country, but it’s just naivety (or worse). Who would guarantee fairness? The violent rebels who just seized (nominal) power and their western puppeteers, the Galician junta? Beyond this, Yanukovich government was in power after fair elections, was fully legitimate. Why its decisions were not respected? In fact, for western demonocracies fair and legitimate governments are just those who do what they want them to. That should be clear to anybody with half a brain by now.

Someone would think that eastern ukrainian provinces could hold a referendum to decide their own future and form a new State if they do not agree with the (western) path (to suicide) imposed with violence to the western provinces. Of course, they could and should, indeed, put an end to a geopolitic aberrance, breaking what should never have been united. But would the violent rebels who just seized (nominal) power  and their (western) puppeteers, the Galician junta, accept a peaceful expression of people’s will? Of course, they would not! In fact, for western demonocracies people have the right to choose only when they choose them. That should be clear to anybody with half a brain by now.

So I fear that they will try to seize effective power over the East with violence, crossing a very dangerous line: they will come armed in the heart of Russia. Everybody should remember that Russia was born in Kiev, the Rus’ was baptized in Kiev!

Now, whoever ever dared to do that in the past have bitterly regret it! From teutonic crusaders to Charles XII, from Napoleon to Hitler, they were all smashed, all of them!

Do the Galician junta think they can do better? Well, I humbly suggest they think again.

May God help His people!

To discuss the Ukrainian crisis in terms of a choice between Europe and Russia is misleading for several reasons.

First, the European issue has been ruthlessly exploited by the Ukrainian opposition and its Western backers as an excuse for overthrowing the government illegally and by force. Opposition leaders have never distanced themselves from the most radical elements on the streets of Kiev, even though these include neo-Nazis. On the contrary, they have done everything to use their violence as a bargaining chip in their battle with the government. Let us never forget that the majority of the 25 deaths on the night of 18 – 19 February were murders committed by the protesters: 9 policemen were shot dead or stabbed to death, while 3 members of the governing party and a journalist were also killed.

Second, the choice Ukraine faced between the EU and Russia was not an equal one. The EU association accord was a comprehensive political straitjacket designed to lock Ukraine into the orbit of Brussels and Washington by installing, as all over the EU itself, a pro-EU (and ultimately pro-NATO) elite whose policies would remain unchanged whichever team was in power. By contrast, Ukraine’s agreements with Russia are confined to a free trade zone and, lately, loans. They carry no internal political implications at all. Even the Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia, which Ukraine will probably not now join, takes decisions by consensus: it has none of the heavy-handed supranational and technocratic control of Brussels.

Third, Ukraine did not really have a choice. Thanks to decades of corrupt politics, the Ukrainian state is bankrupt. So is the EU. In spite of stringing Kiev along with pretty words about a European future, the EU could offer only $800 million , via the IMF, and that came at the price of exceptionally painfully economic reforms. Ukraine would have been subjected to the same devastation of its agriculture, on which it depends, as Romania and Bulgaria were in their pre-accession period. Its industry would have collapsed as well. Russia, by contrast, has been able to offer nearly 20 times this sum in loans to prevent Ukraine from becoming insolvent, and it is the biggest market for Ukrainian exports – bigger than the whole of the EU put together. Moreover, Europe’s coffers are empty for good reason: her member states are drowning in their own debt, while the economic vice turned on its own member states – Greece, Spain and others – has plunged those countries into misery. Russia, by contrast, has tended to run balanced budgets while her growth ticks along at 4% or so, against Europe’s anaemic 1%. Trade in the Customs Union has grown by 40% in 5 years. Ukraine’s signature on the EU association agreement (the one Georgia signed runs to 400 pages) would have been the longest suicide note in history.

To avoid facing up to its own inexorable decline, the post-modern EU, like the United States, has plunged ahead with a radically anti-Russian geopolitical and ideological agenda based on left-wing fantasies about resurgent nationalism in Moscow. We used to laugh at Cold Warriors but the absurd anti-Russian ravings of Dr Strangelove and Jack D. Ripper have now become the standard fare served up in Washington and Brussels. What a shame most of the Western media swallows this rubbish (well, no surprise here, as they are paid just to do that – ndM).

John Laughland

And if there were still doubts about what side is the devil on in the Ukrainians’ drama, please refer to Stephen F. Cohen to dispel them.

Any doubts about the Obama administration’s real intentions in Ukraine should have been dispelled by the recently revealed taped conversation between a top State Department official, Victoria Nuland, and the US ambassador in Kiev. The media predictably focused on the source of the “leak” and on Nuland’s verbal “gaffe”—“Fuck the EU.” But the essential revelation was that high-level US officials were plotting to “midwife” a new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government by ousting or neutralizing its democratically elected president—that is, a coup.

Americans are left with a new edition of an old question. Has Washington’s twenty-year winner-take-all approach to post-Soviet Russia shaped this degraded news coverage, or is official policy shaped by the coverage? Did Senator John McCain stand in Kiev alongside the well-known leader of an extreme nationalist party because he was ill informed by the media, or have the media deleted this part of the story because of McCain’s folly?

On the whole matter, the only sensible words come out from Putin. But again, this should come as no surprise!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: